The Miracle of Water.

[SkepticThinker]

You did see that the there was no relationship established in any of the creatures supposedly forming the "evolutionary chain" from Pakicetus to whales.
It was a suggestion based on nothing but a similar earbone. The whole chain is a suggestion.....because no relationship has ever been established beyond the diagrams provided by science, it is accepted on faith, not on substantive evidence.

If you have a bunch of links but nothing to join them, you don't have a chain. The missing links have never been found, because I don't believe that they exist. You do understand how many missing links would be required to prove what science is assuming "might have" happened? To me, it's a more ridiculous scenario to suggest that all that happened by chance mutations and natural selection than it takes to believe in an Intelligent Designer who planned and executed the whole thing deliberately.

Thank you for the science lessons, I know you mean well, but you have done nothing to increase my confidence in science's ability to prove what they suggest, no matter how much time you throw at it.

How many links does someone who doesn't understand evolution require? What would it take to convince you?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Why is asking a good follow-up evasive?

Because it failed to address the point. It evaded the point, actually.

1) God says to test Him via tithing
2) I've done so, hundreds of times
3) Something that occurs hundreds of times is statistically significant
4) You claim to have tested, when I ask if you've performed specific Bible tests that God literally says, "Test me in this way" you are evasive

Are we now ignoring all the other criteria you put forth? It's only all about tithing now?

I've tithed. I have received nothing from God's end. It's as though he doesn't exist. So what you're saying is that YOUR personal anecdotes count as evidence towards your hypothesis, but mine don't even count at all? You're just going to ignore them and cherry pick your supposedly positive results.
If that's the case then I'm sorry to tell you that your methodology is terrible and demonstrates nothing.


By the way, how are you logging "answered prayers?" Is there any time limit involved? How do you know God has personally answered a prayer and it wasn't just the result of something you've done yourself or someone else has done to help you? Are you telling me God has personally answered every single one of your prayers? Let's get some real data here.

 

[Jose Fly]

I read enough of your posts. I won't waste my time giving you even more evidence than you've already recieved by others since that would be like trying to explain to a blind person what color is.

Well spotted! I liken it to trying to give a ham sandwich to an Orthodox Jew. In both cases, your intended audience is fundamentally opposed to what you're offering.

 

[Jose Fly]

You certainly have. I have seen it with my own eyes, over and over again. There are several posters here who will attest to the fact that they've provided you with mountains of evidence on anything and everything associated with evolution, and in response to every evolutionary question you have asked.

What you're saying here simply isn't true.

Ah, but remember, Deeje has clearly stated that she creates her own reality. So if she believes that no one here has presented her any solid evidence for evolution, then that's reality to her.

I'm always amazed at how quickly creationists will resort to solipsism.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Ah, but remember, Deeje has clearly stated that she creates her own reality. So if she believes that no one here has presented her any solid evidence for evolution, then that's reality to her.

I'm always amazed at how quickly creationists will resort to solipsism.

So am I. Though I shouldn't be, at this point.

 

[Jose Fly]

So am I. Though I shouldn't be, at this point.

Well, it is entertaining to watch.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Well, it is entertaining to watch.

Yup!

 

[ecco]

Golden plates? Are you confusing us with LDS? We don't have anything like that. We have no prophets either. We just live by the Bible.

My mistake. It's hard to keep track of all the differences among the thousands of Christian sects.

Like your good self, we are all influenced as children by those around us...our parents, siblings, relatives, school teachers, peers etc.
Once we reach adulthood however, we have the ability to either validate or invalidate what was taught to us. So no one is a victim of childhood indoctrination who doesn't want to be. I am not any more of a victim than you are. I make my own choices for my own reasons....just like you.

Nonsense. Childhood indoctrination, especially religious indoctrination, is very difficult to overcome. Generally speaking, Hindus are the children of Hindus, JWs are the Children of JW's, Pentecostalists are the children of Pentecostalists. Does that apply to you?

