Ok, lets see if I can answere you:
Having the knowledge of the scientific fields that are discussed in these books, it would take more faith to be an atheist than a Chistian.
Please refer back to what I said, Atheism is a denial of faith, religion requires faith. So with all due respect, your statement is incorrect.
This is science. It does not require disregarding science to have faith.
What is science? If a scientist turns to faith, he must, by default, disregard his scientific mind and replace it with irrationality. You cannot have both.
The science actually backs up the belief.
If science backs up anything... it backs up science.
These are educated men interviewed here. Real studies, real facts, real science.
Educated men being interviewed does not help your case. I still am not sure of the "facts" you speak of, and it most definatly is not real science.
Men who had different opinions completely, one sided in the opposite direction, whose beliefs were turned upside down by their findings. You say these books are one-sided, and they're not. Quite the opposite I'd say.
Point taken on this. Except that I will restate my statement from before:
If their beliefs were turned upside down by "findings", then they relinquished their critical mind, for irrationality. Its not a put down... its a fact, only because the two cannot reside together. And by one-sided, I mean if Lee Strobel (a christian) interviews a former scientist turned christian, to back up christian doctrin or faith, only to arrive at christianity... thats very one sided. Not the opposite, I'd say.
Real science requires testability and observability.
You are absolutly correct on that. Which is why it is religions biggest adversary. Im very surprised that you would bring up real science.
If this were some one sided book that wasn't challenging and didn't contain perspective from both sides, it would mean nothing. Check it out...
I've already discussed how it's one sided. As for checking it out... well I proposed to you, to read one of the books I can suggest. And in true christain conversation, you have dismissed my suggestion, stated your case again.. and asked me to read your books again.
Darwin himself said if such a thing as irreducible complexity were ever discovered, the theory of macro-evolution would fall flat on its face. Without intervention, how do you explain the Cambrian explosion.
Im not much of a Darwin scholar, so excuse me if I cannot speak to that. However, Dawkins makes some excellent points, scientifically speaking, to I.C. The Cambrian Exp, I've never heard of.
How do you explain the "design" of
dna, this is information encoding
It does not need to be explained with a "design". Unless you are a christian.
How do you explain that their was once nothing, nothing at all physical, and then all of a sudden something went boom. What could've gone boom if there was nothing physical and nothing to interact, unless there is something not subject to either time, or physics.
I dont have a personal answer for you on this. But just because I cant answere you, doesnt mean that filling in my unknowns with supernatural mumbo jumbo makes it offically GOD.
If you don't believe in the Big Bang, then how do you explain that anything physical could possibly exist for an infinite amount of time.
How do you explain out of body experiences.
How can you explain the perfect balance of gravity (not just on earth, but the gravity of the universe), helium to hydrogen conversion, and the other micro-tuned to infinitesimal accuracy balance of all things in the universe.
Refer to my statement above. Also I am to assume you cant explain these things either... so you have chosen to fill in that lack of knowledge with unreasonable, untestable, unprovable faith. Im not saying you are bad for that. Im just saying its irrational.
How can you explain 3rd party accounts, from atheist historians that state very clearly that Jesus performed miracles.
Please refer me to unbiblical resources that make the claim you just did.
The historians that lived in the time of the supossed jesus, never spoke of him.
How do you explain morals, the general knowledge of right and wrong.
Very simple. Any animal that lives in a society, and depends on eachother to a degree, has an ingrained
sense of right and wrong. Gorillas know that they should not kill their groups head. They recognize the need to have a leader. To do so would be wrong. Has it happened? Sure! Just like people murder people. In humans, these things can be taught. My 4 year old knows its wrong to bite... not because she has a belief in a god, its because I taught her its wrong.
Unless you can answer all of these questions better than the leading scientists in each of these fields (as well as several others),
I think I did pretty good here... but If I wanted to completely answer with certainty, the scientist I would go to would be Dawkins, since these things
are his field. Furthermore, his field isnt
presupposed that christianity is correct.
then you have faith in atheism
Atheism is NOT A FAITH!!! Lol!!
that is not based on knowledge,
The
knowledge I have is
WHY Im an Atheist, thank you.
I am not under obligation to prove anything my dear friend. You are.
My best,
-VP