(11-25-2016 08:56 AM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  

(11-25-2016 12:23 AM)Funslinger Wrote:  

(11-24-2016 11:48 PM)SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(11-24-2016 11:18 PM)Funslinger Wrote:  

(11-24-2016 11:08 PM)SoMs Eagle Wrote:  No one "knows". Scientists are often wrong. Even when they "know" something.
Want "proof"?
We don't know

Of course science is sometimes wrong. That's the beauty of the scientific method. It goes where the evidence leads. When new evidence suggests a different truth, it changes its mind.

Science never makes claims of absolute truth. It only claims truths that are supported by a preponderance of evidence. It works in the long run because it lets the evidence lead to the truth.

Religion, OTOH, makes initial claims and rejects evidence that doesn't support the claim while accepting the evidence that does. That process is disingenuous at best.

You are absolutely right. But you fail to understand faith. Even people who are not religious by the common definition look for meaning in life. Some worship 'Mother Earth' for goodness sake. Many things cannot be explained by physical science. You can choose your own path and that is is beautiful thing about this existence. No need to call people who choose to believe in religion ignorant or stupid. Many of the very scientists you undoubtedly consider geniuses believe in a 'divine hand'. I remember one geneticist saying the odds were greater that a tornado plowing through a junkyard would assemble a fully functional 747 jet than DNA simply being formed from chemicals boiling around in some primordial soup. The facts if you want to believe them is that we simply do not know and since science tells us we can't go back in time we will never 'KNOW'.

I understand faith to be believing without corroborating evidence. I try to avoid that.

I don't recall stating that religious people were ignorant or stupid. I said they were irrational on that particular subject.

You are right that many things can't be explained. So why do you attempt to explain it with "God did it"? Instead, just say "I don't know". That's what science does.

Faith is the climax of logic and reason.

LOL

Faith is, according to the dictionary,

"strong belief in God or the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof"

If the belief is based on faith rather than proof there is nothing logical or reasonable about it. Faith is the antithesis of logic and reason. Faith is basically saying "it must be true because I so strongly want it to be true".

You are certainly entitled to your faith. Just understand that faith is a bad way to find the truth.

(11-25-2016 09:48 AM)T_Won1 Wrote:  

(11-25-2016 08:45 AM)Jayesseagle Wrote:  I feel sorry for those who believe in the Charles Darwin theory (Evolution) and/or the Big Bang theory!

Me too. Seems desperate to have faith in that lunacy.

Have you even examined the evidence or at the least read books that discuss the evidence? If not, how can you even hold a logical and reasonable opinion on evolution?

Have you read the Bible cover to cover?

(11-25-2016 10:07 AM)SoMs Eagle Wrote:  Higgs-Boson; The 'God' particularly. So named by the scientists looking for it.
Man made global warming. Also named by the scientists looking for it. One is science, the other is fabricated to gain wealth.
Science can be corrupted. Men can be corrupted. Some times we see what we want to see and disregard the truth. Who knows how God created man. He could have done it by means of evolution. I don't know. Neither does any scientists. But I have one question for you FS and it is a serious one; why didn't all chimpanzees-banobos become human?

Because that would violate evolution. Humans and chimpanzees BOTH evolved from a common ancestor. Not one from the other. Evolution is not a ladder, it's a branching bush.

I guess you haven't bothered to learn what evolution is. Instead, you just accept what others tell you. Instead of accepting what I or others tell you it is, find out for yourself. A good place to start is the book I referenced earlier in the thread. It is one of the most up to date sources of information on the evidence for evolution.

BTW, you're zero of two. Anthropogenic climate change is an observed fact as well. There are distinct human signatures in the data that show the climate to be warming. I don't blindly accept that scientific conclusion. I have read many scientific papers on the subject and concluded based on the evidence.

(11-25-2016 10:22 AM)WKUApollo Wrote:  

(11-25-2016 02:46 AM)Funslinger Wrote:  As an atheist, I simply reject the claim that there is a god. I also reject the claim that there is no god. I do so because neither claim has been supported by empirical evidence. While I know that one of the claims must be true, it is irrational to believe either until it is supported by empirical evidence.

Therein lies the conundrum. The premise behind a God/Intelligent Design is that it works outside the laws of nature (supernatural). Supernatural is defined as: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe. It can't be supported by empirical evidence because it lies beyond nature.

