How can I tell that God exists and how do I know when he is affecting my life

Try starting with a Bible. Read it, get involved in church. Learn to pray, become saved, work for God... And you will know it.

I'm sure you'll get all sorts of different answers here, but the bottom line is...




How can I tell that God exists

You can't.



... and how do I know when he is affecting my life

You don't. It's really that simple.

The fact that you are alive and asking these questions is proof of His involvement.

Read the Bible - a translation that you can understand - ask plenty of questions.

Church - find one that you are comfortable with and demonstrates love.

You might also consider CS Lewis' "Mere Christianity," Phillip Yancey's "The Jesus I never knew." among others.



God Bless

The fact that you are alive and asking these questions is proof of His involvement.

C'mon! If you want to suggest to someone they should have faith, fine. But why must you resort to such utterly ignorant statements? Do you honestly think that being alive is 'proof' that an omniscient, all-powerful being is controlling the universe? I guess I should consider myself fortunate that I attended schools where the subjects of math and science were part of the curriculum.

How can I tell that God exists and how do I know when he is affecting my life
All you have to do is look around you to the wonders of nature and universe all this surely couldn't have come about by accident. God Bless

try starting with a Bible. read it, get involved in church. learn to pray, become saved, work for God..... And you will know it.


One of the best answers I've heard in a long time.

And of course people, you and your unique body. The 1000's of miles of blood vessels, the nervoius system, the bain, emotions and more.
How anyone can look at the wonders of the human body and even doubt there is a God is beyond me. And then look at the treees, the ocean and the stars and planets. The way they are held in place by gravity and don't all fly away in all directions.

This is the obvious way to see that God is there. We also know he is here and that he cares because we read it in the bible. We all can have doubts sometimes because of things in our life, we see that also in the bible. But it is though our faith, that we learn and find a closer relastionship withhim.

Be a part of the miracle of birth. I can honestly say I have never felt the power of God or understood his love for his children any more than at the birth of my children.

Faith…

There are two options:

A person can put their faith in a secular world where truth is whatever a particular society says it is. Where nothing is grounded but rather all life is an accident and is adrift in a sea of changing virtues and morals.

Some come to believe simply by observing the universe around them. For many, that in itself gives enough evidence to convince them that there must be a Creator.

But this is not enough- you need something else that God has provided The Bible—God's inspired Word, in which he reveals his will and purpose. (2 Timothy 3:16, 17) “But what of the terrible things done by people who claim to follow the Bible” someone may ask; granted, Christendom has a shocking record of hypocrisy, brutality, and immorality. But any reasonable person can see that Christendom only pretends to follow Bible principles.—Matthew 15:8.


“Faith is a living, daring confidence in God's grace, so sure and certain that the believer would stake his life on it a thousand times.”—MARTIN LUTHER, 1522.

To many, “faith” simply means having a religious belief or following a form of worship. As used in the Bible, however, “faith” basically means total trust—complete, unshakable confidence in God and his promises. It is a quality that marks a disciple of Jesus Christ.

Without God's Word it is impossible to build real faith. It is only through the pages of the Bible that He presents his side of things. He explains such reoccurring questions as why he has permitted suffering and pain and what he will do about the situation. (Psalm 119:105; Romans 15:4)

Jigicou asks, How can I tell that God exists?
By having faith.

how do I know when he is affecting my life?
By counting the blessings you get.

Life is full of struggles and suffering along with the happy and prosperous times.

A pretend world where a benevolent monarch rules and rewards his followers is a happy place for one's mind to reflect on-a welcome relief-from the challenges and competence the real world requires.

There is no GodAlmighty as described in the Bible, but people *decide* to make him their "God" because of childhood indoctrination or conversion and the comfort they feel as believers.

A pretend world where a benevolent monarch rules and rewards his followers is a happy place for one's mind to reflect on-a welcome relief-from the challenges and competence the real world requires.

There is no GodAlmighty as described in the Bible, but people *decide* to make him their "God" because of childhood indoctrination or conversion and the comfort they feel as believers.

I hate to even imagine that there are people in this world who do not believe in God. But it is even worse that some of these non-believers will come to a Christian forum where people are wanting to know about God and tell souls who are looking for something in their lives, that God doesn't exist. This is an absolute lie and I think that may be you can find a soapbox on an appropriate forum, like Atheism.

Most of those that claim to "not beleive" do kown there is a God but they do not want to change or accept that man is not the most important thing, remember in the end, as the bible tells us, there is no sitting on the fence you are either a follower or you belong to the other side.
They can pretend not to serve a master but they do, they only choose by not accepting Christ, to follow the other one.

And yes, esp when those that claiim they "don't beleive" in a God come to attack Christians on their forum, to me it shows more than a mere non belief, it shows an attack, which even shows more their true motives in life to turn others away from God. We are told a tree is judged by the fruit it bears, that sort of fruit makes it roots obvous.

Most of those that claim to "not beleive" do kown there is a God but they do not want to change or accept that man is not the most important thing, remember in the end, as the bible tells us, there is no sitting on the fence you are either a follower or you belong to the other side.
They can pretend not to serve a master but they do, they only choose by not accepting Christ, to follow the other one.

You're so right! When people are looking for answers about God and Christ, they don't need a stumbling block in their way. And a non-believer trying to bring someone else down to their anti-Christ ways is definitely a stumbling block. But I believe Jesus will find a way around them and if we just keep answering their questions with God's truth, if they are truly looking for Christ, they will find Him.

Just a suggestion, The Message, it's a translation of the Bible, is a great one to start with, as your faith grows get a good study Bible! You will find the answers there! Good Luck, I will be praying for you!

C'mon! If you want to suggest to someone they should have faith, fine. But why must you resort to such utterly ignorant statements? Do you honestly think that being alive is 'proof' that an omniscient, all-powerful being is controlling the universe? I guess I should consider myself fortunate that I attended schools where the subjects of math and science were part of the curriculum.

Strange. Do you believe in the big bang lobrobster?

strange. Do you believe in the big bang lobrobster?

I believe in EVIDENCE.

If you want to know God be a scientist. Or at least look at his creatures.. and at the harmony in the universe... Everything around us reminds us of the almighty God who created everything with extreme care and precision.
Someone said in the past that if you want to know God.. imagine yourself alone.. like being in a ship on sea or in some other deserted place where none can hear you and none can help you.. When something goes wrong (storm or some danger).. the only one you would call is God.. and when he get you to safety you would know that he is.

If you want to know God be a scientist. Or at least look at his creatures.. and at the harmony in the universe... Everything around us reminds us of the almighty God who created everything with extreme care and precision.

This is sheer unadulterated ignorance.


When something goes wrong (storm or some danger).. the only one you would call is God..

And WHICH God should you call? Oh, never mind. The only right God is the one YOU believe in. Right?

You don't know that god exists, you believe it. If you sinccerely believe in god he does exist. Its simple, you don't really need a lot of organized religion and stuff. I'm jewish, but I don't believe everything the torah says, like I'm not a creationist, I believe in evolution, but I still believe in god

And WHICH God should you call? Oh, never mind. The only right God is the the one YOU believe in. Right?
Not all people are monotheists unless you speak for yourself... What I mentioned works for atheists (in fact it was a real story.. regarding an atheist) as well as for monotheist as you are.

Not all people are monotheists unless you speak for yourself... What I mentioned works for atheists (in fact it was a real story.. regarding an atheist) as well as for monotheist as you are.

You didn't answer the question. You said that in a time of storm the only one you would call is God. So you try and wiggle out of that by saying you didn't mean any one particular God? 1 God, many Gods, how do you know which one to call upon? Shall we ignore Zeus, Wotan, and Thor, and stick with the modern day Gods like Allah and the Christian God?

You also said:
If you want to know God be a scientist.

Really... Then how do you explain that 98% of National Academy of Sciences members are atheists? And biologists (who make their living studying the living organisms, which you imagine lead towards belief in God), are MORE likely not to believe in God than the average scientist!

Btw- I am not a monotheist. The existence of any god is highly unlikely. The existence of multiple gods even more so.

lobrobster


"Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?
Tell me, if you have understanding.

Who determined its measurements -- surely you know!
Or who stretched the line upon it?

On what were its bases sunk,
or who laid its cornerstone,
when the morning stars sang together,
and all the sons of God shouted for joy?" {Job 38:4-7 RSV}


"Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?"

Where was man? He was not even in existence yet. That is why in all the centuries since this question was asked of Job, science has never been able to settle the question of origin. Where did the universe come from? How did it originate? Who brought it into being? What process was followed? The whole world is debating that question today, but science has never been able to answer the question of the origin of the earth so what “evidence” is it that you follow?

The only answer that science can give today is gravity, but what is gravity? Here again is a question that we still cannot answer today. How is the earth suspended between the various heavenly bodies in such a way that it moves in such orderly procession through the illimitable reaches of space? How can it be? We still do not know. Finally, God says, "Were you there when it happened?" and he links it with a tremendous event when the whole creation seemed to break into harmony and melody, "when the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy."

On Faith some people would have it that it was all just an accident.

lobrobster


"Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?
Tell me, if you have understanding.

Who determined its measurements -- surely you know!
Or who stretched the line upon it?

On what were its bases sunk,
or who laid its cornerstone,
when the morning stars sang together,
and all the sons of God shouted for joy?" {Job 38:4-7 RSV}


"Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?"

Where was man? He was not even in existence yet. That is why in all the centuries since this question was asked of Job, science has never been able to settle the question of origin. Where did the universe come from? How did it originate? Who brought it into being? What process was followed? The whole world is debating that question today, but science has never been able to answer the question of the origin of the earth so what “evidence” is it that you follow?

The only answer that science can give today is gravity, but what is gravity? Here again is a question that we still cannot answer today. How is the earth suspended between the various heavenly bodies in such a way that it moves in such orderly procession through the illimitable reaches of space? How can it be? We still do not know. Finally, God says, "Were you there when it happened?" and he links it with a tremendous event when the whole creation seemed to break into harmony and melody, "when the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy."

On Faith some people would have it that it was all just an accident.


You are correct that we do not yet have the answers to origin or abiogenesis. But just because science cannot yet provide a definitive conclusion, does not mean that we get to make up our own answer!

Also FYI- There are actually a number of problems with gravity and it is NOT well understood! Mainly, it should be much more powerful than it is. Quantum and string theory suggest that it may be 'leaking' into other dimensions!

My main point is that you should describe your beliefs about invisible entities and other imaginary conclusions as 'faith' and leave it at that. People like myself might not agree with your reasons, but it holds some respectable quality in that you at least acknowledge your use of 'faith'. I do not mean to denounce those with faith. I don't agree with it, but everyone has a right to believe what they want despite a complete lack of evidence for their beliefs. It's only when people try to use science to support these beliefs. That's when they begin to make serious fools of themselves. Science has nothing to say about invisible gods, except that they are very unlikely to exist.

Simone de Beauvoir once said: “It was easier for me to think of a world without a creator than of a creator loaded with all the contradictions of the world.”

If there was no Creator, then it follows that life must have started spontaneously by chance. Furthermore, for life to have begun and been sustained on earth, these chance events would have had to be repeated thousands of times. But how likely is it for even one such event to take place?

On the other hand, by studying the physical world, from the minute subatomic particles to the vast galaxies, scientists have discovered that all known natural phenomena appear to follow certain basic laws. In other words, they have discovered logic and order in everything that is taking place in the universe, and not chance.

Origin of Species presented a direct challenge to the Bible's teaching of creation by God. What was the response of the churches? At first the clergy in England and elsewhere denounced the theory. But opposition soon faded. It seemed that Darwin's speculations were just the excuse sought by many clergymen who were entertaining doubts in secret. Thus, within Darwin's lifetime, “most thoughtful and articulate clergy had worked their way to the conclusion that evolution was wholly compatible with an enlightened understanding of scripture,” says The Encyclopedia of Religion.

Rather than come to the defense of the Bible, Christendom yielded to the pressure of scientific opinion and played along with what was popular. What did the churches do? Instead of taking a stand for what the Bible teaches, they gave in to the pressures and compromised even on such fundamental articles of faith as creation by God and the authenticity of the Bible. The result? Christendom's churches began to lose credibility, and many people began to lose faith. The failure of the churches to come to their own defense left the door wide open for the masses to march out. To many people, religion became no more than a sociological relic, something to mark the high points in one's life—birth, marriage, death. Many all but gave up the search for the true God.

As P. Valadier stated:
“It was the Christian tradition that produced atheism as its fruit; it led to the murder of God in the consciences of men because it presented them with an unbelievable God.” Be that as it may, we can take comfort in the words of the apostle Paul: “What, then, is the case? If some did not express faith, will their lack of faith perhaps make the faithfulness of God without effect? Never may that happen! But let God be found true, though every man be found a liar.” (Romans 3:3, 4)


Yes, there is every reason to continue the search for the true God

Lobrobster is correct in one point when he asks "which god". The world is full of "gods".

1 Cor 8:5-6
5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)
6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
(KJV)

The only believeable god is the one who has revealed Himself to mankind in a tangible way.

John 6:46
46 Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.
(KJV)

This has to be understood in the light of other Scriptures. Abraham did see God in the form of a man, but not in His glory.

John 14:9-11
9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? He that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?
10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? The words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.
(KJV)

Here Jesus plainly tells us that he has shown us exactly what the Father is like, and verified that revelation by performing miracles. There is no need to guess.

You didn't answer the question. You said that in a time of storm the only one you would call is God. So you try and wiggle out of that by saying you didn't mean any one particular God? 1 God, many Gods, how do you know which one to call upon? Shall we ignore Zeus, Wotan, and Thor, and stick with the modern day Gods like Allah and the Christian God?

