Atheism is unreasonable

[Thumpalumpacus]

My bad...you all look the same to me anyway lol.

Here, I'm glad to help. I've made this graphic for you:



All you have to do is change the name to that poster after an "=" sign in the quote-tag -- [quote="Parkers Tan"], for example.

I was thinking...never mind the debate because when it comes to the Resurrection, there are sub-topics that needs to be addressed, and I don't think I have enough space for all of it.

So what I will do is break the argument down in parts...beginning with part 1, of course. As mentioned previously, I plan on laying this thread to rest and moving on to better things.

You might wish to start on the ground floor, and demonstrate a Creator god. Just a thought.

---

I believe that all dogs are one "kind" of animal, as has already been pointed out to you

Your belief is irrelevant. In science, it is knowledge that matters.

I can also prove that the Eiffel Tower didn't exist before 1889. That doesn't mean that Joe Blow from Pascagoula, MS built it in six days using tinkertoys.

See how that worl\Ks?

No, I don't.

Unsurprising. The existence of an object doesn't prove the existence of a specific entity.

There is a such thing as "philosophical arguments", and we can prove that the universe hasn't been expanding forever...or do you deny that so I can prove you wrong on that as well??

Philosophical arguments are not evidence, because reality does not bow to words.

As far as the Hubble constant, that isn't a philosophical argument; that is an observed phenomenon, which means that extrapolating its history is a matter of observation as well, using red-shift.

Of course, no one here is arguing that the Universe has been expanding forever, which a decent grasp of English would reveal.

The evidence for an eternal universe, abiogenesis, and macroevolution is also absent.

Who's arguing an eternal Universe? Additionally, the evidence for an eternal god is clearly absent as well. As will be seen below, you have backed out of a proposed debate on that evidence. Gee, I wonder why?

Abiogenesis has some evidence. Feel free to ask for sources.

"Macroevolution" is a demonstrated fact, with evidence converging frm morphology, genetics, and biostratigraphy, and only an ignorant fool thinks otherwise.

I challenge you to a debate regarding "The Evidence for the Christian God". Fight or flight time.

You've apparently changed your mind about that, despite my previous acceptance.

Education isn't what is needed, evidence is what is needed.

You clearly lack the education to analyze the evidence, as has been shown in this thread.