How can we be sure that all religions are wrong?

I never asked you to apologize for the bible or god. Show it to me. Counter argument? That's what you need to supply. Explain the bible's omissions, errors and contradictions. Christian scholars recognize those contradictions. Are you a bible scholar? http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/584/viewall/christian-scholars-recognize-contradictions-in-bible/
I recognized those contradictions in my early teens, and became an atheist. All my siblings are still christians.

That's probably why Leadfoot doesn't want to call himself a Christian because people like you jump on him demanding he explain Bible stuff. Why the **** should he have to?

Leadfoot is the one who asked me about the Bible. Why are you putting your nose into our discussion? STFU

I should have known not to question a zealot.

I am not surprised by your response. Can you engage CI or other people in a civil manner after they constructively criticize your response?

Oh yeah, that's brilliant, going to an Islamic website to get information about the bible and Christianity. No wonder you quit

There are so many people who differ in their ideas of what a Christian is. I can only share my Christian views about what being a Christian means to me.

I'm a Christian atheist.

There is a bad ass boxer out there who almost killed a man in a contest. He had a shirt on that said Jesus didn't TAP on it with a photo of Jesus nailed to a cross.
In boxing you can tap out if you wont to quit the beating.

He said he could have never won the match if Jesus was not with him.

Begging the question, what's a Christian atheist ?

Ad hom.

Could it be an atheist who finds value in the moral philosophy that Christ shared? Maybe a follower of Christ's moral philosophy who doesn't believe in a God?

Nonsense, your behaviour is that of a zealot, you zealously try to promulgate your own particular belief system. You act far more like a religious person than Leadfoot.

And when your religiosity is pointed out you become aggressive.

Fair enough, but if true, I'm pretty sure that atheist and that moral philosophy's author will instantly recognize each other when they finally meet. Which will be wonderful irony, because he said that won't be the case with many 'believers' who say they follow it.

Okay, I'll accept "zealot." Happy?

Creationism vs Evolution by the Smithsonian Institute.
http://humanorigins.si.edu/about/broader-social-impacts-committee/science-religion-evolution-and-creationism-primer

Over all, a pretty good summary. But just before the discussion of ID, there is this subtle shift. Without mentioning how mind blowingly complete the change was, They acknowledge complete changes of mind have happened in science (like the origin of the universe), but the implication in the article is that in THIS case (origin of life and evolution), there is no question about it and no change of mind is possible.

This little slight of hand sets them up to say that ID is 'not scientific' and can't be included in science. What utter bullshit. ANYTHING can be studied scientifically. Doesn't mean that it won't be found to be invalid, but to say that something is ineligible for scientific study is to acknowledge your un-scientific bias and insecurities.

WRONG !
According to the Popper, a theory/ concept is 'scientific' if it is open to potential refutation. So how would you attempt to falsify ID ?
Suppose a scientist were to create 'life' in a laboratory...would that constitute a refutation ?...No , because it could be argued that the creativity of the scientist itself was dependent on his creator'.
In fact Prigogine showed that no 'agent' was required for the spontaneous occurence of dynamic structures similar to but simpler than lifeforms. The systems principle of DKS (dynamic kinetic stability) acts in opposition to entropy to maintain such structures.
So ID is NOT 'scientific' on falsifiability grounds, nor does it seem required to account for complex structures according to promising 'systems' considerations. ID a bit of 'ad hoc -ary' serving a useful function for believers. In fact more sensible scientific 'believers' like Polkinghorne,have 'dumped' ID on 'scientific grounds' and advocated a 'God as the source of morality' instead. You can argue about 'complexity' all you like...the fact is
'complexity', like 'God' is a human construct both open to human negotiation.
Of course ID advocates have invested much of their 'self integrity' in protecting their 'rationality' such that an attack on ID is seen as an attack on themselves. Perhaps they should ask themselves how different they are from those we call 'religious zealots' who counter 'attacks' with actual physical force.

How life can originate from minerals
http://www.indiana.edu/~geol105b/1425chap10.htm

Thanks for that. Try also Addy Pross 'What is Life?'
http://wasdarwinwrong.com/korthof99.htm

Excellent!

fresco, The theory of life is quite simple if we follow the opinions provided by the scientists who have studied it. The life of homo sapiens is quite short on this planet that has existed for some 4.5 billion years. It provided the right kind of environment for life to exist. We are the offspring from the primates according to many scientists who have studied this subject. The way I look at life is how man has been able to expand our knowledge and technology to the point where we can send rockets to Mars and beyond. We've come a long ways since Columbus sailed the ocean blue to discover other continents on this planet. The early explorers were the brave souls, because they took off on ships without knowing what lay ahead. We now have our contemporary explorers who have flown into space.
Here's a list of explorers, many names we have never heard or seen before. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_explorers
What does all this mean as it pertains to the religions of the world?