If the supernatural even exists. Why would one believe it exists without evidence? If it does and we can't observe it, all we can do is speculate about it. So, we can't determine what does or doesn't exist there.

Instead, by focusing on what we can observe, science has greatly improved human life.

(11-25-2016 10:42 AM)ARandomHerdFan Wrote:  

(11-25-2016 09:48 AM)T_Won1 Wrote:  

(11-25-2016 08:45 AM)Jayesseagle Wrote:  I feel sorry for those who believe in the Charles Darwin theory (Evolution) and/or the Big Bang theory!

Me too. Seems desperate to have faith in that lunacy.

I'll never understand why both sides need to be so condescending.

Stating that "it is irrational to hold beliefs not supported by empirical evidence because it is not logical and reasonable" is not condescension. It is the truth. The very deinition of irrational indicates as much.

Condescension would be accusing one of being irrational simply to feel superior. I do it because irrational thought is the enemy of progress and I wish to help stamp it out.

Had the Dark Ages never happened where would science be now? Could we have landed on the moon in 1600? Who knows?

(11-25-2016 11:06 AM)ODU1986 Wrote:  So Newtown claimed that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. So who or what was the unmoved mover?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Good question. The better response is "I don't know" rather than "God did it". At least until we have empirical evidence that sheds light on the question.

"I don't know" is not the enemy of knowledge. Making **** up is the enemy.

(11-25-2016 11:34 AM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  

(11-25-2016 11:11 AM)mufan01 Wrote:  The great thing about science is its true whether or not you believe it. Belief is not a part of the equation. Belief is what you do in the absence of science.

But I don't believe that includes scientific theory. A theory is just that, not a truth.

Irrelevant. A scientific theory is a model that attempts to explain natural phenomena based on the evidence that shows the phenomena to be true.

Evolution is an observed fact just like gravity. BTW, science has a better explanation for evolution than it does for gravity. The Theory of Evolution is the scientific model that is used to explain evolution. The TOE is very accurate and has been used to predict what types of transitional fossils should exist and where they could be found. And they were found where they were predicted to be. That's why the rate of fossil finds is on the rise.

Some 50,000 years ago our ancestors began burying their dead, preparing them for the afterlife and painting cave walls with impressionist images Salvador Dali said were some of the most beautiful paintings ever done. How does evolution explain this. How does it explain the magnolia tree. It is one of the oldest flowering plants and yet remains identical to the fossil record for hundreds of millions of years.
My point is the fossil record is not complete. That is why evolution is a theory. It is not proven fact. The Cambrian explosion is a good example. Even evolution theorists have a hard time explaining the diversity that happened in such a short geological time. Evolution has a very hard time with the development of a complex eye during this 'short' time.
We do not know is the ultimate answer. Quantum physicist tell us nothing exists until we observe it. So you see, God does exist for those who choose to see him in the creation around them. Simple as that.

(11-25-2016 01:18 PM)Funslinger Wrote:  

(11-25-2016 10:42 AM)ARandomHerdFan Wrote:  

(11-25-2016 09:48 AM)T_Won1 Wrote:  

(11-25-2016 08:45 AM)Jayesseagle Wrote:  I feel sorry for those who believe in the Charles Darwin theory (Evolution) and/or the Big Bang theory!

Me too. Seems desperate to have faith in that lunacy.

I'll never understand why both sides need to be so condescending.

Stating that "it is irrational to hold beliefs not supported by empirical evidence because it is not logical and reasonable" is not condescension. It is the truth. The very deinition of irrational indicates as much.

Condescension would be accusing one of being irrational simply to feel superior. I do it because irrational thought is the enemy of progress and I wish to help stamp it out.

Had the Dark Ages never happened where would science be now? Could we have landed on the moon in 1600? Who knows?

The Dark Ages are incorrectly labeled. There was a great deal of achievement. Your talking points are that of an angsty teenager.

(11-25-2016 12:45 PM)Funslinger Wrote:  

(11-25-2016 08:53 AM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  

(11-24-2016 10:42 PM)Funslinger Wrote:  

(11-24-2016 10:29 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  There is nothing to feel guilty about.

A woman posted on facebook that she needed a life-saving surgery in a clinic on the other side of the country. She said that she had no way to get to the clinic as she was out of money and had no means of transportation.

After a week of "I'll pray for you" platitudes, an atheist friend posted that she'd buy her a plane ticket. Then the flood gates open on the "Praise God" platitudes.

