Yes, but your title is dealing with Christianity vs atheism. Christianity entails a specific God, and if its qualities can be found to be irreconcilable w/ the world, then it can be proven false. any 'god' cannot be disproven, but specific ones can.

Please say The Bible...

Well, that sorta works, but as many Christians only take the bible to be a work of man w/ a reflection of the god on it, and not representative of god you refute only fundies

The Christian god is not real because he defies all that we know about reality - suggests primacy of conciousness

Example, god created everything (I believe that most christians would agree at least with an initial creation... even if they do believe in evolution)

For god to create 'everything' he would have had to exist before anything

That means that his consciousness was not founded on existence. Logically, everything is founded upon existence

[quote=BrodyMontgomery][b]scientific facts in the bible:[/b]
1)The earth is a sphere (Isaiah 40:22)
--> It is he that sits upon the circle of the earth, and inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers;.....[/quote]

Isaiah 40:22 [i]It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:[/i]

Not sure but that looks like it's promoting a flat earth to me.

[quote]2)The earth is free float in space (Job 26:7)
-->He stretches out the North over the empty place (space), and hangs it on nothing.
3)creation made invisable elements (Hebrews 11:3)
-->Through faith we understand the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

None of these facts were known to the world until many years after the scripture was written... Do you think they just made a good guess??? Well if you think these three did, then tell me because i have MANY more.... (not mentioning fulfilled prophecy and obvious things like, how did the bible last this long???[/quote]

Even if one or two things are correct in the bible, that doesn't automatically make the whole bible correct. It's like saying, "The quran teaches Mohammed existed and history shows he existed, ergo the whole quran has to be correct."

Just because the bible lasted that long doesn't mean that it's correct. Buddha's teachings date from centuries before the bible, and they're still believed today.

[quote]If you cant prove for a fact that evolution is true, then how can you prove for a fact creation isnt true? [/quote]

This statement is simply idiotic. Evolution has been proven over and over as a fact. If you want evidence, I don't know where to start - there's so much evidence, but here's a good website:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

I highly recommend you read [url=http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/yellow_number_five/evolution_of_life/5274]Deludedgod's essay[/url] also.

[quote]I have a quote of Darwin's that he isnt so sure of his own theory.[/quote]

Darwin lived way before - he didn't have that much technology to study evolution or genetic biology.

[quote].... the only thing i have left to say is that you have 2 options of ways to live your life, they are....[/quote]

False. There are thousands of other religions that claim you're going to their hell if you don't believe in them.

[quote] 1- Live life a christian and know that no matter what happens you will either die if there is no God or go to Heaven if there is. What do you have to lose? or... 2- Live this very short life an atheist and if there is a God then you would go to hell and live eternity in pain and suffering with no end, or if there is no God then you were right and it was a big waste of time living as a Christian... but what would it matter anyway then?.... well its your choice...[/quote]

You think we've never heard of [url=http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/wager.html]Pascal's Wager[/url] before? It sucks.

The Old Testament predates Eratosthenes and Aristotle both by two hundred years as dated by the texts themselves (at minimum, most of it is older than that even.) We can tell how old the books are because the authors were kind enough to usually cite the King prophesied under.

NOBODY in western thought ever thought that the earth was flat, either because ships disappear over the horizon keel first. That idea was introduced in the last few hundred years as a comic addition to the Christopher Columbus story, but the Roman Catholic Church did adopt [i]Aristotle's[/i] wrong ideas about earth being the immoble center to the universe.

Also, Ecclesiastes 1:7

"All the rivers run into the sea,
Yet the sea is not full;
to the place from which the rivers come,
There they will return again."

Now where do you think the author learned about the water cycle from two thousand years before science came to understanding them?

I agree with you there guruite but the fact that the Bible talked about objects no one would have even imagined does stand as evidence. Nothing can be proven by just one thing or argument. If it is to be accepted it requires a lot of Faith. But, everyone refers to biblical contradictions. WHAT CONTRADICTIONS???????? Not to seem rude but I don't see any. Please show them to me & I will examine them. Also, someone said that Buddha's teachings date back even earlier than the Bible you can never convince me so. It all depends on your outlook at history. Evolutionists believe the earth is millions of years old, creationists believe around 6,000-8,000. No one can know for sure therefore we can not see which came first. But, after examining the Bible & evidences for God you should be able to come to an informed assumption-God came first. But, that is after a ton of examination. Anyway, respond back soon.

Praise God,
GWG

[quote=GWG]I agree with you there guruite but the fact that the Bible talked about objects no one would have even imagined does stand as evidence. Nothing can be proven by just one thing or argument. If it is to be accepted it requires a lot of Faith.[/quote]
So you admit the necessity of faith in god. Isn't that the equivalent of saying there isn't any evidence, or enough, but I believe anyways?

