[Megan1]

Originally Posted by WOW!USaidSomethingSmart!

I'm afraid you did say scientific evidence: "I mean, there is scientific evidence that Jesus is God.... So for those of you who don't believe in God because there isn't enough scientific evidence,". It's in your first reply to this thread. You never said circumstantial evidence. Read your first post. If you still doubt that, then why did other users quote and comment you on that very same thing? Answer: because you posted it.



You've been saying your "evidence" and arguments are solid throughout this entire thread. Specifically, you said: "if He wasn’t God, these things would be the biggest coincidences ever". That implies the evidence is quite strong and you can read the surrounding text of yours for some context verifying what I said.

But now you're saying your arguments and evidence, at least for this issue, are weak.

Faith is believing in something when there are no strong reasons to support believing in it. I consider you to use more blind faith than anything else because you believe what the bible says, most of it at least, but don't bother to think about it, don't bother to have enough knowledge to back up your beliefs. So far, your only additional knowledge was recommending that I read a book because you don't know enough of the book to give some examples from it.

Further evidence of "blind faith" is your disbelief in evolution. I don't mind if people don't accept it, that's fine but I think it'd be good if people could look into something first before automatically refusing it. I don't know if it was you or another Christian user who said they took science in high-school. If it was you who said it, that's bullshit or you learned nothing because you don't know the basic idea of what science is nor do you seem to know anything about evolution. You're disbelieving it on sight and blind faith.



If someone told it to you and you've read very little, how do you know the entire book is indeed about evidence of jesus being god. Might I add, you claim both in this very response and in others that the book contains scientific evidence, not circumstantial evidence, not word-of-mouth evidence, not made-up theory evidence but actual scientific evidence.



It can be proven nor disproven, so it has no credibility then and is about topics that cannot be assessed in any way. If you want an example of what does "disprove", is the commonly-referred flood. If such a flood occurred, fossilized creatures and plant-life would be at about the same depths underground. However, they are not and researchers have indicated they are millions of years apart. More evidence would be the fossilized creatures that trace back human development. Biblically that shouldn't exist because god made humans on the spot, there should be no ancestral fossilized humans. Even more evidence, Noah released countless animals onto the Earth and many are still here but there are many others that were not released by him because they are evolutionarily distinct from their ancestors (some of which were released by Noah). Lastly, in Leviticus, it says sprinkling blood of a decapitated dove can be able to cure someone's ailment. There's no reason as to why that would be effective. I doubt it's been scientifically examined because it's so ridiculous, researchers wouldn't get any funding nor approval from ethical boards to carry out such an experiment.



But you ended up at that conclusion because of the supposed qualities of your god and being unable to previously think other gods would be different.



God granting you wisdom or knowledge to know something means you're not seeking it out.



I'll take back some of what I said in this post and in other posts in this thread and other threads if you answer this question: what have you learned from studying evolution? I may not change my view, it depends on your answer.

While you're answering it, also say the scientific reasons why bacteria evolving to a harmful substance is not real. If you don't know much about bacteria, pick some animal you know more about but your answer has to have some scientific and biological sense.



This is why I doubt you know anything about evolution. One basic premise of science, as said before is falsifiability, hence NOTHING can be proven nor disproven. Using that as an argument shows you really don't know what science is about despite apparently studying it.



Again, no knowledge of science. I thought you studied evolution, didn't you know it was part of the scientific field and what science is? At this point I doubt you know a single thing of evolution. You can say otherwise but from this statement alone, I don't think you took a single science course. But go ahead, dazzle me with what you think evolution is. I could say what it is but I've done that for you so many times in the past, and with this result, you ignore it all or none of it enters that tiny brain of yours.



I'm not understanding how this particular quote of yours shows god is above science. Essentially, he can give knowledge if he feels like it. Science can lead to knowledge as well but not static, it's dynamic.

Sorry, I guess I did say scientific evidence first. I did also say circumstantial evidence though. I was talking about both, separately. When I said “this would have been a huge coincidence if Jesus wasn’t God”, that’s circumstantial evidence. When I said “there is scientific evidence that Jesus is God” and when I talked about that book, that’s when I was referring to scientific evidence. Sorry for the confusion, that was my fault.

It wasn’t me who talked about taking science in high school.

I know that the book is about scientific evidence about Jesus without reading it because that’s the theme of the Case for Christ books. It’s like knowing that Twilight is about vampires without actually reading it. You know the theme of the book without reading all of the details, just from hearing about it. Like I said, I’ll have to get back to you with evidence from the book after reading it. Not that I really care to, because I don’t need evidence to believe.

About the flood……Not all fossils would be the same depth underground because some animals died before the flood and after the flood. All of the animals that died in the flood would be in the same depth, but there were some animals who died long before the flood and some that died long after- so those wouldn’t be in the same place. And the bible specifically says that God put a curse on the Earth, making it age quicker; that explains why the fossils appear to be millions of years old when it reality they are only thousands of years old. And I’m not exactly sure what you mean my “fossilized humans”. About the sprinkling blood thing, I haven’t read the whole way through Leviticus yet to know what context that was in….but off the top of my head I’d say that it may have been a healing ritual of some sort that God took part in that couldn’t be done without Him. Or maybe it COULD still work now and scientists just won’t fund something like that to find out. Um….there are probably even more logical options, but that it off the top of my head. I’ll have to ask someone about that.

You seek and THEN God grants you wisdom. It’s both. Seek and you shall find (I know that verse isn’t exactly about wisdom, but it works for that too).

When I said evolution, I just meant evolution of humans. I don’t know much about evolution of bacteria or anything like that, and I didn’t mean to say that that isn’t true. I just know that evolution (as in humans coming from monkeys) is still considered a theory, there is still missing links that makes the theory incomplete, and that there is a chance that it is false. That’s all that I need to hear to know by knowledge that the bible COULD be true. And from there, I know by faith that the bible IS true.