A Civil Religious Debate

I disagree. Because they base their authority on senses and reasoning which are fallible and can't be tested empirically. The Bible is infallible and is the basis for knowledge and understanding, therefore it is more reliable then what they use to argue.

Hahaha, This is basically what you said "I don't varify the scientific method with the scientific method, I just varify it with science" LOL. Eric got this argument the same place I got it from, logic. Logic is something you can't account for, therefore everything you said is discounted since you (are trying to) use logic.

"your premise is false"

You can't account for logic, therefore in your worldview my premise doesn't need to be correct in order to be true. Do you know everything? No. So something you don't know could contradict everything you think you know, therefore you don't know anything. I have a reason to believe in logic.

"But I can do the same thing as you and say that Zeus is my god, and that he knows everything. "

So your no longer an atheist, you are a Greek. If, however, your posing this in the hypothetical, you can't know anything as an atheist, so your statement merely proved my point since you tried to use logic again.

" but it says his position is rejected by most people in his field...."

So was Galileo's

Look dude, whatever you say in your next reply is going to have a knowledge claim in it and therefore prove my point. You can't even prove you exist without God (you proof would have 'I' in it and would therefore beg the question.) Your just constantly proving what Romans 1 say over and over.

It's a fallacy because it is a blanket statement you haven't backed up with facts.

" Our best method so far for discovering truth is through the scientific method."

Another fallacy since the scientific method cannot varify the scientific method. Unless you are able to varify it, your worldview is reduced to absurdity.

"My information doesn't come from the TV. Perhaps you shouldn't get all your information from a 2000 year old book."

Unless I trusted in a 2000 year old book my worldview would be absurd like yours. Because I believe in God, I have a reason to believe the scientific method because I have a reason believe in knowledge. To know anything you have to either know everything or know someone who does. If you don't, something you don't know could contradict what you do know, therefore you can't know anything. I do know someone who knows everything and you don't, therefore I have a reason for truth and you don't. You can't even logically prove your own existence, I can because of the 2000 year old book.

"What famous, well regarded scientists rejects evolution?"

Another fallacy, I can list several times in history where the people who were right were not famous, well regarded scientists. Yet I will give you an example: John Sanford, inventor of the 'gene gun' the first device able to change the molecular structure of plant cells.

He's not obligated to please you. He's given you evidence and you reject him to the point of denying he exists. Its a good thing he doesnt send you an email or appear to you, because unless he changed your heart, you would be under greater judgement and have even less of an excuse for rejecting him.

Yes he did create those as well as non-physical things such as angels, whats your point?

Talking about raining frogs, did you ever noticed that even though God did that, the king of egypt still didnt believe in Him, and neither would you. The Bible says there is ample evidence to condemn your unbelief and he will unoess he changes your heart.

If you read the passage you'll see that people knowledge of God is plain to them through creation. Creation still exists, therefore the statement still applies.

Hahaha, as if God should fear a dust mite shaking his fist at Him.

An actually very lame argument considering the universe is physical, and therefore has to obey physical laws that would be broken by an evolutionary explanation.

God, on the other hand, is immaterial, and therefore is not bound by physical laws such as a regress.

That statement is way to broad and is in itself a falicy. Even if what your saying is true (which I guess would only be if you get all of your information from Discovery Channel) scientists dont determine truth. A good first step would be to define what you mean by 'Scientific Community' since I can name several PhD scientists off the top of my head who have made great advances in recent science and who, not only reject atheism, but also evolution.

Don't get all your info from TV, ok bud?

You can read it now, and if you read my other argument (the long one) you'll see that you know God exists and prove it everytime you utter a knowledge claim.

It doesnt matter if He is sinning in your eyes, you are dust compared to him soo...