 

[ecco]

I talk to God all day about a lot of things, just as I would confide in a close friend

That implies He responds. People who hear voices are very suspect.

 

[Deeje]

So you think it's super important to know where the universe came from and who makes snowflakes and pretty frogs and everything else, but you're just completely incurious about where the God you worship came from? But you expect definitive, absolute answers from science about where gravity and everything single other little thing comes from before you'll even begin to think about whether evolution is true or not.

If this deity you posit the existence of interacts with the universe it supposedly created, then your deity should be detectable and measurable in some way.

I am a mere human, so comprehending an all powerful Creator, who created matter, but who is himself not a material being, would require more brainpower than the greatest scientist in existence could muster. Perhaps with a return to God's original purpose, where human function will be restored to optimal levels in all areas, we will achieve that state where we can comprehend "what" God is....but for now all he tells us is that he is a spirit.....an intangible but intelligent source of all power. I don't believe that the Universe just popped up out of nowhere...and neither did life. Do you?

I have seen it with my own eyes, over and over again. There are several posters here who will attest to the fact that they've provided you with mountains of evidence on anything and everything associated with evolution, and in response to every evolutionary question you have asked.

What you're saying here simply isn't true.

I actually asked for substantiated evidence and as it is clear that science cannot substantiate their theory with anything but assumptions and suggestions...they were inadmissible. Atheists ask for proof for God...I ask for proof from science. Neither side can provide it.....but one side will simply not admit it.

There are many, many facts in science.

I never said that there were no facts in science......the scientists here did. There is no doubt that science can reveal facts about many things, but these are provable and demonstrable. Evolution, on the scale that science suggests, is not provable or demonstrable. So you have no facts that prove that macro-evolution ever happened. That is the truth.

Nope. If God wants me to know he's there, then "he" should let me know. He should know what kind of evidence I would require to believe. Otherwise, all I can conclude is that he doesn't want me to know he's there or that he isn't actually there.

Ah, so you don't think that a God who can read minds and hearts can evaluate a person and reject them based on his own established criteria?
He is looking for those with the right personality traits to become citizens of his incoming kingdom. We don't just choose him....he, more importantly, chooses us, based on our ability to obey and to comply with his laws without chafing. (John 6:44)

I guess he shouldn't have created brains the way they are if he didn't want us to be curious and skeptical.

I require evidence in order to believe something. That's how my brain works. I guess God shouldn't have made it that way if he wanted us all to just have blind faith.

I require evidence too...that is also how my brain works, so why do I see what you do not? Why do I see the same evidence as you do, but come to an entirely different conclusion? It isn't about God then, because he gives the same evidence to all.......its about us and what those differences mean to him.

If I had found any God, I'd be a believer.

If God can't be bothered to provide evidence of "his" existence, I see no reason to believe he exists and no reason to want him to exist. This is a God who just can't be bothered. Well then, I can't be bothered either.

Is it God who can't be bothered? Or is he simply seeing someone for whom no amount evidence would ever be enough? Wouldn't you always see science explaining things away as "natural" to hold more weight for you?
God requires faith....faith does not demand proof, but it does come from examining evidence...not only with the mind, but with the heart.

If you think back to the Biblical account of the nation of Israel for example.....they were released from slavery in Egypt in quite spectacular fashion...they witnessed the ten plagues....the parting of the Red Sea....the miraculous provision of food and water in a lifeless wilderness....the fact that their clothing and footwear never wore out....an enormous pillar of cloud to guide them by day and a pillar of fire by night.....if you had experienced those things, would you believe in God? Yet Israel came to take those things for granted and they lost faith in him because they didn't get what they wanted. God gave them everything they needed.
Are we content with what we need, or do we get angry because we don't get what we want?

Yet you claim to know even more than science does. On what basis? You follow some ancient book? Pfft. I'll take scientific evidence over that any day of the week. At least it's demonstrable, testable and useful.

You are free to accept whatever satisfies you. What satisfies you would never satisfy me and vice versa.
C'est la vie....

