CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
I belive its true the thing with the bible is that it can never be proven until jesus comes back therefore this debate is stupid also therefore people dont accept others religions or points of view on this website as you dont no who people are so you can say generally anything.
Why would you have to wait until Jesus returns to prove the Bible? Of course this is prophecy, and wouldn't be "proved" until he actually did return. Then there would be other issues, but we won't go in to them at the moment.
So are you suggesting that the whole Bible's accuracy rests on Jesus' return? While there are some accurate things in the Bible (there is a place called Jerusalem, there was a King David), many of the stories cannot be verified. This does not make them untrue, but we should see more evidence if they did. Let me give you three.
First is the flood. If there was a flood that covered the entire earth, and wiped out all known species at the time, we would see evidence of this in the geological record. We do not see this.
Second, the Hebrew nation being held as slaves in Egypt. If there were millions of Jews being held in Egypt, and the Exodus story happened as the Bible says, we would expect to see more on these miraculous events. In fact, we do see some evidence of Jews being held in Egypt, but not nearly to the extent that is described in the Bible. We do not see evidence of the plagues that Moses rained down on them either. If this was an important event, we should see it recorded in Egyptian history.
Let me add my last, and favorite ones. Matthew 27:51-53 describes the events after Jesus' death, and adds that many dead Jews got out of their graves and walked into the city of Jerusalem. If zombie Jews were walking around Jerusalem, and people were seeing their dead relatives up and walking, wouldn't we expect to see this written down? This is really the only reference to this event, and we don't see any extra-biblical writers referring to it. If it were what really happened, we would see historians referencing zombie Jews.
The Bible can't stand on it's own merit, and is continually being shown to be a man made book, which is as fallible as the rest of our books.
51At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook and the rocks split. 52The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus’ resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people.
54When the centurion and those with him who were guarding Jesus saw the earthquake and all that had happened, they were terrified, and exclaimed, “Surely he was the Son of God!”
Remember Jesus is the mighty God you can't put limits on his power. If these events never happened why would they last for so many centuries. Surely we all know that Greek and Roman gods were myth. All of the pagan spirits that used to be worshipped for the vast majority are referred to as mythology. I should say for common sense people. Yet Christianity has grown rapidly since the time of Jesus' resurrection. Don't be so quick to dismiss such miracles.
Christianity grew because it was adopted by Constantine, which forced it on the Empire. Christianity was spread by the sword. These stories have stuck around for so long, because this was the accepted religion of the Roman Empire, then medieval Europe, and now Western Nations. These are simple explanations for why they have stuck around, there is no evidence there for a god. Christianity has been the religion of the victors through the ages.
Again, why don't we see people recording seeing their dead relatives come back to life? this is a pretty serious hole.
It is recorded in the Bible. Read Matthew sometime you will learn about them. Why did then at the time after Christ did we see so many christians being killed and persecuted. Constantine was pressured into the belief's by his own people. That when he came to know God's word. It was already a growing and powerful religion by the time he converted. Besides Judaism dates back farther then any other religion, which is the same God by the way.
It is recorded in the Bible. Read Matthew sometime you will learn about them.
Of course it's written in the Bible, but we don't look to the source to confirm itself. We need extra-biblical references to the event. Do we have any other references to this event? No, there is not. If this really happened, then every historian of the time would have been writing about it. Instead, all we see is it's embedded in a text that is littered with other outrageous claims.
Why did then at the time after Christ did we see so many christians being killed and persecuted. Constantine was pressured into the belief's by his own people. That when he came to know God's word. It was already a growing and powerful religion by the time he converted.
These Christians were being persecuted on all sides, by Jews and their Gentile counterparts, because they were part of a sect/cult. We do the same today with Scientology and Mormonism. It's interesting to see how Mormons used to be more persecuted, but overtime the religion has become mainstream and accepted. This is what happened with Christianity, and Constantine's "conversion" was final step that set up Christianity as an established religion in the Roman Empire. There's nothing special about early followers of Jesus, nothing that sets them apart from any other developing religion.
Besides Judaism dates back farther then any other religion, which is the same God by the way.
You are very wrong on this point. The Egyptian religion predates that of Judaism, and the Mesopotamians predate the Egyptians. If you want to go further back, look to China, and then all the way back to ancient India. This is where one of the oldest religions was founded, Hinduism.
We even see evidence of symbolic belief, which could possibly be some type of spirituality in our early ancestors. Animism in Australian aborigines going as far back as 60,000 years, and also in Europe on cave walls.
You raise good points but are not unbiased to the scripture in your arguments. You can prove the Bible now and don't have to wait for Christ to return. Read the evidence that demand a verdict by Josh Mcdowell. The Bible addresses all the points you brought up BUT you must be aware of the conspiracy against the Bible. This is from scientist,educators,governments and all others just about going thru great links to make people think it's mythology.
Your response is quite humorous. You really think there is a conspiracy here? What is your evidence? Josh McDowell is not a Bible Scholar, he is an apologist with a clear agenda to make you a believer, not to study the Bible and go where the evidence leads. If you want to read some good scholarship on the Bible, read some Bart Ehrman or Robert Price. It might open your eyes to how human a book the Bible is.
My posting is not a book, but arguments and statements can definitely be fallible. My words are liable to error as well. That's why we must back up claims with evidence, and test the evidence to see if it should justify belief in the claims that are being made.
Your argument is circular as it assumes the fact that jesus will "come back" and you provide no proof for that, or reincarnation. Therefore it is invalid.
The prophesy that jesus would die and come back to life again, three days later, came true, and if you say not, I can bet I have an answer to destroy your compromise, or thing that happened that made it look like he did but didn't, if that makes sense! (LOL)
How could you pre-arrange a prophesy of ressurection. It was a miracle.
"How could you pre-arrange a prophesy of ressurection. It was a miracle."
why NOt
if you and your helpers knew and believe the "prophecies" strongly , there is nothing that could stopped all of you from staging the whole thing. at least for your own assurance of your belief.
Besides ,the resurrection story in MARK(earliest gospel) is an addition ca.500AD or later
In the Codex Sinaiticus (350AD) the earliest compiled bible ,the last of Mark verse stopped at 16:8 beyond that is the immediately start of gospel of LUKE.
however , in the papyrus scrolls ,there is NO record of the 'extended verses on resurrection of Jesus in mark' found in that formed.
therefore , the resurrection story of Jesus was not a universally accepted doctrine during gospel times. such a landmark area of Jesus surly the omission is a calling of alarm of doubt on the authenticity on the contents regarding Jesus written in the gospels.
The whole story about him being 'buried in a rock tomb' and 'rising again after three days' Where around in paganism long before Jesus came and did these 'miracles'
Okay, so, here's the deal. As any good fiction writer knows, you have to have a basis for the story down before you flesh it out. What I think the gentleman was trying to say is:
If you are in control of the story, your prophecies will always be true.
I have witnessed, with may others, prophetic words that were not pre-arranged. I was with a church prophesy group, and one of the girls in our group suddenly felt like she was drowning in green. A girl suddenly walked by dressed only in green (well, I don't know about her underwear but the rest was green). Another person in our group suddenly felt a pain in thier wrist, and we found out the green stranger had broken her wrist. We prayed for her and it was healed.
Just because you weren't there dosen't mean it didn't happen. There is equal proof for and against that event, very little, exept witnesses, and I was one.
This "prophecy" is not very impressive at all. Feeling the color green, and then someone wearing the color green walked by doesn't seem out of the ordinary. A lot of people wear green, and this "prediction", if you can call it that, is very vague. Now if the person said, "I feel the presence of a person walking by, she is wearing all green, is 25 years old. She hurt her wrist last week while playing volleyball at Penn State University, since she plays for the team." Now this would be impressive, and worth studying to see if this person just got lucky, or had some unknown source of knowledge. This of course would still not prove a god conclusively, until it could be shown the god was the source of the knowledge. Most prophecy is vague, and the more general you make it, the more widely it is likely to apply.
We need to clarify a quick part of your story. You stated that "We prayed for her and it was healed." You prayed for the girl in green, and her broken wrist was healed? Is it just that she no longer had pain, or that the wrist itself was no longer broken? I would ask two things. First, was the verified by a doctor that it was healed? Secondly, I'd assume she had her wrist in some type of cast. Did it occur to you that the healing process was going on before you even saw this girl, and that it was modern medicine that healed her? Honestly, this would be the most plausible conclusion.
Also, from reading your story, it seems like you saw the girl in green before the other person felt pain in their wrist. Isn't it more likely that the person that felt the pain saw her brace/cast, and empathized with the girl's pain, and her body reacted to it?
testimonies of this kind are common in all kind of faiths...and that ,why your YHWH didn't make that only exceptions for christianity ? why is it that other faiths/religions have their own miracles/testimonies like yours ? why ?
I had witness more miraculous cases than yours and they aren't christian !!
just because you don't believe them doesn't mean your belief is factual either.
Therefore ,without exceptions miracles/testimonies are common among all faiths/religions. it don't make christianity any more "true" than any other belief systems ok?
That's because the New Testament was a sequel to the ultimately successful Old Testament. Nothing actually happened inbetween them, they just made the prophesies fit. Nothing in either book documents any actual history. It's just Christian Mythology. No different from the Egyptians, Greeks, or Romans before them.
your are very ignorant. a lot of the knowledge we have about ancient Israel and the nations around it come from the bible. also the history of the life of Jesus and early Christianity come form the bible. whether you believe in the events such as the resurrection of Jesus and all those miraculous events are up to you.
but on the spiritual side of the debate, yes the bible is the ultimate authority on all things and and is completely accurate. being a Christan requires this belief.
but on the spiritual side of the debate, yes the bible is the ultimate authority on all things and and is completely accurate. being a Christan requires this belief.
but the point is you did not. if i say all abortion doctors should be tried for murder. you would stop reading my statement. use the basics of debate please. state your proof and reason for fallacy claims before you make them.
My proof is the entire Bible is made up. You have no proof to the contrary, and both observation and logic support my stance that the Bible is completely made up.
Not a single scrap of paper or sheepskin from 2k years ago supports a single word of the Bible. Or anything from earlier in Biblical history. Yet every King, famine, and major socio-political event of this time has multiple sources, intact, and recounting events is a similar fashion.
One would think at least a scrap of paper would have survived from some other source, other than the Bible, describing precisely what the Bible describes - in any chapter, it's a giant book for christ-sake, something should have an unbiased secondary supporting evidence somewhere.
It does not have any supporting evidence, and further it is full of inconsistencies, self-contradictions, and ridiculous stories. Therefore I stand by my first, much shorter reply:
first of all your claim that the bible is not real has no viability as you say my claim that the bible is real, so you got nowhere with that statement.
anyway, umm yes the dead sea scrolls that are over 2000 years old show over 90 percent of modern translations are authentic to its ancient text, and the few percent difference is just grammatical difference. so disproved there. also the entire old testament was already finished 400 years before Jesus and the new testament meaning modern bibles did no alteration to the Torah and the Torah today is accurate to ancient Torahs we still have today, most notably in Israeli museums. there are also more ancient manuscripts that show todays bible is accurate to back than. your claim is blatantly ignorant and idiotic with out proof.
as for scrap of papers, i just shown that there our numerous non Christan or Jewish sources that recount numerous biblical events. it only takes a little effort to type in a search on google to find these sites.
but anyway thank you for supporting your claim. now we had a subject to argue about.
The only piece I found an outside reference to - non religious based source not funded by any religious organization I mean, was that house of David did exist. That however is not the spirit of my argument. Many individuals existed in the Bible, however there is no proof of the things they claimed they had done in most instances. Herod was a real king as well as David. Jesus though, the protagonist, shows up nowhere despite this source's claim. Nor are any of the more spectacular claims present anywhere else from plague to pestilence. The writer understood this, and stated that Rome at the time was anti-Christian and pro-pagan. This is not true, they put that in to cast doubt. In fact at the time Rome was quite Christian, they had not been Pagan for a number of centuries by-and-large.
You'll notice your souce links no studies. It asks the individual to check the information themselves. A college freshman would get a C on this at best, and you are using it as a legitimate source.
Your specific religion has become adept at disseminating information in a quasi-acedemic fashion, all while offering not a bit of background information.
Look up our founding fathers for instance, and they are all born again for the first 3 pages of a Google search, though there was no such thing as "born again" until a handful of decades ago. The internet is great for tricking people because you only need to know how to spell and understand SEO, and suddenly you're a legitimate source on a debate site.
Whether a vague character in the Bible did or did not exist, I will not argue. I will with confidence argue though, that the bible is not only not 100% true, that the stories it is based on, none, are based on fact. They are based on what someone said someone said someone said someone said... all with an obvious bias.
And that unfortunately passes as proof due to 1. over 80% of Americans are Christain 2. You use simple fake sources that look legitimate and most are too lazy to check sources.
On the flip side, I an atheist who makes up less than 5% of the US population and less than 10% of the world population, must actually site sources while trying to prove a negative. The playing field is not fair to say the least.
But compare how thourough and well documented one of my many sources are, compared to yours link
You'll notice exact citations both scientific and from the Bible. You'll notice it is written in a 100% non-biased academic fashion, with 0 interpretation and no opinion inserted within any of the text. No where does it try to claim, "well so and so wasn't Christian so take that into account while accepting everything I say as true." No, they compare actual up to date interpretations of the Bible next to confirmed sources.
And my opinion of your religion doesn't come from being an atheist. Quite the opposite, it comes from being indoctrinated at an early age and till young adulthood into your religion,
and it is only through a deep desire to learn the truth and be honest with myself, that I've managed to shed myself of it.
So, find a documented source of the bible's legitimacy, and find one not born into your religion (and not freshly out of prison or off drugs) who seriously believes your source is not 100% biased despite it's facade, and perhaps I'll take a second look at your religion.