:facepalm:

Two hands at work accomplish more than millions clasped in prayer.

That is not guilt. It is not even close.

If anything, I could say God works through everyone.

Which god?

Obviously, the Christian God as His name is usually the one capitalized. Don't be obtuse.

(11-25-2016 12:49 PM)Funslinger Wrote:  

(11-25-2016 08:55 AM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  

(11-25-2016 05:18 AM)BRtransplant Wrote:  

(11-25-2016 02:46 AM)Funslinger Wrote:  

(11-25-2016 01:33 AM)SoMs Eagle Wrote:  So you put your faith in science. You to worship something. Many including the likes of Elon Musk believe with some certainty that we are living in a hologram. Your scientists are developing experimental equipment and theoretical experiments to test that theory in the near future. So I ask you, if they are right, who created this hologram? There are also theoretical physicists that say soon there will more sentient beings living in computer simulations than humans living in 'our world'. And these beings will have no knowledge of us. Who do you think they will worship?

I don't have faith in science. I have confidence in the scientific method because history has borne it out. Scientific models like the Theory of Gravity, the Theory of Evolution and Germ Theory make accurate predictions about nature and they do so much more accurately than anything else.

I would hope those simulated sentient beings would worship nothing and only hold rational beliefs, whatever they may be. Until they were to find evidence of us, it would be rational for them to believe only what they could prove.

As an atheist, I simply reject the claim that there is a god. I also reject the claim that there is no god. I do so because neither claim has been supported by empirical evidence. While I know that one of the claims must be true, it is irrational to believe either until it is supported by empirical evidence.

You started this thread. If you are truly at peace with your atheistic beliefs, why is it that you feel the need to debate the religious? Have you read the Bible? If not, then perhaps doing so would help you find the peace that you seem to seek. I hope you do find it, one way or the other.

Angry atheist. That is why.

Repeat the party line. That is what religious leaders tell you an atheist is. If atheists are all angry people, why are the most secular and least religious countries in the world the happiest, least crime-filled ones on Earth?

The Scandinavian countries are full of happy atheists.

I was referring directly to you, not every atheist.

Link?

Denmark has a high number of people on anti-depression drugs.

Least crime-filled? That is hundreds of years of Christian morality sticking around. It is definitely not the work of the Vikings or atheists (unless you like the morality of the Soviet Union or Communist China.)

(11-25-2016 09:48 AM)T_Won1 Wrote:  

(11-25-2016 08:45 AM)Jayesseagle Wrote:  I feel sorry for those who believe in the Charles Darwin theory (Evolution) and/or the Big Bang theory!

Me too. Seems desperate to have faith in that lunacy.

I'm sorry, but this is just dumb...

How is it desperate to believe in evolution or the Big Bang? Why would someone be desperate to not believe in the afterlife?

If belief in one of religion or science would be a sign of desperation, its religion. That's the one that gives you the warm fuzzies when contemplating what happens after you die.

I'm also not sure how anyone that believes in an omnipotent, omnipresent, creator that exists outside of time itself could call anyone else's beliefs "lunacy".

To be clear, I'm not calling your religion lunacy, I'm saying the Big Bang is no more implausible than religion. From a pragmatic perspective how is either explanation more or less beyond the realm of human comprehension?

While I am a non-believer, the reason I am Agnostic, rather than Atheist, is more or less the rationale I just explained. I am not willing to dismiss the belief in a creator as lunacy.

Let's be honest, arguing on a message board isn't going to change anyone's mind. We all believe strongly one way or the other. Despite what both sides would like to believe, there's evidence for both sides. Adaptation is observable in our environment and we see how it impacts even humans. Survival of the fittest is shown to be true as well as species die and others thrive in different environments.

Evolution, though, is tricky to prove since there is no observable example of a change of kind, something Darwain stated as necessary. Observation is a key part of the scientific process, but evolution isn't observable. And even if we give that evolution is real, one could argue that God spurred this evolution.

You don't have to believe in God, but there actually is evidence in the world of Him. The Ressurection of Jesus is pretty pivotal, but couldn't be disproven (and historical evidence shows that tons of groups wanted to prove it wasn't true). The reaction of the disciples and Paul to Him reappearing to them. Who changes their entire life and sacrifices themselves for a grand lie that they made up? We also have good evidence for a massive flood. There's also having to deal with how Israel, a people far smaller than any around them, was able to survive all this time. Then we can look at creation and how complex it is and how the percentage chance of it all being random is far smaller than it being from an intelligent being.

