What if you have never heard of God, Jesus, or the Holy Bible?

'Sheesh, do you believe ANY outlandish story as long as it supports your preferred belief?'no i dont and what can i say i didn't see it. i will lie if you want and pretend i didn't see it.
i'm udecided about the particular case ,its the number of cases that i believe there must be truth to.i am not sure whether you will read this schraff you are so hard to grab hold of.

Hehe sorry I don't want to start a debate It just think in general there are a lot of evolution theories out there that require more faith than a christian requires to believe in God. I only wanted schrafinator to look with better eyes than that. So it's not been found in Google, doest that mean it doesnt exist?

Cite please! Evolution has been observed. Evolution takes less faith than even your existence, until I see you in person. Schraf suggests that if such an amazing event occurred, people would spread the word until it ended up on the most prolific news medium available today. It's not so much to ask.

quote:

---

Evolution has been observed. Evolution takes less faith than even your existence, until I see you in person.

---

So you were there billions of years ago were you? You observed it did you? It requires more faith to believe in billions of years than it does to believe in thousands of years.------------------
When all else fails, anything remaining, no matter how unlikley, is probable.

That's weird. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but surely you put belief in a sort of continuum, where you have faith one one side and evidence on the other - so that, the more evidence you have for a certain thing, the less faith you need to have to believe it, right?If that's the case, then it takes way more faith to believe in God than it does to believe any particular statement of science. Because there's zero evidence for god, while no theory in science is proposed without some kind of evidence. So, how does your statement make any sense?Do you have a theory in particular that you think takes more faith than believe in god? tell ya what. Pick any evolutionary statement, and I'll provide the evidence. Meanwhile you provide the evidence for your particular god. Be prepared to defend it, of course.

Why? Because the number is bigger? It's takes no more faith to believe in a million years than it does to believe in any length of time beyond that you have a recollection of. But faith is irrelevant. Evidence is what matters. And there's way more evidence for a 4.6 billion year history of the earth than there is for sudden creation, 6000 years ago.

Can you prove to me that this world is actually billions of years old? No you can't, you don't have all the knowledge in the world, or universe, to decifer that. Just the same I don't have all the knowledge to prove that God exists. For me personally, from the information I have been given and the information I have gotten for myself, I believe it requires more faith to believe in a world billions of years old as opposed to thousands. That is what I believe according the knowledge I know. You may have more knowledge than me or you may not and thats what it all comes down too. So to start a debate full I facts and figures is fun but whats the point? We see the same evidence but look at it under a different light.------------------
When all else fails, anything remaining, no matter how unlikley, is probable.

quote:

---

It's takes no more faith to believe in a million years than it does to believe in any length of time beyond that you have a recollection of. But faith is irrelevant. Evidence is what matters.

---

Have you ever been in love crashfrog? If so can you prove it? Do you have facts and evidence on proving that love actually exists? Have you ever had faith in someone? Is that faith provable by evidence?

quote:

---

Have you ever been in love crashfrog? If so can you prove it? Do you have facts and evidence on proving that love actually exists?

---

I would imagine that love releases a certain mix of chemicals into the brain, and so it would be able to be proven.

Just as I don't expect 100% proof from science - only enough data to support reasonable theories - I'd settle for less than 100% evidence for god. Heck, I'd settle for 1% evidence for god. Unfortunately there is 0 evidence for god. The way you put this suggests that you might change your mind with further information. If this is so I invite you to ask questions and learn. There's a reason geologists infer a 4 billion year history of earth - data that leads these highly trained, very intelligent individuals to this conclusion. No, from your own statements above it's clear that you're looking at much less evidence than geologists are looking at. You seem to imply that, anyway. And if you're coming to erroneous conclusions through ignorance, don't you have any interest in correcting yourself and learning the way things actually are?

Every day, by my actions towards that person I love. (I hope.) You'd have to ask her if I've succeeded. But yes, I do the things that humans generally recognize that humans do when they're in love. That's sufficient evidence for most people. I don't see what your point is, here. We're talking about physical events with physical evidence. Not human concepts. I'm sure you have a lot of faith in god. I'm sure you're very faithful. So what? Your faith has absolutely no bearing on the actual existence of god, which is the issue at hand. Your faith is not evidence in that regard.If you believe in god as a kind of metaphor, or as a concept, that's fine. But if you believe that god has a real, verifiable existence as an entity that can do things, I need evidence. And there is none. So, I can safely state, within the limits of scientific certainty, that there is no god.

quote:

---

Unfortunately there is 0 evidence for god.

---

You mean you have not yet found any knowledge for the existance of God

quote:

---

The way you put this suggests that you might change your mind with further information.

---

No not at all. I am open to hear what evolution and evolutionists have to say as long as evolutionists are open to hear what creationists have to say. You are also forgetting faith here. The faith I have in God, to me, is like a knowledge of a different kind that far outweighs the knowledge of any human or earthly knowledge (this is only one part of what faith means to me). It's something greater than any humun mind can fully comprehend, but it doesn't hurt to try I'm not using faith as an excuse here for my lack of worldly knowledge, there are phyical things that point my mind towards God more than 'No God', but like I said I don't want to start a debate for the reasons I have already mentioned.

quote:

---

No, from your own statements above it's clear that you're looking at much less evidence than geologists are looking at. You seem to imply that, anyway.