You know what's arrogant? Claiming you know more than anybody else about things nobody actually knows anything about. Claiming that the God that you personally find palatable is up there creating all of this just for you, so that you personally can find beauty in a tree frog and live eternally in paradise somewhere.

I don't recall ever saying that....we are all created with curiosity and a level of intelligence that we can use for satisfying that curiosity to a greater or lesser extent. All the beauty in the world would be useless without the senses we have to see it, hear it, touch it, taste it and smell it.....which in turn needs a command center to analyse the data and send signals to the brain for interpretation.... if this is all just random undirected co-incidence, then you believe in more fantasy than I do. My belief requires an intelligent hand to direct these things....AFAICS, yours believes in an infinite series of improbable flukes.

Arrogant is not, hypothesizing, observing, measuring and testing; tentatively drawing conclusions from the available evidence, and re-thinking said conclusions when new evidence comes in; publishing one's findings in journals so that their peers may criticize it, call out any errors and attempt to replicate the findings; admitting that we don't know everything about everything and that there is still much information to discover about the world we find ourselves in and continuing to look for those answers in a methodological manner.

I have posted what a complete waste of time peer review is. Its like the fox guarding the hen house.

Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals
How Reliable Is Peer Review?

Accept it if you like.

There are way more than 2 options.

Not according to the Bible.....there is only truth and falsehood.....right and wrong......good an evil.....life and death....that's it.
We choose what we want to believe for our own reasons. God chooses or rejects us for his own reasons too.

 

[Deeje]

How many links does someone who doesn't understand evolution require? What would it take to convince you?

How many does it take to convince you...? NONE! There are no missing links and there should be billions of them. Why are they all missing?

 

[Deeje]

My mistake. It's hard to keep track of all the differences among the thousands of Christian sects.

I agree....so does God. He did not create religion...humans did. He did not divide Christianity, men did. Jesus even warned that this would happen. We should not be surprised then, should we?

Nonsense. Childhood indoctrination, especially religious indoctrination, is very difficult to overcome. Generally speaking, Hindus are the children of Hindus, JWs are the Children of JW's, Pentecostalists are the children of Pentecostalists. Does that apply to you?

I was not raised a JW. I chose to become a JW in my twenties, after a thorough investigation into their beliefs and conduct. I liked what I heard and what I saw. I have remained solid in my faith for 45 years now. I have never seen a need to change my mind.

Childhood indoctrination also creates atheists. Children are the most spiritual beings on the planet, but if that spirituality is not fed and strengthened, like a muscle, it will often atrophy and die.

When I see atheists replying on threads like these, the majority are arrogant, insulting and grumpy. Not traits that would attract me I'm afraid.
My faith brings me great stability and happiness. A sure hope will do that for you......even death does not grind everything to a halt. I can't imagine just accepting that this life is all there is.....it does not line up with the expectation of my heart.....we are programmed for a much better life than this. We demonstrate that every day.

That implies He responds. People who hear voices are very suspect.

Who said that I hear voices? God has recorded his voice in an instruction manual, given to mankind to in order for them to consult him on any subject.
If I have questions...I go to the Bible....if I need advice...I go to the Bible. If I need examples of those who are experiencing difficult times...I go to the Bible.
If I pray about something, I have God's word to hand always and he will bring appropriate scriptures to mind for contemplation. My actions after that are up to me.

The other way God guides me is circumstantially. Things at time seem to be very co-incidental, but in hindsight were necessary to bring about a better outcome. It has happened too many times to just be a fluke. As long as God is my guide, I can never go wrong.....but I have to listen to his counsel and obey him. (Proverbs 3:5-6)

We are all free to choose whatever path we want. That's fair, isn't it?

 

[Bear Wild]

Yes I do understand variation....the light coloured Peppered Moths became darker when the trees became darkened by the residue of coal fires. But once the pollution problem was fixed, the moths returned to their original colour. That is adaptation. Right? No problem with that.