[quote]But, everyone refers to biblical contradictions. WHAT CONTRADICTIONS???????? Not to seem rude but I don't see any. Please show them to me & I will examine them.[/quote]
In another thread, someone posted a list. I'll mention a few.

#1, the earth is 6-10000 years old. That contradicts... well, known fact. It's a consensus that the earth is far older, and very few people in their right minds question that.
#2 Pi=3. That contradicts fact, and the Greeks and Babylonians already knew those measurements to far closer degrees. Even if it was done solely by measurements, they would have gotten near 3.15, because it mentions something 10 in diameter and 30 in circumference. if you're telling me they didn't know the difference between 30 and 31 and a half?
#3 Jesus' last words. Look at what each of the gospels claim his last words are. Wouldn't they at least have consensus on God's son's last words?

[quote]Also, someone said that Buddha's teachings date back even earlier than the Bible you can never convince me so. It all depends on your outlook at history.[/quote]
No, regardless, the Bible(NT) was written after Jesus, and Buddha's teachings were written far after. If you want to claim the OT, that's ironic, because people are always quick to disclaim the archaic morality portrayed in it as the OT and no longer relevant(except the part about gays).

[quote]Evolutionists believe the earth is millions of years old, creationists believe around 6,000-8,000. No one can know for sure therefore we can not see which came first.[/quote]
Actually, we know pretty darn well that it is BILLIONS of years old. Not just evolutionists, the vast majority of any scientists. Much of modern science, including Einsteinian physics, the shift of the continents, most of geology, much of astronomy, operates perfectly under the conclusion that the earth is as old as we say(and the universe), so that conclusion is supported not only by the aging techniques we use, but also by the predictions which are then made and fulfilled by those theories.

[quote]But, after examining the Bible & evidences for God you should be able to come to an informed assumption-[/quote]

I fail to see how the Bible provides evidence. Please, spell it all out for me.

[quote]God came first.[/quote]
I doubt it. The Virgin Mary probably did.

[quote]But, that is after a ton of examination. Anyway, respond back soon.
Praise God,
GWG[/quote]

Refutation of web source, point by point.

1. As that both the Genesis passage and Job are (or are concidered to be by content inference) prediluvian, hail kept in heaven is used to argue the modern gap theory that most of the current oceanic water was originally in the form of high altitude water vapor, but that only counts as an explanation. It cannot be an argument because it would be begging the question.

2. Even if it doesn't describe the process of the water cycle, it describes the effects pretty accurately, so this refutation ammounts to begging the question because it assumes that it cannot refer to the water cycle to say that it doesn't

3. "Nothing new under the sun" contextually reffers to the futility of man's reasoning without God, exactly the reverse of man's independent reason, so this argument is, again, begging the question.

4. QED, As that this predates Aristotle, though, we must either assume that knowledge of a round earth is far more ancient than ancient greece (to deny that the greeks did anything other than to write down what was then common knowledge in a secular context and add a few wrong assertions like the earth is the center of the universe or that heavy things fall faster than lighter things, or that the greeks (the "source" for modern science) really discovered nothing worthwhile.

As that, in ancient cultures, there was no seperation of theology and science, it is perfectly legitimate to claim that the references that BrodyMontgomery gave us were real scientific discoveries of the Hebrews or other (non-greek and non-secular) nations that were merely explained in a religious theological context. After all, both the study of the universe and the study of theology ammounted to the same thing: studying God directly or indirectly.

[quote]Are you trying to suggest that the author got his information from God?[/quote]

Either that, or what is more likely that the ancient Hebrew, [i]theocratic[/i] system was far more scientifically advanced than you are willing to give it credit for being. Either way, I win the point.

I am not, never have, and probably never will try to prove to you that there is a God. You have your presuppositions and habits of thought so firmly entrenched in your mind that the process of questioning your own worldview to correct any possible incorrectness that is innevitable for being human.

In so doing, you are neglecting your epistemic duties to yourself.

The entire purpouse of Christian apologetics is not to convert people - that is called evangelism- but rather to intellectually stifle people by proving that they have no room to dissagree apart from that they invent.

This is indirectly derrived from the argument I use, which basically asserts that to hold any position except the right one without borrowing from it to provide answers to metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics. I won't be so borish as to say that the position I hold is absolutely correct in every detail (and perhaps some larger issues.) The problem is that I haven't yet been presented with any arguments which require that my position change.

Ergo I think that I am more open minded than you are, regardless of what you say. I do not say that I am difinitively right, I claim that I can diffinitively prove you wrong, and then back it up with an argument.

I usually refrain from telling my objectives because, face it, they make me sound like a pretensious blowhard, but really, what other purpouse would there be for Christian apologetics? You are so hardened into your positions that my arguments alone cannot pry you from them no matter how convincing they are.