But I think the best evidence is what God does today in believers' lives. I understand many don't believe and no matter what I say and what evidence I offer, it will never be enough. But I know that I once was dead in my sin, and God worked a miracle and brought be to life. He changed my life. I don't understand everything. I have plenty of friends who've gotten doctorates in Biology who don't agree with evolution, but I recognize that doesn't matter to many. I can just say what the Bible says and what's happened to me.

(11-25-2016 03:13 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  

(11-25-2016 12:49 PM)Funslinger Wrote:  

(11-25-2016 08:55 AM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  

(11-25-2016 05:18 AM)BRtransplant Wrote:  

(11-25-2016 02:46 AM)Funslinger Wrote:  I don't have faith in science. I have confidence in the scientific method because history has borne it out. Scientific models like the Theory of Gravity, the Theory of Evolution and Germ Theory make accurate predictions about nature and they do so much more accurately than anything else.

I would hope those simulated sentient beings would worship nothing and only hold rational beliefs, whatever they may be. Until they were to find evidence of us, it would be rational for them to believe only what they could prove.

As an atheist, I simply reject the claim that there is a god. I also reject the claim that there is no god. I do so because neither claim has been supported by empirical evidence. While I know that one of the claims must be true, it is irrational to believe either until it is supported by empirical evidence.

You started this thread. If you are truly at peace with your atheistic beliefs, why is it that you feel the need to debate the religious? Have you read the Bible? If not, then perhaps doing so would help you find the peace that you seem to seek. I hope you do find it, one way or the other.

Angry atheist. That is why.

Repeat the party line. That is what religious leaders tell you an atheist is. If atheists are all angry people, why are the most secular and least religious countries in the world the happiest, least crime-filled ones on Earth?

The Scandinavian countries are full of happy atheists.

I was referring directly to you, not every atheist.

Link?

Denmark has a high number of people on anti-depression drugs.

Least crime-filled? That is hundreds of years of Christian morality sticking around. It is definitely not the work of the Vikings or atheists (unless you like the morality of the Soviet Union or Communist China.)

Depression is a clinic condition related more to physical problems with the brain moreso than a result of unhappiness. Depression is more likely in families with a history of depression indicating possible inheritance.


Think religion makes society less violent? Think again.
https://www.google.com/amp/www.latimes.c...ent=safari

"What about within the United States? According to the latest study from the Pew Research Center, the 10 states that report the highest levels of belief in God are Louisiana, Arkansas, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Kentucky, Tennessee and Oklahoma (tied with Utah). The 10 states with the lowest levels of belief in God are Maine, Vermont, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New York, Alaska, Oregon and California. And as is the case in the rest of the world, when it comes to nearly all standard measures of societal health, including homicide rates, the least theistic states generally fare much better than the most theistic. Consider child-abuse fatality rates: Highly religious Mississippi's is twice that of highly secular New Hampshire's, and highly religious Kentucky's is four times higher than highly secular Oregon's."

While this evidence is not a certain indication of cause and effect by itself, it is certainly an indication that lack of religion is not a guarantee of more violence and crime.

(11-25-2016 02:02 PM)SoMs Eagle Wrote:  Some 50,000 years ago our ancestors began burying their dead, preparing them for the afterlife and painting cave walls with impressionist images Salvador Dali said were some of the most beautiful paintings ever done. How does evolution explain this. How does it explain the magnolia tree. It is one of the oldest flowering plants and yet remains identical to the fossil record for hundreds of millions of years.
My point is the fossil record is not complete. That is why evolution is a theory. It is not proven fact. The Cambrian explosion is a good example. Even evolution theorists have a hard time explaining the diversity that happened in such a short geological time. Evolution has a very hard time with the development of a complex eye during this 'short' time.
We do not know is the ultimate answer. Quantum physicist tell us nothing exists until we observe it. So you see, God does exist for those who choose to see him in the creation around them. Simple as that.

I have not researched evolution in regard to these issues. But, assume evolution has no explanation. How does that support a conclusion that God accounts for it?

The fossil record will probably remain incomplete. It is highly unlikely that fossils will be found of every species that has ever existed. But, the fossil record is extremely large.

Recent fossil evidence of previously unknown species in the early Cambrian has reduced the "explosion" part of the equation. But, assume that evolution turns out to be false. How does that support a conclusion that God accounts for the diversity of life?

