Why so heated? I'm not gonna sit here and act like an explosion created intelligent life. You ignore me again, you're increasingly ignorant. There are things that science CAN NOT prove and hasn't proven. "Jesus's existance is debatable". Are you kidding me? So, Pontius Pilate's existance is debatable too? He oversaw the crucifixion of Jesus. Who's posting facts here? Did I say...any factual sentences?

You're just cutting out the parts of my argument and pasting what you like. A complete biased tactic. How do you explain "Speaking in tongues"? Science? This tongue is what Jesus left before his departure in order to mark those who know the holy spirit. If all of my other anecdotes are false...even though doctors and scientests couldn't explain those happenings, please tell me how introns and exons, inhibitors and myofibrils, grey matter and white matter expalin this phenomenon? Please do. Or are you just going to ignore that too?

I am a believer in science. I see what it is and has done. But I know that there's things that it cannot prove because we lack the understanding and knowledge of a higher being.

Correct, in that a large number of people wrote it. It is, in a sense, a collection of oral tales that circulated and eventually were written down. At some period in time, jewish priests selected a fraction of these texts to construct a book  - this became the old testament.

The same. A lot of the old testament was derived from Mesopotamian myths that aren't strictly Christian.

My question is why should we give this small collection of texts written thousands of years ago any preference over the numerous other texts from that age? They were all written by human beings. Assuming god exists, whose to say god didn't give another human being a set of commands and information, they wrote them down but now we ignore them?

1-Magnetic fields are well-studied phenomenon, produced by Earth's spin (and large mass). Other planets have them too - the more mass and spin, the stronger the field. Fits in perfectly with the comprehension of electromagnetic waves we have, and use as technology.

6- At what point would you say that it isn't corn anymore? natural selection (evolution works in the same way human selesction does; simply, instead of humans choosing what survives based on their needs, it's simply the plants that are most apt to survive in that environnement. Notice that lettuce, cabbage, cauliflower and brusselsprouts where all made with human selection from the same plants. Human selection is simply more rapid, because it is absolute selection, while natural selection just makes it slightly more likely to survive.

9- The following experiment was made - one puts a uniform sample of bacteria in an unideal environnement (too acid, for example.) WIth each generation, bacteria with the highest resistance survived - and the sample evolved to be more resistant to acidity, over time.

You really should just read some proper content about evolution - there is plenty of material, with plenty of examples, if one gives the effort.

Honestly, it frustrates me when I see people throwing out blatantly false information like that noahs ark existed and we've found it.

There is actually a lot of debate on the topic of whether or not Jesus existed, though as I stated the general consensus is that he probably did. I can send you some sources if you're interested.  I haven't read much about Pontius Pilate, but I'd assume being a Roman official there would be a lot more reliable records of him, but him existing doesn't prove that Jesus existed.

I didn't address speaking in tongues because I don't even think it's worth talking about. Do you have legitimate peer reviewed scientific studies that point to it being a genunine phenonmen, or just anectdotal evidence? Speaking in tongues is something that can be studied, and everything I've read points to it being nonsense.

Pretty much everythign you mentioned are just anectodotes, which is why I ignored them. If prayer is so effective why does it have such a low success rate? How come god is only willing to perform miracles in super ambiguous ways that leave so much room for doubt? Never do you see someone spontaneously regrow a limb, bullet wounds magically close, heads re-attached, etc. Why so vague? Sounds like self confirmation bias to me.

Typical. You think things aren't worth talking about because you can't point to science to talk about it. That's human nature. And I'm not God. don't ask me why he performs miracles in certain ways. Ask him yourself. Speaking in tongues is nonsence? Millions of people are nonsence? You think they just decide, "Oh, I'm gonna speak a language that nobody else understands in front of a crowd of people". You think everything is science or it doesn't compute. Are you even listening to yourself?

" I haven't read much about Pontius Pilate, but I'd assume being a Roman official there would be a lot more reliable records of him, but him existing doesn't prove that Jesus existed."