Warning though, I'm morally against praying to an all powerful being, whether they exist or not. They should be bigger than seeking the praise of a mere mortal, that's the behavior of a diva.
well this is beyond sources for the validity of the bible. but there are a few points i can still argue if you wish to put aside the search for proof. i mean obviously if you were interested into God you would just as easily find sources to prove his existence as the argument against it.
one the roman empire was strongly anti Christan until later, some time after Nero who was documented for burning Christians alive as candles. but yes later Rome adopted Christianity as its official religion.
as for indoctrination, its curious to see what denomination you studied under. for there are many denominations who have other agendas tied to their teachings that are also considered inaccurate to the Christan world, for example jw's, Mormons and so on.
and for not worshiping a a all powerful being because they should not require it or is the mark of a Deva i dont agree. God does not require our pray, it is simple pleasing to him. its ultimately a way of talking to him because God explains it is a way of reaching him. as for him wanting conversation making him a Deva is wrong, he wants a relationship with us because he made us. well we can argue more on it later.
and heres an other site that could be of interest to explain my stance on things, it is a Christan site arguing for the existence of God with a load of different topics. read if you wish
Fantastic. Let's agree neither can find sources to prove or disprove anything - since after all that is the case. Proof of your religion does not exist, and obviously I cannot "prove" a negative.
I'm more than happy to begin from equal footing - it's actually rare that I should have the opportunity.
as for indoctrination, its curious to see what denomination you studied under. for there are many denominations who have other agendas tied to their teachings that are also considered inaccurate to the Christan world, for example jw's, Mormons and so on.
I was raised Catholic. Went to a Catholic grade school, a hard-core school with church 5 days a week and nuns who ensured all the Saints, Angels, Apostles, and much of the Bible was memorized, from 4th to 7th grade. I transferred to public school in 8th, and in 9th grade began dating the daughter of a Born Again Baptist preacher. I spent every Sunday of High School 1. at church, then 2. at my gf's parent's discussing whichever sermon he gave that day. I shamefully became a "Christian" I mean the type that does not accept Catholicism as a legitimate form of Christianity (the Protestant vs Catholic thing) in retrospect it really is all Christian.
I received a full academic scholarship to one of the top non-Ivy League Universities in the country, and spent my 13th - 15th year of school studying a minimum of 3 college level religious credits each semester.
I know your religion better than most, even most of the members of your religion.
To answer your question, it was in fact Jesuits who lead me to question this faith. My question was not about feeling, it was about logic and argumentative states.
The Jesuit argument for a god is the most convincing and most logical I've ever heard. So I approached it logically, and found it lacking.
It's called St. Anselm's Ontological Theory. It is the closest thing to a proof any religion has come to the existence of their own god I'm fairly sure.
The problems with it though are pretty glaring once explained.
Once the foundation of the religion I'd always simply accepted was corrupted, well, it was not long until I realized the whole thing was bunk, an elaborate charade where one tells another who tells another who says it most be true because all these people believe it.
Very well. If you are up to it, let's have an actual discussion where we both start from a position of ignorance. And from there through our own argument and based on the non-biased validity of our arguments come to a conclusion.
Alas, if that is the link you provide me, you are not prepared to undergo this. I will win this argument despite up and down votes, despite links. At the end of the day despite population of believers, I have the stronger argument + I'm simply better at this sort of thing.
When discussing issues of faith, it is folly to rely on sources. Faith by its nature defies source. If it were possible to source faith, it would not be faith it would be knowledge. Despite recent evolutions in your religion's never-ending hunger for power, knowledge is not a prerequisite to be Christian. In fact your source, the Bible, warns against knowledge, it only embraces faith and makes it clear that claiming more than this is incorrect.
The least I can say for Jesuits, though the black sheep of Catholicism much less Christianity as a whole, at least they know this much and do not make fools of themselves on debate sites.
again have you read the bible? what is not factual about the migration of Hebrews from Egypt to modern day Palestine not be accurate? how is the ancient Israeli state and the history around it about the wars and collapse of ancient Israel not accurate?
how is the early history of Christianity in Europe and Asia minor not accurate?
have you read the bible? please tell me contradictions instead of telling me it is a contradiction. as for lord of the rings, it was written by a Christian and is in some instances a analogy to the bible.
"have you read the bible? please tell me contradictions instead of telling me it is a contradiction. as for lord of the rings, it was written by a Christian and is in some instances a analogy to the bible."
well, an analogy to the bible LOTR ,how is that so?
you want Contradictions you have it ,to named a few
referring to the resurrection of story of Jesus in all gospels in detail ,none of them are parallel
Judas death they are two versions
the genocide of children of Herod is a fraud because no historical evidence to substantiate
let me give you a geographical contradiction see Lk4:29
Nazareth wasn't built 'on/near a cliff' in the first place ,obviously the author/s (YHWH) had poor palestine geographical knowledge. there are more
"but on the spiritual side of the debate, yes the bible is the ultimate authority on all things and and is completely accurate. being a Christan requires this belief."
And you call me ignorant? That's ironic.
"the history of the life of Jesus and early Christianity come form the bible. whether you believe in the events such as the resurrection of Jesus and all those miraculous events are up to you."
There's no conclusive proof that a man named Jesus or Yeshua ever existed and even if he did, the Bible heavily exaggerated his so-called miracles. It takes a very weak-minded individual to blindly believe what you claim is true.
In short, it is you who appears to be the ignorant one here. Not to mention bigoted and arrogant.
you are really ignorant. the life and death of Jesus has been recored by roman executioners, Jewish historians who disliked Jesus, and his numerous disciples.
but onto the spiritual part of the debate. how does it take a blind weak mind to believe in God? pleas tell me.
"the life and death of Jesus has been recored by roman executioners, Jewish historians who disliked Jesus, and his numerous disciples."
Show me a non-biased source and evidence of your claim.
"how does it take a blind weak mind to believe in God? pleas tell me."
Think of it this way, when you're thinking religiously, you're using the right side of your brain. That's the emotional, creative side. Not the logical, rational side. You're letting your biased, emotional opinions get in the way of your logical thought process. Not only that, but if you just believe in god because your parents told you he existed, and didn't even look further for some valid proof, that's weak. The concept of gods was used by the ancients to try and explain what they didn't understand. Alot of stuff that's actually common knowledge now. Natural disasters, wind, all weather, life, reproduction, etc. To believe in any god now is basically like having an imaginary friend. It's an emotional crutch that you use to try and delude yourself into believing that everything is going to be alright. You have some psychological need to believe in something or someone that will always love you no matter what. Independent and intelligent critical thinkers have no need for an imaginary deity because they're capable of figuring out life's problems and mysteries by themselves. To blindly place your faith in something that only you claim is real just because you may have experienced some personally grand emotional event which you claim to be a "divine miracle" is ridiculous. Not only that, you try and convince others that this all-powerful imaginary being is real and use it to try and explain that of which YOU don't understand or don't have the answers to. I can assure you, we as human beings have the answers, and if we don't have an answer for something, we will in due time. That's how science works. Time to grow up and stop placing your belief in imaginary deities. That, my academically-challenged young friend, is weak minded
"Think of it this way, when you're thinking religiously, you're using the right side of your brain. That's the emotional, creative side. Not the logical, rational side. You're letting your biased, emotional opinions get in the way of your logical thought process. Not only that, but if you just believe in god because your parents told you he existed, and didn't even look further for some valid proof, that's weak. The concept of gods was used by the ancients to try and explain what they didn't understand. Alot of stuff that's actually common knowledge now. Natural disasters, wind, all weather, life, reproduction, etc. To believe in any god now is basically like having an imaginary friend. It's an emotional crutch that you use to try and delude yourself into believing that everything is going to be alright. You have some psychological need to believe in something or someone that will always love you no matter what. Independent and intelligent critical thinkers have no need for an imaginary deity because they're capable of figuring out life's problems and mysteries by themselves. To blindly place your faith in something that only you claim is real just because you may have experienced some personally grand emotional event which you claim to be a "divine miracle" is ridiculous. Not only that, you try and convince others that this all-powerful imaginary being is real and use it to try and explain that of which YOU don't understand or don't have the answers to. I can assure you, we as human beings have the answers, and if we don't have an answer for something, we will in due time. That's how science works. Time to grow up and stop placing your belief in imaginary deities. That, my academically-challenged young friend, is weak minded"
Show me a non-biased source and evidence of your claim.
woah it works both ways, funny isn't?
but to the point of your argument. you assume i am using biased emotional unreasoned information to prove the existence of God. well instead of regurgitating what other highly educated theologians said i will instead direct you to some very informing sites about proof for God's existence since we are no longer arguing about the authority of the bible, but of the proof of its author, God.
please read these sites, you mention good points in your argument, in fact points most atheist suggest for my faith in "God". so i hope your accusations are answered by these sites.
"i will instead direct you to some very informing sites about proof for God's existence since we are no longer arguing about the authority of the bible, but of the proof of its author, God."
The bible has no authority and you can't prove god's existence. He only exists in your mind. There's no denying that. Nor did your god write the bible or anything for that matter. You really are deluded aren't you?
"The bible has no authority and you can't prove god's existence. He only exists in your mind. There's no denying that. Nor did your god write the bible or anything for that matter. You really are deluded aren't you?"
Again, show me a non biased source to support your claim.
for some reason i have to show educated out side sources for my claims while yet your claims i have to assume have authority or proof because you say them?
lets debate by the same rules here please. and ill mention an other great site i highly recommend for your numerous questions you have.
How about this. Instead of having me spoon-feed it to you, why don't you prove yourself capable of independent thought and do the research yourself. Huh? You want answers? Go look for them. I've done my homework. It's time you did the same.
how bout this. instead of you again offering me no evidence for your claims and then telling me i have to do my homework when i show you i have. you do your homework
and i don't want answers you do. your the one asking me and arguing against me. then getting angry when i supply you with some. usually the theologian is called narrow minded but you seem to have enough of it for both of us.
I have done all my homework. How do think I came to the conclusion that there is no god? Guesswork? No. That's your area of expertise. Alot of guesswork. You haven't supplied any answers, here. Merely opinions and perspective guesswork. Seeing as you being the religious extremist you are, your perspective is too emotionally biased and cannot be taken seriously here or elsewhere. In other words, unless you can argue without emotion, your argument is rendered invalid.
if you have done homework then show me instead of telling me i haven't. and the sites i showed you are not guesses but thought out answers. its up to you to believe if their true or not. and i am not using emotion in my statements. in all reality you seem the most emotional here and for what reason? i can only imagine.
You should be able to do the research on your own and prove that the religious aren't as lazy as they appear to be. Your perspective is emotional based. That's one of the reasons you believe in a god.
lol it appears are argument has died down. and it is turning into a i know more than you therefore your wrong. well i do and will continue to do my resarch, aka read the bible daily and such :)
"and it is turning into a i know more than you therefore your wrong."
Unfortunately, yes. This is not true debating nor are we grasping the opportunity to share knowledge and learn from one another. Instead, we're quarreling like a pair of juveniles.
"well i do and will continue to do my resarch, aka read the bible daily and such :)"
Do as you will. Just don't be afraid to look outside the box. You may not like what you find, but you'll grow from it as a person.
By the way, I've already seen that site you gave the link to. That doesn't anywhere close to "proof" that your imaginary friend exists. Nice try, though. Try using a real source next time.
its Not yesterday news that the bible is full oF errors ,even more after translations that is excluding the contents ,contexts ,geographical and historical contradictions.
well ,surly you would agree that we all can believe anything we want. but what you believe its just "true" to you only ,what's facts may not be what you believe....
in addition ,if you still want to believe what's in the bible .well of course you can but remember its with all the errors after translations & with the contents ,contexts ,geographical and historical contradictions as well. so good luck
I think you responded to the wrong person. I don't believe the bible is truth. In fact, I agree with everything you just pointed out. Happy Thanksgiving.
"Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand.
"Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know.
Interesting how the world being flat and the Bible being real has no relevance. Not to mention things in Bible have came true in the past years. When world being flat was proven to be wrong. Yet no one has proven the Bible to be wrong in all these years...hmmmm....
"Interesting how the world being flat and the Bible being real has no relevance."
Actually, they do. See, the bible was written by the very same people who believed the world to be flat and like the bible, that claim was disproved using modern science.
"things in Bible have came true in the past years"
Like what? Those broad-termed prophesies that are open to heavy interpretation?
"Actually, they do. See, the bible was written by the very same people who believed the world to be flat and like the bible, that claim was disproved using modern science."
They were not the same people because thats a different time. Can you show me the proof that modern science proved that?
"Like what? Those broad-termed prophesies that are open to heavy interpretation?"
For one:
The regathering of Israel as a nation in the 20th century.
"Thus says the Lord God:
' Surely I will take the children of Israel
from among the nations,
wherever they have gone,
and will gather them from every side
and bring them into their own land."
(Ezekiel 37:21) ['Nations' plural ... this is not their return from Babylon]
Some would depart from the faith and go into devil worship-1 Tim 4:1. This is perfect. Reportedly in Great Britain alone, there are about 35,000 professing witches.
The Christian church at the time of the end would be lukewarm, neither cold nor hot for Jesus. Prophecy fulfilled.
There would be weapons that could destroy the world-Mk 13:20; Rev 6:8; Rev 9:18; Zech 14:8,12.
There would be an increase in earthquakes-Mt 24:2,3,7; Mk 13:8; Lk 21:11. This prophecy is correct. That’s 9 out of 9.
Note: One might think as the earth settled over a period of time that earthquakes would decrease like ripples in the water. Yet the Bible indicates the opposite is true. In this last generation, research from the U.S. Geological Survey, National Earthquake Information Center reveals that major earthquakes of a magnitude of 6.0 or higher have remained relatively constant during this century. However, the total number of earthquakes in recent years appear to be rising. For example, it was reported that in 1986, the total number of earthquakes was 12,718. In l990, it was 16,612. In 1994, it was 19,371. This will culminate during the Battle of Armageddon, AFTER THE TRIBULATION OF THOSE DAYS. At that time, there will be an earthquake that will shake the world. The cities of the nations will fall. Every island will flee away.
"They were not the same people because thats a different time."
Same time period, kid. They're also the same people who believed that constellations were celestial beings. They're the same people that thought that the Sun and the Universe revolved around Earth.
"This is perfect. Reportedly in Great Britain alone, there are about 35,000 professing witches."
