It's in our genes ;)

@smitty knows what's up.
As a quick response, how about human footprints in dinosaur tracks (near the Paluxy river)? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaQqa90e9KQ
Or how "Physicist Wayne Spencer had been pointing out the problems that Jupiter’s moon, Io, presents to deep time because of the ridiculous amount of heat the moon is pumping out"? http://ianjuby.org/our-young-solar-system-this-is-genesis-week-episode-23-season-2/

Here's my longer comment. The contradictions in the Bible are not actually contradictory, if you understand the context they were written in (but I'll leave that topic for another day). Yes, I believe the Book of Genesis was literal history, and that the universe was created about 6000 years ago by God. I assume you believe in the Evolutionary/Humanist world view, that the universe appeared from nothing about 4.6 billion years ago. The problem with studying history before mankind is that it was never and can never be observed, tested, repeated, or predicted; we can only deal with the facts in the present. The facts do not change, but we can have different interpretations of how they may have originated. The only way to know the truth of what happened in the past is to have divine revelation, but this can of course be challenged by skeptics. The bottom line is, you were not there, so you cannot know with certainty what truly happened.

Both world views, Creation and Evolution, rely on faith. And from various research, the Creation model fits the observable facts much better than the Evolutionary model.

"The problem with studying history before mankind is that it was never and can never be observed, tested, repeated, or predicted;"

And religion doesn't have this problem?

"Both world views, Creation and Evolution, rely on faith."

Wrong. Evolution is science based and relies on evidence.

What do you mean by evolution?

If creation would actually fit better with the evidence we have, the scientific consensus would be that it is true. All the evidence we have at our disposal at this time point towards the book of genisis being flat out wrong about nearly everything

Scientific consensus does not determine truth, and neither does peer review. Many scientific journals have refused to publish or even look at scientific papers, simply because they were made by creationist scientists, regardless of the science inside the papers. All scientific discoveries rely on exploring ideas beyond the scientific consensus, sometimes even in direct opposition to the current theory.
I would argue the opposite to what you have said, and that all the evidence we have at our disposal at this time point towards the evolutionary big bang myth being flat out wrong about nearly everything. One such instance where it fails is for predicting the strength of magnetic fields around certain moons and planets in our solar system. http://ianjuby.org/our-young-solar-system-this-is-genesis-week-episode-23-season-2/

It is true that to advance science we have to push away from what is already known, but the thing is, scientists thought the bible was true and accurate for hundreds of years. That was the scientific consensus. Then, new evidence arose which indicated the bible was in fact not accurate and the scientific community changed their opinion to reflect the facts. Problem is, the general public isn't so quick to accept new things which might conflict woth their worldviews. I admit that I have trouble believing some things about quantum mechanics because I can't understand how it works. However, if I was shown conclusive evidence that I could understand (which I'm sure there's plenty of, I haven't looked into it), I'd change my opinion. Why is it so difficult for creationists to do the same?

Evolution does rely on faith, but only the fundamental kind it's impossible to do anything without, faith in the fundamental assumptions that make communication possible. We can't determine the truth, not really. Scientific consensus is simply what we are forced to accept as the truth if we want to proceed. We can never fully know if we are really right or not. So all we can do is assume we are and follow along until and if we get proven wrong. And so on. Now, these base assumptions(like the validity of Occam's razor) may be faith based, but logically, they are the only thing that makes sense. If we want to attempt to truly understand the world around us, those are the only way to proceed. @sublimegamer congratulations! You actually said some correct stuff. Unfortunately you're still an idiot.

@yimmye Why do you think creationists don't do the same? There is plenty of evidence For creation and Against evolution, which is one of the reasons why it is an ongoing debate.
@third But with God, there is a source of ultimate truth. He is omniscient (He knows everything about our universe), so He can reveal to us (and we can believe with certainty) what is absolute truth. We can use this fundamental basis to logically deduce other truths. But with atheism, there are no absolute truths, which essentially means there is a possibility that you could be entirely wrong about everything you just said, right?