.
When one believes in Zeus and the other gang.. he would turn back to the only real God.. when he get in real trouble.. That is what was trying to say.. Whether you have 200 Gods or only one.. when things get serious.. you return back to the real only one.

Really.... Then how do you explain that 98% of National Academy of Sciences members are atheists? And biologists (who make their living studying the living organisms, which you imagine lead towards belief in God), are MORE likely not to believe in God than the average scientist!

Btw- I am not a monotheist. The existence of any god is highly unlikely. The existence of multiple gods even more so.
Explanantion : How many people do know that smoking is a direct cause to cancer.. (same applies to alcohol)? So this replies to your question.. about scientists.. You know the truth and turn your back to it.. and exactly happens with smokers who are absolutely sure that smoking is very likely to get cancer.

I said to know God not to believe in God... cos you may believe in him without knowing his greatness.. BUT scientists DO KNOW how great he is.. but whether to believe in him or not.. that is another question.

When you say the existence of any god.. etc.. . how do you know ? Are you a scientist? Did your experimentations and knowledge lead you to that conslusion? I am sure not.. so again.. go and learn.. (be a scientist) and I assure you you would know something better than saying.. 'I guess'.
By the way.. some scientists did mention the probability thing.. and they proved that the probability of having no God is somehing close to ZERO (they said.. 1/10000.. I don't know many many exactly.. but so long 0000etc.).

How can I tell that God exists and how do I know when he is affecting my life

How can you tell that God exists? - When you see the sun rise in the morning and the stars in the sky at night. When you see children smiling free and happy. When you see the elderly walking past as if they know something you don't. When you feel a love in your heart for other's you only meet once. When you feel safe and secure and looked after, but no one else is there. When you feel loved and cherished in your quiet moments. When in your heart you know it's right to give and forgive. When it's easier for you to love then hate. When you look all around you, at the beauty that has been created both of nature and the people walking by. That is how you know that God exsist

How can you tell that God is effecting your life? - When you wish to do better and feel that you can. When you want to help someone and know that you will. When you forgive someone who has hurt you and want the best for them. When you are sorry for the things you should not have done and feel great joy for doing the things you should do. When you feel love in your heart for all the people in the world and want to share that love. When difficult times approach, but you feel a strength you didn't know that you have and mostly when you have peace at heart and want to share that peace with others. When you can accept and love, those who look like you, those who don't, those that sound like you, those that don't, those that beleive as you do and those that dont, that's when you know God is effecting your life.

You know the truth and turn your back to it.. and exactly happens with smokers who are absolutely sure that smoking is very likely to get cancer.


Does that explain the many who die of cancer, who have never smoked? Or does it confirm that there are other factors, besides smoking? As with the God we choose to believe in, is HE only found in your bible? Or can we find him elsewhere? HMMMM! Wonder if the OP, is still around and has formed an opinion?

I feel him when I pray. And I have been healed when I was very sick. And I have seen many many miracles. My best friend was driving to the doctor crying because she was on her way to get a hysterectomy, they said she was eaten up with endometriosis and it all had to come out she wouldn't be able to ever have a baby and when she got to the doctor, they prepared her for surgery and as she waited for them to come and get her she prayed and asked God
Why he was letting this happen to her and in the middle of all of her crying she started laughing hysterically. Of course it sounded like she was going crazy, but when the nurse came in she said they had to do a few test before the surgery as for procedure. 15 minutes later the doctor came in the room and said that she was pregnant, one of the test they had to do was a pregnancy test and it was positive. Her sons name is Jacob and he's just precious. I have many amazing things that I have seen with my own eyes and I sit here with a smile on my face just thinking about them. I love the lord with all of my heart and his spirit is part of who I am. That's the only way that I can tell you to know that he's real I could say look at the things around you or feel your heartbeat but others would find some way to explain it so that they don't have to believe. But to feel him in your heart and to have him speak to your spirit no one can explain that away. He loves you even if you question him, in other words he's good even when we're not thanks to his mercy. I urge you to get wisdom from his word. If you will study in the bible you will see all of the things that was suppose to happen has happened . He looks down on some of these conversations I'm sure with such sadness, but I hope that you will at least consider him because he's good to me all of the time. If the bible is confusing to you I can offer a few songs to you so that you may understand a little from that direction of learning. Good luck in your search to find him but if you will look about 5 inches or so beneath your chin I believe you might feel him.

I have seen many miricles in my own life too. I think it takes more faith to be an athiestist than it does to believe there is a supernatural designer and creator.

You are correct that we do not yet have the answers to origin or abiogenesis. But just because science cannot yet provide a definitive conclusion, does not mean that we get to make up our own answer!

Also FYI- There are actually a number of problems with gravity and it is NOT well understood! Mainly, it should be much more powerful than it is. Quantum and string theory suggest that it may be 'leaking' into other dimensions!

My main point is that you should describe your beliefs about invisible entities and other imaginary conclusions as 'faith' and leave it at that. People like myself might not agree with your reasons, but it holds some respectable quality in that you at least acknowledge your use of 'faith'. I do not mean to denounce those with faith. I don't agree with it, but everyone has a right to believe what they want despite a complete lack of evidence for their beliefs. It's only when people try to use science to support these beliefs. That's when they begin to make serious fools of themselves. Science has nothing to say about invisible gods, except that they are very unlikely to exist.

Lobrobster you also have "faith". You have dismissed the possibility of God's existence despite the fact that you have no way of proving it. Instead you have chosen to put your faith in the hope that scientist will figure out the origin. So your views are not based on evidence but rather on faith.

Can't believe I missed the opening of this thread.

As always these discussions play out this way, so I too shall play along.

One argument as to the existence of God is actually quite simple to understand. If you visited Mars and happened upon a watch, fully functional, working parts, would you not logically conclude that something/someone was here before you? As Fr. Chuck mentioned, look around at the complexity of every living thing and tell me was this just a random mish mash of gases and matter formed? Everything has order, everything has a purpose, it is called intelligent deseign.

The only counter argument to the above mentioned is that if you were to place a million monkeys in a room with typewriters they would eventually reproduce all of Shakespears plays. That, to me, is a more foolish idea than the existence of a God, logically speaking.

Seems as if non-beleivers place such faith in science and therefore man. If God truly wishes to remain hidden, do you think man could uncover this? Science, for all it worth, has not even begin to discover all the truths about Planet Earth, let alone the Universe. (Actually I urge all to watch the BBC program called Planet Earth, just for the fact it is wonderfully educational and well done, although it is applicable to this discussion).

I think it takes more faith to be an athiestist than it does to believe there is a supernatural designer and creator.Actually it doesn't. It takes no faith.

Lobrobster you also have "faith". You have dismissed the possiblity of God's existance despite the fact that you have no way of proving it. Instead you have chosen to put your faith in the hope that scientist will figure out the origin. So your views are not based on evidence but rather on faith.Please read this: Negative proof - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof)

Please read this: Negative proof - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof)


An atheist doesn't simply lack positive belief in God. The atheist has positive belief in the non-existence of God

So it is not a matter of negative proof. It is a matter of dismissing God's existence despite one's inabity to prove he does not exist.
Other wise one could just make a statement that "there are no cows in india"... well can you prove it... "huh...no it would be negative proof"
That does make sense, its just a cop out. If you want to claim there are no cows in india, prove it. If you can't prove it and you still believe it, then we can rightfully say that you have "faith" that cows don't exist in India.
In the same way if you can not prove god does not exist but you choose to believe it anyway. Im afraid that's faith.

Even bold letters won't help your argument:
atheism - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism)

atheism
To a: a disbelief in the existence of deity b: the doctrine that there is no deity

Even bold letters won't help your argument:
atheism - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism)

a·the·ism (ā'thē-ĭz'əm)
n.
Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

atheism: Definition and Much More from Answers.com (http://www.answers.com/atheism&r=67)

Yes this definition proves atheism is a "doctine" based on faith not fact

Ok, if that gives some form of comfort then you can believe that. Doesn't change the way I live. :)

Ok, if that gives some form of comfort then you can believe that. Doesn't change the way I live. :)


You have found a faith that works so good for you :)

The living without the belief in any god whatsover is working out great and I recommend it to others.

Can't beleive I missed the opening of this thread.

As always these discussions play out this way, so I too shall play along.

One argument as to the existence of God is actually quite simple to understand. If you visited Mars and happened upon a watch, fully functional, working parts, would you not logically conclude that something/someone was here before you? As Fr. Chuck mentioned, look around at the complexity of every living thing and tell me was this just a random mish mash of gases and matter formed? Everything has order, everything has a purpose, it is called intelligent deseign.

The only counter argument to the above mentioned is that if you were to place a million monkies in a room with typewriters they would eventually reproduce all of Shakespears plays. That, to me, is a more foolish idea than the existence of a God, logically speaking.

Seems as if non-beleivers place such faith in science and therefore man. If God truly wishes to remain hidden, do you think man could uncover this? Science, for all it worth, has not even begin to discover all the truths about Planet Earth, let alone the Universe. (Actually I urge all to watch the BBC program called Planet Earth, just for the fact it is wonderfully educational and well done, although it is applicable to this discussion).


It's amazing how this world would rather believe in gas and chemicals causing a heart to beat or the waves to crash against a catrillion grains of sand or a life to form inside of a person and know just when to come out and when to breathe, than to believe that god was here before all of this and formed it according to his will.

The living without the belief in any god whatsover is working out great and I recommend it to others.

But it is esp the dying without God that makes the biggest difference.

To you it does, I agree.

I just find it strange that people think that christianity and theism is such a great leap of faith, there are just as many holes in evolution and big bang theory.

Agreed cal. That's not why I'm an atheist at all. I don't think anyone is an atheist because the big bang theory and evolution is their gospel.

True, I'm not saying that all atheists are irrational enough to see a theory such as the big bang as gospel without further evidence.
What really astounds me, is how people can turn to such irrational beliefs such as scientology (an evil alien overlord who took people in airliners with rocket engines to earth and blew them up at volcanoes, then brainwashing the spirits in cinemas, followed by the spirits clinging to people)
When there are more logical and rational alternatives.
No offense to any scientologists out there.

Scientology is a big scam/cult (offense to scientologists intended) but we see those stories as not much different than most bible stories.

See that's where the big problem for me is, because I can see plenty of rational and logical evidence and reasoning for both christianity/theism, and atheism.
I prefer to look at both sides and see the reasons for them, while many of both belief systems see it as one sided, despite both world views being pretty reasonable, if you just take the time to look at both sides exstensivly.

But I have - I was raised roman catholic and went to catholic school. Baptised, first communion, etc.
My life is just fine without all that.

i just find it strange that people think that christianity and theism is such a great leap of faith, there are just as many holes in evolution and big bang theory.

Just to clear this up. Evolution and big bang theory have explained just about every piece of evidence thrown at them so far. They change to fit the evidence - which is what makes science so powerful. Evolution is used reliably to make predictions about how populations of organisms behave over time and these predictions go into our health service and make drugs which are effective. It also informs us how to use drugs to avoid the evolution of bacteria that we cannot defeat.

This is not what the topic is about but I wanted to make sure science was not misrepresented.

Hmmm... okay, have you explained the whole "how did the big bang create the universe without something before it" thing?
Because science tells us that everything has a beginning, and that's really one of my core reasons for believing that there has to be an eternal creator, that exists out of time, because otherwise you get into the loop of "thingo a was created by thingo b, but where did thingo b come from? it must have been created by thingo c, but where did thingo c come from?"
Sorry for getting a little of topic, just would like a rational explanation for that, and if I can get a rational explanation telling me an alternative to an eternal creator to start the big bang, and I might just revise my beliefs.

...and i might just revise my beliefs.Nah, you really wouldn't. :)

Atheists are fond of saying that what we creationists think about the universe is based on our early education (presuppositions). I contend that SOME scientists base their belief in evolution on their own suppositions. In spite of what some would have us to believe, there are many qualified scientists who believe in creation.

If there was enough logical evidence and reasoning presented to me, it would be irrational not to.

hmmm....okay, have you explained the whole "how did the big bang create the universe without something before it" thing?
Because science tells us that everything has a beginning, and thats really one of my core reasons for believing that there has to be an eternal creator, that exists out of time, because otherwise you get into the loop of "thingo a was created by thingo b, but where did thingo b come from? it must have been created by thingo c, but where did thingo c come from?"
sorry for getting a little of topic, just would like a rational explanation for that, and if i can get a rational explanation telling me an alternative to an eternal creator to start the big bang, and i might just revise my beliefs.

No. The big bang theory does not describe what caused the expansion, it doesn't claim to, it doesn't have to. It only describes what happened after t=0. Perhaps this is a problem with it for you, but big bang theory, in what it claims to explain, does not have holes. We observe it, we make predictions with it, it works.

There are many hypotheses about where the big bang came from - that's for another topic if you want to start it in astronomy or physics. But I would appreciate it if you waited a few days - I have a very busy few days ahead.

No. The big bang theory does not describe what caused the expansion, it doesn't claim to, it doesn't have to. It only describes what happened after t=0. Perhaps this is a problem with it for you, but big bang theory, in what it claims to explain, does not have holes. We observe it, we make predictions with it, it works.

There are many hypotheses about where the big bang came from - that's for another topic if you want to start it in astronomy or physics. But I would appreciate it if you waited a few days - I have a very busy few days ahead.

The·o·ry (thē'ə-rē, thîr'ē)
n. pl. -ries.

-An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.
-A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.


Exactly my point. You can only hypothesize, make assumptions, theories, make conjectures, guess and speculate but the bottom line is, it is not fact and the fact that you believe it despite solid evidence means you have faith in evolution and the big bang.

it is not fact and the fact that you believe it despite solid evidence Which solid evidence is that?