Doesn't make them "Devil worshipers". Why would they worship some dark entity that your religion made-up to begin with? Witchcraft is just another form of Wicca which has its roots in Celtic Paganism. It's such a shame you Theists are so easily frightened by that which you don't understand.
"There is your proof."
That's only proof of how you are so easily manipulated into believing in this ancient Mythology.
Again no proof. There is no proof that these were the same people and my religion didnt just come up with them. Not to mention what about my other points? So those are valid but some of my points are not? Just shows you again that my religion is real, just like my God is real.
"Just shows you again that my religion is real, just like my God is real."
Wrong again. You're mere perspective doesn't make your religion any more valid than the hundreds of others nor does it make your god any more real than the thousands of others that people have believed in just as passionately as you have believed in yours. Your imaginary friend doesn't exist anywhere beyond the right half of your brain (The creative, imaginative side) and there isn't anything you believe in that can prove otherwise.
So when are you going to provide me with this evidence? I am just going to keep asking for it because again I am winning because you have provided no evidence. Also, I gave you evidence that things in the Bible are coming true which means God is real which means it is not all blind faith.
Being a female Republican, it's not surprising that you would try and dumb down the debate into a childish game and try to declare yourself the victor.
"things in the Bible are coming true which means God is real which means it is not all blind faith."
Even if these minor coincidences are true, it doesn't prove the existence of your god. Your faith is blind for believing so. Use common sense, sheep.
Just like you said I was a child because you don't like my beliefs and said I am easily manipulated and called my God an imaginary friend instead of using some different wording. Which shows that you were the one in the first place to act like it was a childish game and dumb down the debate so basically you are calling yourself dumb. I am not angry that you have different beliefs I was merely giving you the proof of what i know to be true. You need to use common sense and maybe read the Bible first to understand all points of view. I have learned of evolution and learned different beliefs and have chose my point of view because it makes the most sense to me. It might not make sense to you and i don't have a problem with that.You are the sheep because you have not broaden your views to different things and haven't tryed to understand them.
"I was merely giving you the proof of what i know to be true"
I wouldn't say it constitutes as proof. It's open to interpretation.
"read the Bible first to understand all points of view"
Being an ex-christian, I did so. That's why I understand it's message, mythology and hypocrisy. I'm not going to debate something without know both perspectives. Otherwise I'd be the hypocrite.
"because it makes the most sense to me"
Ever consider that you're letting your emotional biases get in the way of critical, rational, and logical thinking? That tends to be the case with most religious people.
"It might not make sense to you and i don't have a problem with that."
It makes sense and I understand it perfectly. You don't have all the answers so you take on the religion you were raised upon and conditioned from birth to allow yourself to believe that you do. Based on observation, you need some emotional crutch to get you through life by giving you a false sense of hope.
"You are the sheep because you have not broaden your views to different things and haven't tryed to understand them."
"Ever consider that you're letting your emotional biases get in the way of critical, rational, and logical thinking? That tends to be the case with most religious people."
Yes i have considered it.I try to look at both sides and see why that person whould say what they said.So no i am not letting my emotional biases get in the way of critical ,rational, and logical thinking. I have proof that is logical and rational so I know that God is real whether you believe it or not.
"You don't have all the answers so you take on the religion you were raised upon and conditioned from birth to allow yourself to believe that you do. Based on observation, you need some emotional crutch to get you through life by giving you a false sense of hope."
First my parents are athiests so i was not raised from birth to believe this. The proof led me to believe this.
Second, who has all the answers? I know you do not, and I know I do not. All I know is that it takes more faith to believe that God is not real then it is to believe that he is real. I also have proof that leans towards the side that he is real. Because I have proof, that means I am not using as you say it some emotional crutch. It has shown since you have not given me evidence, you are the sheep.
So "my dear" maybe you are the one with the emotional crutch that has to get you through life by a false sense that God isn't real.
"I try to look at both sides and see why that person whould say what they said."
Same.
" I have proof that is logical and rational so I know that God is real whether you believe it or not."
I'm sure you believe you do. But being that you're female, you're more likely to give in to emotional thinking (opinion). You can never "know" that god exists. It's pure perspective. Some aspects of your bible may be accurate, but belief in god is nothing more than blind faith.
"it takes more faith to believe that God is not real then it is to believe that he is real."
Quite the opposite. The most brilliant minds on planet, the true critical thinkers and geniuses, the ones that use logic and rationality more than any other mental tool at their disposal, have all turned out to be Atheistic. Coincidence? No
"maybe you are the one with the emotional crutch that has to get you through life by a false sense that God isn't real."
From your skewed perspective, maybe. But in reality, it's the opposite.
This is really pointless because I "Know" what I "Know" and You "Know" what you "Know".
"Quite the opposite. The most brilliant minds on planet, the true critical thinkers and geniuses, the ones that use logic and rationality more than any other mental tool at their disposal, have all turned out to be Atheistic. Coincidence? No"
Have they really ALL turned out to be Atheistic? No. For example,
Albert Einstein- Jewish and a great man. If you would like I can start looking up all the famous intelligent people in history that believed in God.
Have they really ALL turned out to be Atheistic? No. For example,
I agree with you that he made a poor argument to say that all were and are atheistic. Absolutes are difficult to justify.
However if you look at the statistics of religious affiliation and belief in god, you will find that the prominent scientists are a very high majority atheistic, or lean towards it.
The conclusion therefore is either that knowledge and intelligence pushes away faith in the supernatural, or that religious thinking appeals to those with average intelligence more than scepticism and uncertainty, or both.
Albert Einstein- Jewish and a great man. If you would like I can start looking up all the famous intelligent people in history that believed in God.
It doesn't matter if you quote long-dead people who believed in god. As a matter of disclosure science is a relatively new enterprise and it has only been half millennium since the Church started to lose its grip over the minds and bodies of an entire civilisation. Listing people like Newton or Galileo is hardly appropriate because these men lived when very little was known that could rule out Church dogma, and besides this it was unfashionable to admit scepticism towards the faith in those days because you would either be ostracised from society or killed as a heretic or blasphemer.
Albert Einstein was an Agnostic who believed in Spinoza's god of order in the universe.
Oh, one other thing: it takes no faith to remain unconvinced of church doctrine. That is what atheism is, being unconvinced of theistic doctrine and dogma. It isn't faith any more than not believing in Santa is an act of faith.
"This is really pointless because I "Know" what I "Know" and You "Know" what you "Know"."
I agree. Almost all religious debates end this way it seems. Neither side is going to convince the other so why don't we just live and let live. I find it rather pathetic that people can't see past each other's religious views and how we let our religious perspectives dominate our lives. It causes nothing but dispute. We (as the human race) should be focusing on finding common ground and cooperating with one another rather than fighting over deities that may or may not exist. You do what you want but that's my 5 cents.
When world being flat was proven to be wrong. Yet no one has proven the Bible to be wrong in all these years.
Numerous things in the bible have been proven wrong, but most of the bible is unfalsifiable. In other words the bible contains statements that cannot be tested or subjected to verification.
If you suggest inability to demonstrate errors somehow support infallibility you are either incredibly naive' or very self-deceptive.
Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or appeal to ignorance, is an informal logical fallacy. It asserts that a proposition is necessarily true because it has not been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option: there is insufficient investigation and the proposition has not yet been proven to be either true or false.
You have committed the logical fallacy of Argumentum ad populum, or argument from popular appeal. What this means is that you claim your proposition, here the validity of the Bible, to be true because it is believed by a large number of people.
This is similar to making the argument that Elvis is still alive because "fifty million Elvis fans can't be wrong!" Because a large number of people believe something, this does not make it true. Many people believed the sun rotated around the earth, and now we know this is not the case. The amount of people believing a premise does not make it true.
The bible is 100% true and all strong-minded people know it.
There was no worldwide flood. We are related to animals, not created apart from them. People cannot arise from the dead or walk on water. Virgin births are not possible for humans. Stars cannot fall to earth. The earth is not flat. The earth is not resting upon pillars. God does not cause lightening. Demons do not exist to possess things.
Now i will try to show all the roman authors that daniel referenced ,how they failed to be the proof of Jesus resurrection. they are more of allusions rather than actual proof for jesus resurrection/existence.
Pliny ,the governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor, wrote a very short passage to Emperor Trajan in 112CE requesting of how to deal with the troublesome Christians.
Suetonius ,a Roman historian had a list of miscellaneous notes on the legislative matters between 'considering of sale of food in taverns and briefly discussing the behavior of charioteers' in 64 CE. "Punishment was inflicted on the christians, a class of men, given to a new and wicked superstition." but all these sources really tells us nothing on Jesus only that there was a few christian existed in the Roman world.
Suetonius , between 41-54 CE ,under the ruled of emperor Claudius to expel jews from Rome because they constantly made disturbance at the instigation of Crestus. Although Crestus was a popular name but often taken as the corruption of "christ" ,the greek versions of Hebrew 'Messiah'.Hence at that time , any 'would-be Messiah' would be a rousing jew rebellion. so the supposition that any reference to 'Christ' necessarily referred to Jesus christ is totally unfounded. Furthermore ,jesus had never visited Rome. Therefore , all that we being told is that Claudius had to deal with many troublesome jews which was a regular occurrence in Roman history.
Considering Tacitus
His writings about the great fire of Rome in 64CE ,Nero blamed the christians for it to eliminate that rumor which was Nero ,himself who started the blaze.
As governor of Asia (c.112 CE) he must have been familiar with the Christians "troublemakers" as his friend ,Pliny obviously was.
Though Tacitus further characterized christians as 'audio humani generic' that is detestable(or odious) to the human race. He say that they were pitied because of their brutal punishments.
The only thing that would make Tacitus writings ,an independent testimony of the existence/resurrection of jesus and not merely repetitions of the christians beliefs would be if he had gained his information about christ crucifixion under Pontius Pilate from the copious records that the Roman kept of their legal dealings. But this does not seems to be the case, for Tacitus call Pilate the "procurator" of Judea when he was in fact a "prefect" so Tacitus is clearly not following the records at that time but merely quoting a Hearsay information from his own day.
there are other problems ,in Tacitus story ,the Annals was written in ca.120AD nearly a century after the traditional dates of the crucifixion. Did he actually have a record of the execution of Jesus by Pontius Pilate or did he simply accept what christians claimed about their religion ?
In Antiquities 18:3:3 "….. He was the Christ;and when Pilate…."
Considering Josephus referred jesus as 'Christ' the greek versions of Hebrew 'Messiah'.He too was among the "tribe of christians," One would expect him to be converted after Josephus "mentioned" Jesus to be the Messiah. Yet Josephus remained loyal to both Jew and Rome ,throughout his life.
Later in Antiquities 20:9:1 "the brother of Jesus ,who was called christ" Here jesus is not called 'the christ' only someone call christ.
see the difference ,there is an contradiction here
Josephus mentioned jesus as he recorded the passing of James (Antiquities 20.9.1) ,and this is the only time that he mentioned Jesus. had he really thought Jesus as the messiah ? why mentioned jesus only once ?
it seems highly unlikely ,Not only he NOT mentioned Jesus again ,he didn't utter those christians again. This is odd ,since he was acquainted with the rule of Nero and lived into the period of Domitian.
Because of all of these problems ,the account of jesus by Josephus is a fraud. the "Jesus account" rather more like an interpolation by a later christian copyist. By critical scholarship ,has revealed them to be a much later additions to Josephus text. they are not same hand & contents writing style as Josephus. but if they remove the forged passage ,the original passage flows more in proper sequence.
Furthermore ,Origen tells us that Josephus didn't mention Jesus and that he did not even believe that he was christ since he had never believe in any jewish messiah figure.
Origen was quoted by St Jerome as advising presbyters in the church who were 'forced by circumstance to lie ',The need to observe the rules of the art of lying and to use the lie when arguing with a disbeliever in order to win that person over to important Christian points. St Jerome himself claimed to write in a lying manner and cited in support of the practice, number of greek and latin christian writers before him, he named St Paul as a liar.
Most theologians believe that its was Bishop Eusebius who fabricated the passage ,when he admitted of rewriting Josephus works in 329 AD. As the passage is not found prior to Eusebius (260-339) era.
There was a worldwide flood their is an abundance of evidence for it.
www.answersingenesis.org
We are very different from animals i.e. societies, industries, relationships, and abstract thought. People can't walk on water, but Jesus can and did (Immanuel) God with us. A virgin can give birth when the Holy Spirit places our savior in her. The Bible says nothing of a flat world. Where are these fallen stars in the scripture?
There was a worldwide flood their is an abundance of evidence for it.
www.answersingenesis.org
Answers in Genesis is not evidence. It is apologetics for theology which denies science. Calling it evidence is like calling Pravda "News."
We are very different from animals i.e. societies, industries, relationships, and abstract thought.
Those features are irrelevant to biology. Biology sorts life based on shape, genetic relationship, and sometimes geographic distribution. We are animals, we have animal cells, we eat organic matter to survive, we are able to move.
People can't walk on water, but Jesus can and did (Immanuel) God with us.
Jesus was a person and therefore could not walk on water. You already know this and are just repeating dogma to reinforce your beliefs because you know it's impossible.
A virgin can give birth when the Holy Spirit places our savior in her.
Parthenogenesis cannot happen in humans. This is impossible in human physiology.
The Bible says nothing of a flat world.
The bible implies a flat Earth when it says that there is a tree that one can see from any place on Earth, that a mountaintop can be tall enough to see all of Earth's societies, and that everyone will be able to witness Jesus' decent from the clouds on the second coming. It is rudimentary geometry.
Daniel 4:10-11
Upon my bed this is what I saw;
there was a tree at the centre of the earth,
and its height was great.
The tree grew great and strong,
its top reached to heaven,
and it was visible to the ends of the whole earth.
Matthew 4:8
Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the
kingdoms of the world and their splendour;
Revelation 1:7
Look! He is coming with the clouds;
every eye will see him,
even those who pierced him;
and on his account all the tribes of the earth will wail.
Answers in Genesis uses the same science everyone else does. Read their reports (especially the technical ones).
