evansste

I'm interested in performing a mitochondrial DNA test on a bone sample, but am having trouble finding labs that actually perform this type of test. I want to perform a test on the sample in order to see whether or not the sample belongs to my mother. So, technically, this would be a paternity test. If you perform an Internet search on paternity testing, you'll get a ton of hits that give facilities that will perform swab DNA tests. These are the types of tests that most people use in order to identify a baby's father. We have no shortage of those facilities. But when it comes to mtDNA testing on a bone sample, the closest one I could find is on the other side of the country. Are these testing facilities really this rare, or am I simply having trouble finding them because the father paternity market has saturated search engines so much that they're the only thing that comes up when a person performs a search? I'm hoping that someone in the genetics industry has knowledge about this sort of thing. The sample would be tested in Louisville, Kentucky and I'm trying to find out if there are any facilities that do this type of testing in that area. As I've said before, yellow pages, and Internet searches are useless. They only list facilities that test saliva swabs, or maybe hair samples. I need to test bone. Is there only one private lab in the entire country that does this, or are there many labs, which are only known to those who work in the DNA genetics community? Thanks for your time, and I appreciate any insight that any knowledgeable person is willing to give.

1st Corinthians 1:10-31 says: "By the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ I appeal to all of you, my brothers, to agree in what you say, so that there will be no divisions among you. Be completely united, with only one thought and one purpose. For some people from Chloe's family have told me quite plainly, my brothers, that there are quarrels among you. Let me put it this way: each one of you says something different. One says, 'I follow Paul'; another, 'I follow Apollos', another, 'I follow Peter'; and another, 'I follow Christ.' Christ has been divided*(a) into groups! Was it Paul who died on the cross for you? Were you baptized as Paul's disciples? I Thank God that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius. No one can say, then, that you were baptized as my disciples. (Oh yes, I also baptized Stephanas and his family; but I can't remember whether I baptized anyone else.) Christ did not send me to baptize. He sent me to tell the Good News, and to tell it without using the language of human wisdom, in order to make sure that Christ's death on the cross is not robbed of its power. For the message about Christ's death on the cross is nonsense to those who are being lost; but for us who are being saved it is God's power. The scripture says, 'I will destroy the wisdom of the wise and set aside the understanding of the scholars.' So then, where does that leave the wise? or the scholar? or the skillful debaters of this world? God has shown that this world's wisdom is foolishness! For God in his wisdom made it impossible for people to know him by means of their own wisdom. Instead, by means of the so-called 'foolish' message we preach, God decided to save those who believe. Jews want miracles for proof, and Greeks look for wisdom. As for us, we proclaim the crucified Christ, a message that is offensive to the Jews and nonsense to the Gentiles; but for those whom God has called, both Jews and Gentiles, this message is Christ, who is the power of God and the wisdom of God. For what seems to be God's foolishness is wiser than human wisdom, and what seems to be God's weakness is stronger than human strength. Now remember what you were, my brothers, when God called you. From the human point of view few of you were wise or powerful or of high social standing. God purposely chose what the world considers nonsense in order to shame the wise, and he chose what the world considers weak in order to shame the powerful. He chose what the world looks down on and despises and thinks is nothing, in order to destroy what the world thinks is important. This means that no one can boast in God's presence. But God has brought you into union with Christ Jesus, and God has made Christ to be our wisdom. By him we are put right with God; we become God's holy people and are set free. So then, as the scripture says, 'Whoever wants to boast must boast of what the Lord has done'." *(a) Christ has been divided; some manuscripts have Christ cannot be divided. The above scripture says what I've been saying all along. It explains why there are divisions in the church, and also the great divide between the Christian view and the non-Christian view. Rather than reitterate in my own words, I decided to just post the actual scripture. I could never say it any better anyway. 2nd Corinthians 6:14-7:1 says: "Do not try to work together as equals with unbelievers, for it cannot be done. How can right and wrong be partners? How can light and darkness live together? How can Christ and the Devil agree? What does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? How can God's temple come to terms with pagan idols? For we are the temple of the living God! As God himself has said, 'I will make my home with my people and live among them; I will be their God, and they shall be my people.' And so the Lord says, 'You must leave them and separate yourselves from them. Have nothing to do with what is unclean, and I will accept you. I will be your father, and you shall be my sons and daughters, says the Lord Almighty.' All these promises are made to us, my dear friends. so then, let us purify ourselves from everything that makes body or soul unclean, and let us be completely holy by living in awe of God." I intend for this to be my last post on this topic. As I've said before, I joined this discussion in order to answer the questions that @young thinker was asking -- which I have done. The above scripture shows that the divide between Christians and non-Christians is just too big for us to have any real common ground. Because I can't help, and in order to avoid a perpetual quarrel that is going nowhere, I feel I should just let it go.