Also you may want to read this:

"In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behavior are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and the theory of general relativity.

In common usage, the word theory is often used to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. This usage of theory leads to the common incorrect statements. True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements which would be true independently of what people think about them."

i just find it strange that people think that christianity and theism is such a great leap of faith, there are just as many holes in evolution and big bang theory.
I have to step in a put a word in for evolution here.

There were holes in the theory of evolution about one hundred years ago. There aren't any more. The fossil record has been completely filled for the development of many organisms, yes there are still gaps here and there but there is more than enough evidence to support the thoery. There is clear evidence on the nucleotide sequence and protein sequence level. It has been witnessed and recorded. It has been computer modelled. You can even see it in developmental biology.

Without evolution how do you explain a dolphin foetus developing hind leg buds (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=414678&in_page_id=1770) only to reabsorb them again? Why does an elephant have a kidney structure akin to an aquatic mammal? Why do giraffes have a nerve that runs from their brain all the way down their neck just to return up to their ear, when in fish it just goes straight across?

Cal you're a smart guy so have a look for yourself
This page has a nice layman’s summary of the evidence for evolution to date. Evidence for Evolution (Contents) (http://txtwriter.com/Backgrounders/Evolution/EVcontents.html)

This one is still a quick summary but goes onto a bit more depth on the molecular biology
Evidence Supporting Biological Evolution | Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition (http://www.nap.edu/html/creationism/evidence.html)

If you give me enough time and you are actually interested I could do a couple of protein and nucleotide sequence analysis and show you the evolutionary progression through organisms. It’s interesting if you like that sort of thing. However I’m not convinced anyone else would think so! If Capuchin showed me the equations supporting a lot of physics theories even if I understood them I’d probably find them really boring!

Even bold letters won't help your argument:
atheism - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism)
Dictionaries are great for someone who is just learning a new language, or children who need help in learning to communicate. However, abstract terms, like the term Atheist, are simply tools to use in understanding various shades of meaning. Generally the term Atheist is not one intoned by an individual towards themselves, but rather one bestowed on another based on some perceived belief in regards to what exists and what does not exist. :)

Dictionnaries are great for your entire life - surely you don't know the definition of every word.

But there are indeed denotations and connotations attributed to words; the connotations are the usual causes of arguments.

I have to step in a put a word in for evolution here.

There were holes in the theory of evolution about one hundred years ago. There aren't any more. The fossil record has been completely filled for the development of many organisms, yes there are still gaps here and there but there is more than enough evidence to support the thoery!

It takes more faith to believe a dolfin is the anscestor of a dog if you ask me.. lol

The bottom line is that evolution is not science fact. It is just a theory.
Definition of science
The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and explanation of phenomena.
Science means "to know" and "systematized knowledge derived from observation, study, identification etc." It is based on observation and experimentation. Evolutionists don't "know" anything about man's origins. They just theorise, speculate, guess, suppose, etc. but they don't "know." Honest scientists have become weary and embarrassed at the confusing, convoluted and contradictory stuff that often passes as science.

World famous scientist, G. G. Simpson stated, "It is inherent in any definition of science that statements that cannot be checked by observation are not about anything...or at the very best, they are not science."

There is no suffiecient fossil record to prove this theory. There are many incredible mistakes made by evolutionists: Haeckel's recapitulation theory that only third-rate scientists believe; also the vestigial organ error; the failure of the fossil record (that no informed evolutionist uses to prove his position), etc.

Evolutionist themselves admit that there is no fossil record of transitional forms of life; here is what both evolutionists and eminent scientists have said about the fossil record.

Dr. David Kitts, professor of geology at the University of Oklahoma said, "Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them...." And Lord Zuckerman admitted there are no "fossil traces" of transformation from an ape-like creature to man! Even Stephen J. Gould of Harvard admitted, "The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change." I assume that all believers in evolution know that Darwin admitted the same fact.

Famous fossil expert, Niles Eldredge confessed, "...geologists have found rock layers of all divisions of the last 500 million years and no transitional forms were contained in them." Dr. Eldredge further said, "...no one has yet found any evidence of such transitional creatures."

Biologist, Dr. Pierre Grasse, considered the greatest living scientist in France, wrote a book to "launch a frontal assault on all forms of Darwinism." Grasse is not a religious fanatic, yet he called evolution a "pseudo-science."

Dr. Soren Lovtrup, Professor of Zoo-physiology at the University of Umea in Sweden wrote, "I suppose that nobody will deny that it is a great misfortune if an entire branch of science becomes addicted to a false theory. But this is what has happened in biology: for a long time now people discuss evolutionary problems in a peculiar 'Darwinian' vocabulary...thereby believing that they contribute to the explanation of natural events." He went on to say, "I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science." He also said, "Evolution is 'anti-science.'" And so it is

Evolution is a guess, a speculation, an hypothesis, a theory, or even a faith if you will.

Famous fossil expert, Niles Eldredge confessed, "...geologists have found rock layers of all divisions of the last 500 million years and no transitional forms were contained in them." So the earth is not only 6,000 years old?

So the earth is not only 6,000 years old?
Of course not; you would do well to spend more time reading science and less time dictionaries. :p

Apparently you are not aware of this:
Young Earth creationism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_earth)

Young Earth creationism is the religious belief that Heaven, Earth, and life on Earth were created by a direct act of God dating between 6000[1] and 10,000 years ago. Its adherents are those Christians and Jews who believe that God created the Earth in six 24-hour days, taking the Hebrew text of Genesis as a literal account.

If you give me enough time and you are actually interested I could do a couple of protein and nucleotide sequence analysis and show you the evolutionary progression through organisms. It’s interesting if you like that sort of thing. However I’m not convinced anyone else would think so!
I'm interested! Maybe you could start a different thread to discuss it. Let me know if you do.

Apparently you are not aware of this:
Young Earth creationism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_earth)
The planet’s coming into existence is recounted in the Bible with the simple statement: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” (Ge 1:1) Just how long ago the starry heavens and the earth were created is not stated in the Bible. Therefore, there is no basis for Bible scholars to take issue with scientific calculations of the age of the planet. Scientists estimate the age of some rocks as being three and a half billion years, and the earth itself as being about four to four and a half billion or more years.

As to time, the Scriptures are more definite about the six creative days of the Genesis account. These days have to do, not with the creation of earth’s matter or material, but with the arranging and preparing of it for man’s habitation.

Therefore, there is no basis for Bible scholars to take issue with scientific calculations of the age of the planet.Well you may not of that belief but many others are. Remember that Christianity is a very fractured group of believers. As you have no doubt noticed on this site there are many who take the bible in all its literal meaning. The site I linked to explains it well; they use genealogies to establish that number.

If you believe it explains it well through genealogies then that is what you believe.


But the Bible is in harmony with scientific facts.

The Bible, at Job 26:7, speaks of God as “hanging the earth upon nothing.” Science says that the earth remains in its orbit in space primarily because of the interaction of gravity and centrifugal force. These forces, of course, are invisible. Therefore the earth, like other heavenly bodies, is suspended in space as if hanging on nothing. Speaking from Gods viewpoint, the prophet Isaiah wrote under inspiration: “There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth, the dwellers in which are as grasshoppers.” (Isa 40:22) The Bible says: “He [God] has described a circle upon the face of the waters.” (Job 26:10) The waters are limited by his decree to their proper place. They do not come up and inundate the land; neither do they fly off into space. (Job 38:8-11) From the viewpoint of Jehovah, the earth's face, or the surface of the waters, would, of course, have a circular form, just as the edge of the moon presents a circular appearance to us. Before land surfaces appeared, the surface of the entire globe was one circular (spherical) mass of surging waters.—Ge 1:2.

If you believe it explains it well through genealogies then that is what you believe.


But the Bible is in harmony with scientific facts.

The Bible, at Job 26:7, speaks of God as “hanging the earth upon nothing.” Science says that the earth remains in its orbit in space primarily because of the interaction of gravity and centrifugal force. These forces, of course, are invisible. Therefore the earth, like other heavenly bodies, is suspended in space as if hanging on nothing. Speaking from Gods viewpoint, the prophet Isaiah wrote under inspiration: “There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth, the dwellers in which are as grasshoppers.” (Isa 40:22) The Bible says: “He [God] has described a circle upon the face of the waters.” (Job 26:10) The waters are limited by his decree to their proper place. They do not come up and inundate the land; neither do they fly off into space. (Job 38:8-11) From the viewpoint of Jehovah, the earth's face, or the surface of the waters, would, of course, have a circular form, just as the edge of the moon presents a circular appearance to us. Before land surfaces appeared, the surface of the entire globe was one circular (spherical) mass of surging waters.—Ge 1:2.

I agree, the Bible talked of a spherical earth thousands of years before science figured it out.

The earth existed long before God created man.
Genesis 1:2
To the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

We don't know how long the earth was in this state. It could have been millions of years of years before god created plants trees animals and man.
Man was actually the last one to show up on the scene.

Scientist speculate on the age of the earth but no one can know with certainty. I think the only reason why some scientist say the earth is billions and billions of years old, is because they want to facilitate for the possibility of evolution. For something as far fetched as man sharing a common ancestor with a fruit fly, they definitely need the billions of years to make it anywhere close to believable.

"For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God."

"For it is written: 'I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.'"

"Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know Him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe."

"Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength." (1 Corinthians 18-25)

Much credit to the above posts, Donna, Sassy, and Dark Crow, very well researched and translated.

Discussions such as these tend to go around in a circular motion (ironic no?). Many "scientists" here use the terms and language to better convey what they are trying to say although some do indeed misrepresent the scientific community. Science does not claim there is no God, all these facts and figures saying that 98% of this group donot believe in God is very misleading. Science to date cannot prove that God exists, they may be able to prove it tomorrow, but based on technology at hand they cannot conclude a God does indeed exist. To say that they do not believe in God is something altogether different.

It is small wonder to a beleiver that science (man) cannot uncover these truths, as mentioned before, science has yet to discover much upon our own planet let alone reveal superior intelligence above and beyond the realm of earth. Many demand proof for the existence of God, proof that will never arrive in the form they wish to see it.

Fancy scientific wording and all that can only further the argument against God to a certain point. No theory can explain intelligent deseign (save the Bible, thank you for the reference Dark Crow). Some here view faith as silly, they even go as far to use the term logical in their arguments. To beleivers (well to me at least) the earth has laws, nowhere that man can see has life akin to our own planet, everything works, everything has a place. More importantly than the physical make up of the world is the moral make up of a human being. We know right from wrong (many will say it is taught to us during childhood, that's foolishness), a thief may continue to steal although he knows it to be wrong, the fact he continues to do it is his choice. All of these things cannot be scientifically proven or even accounted for, then the discussions turn into more foolish content, such as if God exists why does he not appear?

To put such emphasis on science is to put much faith in human kind, the Bible deals with this issue as well.

Hey just like they thought that some ridges in some valley were millions of years old, but proved only to be a couple of hundred, and the reason was for some kind of flood that happened there.

Jigicou
.
Your original question was :
.
How can I tell that God exists and how do I know when he is affecting my life ?
.
My reply to your original question is :
Nobody can prove to you that an entity described with "God" exists.
Nobody can prove to you that any deities exist.
All one can do is BELIEVE that God (and/or deities) exist.
.
As into how far the "God" entity is affecting your life :
.
There is no proof that "God" is affecting your life. Belief in "God" may affect your life "positively and/or negatively, but that effect is coming from you and the society around you.
.
"God's" existence is highly questionable, and only based on belief and faith.
You are - and always should be - free to believe what ever you want to believe.
Unfortunately most Christians (and most other followers of any other religion) are cherrypickers : they pick the nice things out of their religion, but sidestep the for them negative aspects (like love your brothers and sisters, love your neighbours, forgive other peoples "sin" - i.e. in this case the basics of Christianity).
.
So - even if belief in " - i.e. in this case the basics of Christianity).
.
So - even if belief in " affects your life, for most Christians it is mostly a self-centered and one-way filtered effect, and not the effect as JC intended it to be.
.

Jigicou
.
You are - and always should be - free to believe what ever you want to believe.
Unfortunately most Christians (and most other followers of any other religion) are cherrypickers : they pick the nice things out of their religion, but sidestep the for them negative aspects (like love your brothers and sisters, love your neighbours, forgive other peoples "sin" - i.e. in this case the basics of Christianity).
.
So - even if belief in "God" affects your life, for most Christians it is mostly a self-centered and one-way filtered effect, and not the effect as JC intended it to be.
.

Everyone is free to believe whatever they want to believe, just as a Christian believes that God is definitely real and that our job is to tell whoever will listen about Jesus and salvation.

Never liked picking cherries, but I certainly love my brothers and sisters and neighbors. And if I don't forgive others their sins, how can I expect them to forgive me mine? Everyone sins, we all need forgiveness, and Jesus is always there.

Never liked picking cherries, but I certainly love my brothers and sisters and neighbors. And if I don't forgive others their sins, how can I expect them to forgive me mine? Everyone sins, we all need forgiveness, and Jesus is always there.
Donna, you may do that, but the fact remains that most Christians are religious cherrypickers, and try to (mis)use the Bible for own gain. Super US examples of that species are extra-maritial sex-frolicking television evangelists with huge bank accounts, and prospering whorehouses and other sex establishments in a country that claims to be a 90% Christian nation. A nation where only a few decades ago groups of Christians wore white robes with pointed white hats who full of enthousiasm hung non-whites to the highest trees and lighted huge crosses. These "Christians" still exist, and some are still active.
.
The original question of this topic is :
"How can I tell that God exists and how do I know when he is affecting my life?"
.
The reality is that "nobody can PROVE that an entity described with "God" exists".
All one can do is BELIEVE that God exists.
.
As into if and how the so far not-proved-to-exist "God" entity is affecting your life :
Belief in "God" may affect your life "positively and/or negatively, but that effect is coming from you and the society around you.
.
So - even if belief in "positively and/or negatively, but that effect is coming from you and the society around you.
.
So - even if belief in " affects your life, for most Christians it is mostly a self-centered and one-way filtered effect, and not the effect as JC intended it to be.
.