How can you say that with a straight face? It's documentation here. It's not atlantis, numerous sources speak of Pontius Pilate. Anyone who deliberately tries to disprove at least the existance of Jesus has to be agnostic or atheist...which I can't change. But you if you can't prove Jesus's existance then subsequentially you can't disprove it either.

So no science then? This is why I didn't bring these subjects up, there's not much to debate. I'm not even sure what your argument even is. A lot of people do it so it must be magic? There are non-magical explanations for it, why should I jump righ to magic?

I don't know what your problem is with my comments on Pontius Pilate. I just said I didn't know much about him, but that he's probably real. What's wrong with admitting I don't know something? I can certainly research it and get a better answer, but I don't think him existing proves that Jesus exists, so I didn't bother. I'm not even trying to disprove Jesus, I just said it's debateable. Personally I think a guy named Jesus (or whatever that translates to) probably existed, and he probably claimed to be a messiah, which wasn't at all unusual at the time as someone else pointed out. Beyond that, I'm skeptical.

Yes, but in my case I was created on purpose by my parents (going by their story lol). Chances are especially with technology and resources to help my parents that someone was going to be born regardless. Yes, it was lucky that I was born, but more than likely someone is going to be born because it was done on purpose. I just can't see the universe (going by big bang theory) and earth being created with all the life forms by chance. It seems like everything had to be made on purpose. My opinion anyways.

Well, yeah.  That's kind of the point.  SOMEONE was going to be born.  Since it is you, you'd probably see this as a good or lucky event.  To the neutral observer, it's just something that happened.  Your birth was no more special than any other child that may have been born.  

Same thing with life in the universe.  You're starting, I assume, with the conception that life is a good thing.  And you seem to be assuming that a life sustaining galaxy was a goal.  But if you look at it from a neutral point of view (that a life containing galaxy is not inherently better than a non-life producing one) then it is just one outcome. It is no more or less likely than any other universe that may have existed instead. It's not special or lucky in anyway.

Well, scientists not 'always change their believes', they prove or disprove theories, improve and combine those theories. Like searching the link between quantum mechanics and the theory of relativity.

And that 'it's more believable' or basically way more easy is basically it. Religion is basically the universal solution for problems and questions you either just have no explanation for or just don't like the other explanations.

Like:

'What happens when i'm dead? '

'Nothin...'

'Oh, that sucks. I want my existence to keep on in a shiny nice warm place where everyone i already miss is'

Thats it. A nice warm thought. To not being egoistic you might use the excuse that someone else that died now is at a better place, let's call it heaven, because you get the option to join him.

Ad some decent society rules to that recipe like don't  ya dare to kill someone, insert a nice excuse like except he/she is a reeeeeaaaally bad person and everythings fine.

Not getting to that damn afterlife might be a more or less good reason for some people not to do the bad things. If that's not bad enough we put some torture porn on the menu: You'll be on the BBQ alive, without actually dying or getting inconscious or, actually eternal pain.

Now we're getting a little mad:
Ain't believe me? BBQ.

Different believes? Ok, live BBQ and than afterlive BBQ...

It gives us a nice, warm feeling that everything happened by intent. Like oh that terrible car accident must've been higher intent because of 'insert random stupid reason' or she was such a lovely girl god wanted her to be with him. Latter one sounds way better than she did of leukemia because of DNA mutations, so no higher intent.

Well, think about that: World releigions could actually totally different then they are today. Of the global player religions three are abrahamitic. The religious landscape could look totally different if some points in history had played out differently. Yep, i know, someone now will 150% for sure explain that exactly that happened because that guy is actually the god.

Well, if things had played out different, would that god actually exist at all?

We are probably the only species on this planet that plans in longer terms and thinks about it's own existence. so we like to have explanations. Like how was the world created. Preferably explanations we understand. A concept of god is actually easier to understand and nicer than what actually happened with the big bang or quantum mechanics.

And yes, you'll probably use it to explain what hopefully will happen when you're dead (cause you basically just don't want to be nonexistant) and all those other things.

Does anything prove gods existence? Nope. Actuelly not, at least not in a scientific or even objective way.