---

I am not a geologist nor will I ever be. I do try to soak in whatever I can from what I hear, read and see from geologists though, as you would too I imagine. Regardless on whether they themselves believe in Evolution or Creation.

quote:

---

No, from your own statements above it's clear that you're looking at much less evidence than geologists are looking at. You seem to imply that, anyway. And if you're coming to erroneous conclusions through ignorance, don't you have any interest in correcting yourself and learning the way things actually are?

---

Ignorance is the condition of being uneducated, unaware, or uninformed. I AM educated, I AM aware and I AM informed. Like I said before you may be more educated, aware and informed than I am, then maybe not.
Erroneous means - containing or derived from error; mistaken. Maybe I am, maybe you are? Are you open to that fact? Below is a quote written by Ken Ham of AiG that explains more clearly the point I was trying to make:

quote:

---

Creationists and evolutionists, Christians and non-Christians all have the same evidencethe same facts. Think about it: we all have the same earth, the same fossil layers, the same animals and plants, the same starsthe facts are all the same.

​

The difference is in the way we all interpret the facts. And why do we interpret facts differently? Because we start with different presuppositions. These are things that are assumed to be true, without being able to prove them. These then become the basis for other conclusions. All reasoning is based on presuppositions (also called axioms). This becomes especially relevant when dealing with past events.

---

------------------
When all else fails, anything remaining, no matter how unlikley, is probable.

The quote above is garbage.

quote:

---

Creationists and evolutionists, Christians and non-Christians all have the same evidencethe same facts. Think about it: we all have the same earth, the same fossil layers, the same animals and plants, the same starsthe facts are all the same.
The difference is in the way we all interpret the facts. And why do we interpret facts differently? Because we start with different presuppositions. These are things that are assumed to be true, without being able to prove them. These then become the basis for other conclusions. All reasoning is based on presuppositions (also called axioms). This becomes especially relevant when dealing with past events.

---

I would like to extract from this the following: "Because we start with different presuppositions."Granted. We all start with presuppositions. Science, however, attempts to address by establishing that an argument should be INDEPENDANTLY VERIFIABLE. It is not sufficient to claim that X is true without also explaining how someone else, even someone else who radically disagrees with you, can follow a methodology themselves, without your inteference, that also produces the result you predicted. And the reason that methodology is emplyed is so that we can get past personal subjectivity - not perfectly, but we've gone a hell of a long way.Religion, by contrast, makes no attempt to demontsrate independant verifiability. Indeed, the most direct clainms to direct insight are also claimed in special apoologia fior why it CANNOT be proved. The priest asserts that god speaks to them directly and privately, and that the failure of othersb to hear is symptiomatic of their lack of faith. And besides, god is ineffable.The results of these two different METHODOLOGIES are not hard to see. Religion has kept humanity locked into ignorance and subjection for 6000 years, give or take. Science broke those bonds in only a couple of hundred and allowed us to becoem the only species in the entire history of the planet to gte out of the gravity well. Science kicks arse; sceience works; science descrobes the world accurately while the totally non-rigorous methods of faith can only give us moral bigotry dressed up as divine revelation.There is no equivalence between reason and faith.

quote:

---

Every day, by my actions towards that person I love. (I hope.) You'd have to ask her if I've succeeded. But yes, I do the things that humans generally recognize that humans do when they're in love. That's sufficient evidence for most people. I don't see what your point is, here. We're talking about physical events with physical evidence. Not human concepts.

---

I am refering to things that exist that you cannot see, hear or physically feel. Love exists, that is a fact, you have just proven that. You can prove acts of love but not Love itself. What is love? Where does it come from? My point was that it is like believing if God.

quote:

---

I can safely state, within the limits of scientific certainty, that there is no god.

---

Your happy living in the limits of scientific certainty are you? Sorry but I am not. Simply because they keep finding new evidence, new facts, new knowledge which quite often changes the evolutionary theories that you believed in earlier.------------------
When all else fails, anything remaining, no matter how unlikley, is probable.[This message has been edited by Spud, 06-26-2003]

quote:

---

Religion, by contrast, makes no attempt to demontsrate independant verifiability. Indeed, the most direct clainms to direct insight are also claimed in special apoologia fior why it CANNOT be proved. The priest asserts that god speaks to them directly and privately, and that the failure of othersb to hear is symptiomatic of their lack of faith. And besides, god is ineffable.

---

What a crock! Your limiting a creationist to a particalar religon involving priests, catholic perhaps? I am not catholic and I dont believe what you just wrote. And you say religon makes no attempt to demontsrate independant verifiability? Where have you been man! The quote I mentioned is not garbage it is basic common sence.[This message has been edited by Spud, 06-26-2003]