Jesushelper76 stated in his rating : "Not all Christians fall under the category you mentioned though.
.
Of course. In view of the subject I was taking this rather in general.
:)

Capuchin disagrees: We know with certainty - we use radiometric dating to estimate the age of the Earth.

Scientist do not KNOW with certainty how old the earth is.
FACT: In the 19th century, it was proposed that the Earth may be as much as 70 million years old. Then, certain evidence was brought to light indicating that evolution was not possible in so short a time. So, the age of the Earth was pushed back.

FACT: During the 20th century, it was thought that the age of the Earth was as much as 1 billion years old. Now, with the development of radiometric dating and the application of that technique on the meteorite "Allende", it is thought that the world is up to 4.6 billion years old. However, this is not conclusive though. The assumptions that are fundamental to radiometric dating are extremely controversial, and are not held to be reasonable by some scientists and many leading scholars. Radiometric dating is flawed in that it is founded upon a series of faulty assumptions.

Ultimately, the age of the earth cannot be proven with certainty. Whether 6,000 years or 4.6 billion years – both viewpoints (and everything in between) rests on faith and assumptions. Those who hold to 4.6 billion years trust that methods such as radiometric dating and the assumptions they make are reliable.

Scientist do not KNOW with certainty how old the earth is.
FACT: In the 19th century, it was proposed that the Earth may be as much as 70 million years old. Then, certain evidence was brought to light indicating that evolution was not possible in so short a time. So, the age of the Earth was pushed back.

FACT: During the 20th century, it was thought that the age of the Earth was as much as 1 billion years old. Now, with the development of radiometric dating and the application of that technique on the meteorite "Allende", it is thought that the world is up to 4.6 billion years old. However, this is not conclusive though. The assumptions that are fundamental to radiometric dating are extremely controversial, and are not held to be reasonable by some scientists and many leading scholars. Radiometric dating is flawed in that it is founded upon a series of faulty assumptions.

Ultimately, the age of the earth cannot be proven with certainty. Whether 6,000 years or 4.6 billion years – both viewpoints (and everything in between) rests on faith and assumptions. Those who hold to 4.6 billion years trust that methods such as radiometric dating and the assumptions they make are reliable.

Now you're talking ridiculous. Assumptions have to be made in order to have a workable idea of reality. Tell me one thing that we KNOW without assumptions?

Also, you really need to understand that, to a scientist, a theory is closer to reality than a fact is. When you say something is not fact, but theory, you're really saying to me that it's closer to a description of reality.

Now you're talking ridiculous. Assumptions have to be made in order to have a workable idea of reality. Tell me one thing that we KNOW without assumptions?

Ridiculous? Mmm
I can tell you several things we know without having to put in place an assumption as a premise.
Facts do not require assuptions.

We KNOW:

- GW Bush is president of the United States
- Queen elizabeth II is the Queen of England

Scientific fact that don't require assuptions:
- The sun rays increase melanin production in skin
-blood containing oxygen is red
-water evaporates
-water, when cooled below a certain temp, turns into ice
-the heart is the organ responsible for pumping blood through out the body
-we breathe in oxygen and breathe out carbon dioxide

The list goes on. All the above are scientific facts that we all KNOW and no one can dispute. You don’t need to assume anything to know the above with certainty. One thing all of the above have in common is that they are observable so it is fact. Science is to observe.
On the other hand you can not say that the world is 4.5 billion years old with certainty unless you were there in the begging when it began to observe. Assuming that the assumptions made in radio dating are correct then yes the earth is 4.5 billion years. But the bottom line is that it is not fact because there is a evidence to prove that the assumptions used are not valid and there is also a large amount of evidence to prove a much younger earth.

Ridiculous? mmm
I can tell you several things we know without having to put in place an assumption as a premise.
Facts do not require assuptions.

We KNOW:

- GW Bush is president of the United States
- Queen elizabeth II is the Queen of England

Scientific fact that dont require assuptions:
- The sun rays increase melanin production in skin
-blood containing oxygen is red
-water evaporates
-water, when cooled below a certain temp, turns into ice
-the heart is the organ responsible for pumping blood through out the body
-we breathe in oxygen and breathe out carbon dioxide

The list goes on. All the above are scientific facts that we all KNOW and no one can dispute. You don't need to assume anything to know the above with certainty. One thing all of the above have in common is that they are observable so it is fact. Science is to observe.
On the other hand you can not say that the world is 4.5 billion years old with certainty unless you were there in the begging when it began to observe. Assuming that the assumptions made in radio dating are correct then yes the earth is 4.5 billion years. But the bottom line is that it is not fact because there is a evidence to prove that the assumptions used are not valid and there is also a large amount of evidence to prove a much younger earth.

I put it to you that just like your claim that the technique used to date the earth is not accurate, perhaps the techniques that you use to observe that water evaporates (for example) are not accurate. You do not observe water evaporating directly you just observed some photons that reflected off the water evaporating several nanoseconds ago. You ASSUME that nothing happens in between to skew your data. Just like we did not observe the creation of the Earth directly, we just observe the decay rates of radioactive isotopes that the Earth was created out of 4.5 billion years ago. Science is not only about observation, but also about inference.

Now you're talking ridiculous. Assumptions have to be made in order to have a workable idea of reality. Tell me one thing that we KNOW without assumptions?

Also, you really need to understand that, to a scientist, a theory is closer to reality than a fact is. When you say something is not fact, but theory, you're really saying to me that it's closer to a description of reality.

I think you may need to review the meaning of the common use of the word theory.

The·o·ry (thē'ə-rē, thîr'ē)
n. pl. -ries.

-Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
-A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
-An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.


Fact (făkt)
n.
-Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact

-Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.
-A real occurrence; an event
-Something undisputably true or real

Fact is reality

I put it to you that just like your claim that the technique used to date the earth is not accurate, perhaps the techniques that you use to observe that water evaporates (for example) are not accurate. You do not observe water evaporating directly you just observed some photons that reflected off of the water evaporating several nanoseconds ago. You ASSUME that nothing happens in between to skew your data. Just like we did not observe the creation of the Earth directly, we just observe the decay rates of radioactive isotopes that the Earth was created out of 4.5 billion years ago. Science is not only about observation, but also about inference.

I don't not have to assume anything to know water evaporates. I just have to open my eyes. Have you ever boiled a pot of water?

I dont not have to assume anything to know water evaporates. I just have to open my eyes. Have you ever boiled a pot of water?

You assume that the photons are not changed between hitting the water and reaching your eyes. You assume that your eyes convert the light into the right electrical impulses. You assume that your brain interprets these impulses correctly.

I could go on...

I think you may need to review the meaning of the common use of the word theory.

the·o·ry (thē'ə-rē, thîr'ē)
n., pl. -ries.

-Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
-A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
-An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.


fact (făkt)
n.
-Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact

-Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.
-A real occurrence; an event
-Something undisputably true or real

Fact is reality

What? We're talking about the scientific use, not the common use.

It's a scientific theory, not a common definition of theory. A scientific theory describes all available facts. It is a much higher held thing than a fact.

A scientist would call a common definition theory a hypothesis.

You assume that the photons are not changed between hitting the water and reaching your eyes. You assume that your eyes convert the light into the right electrical impulses. You assume that your brain interprets these impulses correctly.

I could go on...

That is an irrational argument. So you are saying that to know that water is evaporating from a boiling pot I have to assume that my brain is really interpreting that I am seeing the vapor? Come on..
So you are saying to know that blood with oxygen is red I have to assume that my eyes actually see color? So to know I exists I have to assume what? That I am not crazy? What? That just sounds like a convenient stretch to me.

Even if all knowledge requires an assumption (which it doesn't), it does not mean that all assumptions are accurate. I happen to believe the assumptions made in order to facilitate for radio dating are not accurate. There has been in recent years the realization that radio-decay rates are not as constant as previously thought, nor are they immune to environmental influences. And this could mean that the atomic clocks are reset. However if you believe they are accurate, then good for you. But the bottom line is no one can ever know with 100% certainty how old the earth is. There is certainly a lot more evidence to prove the earth is younger.

But the bottom line is no one can ever know with 100% certainty how old the earth is. There is certainly a lot more evidence to prove the earth is younger.

Whoa whoa whoa. 100% certainty? Have you never taken a science course? Science is all about estimating uncertainties so we know just how accurate our measurements are.

In the case of the Earth, it is 4.55 billion years old to within about 1%, that's about 4.5 tens of millions of years error.

Significant changes to rates of radiometric decay of isotopes relevant to geological dating have never been observed under any conditions.

What?? We're talking about the scientific use, not the common use.

It's a scientific theory, not a common definition of theory. A scientific theory describes all avaliable facts. It is a much higher held thing than a fact.

A scientist would call a common definition theory a hypothesis.


Capuchin, I'm not going to split hairs with you. The bottom line is that you have "faith" in the assumptions used for radio dating and I don't share the same faith in it. I and many other people have a valid reason to believe the assuptions are flawed. Not all scientists agree with the method which means it is not an undisputable fact.
All Scientist agree that blood that water evaporates.

[QUOTE=Capuchin]Whoa whoa whoa. 100% certainty? Have you never taken a science course? Science is all about estimating uncertainties so we know just how accurate our measurements are.

I really could'nt care less about science. All I am interested in is truth. If there is no certainty and it is all based on estimating uncertainties then that means there is a strong chance that the information is not accurate. So why should I believe the earth is 4.5billion years when I know that it is based on estimation of uncertainties, speculations and assuptions?
If you, knowing that radio-dating is not based on facts, believe it is true then I can conclude that you just have "faith" in it. I only hold true the branch of science that is accepted by ALL scientists and is undisputable. For example blood with oxygen is red, there is no scientific assuptions needed to know with certainty that blood containing oxygen is red. It is an undisputable scientific fact


In the case of the Earth, it is 4.55 billion years old to within about 1%, that's about 4.5 tens of millions of years error.

Significant changes to rates of radiometric decay of isotopes relevant to geological dating have never been observed under any conditions.

Again this is your "belief" it is not fact because we do not know with certainty that the assuption put in place are accurate.

Capuchin, im not going to split hairs with you. The bottom line is that you have "faith" in the assumptions used for radio dating and i dont share the same faith in it. I and many other people have a valid reason to believe the assuptions are flawed. Not all scientists agree with the method which means it is not an undisputable fact.
All Scientist agree that blood that water evaporates.

Scientists just don't agree about the accuracy to which it can be used. However no change in accuracy can reduce the age of the Earth from 4.55 billion years down to 6000 years! We're talking a 1% change in rate at most!!

[QUOTE]

I really could'nt care less about science. All I am interested in is truth. If there is no certainty and it is all based on estimating uncertainties then that means there is a strong chance that the information is not accurate. So why should I believe the earth is 4.5billion years when I know that it is based on estimation of uncertainties, speculations and assuptions?
If you, knowing that radio-dating is not based on facts, believe it is true then I can conclude that you just have "faith" in it. I only hold true the branch of science that is accepted by ALL scientists and is undisputable. For example blood with oxygen is red, there is no scientific assuptions needed to know with certainty that blood containing oxygen is red. It is an undisputable scientific fact



Again this is your "belief" it is not fact because we do not know with certainty that the assuption put in place are accurate.

Science is our best tool for finding the truth.

Knowing what the uncertainties are helps you to work out what the truth is to within certain boundaries. If there is an uncertainty, then it doesn't mean that it's not the truth... Does not mean that it is not based on facts. You're just twisting what I'm saying in order to further delude yourself. I don't believe you care about the truth, only the affirmation of your own beliefs.

Capuchin, im not going to split hairs with you. The bottom line is that you have "faith" in the assumptions used for radio dating and i dont share the same faith in it. I and many other people have a valid reason to believe the assuptions are flawed. Not all scientists agree with the method which means it is not an undisputable fact.
All Scientist agree that blood that water evaporates.no offense sass, but I don't think you can intelectually compete with cap, few can, but go past intellectual and to the heart

Scientists just don't agree about the accuracy to which it can be used. However no change in accuracy can reduce the age of the Earth from 4.55 billion years down to 6000 years! We're talking a 1% change in rate at most!!!

I do not believe the world is 6000 years old because the Bible just says God created the heavens and the earth and the earth was dark and void. So we do not know what the time lapse was from this time to when God created man, trees animals etc.

I believe there is no way of knowing how old the earth is. Like you said yourself we can devise models based on uncertainty and assumptions to try and "estimate" it. However assumptions are NOT facts and those who have faith in the assumptions will believe that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. There is no way of knowing whether the assumptions used are at all reasonable so it all comes down to whether you chose to have faith in it or not. I have no faith in radio dating.

There are many scientist who advocate for a much younger earth because the do not believe they assumptions used in radio dating are unlikely. Here is what one eminent scientists, Physics professor and researcher Dr. Sami Shaibani said about radio dating:

“In man-made dating methods, there is assumption upon assumption, plus a couple of more assumptions sprinkled in, plus some blind guesswork. And this masquerades as wonderful, legitimate methodology, but it's not.”

Like I said, if you believe it is "truth" then you have faith because there is no way to prove it as fact. Just don't try and pass it off as a scientific fact when it is not. Just because it is "generally accepted" does not make it true. It was generally accepted that the world was flat long ago, big deal.