@Phi for All, you said "Any 'documents and evidence that would support that [your] beliefs are true' would be from the Bible, which has been shown by many historians (including many religious historians) to be flawed, often misinterpreted, often contradictory and to a great extent untrustworthy. Circular arguments like that are irrational and based on fallacious logic." Not all evidence that supports the Bible comes directly from the Bible. Seven day weeks, a five day work week, the fact that humans cook food before eating it, the concept of marriage, and the fact that nearly all of humanity references all time to the birth of Jesus, are just a handful of examples. But as I've said before, for me, it doesn't matter. Not only does using the Bible to support the Bible not bother me, my faith isn't based on evidence. These are the things that I mentioned before. Many things that make sense to believers is foolishness, or irrational, to non-believers (1st Corinthians 1:18-31, 2:6-16, 3:18-20 and Matthew 11:25-27). As for Acts 8:37 -- You're right, my Bible doesn't print verse 37 within the paragraphs of the text. Instead, there's a little footnote and the verse is placed in the bottom margin of the page. There's a little note that says "some manuscripts have this verse". I've seen these little notes at the bottom of the pages for many years, and as I've said before, it never bothers me. This is because these notes never change the overall message of the Bible. Like verse 37, this same truth is mentioned in other places in the Bible. I don't know how many verses there are in the Bible that specifically say that people are saved by faith in Jesus -- but such verses are everywhere. The most popular ones are taught to children in Sunday schools, and by their parents, very commonly (Like John 3:16). No one who seeks is misled. When it comes to the "meat" versus "grain" thing, as well as anything else like that, we're best served to remember the true nature of God. As I've said before, when you read the Bible as a whole, you really learn that no one's going to get into any trouble over something like this. To emphasize such things as this to this extreme level of importance is to blow them out of proportion, while ignoring what really matters to God. It's just like when Jesus was talking about the Pharisees (Matthew 12:1-14). He was upset with them because they placed overemphasis on the wrong parts of scripture. They were upset with Jesus when he healed people on the Sabbath. But Jesus made clear what is really important to God. The Pharisees were condemning people who were doing things like eating heads of grain while walking through a field on the Sabbath. Jesus told the Pharisees that any one of them would pull a sheep from a well if it fell in on the Sabbath, yet they were condemning Jesus for healing people on the Sabbath. No one would be so misled that they would end up under God's wrath over a typo. My Bible may have typos. If I looked hard enough, some words may be misspelled. But this won't alter my relationship and knowledge about God. When it comes to understanding God's word, and knowing what he is like. The Bible is clear that every Christian receives the Holy Spirit, which guides them in the way of the truth (1st John 2:27, John 14:15-17). The Bible is also clear that God will reveal himself to anyone who turns to him (John 14:21, James 4:7-10), and that if you come close to God, he will come close to you. The fact that God gives his Holy Spirit to Christians, which leads them to understand God's word, will again seem like nonsense to unbelievers (1st Corinthians 2:6-16). But I've already talked about that unrelatable difference between Christians and non-Christians, so I won't reitterate further. You also said "One can hardly blame a child for believing in something their parents encouraged them to believe. But at a certain point it's a mark of adulthood to critically examine your belief system. The fact that you argue that your belief in your name, the existence of Isaac Newton and the existence of God are virtually the same tells me you haven't done this yet, or that you continue to hold some things to be sacred and never question them." You're right -- As I've said before, these faiths are similar. But I also said there are a few big differences. Unlike the others, my faith about God IS sacred, unwavering, and unquestioning. It's another one of those things that non-believers view as nonsense. But God is pleased with a child-like faith. He says that we must come to him like children (Mark 10:13-16). There are many examples of God being pleased with faith like this. All of the good examples shown in the Bible have such faith. As for the fifty translations -- I can't agree with you. If your view of translations was correct, then many translations, in every circumstance, would be critically flawed and inaccurate. However, people accurately communicate with each other via translators, and translations, all of the time. Any competent translator, who would be translating my post, would understand both languages fairly well. Because you understand English, you immediately understood what I meant when I mentioned "tongue" instead of "language". You even caught my typo. The translator would also understand English, and would do the same. As a reslut, he/she would understand what I mean and render an appropriate translation. You asked, "Which one of the 9000 accepted sects of Christianity's "truth" are you talking about?" I'm talking about all that agree with what the Bible teaches. Many are right about some things, and wrong about others. I subscribe to no denomination. I believe what the Bible says. Christ doesn't care about denominations -- that's something that was invented by the world. Those who trust in Jesus alone for salvation are Christians. This is what the Bible teaches. You said, "What an amazingly flexible book this bible of yours is! It lets you magically decide who is interpreting the revelation correctly, it acts as a guide for morality (again, if you interpret it correctly) and if you ignore it's flaws and inconsistencies in just the right way, you get into heaven, unlike the unbiblical, law-breaking believers (who are obviously speeding)." I mentioned the Holy Spirit a little earlier. The Holy Spirit enables Christians to know the truth. As was said before, this will be unrelatable to unbelievers (1st Corinthians 2:6-16). Back to amputees -- I could give the example of Jesus healing the slave's ear that had been cut off when Jesus got arrested (Luke 22:50-51). However, if this example isn't good enough for you, then I can still talk about it a little more. As I've said before, no one knows why God does all of the things that he does. The Bible is clear that his thoughts are beyond us. For me to give a reason as to why he has allowed few records to exist of him re-growing limbs, would be me giving some loose speculation. Because there's no verse that specifically says "why"; whatever I said wouldn't be what God has said. I'm certain that his reasons aren't your reasons (that he can't, or that he doesn't care about amputees). The Bible is clear that both of these reasons are false. There are plenty of reasons why God may have done this -- many are probably beyond our understanding. However, to show that there are even reasons that are within human understanding that could give an answer as to "why" -- I'll give one. This is to show that there are certainly reasons other than your two -- which the Bible already shows to be wrong because of God's character and because of what he has already revealed. The Bible is clear that there's a constant spiritual war that exists between God's creation (humans) and the devil. The devil's name, Satan, even means "man's opponent". God has warned us about Satan, explaining that he is a liar, deceiver, and a manipulator. He's the father of lies and his goal is to defy God by destroying mankind (John 8:44). God said that the Christian's best defense against the devil is to resist him and stay close to God. Just as sheep are safest when they are close to their shepherd, the closer Christians are to Jesus, the safer we are. But non-believers are much more vulnerable. The Bible has shown that God allows Satan to have certain freedoms to tempt people. He allowed it with Job (Job 1:12), and also with Peter (Luke 22:31-32). He allows Christians to be tempted so that they can reveal the true nature of their faith, proving it to be genuine. Just as gold is tested to show that it's real, so is a Christian's faith tested (1st Peter 1:6-9). Because Christians have the Bible, which warns us to be alert (1st Peter 5:8-9), and faith in Jesus, which gives us the ability to be victorious over the devil (1st John 5:4-5), Christians have an advantage over non-Christians. This is one of the reasons why it's easy for my faith to be sacred and unwavering. I know that it's under attack, and that the devil will try to do anything to deceive me and all other humans. If a person is highly intellectual, it makes sense that Satan would attack with false evidence and misleading logic. He can easily outwit humans because he is the master deceiver. For this reason, I can see how suppressing evidence of God restoring limbs, could have a great impact on those who doubt and don't believe. It causes them to question God's power and goodness. But it has little effect on those who believe what the Bible says about God. So ultimately, I can imagine the amputee issue being an effective tool that the devil uses in order to deceive those who don't believe. The devil preys on mankind's intellect, pride, arrogance, and emotion. This view won't at all be popular with non-Christians, but it fits what I know to be true about God, the devil, and how the devil attacks. @Moontanman is right about God getting credit for all of the good things that happen in the world. The Bible says that all good things come from the Lord, so I believe it too. All of you are right that the advances in limb generation are amazing. I saw a story on "60 Minutes" that showed how some sort of swine powder allowed a man to grow back the tip of his finger after it was cut off. That's a technology that is available today. They aren't sure that it would work for an entire limb, but a finger tip is still pretty amazing. @Phi for All, the fact that you said that you're not attacking me, is helpful. I've had these types of discussions with people who believe differently than I do and all such discussions have to end at some point. The topic is so sensitive and polarizing that eventually people often just want to argue. When it reaches that point, I'll have to just let it go. I didn't join in this conversation to argue. Arguments aren't helpful and the Bible says that its something that I should always try to avoid (2nd Timothy 2 verses 14 and 23-24). I also didn't join in this discussion because I'm searching for answers. Answers, I have. I joined in this discussion because @young thinker showed a legitimate search for truth and understanding, and I wanted to help. I'm certain that a Christian doesn't have to abandon God in order to enjoy science. All it takes is a healthy understanding of both God and science.