I was quoting Berkeley University's Evolution 101 for students. It wasn't my example. I like the simple manner of their presentation because they can't hide behind any jargon. Stripped of their dazzing scientific language, the real truth emerges in all its glorious simplicity.



If I understand you correctly, you're saying that beetles will continue to be beetles no matter how many barriers you place between them, or how many miles separate them. They may become unable to interbreed because of the minor changes in their appearance making them unattractive to each other, either physically or in behavior failing to trigger mating behavior. But I fail to see how the process goes so far beyond what science can prove. Where do we see the beetles becoming anything other than beetles?

If you want to use Darwin's finches as an example, you can see that they remained in the finch family. Variety was produced within their taxonomy...but nowhere do we see them becoming some other kind of creature......not even some other kind of bird.

All creatures have the ability to adapt to changing environments, but no scientist has ever observed them becoming something outside of their taxonomy....ever. To say that it is even possible flies in the face of all the evidence. Science suggests that it is possible but that is all it can do. Does that make sense?

Actually your statement does not show a complete understanding of variation and the effect of barriers on divergence of populations. Darwin was amazingly astute to see how separation by Islands could allow for differentiation in species to the point that over time they could become different species even if they are still in the same genus.

Lets try this again. The genetic code of DNA can go through mutations creating diversity in a species. This diversity can allow for different rates of success at reproduction. If you carefully read Darwin's Origin of Species you will see his logic with reference to this and he developed this understanding without the support of the genetic code which would have given him the mechanism for his theory to work. As long as there are no barriers then there can be enough reproductive overlap to create a large diversity. If some barrier separates individuals of that species long enough there can be enough differentiation to the point where the individuals will no longer interbreed with the originating species. Now we have two distinct species. Now expand this over the correct time frame with changing environmental factors and the changes become gradually more and more distinct until the no longer resemble each other.

Our problem in seeing this is that human lives are too short to witness this process. As for fossils and evidence one has to understand how unlikely it is for and organism to fossilize. Creating a fossil is a very unlikely event for most living things. Thus to have any record of previous live is amazing in of itself. To be able to see what we do have gives us amazing evidence of how life did change with time. The fossil record is a clear indication of progressive change instead of an intelligent design which if it was perfect as is attributed to believers in creationism then you would not find the evidence if previous forms of life in a geologic strata showing progression over millions of years.

More to come but when the posts become too long it is harder to follow.

 

[Deeje]

Actually your statement does not show a complete understanding of variation and the effect of barriers on divergence of populations. Darwin was amazingly astute to see how separation by Islands could allow for differentiation in species to the point that over time they could become different species even if they are still in the same genus.

The different species are still of the same taxonomic family. Nothing in their genetics will create a new family. They will only ever be of the same family. This is what science can know for sure because that is what the evidence says.

Lets try this again.

Are you sure you want to go there? This is a conversation I have had with quite a few who thought I needed educating.....I already know what science teaches....I simply don't agree because, just as I cannot produce proof for the existence of the Creator, you cannot produce proof that macro-evolution ever happened. Science has evidence for adaptation....nothing more.

The genetic code of DNA can go through mutations creating diversity in a species. This diversity can allow for different rates of success at reproduction. If you carefully read Darwin's Origin of Species you will see his logic with reference to this and he developed this understanding without the support of the genetic code which would have given him the mechanism for his theory to work.

You speak of mutations as if they happen all the time and are beneficial. Beneficial mutations are extremely rare but science acts as if they are common and always produced good results....that is nonsense. I asked you to Google known beneficial mutations in humans....how many did you find that are beneficial and how many of them are seen in the general population and make a real difference to their quality of life?

The mechanism Darwin didn't understand was adaptation and it never....I repeat, NEVER leads to a new taxonomic family. It only leads to variety within a family of creatures. Do you understand what that means? Darwin saw varieties of finches, tortoises and iguanas....but they had simply adapted to a different environment. They were not becoming something else....were they?

As long as there are no barriers then there can be enough reproductive overlap to create a large diversity.