There is no "ongoing debate", just a handful of people who are clutching at scraps of science they can cherry pick and twist into "proof" for a book written thousands of years ago by middle eastern tribes. The scientific community as a whole accepts evolution as truth almost unanimously, because all the evidence points towards it. Give me some evidence that proves all life was created at once 6000 years ago. Lemme tell you, it won't be easy

Ok, sure. Let's say the all-knowing magical sky daddy exists(not the trading card.) the only proof we have of his existence is a 2,000 year old book, written by HUMANS, and that has constantly been revised, translated, etc... it would be an unreliable source even if it WASN'T contradicting itself at every turn or making claims that are just flat out wrong. Now, @sublimegamer, perhaps you would like to explain why according to your little fairy tale god was so involved with humanity in ancient times and is completely gone now. Hasn't humanity passed the point of warranting a flood quite a while ago? Humans have fucking gone into space, and sent stuff beyond Pluto. Shouldn't that be far, far, worse than the Tower of Babel, or hell, how about skyscrapers? The only thing even close to that is the hurricanes. And guess who saw that coming.

Give me some evidence that proves all the universe came into existence about 4.6 billion years ago, or that life can evolve from non-life. Lemme tell you, it won't be easy. By the way, scientific consensus DOES NOT determine truth. For instance, Ignaz Semmelweis theorised and successfully tested that the mortality rates in hospitals could be lowered immensely if doctors washed and cleaned equipment, etc, before operations. He was shunned and ignored. Thirty years later, Louis Pasteur, a Creationist scientist, made important discoveries about microorganisms. http://www.typesofbacteria.co.uk/how-when-were-bacteria-discovered.html

God has been an active force in my life, even at this very moment. I have heard and witnessed many miracles, which have no natural explanation. Such as complete healing of cancer in one night.
You could say that the people before the Flood of Noah didn't see God have an active role in the time leading up to the Flood. But at that point, ALL humans were not faithful to God, except Noah and his family. I doubt we've reached that extreme yet in the present.

I dealt with the argument of "scientific consensus does not make true" a few comments back. Also, we asked you to show us evidence of either your god or the age of the earth, and you have provided neither. You are the one making a bold claim: god exists. We are saying: I doubt that. This means the burden of proof is on you.
Also the universe came into existence closer to 13 billion years, but that's besides the point. We have strong evidence for this. I hope you can agree with me that for example the speed of light is more or less constant right? There are stars and galaxies that we can observe that are about 13 billion lightyears away. This means the light took 13 billion years to get here so we can see it. This means that the universe must have existed at least 13 billion years.

We are arguing about different interpretations of observable facts which are based on different presuppositions. You say I am making a bold claim that God exists, but in my mind you are making a bold claim that God doesn't exist. This difference in world views is why we are in disagreement. I sadly think that no amount of arguing will convince you (or you convince me) that the opposite world view is true. About the distant starlight, it also creates a problem for evolutionary deep time. How did the cosmic microwave background radiation become so uniform in such a (relatively) short time? Creationists have created several models for how the distant starlight arrives to Earth in only 6000 years, just as Evolutionist scientists have several theories for the formation of: the universe, the chemical elements, the stars, planets and systems, the first life, etc.

I'm not claiming god doesn't exist, I'm saying I have yet to see any evidence for it. Also, you keep asking me new questions without answering mine. Please disprove my point about the speed of light and the stars being that far away

I cannot disporve that point, because at this stage we only have guesses as to how the light arrived here. I can say, light years are a measure of distance, not a measure of time. A person thinking in terms of deep time would assume everything happens as they always have, but this cannot be true in some cases. The light somehow arrived here at the time of creation. What about the Big Bang theory, how did matter explode out from a single point of nothingness at speeds faster than the speed of light, to avoid collapsing back into a single black hole? That is not possible, as it disobeys well-observed natural scientific laws. You cannot explain how matter can travel faster than light, just as I cannot explain how the light arrived here in such a short time. Oh, what would you say is valid proof for God's existence?