@Phi for All, when I talk about the similarities between my faith concerning my own age and Isaac Newton, and my faith about God, I'm focusing on the fact that my trust in all of them exist without verification. When I first learned of my birthday and Isaac Newton, I never questioned whether or not these facts are true. I was told and believed. I had, and have, no doubt about them. I could find documents and evidence that would support that my beliefs are true. But such evidence isn't the basis of my faith. My faith came first. That is to say -- When I was told of Isaac Newton, I didn't say, well show me the documents to support this, otherwise I won't believe. I believe already, and therefore am not shocked that there is evidence that supports it. The same is true with my belief about God and the Bible. I read "The Good News Bible". It's one that my mother gave to me when I was about six years old. It was probably chosen because it's written in modern English that is easy to understand. She gave it to me, I continue to read it, and I believe. As for which Bible version I think is the right one -- they all have equal merit to me as long as the translation is consistent with the original text. For me, there's no sticking point here. As long as the goal of the translator is to accurately convey the message without intentially being deceptive, I don't have a problem. I don't view it any differently than how any other document is translated from one language to another. As long as the content is conveyed accurately, then I see no problem. I don't get hung up on little things like "meat" versus "grain" showing up in two different translations that you've pointed out. If I was really so concerned, I'd look at a bunch of translations and compare them all, or even learn Hebrew and Aramaic and then try to get my hands on the original manuscript. But I don't have this kind of concern. After all, with the translators trying to accurately convey a message, the message will be the same. For instance, this post could be translated into fifty different languages by fifty different translators. In the end, when read by thousands of readers, each having one of the fifty given languages as their native tounge, they would all know what we're talking about. We'd all be on the same page. As for the fact that the NIV ommits an entire verse -- you probably see by now that that means very little to me. A person can still read that Bible and learn the truth about God. Certain sections of my Bible have portions of scripture that are placed in brackets "[]", with a little footnote at the bottom. Sometimes it'll say something like, "this section doesn't appear in some ancient texts" -- stuff like that. It wouldn't shock me if that's why it doesn't appear in the NIV. I don't know what the reason is for sure. I just know that it doesn't really matter as long is it was done with good, translational intent. You're not going to get a whole different Bible over things like this. The message throughout the book is very consistent, and continues to be the same from book to book. As for why God accepted Abel's sacrifice over Cain's, my belief is that it was because Abel gave "the best" of what he had, while Cain didn't. Abel was a shepherd, so it makes sense that he'd give meat. Cain was a farmer, so it makes sense that he'd give grain. Now lets even take it one step further. Suppose I'm wrong. Suppose God rejected Cain's offering and acceptd Abel's for a different reason. Would my misunderstanding on this issue impact my relationship with God? No. God is much more interested in the motives of individuals who diligently seek him. Ultimately, He's much more concerned with a person's heart and intentions, rather than a protocol. This particular trait of God's is derived from understanding God's word as a whole. When you diligently seek him, you end up having no doubt as to what he's like and what he requires. As for Catholics -- there are certain things that they do that are unbiblical. The most obvious, and blatant, one is that they have priests and call people "father". Jesus specifically told us not to do this (Matthew 23:9). We now have no need for priests. The book of Hebrews explains that Jesus is our High Priest, and that we can only have a relationship with God through, and because of, him. So on issues such as this -- yes, they're wrong. Now is it possible for a person to do these things and still be a Christian? Yes. As I've said before, I"m no one's judge. I don't know the hearts of individuals, and I don't know what each person has chosen concerning Christ. God is the only judge. Let me explain why it's possible for a person to be a Catholic and still be a Christian. Whether or not a person is a Christian is only based on one thing. It's based on whether or not they are trusting Jesus to get them into Heaven, and nothing else. If you wan't the heart of the Gospel summed up as simply as possible, that would be it. So it's very possible for a person to be a Catholic and be a Christian. After all, what's a Catholic? Depending on who you ask, you may get all kinds of answers. As I've said, I'm not a Catholic, and I don't know a whole lot about what they do. But lets say a person goes to a Catholic church. Maybe they go because that's what their parents did. Their parents made them go to a Catholic church during their entire childhood, so they are simply doing what's familiar -- nothing more. To them, going to church may be a ritualistic thing, and so because of their tradition, they consider themselves to be a Catholic. Now lets say that same person has a true desire to know God. They already know the Gospel and have made that one choice that matters. They are trusting in Jesus to get them into Heaven. If that's their true belief, and their true choice, then they're a Christian. It all boils down to whether or not a person has chosen to trust that it's Jesus who will get them into Heaven. That's it. The fact that Catholics are the largest Christian sect in the world doesn't mean anything. The situation was very similar in Jesus' day. The teahers of the law, the Pharisees, were very religious. They too were the big group that everyone saw as righteous and godly in that day. But none of this meant anything to God. God looks at the heart of each individual, and is interested in what each of us has chosen (1st Samuel 16:7). I'm not judging Catholics by pointing out that some of their practices are unbiblical. The Bible is God's revelation. It's his law, not mine. By reading it, I'm able to know the difference between right and wrong. I'm able to know what to do, and what not to do. Because you see someone speed by you on the highway at 100 miles per hour in a 55 mph zone, that doesn't make you a judge. You just recognize that they're breaking the law. Back to the amputees. Jesus is very clear that God can do anything (Matthew 19:26). For this reason, I have no doubt that he can grow back limbs. There are different instances in the Bible where God gets irritated because people choose to doubt him, or put him to the test. He's much more pleased with those who trust him unconditionally. The latter is my choice. Once again, my relationship with him is based on faith, not evidence. Evidence exists -- But the presence, or lack thereof, doesn't affect my faith. In other words, if Newton's birth records couldn't be found, or got misplaced, I'd still believe that he lived in the 1600s. I don't know whether or not we have those records anyway. For me to conclude that God hates amputees, or that he's unable to grow back limbs, would result in me calling God a liar. He's been very clear throughout his word that he loves people and that he can do anything. If my dog analogy led you to believe that my view is that we are God's pets, then I apologize. I'm 99% sure that you were just being sarcastic, but it doesn't hurt for me to be clear. I'll admit that it's not a perfect analogy. My intent was to show that God's mind isn't limited like that of a human's. He can lilterally do things that we can't even imagine. He knows of concepts that we simply aren't capable of comprehending. So is the case between humans and dogs. I can think of many concepts that dog's simply can't comprehend. I was trying to show how easy it is for a less capable mind to trust another that has greater comprehension. When a less capable mind tries to ponder thoughts that are beyond it, the outcome can be very wrong. @Moontanman, we do have evidence that Jesus did something extraordinary. All cultures reference all of time to his birth. It follows that he must have done something that is truly unprecedented for that to have taken place. To me, this is consistent with countless, extreme miracles -- miracles as great as raising a bunch of people from death. You're right, such an event would impact the world greatly, as it has.