Defend Christianity intellectually I can do. Soften the unbeliever's heart I cannot, that's God's buisness. (Go ahead and say that God doesn't exist, if you can't understand that my objective statement only needs to be consistant with my own position, you are a lost cause.)

Now, if someone were to soften up, it would not be from my argument but from God softening his/her heart (the reverse of the Pharoah in Exodus.) In which case, I would take advantage of the situation to refer the person to the appropriate evangelists as that evangelism isn't my gift.

Otherwise, all this would be a waste of my time.

[quote=GWG]If you want to see evidence go to www.answersingenesis.com &/or search for Lee Strobel on Google. Don't write these people off & say they are biased. We all are. Just read the things they have to say. [/quote]

Caseagainstfaith.com has refuted Strobel.

[quote]And, on Carbon Dating & all those other dating methods, Carbon Dating placed the Cocelaeth(I think i typed it right???) at 500 Million years old & thus extinct, at least they said that until fishermen on the coast of South America?????? caught a few in their nets. Just a bit of proof.[/quote]

Proof of what?

Lee Strobel is only one man. He can't answer every point of any debate. No man can. And yes, Strobel doesn't do a good job of balancing his interviews but he does inform of the facts & questions raised while studying them.

Carbon Dating (and other methods) is the most common technique for discerning the earth's age. If it fails in telling the truth about the age of a fossil (actually, many fossils) why could the earth not be 6,000-8,000 years old?

Praise God,
GWG

Radioactive dating methods are known to be inaccurate. Radiocarbon dating has been diffinitvely shown to be innaccurate past 5,000 years thanks to tree annual rings and cannot be applied to anything fossilized reliably due to mineral replacement.

Uranium 238 dating assumes that the ammount of Uranium is determined entirely by the lead content (in other words, all of the lead created by uranium decay in the sample was created by radioactive decay scince the rock was last molten.

Potassium-Argon dating assumes that Argon will never effuse from a rock despite being a gass.

And all these assume that the rock never contacts ground-water, which will permiate the rock and unpredictably introduce matterials. As that most fossils discovered are on the surface of the ground, and not burried deeply, it is reasonable to assume that the fossil was probably bathed in ground water before surfacing, thus negating all possibility for any radioactive age dating method.

One more thing: the continent recycling process is completed between every 200 and 500 million years, depending on the rate of continental drift. How can we possibly have a three billion year old fossil when it should have been subducted and melted between 8 and 20 times?

Continental drift figures are taken from my own math based on the Earth's circumfrence, and only one place on the surface of the earth experiencing new continent formation at three to seven inches per year. This is an extremely conservative estimate and as such is virtually irrifutable (unless you are willing to forego uniformitarianism and say that sea floor spreading has picked up in the last thousand years for no real reason.)

About your sources: Why does the first have striaght line graphs for radioactive decay when decay is exponential, not linear. No matter how you cut it, to derive the age of the Earth, he should have a decay curve.

Source 2: Talk Origins. If you can refute my sources by saying it is biased, I ought to do the same to you, but I am not that mean.

Helium content: Regardless of what the dude says, regardless of the atomic mass of an atom, the escape velocity is the same. So if one gas can escape the gravitational pull of a planet, they all can. Escape velocity is the same regardles of mass.

Magnetic field decay: Ever heard of [i]friction?[/i] Molten iron is not exactly a well lubricated matterial, and any time a magnetic field is produced, energy must be expended, so the core of the earth must be slowing down, and quite a bit, given the power of Earth's magnetic field. Inertia is powerful, but it is not a perpetual motion machine.

Meteoretic dust on moon: I really don't understand the creationist argument here, as that metiorertic impact is negligable compared to the sun expand/contract heat cycle in regolith creation, but as that regolith will act as an insulator and shock absorber, there is a limit to depth projected to about one foot, plus this argument was before the Appolo Missions when evolutionists really were projecting estimates that moon dust was hundreds of feet thick based on radar diffractions. Neil Armstrong was even warned that he might sink into the surface, so he patted the ground before stepping off the landing pad (which you don't see because of the angle of the camera.)

Metals in the ocean: I guess this disproves uniformitarianism, eh. If the earth is 4.5 billion years old than the aluminum rate must have changed as well as the Sodium.

One evolutionary scientists has calculated a maximum age of the earth based on salts in the ocean at 90 million years, so 4.5 billion years is by no means a diffinitive age.

Also, the "primodial ooze" would have had to have had an even higher salt concentration and wider variety than the modern oceans. Salt leaving the ocean has always been less than entry, so the evolutionary model ought to say that the oceans would be like the dead sea -a pickle brine, based on the primordial ooze alone.

Conclusion: Your sources are biased. They give you figures, but don't tell you the implications of the numbers.