"Those features are irrelevant to biology. Biology sorts life based on shape, genetic relationship, and sometimes geographic distribution. We are animals, we have animal cells, we eat organic matter to survive, we are able to move."
By this logic you are no different then your dog. Although a dog can't create a society with laws or travel to space.
"Jesus was a person and therefore could not walk on water. You already know this and are just repeating dogma to reinforce your beliefs because you know it's impossible."
"Parthenogenesis cannot happen in humans. This is impossible in human physiology."
Like I said Jesus was God in the flesh, human restrictions wouldn't apply to him. Denying divine supernatural occurences does not defend your accusations of the Bible being incorrect.
Daniel 4:10, 11 and 20, and Job 37:3. The Daniel passage is actually a statement by a pagan king, which doesn’t mean that the Bible endorses that view. And it is a vision, and is therefore not intended to be a picture of reality any more than Pharaoh’s dream of cannibalistic cows and even cannibalistic ears of wheat (Genesis 41). And Job 37:3 hardly requires a flat-earth reading — it merely states that lightning occurs all over the earth.
It is not his day in the first place. When Satan tried tempting Jesus, he offered Jesus something that was not his to offer (Matthew 4:8—all the kingdoms of the world). This is a symbolic vision not the reality.
God is omnipresent so seeing him everywhere at once does not require a flat world.
What verse do you refer to the fallen stars in revelation? As you should know revelation is a vision that John had, which has not yet come to pass.
Answers in Genesis uses the same science everyone else does. Read their reports (especially the technical ones).
Answers in Genesis is pseudoscience, like flat-earth theory, geocentricism, HIV denialism, etc.
All these bits of quackery masquerade as science but do not follow the scientific method.
By this logic you are no different then your dog. Although a dog can't create a society with laws or travel to space.
A dog has animal cells, eats organic matter, and can move. It is an animal. Try learning basic biology, particularly taxonomy, before you dispute it.
Like I said Jesus was God in the flesh, human restrictions wouldn't apply to him. Denying divine supernatural occurences does not defend your accusations of the Bible being incorrect.
If you need to resort to giving your item of dogma magic logic-defying and physics-defying powers then you have left the realm of rational discourse and have entered into insanity.
In other words, you have proven the bible incorrect by giving characters portrayed in it impossible abilities.
Daniel 4:10, 11 and 20, and Job 37:3. The Daniel passage is actually a statement by a pagan king, which doesn’t mean that the Bible endorses that view. And it is a vision, and is therefore not intended to be a picture of reality any more than Pharaoh’s dream of cannibalistic cows and even cannibalistic ears of wheat (Genesis 41). And Job 37:3 hardly requires a flat-earth reading — it merely states that lightning occurs all over the earth.
It is not his day in the first place. When Satan tried tempting Jesus, he offered Jesus something that was not his to offer (Matthew 4:8—all the kingdoms of the world). This is a symbolic vision not the reality.
God is omnipresent so seeing him everywhere at once does not require a flat world.
You are trying to discount the allegedly inerrant word of god. If it says that a you can see a tall tree from everywhere on Earth, then it is intended verily.
What verse do you refer to the fallen stars in revelation? As you should know revelation is a vision that John had, which has not yet come to pass.
You cannot site the bible as proof for the bible. That is like me saying "the sky is pink", and then when asked to cite a source, providing a story i wrote as a child in which the sky was pink.
These things happen because of miracles by God so yes according to our faith people can walk on water etc. Also all creation comes through God, just because scientists have figured out how lightining works does not mean God does not decide when it will happen where it will happen. Stars probably just means meteor, they simply used the word stars, demons could posess things but are no longer allowed to, once the NT was completed, miracles of the "Miraculous" nature ceased to happen, things like walking on water etc. Now miracles all have to do with the saving of souls and other more personal things. This is supported by the Bible in case you're wondering.
If you look on the other side of the page I have proof that there was a worldwide flood. People have heart attacks everyday and die and then come back again so technically people can rise from the dead. Also no where in the Bible does it talk about the earth being flat or the earth resting upon pillars so maybe you should READ the Bible before making accusations. So in other words, your wrong.
If you look on the other side of the page I have proof that there was a worldwide flood.
You didn't. You had speculation without evidence.
People have heart attacks everyday and die and then come back again so technically people can rise from the dead.
So these people are the son of god then? Death in my context means people who have undergone full body death, meaning the brain is dead as well as heart, and other organs. You cannot revive this.
Also no where in the Bible does it talk about the earth being flat or the earth resting upon pillars so maybe you should READ the Bible before making accusations.
It is implied in the text, when for example it describes mountaintops high enough to see all of Earth's civilisations, or a tree tall enough for everyone on Earth to see. Then one of the kings who described his visions, mentions that he rose above the dome covering Earth where god sits at the top. Then it describes that the earth has pillars, and is fixed, unable to move.
You need to read your bible more. It is a flat earth, geocentric book.
"You didn't. You had speculation without evidence."
That was evidence.
"So these people are the son of god then?"
No they are children of God like everyone else on this earth including me and you.(my opinion)
"Then one of the kings who described his visions, mentions that he rose above the dome covering Earth where god sits at the top."
First, give me the exact verse so i can explain it to you CORRECTLY.
Second, there are many dreams to correct your term, in the Bible, that stand for something. They are not literal.
Third, again no where in the Bible does it say the earth is flat.
I read my Bible and I learn the about the dreams in the Bible because If you READ the Bible it explains in all the chapters the full reason of the dreams or "visions" as you say it.
No, it was conjecture. Scientific and scholarly evidence must be backed by other establish theories, facts, or laws. It should agree with other findings and if there is dispute it should be able to prove its claims with experimental data or models.
What you gave me just made assertions. A comet appeared and rained ice on earth. That is an assertion, with no scientific evidence. Water came from the ground. Another assertion. Fossils are arranged in the ground like a flood would cause. Blatant contradiction with established theory.
First, give me the exact verse so i can explain it to you CORRECTLY.
I'm a bit lazy, but I dug up my rebuttal I made to a good friend two years ago. The whole text is thirty pages, but here are some extracts:
Now it's time for me to back up my claims that the most literal, and
accurate reading of the bible indicates a flat earth. Specifically I would argue
that it indicates a fixed, flat disk with the land in the centre, waters outward, a
dome of firmament covering the planet which the stars are fixed (fashioned or
stretched out upon) with ducts that let in rainfall, and gates at the ends of the
earth (the ends or corners, I believe, refer to cardinal points of direction) which
let in snow, dew, frost, etc.; finally, the sun and moon orbit the earth. The
verses I quote are thus:
1 Chronicles 16:30
tremble before him, all the earth.
The world is firmly established; it shall never be moved.
Psalm 93:1
The Lord is king, he is robed in majesty;
the Lord is robed, he is girded with strength.
He has established the world; it shall never be moved;
Psalm 96:10
Say among the nations, ‘The Lord is king!
The world is firmly established; it shall never be moved.
He will judge the peoples with equity.’
Psalm 104:5
You set the earth on its foundations,
so that it shall never be shaken.
Job 22:14
Thick clouds enwrap him, so that he does not see,
and he walks on the dome of heaven."
Job 26:7
He stretches out Zaphon over the void,
and hangs the earth upon nothing.
Job 37:18
Can you, like him, spread out the skies,
unyielding as a cast mirror?
Job 38:4
'Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?
Tell me, if you have understanding.
Isaiah 24:18-19
Whoever flees at the sound of the terror
shall fall into the pit,
and whoever climbs out of the pit
shall be caught in the snare.
For the windows of heaven are opened,
and the foundations of the earth tremble.
The earth is utterly broken,
the earth is torn asunder,
the earth is violently shaken.
Isaiah 40:21-22
Have you not known? Have you not heard?
Has it not been told you from the beginning?
Have you not understood from the foundations of the earth?
It is he who sits above the circle of the earth,
and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers;
who stretches out the heavens like a curtain,
and spreads them like a tent to live in;
Ezekiel 10:1
Then I looked, and above the dome that was over the heads of the
cherubim there appeared above them something like a sapphire, in form
resembling a throne.
Ezekiel 1:22-26
Over the heads of the living creatures there was something like a dome,
shining like crystal, spread out above their heads. Under the dome their
wings were stretched out straight, one towards another; and each of the
creatures had two wings covering its body. When they moved, I heard the
sound of their wings like the sound of mighty waters, like the thunder of
the Almighty, a sound of tumult like the sound of an army; when they
stopped, they let down their wings. And there came a voice from above
the dome over their heads; when they stopped, they let down their
wings.
And above the dome over their heads there was something like a throne,
in appearance like sapphire; and seated above the likeness of a throne
was something that seemed like a human form.
1 Enoch 33:1-2
And from thence I went to the ends of the earth and saw there great
beasts, and each differed from the other; and (I saw) birds also differing
in appearance and beauty and voice, the one differing from the other.
And to the east of those beasts I saw the ends of the earth whereon the
heaven rests, and the portals of the heaven open. And I saw how the
stars of heaven come forth, and
1 Enoch 34
And from thence I went towards the north to the ends of the earth, and
there I saw a great and glorious device at the ends of the whole earth.
And here I saw three portals of heaven open in the heaven: through each
of them proceed north winds: when they blow there is cold, hail, frost,
snow, dew, and rain. And out of one portal they blow for good: but when
they blow through the other two portals, it is with violence and affliction
on the earth, and they blow with violence.
Flat-earth references:
Daniel 4:10-11
Upon my bed this is what I saw;
there was a tree at the centre of the earth,
and its height was great.
The tree grew great and strong,
its top reached to heaven,
and it was visible to the ends of the whole earth.
Matthew 4:8
Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the
kingdoms of the world and their splendour;
Revelation 1:7
Look! He is coming with the clouds;
every eye will see him,
even those who pierced him;
and on his account all the tribes of the earth will wail.
So it is to be. Amen.
These are only possible with a flat Earth, since a sphere doesn't permit everyone to see a tallest object from the opposite end, same with the mountain and the clouds.
Ace Ventura Pet Detective is a more believable story than the bible. Just because you were weak minded enough to be indoctrinated doesn't mean that the things you believe are true. You are not strong minded, you are the exact opposite, but you are stubborn...these delusions are so deeply ingrained that you will never accept you are being irrational. Even if it was 100% true...why would you want to revere your god? He is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.
You obviously have never read a verse from the Bible. It is easy to say one who believes in a Creator is crazy. Yet you believe you were created from nothing. Who is crazy here?
No person of scientific disposition would believe that, as it blatantly contradicts the fact that energy can neither be created, nor destroyed. We are matter, which is, simply put, energy waiting to happen. The atoms in your left hand, for example, consist of quantities of energy interacting with each other. This matter comes from the conversion of food which your mother ingested during her pregnancy with you. Thus, you were not created from nothing.
This line of argument can only logically lead to you demanding evidence for the Big Bang theory, which I shall be happy to entertain in the morning. However, I anticipate that after I have evidenced Big Bang theory, you will ask what created that. I will say maximum potential. You will ask what created that. However, when I apply the same logic to your God ("If the universe needed a creator, so did God"), you will simply say MAGIC. The problem with my position is that it is rational, needing evidence to prove the fundamentals. Suffice to say, when you say MAGIC, I cannot simply say SCIENCE.
"No person of scientific disposition would believe that, as it blatantly contradicts the fact that energy can neither be created, nor destroyed. We are matter, which is, simply put, energy waiting to happen. The atoms in your left hand, for example, consist of quantities of energy interacting with each other."
We are not energy waiting to happen, we are energy in motion. This is true down to the atomic level.
"However, I anticipate that after I have evidenced Big Bang theory, you will ask what created that. I will say maximum potential. You will ask what created that."
And you say I believe in "magic" but you believe an unknown energy created matter. I will always challenge your first cause, especially since you merely speculate an obscure theory.
"However, when I apply the same logic to your God ("If the universe needed a creator, so did God"), you will simply say MAGIC."
That's where your wrong little one. God is beyond space, time, and matter. He is infinite and has always been. And with your logic, if something did create him that would mean something would have to created his creator as well.
So, by your logic it would be a never-ending cyclical creation. To you this would make more sense? That is as ridiculous as creating life by random processes.
All causes are connected to a first cause. If you want to change your scientific beliefs for the origin of matter that is your dispute.
We will never agree on the origin of the universe. To say it has always been is absurd. Within science we know of the law of cause and effect. Science is factual and observable, not speculative. This is why we have laws. Theories are assumptions (apparently your favorite word 'of course that is an assumption') and much like the majority of your arguments obtrusive conjecture with no evidences.
The only statement you have made with any valid evidence, is the fact your are mad.
We are not energy waiting to happen, we are energy in motion.
By this I presume you mean to display some knowledge of physics, but you fail miserably. We are composed of matter, which fits the description I gave it. It is more accurate to say that we are a platform of potential energy which manipulates other forms of energy.
And you say I believe in "magic" but you believe an unknown energy created matter.
There is nothing unknown about it. Matter consists of atoms, which consist of electrical charges held together by electromagnetic force. All that was required in the first place was energy in one form or another and time. If you find the idea of an extant God so credible, why you find the idea of extant energy so ridiculous is beyond me.
I will always challenge your first cause, especially since you merely speculate an obscure theory.
I am not speculating, and the theory is not obscure; it is accepted by the vast majority of Earth's scientists.
That's where your wrong little one.
Your condescension does not affect me at all, so you might as well save the CreateDebate servers a few bytes of memory and omit any further slanders.
God is beyond space, time, and matter.
And thus, you say "MAGIC".
He is infinite and has always been.
You have absolutely no evidence upon which to base that claim.
And with your logic, if something did create him that would mean something would have to created his creator as well.
As aforesaid, I was simulating your logic. You insist that the universe has to have a creator, yet for some reason fail to understand why this posits a creator of the creator. I've dealt with this confusion before on CreateDebate, and it never ends well. For some time hereafter, you will simply repeat your dogma, saying God is beyond space, matter and time, providing not one shred of evidence, and making a laughing stock of yourself in the process.
So, by your logic it would be a never-ending cyclical creation. To you this would make more sense?
As aforesaid, these are not my beliefs. They are the logical extrapolation of yours.
