Help: How do I know that your God is the one, true God?

[Kir Komrik]

Hi all,
I'm new here and have just read up on the policies and finished my signature, etc. I hope I've done everything correctly so far.
I would like to believe in an almighty power but the problem is that in my research I've found so many gods out there. Coming from a family that has been explicitly atheist for generations, I'm starting from scratch and am looking at all religions.
I am sincerely curious to know how would I know, for instance, that your god is the one, true God?
Thank you.

[Zetesis Apistia]

The Grand Canyon has marine fossils towards the top of the Grand Canyon, almost a mile above sea level. That is one bit of evidence that supports a worldwide flood.

Do you have a knowledge of plate tectonics? When we see fosils of marine life on top of mountains and high natural forms, there are two things that are at work that allow for this. First, plate tectonics pushes lower and older rock formations to the surface. These formations have fossils in them that were once buried by layers upon layers of rock from the millions of years of sediment or surface dust. Erosion is the second factor which caused these fossils to become exposed. In the Grand Canyon we see both at work. The canyon is slowly lifted every year and as it is lifted erosion takes its course. The small Colorado River that runs through it actually carved the canyon. This was made possible by the constant uplifting every year via plate tectonics. When you lift the earth it allows for the river to cut through this newly exposed loose rock like a saw. Had there not been an uplifting there would be no canyon. Just like we see with other rivers that only dig down until they hit solid rock formations. Once solid rock is reached, erosion takes way too long to account for the Grand Canyon. The uplifting of the land via plate tectonics was the key. Erosion did the rest. What your left with is a rock layer, now on top, that was once buried deep under other rock layers. There was no flood.

So what about the marine fossils in the Sierras, the Swiss Alps, the Himalayas and many more mountains alike? Were not just talking about the
Grand canyon.

The same thing happened there. The continents are all on plates or what we liken to plates which move freely on the molten rock which is 25 miles underneath. These plates meet up with other plates and we call this a fault line. At these fault lines is where most of our mountain ranges and volcanoes exist today. As two plates are pushing against each other one will start to go above the other while the other is forced down. This is a very long process. The Swiss Alps in northern Italy were actually created by the contact of the African plate. Geologists found rock formations on the top of the Swiss Alps that were only found in one other place, Africa. Further research has shown that the two continents were once grinding together which forced the Swiss Alps skyward. Once two plates are no longer pushing against each other, erosion gets the upper hand. This is why we see ancient fossil beds at the tops of mountain ranges. There was no flood. We have a full understanding of this. I suggest doing a little research and study about these things on websites dedicated to real science. Until then, here are the basics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology_of_the_Alps

http://library.thinkquest.org/10131/geology.html

wikipedia ....really?

[Goat]

The Grand Canyon has marine fossils towards the top of the Grand Canyon, almost a mile above sea level. That is one bit of evidence that supports a worldwide flood.

Do you have a knowledge of plate tectonics? When we see fosils of marine life on top of mountains and high natural forms, there are two things that are at work that allow for this. First, plate tectonics pushes lower and older rock formations to the surface. These formations have fossils in them that were once buried by layers upon layers of rock from the millions of years of sediment or surface dust. Erosion is the second factor which caused these fossils to become exposed. In the Grand Canyon we see both at work. The canyon is slowly lifted every year and as it is lifted erosion takes its course. The small Colorado River that runs through it actually carved the canyon. This was made possible by the constant uplifting every year via plate tectonics. When you lift the earth it allows for the river to cut through this newly exposed loose rock like a saw. Had there not been an uplifting there would be no canyon. Just like we see with other rivers that only dig down until they hit solid rock formations. Once solid rock is reached, erosion takes way too long to account for the Grand Canyon. The uplifting of the land via plate tectonics was the key. Erosion did the rest. What your left with is a rock layer, now on top, that was once buried deep under other rock layers. There was no flood.

So what about the marine fossils in the Sierras, the Swiss Alps, the Himalayas and many more mountains alike? Were not just talking about the
Grand canyon.

Nickman already pointed out the answer.. if you had bothered to read. Plate tectonics, which is proven, and whose actions can actually be measured with modern techniology.

We have plates that 'float' over the mantle As the plates shift, the 'heaver' plate goes underneat the 'lighter' plate, and pushes the lighter plate up.. this forms mountains. When there is enough pressure differential, there is an earthquake, and the lower plate pushes the higher plate up. This shows how the continents shift, and shows why some land lifts up, and others shift down after earthquakes.