I don't know what would be valid proof, because I honestly have a hard time imagining it. However, something like him showing himself to literally every person at once and forcing them to confess it (might have to bend their free will a bit to achieve that but I'm sure he's capable of it, and if he truly is omnibenevolent then he'd want everyone to believe in him so they can go to heaven, right?) would be pretty hard to dismiss
Or anything else you can come up with, I really don't know

It is within his power, certainly. But God does not do things that way. He has given us freedom and the ability to make our own choices, but He will not allow any sin to enter heaven, so only those who accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour will have their sins covered and be allowed into heaven. He has given visions and revelations to many people throughout history, and some of those stories are recorded in the Bible. I agree that the most concrete evidence for His existence would be for Him to reveal Himself to you. The great thing about God is that He loves you, and wants to have a personal relationship with you, and all people. Why don't you give Him the benefit of the doubt, and ask him to show you He is real? I believe He will astound you.

Believe me, I have tried. Also why should I give the christian god the benefitnof the doubt? Why not any of the other millions of gods

Yeah, we should be searching for truth in all areas and studies. My "benefit of the doubt" was just a suggestion, not an imperative.

@sublimegamer for the last fucking time. ABSOLUTE DETERMINATION OF THE TRUTH IS IMPOSSILE(this also applies to your little fairy tale, by the way) If god were to suddenly appear and speak to you, how could you prove that it was real, not, say, someone feeding signals into your brain as in the matrix? Answer: you can't. So the only thing that makes sense is to accept something as the truth until proven otherwise, and not to reject it without proof. This system founded modern science and pushed humanity far more forwards than religion ever could. This is not only because scienctific consensus is not only factually accurate to the best of our ability to test and percieve(and no religion has even gotten that far) but because, unlike religion science is a system of increasing our knowledge of the universe.

It is pointless to compare he two outside of how they relate to human behavior, because technically, science is a system for increasing our understanding of the universe, and religions either dated, disproved scientific theories(remember their origional purpose was to explain the world, how it was created, how it worked, etc...) or cults, scams, like scientology. Approaching the universe with a scientific mind, one if forced to either accept these facts about religion or awkwardly ignore them. With a religious mind, progress will stagnate, because religion cannot drive us forwards.

Science is not the opposite of religion. The Bible and science intertwine beautifully, and many scientific discoveries affirm the truth in the Bible. Evolutionism is anti-creationism, but it is just another world view used to explain unobservable past events, so it cannot be considered scientific. No human can know the absolute truth (or else they would be omniscient), so they use science to try and explain how the universe works in the present. No amount of science or research can prove what truly happened in the past, so we must have some world view full of assumptions to explain how we got here. The only valid options boil down to: either we were created by a supernatural entity (God), or we originated by pure chance (which also requires events that do not comply with well-observed scientific and natural laws). To call old-age evolution a scientific theory is detrimental to science.

Fucking hell. You know the words, you state the facts, yet clearly have no clue what the hell they mean. Evolution is NOT "just another worldview" it is what the scientific community accepts as true. As I already pointed out, that is the only logical thing to be done, accept something as true unless a better(more fact based) explanation comes along. And as much as we can prove pretty much everything else, we can prove what happened in the past. And yes, it's not "absolute" proof, but nothing is, least of all your little fairytale. And within that framework, evolution is a far better theory. Creationism is theoretically unsound because it is incomplete. It does not explain the mechanism by which life was created, nor does it say where gods(with no proof these even exist) came from. Now, please do explain how evolution doesn't fit with natural laws, mr "I know better than actual scientists."

Evolution also doesn't fully explain the mechanism by which life can evolve from non-life. The natural law of biogenesis, which is observable, testable, repeatable, and predictable, states that animals and other life forms can only come from parent life forms, not non-living objects. Abiogenesis (the first life) does not correspond to this scientific law. By definition, it is a SUPERnatural process.
God did not 'come' from anywhere; He is outside His creation, including space and time. He has no beginning or end, because He created the physics behind time.
Surely if information can come from no information, which is an an integral assumption of the evolutionary theory, you can offer some examples of it observably happening in the present?