That is as ridiculous as creating life by random processes.
If you don't believe in evolution (I presume you speak of this, though you obviously mistake its meaning), and seek to refute it in this debate, I suggest you convert and abandon your course before you are annihilated by the sheer volume of evidence I am prepared to bring to bear.
If you want to change your scientific beliefs for the origin of matter that is your dispute.
The notion of a scientific belief is ludicrous. A scientist does not believe; he either knows or suspects.
We will never agree on the origin of the universe.
I am aware of how intransigent the religious are.
To say it has always been is absurd.
Why is that more absurd than saying God has always been?
Theories are assumptions
That is incorrect. Faith and beliefs are assumptions, not scientific theories. A scientific theory is a model which explains or proves a law. It is the highest level of acceptance and veracity a scientific model can get.
apparently your favorite word 'of course that is an assumption'
My favourite word is actually a throwdown between
Verisimilitude
Intransigence
Perfidious
Macabre
Videlicet
Intrinsic
Blast
Malcontent
Attack
Lunatic
Vivacious
Effervescent
Interdiction
Poverty
Malevolent
Paramour
Inhibit
Bombard
Strategic
Reserve
Paladin
Liberty
Camaraderie
Romance
Stalk
Stealth
Insurmountable
Superior
Benediction
Handsome
Majesty
Albion
Ethereal
Arcane
Wizened
Fringe (also my favourite television program)
Bad
Arithmetic
Pyramidal
Exterior
and numerous others which I do not have the time to list (in fact, the list is so long I cannot in one sitting complete it).
The only statement you have made with any valid evidence, is the fact your are mad.
If you are so versed in scientific literature, it would hardly be necessary to provide evidence for some very basic concepts, such as the composition of matter, the conservation of energy etc. It exists, of course, but you can simply Google it.
"By this I presume you mean to display some knowledge of physics, but you fail miserably. We are composed of matter, which fits the description I gave it. It is more accurate to say that we are a platform of potential energy which manipulates other forms of energy."
The very atoms you are made out of are energy in motion. If the protons, electrons, and neutrons ceased to "move" the very matter itself would cease to exist.
"All that was required in the first place was energy in one form or another and time. If you find the idea of an extant God so credible, why you find the idea of extant energy so ridiculous is beyond me."
How would an extant energy create matter? Yes that energy could "assemble" matter, but where would it originally come from?
I like how atheists resort to supernatural and unverifiable occurences to explain the origin of the universe. Pot calling the kettle black.
"Your condescension does not affect me at all, so you might as well save the CreateDebate servers a few bytes of memory and omit any further slanders."
Wow, you could have just said, "please don't say things like that" and saved those precious bytes with whom you are so concerned.
"And thus, you say "MAGIC"."
Extant energy on your part.
"You have absolutely no evidence upon which to base that claim."
The word of God, in scripture. You may not believe it, but it is evidence.
"As aforesaid, I was simulating your logic. You insist that the universe has to have a creator, yet for some reason fail to understand why this posits a creator of the creator. I've dealt with this confusion before on CreateDebate, and it never ends well. For some time hereafter, you will simply repeat your dogma, saying God is beyond space, matter and time, providing not one shred of evidence, and making a laughing stock of yourself in the process."
You have no evidence of your origin theory. I have the inerrant word of God. You don't believe this is true which is not our argument here. You not recognizing our science for that matter does not disprove it. You can't test or observe the supernatural. The same would go for you extant theory of energy.
"As aforesaid, these are not my beliefs. They are the logical extrapolation of yours."
No it is not at all. You are still limiting God to scientific law, like it or not I believe he is outside of it. Thus, he would not need a creator because he is not comprised of matter. Certaintly you can grasp this idea?
"That is incorrect. Faith and beliefs are assumptions, not scientific theories. A scientific theory is a model which explains or proves a law. It is the highest level of acceptance and veracity a scientific model can get."
It explains the general principles, but it still is not a law only "widely" accepted. Just because it may be popular doesn't mean it is a definate fact. We have seen this in science through the ages.
"The notion of a scientific belief is ludicrous. A scientist does not believe; he either knows or suspects."
Suspecting is the same as belief. A belief is hypothetical much like a theory.
"If you don't believe in evolution (I presume you speak of this, though you obviously mistake its meaning), and seek to refute it in this debate, I suggest you convert and abandon your course before you are annihilated by the sheer volume of evidence I am prepared to bring to bear."
The very atoms you are made out of are energy in motion.
Unreleased energy in motion fits the description of energy waiting to happen. For example, a grenade flying through the air has kinetic energy, but also chemical energy within it waiting to be released.
How would an extant energy create matter? Yes that energy could "assemble" matter, but where would it originally come from?
I do not know the answer to that, which is why I do not post one. However, to suggest that science's inability to presently answer that question posits a God is nonsensical. It merely means that we do not know yet.
I like how atheists resort to supernatural and unverifiable occurences to explain the origin of the universe. Pot calling the kettle black.
There is nothing supernatural about energy forming matter, which was revealed by the work of Albert Einstein.
Extant energy on your part.
It is a possibility. It does not equate to magic.
The word of God, in scripture. You may not believe it, but it is evidence.
Saying something does not make it true. A book saying something without verifying it does not equate to evidence.
You have no evidence of your origin theory.
It is not a theory, it is a suggestion of a possibility which I neither believe nor disbelieve.
I have the inerrant word of God.
You have to prove it is inerrant before you can simply say it is. What if I said my word was inerrant and that I was God? How much more evidence is there for either statement?
You don't believe this is true which is not our argument here.
It is an issue when you use an unverified claim as evidence.
No it is not at all. You are still limiting God to scientific law, like it or not I believe he is outside of it.
And you have to prove that before you use it as evidence.
It explains the general principles, but it still is not a law only "widely" accepted. Just because it may be popular doesn't mean it is a definate fact.
And scientific reasoning does not state it to be so. It merely says that a theory is extremely likely to be accurate, based on the law. The theory of energy levels, for example, is supported by huge volumes of evidence and credibly explains the observations of a line emission spectrum.
Would you like to say that the theory which explains why planes can fly is wrong? Whether you believe it or not, the theory allowed us to build the planes, which do, in fact, fly.
Suspecting is the same as belief.
That is not true. When you believe something, you consider it to be true regardless of whether it is evidenced or not. When you suspect something to be true, you consider it highly likely to be true, but do not declare it to be so.
"I do not know the answer to that, which is why I do not post one. However, to suggest that science's inability to presently answer that question posits a God is nonsensical. It merely means that we do not know yet."
And science will never be able to prove that theory, because the answer is outside of science.
"It is not a theory, it is a suggestion of a possibility which I neither believe nor disbelieve."
Then why use it? Why try to represent something you have no opinion of?
"It is an issue when you use an unverified claim as evidence."
Which I have shown you flaws in the evidences for evolution. Science is the laws of man and the creation, like I have said God is beyond it.
"That is not true. When you believe something, you consider it to be true regardless of whether it is evidenced or not. When you suspect something to be true, you consider it highly likely to be true, but do not declare it to be so."
I already gave you the definitions of theory and believe. You are simply mincing words now. Suspect and believe are of the same. To believe isn't only based on faith, but also perceived evidence. That is what I demonstrated in relation to your idea of a theory.
The bible is 100% true and all strong-minded people know it.
That... really depends on your definition of strong-minded. If you mean stubborn, then probably.
Someone without fear of disapproval of what might happen to them if they announce their doubts of the audacious claims of an extremely old book probably has a more powerful mind than someone who follows something blindly because they were told to.
We could get into a fight over evidence and lack of evidence, but that's no fun. 100% true or not, faith doesn't have to be blindly and unexceptionally accepting something as the truth. Doubt isn't a bad thing, and it isn't always contrary to faith.
Doubt isn't always bad, but denial can be. To see the evidence of our created universe and believe that nothing created matter (big bang) and the complexities of life. Stubborn is denying the Creator when we see the evidence that proves he is real.
The creation is the evidence, the very same evidence we all have access too.
You're placing the horse before the carriage, my friend. That the earth exists, does not tell us how it came to be. You've only assumed a divine cause.
And who built the carriage (universe) their are only two options according to cause and effect?
I don't think you understood my analogy. But to address your question, there are an unknown (possibly infinite) number of options here. Not to mention that Cause and Effect, may not even apply below planck level of time. Particles pop in and out of existence all of the time on a quantum level, so quickly that they can barely be said to have existed at all. Where is the cause and effect there? Science sometimes demands that we change our way of thinking, the things we thought we understood.
Would would you be so quick to narrow the cause of our universe to simply two options? Why would you assume that there even is a "who" involved?
This is why religion disrupts any honest search for the truth.
Lots of people rip on the bible for not being accurate. Yet many of them have never read it. They claim that many things "Did Not Happen" When there is no other historical record of it. HOW CAN YOU CLAIM SOMETHING DID NOT HAPPEN BECAUSE THERE IS NO OTHER RECORD OF IT. YOU DONT KNOW BECAUSE THERE IS NO OTHER RECORD. Such arguments defeat themselves
No, that's actually not the case. There comes a time when we have to begin looking at the absence of evidence as evidence of absence. I have a degree from a bible college in bible, and have read it from front to back many many times. The Bible is a human book that reflects the morality of the times in which it was written.
why would you want to revere your god? He is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.
its realy2 true,can u imagine that different people who right,different events,different time,different place...
but how come they have the same principle,the same philosophy,and most of all,have the same message.. is that possible?no!why?because it is impossible...make things as one with different people?oh no...
but why it happen?because GOD is true...and HE made all this things become possible..
The Bible is a computer like written code. Digitalizing our physical existence, and programming full circle beginning to end. And to prove it, pi is right in the 1st verse. Gen 1: 1
I'm amazed at this. And e in John 1: 1 which is in line with exponential growth out to all nations in the era of the new testament.
An alien authored it, coincidences pile to high to dismiss.
If an alien left a document in your attic, how hard would you
look to find it?
After you found it, how hard would you try to decifer it?
Proving whether something is true or not is called apologetics. This word is derived from the Greek word “apologia,” which means “to defend.” The entire Clarifying Christianity site is filled with apologetics—proofs and explanations for many Christian-related issues. The focus of this page is the proof supporting the accuracy of the Bible. After all, if the Bible is not true or if it is filled with errors, Christianity would only be a “blind faith”—something people believe without any evidence to support it.
However, Christianity is not a blind faith. It is the only religion that can prove itself, and a main source of that proof is the Bible. Although it is becoming less common, there are still people who tell others that they follow Christianity “because it feels right” (or use wording like that). This is unfortunate, since there is a lot of evidence supporting Christianity. The existence of all that evidence is one reason we started this site. We want people to learn about the solid evidence that supports their faith, and have a place that collected that evidence so they can show it to others.
By the way, if you would like some reference materials that are a little more portable than a computer with an Internet connection, a book we recommend is Know Why You Believe by Paul Little. This book is available in larger bookstores and most Christian bookstores. Also, the Tucson Community Church recorded a seminar called “Knowing The Facts Behind The Faith.” It is available on DVD and VHS video (NTSC format). If you are interested in purchasing a copy, you can get one directly from the church that produces them at the Tucson Community Church website. They also handle international orders.
The Proof of Science
There is a great deal of scientific evidence that supports the Bible. Enough that we have a separate page to discuss this proof alone. If you would like to see our science page, click on this sentence.
The Proof of Prophecy
One of the strongest arguments for the accuracy of the Bible is its 100% accuracy in predicting the future. These future predictions are called “prophecies.” The Old Testament was written between approximately 1450 BC and 430 BC. During that time, many predictions of the future were recorded in the Bible by God’s prophets. Of the events that were to have taken place by now, every one happened just the way they predicted it would. No other “sacred writing” has such perfectly accurate predictions of the future.
One Type—The Messianic Prophecies
Of these prophecies, the most striking examples are the predictions about an “anointed one” (“Messiah” in Hebrew) who was to arrive in the future. About 4 BC, a miraculous event occurred—a boy named Jesus was born to a virgin named Mary. You can read His story in the book of Luke. Starting at age 30, Jesus fulfilled more and more of these prophecies written about the Messiah. His fulfillment of these prophecies was very spectacular: Jesus gave sight to the blind, made the lame walk, cured those who had leprosy, gave the deaf hearing, and raised people from the dead! These miracles and others were done many times in front of thousands of witnesses for three years. About 30 AD, Jesus was crucified (a prophecy) and died (a prophecy). Three days later he rose from the dead (another prophecy), after which He was seen by over 500 witnesses. Since these prophecies were written down at least 400 years before they happened, there is no doubt that the Bible’s writers were inspired supernaturally—by God. To examine these prophecies yourself, click on the link below.
aqua ball The Messianic Prophecies
A Second Type—Fulfilled Prophecy Dealing With Nations
There are many prophecies that can be proven through archaeology, especially prophecy dealing with entire nations. Typically, when God declared judgment on a nation, He would send a prophet to announce to the citizens why He was judging them and what He was going to do to them if they continued their evil behavior. On occasion, God would also tell the citizens how He would reward them if they started doing what was right. The book of Jonah records a case where the Assyrians stopped doing what was evil as a result of Jonah’s short prophecy. This is what God wanted, and God did not punish them as a result of their change of heart. However, most often the people would jeer at God’s prophet and continue their bad behavior—later becoming recipients of the exact punishment that God threatened.
Like other prophecy recorded in the Bible, these predictions support the supernatural inspiration of the Bible. The prophecies recorded in the Bible came true in such a detailed way that they could not have been predicted by chance. Further, archaeologists have evidence that these prophecies were written down many years before they were fulfilled, proving that they were not falsified documents claiming to be prophecies that came true. (The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls stopped the majority of that talk.) Although an entire web site could be filled with this information, we will provide one example—the foretelling of the destruction of Edom and its capital city of Petra.
aqua ball Click here for an example of fulfilled prophecy dealing with nations
The Proof of Textual Evidence
Both the Old and New Testaments are strongly supported by manuscript evidence (the evidence of early hand written copies). The famous Dead Sea Scrolls are one example of the Old Testament evidence. These documents came from the “library” of a settlement founded at Qumran before 150 B.C. and abandoned about 68 A.D. Some of the manuscript copies were made during that period, and some were written earlier (third century BC) and brought to the settlement. Ignoring spelling-oriented (orthographic) changes and similar small differences, the Dead Sea Scrolls match the Hebrew text behind today’s Old Testament, in spite of the passage of over 2,000 years (where one would expect errors to creep in).