@Phi for All, you asked "Since no one alive today has ever seen a god, why do you choose that to have faith in?" The reason is very similar to why I believe my own birth date, or why I believe that Isaac Newton existed. It's just as I said in an earlier post -- It's a similar faith. When I was young, I was taught these things. Just as you were told about Isaac Newton, and Abraham Lincoln, so was I. I was also told about the Bible and Jesus, and just like the other truths that I was told, I believe it to be true. I didn't sit down and determine for myself what "truth" would best suit me. As is the case about Isaac Newton, Abraham Lincoln, and my birth date, I was told and believed. You also asked, "Is it OK that the Catholics believe the way they do? Are they true Christians in your opinion? Do they worship correctly? If not, don't you think it's 'miraculous' that your sect happens to know the truth?" I'm not Catholic, so I don't know all of the details about what they do. However, I do know that some of the things that they do are unbiblical. This goes back to what you said about different sects popping up. God said that it would happen and gives us warnings to stay away from wrong teaching and stick to the truth. I can know what's true based on whether or not it agrees with what the Bible says. False teaching started very early. It's spoken about in 2nd Peter, Jude, 1st and 2nd Timothy, and probably other places. Whether or not a person is a Christian is based on a personal choice that is made between them and God. I have no right to judge others. Only God is able to judge. So I can't say whether or not someone is a Christian based on them being Catholic. There's nothing miraculous about being able to determine the difference between what is true and what is false. As a Christian, I believe what the Bible says. If what someone says agrees with what the Bible says, then I know it's true, if not, then it isn't. You said, "It's completely irrational to use the Bible as supportive evidence for things that you claim happened in the Bible. Let's stay in the present reality for a while". As a Christian, what I beleive is completely based on what the Bible says. All that I believe about God is based on it. Therefore, it's the only complete tool that I could ever use to explain it. Is there other evidence that supports the Bible, yes. But there's nothing that is so complete, or trustworthy. This is one of those things that will be considered irrational to a non-Christian, but it's certainly not the only thing; just ask "iNow". It's just as he said. From his perspective, the Bible equates to unicorns and leprechauns. It's the same kind of division that I mentioned earlier. There are many things that will never be relatable between Christians and non-Christians. I've already said that the Bible shows this division when it talks about spiritual eyesight vs. spiritual blindness, and such other things. It's even more specific in 1st Corinthians 2:6-16 and 1st Corinthians 3:19-20. It talks about just how ridiculous the Bible looks to unbelievers. Once again, because this scripture comes from the Bible it won't have much merit for a non-believer. But for a Christian, it's truth. There's a huge divide that can't be merged. What's wise to one, is nonsense to the other. But as a Christian, I have no other source for truth. If I tried to just tell you what I suppose, or just give my opinion of why the Bible is trustworthy, it wouldn't be real truth. It would only be true if it said the same thing that the Bible already does. Once again, this is irrational thinking to a non-Christian, but not for a Christian. Now back to amputees and healing. I'm not God and I don't run the universe. I don't know why he may choose to heal some and not others. There could be a number of reasons, and I could be wrong about all of them. Also, God isn't mortal and his thoughts are beyond ours (Isaiah 55:8-9). A common mistake that many people make is to limit God to their own capability of understanding. So if a person prays for God to heal someone, and God doesn't, then that means that God is either mean, unable, or just doesn't care. But the Bible says that no one knows the mind of God. We only know what he reveals to us. Let me give an analogy about perspective and limited understanding. Suppose we try to think of a dog's perspective. The dog's master gets him up early in the morning and they run around the city until they get tired. When it's all over, they come back to the house without making any stops to any stores or anything. This kind of behavior would make no sense to a dog. Why would they run around the city with no destination? Why run at all? Why not just jump in the car? The dog knows that his master has that kind of capability. Why do they run only to get tired? His master must be an idiot, or maybe he's just mean. Because the dog can't comprehend the concept of exercise, these are the only conclusions that can be made. But what about the dog that just trusts and obeys his master? He accepts that his master is greater and simply chooses to trust. He continues to trust that his master is kind, good and responsible. And he'd be right.

