It's a circular argument and it's to be expected from a creationist.
Naturalism is based on evidence. A naturalistic worldview literally means to base your views on the world solely on evidence.
A certain degree of circular reasoning is required for any possible beginning, and actually, surprisingly, creationism uses less circular reasoning than Evolution. Evolution says that all batter came from "The Big Bang", but when further questioned, cannot explain where "The Big Bang" came from. Or if they do, they claim that the universe is just one big fluctuating wave, and that it periodically collapses into a tiny point, and then expands again.
There is no such thing as "Basing your view solely on evidence" the majority of the evidence out there supports both Creationism and Evolution.
Example: Trilobites. For those of you that do no know, a Trilobite is a marine invertebrate that survived on the bottom of bodies of water. We find fossils of these all over the world, which most people interpret to meant that, at one point or another, all of those places were underwater. Creationists would expect to find this because of the world-wide flood that occurred in Noah's time. Evolutionists expect to see this because the world that the trilobites lived in is several million years old, and the Earth has changed geologically many times since then.
Evidence does not "speak for itself". That is the fallacy of Personification.
And other miracles such as sickness, suffering, death, and torture
Where was your god when this stuff was happening to people
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breaking_wheel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_to_death
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flaying
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slow_slicing in my opinion the worst
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disembowelment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion inb4foroursins
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Death
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust
I should ask you where was your Evolution at that time? Why didn't people Evolve all of a sudden to be immune to these things?
To answer your question, directly, though, God isn't some magic genie that asks you what three wishes you want. He is not controllable, trainable, or anything like that. If the people in question that were dying were Christians, they were safe anyways.
After all, God is a just and loving God!
Yes, he is very loving. He created us in the first place, and then we betrayed him. Then people decided to keep not listening to him, and they started claiming that he wasn't even their creator, so he decided to wipe them out. He saw that he still had a loyal follower, and he not only spared that loyal follower, but his entire extended family, and two of each kind of animal that can't survive in water. Then he destroyed the rest of the Earth with an enormous flood, and let his world reform. Then, even after people sinned billions upon billions of times after that, he still spared them. Then he even sent his freaking
son to save us, if we want to be saved.
Think about that for a moment. Would you send
your son to go die an innocent horrific death for some people that don't even acknowledge you??? No. That, there, my friend, is pure love.
who? if you mean god, disprove the teapot between earth and mars (portrayed in my avatar). it's too small to see with a telescope by the way IF YOU CAN'T THEN I'M RIGHT
That's exactly how the theory of Evolution started :c
Your teapot has no relevance to me, so I won't attempt to disprove it.
If you are trying to make a comparison between your theory of the teapot, and the theory of Creationism, I would argue that the comparison is flawed in one main point.
There was never a reliable secondary source that claimed that there is a teapot between Earth and Mars, however, there is one for the theory of Creationism.
ur dum. Existence of the universe does not prove your religion or opinion correct as there are a million religions / opinions that could also claim that.
Here's a bit of evidence for you, and before you decide it's fake or pull arguments from the "criticism" section, get a basic understanding of biology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution
From what I can draw your "Nuclear Apologetics" thing is some speech given by an obviously highly biased person in support of your opinion.
I'm not even going to bother explaining to you why the bible is not evidence disproving evolution.
Comets have nothing to do with evolution, but the reason they are still around is they can still from from nebulae and water-containing particle clouds.
There is in fact evidence of the Oort cloud, moron.
Presence of DNA as well as its ability to mutate and change over time as well as the influence of natural selection are irrefutable. You cannot say that DNA does not exist because not only are there absolute piles of evidence supporting its existence but many people including myself have actually seen DNA with their own eyes.
To your bias accusation: Of course I'm biased. You're biased too, and so is everyone in the world. It is a fallacy to claim otherwise. You, I think, are even more biased than me in thinking that Evolution has no assumptions, and is solely based on evidence. The "obviously highly biased person" is, however, correct about the Nuclear Apologetics.
"I'm not even going to bother explaining to you why the bible is not evidence disproving evolution."
Because you can't 
"There is in fact evidence of the Oort cloud, moron."
Ouch! An insult!
What evidence, I must wonder? (You Evolutionists always claim to have the evidence, but don't give examples.)
I have seen DNA , too, and am not claiming it doesn't exist. If you are trying to prove that DNA can mutate, I don't deny that. Your own scientists have admitted that Mutation alone is not nearly enough for organisms to evolve. I don't deny any of that. So what are you trying to prove there?
"Comets have nothing to do with evolution, but the reason they are still around is they can still from from nebulae and water-containing particle clouds."
Maybe that could explain why there are still comets after 500,000 years, maybe even a million. But billions? No way. There is simply not enough left over matter in our solar system. At least 90% has been drawn to asteroids, planets, and the Sun. That cannot account for billions of years.
They do, in fact, have much to do with Evolution. They show that the Solar System cannot be billions of years old.
(I saved the best for last)
"Here's a bit of evidence for you, and before you decide it's fake or pull arguments from the "criticism" section, get a basic understanding of biology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution"
I do basically understand Biology. It has logic to it, so Evolution cannot be true.
As to the evidence you presented itself, here is a reliable article that is not open for the general public to modify.
:D
Quote from that site:
"What the Independent article fails to acknowledge is that criticism of the peppered moth experiments did not hinge on whether or not the population observations were correct. It was the experimental methodology and the conclusions that were criticized. If the population distribution evidences are correct, then this is no problem for creationists. After all, we have here an example of moths evolving into ... well, moths. This involves a rearrangement of genetic information that already was in existence. It does not involve an increase in genetic information of the kind that would be required for “molecules-to-man” evolution.
Kettlewell’s techniques were first criticized not by creationists, but by fellow evolutionists. It is alleged in Judith Hooper’s book, Of Moths and Men, that some of the famous photographs were taken by gluing dead moths to trees. This is because the moths do not tend to settle on the bark, but fly up into the canopies. A criticism of this methodology does not negate the population observations, and if Majerus now has proof that birds are eating the relevant amounts of moths, then creationists would have no problem with that.
It is noteworthy that the Independent article suggests that there were flaws with Kettlewell’s methodology. The article ought to state what these flaws were; otherwise, the accusation that “scientists at the centre of these experiments set out to prove the story irrespective of the evidence” still stands. In a scientific study, the end does not justify the means. Even if the conclusion is correct, the experiment is rendered invalid if the methodology is dishonest."
Poll