Over 20,000 known manuscripts document the New Testament text. This makes the New Testament the most reliable document of antiquity (a document written before the printing press). These manuscripts vary in size from a part of a page to an entire Bible (Old and New Testaments). The earliest New Testament manuscripts date from the second century (100-199) AD These manuscript copies were written in different languages by people of different nationalities, cultures, and backgrounds. In spite of all those differences between them, the New Testament texts all agree. (That is, those differences that we do observe between these hand written documents are occasional changes in the spelling of names or isolated cases of missing or changed words. Still, since we have so many copies, it is obvious to anyone but the hardened skeptic can that they all represent the same text.)
Note: Those minor differences that do exist between the Old and New Testament manuscripts are interesting for academic reasons. They are the topic of a future “in depth” Clarifying Christianity page. (It is currently about 10,000 words long and still under construction—stay tuned.)
The Proof of People Living at the Time of Christ
Special proof exists for the New Testament, since Christians were strongly persecuted by both the Jews and the Roman government. If the New Testament writings were false, these two groups would have produced a great deal of evidence to stop the growth of this “sect.” None exists. Further, the New Testament writings (before they were assembled into the “book” we call the New Testament) circulated during the lifetimes of thousands of people who had actually seen Jesus’ miracles and other historic events. No one ever refuted the New Testament writings as “fairy tales.”
The Proof of Historians
Secular history supports the Bible. For example, in The Antiquities of the Jews, book 18, chapter 3, paragraph 3 the famous historian Flavius Josephus writes:
“Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works—a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.”
In 115 AD, P. Cornelius Tacitus wrote the following passage that refers to Jesus (called “Christus,” which means “The Messiah”) in book 15, chapter 44 of The Annals:
“Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.”
Yes,bible is true. Scientists refered bible and Proved the past.we can see the things really which are said in the bible.Example:NOHA'S SHIP Which is mentioned in the bible,have been found in the depth of see by the scientists.
Yes,bible is true. Scientists refered bible and Proved the past.we can see the things really which are said in the bible.Example:NOHA'S SHIP Which is mentioned in the bible,have been found in the depth of see by the scientists.
When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)
I was lost in the Darkest parts of my own wicked ways, spiraling down a path of destruction leading me away from His Almighty ways, and all the while im going down ONLY ONE, He could save me. No matter how far i looked on this lowly planet, i never once found a soul who could manage, to show me the love that i truly needed, because on this planet aint nothing but hate and contempt have been breeded. the lowly snake slithering as he goes through the towns of man looking for lowly lowly souls, to feed on so that it could plant it's evil seeds, and so that throughout the generations nothing but evil and hate we could recieve, but those where the ways of the past, my brothers and sisters. the devil had a hold of us and he managed through our parents, down through the generations His ways have been lost, and because of the us, the devil has turned and tossed, We can All be saved, all we need is Thanksgiving, to the One who Above, for All of His Givings. The devils trying to stop me right now as i speak, but Faithful to the Lord and willit He, that i may be meek. Because it is He not i that gives you this message but it is The One that we All should seek. i know that it is hard to find Rest, as we all go through this test some call a game, every single last one of us, probably, training to gain and retain our fame. But That is not what this life is about, i have a Strong feeling that we are All getting our Water from the wrong wrong spout. because thats all the devil has for us is a little bit, of pleasure, then comes the pain. steady feeding our bodies what i see now Is Insane. because ya'll hafto see that we are all carnally minded, and This is the reason The LORD, us he has blinded, binding, ourselves to our own flesh, so that eventually we would All fail this Test. but know that The Lord, He loves us, and wishes nothing but the best, and all He wants is for us to Love Him all the while through this Test. some wonder why we see nadoes and quakes, He needs ya'll to know that its Ya'lls souls that He is trying to shake. and bake if you will, so the devil may not have his fill, to letchya'll know that there is NONE like that ALMIGHTY AND ALL POWERFULL ONE. i say full because Hes filled with Love, like None that we have seen on this lowly earth, but now that i have SEEN, my Eyes have been UnBlinded, and now it is He, He who signs this, letter so maybe that some of Ya'll could listen, and Maybe get the Message that He is trying to dish, out of His spout, so that ya'll might be fed, with all of His Love, His Water, And His Bread. Don't for a second think any of Ya'll are living, All of ya'll are dead and for the devil are you "living" as i sit here and do this all of the "dome" just know that it is Not me and that this is His tomb. He is singing through me in these words and this song, so that maybe one day we All can be free all the day long, and ya'll can say its cheesy if ya'll want, but just know the devil in you he does flaunt x) i had to stop and show ya'll how i felt about that one, cuz its the truth, and right now i have a Strong feeling He is swinging harder than that brother Babe Ruth, or ballin harder than micheal jordan, and in this song he Is Playing His Accordian. Ya'll just need to know that He is our Guardian, and right now im flying Higher than any single air jordan, because my love i gave to Him more than any of Ya'll so i guess i can say more than them. But dont getit twizted like boi's if ya'll know, that me and moreover Him, have a lot to show. we are all brothers and sisters, but i should call us the missers, because we all fail to see the smaller things in this world, without even thinking twice, what truly brings a man alot of happiness or to see the pain that ALOT of us have in us. i know that we are all hurting on the inside, and for ya'll who say we dont, Boi, you know that is a lie, because only with Him and not that evil leech from down south, can we truly fly. higher than the highest of trees or the tallest of mountains, But in Him we Have to trust, so that We may Drink From The One and Only True fountain, only because of Him can i do this for days, and its Because i gave Him my love, thanksgiving, and praise. so now that i have seen what it is truly to be Man, Men of God, all these hater out there who bout to say something aint nuthing more than sod. sorry if it dont make sense, just know that me and Him the latter first, We are just trying to give His children, ya'll some mother lovin cents. forgive me if i pause for no longer am i a vulgar man life is just a beach, and Now, He is playing in the sand, hopefully in the minds of the young, the daughters and sons, i have my holster, and now the Lord is my Gun, Shining Brighter, than a million suns, times two, because His love is True, actually make that twenty twenty, because He is aplenty, in me in you and All, i just hope that ya'll can hear His call, so that maybe that ya'll may not fall, into the Pit, but right now i can say the devil is probably having a fit, of anxiety cuz he is losing his "children" just know that we are God's and with me He has been pilfering, in my mind day and night, as i have been in my room trying to stay out of sight, of ya'll because all it seems like to me, that nothing to ya'll it would please, more, than to see one of your own fellow brother get shot and fall. when i look around me i dont see any real love, this evil surrounds me, but Now i DO NOT CARE, because the Lord, THE LORD, HE has found me. so now ya'll cannot touch, because with His love, im about to bust. with loving Faith and Trust, i put in Him, so that i can be led away from this life of sin, and Now that i have His Trust, my brotha's and sista's, not just the black ones, comeon now, that just is not a must, there is no such thing man, all that is, is nothing more than an evil thought, brought up in vain, so that maybe a man's soul, that leech, can be bought. Quit being evil, for it is Love, that should be sought, out so once again we may be fed from His Spout, for only He can give us what we need so that in the end we may succeed. my brothers and sisters all we need to do is Believe, and then, Anything, together, WE CAN ACHIEVE. this is an ode to ya'll so in hopes once again that ya'll may hear The Call, and will not fall, so one day me, ya'll, and The Almighty,Perfect, like a prefect without the er, Omnipotent, and Patient ONE, that together we May All Ball. and they keep telling me to stop, but i just cant my brothers me and Him are headed to the top, and right now i got The Heart Of A Lion, King, and pray tell me my brothers and sisters who are reading, what single Beast can stop that king? of the jungle we are running but with Him we can be free. out into the open pasture we all can roam, just know this is not me, and that this is His Tomb. its wierd how they're spelled alike but do not rhyme, im talking bout bomb my brothers, and its One of a Kind. in the Hopes that this petty rhyme, can help lead the black sheep, away from the Blind, being themselves, for who? tell me can save them from that? if you dont answer right then your a part of this blight that runs rampant through the streets, evil im talking about and all it wants to do is eat, your souls because it is angry at the Living God, hahahaha for it is nothing more than a sod, on His Cleat as He is Running, Hoping that some of these Words, hit you right in the stomach, and make you sick, but not you, im talking about the evil you, for we are all children of God, but we have made ourselves nothing more than a sod =( i say with a heavy heart, because all this time we have been playing the devil, his part, but with Him it is nothing but a fart, because He Forgives, and Only Through Him may we EVER, get the chance to Live, and im not talking about on the earth, im talking about another, and maybe one day you can see and i can Truly call you my Brother, for there is Life in Death, but it is only gained through this life which is a test, just know that when we die, if you have lived righteously, on that day you will Fly, for the Lord will Breathe His Breath in you when you die and like i said before You Will Fly, but not if you keep eating from the devil's table, for you can only eat from one, and i hope its Not the devil's table. for if we Eat from Him, we can All go back into His Stable, and only in doing that can we Ever truly be stable, only only if, we are eating from, The Living God's Table. and for ya'll who are sitting at your computers steadily dissin Him, i pray for you, because it you are missin, Him and the bigger picture, just know right now im taking a Big Gulp From His Ultimate Pitcher, not one from the MLB, and if you are listening then i pray that you sea, i mean see, but with Him we can fly over the one before, and higher than mike, dunk it in, right for a score, but not for 2 for it is for 3, because He is Holy in me, but atm holy in you, because you missing some parts, we all need to change, so that we may play His Part, that He intended from the Beginning, because only With Him can we ever be winning, but hahahaha not as long as we are sinning. for that is not the way that we was meant to walk, With Him we was mean to Walk and Talk. once again i say this way i, used to, but we choose to live, is insane in the membrane, but He is using me as His Template, lol or templar whichever you prefer, just know that He is Prefect, ha just without the errrr. as i sit here steadily dissin em i mean the demons in the minds of the children of the One and Only, God Who Is Kind, i hope that they depart, so we can All gaze upon The Divine, not like wine or watch, i aint lil wayne, just know that i feel like im the only one who is sane. because i AM NOT PERFECT, do not get the wrong message for that would hurt me, only He is, and He just wants some love from His Kids, but for some odd reason... we still choose to do the evil leeches bids, for i feel he has sucked to much from us, all of our blood, i mean soul, it has tucked from us, and right now He is aiming at it with a Big Ol' Blunderbuss. to shoot it and unleech it, from His Children's Soul's so one day maybe we can gaze upon, That Wonderful City Of Gold, and dont letit peak your in ter ests, for if you do your not getting whats bests, from this test that He has beset, for our minds to ponder and think on, maybe in some of the hearts out there this message is shining, for He is a Beacon of Light, to shine out all the evils, and end this ugly, hateful blight, that courses through our vains, that nasty garbage that makes us feel insane, because no one is living right, and for That NONE is sane. you can talk and sit there and chatter, but i pray and hope that none get fatter, and im not talking because of mcdonalds, im talking about your ego and pride, because We Alll NEED to push that aside, all we seem to do is breed hate and contempt, sitting there looking for another hurt sould to feed on, thinking it makes us content, but just know NOW people, lolol all your doing is letting the devil be your PIMP! ha ha ha i think that really funny, because in the words of man that just makes ya'll some ho's, and please forgive my trespasses my sisters and brothers, for my vulgar words, because i Did Not mean to hurt, He's just trying to keep our faces from being rubbed in the dirt. but it really shouldnt matter because we are mud, and from One we all came, so can i not call ya'll blood??? nah im not talking about them two glock shotta's, im talking bout from The One Who Has Always Got Us, not us as in the navy, i mean us as in the ones who might sit on that bus, the one going to school and to the ones who drool in class, and all of us who needs a kick in the, pause, ya'll know what i mean, im just sitting here trying not be obscene, all im trying to do is get the bigger picture, through ya'll minds so that maybe one day, we can All WALK IN THE LORDS WAY. forgive me if i make any of ya'll mad, if i do know that i Am sad, but how about ya'll just go to the store and go and grab on of them happy hefty bags, you know i meant glad if you didnt you are simple, and forgive me as i sit here and bust this pimple, lol sorry that was nasty just know that i didnt, and know that we are all fake, and its time for some rhino plasty, or however its spelled im just hoping some hearts will melt, like the plastic we are, and become melded into flesh, as i sit here and type in this Soul Food test, for if ya'll can't hear me then your hearts are so cold, forgive me as i trespass, because, uhm, i Am not trying to be bold, im just tryna through some fia atcha hearts, in the hopes that you may leave the Dark, ness not loch just in case thats watchu thought, all you gotta do is leave your flesh behind, and know that He is the one who Should Be Sought, out so we can drank From His Spout, cuz the Lord Knows, man it has been a drought. we are all so thirsty, but in order to be filled its The Lord who must come firsty x) just know that me and Him are going Stooopid, and for those who are real maaan i thoughtchu knew it. and if you dont i pray you haven't already blew it, up i mean your ego, like a balloon, just know right now i feel like taz boi, yup them looney toones, or tunes whichever you prefer, just know that He is Prefect, just without the err. and i say pre because He was always here, yes before you and me, but with Him i wanna letchu know that we can all be as pure, and as white as the snow, just like powder we can all be melted, i mean melded into the beings we were meant to be, so one day we may fly free as a dove, Right over the sea, so that we all can reach New Jerusalem, yup just right where we was all meant to be, that is the Golden City for those who did not, know, im just hoping that one day we can All be as pure as the snow, because the evil has taunted and flaunted and given us a show, to peak i mean perk up our ears and it, that leech i mean, gave us nothing but fears, fears of ourselves and one another, fears from our sisters and daughter, Father, and brothers, but we have a right to Fear the Living God, because to Him we have all become a sod, He is sorrowful and cries as we follow, the evil being, who was never meant to be followed, and i felt His pain at one point in time, yes i Am talking About the Divine, we both cried together, in my room, because of the little things we miss, something just as small as, a heartfelt kiss... for it is