@Phi for All, if someone asked you your birthdate, I doubt you'd say "I think I was born on ___", or "I believe I was born on ___". It also wouldn't surprise me if you've never even seen your own birth certificate. Many people haven't. Most people were told that their birthday is a certain date. Most were told by their parents, years ago -- probably so long ago that they don't even remember being told. They now live their lives, knowing their own age and the date of their own birth -- and not being wrong about it. If they started to doubt their own age, because of having engaged in a conversation such as this, most people would consider that to be a form of paranoia. Just ask yourself, how much so-called evidence would a person have to show you in order to get you confused about your own birthday? If you really start to seriously think in these terms, you'll probably find that your faith about your own birtdhay, is pretty strong. I understand that your faith about your birthday isn't unwaivering. Neither is mine. It's very strong, but not unwaivering. I use it as an example to show that everyone has faith. It's the type of faith that has a lot in common with my faith about God and the Bible. However, there are some attributes about it that are very different. Unlike my faith about my age, which is extremely strong by the way, my faith about God and the Bible is "unwaivering". It's often difficult for this concept to be relatable to those who don't believe, but that's normal. Because it would be unrelatable, it would also be near pointless for me to try to say much more about it. You said that you believe Newton's history because of historical documents, and that there are fewer documents concerning Jesus. On one hand, this just makes sense because the events of Jesus took place further back in history. It should also be noted that throughout the centuries, Christians have been persecuted, and there have been many attempts to completely destroy the scriptures in order to prevent the growth of Christianity. But despite all of this, we all reference all of time to this one man's birth, Jesus. Once again, this is true for all cultures around the world. In a legitimate search for understanding, this is something that would never be ignored. Yet, the miracles that Jesus performed, explains all of this very easily. I understand that Jesus, God and the Bible are all very touchy subjects, and so it's difficult for many to treat them fairly within the realm of science. For instance, at one point, you said "Again, you're pretending to know something you don't really know. You even have to rely on magical 'ifs' to take us back in time". You were talking about the hypothetical that I proposed about you being alive, and present, during the time that Jesus was here on Earth. Hypotheticals, and asking "if", is commonly allowed during the scientific process. Yet you don't allow it here. Had this been a different subject and I was talking about a thought experiment, which is what many scientists have done, you wouldn't have had a problem with it. Einstein asked, "if a person could ride on a wave of light", and Newton asked "if a connon was powerful enough to shoot a cannon ball for thousands of miles off of a cliff". Had I mentioned those "ifs" you would have had no problem at all. Bias is hard to avoid on such a touchy subject, but is necessary for scientific pursuit. You said that your belief that Newton existed isn't based on faith but that it's based on multiple historical records. However, I'm willing to bet that you never sought out historical records in order to verify that Newton was alive in the 1600s. It's much more likely that you did the same thing that many of us have done. You probably took some classes, and read some physics books that talked about his work, in order to learn more about his work and contribution to science, and that it was by faith that you believe what you learned about his existence. You probably never saw anything beyond that, yet you choose to believe. That's okay, and there's nothing wrong with it. It's the same thing that the rest of us have done. We do it all the time, and it has posed no problem or threat. But in an attempt to show that you don't believe by faith, you mention the existence of historical documents that you've probably never even seen. I don't doubt that such documents exist, I'm just pointing out that we all possess faith, and use it on a consistent basis. You mentioned that Chrstianity has splintered into many different sects that disagree. You're certainly right about that. It's all happening just as God said it would. There are many places in the Bible that warn about how this sort of thing will take place. It then gives solutions on how to remain faithful to the truth and not be misled. I could explain more about why this happens, but you'd find it to be very unrelatable. You reitterated your perspective when you said in your post "Would you listen to someone who pretends to know 'truth' if it didn't agree with what you believe?" Though the answers are true, you wouldn't value their source. Hence, it makes more sense not to divulge them. As for the amputees -- The Bible is clear that there are many other miracles that Jesus performed. They're not all listed because there would simply be too many to talk about (John 21:25). However, this leads me back to what I said about there being two types of people. Jesus said that there are those who see and beleive, and there are those who wouldn't believe even if they were shown more miracles. Is your cause for disbelief based on the fact that an amputee wasn't one of the many cases that was chosen to be written down? Had it been listed, would you instantly believe? You say that people would start to believe if God started striking people dead every time they asked for it. This is the same situation. Jesus resurrected people from the dead -- lots of people. There were even a whole group of people that came back to life the moment that Jesus died on the cross. They came out of their graves and walked around the city. He even radically controlled the weather at will. You would think that these miracles would be great enough to cause someone to believe, which is why they are the ones that were written down (John 20:30-31). I could just imagine what would happen if God decided to start striking people dead when they asked. I could imagine people trying to find any kind of commonality possible. Did they all happen within a certain range? What about the pitches of their voices when they said it. Perhaps this causes some form of natural disturbance that may contribute to a lightning strike. It's like you said "Let God start striking down everyone who asks to be struck down and soon science would have a testable, repeatable, predictive theory about a natural phenomena". That's not flat-out belief. So what would it take? What miracle would be great enough? So he starts striking down those who ask. But then if he finally decided to quit, or only strike down some, people would say that it can't be God. After all, it's no longer repeatable. And if it is repeatable, then perhaps that would be evidence that it's not due to the conscious decision of an almight God. It wouldn't shock me to see just how far people would go to strive for a different explanation. There would probably be some who would believe. After all, some are willing (Matthew 13:3-23). But as the Bible points out, these are the ones who are probably also willing to pay attention to the many miracles that have already been performed, written down, and spoken of (Luke 16:29-31). By its very nature, the topic of religion can't help but become personal and controversial; especially when you mention Jesus. So when such a topic is dealt with via scientific methods, a person has to conciously employ special effort in order to try to remain unbiased. It makes sense that this would be difficult, but at the same time, necessary. @iNow, you said "The bible is not even consistent with itself. There are like 700 times where it contradicts itself. That's hardly a firm foundation on which to make so many extraordinary claims that cannot be supported with evidence." Explaining to you why it's not a challenge for me to place complete confidence in the book that you describe, would be very difficult. It would require talking about things that will simply be unrelatable to those who don't believe. I'll try to give an analogy, but you probably won't find it useful. But I suppose there's no real harm in doing so since I don't want to dismiss your comment altogether. I spoke earlier about unwaivering faith, and that my faith about God, and the Bible, is of this type. The kind of faith, that God is interested in, is the "unwaivering" kind. The Bible talks a lot about it, and there are many human examples that demonstrate it. The Bible also talks about why the unwaivering kind of faith in him, is very important. It's kind of like when a person chooses to get married. When a person decides to get married, they take a vow that describes their future choices, even without knowing the future. That's why you'll often hear "for better, or for worse, in sickness and in health, till death do us part". It's a choice that is made with the knowledge, and anticipation, of a potentially bumpy road ahead. It's one of the things that makes faith about God, and the Bible, different than birthday faith. I've been warned about what's ahead, and so no document, finding, or discovery will ever shake it. The Bible clearly warns that every believer's faith will be tested and that God wants faith that doesn't waiver. If I choose to waiver, then what will I tell him on the last day, even after I've been told to expect such testing? The Bible gives many examples of people who had great faith, and how God was pleased with their faith because it was unwavering. So this is where the rubber meets the road. Jesus said that he came to cause division, and that some would believe and that some wouldn't. I simply choose to be one who believes. You're right, ultimately, a relationship with God isn't based on evidence, even though evidence exists. If it's merely based on evidence, then it could always be shaken. Just as "Phi for All" implied, show him the right set of documents, and a correct set of contradicting evidence, and maybe you could get him to believe that he was born on a different day than what he actually was. But as a Christian, I already know that my faith will be tested. So when such tests come, I'm ready for them. Like marriage, it's a choice that is made even when you don't know what you may encounter next. So having said all of that, inconsistencies in the Bible don't bother me. One place in the Bible says that Judas hung himself. Another says that he fell to his death and all of his insides spilled out. One could try to argue that he hung himself over a cliff, the rope broke and he also fell to his death. But to me it's not a sticking point. What am I to do? Would I choose to dismiss everything else and choose not to believe because of this? No. I choose to do what Abraham did. God promised Abraham that his barren wife would become pregnant and that he would be the father of many nations. When his wife finally had their son Isaac, God told Abraham to sacrafice him -- to kill him. Abraham could have doubted God, or he could have questioned him. Abraham did neither. He simply decided to obey God, and God was pleased. Abraham didn't understand why God would ask him to kill his only son from whom many nations would come. But his lack of understanding didn't stop him from obeying. The situation with Job is also similar. God allowed Job to be tested even though Job was faithful. Job didn't know why his life was falling apart, but his lack of understanding didn't change his choices concerning God. God never told him why those things happened to him, but he was pleased with Job's response. So what should I do, as a Christian, when I encounter something that doesn't necessarily make sense? Should I abandon my faith? Should I question God's plans or his motives? Either would be a bad choice because I already know what God is like and who he is, based on his word. He's told me what to expect. This isn't something that will be relatable, or make perfect sense, to one who doesn't believe. But it's the best explanation I can give to someone who doesn't believe. An unbeliever may not consider the Bible to be a firm foundation. But the perspective of a Christian is very different, and hard to explain to an unbeliever. Many times in the Bible it's referred to as spiritual sight versus spiritual blindness. It also talks about those who hear his voice and those who don't. The Bible shows that there is a great divide between those who believe and those who don't, and that we won't be able to relate on many issues. The following are verses that give many examples of what I'm talking about. It won't make much sense, and will seem highly controversial to those who don't believe. Because they're from the Bible, many non-believers probably won't value them at all. But I show them as a context that explains what I'm talking about, and they'll be relatable to Christians who may be reading. 2nd Corinthians 6:14-15 Matthew 13:10-17 John 10:22-42 Matthew 10:34-38 Jude 1:17-23 @iNow, these answers probably won't be satisfactory, but I didn't want to just cop out and not respond. As for your comment about the sun -- From my perspective, the fact that you live as though the sun will rise tomorrow, is evidence of your faith. You believe that the sun will rise tomorrow, but you don't believe that the Bible is true. That's all. To me, faith, belief and trust are all the same thing. It's a matter of semantics. There's not much common ground that will be found between Christians and non-Christians. However, inarguable evidence about Jesus, God and the Bible does exist. It primarily starts with Jesus' birth being a reference for all time. A legitimate scientific pursuit wouldn't ignore it. It will always ultimately lead to extreme controversy for someone who doesn't believe, but for a Christian, there's no conflict.

