God exists, I can feel Him.(atheists can always invalidate this claim). God is personal, I can't let you see, feel, sense and perceive Him.
Your evidence reduces to a highly subjective appeal to emotions. Since this "Truth" requires special knowledge only available to you, and a level of significance too low to be considered credible to anyone else but you, your evidence is not convincing nor supportive to justify rejection of the position of non-belief or lack of belief in YHWH.
Consider these small points to ponder:
The Bible is a claim/assertion. It is not evidence.
Events in history are mentioned in the Harry Potter novels. Regardless, the claims of the Bible related to the central issue of the existence and interventions of Gods and Divinity is not historical.
Events in Homer's Odyssey are also mentioned in History. Regardless, these events do not provide rationale or justification to accept all claims as historically accurate.
See above.
If I make enough predictions I will also get some right. Especially if I write my predictions post-hoc and present/claim the narratives as being written before the predicted events - as were many of these so-called predictions and prophecies of the Bible.
/snort Sorry, this is a really crappy argument. Even if I accept this as true (and ignore your fallacy of hasty generalization and the occurrence of same-sex relationships and couples still living with one set of parents), a cultural practice in no way validates the claims of Gods or Divinity from the Bible.
Created Humans, as stated. I cannot agree with the guidance of evolution, also note that "day" used in Creation can mean hundreds, thousand or million of years.
Got it. And what is your presentation of the burden of proof that YHWH/God created humans directly? Also, your reference to "day" is not necessary nor part of your prior claims, nor my request for you to meet the burden of proof for your claims.
Adam and Eve are literal and not just allegorical story figures
I never took/take the Bible literally. It needs deeper study, and concentration to fully understand it. It can be both. One thing for sure, humans are created separately with superior knowledge than any other else.
Your argument presented Adam and Eve as literal people. Let's avoid moving those goal posts.
I never took/take the Bible literally. It needs deeper study, and concentration to fully understand it. The talking snake for what I understand, was possesed by the Devil.
A new claim - The Devil exists? And your presentation of the burden of proof to support this new claim?
There can be an external force, or a nonliving factor that caused that whale mass grave. example can be a volcanic eruption in the ocean that killed hybernating whale pack, a mass grave of whales doesn't mean they became extinct.
This possible external force of which you speak - if it was not human caused, then I would argue that it is natural; thus still refuting your claim that nature is balanced except for humans and your conclusion that humans disprove evolution. Additionally, the article I presented presented a causality chain where it was hypothesized that extra-heavy rainfall (an unbalanced occurrence of nature) lead to an unbalanced increase in nutrients being washed into the water causing an imbalance in the population of algal growths with cause the creation of a toxic environment to many marine creatures which results in mass killings.
Also the article does not identify an extinction event - only a mass killing due to an imbalance in nature.
As I don't believe in evolution, evolution should conclude that humans are the last form of evolution, since we are the most complex, most intelligent and most superior above all other creatures.
If you don't accept evolution, then stating what you think should be a conclusion of the evolutionary process is difficult to accept as being meaningful (unless you have additional argument to make).
There may be a lack of communication here - to me the "last form" means nothing can, temporally, come after. From your context, it appears that "last form" refers to the contemporary form in the context of evolution.
I've already come past the burden of proof, it doesn't affect my arguments since no one can make you fell God, it'spersonal.
feel*
Your argument from appeal to emotion fails to be a credible presentation of the burden of proof for the existence of YHWH to a level of significance that would justify rejection of non-belief or lack of belief in God - except for those that already hold that confirmation bias based belief (or were mentally incapable of cognitively processing such an argument [e.g., infants/children/people emotionally distressed]). If I told you that the sun would appear to rise tomorrow morning based only upon my personal emotions/feelings, would you accept that presentation of the burden of proof, in and of itself, as acceptable to believe that the sun would appear to rise in the morning?
Regardless, even at the lowest level of significance, you have not credible met the burden of proof for any of your claims.
I've explained why humans invalidate evolution.
You presented claims, not an explanation. And your claim was falsified.
Evolution can never destroy evolution.
I am not sure of your meaning. Seems circular.
If evolution program all creatures, why program it to destroy itself? talk about natural selection.
Evolution does not program creatures. That implies an a priori determination of the natural selection process - and with this statement you are demonstrating that you have little to no knowledge of the basics of the Theory of Evolution.
Nobody saw it.
If we accept this insipid statement concerning a process that has been underway for billions of years, then we must also accept that nobody saw God's creation events (cosmo-gensis or abiogensis/creation), thereby negating/nullifying your own argument for creationism.
** Burden of Proof can also be used againts you**, because nobody can prove evolution.
Correct, if I claim that the current Theory of Evolution is the best explanation (so far) for life on Earth following the abiogenesis event(s), then I do have the burden of proof to support it. Two points:
Burden of Proof can also be used againts you, because nobody can prove evolution.
What is your level of significance to accept that evolutionary theory accurately describes the naturalistic/physicalistic mechanisms that lead to the various living organisms on Earth? I will concede that the Theory of Evolution is not complete and that new/better knowledge will replace some current knowledge and that the reliability and confidence of evolutionary theory will not ever reach a level of certainty. The level of significance I requested for your claims was only that which was qualitatively above an appeal to emotions/feelings/wishful thinking, and that were not based upon logical fallacies. What level of significance do you require to consider accepting evolutionary theory?