This can be measured via lasers. The Americas and Europe a move about ~2cm a year in relationship to each other.

[Nickman]

The Grand Canyon has marine fossils towards the top of the Grand Canyon, almost a mile above sea level. That is one bit of evidence that supports a worldwide flood.

Do you have a knowledge of plate tectonics? When we see fosils of marine life on top of mountains and high natural forms, there are two things that are at work that allow for this. First, plate tectonics pushes lower and older rock formations to the surface. These formations have fossils in them that were once buried by layers upon layers of rock from the millions of years of sediment or surface dust. Erosion is the second factor which caused these fossils to become exposed. In the Grand Canyon we see both at work. The canyon is slowly lifted every year and as it is lifted erosion takes its course. The small Colorado River that runs through it actually carved the canyon. This was made possible by the constant uplifting every year via plate tectonics. When you lift the earth it allows for the river to cut through this newly exposed loose rock like a saw. Had there not been an uplifting there would be no canyon. Just like we see with other rivers that only dig down until they hit solid rock formations. Once solid rock is reached, erosion takes way too long to account for the Grand Canyon. The uplifting of the land via plate tectonics was the key. Erosion did the rest. What your left with is a rock layer, now on top, that was once buried deep under other rock layers. There was no flood.

So what about the marine fossils in the Sierras, the Swiss Alps, the Himalayas and many more mountains alike? Were not just talking about the
Grand canyon.

The same thing happened there. The continents are all on plates or what we liken to plates which move freely on the molten rock which is 25 miles underneath. These plates meet up with other plates and we call this a fault line. At these fault lines is where most of our mountain ranges and volcanoes exist today. As two plates are pushing against each other one will start to go above the other while the other is forced down. This is a very long process. The Swiss Alps in northern Italy were actually created by the contact of the African plate. Geologists found rock formations on the top of the Swiss Alps that were only found in one other place, Africa. Further research has shown that the two continents were once grinding together which forced the Swiss Alps skyward. Once two plates are no longer pushing against each other, erosion gets the upper hand. This is why we see ancient fossil beds at the tops of mountain ranges. There was no flood. We have a full understanding of this. I suggest doing a little research and study about these things on websites dedicated to real science. Until then, here are the basics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology_of_the_Alps

http://library.thinkquest.org/10131/geology.html

wikipedia ....really?

What is wrong with wikipedia? So your looking for a website that says the same thing yet is produced by scientists? Are our textbooks good enough for you? You can apply this understanding across the board. Like I said, here are the basics. The wiki link provides an accurate understanding of plate tectonics and how this caused the Swiss Alp formation, and why there are fossils on its higher regions.

What other questions you have about this subject?

[Zetesis Apistia]

The Grand Canyon has marine fossils towards the top of the Grand Canyon, almost a mile above sea level. That is one bit of evidence that supports a worldwide flood.

Do you have a knowledge of plate tectonics? When we see fosils of marine life on top of mountains and high natural forms, there are two things that are at work that allow for this. First, plate tectonics pushes lower and older rock formations to the surface. These formations have fossils in them that were once buried by layers upon layers of rock from the millions of years of sediment or surface dust. Erosion is the second factor which caused these fossils to become exposed. In the Grand Canyon we see both at work. The canyon is slowly lifted every year and as it is lifted erosion takes its course. The small Colorado River that runs through it actually carved the canyon. This was made possible by the constant uplifting every year via plate tectonics. When you lift the earth it allows for the river to cut through this newly exposed loose rock like a saw. Had there not been an uplifting there would be no canyon. Just like we see with other rivers that only dig down until they hit solid rock formations. Once solid rock is reached, erosion takes way too long to account for the Grand Canyon. The uplifting of the land via plate tectonics was the key. Erosion did the rest. What your left with is a rock layer, now on top, that was once buried deep under other rock layers. There was no flood.

So what about the marine fossils in the Sierras, the Swiss Alps, the Himalayas and many more mountains alike? Were not just talking about the
Grand canyon.