@Phi for All, "faith" often becomes a dirty word among analytical thinkers, as well as many scientists. At first glance, it seems to have no place in science because how can anyone be certain about anything, right? But the truth is that all of us, without exception, possess faith. That's what I like about the "personal age" example that I mentioned earlier. If any person is honest with him/herself they would agree that, at this very moment, they are certain about their own age. I can see how a person would try to argue this faith by claiming that they doubt their own age, but if we're all honest, not many people doubt such facts about themselves. Just ask yourself, do you doubt your own age? Just because you don't doubt, that doesn't make you irrational. If I started talking about Newton's laws of motion, no scientist would say "but how can you be certain that Newton even actually existed?" By faith, we all accept that he existed without trying to prove it, and, today, no scientist would ever be rediculed for having such faith in that belief. In order to understand the perspective of a Christian, it's important to view their faith in God, and the Bible, as being just as solid as your faith about your own age, if not greater. This may be challenging, but it's critical when trying to understand the Christian perspective. Let's face it. When you believe your own age, it has little to do with actual proof, even though actual proof exists. You would never be considered to have poor judgment for not doubting your own age. It's the same way with my faith as a Christian. The only reason that you, and other non-beleivers, may not see it that way, is because you don't personally have the same faith. To you, the existance of God is an "unknown", or "we can't be sure" type of topic. But that's just a perspective. If someone tried to tell you that your age is just "your belief", you'd understand that they're merely speaking from their perspective. But you'd never begin to question what you know to be true just because they have doubts. When you say that "God has NEVER regrown a leg or arm", you're once again merely speaking from your perspective. Though I've never witnessed it, I know that Jesus performed even greater miracles thousands of years ago. If we were both around him while he was here on earth, just as thousands of people were at the time, you would have been able to see him perform those miracles yourself. You then wouldn't doubt his power, in the same way that no one doubted it back then. But we live in this time. And just as you could talk to a person who may doubt that Isaac Newton ever lived, I could do they same when talking about Jesus. You could talk about Isaac Newton and his accomplishments, and I could talk about Jesus. We both have evidence that supports the truths that we know, and understand. But our beliefs aren't based on the evidence that we would show someone, even though this clear evidence exists. You could show Newton's equations and history books that talk about what he did, and even early portraits of the man. I could talk about the Bible and point out the fact that all of society references all of time to his birth, and that this is evidence that he performed many miracles, just as the Bible says. But in the end, both of our beliefs are based on faith, and neither is less true because of it. As for doubting God because he doesn't do what I want, when I want it (such as healing someone) -- If I chose to doubt God because of something like that, then that would be through fault of my own. The Bible covers thousands of years of history. Throught that time, there have been many who have seen his miracles. But there have also been many who didn't. Gideon and Job are two clear examples of this. They lived during times that are similar to ours. During the time of their generation, God chose not to perform miracles. Each of them even brought it up specifically (Gideon in Judges 6:13, and Job in Job 42:5). The REAL mistake would be for us to limit truth, or even evidence, to our own personal experiences. I should also point out a few more truths about miracles. God points out that there are two different kinds of people. There are those who are willing to believe, and there are those who will choose not to believe even if they get miracles that they may have asked for. I can think of two times when Jesus talked about this. One time he pointed out that an unbeliever's family wouldn't believe the truth even if they witnessed a dead man being raised to life (Luke 16:19-31). The second time was when Jesus was talking to the religious leaders of that day. Jesus told them that they were godless and that the people from previous times repented and believed after seeing much smaller miracles (Matthew 12:38-42). By today's examples, I think of people like the late comedian George Carlin. During one of his routines he said, "I'll prove to you that God doesn't exist. If God exists, let him strike me with a bolt of lightning". The comedian wasn't struck, and the audience laughed. But the truth is, that even if he had been struck, people would have just said that it was a bizarre coincidence. People are always much more willing to think of a different explanation.