Barriers do exist that any scientist knows about.
When you cross a horse with a donkey, you get a mule; an animal that provided the best of both breeds; both are equines, but you can't cross a mule with a mule because the offspring are sterile. There is your barrier.
Tigers and lions have also been crossed but again, the offspring are invariably sterile. That is the end of the genetic line.

Both of these crosses are forced by man, not something that would happen in nature. All species are programmed to mate only with their own "kind". Isn't that what nature tells you? In vast herds of African animals that are known to frequent the same habitats, you will never see cross breeding because they will only ever mate and produce copies of themselves. In vast oceans, we see the same thing. Species of fish are separated and distinct, just the same as birds and land animals are. Nature does not produce outside of its family.

If some barrier separates individuals of that species long enough there can be enough differentiation to the point where the individuals will no longer interbreed with the originating species. Now we have two distinct species.

Yes...differentiation within one taxonomic family. The fact that they cannot interbreed makes no difference to the taxonomy.

Now expand this over the correct time frame with changing environmental factors and the changes become gradually more and more distinct until the no longer resemble each other.

It wouldn't matter how much time you gave it. The genetics are set. Adaptation will not change it.

Our problem in seeing this is that human lives are too short to witness this process. As for fossils and evidence one has to understand how unlikely it is for and organism to fossilize. Creating a fossil is a very unlikely event for most living things. Thus to have any record of previous live is amazing in of itself. To be able to see what we do have gives us amazing evidence of how life did change with time.

Actually, our "problem" comes in the interpretation of very scant evidence. Fossils are not a good source of information because they don't tell any story by themselves....they need scientists to put words in their mouths. They give no evidence apart from what science assumes to be true....

The fossil record is a clear indication of progressive change instead of an intelligent design which if it was perfect as is attributed to believers in creationism then you would not find the evidence if previous forms of life in a geologic strata showing progression over millions of years.

All science can do is produce is a range of similar looking creatures and assume that the creatures in their imagined line of decent are related. Do you understand that it is all based on what they think "might have" or "could have" happened. There is no actual proof for any of their suggestions.

They have some nice diagrams and computer graphics but that is no substitute for proven facts.

More to come but when the posts become too long it is harder to follow.

I will continue if you wish, but seriously you have presented nothing that I have not seen before....

 

[ecco]

Atheists ask for proof for God

I am an atheist.
I have never asked for proof for God.

Perhaps you could show some comments/quotes from atheists asking for proof of God.

...I ask for proof from science.

You've been around long enough to know that science does not claim to provide proof.

You've been around long enough to know that science accumulates evidence.




Why do you find it necessary to create strawmen?

 

[ecco]

How many does it take to convince you...? NONE! There are no missing links and there should be billions of them. Why are they all missing?

Theist: Can you show any number between 0 and 1.
Rational person: .5

Theist: Can you show any number between 0 and .5.
Rational person: .25

Theist: Can you show any number between 0 and .25.
Rational person: .125

Theist: Can you show any number between 0 and .125.
Rational person: .06

It never ends. Give 'em a link and they'll say gimme another link.

 

[Bear Wild]

The different species are still of the same taxonomic family. Nothing in their genetics will create a new family. They will only ever be of the same family. This is what science can know for sure because that is what the evidence says.



Are you sure you want to go there? This is a conversation I have had with quite a few who thought I needed educating.....I already know what science teaches....I simply don't agree because, just as I cannot produce proof for the existence of the Creator, you cannot produce proof that macro-evolution ever happened. Science has evidence for adaptation....nothing more.



You speak of mutations as if they happen all the time and are beneficial. Beneficial mutations are extremely rare but science acts as if they are common and always produced good results....that is nonsense. I asked you to Google known beneficial mutations in humans....how many did you find that are beneficial and how many of them are seen in the general population and make a real difference to their quality of life?