The same thing happened there. The continents are all on plates or what we liken to plates which move freely on the molten rock which is 25 miles underneath. These plates meet up with other plates and we call this a fault line. At these fault lines is where most of our mountain ranges and volcanoes exist today. As two plates are pushing against each other one will start to go above the other while the other is forced down. This is a very long process. The Swiss Alps in northern Italy were actually created by the contact of the African plate. Geologists found rock formations on the top of the Swiss Alps that were only found in one other place, Africa. Further research has shown that the two continents were once grinding together which forced the Swiss Alps skyward. Once two plates are no longer pushing against each other, erosion gets the upper hand. This is why we see ancient fossil beds at the tops of mountain ranges. There was no flood. We have a full understanding of this. I suggest doing a little research and study about these things on websites dedicated to real science. Until then, here are the basics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology_of_the_Alps

http://library.thinkquest.org/10131/geology.html

wikipedia ....really?

What is wrong with wikipedia? So your looking for a website that says the same thing yet is produced by scientists? Are our textbooks good enough for you? You can apply this understanding across the board. Like I said, here are the basics. The wiki link provides an accurate understanding of plate tectonics and how this caused the Swiss Alp formation, and why there are fossils on its higher regions.

What other questions you have about this subject?

Yes.... Explain the formation of polystrate fossils.

Also explain how pancake layered strata evolved over millions of years as evolutionists suggest, yet it possesses no erosion between the layers? Secondly the size and extent of the strata suggests that the layers were neither formed by rivers, or river deltas. Why, because many of the layers are very thick, and they cover hundreds and even thousands of square miles. Throw in some marine fossils buried in many of the layers and that would suggest that they were deposited by ocean currents, or a major flood.

[Nickman]

The Grand Canyon has marine fossils towards the top of the Grand Canyon, almost a mile above sea level. That is one bit of evidence that supports a worldwide flood.

Do you have a knowledge of plate tectonics? When we see fosils of marine life on top of mountains and high natural forms, there are two things that are at work that allow for this. First, plate tectonics pushes lower and older rock formations to the surface. These formations have fossils in them that were once buried by layers upon layers of rock from the millions of years of sediment or surface dust. Erosion is the second factor which caused these fossils to become exposed. In the Grand Canyon we see both at work. The canyon is slowly lifted every year and as it is lifted erosion takes its course. The small Colorado River that runs through it actually carved the canyon. This was made possible by the constant uplifting every year via plate tectonics. When you lift the earth it allows for the river to cut through this newly exposed loose rock like a saw. Had there not been an uplifting there would be no canyon. Just like we see with other rivers that only dig down until they hit solid rock formations. Once solid rock is reached, erosion takes way too long to account for the Grand Canyon. The uplifting of the land via plate tectonics was the key. Erosion did the rest. What your left with is a rock layer, now on top, that was once buried deep under other rock layers. There was no flood.

So what about the marine fossils in the Sierras, the Swiss Alps, the Himalayas and many more mountains alike? Were not just talking about the
Grand canyon.

The same thing happened there. The continents are all on plates or what we liken to plates which move freely on the molten rock which is 25 miles underneath. These plates meet up with other plates and we call this a fault line. At these fault lines is where most of our mountain ranges and volcanoes exist today. As two plates are pushing against each other one will start to go above the other while the other is forced down. This is a very long process. The Swiss Alps in northern Italy were actually created by the contact of the African plate. Geologists found rock formations on the top of the Swiss Alps that were only found in one other place, Africa. Further research has shown that the two continents were once grinding together which forced the Swiss Alps skyward. Once two plates are no longer pushing against each other, erosion gets the upper hand. This is why we see ancient fossil beds at the tops of mountain ranges. There was no flood. We have a full understanding of this. I suggest doing a little research and study about these things on websites dedicated to real science. Until then, here are the basics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology_of_the_Alps

http://library.thinkquest.org/10131/geology.html

wikipedia ....really?

What is wrong with wikipedia? So your looking for a website that says the same thing yet is produced by scientists? Are our textbooks good enough for you? You can apply this understanding across the board. Like I said, here are the basics. The wiki link provides an accurate understanding of plate tectonics and how this caused the Swiss Alp formation, and why there are fossils on its higher regions.

What other questions you have about this subject?

Yes.... Explain the formation of polystrate fossils.

Also explain how pancake layered strata evolved over millions of years as evolutionists suggest, yet it possesses no erosion between the layers? Secondly the size and extent of the strata suggests that the layers were neither formed by rivers, or river deltas. Why, because many of the layers are very thick, and they cover hundreds and even thousands of square miles. Throw in some marine fossils buried in many of the layers and that would suggest that they were deposited by ocean currents, or a major flood.