the little things that bring us the greatest joy, not some diamond chain, or a, wind up toy, the biggest thing of all that should, is His Love, should bring us the Greatest joy, in the world, for thats all it is man just cars and noise, all the long going our way, Missing the sweetest noise, zes ya'll know what i mean, im talking about the One who is Never obscene, for He is Just And Right, in each and every single way, and for our sins my borhters and sisters, we have to pay, but do not fret for it is never to late, I think we all need to call upon The Divine, and we should All go on a date, do not worry for on this date there is no rape, or murder, or hate, for that is of the devil, and Your Soul it will take, there is no worries once you follow Him, we should all be hand in hand as we walk down this path, called, life Never having to worry about no pain or strife, or for a bigger picture His Wrath, but ONLY IF WE DRINK FROM HIS PITCHER. for The All Powerful and Righteous Wrath, only comes when you stray from His Path, it is there to show us our wrongs...can you feel His Soul as i sit here and Sing His song? and with Him i will NEVER fall, because with my Brother, I will always Hear His Call. i say we but it is Him, who say these words to in the hopes, that those who have an Ear to listen may never Fall, into the Pit, all you have to do is have Faith, Follow The Ten, Believe, and never EVER Quit, for in order to gain His All Perfect and Good Graces, we have to eliminate ALL the Hate and evil, in all sorts of places, i have a feeling this song was wrote long before, just in His mind and now in mine, and i sing His song in the Hopes, that you follow Him and not any of these "popes" for no hope lies in them, lol and if you truly think aboutit that actually rhymed, just know that im thinking of Him, foremost, but ya'll too as i steadily write This Rhyme, it comes from above yup, Straight From the Divine, in the Hopes that one day ya'll can SEE, exactly it was that we was missing, so we can All fly over the sea. Man this thing is long but i should Say God, because this is His Rhyme, and not from a sod, like me or you, if you real you can feel its True, as His Sword aims at the hearts of His good, flying Straight and Through, lol i mean True, but them if you can follow my friend, all we gotta do is sing Praises and Thanksgiving to Him, until the very end, and give Him all of our love, Because WITHOUT HIM, ha There WOULD BE NO LOVE, all there would be is pain and suffering, and i hope that the ones who are, suffer, i mean acating, Might actually stop and take the time to sit there and be debating, against the devil of course, cuz all it wants to do is, lead us, right, or left, but straight off our course. Lord Please Forgive me, if i am being coarse just know that i am your back, and You Are My Horse, lol ya'll might think He's heavy but He's really not, and i Love Him till Death, i mean Life, cuz i have found It, but back to the point, because i HE HAS TAUGHT, never went to church or none of that, maybe when i was younger but none of that, for our minds our are churches, ha gotit backwards but i feel as tall as the burches, talking bout them trees man im over the seas man, just know i cant, wait, My Father, until You Kick Over My Can Man x) aw man i thoughit was funny, because he's One Cool Dude, and i am His, Bunny, i mean Collie, and know that as i, i mean He, but as i bark, that i have a Strong feeling, that i am playing my Part, or His i prefer the latter but the choice is yurs, because it is His Puzzle, and i am the last part, i cant be for certain because the Knowledge is His, but im just trying to bring His Black Sheep back, you know i mean His KIDS, He thoughtit was funny, But ya'll best Believe that He NOR i the first comes first, but neither one of us is No, pause, Dummy, lol but if you choose you can beat and bite, whatever you do just know it is out of spite, and i dont capitilize because its an evil word, just know me and HIM, are trying to end this wrongful blight, and saying these words i Hope that maybe, just maybe some can be given the Sight, that HE intended us to have, right, from Go, talking bout monopoly,lol but no no more, from the start maaaan all HE ever wanted was us to give our heart, which is HIS, because He gave to us, All that is HIS, HE just Wanted someone to talk to man, thats why HE made HIS Kids, HE was all alone, and then HE built, a Beautiful place for us, and HIM, to walk and talk all the while, just laughing and talking, seeing eachother smile =) because HE is our FATHER, He's not as mean ha as ya'll would believe, just know that HE TRULY IS ONE BENEVOLENT KING. lol ha ha i think this is funny, He knows what im talking about, cuz this is all of the top of the dome with barely a second to pause, Just Know the THE LION KING, Has Opened HIS Claws, Blessed be the children who took the time to listen, to the message that a, and The King is steadily dishin, i say a because i am one too, but know that im a servant, and from a Seed i did Grew, i dont care if it makes no sense to ya'll because i have heard the Lords Call, and they, they know who they are, are always listening, and as He types, through, me i have a feeling they are about to call, Prayer is the Best Wireless Connection X) aint no service down here got that type of Connection, i just hope that i get to see some of ya'll at that intersection, i mean Crossroads, bone thugz n harmony, they said it first, man thats the song man and if you feel their soul, then maybe you should hurt, because those bois on the streets back in the day, all they was doing was searching for some Peace, but in the streets, the oppressors, following the devil, have no love for us in the slums, just know that we All have a Holster and God Is our Gun, we dont need no metal, for The Lord our issues HE will settle, all you gotta do is Have some Faith, saying this in hope that some dont see any wraiths, talking demons people come now and please listen, as the Lord spits his song and these Words HE is dishin, out yup you getting it word of mouf, lol or mouth whichever you prefer just DONT follow that lowly snake, yup the one down south, it might try and offer pleasure and happiness butits all fake, HA what do ya'll expect from a lowly snake? remeber eve as she sat under that tree? sitting there thinking and feeling the breeze? the snake spoke in her Ear temptation it did bring, and after teel me WHO did she fear? she had a split second of happiness and thats all it can give, and after that she felt the WRATH which is ONLY HIS, lol i hope that ya'll see, the way we live people, it just wasn't meant to be, i have a feeling that there all up there laughing, with, not at me as i type out His message, and i pray ALMIGHTY FATHER, THE ONES WHO HAVE AN EAR TO LISTEN PLEASE FATHER PLEASE LET THE HEAR. and the ones who dont i pray you dont hit him hard, maybe just a little tap, just like Babe Ruth, on that baseball card x) Peace be with you my sisters and brothers, just know that HIS LOVE IS LIKE NO OTHER, GOD BLESS ALL WHO FINISHED, AND I PRAY YOUR SOULS NEVER, DIMINISH. ONE HEART IS ALL, AND WITH THAT HEART WE CAN NEVER FALL, lol i said i was finished, but i dont think HE is as you can tell this words are not mine, THEY COME FROM THE UPPER BEING, yup THE DIVINE!!! i think im going to cut Him short and please Forgive me, because i know HE could go all day, BECAUSE I CAN FEEL HIM IN ME.
It is really shocking to realise that people waste their entire lives - short as they are - believing this crap. All I keep thinking is "What a WASTE!"
Think about it. Living your one and only short little life devoted to a fantasy figure.
Thanks for the friggin book, i doubt that many people want to sit and read the damn dramatic story of your salvation. It's almost as long as the bible.
It can't be 100% true, even the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John contradict each other in places. Such as the birth place of Jesus etc. You have to take your own interpretation of the Bible, and you can't call any interpretation 100% true.
Unfortunately, we do not have the original scriptures. We have copies of copies of copies, but not the originals themselves. What we see is that some of the passages we have in the current form of the Bible are not found in our earliest manuscripts. Let me show you two passages.
The first scripture is the ending to Mark. If you take a look at Mark 16, you'll find that there is a short ending (ending at verse 8), and an ending that continues through verse 20. If the book that you hold in your hands is the inspired innerant word of god, then why would there be two endings? Why would we not know which one it is? Our earliest most reliable manuscripts say it ends at 8. This seems to be evidence that scribes through the ages added to the Bible.
Another example of this is John 7:53 - 8:11, when Jesus says "all of you without sin, cast the first stone," to the Jewish leaders who want to stone the woman caught in adultery. This is a cherished story by many people, and I remember that I used to love this story. Many of our earliest manuscripts don't include this story. Why? I believe it is because it was added through the years by scribes with an agenda.
Well, the Bible contains a passage in Leviticus, which counts Bats as members of the Bird (Aves) class, when they are Rodents (Mammalia). We can, thus, assert that literally - at least - one thing in the Bible is not only not true, but not factual.
Bats are not rodents. They are a different class entirely.
(Leviticus 11:13-19) - "These, moreover, you shall detest among the birds; they are abhorrent, not to be eaten: the eagle and the vulture and the buzzard, 14and the kite and the falcon in its kind, 15every raven in its kind, 16 and the ostrich and the owl and the sea gull and the hawk in its kind, 17and the little owl and the cormorant and the great owl, 18and the white owl and the pelican and the carrion vulture, 19and the stork, the heron in its kinds, and the hoopoe, and the bat."
In verse 13 Moses tells us about the birds and then he lists them out. In verse 19 we see the bat is included in this list. We know that a bat is not a bird. Does this not mean that the Bible is incorrect?
The Bible is not meant to be a scientific description of modern biological categories. Instead, it is often written from the perspective of what we see. In other words, it makes generic categorizations. In this case, the bat is categorized as a bird because like birds, it flies and is similar in size to most birds. If we did not know that it was a mammal, it would be natural to call it a bird. To the Hebrew of ancient times, calling it a bird was perfectly logical. But, in modern times we categorize animal species more specifically, and have categorized the bat as a mammal and not a bird.
Also, we must be aware that it is modern science that has a different classification system than ancient times. To the ancients, creatures such as a bat were considered birds since they categorized all flying animals as birds. If that is the category that they used, then they were correct. It is not an error. It is a difference of categorization procedures. The critic has imposed upon the ancient text a modern system of categorization and then said that the Bible is wrong. This is a big error in thinking.
Show me a verse that says the world is flat. What you believe about radiometric dating, and what I believe (the absurdity of constant decay rates, which we observe to change as early as the 1800s). Because of your presuppestions you won't accept the Bible. But if your claim of the age of the world and being round, then I want to see where this contradicts the Bible. If you say there is error in God's word then you will have to show me. Don't just vomit up accusations you are repeating from other lunatics, give me the evidence!!
I quoted them to you in an earlier rebuttal. Apparently god's word is inerrant when you only wish it to be so, otherwise it is metaphor and ignorable.
What you believe about radiometric dating, and what I believe (the absurdity of constant decay rates, which we observe to change as early as the 1800s).
Because of your presuppestions you won't accept the Bible.
The bible is a book of presuppositions called dogma, which by the very definition of close-mindedness cannot change due to new facts. That you deny radiometric dating is proof of this.
But if your claim of the age of the world and being round, then I want to see where this contradicts the Bible.
The world is dated at over four gigayears, using radiometric dating. The world is spherical, not flat, as implied in biblical cosmology.
If you say there is error in God's word then you will have to show me. Don't just vomit up accusations you are repeating from other lunatics, give me the evidence!!
People do not walk on water. People do not rise from the dead (when they are literally dead, not just organ failure). People do not survive in giant fish. Demons do not possess others or exist. We are evolved, not created. Virgins cannot give birth. There was no worldwide flood. Etc.
It is a little long and you may not have time for the whole thing (but I hope you do). This section is a nice summation of why radiometric dating methods are reliable:
" There are well over forty different radiometric dating methods, and scores of other methods such as tree rings and ice cores.
All of the different dating methods agree--they agree a great majority of the time over millions of years of time. Some Christians make it sound like there is a lot of disagreement, but this is not the case. The disagreement in values needed to support the position of young-Earth proponents would require differences in age measured by orders of magnitude (e.g., factors of 10,000, 100,000, a million, or more). The differences actually found in the scientific literature are usually close to the margin of error, usually a few percent, not orders of magnitude!
Vast amounts of data overwhelmingly favor an old Earth. Several hundred laboratories around the world are active in radiometric dating. Their results consistently agree with an old Earth. Over a thousand papers on radiometric dating were published in scientifically recognized journals in the last year, and hundreds of thousands of dates have been published in the last 50 years. Essentially all of these strongly favor an old Earth.
Radioactive decay rates have been measured for over sixty years now for many of the decay clocks without any observed changes. And it has been close to a hundred years since the uranium-238 decay rate was first determined.
Both long-range and short-range dating methods have been successfully verified by dating lavas of historically known ages over a range of several thousand years.
The mathematics for determining the ages from the observations is relatively simple."
It would also be worth reading the "APPENDIX: Common Misconceptions Regarding Radiometric Dating Methods" portion.
It is worth noting that the person who wrote this is both a physicist with expertise in the area AND a Christian, and that this was aimed at Christians to help clear up misconceptions.
Now that two of us have cited sources that conflict with your assessment, it is high time you link to a reliable source, at least if you still support your statements regarding radiometric dating.
"And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.". This would only be possible on a flat Earth.
Because of your presuppestions you won't accept the Bible.
Whatever a "presuppestion" is, we do not accept the Bible because it contains numerous factual errors.
But if your claim of the age of the world and being round, then I want to see where this contradicts the Bible.
We have already provided the relevant information.
If you say there is error in God's word then you will have to show me.
We have shown you.
Don't just vomit up accusations you are repeating from other lunatics, give me the evidence!!
We have given you the evidence. Whether you decide to accept it or not is your prerogative.
"And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.". This would only be possible on a flat Earth."
You don't seem to grasp the concept of prophetic dreams using symbolism. Read the context it is quoted in, don't just copy a verse out of context without an explanation.
"Whatever a "presuppestion" is, we do not accept the Bible because it contains numerous factual errors."
I am sorry I mispelled presupposition, and that is a bias toward evidence based on pre-concieved notions. Everyone has a bias this is true.
"We have given you the evidence."
Who is this we? I think that either you are suffering from a personality disorder, are a maniac, or just very deluded. In your other post you state you are too young to be in the profession of scientist. Maybe once you (how ever many there are of you) step out of your childhood home and establish relationships with others your world view would improve.
You don't seem to grasp the concept of prophetic dreams using symbolism.
Symbolism is not compatible with 100% veracity.
I am sorry I mispelled presupposition, and that is a bias toward evidence based on pre-concieved notions.
