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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
If there isn't any evidence to support a specific supernatural event, why would I believe it happened?
How do you know he didn't just make it up as a fictional story?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I'm not sure what you are getting at here. What does this have to do with the subject at hand?
If either evolution or creationism were proven false it doesn't make the other one right? That's what I said. What I said is not evidence, it's my opinion.
Am I saying that genetic mutation always causes disease? No, just about 90% of the time it does. The scientific idea that species evolved naturally by random mutation is incorrect. All species that exist in the universe exist because they are a built in stability point in DNA. Humanity is built into DNA.
Can I provide evidence to back up my claim? Who are you, someone important? Prove to me that you are important and I will consider it.
Obviously some mutations cause harm? Uhh, some? Why do people avoid radiation if only some of the time it will harm you?
You will accept any evidence that can be verified? Then eat right and exercise a lot so you are still around when your scientists verify it in another 100-200 years.
You mean independantly verified as evidence outside of the bible? But the books of the bible were written from 3,000 to 1,600 years ago and all were separate books until they were combined into one much later on. So, one book can verify another book.
You've read the bible many times? Good, did you understand it? What parts are you having trouble with, I will explain them to you.
You still want outside evidence that the claims in the bible are true? But you know that no one can go back in time to witness those events and if they did you wouldn't believe them so you're setting a standard that you know can't be met.
If there isn't any evidence to support a supernatural event, why would you believe it happened? You're thinking that you are supposed to know the truth. Have you ever seen a movie, not every character is the star. Maybe stop trying to figure out something you can't figure out. Even the priests who have dedicated their lives to studying the bible don't get it.
How do I know that some author didn't just make up a fictional story? Because I'm supposed to know. This is how it works. Some beings get the truth and attempt to convey the truth to others but the others are very often slow to accept it. This is what Jesus did, He did not force the people to accept the truth, He could have awakened everyone to the truth, it could have been done with the snap of the fingers, but that would violate God's law of free will.
You can't assume your conclusion in your premise? The definition that you used for circular logic was to say that a single source for information proves itself. Sometimes a single source is all you get.
If you say that one scientist makes a claim and it must be true because another scientist confirms it, your reasoning is fraudulent. You are assuming your conclusion in your premise.
Your problem is with the bible. You don't like it. So stop reading it and go on with your life.
My assumption is not that the bible is true. I know which parts are true and which parts are primitive human ideas and misinterpretation.
We can verify that some parts of the bible are correct, territory leaders, landmarks, rivers, roads, buildings...? So, you're problem with the bible is the supernatural stuff then. Fine, stop reading it and go on with your life. There is nothing that can prove it to you.
Black holes are not supernatural? If you knew the real purpose of black holes that would change your mind.
Fire is not supernatural? It was and then it wasn't anymore. Supernatural is just a way of saying "We don't understand how it works". One day God won't be supernatural anymore.
Fear doesn't have any relevance here? It has more relevance than you will admit to.
Rivers flowing south do not violate any scientific laws or principles? It violated what the primitive humans thought was a law or principle.
God would not be limited by the natural laws? Sure He would. If He makes a law it sets a control for the universe. God does not make a law and then violate it. God's laws are absolute, they're not like human laws where you make them, then change them and violate them.
