It isn't evolution or creationism? You have made a claim, do you have any evidence for this claim?
Even if evolution were wrong it wouldn't make creationism right? And even if creationism were wrong it doesn't make evolution right.
You just provided the evidence. If creationism were proven false, it wouldn't provide any evidence for evolution. And, if evolution is proven false, it wouldn't provide any evidence for creationism. It isn't multiple choice. There could very well be an explanation that we haven't uncovered yet.
The actual explanation could be something we have not come up with yet? It really couldn't. You don't get humanity from a series of accidents, the accidents get you disease.
Are you saying that genetic mutations always cause disease? Can you provide evidence to back that claim up? Obviously some mutations can cause harm, but every mutation? I've never heard that one before.
Can I provide the evidence that angels assembled DNA on the planet? I could but why would you accept it?
I will accept any evidence that can be verified. In other words, there are claims and there is evidence to support those claims. You could say "I saw the angels do it" or "God told me", but those would be mere claims. Evidence would be necessary to verify those claims. And, it doesn't matter who looks over the evidence to verify the claims. The evidence should speak for itself.
The only parts of the bible that we can use as evidence are claims that can be independantly verified? Indepedantly verified, by who? Who would be this independant person? An atheist?
Again, by "independently verified" I mean confirmed with evidence outside of the Bible. Cities, the existence of pharos, rivers, etc. wouldn't confirm stories or supernatural claims in the Bible. You would need evidence that the events actually took place.
No one decides which parts of the bible are true? Everyone decides for themselves. If you don't even attempt to read it and learn for yourself then you have decided to before hand.
I've read the Bible many times. I grew up as in a mixed faith household. My Dad is Jewish and my Mom is Catholic. I went to Catholic grade school and hebrew school on the weekend. I chose to be baptised and confirmed in 8th grade and went to an all boys jesuit high school. I was also a philosophy major in undergrad. Needless to say, the Bible was a major part of all of my schooling, and I've read it recently as well.
We can't know which parts of the bible are true without outside evidence? If the Jews are not outside evidence and Jerusalem is not outside evidence and Egypt and Pharoah's and history is not outside evidence then what would be outside evidence? You've dismissed all the outside evidence as not being outside evidence.
Outside evidence that the claims made in the Bible are true. The existence of the Jews does not evidence that the stories in the Bible are true. The existence of Pharos doesn't evidence the story of Exodus. I don't think there is a way to evidence most of the stories in the Bible. Thus, they must be taken on faith. Nothing wrong with that, but they can't be used as evidence for anything, as there isn't any way to tell whether they are fact or fiction.
Supernatural claims should be verified with evidence? What if the universe is designed for you not to know? Do you tell a small child that there are humans who exist who like to steal and rape and murder them? What if a small child asks where babies come from, do you tell them the truth? You think you're mature enough to handle the truth. You're not, you're not even close.
If there isn't any evidence to support a specific supernatural event, why would I believe it happened?
How did an author near Jerusalem 3,000 years ago know the story of Adam and Eve?
How do you know he didn't just make it up as a fictional story?
Please provide your evidence that circular logic can't be true? Do you ever use the internet to research something? How do you know it's correct?
This is nonsensical. Circular logic isn't true or false. It is a fraudulent argumentation method. Any expert in the field of logic would say the same. You can't assume your conclusion in your premise.
For example, if you say that one story in the bible is true because another story in the bible confirms it, your reasoning is fraudulent. You are assuming your conclusion (that the bible is accurate) in your premise. In order to use a biblical claim as evidence you must provide evidence that confirms it is true. Other claims from the bible that may or may not be true wouldn't count, as they aren't evidence of anything.
It's logically fallacious to claim that the bible is correct just because the bible says so? I will look at your evidence for this claim, do you have any or is this just another atheist claim without evidence?
That is the clearest example of circular reasoning I've ever seen. If you start with the assumption in your premise that the Bible is true and use that assumption to argue that the Bible is true, you are using circular reasoning. You aren't actually making an argument, you are merely making another claim.
The claims in the bible need to be independantly verified? Once again, who is this indepedant person? And how do we go back in time and witness the events as they happened? You're trying to make an argument that only allows your ideas. That's not how the world works. You don't get to refuse all evidence and pick and choose only the evidence that supports your atheist opinion.
There is no person. It is independently verified by outside evidence that confirms the biblical claim in question. Now, I understand that it is seemingly impossible to find evidence that confirms the claims/stories in the Bible. You can find evidence that the author was aware of certain goings on like territory leaders, landmarks, rivers, roads, buildings, and events. But, these things do not evidence the actual stories. For example, with the story of Exodus, you could show that the Pharaoh's name was accurate, the names of rivers and landmarks were accurate, etc. But none of this proves that Moses existed or that the plagues actually happened. That would require some kind of Egyptian record of the plagues or the exodus itself, which is what I mean by outside sources. Until evidence like that is found, we cannot be sure that the exodus story is not fiction, or at least somewhat fiction.
Black holes are not supernatural? I will look at your evidence for this claim. Do you have any?
They are not supernatural because they adhere to the laws of physics and quantum mechanics, to the best of our knowledge. Sure, we don't understand much about them, but the lack of understanding in no way evidences anything supernatural. That would be an argument from ignorance.
Can I provide an example of a supernatural event in a science book? Fire. Primitive humans were once afraid of fire. Rivers flowing south, the ancient Egyptians were amazed to see the Jordan river flowing southward. Eclipses, meteors, comets, earthquakes, storms, disease, the dual split experiment, String Theory... Things that are supernatural today become accepted science tomorrow, you just think you are much farther advanced than you really are.
Fire is not supernatural, as it does not violate scientific natural laws. The fear that primitive people had or their lack of understanding does not have any relevance here. Rivers flowing south do not violate any scientific laws or principles. Some claims in the Bible are supernatural, though. All of the things you mention are natural, as in they exist in this universe. If God exists, otoh, God would not be limited by the natural laws that govern this universe. That is why his claimed actions are supernatural.
Logical fallacies are common errors in reasoning? Where was the error in the scientists unacceptance of the Higgs-Boson?
I'm not sure what you are getting at here. What does this have to do with the subject at hand?
