Is there proof God exists?

I did.

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-ordercreation.html

The Bible specifically states that God MADE the two light and he SET the stars in a firmament. The Bible did not say, as some Christians suggest, that God cleared the sky of clouds the Bible never mentions and some imaginary observer would see them.



Here's how some Christians explain this.


http://www.religioustolerance.org/com_geev.htm

The bible reinforces the idea that the creation days were 24 hour days. Or put it this way; the person/people who wrote Exodus believed the creation days were 24 hours.




Conflict between science and the Bible over creation

According to Genesis
Source-Genesis 1:1 to 2:3
Sun-Created after the world
Grass, land plants, trees Created before the sun Evolved
First forms of life-Land plants
Birds Created before land animals
Fruit Trees Created before fish Evolved
Initial diet of animals Restricted to plants
Age of the universe Less than 10,000 years
Age of the world Less than 10,000 years
Age of earliest life forms Less than 10,000 years
Where humans came from Created from dirt

According to Evolution Theory
Source-Paleontologists, Biologists, Astronomers, etc.
Sun-Present before world coalesces
Grass, land plants, trees Created after the sun Evolved
First forms of life-Marine organisms
Birds evolved from land animals
Fruit Trees Created after fish Evolved
Animals evolved as meat, plant eaters, and omnivores.
Age of the universe over 10 billion years
Age of world about 4.5 billion years
Age of earliest life forms about 3.5 billion years
Humans evolved; higher apes and Homo Sapiens share a common ancestor
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_bibl.htm

Is the evolution theory...........evolving? It's a weird question but, i'm weird!

That's not a weird question. All science "evolves," to the extent that if new data appears to contradict some portion of a theory, then that data will need to be confirmed (someone may have made mistakes in measurement, or interpretation). If said data is confirmed, then whatever portions of a theory are affected will need to be revised so as to account for the new data.

This could be reasonably described as a theory evolving. However, it is important neither to overemphasize that aspect of scientific inquiry, nor to oversimplify just what a theory is. The theory of evolution is unchanged since Wallace and Darwin first articulated it--that the diversity of life found on this planet results from descent with modifications due to natural selection from common ancestors. Darwin and Wallace made their claim based upon morphology (the "shape" of lifeforms, such as the various beaks of finches which Darwin found in the Galapagos Islands). Since that time, the most crucial evidence for a theory of evolution has been genetic.

But one might overemphasize the portions of the theory which are actually hypotheses about the mechanisms of evolution and important events in the theory of evolution, such as the Cambrian Explosion. Many of those who are fanatically intent on "disproving evolution" point to the Cambrian Explosion as evidence that the theory cannot accommodate significant major events. But the people who attempt such propaganda are willfully playing fast and loose with emotional reactions--by emphasizing the word "explosion," and relying upon the ignorance of those who are already disposed to discount a theory of evolution. The "explosion" in question took place over tens of millions of years.

This same logic applies to any one of the several extinctions for which we have evidence. In none of these events did, for example, dinosaurs go out the front door to work, and fail to come home to the wife and kids because they went extinct just after lunch. The events in question, such as the Cambrian "Explosion" are only quick events on geological time scales--millions of years. They would not even be noticeable in the lifetime of a human.

So, yes, all science "evolves" for the simple reason that both scientific hypotheses ("we aren't sure if this is what happens, but it looks plausible") and scientific theories ("we are not in any doubt about what happened, we are, however, still working out the details") will be revised whenever they fail to account for all the relevant data.

You articulated your thoughts very well Setanta. Thanks.

I hope all is well for you.

the bible was never meant to be regarded as scientific truth, only theological truth.

Gods ways are not ours. when he does things, he does them to be significant. if he healed every person in the world no one would be grateful when he did. they would expect for their prayer to be answered, they would forget that they "are mere dust and ashes". so God not answering a prayer has nothing to do with the person, everything God does, is planned and premeditated.

Then it is poorly planned.
K
O

log has not articulated well.

Is there proof God exists?

Yes, there is proof for God's existence!

Welcome to the forum, ken.

Could you flesh out your opinion?

If there is no proof for the existence of God, then how a true believer can believe in God?

the same way lots of people believe he doesn't exist

lot's of people believe things that aren't true, or can't be proved

What is your standard of proof?

If God didn't exist it would have been necessary to invent him.

it was

>>>the same way lots of people believe he doesn't exist<<<
So what?
'lots of people believe he doesn't exist ' - many people do not believe in God for many reasons- and they are collectively known as 'unbelievers'.

i was saying, that the believer believes, the same way the unbeliever doesn't

belief doesn't prove existence

But not everyone knows this.
The man who thinks he knows something does not yet know as he ought to know.

You are quite right.

Were belief sufficient, we would all be at the mercy of the giant zombie spaghetti monster.

The FSM is not a zombie ! ! !

May his noodly appendage caress you . . .