[pgyanke]

Oh, really? Look around you! Do you think this is all some big accident? Do you think that the millions in history who have been touched personally by their Creator are simply delusional? Do you think miracles that demonstrate God's sovereignty over His creation don't happen? Do you find it odd that we are all searching for the infinite, though some find disparate answers to the same questions?

In order to disprove God, you have to disregard history itself. In order to prove God, you have only to listen to eye witness testimony and the geological proof of events which corroborate their accounts.

To believe these scientists, you have to take their word on events they did not witness to explain what they admit they don't understand. They seem very quick to say what the historical record isn't but they will never be able to give a definitive alternative that doesn't include either God or "luck".

You are free to choose who to believe. I'll side with God.

[AntiGuv]

Do you think this is all some big accident?

More likely than not, yes.

Do you think that the millions in history who have been touched personally by their Creator are simply delusional?

Yes.

Do you think miracles that demonstrate God's sovereignty over His creation don't happen?

Yes.

Do you find it odd that we are all searching for the infinite, though some find disparate answers to the same questions?

No.

[Ogmios]

You take a book, and you read it, if you believe it, then you are religious, if you doubt it, then you are heathen, if you toss it away and work from the evidence, you are a scientist.

You have faith that the bible is true, therefore you feel comfortable in saying what you are saying, and that's great, but remember, you are basing your entire premise on faith, whereas science bases it on evidence.

There's a big difference.

[Modernman]

In order to disprove God, you have to disregard history itself

Evolutionists aren't trying to disprove God. Evolution isn't even concerned with God. Evolution is science, and science does not deal with the metaphysical. That's better left to priests and rabbis.

To believe these scientists, you have to take their word on events they did not witness to explain what they admit they don't understand.

So, following you rationale, the only things that can be proved are things we can experience with our own senses. That pretty much eliminates all of physics (have you ever seen a quark?), genetics (can you see dna without a microscope) etc. etc.

[Dimensio]

Oh, really? Look around you! Do you think this is all some big accident?

I'm not sure if this qualifies as "argument from incredulity" or if it's just "argument by assertion" where you wave your hands around and say, "Of course it's true, can't you see it?!". In either case, it's not a logical argument.

Do you think that the millions in history who have been touched personally by their Creator are simply delusional?

Argument from anecdotal evidence. False dilemma fallacy. Strawman.

Do you think miracles that demonstrate God's sovereignty over His creation don't happen?

Incomplete question. There have been thousands of gods proposed and worshippe throughout human history. To which are you referring with your question?

Well, okay, that was something of a semantic nitpick. Since I, personally, lack belief in all gods, my answer would be "no" unless you have a very unusual definition of "God". Others on the "evolution" side of this discussion, however, may have a different answer.

Do you find it odd that we are all searching for the infinite

What "infinite"? I'm searching for a good way to complete a design project for an Engineering Economics class, a way to manage my finances properly and a way to get in better shape before my vacation to the Bahamas in December. I hardly have time amidst all that to search for the "infinite". I'll leave that to people who can dedicate the appropriate time and resources necessary to the search until such time that I'm able to give said search the time that it deserves.

though some find disparate answers to the same questions?

Wouldn't this weaken an argument for a "Creator"? You've got different people claiming to have found "evidence" for contradictory Creators.

In order to disprove God, you have to disregard history itself

Again, thousands of gods worshipped throughout history. Your statement, therefore, requires qualification.

In order to prove God, you have only to listen to eye witness testimony and the geological proof of events which corroborate their accounts.

I don't think that you're using the word "proof" to mean what everyone else thinks that it means. Anecdotal evidence does not "prove" the existence of any gods.

To believe these scientists, you have to take their word on events they did not witness to explain what they admit they don't understand.

Half right. They don't claim to explain events that they don't understand. If they didn't understand things, they wouldn't have explanations.

They seem very quick to say what the historical record isn't but they will never be able to give a definitive alternative that doesn't include either God or "luck".

"God" has no place in scientific explanations, unless your concept of "God" is far more limited than that of most people's. Science is the study of the natural universe. Events or entites that exist outside of the universe -- either in whole or in part -- cannot be addressed by science, so science cannot appeal to them as an explanation for anything.

You are free to choose who to believe. I'll side with God.

Which one?