The default position on any unknown is "I don't know". The falsification of any one presented solution does not enhance the possibility of any other presented solution. Only evidence supporting a solution can strengthen a particular solution.

How does a belief in God explain any of this stuff?

(11-25-2016 03:43 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  

(11-25-2016 09:48 AM)T_Won1 Wrote:  

(11-25-2016 08:45 AM)Jayesseagle Wrote:  I feel sorry for those who believe in the Charles Darwin theory (Evolution) and/or the Big Bang theory!

Me too. Seems desperate to have faith in that lunacy.

I'm sorry, but this is just dumb...

How is it desperate to believe in evolution or the Big Bang? Why would someone be desperate to not believe in the afterlife?

If belief in one of religion or science would be a sign of desperation, its religion. That's the one that gives you the warm fuzzies when contemplating what happens after you die.

I'm also not sure how anyone that believes in an omnipotent, omnipresent, creator that exists outside of time itself could call anyone else's beliefs "lunacy".

To be clear, I'm not calling your religion lunacy, I'm saying the Big Bang is no more implausible than religion. From a pragmatic perspective how is either explanation more or less beyond the realm of human comprehension?

While I am a non-believer, the reason I am Agnostic, rather than Atheist, is more or less the rationale I just explained. I am not willing to dismiss the belief in a creator as lunacy.

If you are a non-believer then you are an atheist whether or not you call yourself one. Atheist means not believing in a god, period. Atheist does not mean believing that there are no gods. Atheism is a lack of belief in gods, not an active belief in anything.

Agnostic only deals with knowledge, not belief. I am an agnostic as well, an agnostic atheist to be more accurate. Gnostic is an irrational position because humanity has no knowledge on the subject of gods. And the gnostics who think there is are irrational.

(11-25-2016 03:51 PM)EagNBran Wrote:  Let's be honest, arguing on a message board isn't going to change anyone's mind. We all believe strongly one way or the other. Despite what both sides would like to believe, there's evidence for both sides. Adaptation is observable in our environment and we see how it impacts even humans. Survival of the fittest is shown to be true as well as species die and others thrive in different environments.

Evolution, though, is tricky to prove since there is no observable example of a change of kind, something Darwain stated as necessary. Observation is a key part of the scientific process, but evolution isn't observable. And even if we give that evolution is real, one could argue that God spurred this evolution.

You don't have to believe in God, but there actually is evidence in the world of Him. The Ressurection of Jesus is pretty pivotal, but couldn't be disproven (and historical evidence shows that tons of groups wanted to prove it wasn't true). The reaction of the disciples and Paul to Him reappearing to them. Who changes their entire life and sacrifices themselves for a grand lie that they made up? We also have good evidence for a massive flood. There's also having to deal with how Israel, a people far smaller than any around them, was able to survive all this time. Then we can look at creation and how complex it is and how the percentage chance of it all being random is far smaller than it being from an intelligent being.

But I think the best evidence is what God does today in believers' lives. I understand many don't believe and no matter what I say and what evidence I offer, it will never be enough. But I know that I once was dead in my sin, and God worked a miracle and brought be to life. He changed my life. I don't understand everything. I have plenty of friends who've gotten doctorates in Biology who don't agree with evolution, but I recognize that doesn't matter to many. I can just say what the Bible says and what's happened to me.

Evolution from one kind to the other is easily observable in the fossil record and the genomes of many currently existing species.

There is currently no proof of God. The resurrection of Jesus Christ is an as yet unsubstantiated claim. Until it is substantiated there is no need to disprove it.

Evolution is not random. The mutations are random but the process that naturally selects mutations for survival is not random. And it is not necessarily intelligently guided either.

Could you please elaborate on the evidence for a massive flood please?

What evidence do you have or can link to that proves anything that happens in a believer's life is attributable to God? Thanks.

BTW, debates on message boards can change minds. I have had three individuals tell me that my arguments started them on a path of discovery that changed their minds. Granted, that's not much for thirty years. But it isn't zero.

(11-25-2016 03:10 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  

(11-25-2016 12:45 PM)Funslinger Wrote:  

(11-25-2016 08:53 AM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  

(11-24-2016 10:42 PM)Funslinger Wrote:  

(11-24-2016 10:29 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  There is nothing to feel guilty about.