[QUOTE=sassyT]

Science is our best tool for finding the truth.

Knowing what the uncertainties are helps you to work out what the truth is to within certain boundaries. If there is an uncertainty, then it doesn't mean that it's not the truth... Does not mean that it is not based on facts. You're just twisting what i'm saying in order to further delude yourself. I don't believe you care about the truth, only the affirmation of yoru own beliefs.

I think you need to revise these definitions.

truth (trūth)
n. pl. truths (trūTHz, trūths).

-Conformity to fact or actuality.
-Reality; actuality.
-a fact that has been verified; certainty
-accuracy




as·sump·tion (ə-sŭmp'shən)
n.
-The act of taking for granted: assumption of a false theory.
-Something taken for granted or accepted as true without proof; a supposition
-Presumption; arrogance.
-A minor premise.

“In man-made dating methods...Versus what? Invisible-god-made ones?

“In man-made dating methods, there is assumption upon assumption, plus a couple of more assumptions sprinkled in, plus some blind guesswork. And this masquerades as wonderful, legitimate methodology, but it’s not.”

It sounds like he is trying to justify his faith.

It sounds like he is trying to justify his faith.

Just like you are trying to justfy your own faith.

This Scientist, like many others, is honest because he has no agenda. Because the Bible does not claim the earth is 6K years old so either way, whether it is 5K years old or 100 billion years old, it make no difference to a christian because the time lapse from the earths creation to human creation is not specified.
Most scientist have an agenda. An old earth will facilitate for the theory of evolution because they need billion of years to make their theory even nearly possible. Scientist had determined the earth was 70 million years old until evolution need more years.

I do not believe the world is 6000 years old because the Bible just says God created the heavens and the earth and the earth was dark and void. So we do not know what the time lapse was from this time to when God created man, trees animals etc ...
I see you have more trust in a book of which we do not know exactly who precisely wrote each of the various chapters, describing a deity of which we do not know if it exists, and - if it exists - of whom we can at best only BELIEVE that it has the powers and capacities described to it.
A deity that in part one of the book is described as a tiran and blood thirsty murderer of children and women, while in part two that same deity is described - while in another format (disguised as his own son) - as an all-loving entity, while throughout the entire book we hear the deity repeating continuously the threat to humanity of "and if you do not do what I tell you to do ........".
And for you that book and the claims stated in that book make more sense and have more value to you than science and scientific evidence, that is based on supported objective evidence?
.
Yeah...
.

[QUOTE=Credendovidis]I see you have more trust in a book of which we do not know exactly who precisely wrote each of the various chapters, describing a deity of which we do not know if it exists, and - if it exists - of whom we can at best only BELIEVE that it has the powers and capacities described to it.

I hope when you "we" that you are not including me because just because you do not know whether God exists or not, does not mean I don’t know either. I know with as much certainty as I know of my own existence that God exists and you can believe that or not but you believing me or not will not in any way alter the fact that I know God. I also know who wrote the Book, again you may not.



A deity that in part one of the book is described as a tiran and blood thirsty murderer of children and women, while in part two that same deity is described - while in another format (disguised as his own son) - as an all-loving entity, while throughout the entire book we hear the deity repeating continuously the threat to humanity of "and if you do not do what I tell you to do ........".

This is your perception and opinion of God and the Bible, and we are all entitled to our own opinions so I have no problem with that, however perceptions and opinions do not always reflect reality and in this case I can say you are misled. Before you go and criticize other people's beliefs maybe you should consider doing some research and get all the information instead of just picking bits and pieces of info taken out of context to conveniently suit and further your own interest in portraying a negative perseption.


And for you that book and the claims stated in that book make more sense and have more value to you than science and scientific evidence, that is based on supported objective evidence?

Oh don't get me wrong, I believe is scientific facts. They undisputable. For example water evaporates. I just don't buy into presuptious theories that are not fundamentally rooted in fact. If you believe radio dating it true then I am no more believer in "faith" than you are because if you know science, then you should know that the assuptions used to facilitate for radio dating can not be proven true.

...maybe you should consider doing some research and get all the information instead of just picking bits and pieces of info taken out of context to conveniently suit and further your own interest in portraying a negative perseption.



You should take your own advice.

You should take your own advice.

I do not criticize other people's beliefs. I was just pointing out to capuchin that his "belief" that radio dating is truth, is based on "faith" in that the assumptions used are accurate.

Just like you are trying to justfy your own faith.

This Scientist, like many others, is honest because he has no agenda. Because the Bible does not claim the earth is 6K years old so either way, whether it is 5K years old or 100 billion years old, it make no difference to a christian because the time lapse from the earths creation to human creation is not specified.
Most scientist have an agenda. An old earth will facilitate for the theory of evolution because they need billion of years to make their theory even nearly possible. Scientist had determined the earth was 70 million years old until evolution need more years.

And this is where you're talking stupid. Any scientist who proves that evolution is wrong, and that how we got here is different from the theory of evolution, will get untold praise and riches. There's an easy nobel prize, they will be more famous than Einstein or Newton.

Science isn't some place where we all go to hold hands and praise each others theories. It's all about being critical of others' work, it's a competitive field. That's exactly why it's our best tool for finding the truth.

Why are people not managing to undermine the theory of evolution or prove that the Earth is not 4.5 billion years old?? Because all of the evidence points to it being so!!

(By the way, we also measure the age of the solar system using helioseimology, the study of "earthquakes" on the Sun, using these to date the sun we get a figure very similar to the age of the Earth, wow!)

Here's the unabridged version of what you're actually saying:

[Your] perceptions and opinions do not always reflect reality [but mine do] and [that's why] in this case I can say [with certainty] you are misled.

I will say, however that the following advice is priceless, and should be heeded universally.

Before you go and criticize other people's beliefs maybe you should consider doing some research and get all the information instead of just picking bits and pieces of info taken out of context to conveniently suit and further your own interest in portraying a negative perseption.

I do not criticize other people's beliefs.
Well, you certainly had me fooled. It sure seemed like you criticized Cap's "belief" that "radio dating is truth".

What I don't get is this. If you don't think the Bible teaches that the earth is young, why are you so sure that radio-metric dating is wrong when it gives a result of a few billion years? According to your interpretation of the Genesis account, the rocks of the earth's crust and mantle could be that old, couldn't they?

[QUOTE=Capuchin]And this is where you're talking stupid.

There is no need to become emotional and resorting to name calling. Lets just have a civil debate like mature adults.


Any scientist who proves that evolution is wrong, and that how we got here is different from the theory of evolution, will get untold praise and riches. There's an easy nobel prize, they will be more famous than Einstein or Newton.

Science isn't some place where we all go to hold hands and praise each others theories. It's all about being critical of others' work, it's a competitive field. That's exactly why it's our best tool for finding the truth.

Why are people not managing to undermine the theory of evolution or prove that the Earth is not 4.5 billion years old?? Because all of the evidence points to it being so!!

Capuchin, I have not interest in all this. All I want is for you to acknowledge that radio dating is not scientific fact because it employs assuptions that can not be known to be factual.

The theory of evolution is also not scientific fact because we have not found the hundreds of transitional fossils that would be necessary to prove one species changed into another. Evolutionists themselve have admitted this fact. There is also an insurmountable amount of evidence that prove evolution is highly unlikely.

Like I said, just because a theory is generally accepted, does not mean it is truth. At one point the theory that the world was flat was generally accepted.


(By the way, we also measure the age of the solar system using helioseimology, the study of "earthquakes" on the Sun, using these to date the sun we get a figure very similar to the age of the Earth, wow!)

How convenient.. . more assuptions?

how convienient. .... more assuptions?Isn't the bible the ultimate assumption?

There is no need to become emotional and resorting to name calling. Lets just have a civil debate like mature adults.

I apologise, perhaps ignorant is more accurate.


Capuchin, i have not interest in all this. All i want is for you to acknowledge that radio dating is not scientific fact because it employs assuptions that can not be known to be factual.

There is no solid evidence that shows that it is a fundamentally flawed method like you seem to believe it is. The most innaccuracy that we have measured is 1%, that's highly accurate for the kind of work we're doing! We would be happy with +/- 20%, but 1% is absolutely fantastic.


The theory of evolution is also not scientific fact because we have not found the hundreds of transitional fossils that would be necessary to prove one species changed into another. Evolutionists themselve have admitted this fact. There is also an insurmountable amount of evidence that prove evolution is highly unlikely.

20 years ago you would be right, but now we have a whole plethora of transitional forms. We have so many that show such gradual changes that scientists have arguments over where we should draw the species line between man and monkey.

Where is this unsurmountable amount of evidence? I have not seen a single thing over the past few years that I've been having these conversations.


Like i said, just because a theory is generally accepted, does not mean it is truth. At one point the theory that the world was flat was generally accepted.

And just because a theory might not be the truth, that doesn't mean that it is not the truth... It explains all available evidence, which is exactly what a theory should do.


how convienient. .... more assuptions?

It's highly unlikely that 2 sets of completely different assumptions would come out with the same dates. You seem to still think that we want everything to fit together nicely and make assumptions to do so. This couldn't be further from what scientists do. We make observations, and if those differ from what our theories suggest, then we modify the theories to fit the new evidence. This allows our theories to become more accurate. Picking and choosing evidence that fits our theories is not how science works. That's a completely useless exercise for a scientist, both for the community and for their career.

[QUOTE]
The theory of evolution is also not scientific fact because we have not found the hundreds of transitional fossils that would be necessary to prove one species changed into another. Evolutionists themselve have admitted this fact.


There are tons of transitional fossils for many different animal families. Donald Prothero has written a very eloquent book on the subject. This nice article describes a few more unusual animals and their transitional fossils, rather than going for the easy ones like whales and horses.

Evolution: What missing link? - evolution - 27 February 2008 - New Scientist (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/evolution/mg19726451.700-evolution-what-missing-link.html)
But for me fossils are boring (sorry palaeontologists).

For me the best and most compelling evidence is watching evolution work in human pathological diseases today. MRSA (methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureusis) a great example of how these bacteria have evolved their defences when faced with a selection pressure (antibiotics) allowing the fittest (those resistant) to survive and thrive.

Seeing as you don’t care about the science here is just a news report rather than a journal paper to prove I didn’t just close my eyes and hope really hard that this was true.
BBC NEWS | Health | Medical notes | J-M | MRSA 'superbugs' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/medical_notes/j-m/2572841.stm)

OK please direct me to the place where there is, "insurmountable amount of evidence that prove evolution is highly unlikely." Seriously I want to read it. I will read any links you post, I hope you read mine, I have chosen ones that are written for a general audience and aren’t too ‘sciency.’

I don’t care what you believe or why. However this continual denial of hundreds of years of scientific work and evidence I find, well to be honest, annoying. It’s the same as if I went, “I have never read the ten commandments- therefore they don’t exist!”

This is obviously absurd- I don’t need to believe that the ten commandments are the word of god to accept they exist. You don’t need to believe in evolution to accept that there is a lot of evidence supporting it.

[QUOTE=ordinaryguy]Well, you certainly had me fooled. It sure seemed like you criticized Cap's "belief" that "radio dating is truth".

As long as he acknowleges that it is a belief based on faith in the assuptions then, i am fine with it. I just have a problem with people who try to pawn off theories as facts.


What I don't get is this. If you don't think the Bible teaches that the earth is young, why are you so sure that radio-metric dating is wrong when it gives a result of a few billion years? According to your interpretation of the Genesis account, the rocks of the earth's crust and mantle could be that old, couldn't they?

Yes, there is a possibility that the earth could be billions of years old however i believe it is very unlikely, not because i have an agenda to promote my faith, but for simple fact that i believe the assumptions used in radio dating are not accurate. The assumptions are very far fetched if you will and other scientists share the same opinion.
In my opinion there is a lot more evidence for a younger earth.

The bottom line is i just don't take other people's beliefs and opinions at face value especially if feel the is an agenda behind it. The earth was originally aged at 70 million years old by scientists until evolution needed the billions of years so mm.. Why not come up with assumptions that allow for an older earth..

I just don't buy what ever is shoved in my face, i do my own research and analysis. I know enough science to know that "historical science" cannot be known with certainty. I have bachelor's degree in Biology (graduated 3.8gpa)and i have taken a lot of physics and chemistry classes. I am in my first year of Biology masters program right now. So it just makes me laugh when people like Cap make condescending remarks about me being stupid and not knowing science.. oh really?

The bottom line is i just don't take other people's beliefs and opinions at face value especially if feel the is an agenda behind it. The earth was originally aged at 70 million years old by scientists until evolution needed the billions of years so mm.. why not come up with assumptions that allow for an older earth....?

But we have reasons, good reasons, why the 70 million calculation was wrong, based on new science that was discovered between then and now... It is not only because evolution needed a longer time, but also because we have more evidence to take into account so that we can alter our theories.

Also, why are you as a masters student in biology "not interested in science"? It would seem a rather foolish position for you to take.

Shame on you for disagreeing….Capuchin disagrees: We know with certainty - we use radiometric dating to estimate the age of the Earth.

Don't you see the contradiction in what you say? We know with certainy…then use radiometric dating to estimate the age of the Earth.

Which is it, is radiometric dating an estimate or a certain date?

Shame on you for disagreeing….Capuchin disagrees: We know with certainty - we use radiometric dating to estimate the age of the Earth.

Don't you see the contradiction in what you say? We know with certainy…then use radiometric dating to estimate the age of the Earth.

Which is it, is radiometric dating an estimate or a certain date?

It's a measurement with a known certainty - in this case about 1%, so we know that the age of the earth according to all available evidence, with certainty, is between 4.5 and 4.6 billion years old.

Like I said before, we can only know things within certain error limits - we cannot know anything with 100% certainty.

