I didn't dodge your question, I answered it by way of illustration....

Aaron: If your god does exist then i don't want to know him.

This really is the bottom line Aaron and the root cause of all atheism. That is hatred toward God.

Dan -"You are wrong. Sitting in a chair requires rational faith. You don't have any proof that it will hold you up. Trusting in a bible, verified by history, by archeology, by a bodily resurrection of its founder, is not irrational, it is sensible."

Aaron: Archeology has never found much proof to back up the bible. look up the history of your bible, there is very little evidence there to support it.

I have and you are wrong and a waste of my time since you have no knowledge whatsoever of the bible or its archeological support.

Here are some examples:

The discovery of the Ebla archive in northern Syria in the 1970s has shown the Biblical writings concerning the Patriarchs to be viable. Documents written on clay tablets from around 2300 B.C. demonstrate that personal and place names in the Patriarchal accounts are genuine. The name “Canaan” was in use in Ebla, a name critics once said was not used at that time and was used incorrectly in the early chapters of the Bible. The word tehom (“the deep”) in Genesis 1:2 was said to be a late word demonstrating the late writing of the creation story. “Tehom” was part of the vocabulary at Ebla, in use some 800 years before Moses. Ancient customs reflected in the stories of the Patriarchs have also been found in clay tablets from Nuzi and Mari.

The Hittites were once thought to be a Biblical legend, until their capital and records were discovered at Bogazkoy, Turkey.
Many thought the Biblical references to Solomon's wealth were greatly exaggerated. Recovered records from the past show that wealth in antiquity was concentrated with the king and Solomon's prosperity was entirely feasible.

It was once claimed there was no Assyrian king named Sargon as recorded in Isaiah 20:1, because this name was not known in any other record. Then, Sargon's palace was discovered in Khorsabad, Iraq. The very event mentioned in Isaiah 20, his capture of Ashdod, was recorded on the palace walls. What is more, fragments of a stela memorializing the victory were found at Ashdod itself.

Another king who was in doubt was Belshazzar, king of Babylon, named in Daniel 5. The last king of Babylon was Nabonidus according to recorded history. Tablets were found showing that Belshazzar was Nabonidus' son who served as coregent in Babylon. Thus, Belshazzar could offer to make Daniel “third highest ruler in the kingdom” (Dan. 5:16) for reading the handwriting on the wall, the highest available position. Here we see the “eye-witness” nature of the Biblical record, as is so often brought out by the discoveries of archaeology.

After you have digested these facts, swallowed your foolish pride and admitted to your ignorance, we can move on the Luke and show how he is "an historian of the first rank" by a noted former skeptic archeologist.

Dan- "Evolution has no fossil record, the fossil record is in the ground. The data can be made to support both evolution or creation, but it supports creation much much better. And fossils are dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth. They are not movies of evolution."

Aaron: You don't sound like you know what your even talking about, your assuming i know nothing about the fossil record & genetics so you can use my ignorence about the subject against me. There is a mountain of evidence in support of evolution & genetics with 0% of it supporting creationism.

I do know what I am talking about Aaron. And so do most all leading evolution believers. Somehow, they failed to fill you in. Let me assist.
“Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so, we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory.” [Ronald R. West (evolutionist), “Paleontology and Uniformitariansim.” Compass, Vol. 45 (May 1968), p. 216.]
Steven Stanley, highly-respected authority from Johns Hopkins, has this to say on the lack of a transitional fossil record—where it matters most, between genera and higher taxa (in other words, immediately above the [often arbitrarily and subjectively defined] species level and upwards):

“Established species are evolving so slowly that major transitions between genera and higher taxa must be occurring within small rapidly evolving populations that leave NO LEGIBLE FOSSIL RECORD.” [Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution and the Fossil Record, Vol. 36, No. 3, 1986, p. 460. (emphasis added)]

If that weren’t enough to raise some doubts, Stanley, an affirmed evolutionist, is also objective enough to point out:

“The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that a gradualistic model can be valid.” [Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process. San Francisco: W. M. Freeman & Co., 1979, p. 39.]

George Gaylord Simpson, another leading evolutionist, sees this characteristic in practically the whole range of taxonomic categories:

"...Every paleontologist knows that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of family appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.” [George Gaylord Simpson (evolutionist), The Major Features of Evolution, New York, Columbia University Press, 1953 p. 360.]

David Kitts acknowledges the problem and reiterates the subjectivity with which the fossil record is viewed:

“Few paleontologists have, I think, ever supposed that fossils, by themselves, provide grounds for the conclusion that evolution has occurred. The fossil record doesn’t even provide any evidence in support of Darwinian theory except in the weak sense that the fossil record is compatible with it, just as it is compatible with other evolutionary theories, and revolutionary theories, and special creationist theories, and even ahistorical theories.” [David B. Kitts (evolutionist), "Search for the Holy Transformation," Paleobiology, Vol. 5 (Summer 1979), pp. 353-354.]