The mechanism Darwin didn't understand was adaptation and it never....I repeat, NEVER leads to a new taxonomic family. It only leads to variety within a family of creatures. Do you understand what that means? Darwin saw varieties of finches, tortoises and iguanas....but they had simply adapted to a different environment. They were not becoming something else....were they?



Barriers do exist that any scientist knows about.
When you cross a horse with a donkey, you get a mule; an animal that provided the best of both breeds; both are equines, but you can't cross a mule with a mule because the offspring are sterile. There is your barrier.
Tigers and lions have also been crossed but again, the offspring are invariably sterile. That is the end of the genetic line.

Both of these crosses are forced by man, not something that would happen in nature. All species are programmed to mate only with their own "kind". Isn't that what nature tells you? In vast herds of African animals that are known to frequent the same habitats, you will never see cross breeding because they will only ever mate and produce copies of themselves. In vast oceans, we see the same thing. Species of fish are separated and distinct, just the same as birds and land animals are. Nature does not produce outside of its family.



Yes...differentiation within one taxonomic family. The fact that they cannot interbreed makes no difference to the taxonomy.



It wouldn't matter how much time you gave it. The genetics are set. Adaptation will not change it.



Actually, our "problem" comes in the interpretation of very scant evidence. Fossils are not a good source of information because they don't tell any story by themselves....they need scientists to put words in their mouths. They give no evidence apart from what science assumes to be true....



All science can do is produce is a range of similar looking creatures and assume that the creatures in their imagined line of decent are related. Do you understand that it is all based on what they think "might have" or "could have" happened. There is no actual proof for any of their suggestions.

They have some nice diagrams and computer graphics but that is no substitute for proven facts.



I will continue if you wish, but seriously you have presented nothing that I have not seen before....

You clearly did not understand the principle of natural selection nor do you understand taxonomy. Darwin's natural selection theory will lead to new species and in time there enough changes that they would no longer fit into the same genus. Your are caught in the human time mindset in a world that is far older than the existence of the human race.
We had to start somewhere so I gave you the basic mechanistic needs for change. Genetic material which can alter with time giving new characteristics, diversity in the environment and barriers which can separate a species and allow for change without reproductive interbreeding. Natural selection will cause the changes in the two populations. Can you first accept that before you learn more about the theory of evolution? We will get to how a species can change enough so that it is no longer the same species and even be classified in a new genus.

 

[Bear Wild]

The different species are still of the same taxonomic family. Nothing in their genetics will create a new family. They will only ever be of the same family. This is what science can know for sure because that is what the evidence says.



Are you sure you want to go there? This is a conversation I have had with quite a few who thought I needed educating.....I already know what science teaches....I simply don't agree because, just as I cannot produce proof for the existence of the Creator, you cannot produce proof that macro-evolution ever happened. Science has evidence for adaptation....nothing more.



You speak of mutations as if they happen all the time and are beneficial. Beneficial mutations are extremely rare but science acts as if they are common and always produced good results....that is nonsense. I asked you to Google known beneficial mutations in humans....how many did you find that are beneficial and how many of them are seen in the general population and make a real difference to their quality of life?

The mechanism Darwin didn't understand was adaptation and it never....I repeat, NEVER leads to a new taxonomic family. It only leads to variety within a family of creatures. Do you understand what that means? Darwin saw varieties of finches, tortoises and iguanas....but they had simply adapted to a different environment. They were not becoming something else....were they?



Barriers do exist that any scientist knows about.
When you cross a horse with a donkey, you get a mule; an animal that provided the best of both breeds; both are equines, but you can't cross a mule with a mule because the offspring are sterile. There is your barrier.
Tigers and lions have also been crossed but again, the offspring are invariably sterile. That is the end of the genetic line.

Both of these crosses are forced by man, not something that would happen in nature. All species are programmed to mate only with their own "kind". Isn't that what nature tells you? In vast herds of African animals that are known to frequent the same habitats, you will never see cross breeding because they will only ever mate and produce copies of themselves. In vast oceans, we see the same thing. Species of fish are separated and distinct, just the same as birds and land animals are. Nature does not produce outside of its family.



