It doesn't work that way george. You claim something exists, so you need to provide proof, not the one that doesn't believe you.
Isn't it somewhat hypocritical, since it was you that made the following claim in post number 5, right in the beginning of the thread:
Evo said:There is no need for a "creator" in nature.
How do you know this and where is the evidence for this claim? You claim something can come and be in existence without a creator. The onus is on you to provide evidence for your claim.
I made no categorical claims that God must necessarily exist. INSTEAD, I did state that it was a belief, and beliefs are NEVER proven, as they wouldn't be beliefs otherwise.
You keep making things up that people haven't said and obviously do not mean.
He said I didn't demand evidence but when i was pushed to present evidence, i also demanded that atheists present evidence for their assumptions. Sorry but this obviously is a very typical human reaction on my part and i would have been an idiot if, as a response to the challenge, i didn't demand evidence for the assumptions of natural origins. Am i supposed to NOT question and reply to atheists challenges with contra challenges? If they were certain of their position and were on solid ground, that should have been no problem at all.