I'm a Christian who loves science, especially physical science. Unlike a lot of people that I've met, I don't believe that science contradicts my Christian beliefs. But then again, I have a very basic view of what science is, fundamentally. For me, science is simply trying to understand things by observing, questioning, experimenting, hyphothesizing, and then theorizing. I don't feel that true science should try to explain things while attempting to make sure that God doesn't enter into the picture. For me, true science tries to answer questions, and if God happens to be a part of the answer, then that's okay. I don't believe that one has to exclude the other. On the other hand, I will admit that my trust in God trumps my trust in anything else, including science. But at the same time it doesn't contradict it. This is because it's not hard for me to believe that there's a sovereign God who is above everything else, including his own creation and the laws that he made to govern it; and also that his thoughts are greater than ours. Because my belief in God is as such, and my view of science is so basic, the two don't contradict. Your title to this thread, "Just Trying to Make Sense of it all", made me think about an online article that I wrote a while ago. It attempts to answer the question "What is the meaning of life?", using strict logic and basic reasoning. I've decided to supply a link to it here because you may find it helpful. The content is helpful, but so is its portrayal of a method of unbiased approach. Its approach is driven by facts and logic. http://www.streetarticles.com/personal-growth/what-is-the-meaning-of-life As for your question of "why fewer scientists believe in God"; the Bible gives an answer. About one third of the Bible is prophecy and it basically says that the world will become more godless, and that there will be more and more arguments and division before it finally comes to an end (Jude 1:17-23, 2nd Timothy 2:12-17). @hypervalent_iodine gave a good example of how all of this is unfolding. Scientists perform experiments and make discoveries. They then trust these results over previous knowledge. But this is only good science when the results are more reliable than the previous knowledge that was already known. As I've said before, my trust in God trumps my belief in everything else. If there is a scientific finding that contradicts what the Bible teaches, this is evidence to me that the scientific finding is wrong. At first glance, this may appear to contradict the very pure nature of science (ask questions, experiment, and let the facts lead you to truth), but it doesn't. My view is both logically sound, and is also non-contradictory to either science or my belief about God and the Bible. Let me give an example of the logic behind this way of thinking that will be identifiable to most scientists. Suppose I told you that I have a scientific process that will determine the exact age of any object, to within a year of accuracy. It has an excellent track record for being correct. I then use it on you in order to determine your age. The final results indicate that you are 53 years old, even though you told all of us that you are 13. Would you believe the results of my procedure, or would you conclude that something isn't right? Logic would cause us to conclude that an error has been made, and we would run the test again. Now if we run the test 100 times and all tests continue to show that you're 53 instead of 13, would you begin to believe that you are 53 instead of 13? Probably not. Is your conclusion irrational? No. This is my experience as a Christian who loves science. I recognize that scientific results, though rigerous and well intentioned, can sometimes be wrong. I don't dismiss anything. I just recognize error based on a more stable knowledge. For most non-Christians, this may be difficult to accept. It's often hard for them to believe that a person's trust in God can be as strong, or stronger, than their belief about their own age. Yet at the same time, no serious scientist would trust a flawed experimental, or mathematical, outcome, over the faith about their own age. The "personal age" example is a good example of faith, trust, belief, or whatever else you may want to call it. We all have it, and there's nothing irrational about it. We can use all sorts of documents, and evidence to support our own age. But the truth is that if we find a document that contradicts what we already know to be true, it's not illogical to dismiss it as some sort of error. I recognize that my response may not be favored by many readers; especially my quoting the Bible in one of the above paragraphs. But I believe that giving my experience, as a Christian who loves science, to another Christian who loves science, may be helpful.

