>Now your time has come. What
>evidence do you have to give us to support the proposition "God does not
>exist"?
RS:What? Since when does the burden of proof rest on the one who *doesn't*
RS:believe in God?
>Remember, now, it's not a response to say "I don't think there is any
>evidence FOR his existence."
RS:It most certainly is. If you want to prove his existence, you must provide
RS:evidence.
Shouldn't the same type of logic apply to evolution if it must apply to
God? Where is the proof? Besides evolution being 'called' a fact where is the
burden of proof?
Woops...Im sorry... you don't prove evolution..".it's just a FACT".
"It' both a FACT and a theory".
Why cant you apply the same logic to God? Hey, we dont have to prove
anything! He's a FACT! In addition there are some theoretical aspects that
are still being worked out.
Shouldn't the proof of evolution be examined instead of just believing
what the majority of textbooks say?
john w. queen ii