[templelane]

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 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)

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

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!

[Dark_crow]

Even bold letters won't help your argument:
atheism - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

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. :)

[NeedKarma]

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.

[sassyT]

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.

[NeedKarma]

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?

[Dark_crow]

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

[NeedKarma]

Apparently you are not aware of this:
Young Earth creationism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

[ordinaryguy]

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.

[Dark_crow]

Apparently you are not aware of this:
Young Earth creationism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

[NeedKarma]

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.

[Dark_crow]

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.

[sassyT]

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.

[Donna Mae]

"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)

[BMI]

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.

[ineedhelpfast]

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.

[Credendovidis]

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.
.

[Donna Mae]

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.

[Credendovidis]

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.
.

[Credendovidis]

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.
:)

[sassyT]

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.