You are not taking into consideration that the oceans were not in their current locations in our past. As the plates move the continents, some of which were once ocean beds, the location of oceans, rivers and lakes changed. I live in the salt lake valley which was an ocean at one time, miles deep. There are rich amounts of marine fossils here on the mountain and in the valley. The mountains were once flat and under water. As the plates grind and upheave the lower fossilized layers, mountains are formed with those fossils in them. A continual upheaval can make these mountains miles high as we see today with fossils on top. Marine fossils on top of mountains were not deposited there. The mountains were once not even mountains but flat ground under water. It is very simple.

[Zetesis Apistia]

You are not taking into consideration that the oceans were not in their current locations in our past. As the plates move the continents, some of which were once ocean beds, the location of oceans, rivers and lakes changed. I live in the salt lake valley which was an ocean at one time, miles deep. There are rich amounts of marine fossils here on the mountain and in the valley. The mountains were once flat and under water. As the plates grind and upheave the lower fossilized layers, mountains are formed with those fossils in them. A continual upheaval can make these mountains miles high as we see today with fossils on top. Marine fossils on top of mountains were not deposited there. The mountains were once not even mountains but flat ground under water. It is very simple.

Which would support the flood theory. Apparently there were several other places that used to be oceans....... Here is a snip with the link....

"In bogs covering glacial deposits in Michigan, skeletons of two whales were discovered ... How did they come to Michigan in the post-glacial epoch? Glaciers do not carry whales, and the ice sheet would not have brought them to the middle of a continent... Was there a sea in Michigan after the glacial epoch, only a few thousand years ago?"
So were there

"Bones of Whale have been found 440 feet above sea level, north of Lake Ontario; a skeleton of another whale was discovered in Vermont, more than 500 feet above sea level; and still another in the Montreal-Quebec area, about 600 feet above sea level..."

http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung ... _flood.htm

[Nickman]

You are not taking into consideration that the oceans were not in their current locations in our past. As the plates move the continents, some of which were once ocean beds, the location of oceans, rivers and lakes changed. I live in the salt lake valley which was an ocean at one time, miles deep. There are rich amounts of marine fossils here on the mountain and in the valley. The mountains were once flat and under water. As the plates grind and upheave the lower fossilized layers, mountains are formed with those fossils in them. A continual upheaval can make these mountains miles high as we see today with fossils on top. Marine fossils on top of mountains were not deposited there. The mountains were once not even mountains but flat ground under water. It is very simple.

Which would support the flood theory. Apparently there were several other places that used to be oceans....... Here is a snip with the link....

"In bogs covering glacial deposits in Michigan, skeletons of two whales were discovered ... How did they come to Michigan in the post-glacial epoch? Glaciers do not carry whales, and the ice sheet would not have brought them to the middle of a continent... Was there a sea in Michigan after the glacial epoch, only a few thousand years ago?"
So were there

"Bones of Whale have been found 440 feet above sea level, north of Lake Ontario; a skeleton of another whale was discovered in Vermont, more than 500 feet above sea level; and still another in the Montreal-Quebec area, about 600 feet above sea level..."

http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung ... _flood.htm

Im sorry, but the global flood argument has been 100% destroyed by actual evidence. As I said before, the face of the earth was not always the same as it is today. All continents and land masses used to be one land mass in our distant past. Oceans covered areas that are now dry land, and full of vegetation. It is no mystery that we find fossils of sea creatures thousands of miles inland, because these areas were not always inland, they were underwater.

I would direct you to a peer-reviewed archive of scientific literature that actually addresses all of the arguments creationists claim using their bible. If you are actually interested in truth then you will find this website helpful and educational.
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-flood.html

The website you provided shows its presuppositions and biases right of the bat. It is not interested in actual evidence. It assumes the bible is right at all costs, and doesn't care if it is wrong. By opening the link you see immediately the articles that address polystrate fossils and other concerns you have.

[Zetesis Apistia]

You are not taking into consideration that the oceans were not in their current locations in our past. As the plates move the continents, some of which were once ocean beds, the location of oceans, rivers and lakes changed. I live in the salt lake valley which was an ocean at one time, miles deep. There are rich amounts of marine fossils here on the mountain and in the valley. The mountains were once flat and under water. As the plates grind and upheave the lower fossilized layers, mountains are formed with those fossils in them. A continual upheaval can make these mountains miles high as we see today with fossils on top. Marine fossils on top of mountains were not deposited there. The mountains were once not even mountains but flat ground under water. It is very simple.