E. R. Leach offers no help, observing only that:

“Missing links in the sequence of fossil evidence were a worry to Darwin. He felt sure they would eventually turn up, but they are still missing and seem likely to remain so.” [E.R. Leach (evolutionist); Nature 293:19, 1981]
Among the most well-known proponents of evolution (and a fierce opponent of Creationism), even Steven Jay Gould admits:

“At the higher level of evolutionary transition between basic morphological designs, gradualism has always been in trouble, though it remains the “official” position of most Western evolutionists. Smooth intermediates between Baupläne are almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments; there is certainly no evidence for them in the fossil record (curious mosaics like Archaeopteryx do not count).” [S.J. Gould & Niles Eldredge (evolutionists); Paleobiology 3:147, 1977]

“The extreme rarity of transitional forms is the trade secret of paleontology ... The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’” [S.J. Gould (evolutionist); Natural History 86:14 (1977)]


Dan -" Genetics is firmly in the creation camp."

Aaron: The only response i can think of for this is LOL.

You laugh out of ignorance. Mendel was not known to Darwin, which is why we now call darwinism "neo-darwinism". Genetics is no friend of evolution, as this article demonstrates:

www.answersingenesis.org/creat...cs.asp

Dan -"No wizard of oz did? God did. And this is a rational conclusion, based upon human experience and rational thinking. Here is a logical syllogism for you.

Premise: Everything which has a beginning has a cause
Premise: The universe had a beginning
Conclusion: The universe had a cause (i.e. God)"

Aaron: I know as well as you do that no human as of this moment has any idea about what caused the big bang, your just assuming that your brand of religion has the answer.

I am assuming nothing. I have offered a logical syllogism which you must refute or embrace. A beginning rationally points to a cause. It is irrational to consider an uncaused universe. A cause of an infinite all powerful universe must be infinite and all powerful. This is a descriptor of the biblical God, and no other. Even agnostic Jastrow seems to acknowledge this fact, certainly others also have seen that a beginning is troublesome to materialists. Why? because it means that naturalism is irrational.

Dan -"There is no escaping it, a beginning implies a cause. Causality demands a begining, and a beginning implies God. In addition observations and science confirm that life begits life."

"I'm not sure what university you went to, just because science cant explain what happened doesnt give you the right to say a god did it (thats what normal tend to call being irrational)."

A cause sufficient to ussher in the entire Universe is by definition "God". If atheism is true, an eternal universe would be expected.

Dan -"Where have you every oberved life coming from dead material? No place! There is no support for life originating by chance, none. "

Aaron: I havent observed the beginning of life on earth but nether have you. I find it very irrational of you to say that "well if science doesnt have the answer i want then my religion must be right" .

Actually, that isn't what I am saying. What I am saying is that only two possibilities exist to explain lifes origins, natural or supernatural. Naturalism is ruled out by information science, so as former atheist believer Sir Fred Hoyle had to admit, "There must be a God"

www.encyclopedia.com/video/j...t-3.aspx

Dan -"There is absolutely no connection between science and atheism. Atheism is a pagan notion revived to battle Christianity, its only true adversary (which it is no match for)."

Aaron: Again you try to play on my ignorence. Atheism is a result of science, science removed god from the picture when Darwin published his book back in 1859. So if you want to blame something for us atheists being around look no further then science.

Funny how atheists play this both ways. Some try to claim Darwin was a theist and evolution is not anti-theistic while others are more honest. You have it right here. However, evolution is not science. It violates the most fundamental basis for empiricle science, Observation. No one has ever observed evolution, and as I demonstrated in the other post, evolutionists themselves acknowledge that the fossils do not prove evolution in the least. Evolution beliefs come first, then the fossils are viewed through this presupposition.


Dan -"LOL, you think many people are becoming atheists do you? You would be wrong. The numbers are fairly stagnant actually. More people convert to Christian annually than all of the atheists in north American combined."

Wrong again Dan edition.cnn.com/2009/LIVIN....christian/

I was referring to the U.S.. But my larger point is still true, worldwide Christianity is still growing at a faster pace than is evolution. Atheism is not growing due to education or science, but rather due to moral decline. Since you are in Australia, do you know of Dr. Sarfati?


Aaron: What i would like to say is that you hold up the bible as the perfect truth but it has no historical authenticity & no rational/logical evidence to support its claims that some wizard of oz created the universe & us. Like you keep telling me, you have to take it on faith, that just tells me that your just more gullible then me. If you think talking snakes & zombie Jesus is more logical then evolution then there is something seriously wrong with you.

Any world view you hold to ultimately involves faith Aaron. The real question is which world view takes the least amount of faith. I am going with Dr. Carson who feels that creation takes the least amount of faith. I just can't must enough faith to be an atheist. To believe, for example, that the brain is the product of millions of random mutations over millions of years it ludicrous. This is the real fairy tale which you have embraced. You rest in the assurance that somehow you are more intelligent for disbelieving in the bible and for embracing the biggest fraud of history. Because the fraud is so pervasive, I can understand why you might be taken in. But atheism is another matter. I have no respect for an atheist.