Even given the benefit of the doubt, who's to say your God is the God who created all this?
That is not the issue. The issue is the possibilty that biological life was created.
>>>>Really? Then you are saying you do not believe your God is THE God who created the heavens and the earth, am I right? You are just arguing creation (by anyone or anything) as opposed to evolution?
It is easier to believe that an invisible creator just "was", than to believe that the visible earth just "was". At least there is evidence that the earth exists, which is more than I can say for any "God".
The earth did not always exist. This is a scientific fact. According to the second law of thermodynamics, given the complexity of the universe, the belief that God simply was, although it is not the issue, is rational. You can't say that it is impossible that there is a God.
>>>>Sure I can. But I have no more "proof" for that assertion, than you have proof that there is one who is responsible for biological life. I know nothing about the second law of thermodynamics, so I won't even go there. And sweetheart, I am quite aware that the earth hasn't always existed (). My point is that if a God can just (poof) exist, then is it really so irrational to assume that the earth and all life on it couldn't have just (poof) formed? I'm not even going into arguing the dynamics of an infinite God, only the assumption that he just "was".
Biological life is not proof of God.
I know that. It is evidence.
>>>>That is my point. Biological life only tells us that we are here. That's it! It doesn't answer any of the big questions like how, what, when and where did we come from/get here? Biological life doesn't support your argument anymore than it supports the evolutionists argument. It supports both and neither. How would it make sense to say this is evidence to support the idea that we were created by an unseen being? Upon proposing that, you'd have to then give evidence to support the existence of this unseen being, of which there is none. I don't suppose I get it. Biological life, IMHO, is only evidence that we are here and that we came from something...maybe. But if it isn't too far-fetched to believe that an invisible God, whom no one has seen (how convenient) came from nothing, then how can it be labeled as illogical thinking to attribute this same reasoning to mankind and the universe? I hope I'm making sense here.
<quote>A bloody glove and a bloodstained driveway are evidence.</quote>
This is simply evidence that someone bled. That's it. It doesn't tell you who the attacker was...if there even was one (the bleeding could've been the result of some sort of accident; ie. lawnmower accident, pruning accident), why they did it, if the assailant was even a person (could've been a dog, a bear, a lion), or if someone even died as a result.
There are so many things lacking in this evidence alone...but find a body/victim, motive, fingerprints, DNA...and then you've got something solid. Biological life is not evidence of anything except that we are here. It does not lend support to where we came from, why we are here, or who...if anyone...created us.
I have always been creationalist, btw. At this point in my life, I am sort-of unsure about what exactly I believe regarding creation/evolution and all such as that. So, forgive me for my poor debating skills in relation to this particular issue. I just like arguing... Also, I don't know a whole lot about the theory of evolution, so I may be doing more harm here than good for the evolutionists. I apologize if this is the case.