Yes...differentiation within one taxonomic family. The fact that they cannot interbreed makes no difference to the taxonomy.



It wouldn't matter how much time you gave it. The genetics are set. Adaptation will not change it.



Actually, our "problem" comes in the interpretation of very scant evidence. Fossils are not a good source of information because they don't tell any story by themselves....they need scientists to put words in their mouths. They give no evidence apart from what science assumes to be true....



All science can do is produce is a range of similar looking creatures and assume that the creatures in their imagined line of decent are related. Do you understand that it is all based on what they think "might have" or "could have" happened. There is no actual proof for any of their suggestions.

They have some nice diagrams and computer graphics but that is no substitute for proven facts.



I will continue if you wish, but seriously you have presented nothing that I have not seen before....

You clearly did not understand the principle of natural selection nor do you understand taxonomy. Darwin's natural selection theory will lead to new species and in time there enough changes that they would no longer fit into the same genus. Your are caught in the human time mindset in a world that is far older than the existence of the human race.
We had to start somewhere so I gave you the basic mechanistic needs for change. Genetic material which can alter with time giving new characteristics, diversity in the environment and barriers which can separate a species and allow for change without reproductive interbreeding. Natural selection will cause the changes in the two populations. Can you first accept that before you learn more about the theory of evolution? We will get to how a species can change enough so that it is no longer the same species and even be classified in a new genus.

 

[BilliardsBall]

So wasting money is a way to recieve revelation from God? Is there a way where I don't have to give my money to corrupt religious organisations?

Yes, actually there is. Dare you try it?

"God, I don't think you exist, and I'm talking to the air and myself now, but if you do exist, show me testable, verifiable, falsifiable evidence you exist, and I will trust Jesus for salvation."

 

[ecco]

I was not raised a JW. I chose to become a JW in my twenties, after a thorough investigation into their beliefs and conduct. I liked what I heard and what I saw. I have remained solid in my faith for 45 years now. I have never seen a need to change my mind.

As I said, most people follow the religion of their parents. There are always exceptions.

Why did you feel a need in your 20's to seek a religion? Was there something big missing in your life? Did you need to find answers to questions like why do good people die?

Childhood indoctrination also creates atheists. Children are the most spiritual beings on the planet, but if that spirituality is not fed and strengthened, like a muscle, it will often atrophy and die.

No. Children are not the most spiritual beings on the planet. Children are the most malleable.

• Children are led to believe that, if they behave, a fat man will come down a chimney and leave toys (even if the house has no fireplace).
• Children are led to believe that, if they go to sleep, a fairy will exchange money for their teeth.
• Children are led to believe that, if they look real hard, they will find the colored eggs that a rabbit has hidden.
• Children are led to believe that, if they pray real hard, a magic man in the sky will provide eternal happiness

When I see atheists replying on threads like these, the majority are arrogant, insulting and grumpy.

Being rational is not arrogance. Boldy asserting that ones religion is the only true religion is arrogance.

My faith brings me great stability and happiness. A sure hope will do that for you......even death does not grind everything to a halt. I can't imagine just accepting that this life is all there is.....it does not line up with the expectation of my heart.....we are programmed for a much better life than this. We demonstrate that every day.

As I pointed out in my first comment, you had/have a need for something more than reality. So you hope and pray.

Who said that I hear voices? God has recorded his voice in an instruction manual, given to mankind to in order for them to consult him on any subject.
If I have questions...I go to the Bible....if I need advice...I go to the Bible. If I need examples of those who are experiencing difficult time...I go to the Bible.

There is a difference between reading and talking/confiding. Earlier you stated:

I talk to God all day about a lot of things, just as I would confide in a close friend.​

The other way God guides me is circumstantially. Things at time seem to be very co-incidental, but in hindsight were necessary to bring about a better outcome. It has happened too many times to just be a fluke.

Coincidences happen all the time. Again, it seems you need to find something beyond reality.