“Certainty” is a word I have never heard a scientist use. Science is based on theories, not certainties.

There you go with the contradiction… “It's a measurement with a known certainty - in this case about 1%,…” Is it certain, or “about” 1%?

About, and estimate, are not an indication of certainty.

“Certainty” is a word I have never heard a scientist use. Science is based on theories, not certainties.

There you go with the contradiction… “It's a measurement with a known certainty - in this case about 1%,…” Is it certain, or “about” 1%?

About, and estimate, are not an indication of certainty.

You're right, we don't talk about certainties. But we do talk all the time about uncertainties. This is about working out how accurate our results are and lets us know what range of values the true value lies.

The problems with carbon dating

How accurate are Carbon-14 and other radioactive dating methods? - ChristianAnswers.Net (http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c007.html)

But in the end, science puts its faith in many principles that may appear true today but may prove untrue 100 years from now.
But in the end, the bible does not "date" anything, ecept for the time Adam left the garden of Eden into the world, From that some idea of dating can be assumed.

The length of time of creation and even more important, the number of years Adam would have lived in the garden, in a state of perfection ( assuming in this perfect state he would not age)

Also we understand that the bible in the old testement is the history of God's relationship with his people, not a complete history of the people, and not complete of all the things in creation. Since it is mans relastionship with his God that was the theme of why we have the bible today.

And of course we understand that many things will try and confuse the Christian, as such we are tempted by many false teachings, and parts of Science is one of them, science temps our morals today with things like clonning, soceity temps us with things like same sex relastionships, and the world temps us with riches and pleasure.

So in the end, those that have placed their faith and salvation into the world will have the world, those that place their faith in God will have God.
And in the world to come when the earth is passed away, the Christian still has God, the others, nothing.

The problems with carbon dating. How accurate are Carbon-14 and other radioactive dating methods?

You make a questionable suggestion here : if there has to be corrected on radio dating, we are talking about some percentage points at max, because the general basis is correct (as PROVED by objective supporting evidence).

However : religious (Bible) claims are based on BELIEF and so far have never been proved by any objective evidence to be correct.

The age of earth is "somewhere" between 4.500.000.000 and 4.600.000.000 years, based on scientific data (supported objective evidence).

Even if this would contain a 10% miscalculation (which it does not) the earth is at least minimal 4.000.000.000 years old, which is about 3.999.994.000 years older than the age as per the creationist claim.

RATE (http://www.icr.org/rate/)

Creation Scientists (http://www.icr.org/research/index/research_creationsci/)

QUOTE]
You make a questionable suggestion here : if there has to be corrected on radio dating, we are talking about some percentage points at max, because the general basis is correct (as PROVED by objective supporting evidence).

Yes it has been Proved ONLY ASSUMING the assumptions used are correct. There is no way of knowing the assumptions used are accurate!


However : religious (Bible) claims are based on BELIEF and so far have never been proved by any objective evidence to be correct.

The Bible's claims have been proven to those who are really seeking its truth. The Bible contains scientific knowledge that scientists have only figured out in last few centuries. Science is only beginning to catch up on what God had man record in the Bible from ancient times. The Bible never claims to be a text book on science but when it does speak on nature or physics it is absolutely accurate.

The Universe IS Expanding
For example the Scientists have just recently figured out that the universe is expanding and yet thousands of years ago it was written in Bible that God is expanding and stretching out the heavens with His right hand. The same thing is repeated in all of the following books by different authors. Job 9:8, Psalms 104:2, Isaiah 40:22, Isaiah 42:5, Isaiah 44:24, Isaiah 45:12, Isaiah 48:13, Isaiah 51:13, Jeremiah 10:12, Jeremiah 51:15, Zechariah 12:16

The Earth is a Sphere
Man believed the earth was flat until recent years and yet thousands of years ago the Bible describes earth as a sphere in many verses. Here is one:
He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in. (Isaiah 40:22)

Number of stars exceeds a billion.
God speaking to Abraham who is the one he would begin to give his teachings to Gen. 13:16 “And I will make your descendants as the dust of the earth; so that if a man could number the dust of the earth, then your descendants also could be numbered.” Genesis 15:5 says the stars cannot be numbered by man. Jeremiah 33:32 explains the stars are beyond numbering. Before the telescope was invented, man was able to number the stars. Hipparchus said in 150 B.C. there are exactly 1,026 stars. 150 years later a Roman named Ptolemy said there are 1,056, Kepler counted 1,006. Since Galileo invented the telescope in 1608, we continued to discover more stars. Up until the last few hundred years until the discovery of the telescope there were only 6,000 stars seen by the naked eye. A modern telescope of 200 inches estimates 100 billion stars in our galaxy alone. And there are not millions but billions of such galaxies. The Biblical scientific insights were far in advance of four modern day science. Today, with our technology and high powered telescopes in space and astronomers estimate that there are 100 billion stars in our galaxy with an additional 20-100 billion galaxies in the universe! Henry Morris says there are at least 10 million, billion, billion stars! See Gen.15:5, Job 22:12; Isaiah 55:9; 1 Corinthians 15:41 and 2 Peter 3:10.

Gen. 22:17 “ I will multiply your descendants as the stars of the heaven and as the sand which is on the seashore; Another example of the amount of stars that cannot be counted.

Water Cycle
In recent history science taught that most clouds are formed by evaporation of water from the ocean, but the Bible recorded this centuries ago. Solomon wrote in Ecclesiastes 1:6-7, “The wind blows to the south and turns to the north; round and round it goes, ever returning on its course. All streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is never full. To the place the streams come from, there they return again. Here King Solomon, writing 3,000 years ago explains how the oceans are the origin of rain. Tells us the wind has currents. This was unknown to man, today science has documented the direction of wind currents and wind paths.

Earth is suspended in space
Job 26:7 says the earth is suspended on nothing. Early man thought Atlas, a huge turtle or elephants held up the earth. In the North sky within the millions of stars is a vast expanse of blackness. The Bible was there before the telescope so only God could describe it. Today we know it is gravity that holds the planets and stars in their orbits making them appear to be hung on nothing.
He spreads out the northern skies over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing. (Job 26:7)


I have just mentioned about 10% of the scientific knowledge in the Bible if you want I can go on. I wrote a 10 page paper about this and couldn't even mention everything. To me because I love science, this is what made me believe the Bible was truth. This is just the scientific aspect. There is a lot more prove of the Bible's credibility if you analyze prophesy. If you want to see if the Bible is true look at the Nation of Israel. Everything that has happened to that nation was written thousands of years before it happen. I don't just have blind faith. I have done a lot of research on the Bible and it is amazing how true it is.


The age of earth is "somewhere" between 4.500.000.000 and 4.600.000.000 years, based on scientific data (supported objective evidence).

According your faith and beliefs.



Even if this would contain a 10% miscalculation (which it does not) the earth is at least minimal 4.000.000.000 years old, which is about 3.999.994.000 years older than the age as per the creationist claim.

The miscalculation is only with in the assumptions. Not reality.

It's a measurement with a known certainty - in this case about 1%, so we know that the age of the earth according to all available evidence, with certainty, is between 4.5 and 4.6 billion years old.

Like i said before, we can only know things within certain error limits - we cannot know anything with 100% certainty.

The Error limit is 1% assuming the assuptions used are accurate. How come you don't get this. If you are science expert you should know this.

For those who don't know this is how radio dating works let me explain it. I did a study on this too.

The accuracy of these dating methods depends “critically” on several assumptions.To date a rock by radiometric means, one must first assume:


1. What the initial amount of the parent atoms was at the time that the rock formed.
2.That the original composition of the rock contained no daughter atoms.
3. That neither parent nor daughter atoms have ever been added or removed from the rock.
4. That the decay rate of parent atom to daughter atom has always remained constant.


If these assumptions are correct, then the radiometric dates are correct. However, there is no way to independently test these assumptions. If they are wrong, the method could yield faulty dates that might be far too old.

To illustrate let give this analogy, suppose there is a burning candle sitting on the table. How long has that candle been burning? This can be calculated if the candle's burn rate and original length is known. However, if the original length is not known, or if it cannot be verified that the burning rate has been constant, it is impossible to tell for sure how long the candle was burning. A similar problem occurs with radiometric dating of rocks. Since the initial physical state of the rock is unknowable, the age can only be estimated according to certain assumptions.

When dating a rock, the geochronologist must first assume the rock's age before it is dated. For example, if a scientist believes a piece of rock is 4.5 billion years old, he or she may then use the uranium-lead dating method because it has a half-life of about 4.5 billion years. This involves circular reasoning.

The geochronologist must also be sure that the rate of decay, from uranium to lead for example, has remained constant in the rock over the past 4.5 billion years. Furthermore, the amount of uranium in the rock that was present to begin with must also be assumed. And neither uranium nor lead can have ever been added or removed from the specimen by any natural circumstances, catastrophic or otherwise. If all of these assumptions are correct, then the resulting dates are correct. However if even one of these assumptions is wrong, then the resulting dates are erroneous. So if you have faith in the assumptions that fine, but just be aware of that the dating process is not founded on facts.

I'll still go with the sciences versus "streched out his hand".

NeedKarma, I don't know if you know this or not but you are on my ignore list. So I don't accually get to see any of what you write. Just an FYI in case you ever try to reply my posts or direct any comments to me.

I'll still go with the sciences versus "streched out his hand".


Now that is real faith, to believe it all could just happen, the big bangger and everything fell into this perfect balance of gravitational pulls.
Then on this somehow water and gasses formed, then something started life. And from that first single cell, every form of plant, animal, fish and bird were created, every different type of grass, treee all mutated from the same first plant.

Now if that is not faith in things that can't be seen or proved I have never known any.

Sassy,
Wow, if that's what a good christian is these days then I don't want to be part of that club. (remember not to read this)

NeedKarma, i dont know if you know this or not but you are on my ignore list. So i dont accually get to see any of what you write. Just an FYI incase you ever try to reply my posts or direct any comments to me.

That takes all the fun out of the posts, I have to think it is so funny anyone could actually believe in the idea of everything starting from one first cell that somehow got started. Now if one wants to think of something not beleivable, that is surely it. I almost roll out of my chair laughting at some of the ideas that put mans opinions and assumptions into play. Remember they made fun of Noah's faith until it started to rain, I would guess at about knee deep they were not really laughing much any longer.

Remember they made fun of Noah's faith untill it started to rain, I would guess at about knee deep they were not really laughing much any longer.That ark thing never happened. That can be another thread.
BTW why did you quote her "ignore" comment when replying to me?

That takes all the fun out of the posts, I have to think it is so funny anyone could actually beleive in the idea of everything starting from one first cell that somehow got started. Now if one wants to think of something not beleivable, that is surely it. I almost roll out of my chair laughting at some of the ideas that put mans opinions and assumptions into play. Remember they made fun of Noah's faith untill it started to rain, I would guess at about knee deep they were not really laughing much any longer.

Yeah I agree with you. I don't posses enough faith to believe that I share a common ancestor with a fruit fly. A one cell creature that crawls out of a mythical pond is responsible for all diversity of life. I think to be an evolutionist you have to poses an immeasurable amount of faith.

Creation Scientists
There are no CREATION-SCIENTISTS, Chuck.

There are scientists. There are creationists. There are creationists who are scientists (whatever field - except anything religious).

But there are no creation-scientists. Science is not involved in anything religious, as religion is not based on facts and/or objective proof / evidence, but on belief.

If someone claims to be a creation-scientist, he/she actually is a creation "PSEUDO-SCIENTIST".

You're right, we don't talk about certainties. But we do talk all the time about uncertainties. This is about working out how accurate our results are and lets us know what range of values the true value lies.
In all fairness I would like to point out that (And maybe you will agree) when scientists use the term theory, it has a different meaning than it does in normal everyday use.

In science, facts are collected or observations and then laws are used to describe them; and a theory to explain them. A Theory is not a law; Laws describe things, theories explain them.

The situation we have is the Laws which are used to describe the Universe, but different theories that explain the existence of these Laws.

There are no CREATION-SCIENTISTS, Chuck.
There are scientists. There are creationists. There are creationists who are scientists
(whatever field - except anything religious)
If someone claims to be a creation-scientist, he/she actually is a creation "PSEUDO-SCIENTIST".


Credendovidis, FYI A scientists who believes in intelligent design is Called CREATION-SCIENTISTS. Just because a scientist does not believe in a creature that crawled out of a Mythical pond and is responsible for all Biological life does not mean he/she ceases to be a scientist.

It is interesting that you used the expression Pseudo Scientist considering Biologist, Dr. Pierre Grasse, considered the greatest living scientist in France, wrote a book to "launch a frontal assault on all forms of Darwinism." Grasse is NOT religious, yet he called evolution a "pseudo-science."

In all fairness I would like to point out that (And maybe you will agree) when scientists use the term theory, it has a different meaning than it does in normal everyday use.

In science, facts are collected or observations and then laws are used to describe them; and a theory to explain them. A Theory is not a law; Laws describe things, theories explain them.

The situation we have is the Laws which are used to describe the Universe, but different theories that explain the existence of these Laws.I reference exactly that in post #60 of this thread. :)

sassyT

How wrong and illogical you are. Why would there be no way of knowing that the assumptions used (in radio dating) are accurate? Of course there is accurate evidence.
The problems in your argument is always that if I state that the evidence is 99,999.999.232 %, you demand evidence of 99,999.999.233 %.
And once I confirm that the evidence is 99,999.999.233 %, you demand evidence of 99,999.999.234 %.
At the same time YOU make claims that carry 0,000.000.000.000.000.000.000 % evidence, but which you claim to be the one and only truth.

