I am a bible believing christian.
I am a human being that doesn't know what a god is or even a necessary condition in which one would be believed.
I do believe that the Bible is infallible,
Why would you believe that, if you havn't already presumed it to be true beforehand?
what fallacies are there in it?
You believe it is infallible, you cannot accept that there are fallacies within. What condition would you accept as a contradiction or fallacy in the bible?
I may be a kid, but to me this is really important and I have been stuying this so that I can understand it better, so that I know what I am following is the truth.
This is the only statement I respect, however I have to question your motivations. Its clear that you began this journey with the presumption that it is true and your simply appealing to a confirmation bias. At no point did you start at not knowing what is true and work towards the understanding of what might be true.
Without doing so, how do you know its true at all?
Now, let me ask you a question. If I could prove to you that there is intelligent design and a creator, would you abandon you athiest and agnostic veiws??
You would have to define 'intelligent design' and 'creator', not to mention 'atheist' and 'agnostic' views, before I could answer the question.
Here is how I perceive the terms you just used:
Intelligent Design: an unscientific label applied to attempts at criticism of existing scientific methodology. While often called a 'theory', intelligent design doesn't even provide a coherent definition that would allow us to even call it a scientific hypothesis. It provides no testable mechanism, no claim that can be falsified, no experiment that can be done to test it, and is usually used by people who are generally scientifically illiterate.
Creator: a vague term to replace the word 'god', usually used in the context of presuming that existence is 'created' and thus needs a 'creator'. ( which is a circular logical fallacy )
how about evolution.
by random chance
Stop right there. No evolutionary theory describes anything as simply happening by 'random chance'.
the trillions of cells in our bodies were made??
No evolutionary theory describes cells just popping out of existence.
Even if you start out with the "simplest" organism, there is now way that could happen.
This is an argument from personal incredulity. It is essentially saying that YOU dont know anyway this could possibly happen, so YOU are going to claim it cannot happen.
What science has to say about the matter is completely different. Would you like to learn, or would you like to continue making statements about science.. that have nothing to do with what science actually says? I do not say this to be mean, but I say this to bring out an obvious point. You've grown up in a culture that demonizes science and fields of study like evolution because it needs to demonize what it views as a threat to the 'faith'. While this doesn't apply to all christians, it does apply to a significant majority that come here on a day to day basis. The sad part is that none of it is true, even the stereotypical 'bogey man' of evolution that your pastor or parents told you about - doesn't actually exist.
Its a crisis of faith.. built on the fear of an imaginary monster.
And if you want to here about real scientist with PhDs, check out this website http://www.creationinfo.com/list.htm
I recognize some of them.
I also recognize that the vast majority of them have never published any peer review articles in any peer review journals accepted by any national or international credited institute of learning.
Most of them do not actually have any degrees in biology.
Most of them are not involved in any modern research or scientific institutions.
Not to mention that they are greatly outnumbered by actual biologist themselves, by actual scientist that publish actual peer review articles in actual peer review journals about the actual subject they are talking about.
besides, some of the founding fathers of science were, too. for example
Isaac Newton, Francis Bacon-contributed to formulating the scientific method, Louis Pasture, Robert Boil, Galileo, Gregor Mendel-genetics, Blaise Pascal, James Joule-physics, and so many more.
Only in the most vague sense, it is likely that not a single one is a 'creationist' in the term you wish to use for most modern creationist. I also do not care that someone believed something and happened to be smart at the same time.. I can provide an equal list of smart people who do not believe what you believe and be just as right.
This kind of argument is neither convincing nor valid.
the truth is, there is so much evidence for a Creator.
Thats a claim, you've already made this claim. Evidence please.
I also have a friend who was working on her PhD, when she was looking over the the Table of Elements she relized that all these chemicals could not have come together by random chance.
No scientific theory says that, you are lying. Someone with a PHD level of educational background in physics.. should completely understand the basics behind the formation of matter enough to not make such an idiotic statement.
So without any evangilst or anyone telling her about God, she relized that there was a creator and she researched it came up with Jesus being God's son.
Heresay and false premises/conclusions. Your friend is an idiot.
Check out the Institute for Creation Research, it is a institute that has lots of PhD scientists, who research creation.
Actually, very few have scientific credentials in biology or are actual scientist. Their forte is more marketing and being lawyers. As an organization I must point out that ICR doesn't actually do any research and has never published any articles in any peer review journal. All of its money goes to marketing and legal actions, not a single drop actually goes to any kind of lab or research effort. I wonder why?
Where is this evidence you claimed again?
Why should you be taken seriously, when you lie about science?