A woman posted on facebook that she needed a life-saving surgery in a clinic on the other side of the country. She said that she had no way to get to the clinic as she was out of money and had no means of transportation.

After a week of "I'll pray for you" platitudes, an atheist friend posted that she'd buy her a plane ticket. Then the flood gates open on the "Praise God" platitudes.

:facepalm:

Two hands at work accomplish more than millions clasped in prayer.

That is not guilt. It is not even close.

If anything, I could say God works through everyone.

Which god?

Obviously, the Christian God as His name is usually the one capitalized. Don't be obtuse.

So, what about all of the people using faith to believe in Allah, Zeus, Buddha, and all the other gods? Not a very good track record for faith, is it? Faith is not a reliable means to find the truth.

(11-25-2016 08:46 PM)Funslinger Wrote:  

(11-25-2016 03:43 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  

(11-25-2016 09:48 AM)T_Won1 Wrote:  

(11-25-2016 08:45 AM)Jayesseagle Wrote:  I feel sorry for those who believe in the Charles Darwin theory (Evolution) and/or the Big Bang theory!

Me too. Seems desperate to have faith in that lunacy.

I'm sorry, but this is just dumb...

How is it desperate to believe in evolution or the Big Bang? Why would someone be desperate to not believe in the afterlife?

If belief in one of religion or science would be a sign of desperation, its religion. That's the one that gives you the warm fuzzies when contemplating what happens after you die.

I'm also not sure how anyone that believes in an omnipotent, omnipresent, creator that exists outside of time itself could call anyone else's beliefs "lunacy".

To be clear, I'm not calling your religion lunacy, I'm saying the Big Bang is no more implausible than religion. From a pragmatic perspective how is either explanation more or less beyond the realm of human comprehension?

While I am a non-believer, the reason I am Agnostic, rather than Atheist, is more or less the rationale I just explained. I am not willing to dismiss the belief in a creator as lunacy.

If you are a non-believer then you are an atheist whether or not you call yourself one. Atheist means not believing in a god, period. Atheist does not mean believing that there are no gods. Atheism is a lack of belief in gods, not an active belief in anything.

Agnostic only deals with knowledge, not belief. I am an agnostic as well, an agnostic atheist to be more accurate. Gnostic is an irrational position because humanity has no knowledge on the subject of gods. And the gnostics who think there is are irrational.

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear enough, I don't really believe there is or isn't a God. I see both explanations as equally beyond the realm of human comprehension. My belief is IF there is a creator, the majority of religions are talking about the same creator and that creator is not nearly as hung up on people's religious beliefs as believers will tell you.

(11-25-2016 03:51 PM)EagNBran Wrote:  You don't have to believe in God, but there actually is evidence in the world of Him. The Ressurection of Jesus is pretty pivotal, but couldn't be disproven (and historical evidence shows that tons of groups wanted to prove it wasn't true). The reaction of the disciples and Paul to Him reappearing to them. Who changes their entire life and sacrifices themselves for a grand lie that they made up? We also have good evidence for a massive flood. There's also having to deal with how Israel, a people far smaller than any around them, was able to survive all this time. Then we can look at creation and how complex it is and how the percentage chance of it all being random is far smaller than it being from an intelligent being.

But I think the best evidence is what God does today in believers' lives. I understand many don't believe and no matter what I say and what evidence I offer, it will never be enough. But I know that I once was dead in my sin, and God worked a miracle and brought be to life. He changed my life. I don't understand everything. I have plenty of friends who've gotten doctorates in Biology who don't agree with evolution, but I recognize that doesn't matter to many. I can just say what the Bible says and what's happened to me.

I'm sorry to take you to task, but I see flaws in these final two paragraphs.

I don't understand how you can say:

"Then we can look at creation and how complex it is and how the percentage chance of it all being random is far smaller than it being from an intelligent being"

How exactly do you go about assigning percentage chances to either? People will say things like "you cannot understand the true limitlessness of God's awesome power" but apparently many people also can't understand how long ~4.5 billion years is. Modern humans have existed for roughly 200,000 years, human civilization is roughly 6,000 years old.

So our home and all the plants and animals and "God's wonder" existed and evolved for 99.996% of earth's history without modern man.

It's hard to fathom a million years, your view is awfully dismissive of four and a half billion years.

Further, I just don't get the notion of looking at believers lifes. I've known plenty of true believers with ****** lifes and plenty of people from all religions as well as athiests who have fantastic ones.