Which would support the flood theory. Apparently there were several other places that used to be oceans....... Here is a snip with the link....

"In bogs covering glacial deposits in Michigan, skeletons of two whales were discovered ... How did they come to Michigan in the post-glacial epoch? Glaciers do not carry whales, and the ice sheet would not have brought them to the middle of a continent... Was there a sea in Michigan after the glacial epoch, only a few thousand years ago?"
So were there

"Bones of Whale have been found 440 feet above sea level, north of Lake Ontario; a skeleton of another whale was discovered in Vermont, more than 500 feet above sea level; and still another in the Montreal-Quebec area, about 600 feet above sea level..."

http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung ... _flood.htm

Im sorry, but the global flood argument has been 100% destroyed by actual evidence. As I said before, the face of the earth was not always the same as it is today. All continents and land masses used to be one land mass in our distant past. Oceans covered areas that are now dry land, and full of vegetation. It is no mystery that we find fossils of sea creatures thousands of miles inland, because these areas were not always inland, they were underwater.

I would direct you to a peer-reviewed archive of scientific literature that actually addresses all of the arguments creationists claim using their bible. If you are actually interested in truth then you will find this website helpful and educational.
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-flood.html

The website you provided shows its presuppositions and biases right of the bat. It is not interested in actual evidence. It assumes the bible is right at all costs, and doesn't care if it is wrong. By opening the link you see immediately the articles that address polystrate fossils and other concerns you have.

Evidence requires interpretation. I would argue that presuppostion can and does influence both sides. Your side does not want a God and so they interpret it in a way that will support their own presupposition.

[Danmark]

The website you provided shows its presuppositions and biases right of the bat. It is not interested in actual evidence. It assumes the bible is right at all costs, and doesn't care if it is wrong. By opening the link you see immediately the articles that address polystrate fossils and other concerns you have.

Evidence requires interpretation. I would argue that presuppostion can and does influence both sides. Your side does not want a God and so they interpret it in a way that will support their own presupposition.[/quote]

Every argument has presuppositions and requires evidence. By announcing that simple and obvious fact you have not advanced the argument and have refuted nothing. It is the actual evidence that counts. You cannot dismiss evidence simply because it is transmitted from a source you do not like. I suggest you deal with the evidence itself, instead of give a peremptory dismissal based on your mere opinion of the conduit.
If you dispute the evidence or the interpretation of that evidence, make your case point by point. To do otherwise is the equivalent of jamming your fingers in your ears.

[Zetesis Apistia]

The website you provided shows its presuppositions and biases right of the bat. It is not interested in actual evidence. It assumes the bible is right at all costs, and doesn't care if it is wrong. By opening the link you see immediately the articles that address polystrate fossils and other concerns you have.

Evidence requires interpretation. I would argue that presuppostion can and does influence both sides. Your side does not want a God and so they interpret it in a way that will support their own presupposition.

Every argument has presuppositions and requires evidence. By announcing that simple and obvious fact you have not advanced the argument and have refuted nothing. It is the actual evidence that counts. You cannot dismiss evidence simply because it is transmitted from a source you do not like. I suggest you deal with the evidence itself, instead of give a peremptory dismissal based on your mere opinion of the conduit.
If you dispute the evidence or the interpretation of that evidence, make your case point by point. To do otherwise is the equivalent of jamming your fingers in your ears.

Democrats and republicans live by the same constitution yet they disagree on the interpretation of it. They will then appeal to the supreme court for the proper interpretation. However, since the justices are corrupted with their own presuppositions we pretty much know how each one will vote. In our case we have no mediator for our argument so we can go back and forth forever. But know one thing for sure. Just as our constitution is interpreted two ways, so is scientific evidence. I do not trust your interpretation because I am assuming that presupposition is influencing yours as well. The thing is that the law supports your argument and places a gag order over mine. They will not hear both sides. A scientist will jeapordize his or her career if he or she supports something that goes against the atheist controlled field of science. Just as our supreme court justices decisions are influenced by their own agenda, so it is with the field of scientists whose findings support their own agendas. Surely you are not so naive as to not know this.