---

"The Bible's claims have been proven to those who are really seeking its truth" .
Not true. There is no objective evidence for any of the important basics of the Christian religion. There are ONLY claims, based on belief.

I AM JUST LIKE YOU SEEKING THE "TRUTH". HOWEVER WHAT YOU BELIEVE TO BE THE TRUTH IS IN MY VIEWS JUST RELIGIOUS BABBLE.
You elevate what you BELIEVE to reality WITHOUT any objective evidence for that claim.

---

"The Bible never claims to be a text book on science but when it does speak on nature or physics it is absolutely accurate".

How do you KNOW that? Can you provide objective evidence for that? No you can't. All you do is BELIEVE you are correct.

The creation did not happen as stated in Genesis. The Bible is not even consistent with it's creation claims, as the two Genesis stories show unacceptable differences to even allow them to have any serious value.
The Bible is full of contradictions and mistakes. That is a FACT.
No problem if you BELIEVE that the Bible is correct. But it is a serious problem for people with a more open mind, who base their position on suppported objective evidence.

---

The Earth is a Sphere

However, you still have not refuted my post about the Bible claim that "the earth was without a form", while I stated that the earth was already a sphere before the sun started to shine, "and there was light" (for the first time).
So using the above chapter line is nonsensical and insincere.

---

You made a list of some small quotes from the Bible as if that elevates the entire Bible to factual.
But why don't you simply prove that the Bible is correct?
Why don't you simply prove that God exists?
Why don't you prove that God was the father of Jesus?
Why don't you prove that God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are one?
Why don't you prove that God is superpotent and omnibenevolent, and omniscient?
That would prove something. What you posted as "proof" is no more than religious babble.
.

.... It is interesting that you used the expression Pseudo Scientist considering Biologist, Dr. Pierre Grasse, considered the greatest living scientist in France, wrote a book to "launch a frontal assault on all forms of Darwinism." Grasse is NOT religious, yet he called evolution a "pseudo-science."

For every creation "pseudo-scientist" there are thousands of real scientists, who know the difference between claim and objective evidence.

There are indeed differences of OPINION on evolution, based on different views by different scientists. We all know that there never will be 100% proof for evolution. But the basics of evolution have been proved beyond any doubt.

And that is just what can not be stated of anything connected to religion, because that is all based on BELIEF and lack any objective supporting evidence.

For each and every creation "pseudo-scientist" there are thousands of real scientists, who know the difference between claim and objective evidence.

There are indeed differences of OPINION on evolution, based on different views by different scientists. We all know that there never will be 100% proof for evolution. But the basics of evolution have been proved beyond any doubt.

And that is just what can not be stated of anything connected to religion, because that is all based on [BELIEF and lack any objective supporting evidence.

This is exactly my point. There is no 100% proof of evolution but you believe in it anyway. So you have FAITH in evolution because you believe the little evidence provided is sufficient. I don't.
In the same way I can not give you 100% proof of God but there is enough Objective evidence to prove to me His word is truth. I just don't have a "Believe", there is an overwhelming amount of evidence in the Bible to prove its validity. You may not think so and that's fine, because I also don't believe evolution has enough objective evidence to prove its validity.

The fact that the Bible explains scientific concepts and facts that were not known to man until recently, is enough Objective evidence to prove it had super natural Inspiration.

The world was thought to be a flat and yet God's word already said it was spherical.
Before a telescope was even invented God's word said there were billions of stars when scientists were busy counting them and saying there are 1026 stars.

In Job 36:27 and 28 is the statement, He draws up the drops' of water, which distill as rain to the streams; the clouds pour Down their moisture and abundant showers fall on mankind.” Here we find an accurate description of the earth's hydrologic, cycle. Even during the Middle Ages, the source of rain water was something of a mystery. But in approximately 2,000 B.C. we find Job accurately describing the rain cycle.

Psalm 8:8 mentions the paths of the sea. We read about “the birds of the air, and the fish of' the sea, all that swim the paths of the sea.” But it wasn't until the mid nineteenth century when Matthew Fontaine Maury, the “father of oceanography,” published his discovery that the ocean possesses predictable paths or currents. When Psalm 8 was written, the only seas known to the Hebrews were the Dead Sea, the Sea of Galilee, the Mediterranean, and the Red Sea.' These bodies of water did not possess “paths” or significant observable currents. It took Matthew Maury a great deal of time to collect the crude observational data that existed from the fifteenth to the nineteenth century to make his own discovery. And yet the Psalmist wrote of “the paths of the seas.”

Water cycle described Ecclesiastes 1:7; Isaiah 55:10, Job 36:27-2818
Valleys exist on the bottom of the sea 2 Samuel 22:1619
Vents exist on the bottom of the sea Job 38:1620
Air has weight Job 28:2522
Winds blow in circular paths Ecclesiastes 1:623

sassyT

[QUOTE]How wrong and illogical you are. Why would there be no way of knowing that the assumptions used (in radio dating) are accurate?Of course there is accurate evidence

Credendovidis, you are obviously not very well educated in the field of science because this is the most ignorant statement I have seen in this argument. You need to re-read my candle analogy (in Green) maybe it will help you understand better.
Also if you revise the meaning of assumption you will find out that it means Something taken for granted or accepted as true without proof; a supposition:


.

The problems in your argument is always that if I state that the evidence is 99,999.999.232 %, you demand evidence of 99,999.999.233 %.
And once I confirm that the evidence is 99,999.999.233 %, you demand evidence of 99,999.999.234 %.
At the same time YOU make claims that carry 0,000.000.000.000.000.000.000 % evidence, but which you claim to be the one and only truth

The problem is that you are either too irrational to admit that assumptions are not facts or you need to take a few science courses to educate yourself.



"The Bible's claims have been proven to those who are really seeking its truth" .
Not true. There is no objective evidence for any of the important basics of the Christian religion. There are ONLY claims, based on belief.

The Bible said the Earth was Spherical thousands of years ago when it was believed to be flat up until recent centuaries. That is pretty OBJECTIVE evidence to me.


I AM JUST LIKE YOU SEEKING THE "TRUTH". HOWEVER WHAT YOU BELIEVE TO BE THE TRUTH IS IN MY VIEWS JUST RELIGIOUS BABBLE.
You elevate what you BELIEVE to reality WITHOUT any objective evidence for that claim.

Like I said there is ample objective evidence in the Bible. For example the claims made by the Bible of the plagues God sent to Egypt. These plagues including rivers turning to blood were recorded by Egyptians so that proves the Historicity of Biblical claims. Read this OBJECTIVE INFO Read the Section on Historicity Plagues of Egypt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagues_of_Egypt)
---


"The Bible never claims to be a text book on science but when it does speak on nature or physics it is absolutely accurate".

How do you KNOW that? Can you provide objective evidence for that? No you can't. All you do is BELIEVE you are correct.

Of course I KNOW the scientific information in the Bible is correct because it is consistent with what we know now. Duh.



The creation did not happen as stated in Genesis. The Bible is not even consistent with it's creation claims, as the two Genesis stories show unacceptable differences to even allow them to have any serious value.
The Bible is full of contradictions and mistakes. That is a FACT.
No problem if you BELIEVE that the Bible is correct. But it is a serious problem for people with a more open mind, who base their position on suppported objective evidence.

What evidence do you have to prove creation did not happen as stated in Genesis? Were you there?
Also instead of just saying "the Bible is full of contradictions and mistakes" why don't you provide specific instances in which you feel it was inconsistent.

---


The Earth is a Sphere

However, you still have not refuted my post about the Bible claim that "the earth was without a form", while I stated that the earth was already a sphere before the sun started to shine, "and there was light" (for the first time).
So using the above chapter line is nonsensical and insincere.

How do you know that the earth was not with out form before it was spherical? Do you have evidence to otherwise show what the world looked like before the beginning of time?

---


You made a list of some small quotes from the Bible as if that elevates the entire Bible to factual

Small quotes? Mmm... I think it proves a lot. It prove that Before scientists God WAS.



But why don't you simply prove that the Bible is correct?
Why don't you simply prove that God exists?
Why don't you prove that God was the father of Jesus?
Why don't you prove that God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are one?
Why don't you prove that God is superpotent and omnibenevolent, and omniscient?
That would prove something. What you posted as "proof" is no more than religious babble.

Atheism is also religious babble to me. You have "no proof" that God does not exist but you believe it anyway. So atheist is also based on faith. So one could argue it is a religion. A religion I also have zero faith in.

The creation did not happen as stated in Genesis. The Bible is not even consistent with it's creation claims, as the two Genesis stories show unacceptable differences to even allow them to have any serious value.
The Bible is full of contradictions and mistakes. That is a FACT..

C-I am very interested to hear what all these contradictions and mistakes are too.

Athiesm is also religous babble to me. You have "no proof" that God does not exist but you believe it anyway. So athiest is also based on faith. So one could argue it is a religion. A religion i also have zero faith in.One does not have to prove a negative i.e.. You don't have to prove there is no god.

Actually by you saying the above this whole discussion is basically closed since you will never deviate from your position regardless of what is presented to you. You've stated that you have zero faith in atheism and science so why are you here arguing? Why not live your life your way and let others live their lives their way?

[QUOTE=NeedKarma] You've stated that you have zero faith in atheism and science so why are you here arguing? [QUOTE]

SassyT is here, probably for the same reason as the rest of us Christians, because it is a Christian forum.

C-I am very interested to hear what all these contradictions and mistakes are too.
Sassy - Donna Mea : OK : JUST ONE EXAMPLE OF MANY :

The First Creation Story

In the first part of Genesis, the writer tells us that the animals were created before man:

25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 26 Then God said, "Let us make man (Genesis 1:25-26)

Note below that the author of this second story first tells us that God made man, then he tells us that God said, "It is not good for man to be alone. I will make animals for man." Obviously, man had already been created, was lonely, so God then made animals.

The Second Creation Story

7 The LORD God formed the man…The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him." 19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the…But for Adam no suitable helper was found (Genesis 2:7-22)

Note: some apologists try to argue that the words "God had formed…the beasts" means that the author is stating what had been done prior to making man. This argument fails, however, because the writer makes it perfectly clear that God tried to relieve man's loneliness by making beasts as helpers. Thus, the animals HAD to have been made after man had been created, otherwise God wouldn't have said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him," and then made the animals.

---

If you wish I can post here a couple of hundred Bible contradictions...
The point I like to make here is that the Bible story is NOT perfect, NOT clear, NOT without contradictions.
An omniscient superpotent deity (if it exists and has such qualifications) would not make or allow such mistakes to be made?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WHY would such a powerful deity that can "create" a complete universe with everything in it in only 6 days issue it's one and only instruction manual for mankind through a couple of well willing but limited talented human writers, who did what they did most probably with the best intentions?

For such a powerful omniscient omnipotent deity it would have meant not more than seconds to have written, translated, printed, distributed the Bible to each human being some 2000 years ago, and have stored for many millennia updated copies for future generations?

For such a powerful omniscient omnipotent deity it would have meant neither more than seconds to produce it's own son (who later turns out to be the deity itself again), instead of having to use a married "virgin".

Believe whatever you like to believe : no problem!
But do not attack normal logical thinking sane people based on whatever you BELIEVE.

GET REAL !

I know it's a niggling little point but it's not a christian forum, it's a forum whose topic is christianity.

[QUOTE=NeedKarma] You've stated that you have zero faith in atheism and science so why are you here arguing? [QUOTE]

SassyT is here, probably for the same reason as the rest of us Christians, because it is a Christian forum.
That is true. But it is not a forum by Christians for Christians ONLY

So there should be space just as well for those with another view.
Most non-Christians are not aggressive AGAINST the Christian religion at all.
I am NOT AGAINST anyone who believes in God and/or the Christian faith.

But just as many others I am critical at the empty hollow claims that are posted here as "the one and only truth". I think true Christianity deserves better than that babble.
.

[QUOTE=Credendovidis]Sassy - Donna Mea : OK : JUST ONE EXAMPLE OF MANY :

The First Creation Story

In the first part of Genesis, the writer tells us that the animals were created before man:

25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 26 Then God said, "Let us make man (Genesis 1:25-26)

Note below that the author of this second story first tells us that God made man, then he tells us that God said, "It is not good for man to be alone. I will make animals for man." Obviously, man had already been created, was lonely, so God then made animals.

The Second Creation Story

7 The LORD God formed the man…The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him." 19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the…But for Adam no suitable helper was found (Genesis 2:7-22)

Note: some apologists try to argue that the words "God had formed…the beasts" means that the author is stating what had been done prior to making man. This argument fails, however, because the writer makes it perfectly clear that God tried to relieve man's loneliness by making beasts as helpers. Thus, the animals HAD to have been made after man had been created, otherwise God wouldn't have said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him," and then made the animals.

---

Tut tut tut This just proves how people are so ignorant and quick to judge when they don't even have any information. Are you serious right now? Don't you know that the helper that God was talking about to relieve his loneliness was EVE. Maybe if you stop taking a couple of verses out of context and actually read the text you would know what you are talking about. Lets look at the ENTIRE text.

Genesis 2:7-23

18 And the LORD God said, “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.” 19 Out of the ground the LORD God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So Adam gave names to all cattle, to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper comparable to him.
21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. 22 Then the rib which the LORD God had taken from man He made into a woman (ADAMS COMPARABLE HELPER), and He brought her to the man.
23 And Adam said:
“This is now bone of my bones
And flesh of my flesh;
She shall be called Woman,
Because she was taken out of Man.”

So please before you continue to embarasse yourself, do some reading and research.




If you wish I can post here a couple of hundred Bible contradictions...
The point I like to make here is that the Bible story is NOT perfect, NOT clear, NOT without contradictions.
An omniscient superpotent deity (if it exists and has such qualifications) would not make or allow such mistakes to be made?