Mathematics is a language that is used to describe quantities. It's as simple as that. Most of the confusion, and "math attacks" that are taking place on this thread really seem to boil down to definitions. For instance, all apples don't have to be identical in order for us to describe a quantity of apples. This is because of how we choose to define what an apple is. It usually has nothing to do with weight or size. So when I say "I'm going to give you two apples.", no one will have a difficult time understanding what that means because we are typically on the same page when it comes to knowing what an apple is. As is the case with any other language, the clarity of statements is dependent on the definitions that we choose to adopt as a society. Outside of this thread, not many people would have a difficult time understanding what an apple is. It makes perfect sense, unless you try to over-think it. "This is all I have learned: God has made us simple, but we have made ourselves very complicated." --Ecclesiastes 7:29

@Enthalpy, it seems as if you're talking about valence electrons -- electrons that can easily move from the orbit of one atom to the orbit of another atom. I think that the difference between our responses is a matter of perspective when describing electrical models. I speak in terms of atoms because an elemental electrical conductor, such as copper or aluminum, could theoretically be cut into smaller and smaller pieces until you have individual atoms. Each of these atoms would have their own valence electrons. When these atoms are put together to make a larger conducting material, the electrons are allowed to move throughout the material, which is what I called a "domino effect" as they move from orbit to orbit. You say that the valence electrons "don't belong to one atom", while I say that they "move from atom to atom". From my perspective, this is just two different ways of saying the same thing . Others may agree or disagree.

I considered, for a moment, that it could have been a result of some form of inducted current (eddy currents). After all, I was moving the sheet, which technically provides a situation of a moving charge (current) in a magnetic field. But then I dismissed this idea because I figured that the direction that I was moving the sheet would have caused the force to push the sheet sideways, and not feel as if it was grabbing it. This is because the field from the magnet is pointing vertically, and I was moving it horizontally, which would cause it to move in the other orthogonal direction (from one side to the other). But reading your response has caused me to think about this again, and what you're saying makes sense. The field from the magnet isn't only pointing up and down, but ultimately points in a circular direction. This is because the magnet has edges, and the magnetic field encircles the edges of the magnet. So some components of the magnetic field would make it move up and down, as well as side to side. So if the magnet had no edges, then the sheet would only move from one side to the other as I move the sheet through the field. However, every magnet has edges, and the edges are where I felt the tug take place. This all makes sense. Thanks for your help.

I agree with @Phi for All. If the pot was a "perfect" conductor of heat, then both the water and the pot would always be the same temperature. This is because the pot would relay its heat just as quickly as it obtained it. But in reality, the pot must get hot before the water on the other side gets hot. Therefore, the pot would be at a higher temperature. Once the burner is turned off, it makes sense that both the water and the pot would eventually equalize and become the same temperature. It helps to remember that the temperature of an object is really just a macroscopic, or collective, measurement of the kinetic energy of the atoms (or molecules) that make up that object. When an object is hot, its molecules are vibrating faster than when it is cold. Heat is transferred when these molecules collide with neighboring molecules of anything that may be touching it, causing those molecules to vibrate more quickly.

My understanding is "yes", the electrons that are in the outer orbits of one atom, move to the outer orbit of a neighboring atom. However, the reason electricity moves so fast is because it's a domino effect. If you have a wire, one electron that starts on one end, doesn't physically travel to the other end near the speed of light. Instead, it simply jumps to the orbit of the neighboring atom, which causes an electron from that atom to jump to the next atom, and so on. It's this rapid "cause and affect" phenomenon that makes electrons appear to be moving near the speed of light. As electrons jump from one orbit to another, they do manage to migrate across the length of the wire, but not near the speed of light. At least, that's how I've always understood it.

I have learned that copper is supposed to be diamagnetic. So the results of an experiment that I recently performed, confuses me. I took a small piece of aluminum foil and quickly moved it near the surface of a really strong neodymium iron boron magnet. Because aluminum is paramagnetic, the foil reacted to the magnetic field. It was as if it had "run into" interference. I could visibly notice the field tug on the foil. So then I took a thin, copper-coated board that I have. These are phenolic boards and are about one sixteenth of an inch thick. They have a layer of copper on one side and are used to make printed circuit boards. I ran the board over the magnet, and the same thing happened. The board reacted just as the aluminum foil did. It seemed as if the field "tugged" on the board. If copper is diamagnetic, why would this happen? In order to make sure that the copper was to blame for the "tug" affect, I etched the board, removing all copper from it. Now there is no tug when I run the board through the magnetic field. I then decided to try a piece of graphite foil. When I ran the graphite foil through the field, nothing happened. This makes sense because graphite is diamagnetic. So, what's with the copper? Why does copper act as if its paramagnetic when every place on the internet says that copper is diamagnetic? Any ideas? I also placed a penny on my finger and ran my finger over the magnet. Once again, there was a reaction. The penny fluttered, as if something was trying to grab it. So what's the deal with copper? Is everyone lying, or is there some other reason why this happens? I've thought of trying to get a sheet of copper that is known for being really pure; believing that maybe it has something to do with the purity of the copper. However, I don't want to spend money for an ultra-pure sheet of copper only to find that there is a valid reason why copper seems to be misbehaving. It may have nothing to do with purity at all. Thank you for your time. Your insight into this mystery is greatly appreciated.

I have to agree most with @darkenlighten. Just as Newton's gravitational law describes the relationship between two massive objects and the force between them, Maxwell's equations explains the relationship between electricity, magnetism and light. It's a fundamentally observed phenomenon. To me, your question is like asking "why does matter have mass?" or "why does one plus one equal two?". Both have fundamental, yet simple answers. If I were to answer any of these questions, I'd simply say that it's because that's how God designed his universe, and mathematics is how we precisely describe such fundamental phenomenon. I recognize that it's not the answer that everyone would give, but it's the best one that I have. It's always possible that there's a more fundamental description behind current fundamentals. But at this time, I view all of these as fundamentals.