People have seen amino acids and RNA form in labs which mimic the environment of what we think the earth was like when life arose. Under the right conditions, these relatively complex molecules can form on their own. I find it plausible that over time these molecules stuck together and formed the first proto-life: not really alive, not lifeless, something in between that we don't have a word for

Just from looking at the comment chain here, @sublimegamer, you seem to have asked about what happened before and during the Big Bang. While there isn't a scientific consensus that I am aware of and can recall, potentially due to being sick for the entirety of the astrophysics portion of my Physics class, I do know of evidence that the Big Bang did in fact happen. It's called Cosmic Background Microwave Radiation, and is a constant microwave radiation throughout the universe that corresponds (if memory serves) to something like 7.3 kelvin. This, and the much greater amount of Helium in the universe than could have been produced by stars in the entire lifetime of the universe, are just some of the evidence that physicists have for the Big Bang occurring. This is just the simple stuff that a high school student who could only read the PowerPoints for the unit at his school could remember, even if it was IB Physics HL.

Yes, our current models of physics don't work for the Big Bang, but we aren't even able to properly consolidate quantum mechanics and the version used in everyday life, or general and special relativity. All the sets of rules we have work perfectly well at their scale, but we cannot yet figure out how to change between those scaleswithout breaking the maths and having things stop working, like how in quantum physics mass and gravity come from particles while in standard mechanics they... aren't. With the incredibly unusual circumstances of the Big Bang, and no real way to replicate it (though the Large Hadron Collider has helped, and taught us about that mass particle, the Higgs-Boson) it's no surprise that we don't yet know what happened.
But that's why we research it. Not because we know, not because it is easy to know. Because it intrigues us for being so hard to know, and gives us such strange, weirdly useful information.

Those chemicals were arranged and formed in the lab by an intelligent creator, the scientist. We have never observed an instance of abiogenesis occur, anywhere.
@kamatsu, welcome to this comment thread! The cosmic background microwave radiation actually poses some major problems to the evolutionary model. How did it get so uniformly distributed, when bulges are required to supposedly create stars? Creationary models made by Dr. Russel Humphreys and R. V. Gentry which use uniform distribution can account for the cosmic background microwave radiation, in the context of a young world.
I am not against science, I love learning and exploring our world! I am against the act of labelling hypothetical models as irrefutably true, which is what many people say of evolution.

They weren't arranged and formed, the scientist picked all the ingredients that we know were there when life arose (don't exactly know how we know that, something to do with chemicals found in the oldest rocks or something), cranked the temperature to where we think it was at, made the atmosphere in the microcosm he made the same as we think it was back then, and let the molecules do their thing. Yes, the scientist made the environment in which life could form, but we have no evidence a creator made our environment when life was formed.
Of course we haven't seen abiogenisis anywhere else ever again because the conditions for life to form are not the conditions in which our lifeforms continue to exist. The life that first arose on our planet couldn't survive in an atmosphere with oxygen, and due to the rise of proto-cyano bacteria, who produce oxygen by photo- or chemosynthesis, most lifeforms died out. I personally don't exactly know how this trait evolved, but ... (1/2)

... (2/2) we have evidence suggestinf this is what happened. All subsequent life could survive in an oxygen rich environment, if they couldn't, they died before they could reproduce/divide themselves (natural selection). Eventually, all life needed oxygen to survive, with the exception of some deep ocean bacteria who still survive of other chemicals

No, we don't know for absolute certain this is how it happened, but evidence seems to suggest it, and I find it more likely and logical than a magical sky daddy who is exempt from all rules of time and space

@sublimegamer have you been listening to a single, goddamn word anyone's been saying? please try to do so in the future. I believe you are getting confused by the idea that their is more to life than our physical bodies, that there is something else, that comprises us.

You have some good points @yimmye. If I did enough research, I am sure I could come up with another counter argument, but I'm getting a bit tired of this debate, and being accused of not listening, being stupid, etc. I am going on holiday today, so goodbye, friend!

I like how you have remained respectful the whole time, thank you for this discussion