Well your first contradiction turned out to be a joke, I'm guessing the rest are just as ridiculous. So don't even Bother please. You are waisting your time.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


WHY would such a powerful deity that can "create" a complete universe with everything in it in only 6 days issue it's one and only instruction manual for mankind through a couple of well willing but limited talented human writers, who did what they did most probably with the best intentions?

For such a powerful omniscient omnipotent deity it would have meant not more than seconds to have written, translated, printed, distributed the Bible to each human being some 2000 years ago, and have stored for many millennia updated copies for future generations?

For such a powerful omniscient omnipotent deity it would have meant neither more than seconds to produce it's own son (who later turns out to be the deity itself again), instead of having to use a married "virgin".

Believe whatever you like to believe : no problem!
But do not attack normal logical thinking sane people based on whatever you [

This is your Human reasoning. If you knew the Bible then you would know that God gave humans dominion over the earth therefor Spiritual beings Like God, demons angels etc can only operate through Human Beings. That is why when the People of Israel asked God to deliever them from Egypt, God sent a MAN by the Name of Moses to do it through his power. In the same way God iNspired Man to write his Word. Your reasoning is like a grain of sand compared to God's so don't even waist your time.

[QUOTE=Donna Mae][QUOTE=NeedKarma] You've stated that you have zero faith in atheism and science so why are you here arguing?
That is true. But it is not a forum by Christians for Christians ONLY

So there should be space just as well for those with another view.
Most non-Christians are not aggressive AGAINST the Christian religion at all.
I am NOT AGAINST anyone who believes in God and/or the Christian faith.
But just as many others I am critical at the empty hollow claims that are posted here as "the one and only truth". I think true Christianity deserves better than that babble.
.

You are on a Christian forum harassing Christians about their beliefs. You are just here to promote your own beliefs but I don't think any of the Christians here are interested. Sorry.

Yes, this is place on the forum for Christian discussion, and those threads that wish to do nothing but attack Christian beleifs are normally deleted since they are not addressing the questions.

And those posters who end up showing thierself as trolls, only posting attacking christianity are normally dealth with as such.

So in basically if a non christian tries to highjack a tread or merely attack thosse coming to a christian thread to find out about chirstian beleifs, normally it is moderated as such.

Some threads will be moved to a religious discussion area where a more non christian discussoins can be made over a subject.

So just like we would not want anti Muslim postings on the Muslim board, if you do not wish to help others learn about what christian faith is, you really have no business hurting those that wish to know with often baited or hate filled postings.

In such I have let one new poster go too far on several occasions, moved a thread or two to religious discussion and deleted several of his posts. But this is why if they want to rant non christian things, go to the religion board but they have no business on the Christian board,
But

[QUOTE=Credendovidis]Sassy - Donna Mea : OK : JUST ONE EXAMPLE OF MANY :

The First Creation Story

In the first part of Genesis, the writer tells us that the animals were created before man:

25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 26 Then God said, "Let us make man (Genesis 1:25-26)

Note below that the author of this second story first tells us that God made man, then he tells us that God said, "It is not good for man to be alone. I will make animals for man." Obviously, man had already been created, was lonely, so God then made animals.

--------------------------------------------------------

What?
Well all of us who read the Bible know this is not a contradiction, because that's not what the Bible says. I agree with SassyT, try actually reading the Bible before you quote these so called contradictions.

Bring on the couple of hundred contradictions.
We're waiting.

As for the two creation stories, first of course is it not great, had man planned to fool everyone and to make something up, all of it would match perfect, so it shows that. But one has to look at the major purpose that it tells us God created us, and all things.

But to me, what is amazing is that how often those that hate Christ and his word try and use the bible against, reminds me of where Satan tried to use the word of God to tempt Christ.

But man using his wisdom refuse to see the real message but agrue words.
So sad.

Bring on the couple of hundred contradictions.
We're waiting.

Actually make it a new thread in the religious discussion area if you wish.

Actually make it a new thread in the religious discussion area if you wish.

I'll have to think about it. I really don't enjoy fighting with the people who are only on here for a fight, but when they are wrong I have to defend our Lord.

But thanks anyway.

Actually it is only my third language.

I figured as much, that explains it.


You are doing on this board a beter job than I could and ever would do myself.
So far you have in a couple of days as a Christian driven away several people from 'the word' with your intolerant , aggressive , and often ridiculous presentations. Is that YOUR approach towards your final judgement?


It sounds like you have just given a perfect description of yourself. After all Jigicou came to the Christians forum to ask about how she can know God and trolls like you come here to harrasse Christians about their beliefs and promote your own atheistic religion. If Jigicou wanted to hear about Atheism or Science he/she would have posted a question under the "other religions" or "science" sections of the site. So, like I said before we appreciate your attempt to try and convert us to your faith but I don't think any Christians here are interested. :)

WOW! I missed the beginning and end of this thread.

I wanted to post this link here for those interested to perhaps comments or try to dispel some of the points made. I present it because this thread is heavy on scientific disscussion and theory. What I have noticed in many threads pertaining to God and creation, is that most portray scientists as unbeleivers, at least the majority of scientists, I think that is a misrepresentation of the truth really.

Also, I have no education in terms of science and all that fun test tube stuff but I did enjoy reading this paper and perhaps those of you with a background in science may enjoy it or understand it better than I. I get what it is saying, I have no clue about the equations though, even so I think it hard to refute.

Is There Scientific Evidence for the Existence of God? How the Recent Discoveries Support a Designed Universe (http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9403/evidence.html)

WOW! I missed the beginning and end of this thread.

I wanted to post this link here for those interested to perhaps comments or try to dispel some of the points made. I present it because this thread is heavy on scientific disscussion and theory. What I have noticed in many threads pertaining to God and creation, is that most portray scientists as unbeleivers, at least the majority of scientists, I think that is a misrepresentation of the truth really.

Also, I have no education in terms of science and all that fun test tube stuff but I did enjoy reading this paper and perhaps those of you with a background in science may enjoy it or understand it better than I. I get what it is saying, I have no clue about the equations though, even so I think it hard to refute.

Is There Scientific Evidence for the Existence of God? How the Recent Discoveries Support a Designed Universe (http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9403/evidence.html)

Good article! To say the Universe just happened by accident is the most absurd thing I have ever heard. Its like landing on Planet Jupitor and finding a machine that resembles a car and coming to the conclusion that the machine, with is its complexity and obvious design, just appeared by accident and evolved over time. A logical and rational human being would conclude that there must be "inteligent" life on the planet.

Excellent link, yes there are many great Christian scientist.

How can I tell that God exists and how do I know when he is affecting my life
It seems that the original topic question has been forgotten in this thread.
.
Jigicou :
The simple answer is that you can not "tell" that God exists. You can BELIEVE that God exists.
If and how God affects your life depends on if you BELIEVE that God exists. So you will never KNOW if God effects your life. You can only BELIEVE that God effects your life, and through your BELIEF in God actually effect your own life by your (changed) actions.
.

It seems that the original topic question has been forgotten in this thread.
.
Jigicou :
The simple answer is that you can not "tell" that God exists. You can BELIEVE that God exists.
If and how God affects your life depends on if you BELIEVE that God exists. So you will never KNOW if God effects your life. You can only BELIEVE that God effects your life, and through your BELIEF in God actually effect your own life by your (changed) actions.
.

Love to use highlight I see, too bad you don't have a Christian background to understand how wrong. When you SEE and when you FEEL, you end up KNOWING. Only those that refuse to see, don't know.

Love to use highlight I see
Indeed. I prefer to be clear and precise.
:)

... too bad you don't have a Christian background to understand how wrong.
Wrong : I have a Christian background. But after I rejected the existence of deities I became a Secular Humanist.
:)

When you SEE and when you FEEL, you end up KNOWING. Only those that refuse to see, don't know.
Nah... You BELIEVE that you KNOW. But without objective evidence for that it always remains BELIEF.
You call it any way you want, but it is and remains BELIEF.
:)

Wow this thread is long.

I do not wish to turn anyone away from religion but I think it's important for someone who has questions to hear from both sides.

I don't mean to step on any toes but I seen a few people say there is no proof of evolution. This couldn't be further from the truth. Evolution is 100% fact. We just don't know all the odds and ends yet. For people to say it's just a theory is misleading.

As far as contradictions in the Bible, there are too many to even list. If there were no contradictions in the Bible there would not be hundreds of different beliefs and ideas. In my opinion though, contradictions really have nothing to do with whether there is a God. It would just mean he had little to do if any of the book being written. Again this is not an entirely bad thing, nor should it sway someone from religion. Religion is supposed to be about the heart. There was never any proof of a God at any time. People have always needed faith. Anytime I bring up the proof argument to my mother, she just looks at me and says "if there was any proof everyone would be christians, if everyone were christians heaven would be pretty full, and I hate crowds"

So Mom, I say to You, I am doing my part to make sure there is plenty of breathing room for you in heaven... lol

Wow this thread is long.

I do not wish to turn anyone away from religion but I think it's important for someone who has questions to hear from both sides.

I don't mean to step on any toes but I seen a few people say there is no proof of evolution. This couldn't be further from the truth. Evolution is 100% fact. We just don't know all the odds and ends yet. For people to say it's just a theory is misleading.

As far as contradictions in the Bible, there are too many to even list. If there were no contradictions in the Bible there would not be hundreds of different beliefs and ideas. In my opinion though, contradictions really have nothing to do with whether or not there is a God. It would just mean he had little to do if any of the book being written. Again this is not an entirely bad thing, nor should it sway someone from religion. Religion is supposed to be about the heart. There was never any proof of a God at any time. People have always needed faith. Anytime I bring up the proof argument to my mother, she just looks at me and says "if there was any proof everyone would be christians, if everyone were christians heaven would be pretty full, and I hate crowds"

So Mom, I say to You, I am doing my part to make sure there is plenty of breathing room for you in heaven........lol

Onan Like I told Cred, if Jidcou wanted to hear the atheist view, he/ she would have posted in the "other religion" section of the site. So it is just rude when atheist come on this forum and to promote their own beliefs by making demeaning comments about Christianity.

As far as I am concerned the Bible is absolute truth. It was written by hundred of authors and yet everything is consistent and there is absolutely no contradiction. I challenge you to post a question about contradictions and by the end of the day you will know that there are no contradictions. Instead of Judging something with limited information, you should do your research on the Bible and you find its credibility

I am a masters biology student and I can tell you Science is only beginning to catch up on what God had man record in the Bible from ancient times. The Bible never claims to be a text book on science but when it does speak on nature or physics it is absolutely accurate. For example man, up until recently believed the earth was flat and yet it was recorded thousands of year ago in the Bible, that the earth was shperical. This is just one example out of over 60 instances in which the Bible acuratelly represents what scientific knowledge we have now but was not know to man when the Bible was written so to me that is evidence of the divine inspiration of God.

As far as evolution goes, it is not a fact. It is a theory. Micro evolution is a scientific fact however Macro evolution is not a fact. There is evidence to prove that small-scale changes in allele frequencies in a population, over a few generations do occur however there is no evidence to prove that one can completely chang into a totally different species. There is also no evidence to prove a one cell creature crawled out of mythical soup and is responsible for all diversity of life. It takes a leap of faith to believe that a human Being and a fruit fly share a common ancestor. If you believe that it is not because it is fact but because you have faith that all life came from a creature that came from no where and crawled out of a soup and became plants insects trees cats dogs people.. etc... lol As far as I am concerned it take more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe a supernatural being created everything.

I will say the same thing to you. If there was any proof that there was no God everyone would be atheists, and if there was proof of macroevolution every scientist would be an dawinist. But not all scientist buy into the Myth.

Onan Like i told Cred, if Jidcou wanted to hear the athiest view, he/ she would have posted in the "other religion" section of the site. This question is in the Religious Discussions forum - the correct area for it.


So it is just rude when atheist come on this forum and to promote their own beliefs by making demeaning comments about Christianity.Christians on this site demean non-christians all the time, enough with the hypocrisy.

I will say the same thing to you. If there was any proof that there was no God everyone would be atheists, and if there was proof of macroevolution every scientist would be an dawinist. But not all scientist buy into the Myth.

1. If there was any proof that the Earth was spherical, then everyone would believe it to be so.

2. Not everyone believes the Earth to be spherical, see Flat Earth Society - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_Society)

Therefore:

3. The world must be flat.

You really think that's a logical way of reasoning? You may have a master's in biology, but you seem to know next to nothing about science or critical thinking.

PS. The Flat Earth society was based off the founders' interpretation of the Bible... but you said the Bible said that the Earth is spherical..

This question is in the Religious Discussions forum - the correct area for it.

Christians on this site demean non-christians all the time, enough with the hypocrisy.


NK I do so agree. The thing that swirls in my mind, when that happens "Christians" demeaning anyone, is how Christian are they really? For sure not all, but those that come across with what seems hatred almost, and I am not talking about this thread, but overall,
How is that Christian.

Funny how the word demonic has some similar letters to demean.

And when that stuff comes flying your way and mine as well, I just side step it, as best as I can, as I know that they will tire easily.

I do apologize to those who have had mud slung their way by those who claim to have Christ love in their heart.

I really shutter to even be upset at those that are so unkind, but I will of course not let them distract me from my beliefs.

They are souls that are in need of cleansing, in my opinion.

Sorry, for the rant. No one, who claims to love Christ, would speak in the way that some do.

End of rant. And NK you are so right (but you knew that ;)

How can I tell that God exists and how do I know when he is affecting my life
I would become involved in a local church and then take it from there. Just pray to God for guidance, and ask him what he wants you to do.

Believe this question has ran its course,
Question closed