I consider it quite remarkable that you should presume to explain a word to me.
Everyone has a bias this is true.
I'm unsure as to whether you think this statement helps your cause, but it does in fact work to weaken it.
I think that either you are suffering from a personality disorder, are a maniac, or just very deluded.
I suspect it may be all three. Most definitely the second, though I prefer the term "lunatic". As for the deluded part, speak for yourself. I am not the one who believes that humans were created some six thousand years ago by a deity.
Maybe once you (how ever many there are of you) step out of your childhood home and establish relationships with others your world view would improve.
My world view is quite rational actually. If there is no evidence to suggest that something exists, there is no reason to believe that it does.
Scripture contains a number of different kinds of literature: historical narrative, poetry, parable, epistles (teaching letters), and prophecy. If a passage of Scripture is clearly historical, then we must remember that its purpose is to describe things that actually happened. If a passage is poetic, then we should expect figurative language. Psalm 104, for example, says that God “makes the clouds his chariot” (v. 3), but in light of other Scriptures about God we know that the psalmist here is using a metaphor rather than stating a literal fact.
Prophecy is perhaps the most difficult type of passage to interpret. When faced with prophecy in Scripture, it is important to understand the circumstances behind the prophecy and the relevance to the prophet's own day. The most helpful guide for our understanding of Old Testament prophecy is the way it is explained in the New Testament.
If a passage of Scripture is clearly historical, then we must remember that its purpose is to describe things that actually happened.
That is not pertinent. The premise is that the Bible is "100% true". Multiple instances which prove this to be false have been given in this debate, and you now simply attempting to appear intelligent by suggesting that one "looks past the metaphors". The conversion of scripture to metaphor is simply the byproduct of losing territory to rational thinkers, as we have in the past observed with "Genesis". It is merely a smokescreen which attempts to hide the fact that the Christians have misinterpreted their own holy book for centuries.
You really don't understand the way the Bible is written at all. I just explained to you the styels in which it is written. I am unsure you understand what metaphor is, maybe you should research it.
"The conversion of scripture to metaphor is simply the byproduct of losing territory to rational thinkers...."
This is not the case at all. You make assumptions about how the book is read. You need to only read a passage of Psalms to see the biblical poetry. Although I have already explained this to you. If this seems to difficult to understand, perhaps you should take a class on poetic literature to comprehend the meaning of a metaphor.
You really don't understand the way the Bible is written at all.
Patently incorrect.
I just explained to you the styels in which it is written.
I habitually reject the interpretations of persons unable to spell styles.
I am unsure you understand what metaphor is, maybe you should research it.
I am fully sensible of what a metaphor is. However, Biblical metaphors represent ideas, which cannot be labelled true or false. Thus it is impossible to state that the Bible is "100%" true, which is the salient issue.
This is not the case at all. You make assumptions about how the book is read. You need to only read a passage of Psalms to see the biblical poetry.
You have not defended yourself, you have simply accused me of ignorance. I shall banish this notion now:
SONNET 141
By William Shakespeare
"In faith, I do not love thee with mine eyes,
For they in thee a thousand errors note;
But 'tis my heart that loves what they despise,
Who in despite of view is pleased to dote;
Nor are mine ears with thy tongue's tune delighted,
Nor tender feeling, to base touches prone,
Nor taste, nor smell, desire to be invited
To any sensual feast with thee alone:
But my five wits nor my five senses can
Dissuade one foolish heart from serving thee,
Who leaves unsway'd the likeness of a man,
Thy proud hearts slave and vassal wretch to be:
Only my plague thus far I count my gain,
That she that makes me sin awards me pain.
".
We shall observe the first quatrain. The poet claims to note 1000 errors in the appearance of his lover. Are we to take this to be true, or as hyperbole? I should favour the latter. When the poet claims to love with his heart, he is using symbolism; he is not stating a fact. Personification is noted when he claims that his heart "dotes" upon his love.
Now, that primitive analysis done, we can see that the first quatrain is not 100% true. It is exaggerated and poetic. The idea behind it may be true, but the claims are not. Thus we can say of the phrase (and I have invented this, but the idea is sound) God commanded humanity to love each other equally. The claim is, in my understanding, incorrect, but the idea behind it is sound.
That is the difference between being 100% correct and being poetically correct.
If this seems to difficult to understand, perhaps you should take a class on poetic literature to comprehend the meaning of a metaphor.
To those others reading this, and those who know me well enough to make such comments, you must look like a total fool by now. Indeed, I think you would suit the role of Polonius very well indeed, given the nature of your insight into the souls of other men.
Of course, given your evidently exemplary literary education, I cannot imagine that you shall fail to take my meaning.
"You have not defended yourself, you have simply accused me of ignorance. I shall banish this notion now"
And you have confirmed your ignorance by refusing to adhere to the evidence.
"I habitually reject the interpretations of persons unable to spell styles."
Apparently you have never hesrd of typos, it happens from time to time as people are fallible.
Correction: hesrd to heard
You speak of literary expertise, yet you don't graps poetic symbolism written in the Bible. Either that or you blatantly refuse to recognize one of your many mistakes. Except that of course of appearing pompous and "100%" out of your under developed mind.
And you have confirmed your ignorance by refusing to adhere to the evidence.
What adherence is possible, when you have provided none? Rather than provide some shred of evidence to substantiate your beliefs, you have proceeded to quibble over poetic interpretation, which I have already explained does not equate to veracity.
Apparently you have never hesrd of typos, it happens from time to time as people are fallible.
Then I submit that as the Bible was written by people (who, as you say, are fallible), it is impossible for it to be 100% correct. You shall no doubt say that they were inspired by God, or some such thing, but you cannot provide any evidence of that, so I urge you not to make that mistake.
You speak of literary expertise, yet you don't graps poetic symbolism written in the Bible.
As explained, the interpretation is entirely separate to the Bible's veracity.
Either that or you blatantly refuse to recognize one of your many mistakes.
I should like to see an example of these so proliferate mistakes.
Except that of course of appearing pompous and "100%" out of your under developed mind.
Correct on two counts. I am pompous. I am quite mad. What I am not is underdeveloped (there is no hyphen or space). No doubt you shall be unable to substantiate this claim either, but will no doubt proceed to waste my time by arguing the point without evidencing it.
"What adherence is possible, when you have provided none? Rather than provide some shred of evidence to substantiate your beliefs, you have proceeded to quibble over poetic interpretation, which I have already explained does not equate to veracity."
I have provided the evidence to you in my previous posts. Your evidence was that of Shakesphere, which was written thousands of years after the verse you quoted for a flat world.
Veracity doesn't apply to the context in which the psalmist has written. We know this by other poems that have been written in the Bible. Jesus himself spoke in parables many times, so not all of what the Bible says is to be literal.
"What I am not is underdeveloped (there is no hyphen or space)."
By your own admission, you are too young to be a professional scientist. And the fact that you are mentally unstable. Therefore I (only one person) submit this evidence to assume you are an underdeveloped (thank you grammar police) person/mind.
I have provided the evidence to you in my previous posts.
I observe that you were unwilling or unable to quote it.
Your evidence was that of Shakesphere, which was written thousands of years after the verse you quoted for a flat world.
Less than two thousand, so remove that s. That is a silly position to take; poetic techniques are the same regardless of when they were written. By the same logic you displayed here, one could say that Pythagoras' Theorem is incorrect because it was written two millennia ago.
Veracity doesn't apply to the context in which the psalmist has written.
This is close to my point. This is a debate about veracity; poetic interpretation is moot.
By your own admission, you are too young to be a professional scientist.
Age is not relevant to whether one is underdeveloped.
And the fact that you are mentally unstable.
You believe in magic. In my mind, that makes you mentally unstable.
Therefore I (only one person)
One of you is enough.
submit this evidence to assume you are an underdeveloped
As aforesaid, it is not evidence. The sentence should have read upon which I base the assumption, by the way. I would have thought a person of such obviously superior literary and scientific education as yours would have known that.
thank you grammar police
I prefer the term Grammar Nazi. Heil Grammatik!
you are an underdeveloped... person/mind.
If the only basis you have for gauging my mental development is my age, I suggest you abandon your analysis.
Another example of the Bible being factually inaccurate.
Matthew 13:31-32
God's Perfect World is like a mustard seed that someone took and sowed in his field; it is the smallest of all the seeds, but when it has grown it is the greatest of shrubs and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and make nests in its branches.
Yes, the Earth is round ... but the Bible never says it's flat.
When the Bible talks about the 'four corners' of the Earth, it's talking about the whole earth, or sometimes the four cardinal directions. The ancient Greeks, around the time parts of the Bible were being written, knew the Earth was flat due to different angles of shadows at different places. They even tried to roughly calculate the circumference and diameter of the planet via geometry. Why would a culture who thought the Earth was flat even try?
The age of the earth does not necessarily prove the bible true, is it not possible that perhaps the principle of uniformitariansim does not extend through all time? Then this would mean that the Earth could be as old as you say or not. The principle of unoformitarinism is an assumption one that cannot necessarily be trusted.
The age of the earth does not necessarily prove the bible true, is it not possible that perhaps the principle of uniformitariansim does not extend through all time?
Whatever you are talking about, it is irrelevant. The Bible puts the creation of the Earth at just a few days before the creation of man. Relative to that starting point, the Bible is wrong, as the Earth existed for billions of years before any life evolved at all.
However, to suggest that an argument, which amounts to little more than "they did it their way, therefore they were correct according to themselves" satisfyingly absolves the Bibble of its error is mindboggling. It doesn't. It only means that they were wrong in their own way. And it's as simple as that.
This should settle the bat and bird argument. If not then let me know what any of you come up with that is better then the hebrew Lexicon I await your evidence.
Moses, who was one of the most-learned in Egypt, has been attacked in several cases to undermine biblical authority. This is another of those attacks to get people to doubt that God was speaking through Moses. Let’s evaluate such a claim in more detail. The passage reads:
Leviticus 11:13–19
These are the birds [05775 Pwe ‘owph] you are to detest and not eat because they are detestable: the eagle, the vulture, the black vulture, the red kite, any kind of black kite, any kind of raven, the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk, the little owl, the cormorant, the great owl, the white owl, the desert owl, the osprey, the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat.
The Hebrew word for bird is actually owph which means “fowl/winged creature.”1 The word owph simply means “to fly” or “has a wing.” So, the word includes birds, bats, and even flying insects. The alleged problem appears due to translation of owph as bird. Birds are included in the word owph, but owph is not limited to birds. This shows that translators aren't always perfect when handling the inerrant Word of God.
F. Brown, S. Driver, and C. Briggs, The Brown-Driver-Brigg Hebrew and English Lexicon, 9th printing (Hendrickson Publishers, September 2005), p. 773
This also according to "The Brown-Driver-Brigg Hebrew and English Lexicon" which is highest reference of hebrew to english. If you have a more renowned source I would like to see it. Although "do it in hebrew.com" seems much more legitimate. I am beginning to think you have a "severe" learning disability.
All you've done is left us at the same, intractable juncture where we began: bats being in the same class as birds. Nothing has been settled. Explaining why the factual incorrectness is there does not make it any less factually incorrect. If the Bible contains things that are factually incorrect, then it is not 100% true. End of discussion.
What I have shown you is the hebrew language does not discern animals the same way biology does. In the hebrew language it means a "winged-creature" birds and bats have wings even insects do. That is the point here. If this is too complex for you, maybe debatting on such things should be avoided by you in the future. We are debatting the translation from hebrew to english not biology. This should be easy to understand.
Given the context of the debate (concerning bats), I could not help but notice this rather whimsical misspelling giving rise to an inadvertent pun. How delightful. There is some useful product of your inane ramblings after all.
In verse 13 Moses tells us about the birds and then he lists them out. In verse 19 we see the bat is included in this list. We know that a bat is not a bird. Does this not mean that the Bible is incorrect?
The Bible is not meant to be a scientific description of modern biological categories.
Yes, because it is scientifically errant. Even so, many people foolishly take the bible to supersede scientific facts (such as yourself).
Instead, it is often written from the perspective of what we see. In other words, it makes generic categorizations.
Yes, precisely as we would expect from a book that was written by men at such time in history. If it were "divinely inspired" it would not be limited to such fallible perspectives.
So for whatever reason you might devise, the bible does contain errors.
The Bible does not contains errors. Your scientific facts constantly change, whereas the word of God does not.
Scripture contains a number of different kinds of literature: historical narrative, poetry, parable, epistles (teaching letters), and prophecy. If a passage of Scripture is clearly historical, then we must remember that its purpose is to describe things that actually happened. If a passage is poetic, then we should expect figurative language. Psalm 104, for example, says that God “makes the clouds his chariot” (v. 3), but in light of other Scriptures about God we know that the psalmist here is using a metaphor rather than stating a literal fact.
Prophecy is perhaps the most difficult type of passage to interpret. When faced with prophecy in Scripture, it is important to understand the circumstances behind the prophecy and the relevance to the prophet's own day. The most helpful guide for our understanding of Old Testament prophecy is the way it is explained in the New Testament.
One thing you have to understand about english translations is the men would try to relate certain words to the understanding of the reader. This is why you can't judge an english translation to be a bases for error from the original hebrew.
In hebrew the word owph means "winged creature" this is not a scientific error. Do birds and bats have wings? (this is where you nod your head) Classifying birds and bats seperately is something we do based on genetic biology. If they used the word "insane" to describe unbelievers we wouldn't be wrong. Just because we classify them by evolutionists, atheists, and immoral doesn't mean these statements aren't true.
Just remember owph means "winged creature" or "to fly" in hebrew. If you can do that our discussion should be able to progress.
The Bible does not contains errors. A statement of faith. Undeterred by reality.
The sun is much older than the earth, contrary to what the bible says. This is one of many errors that I could point out.
Your scientific facts constantly change, whereas the word of God does not. No one claims science is infallible. But science is the most accurate and reliable method of discovering the truths around us. Science is refined, it becomes more accurate over time. The reliability of science is experienced firsthand every time you turn on your computer, and every time you turn on a light switch.
In my years I have discovered that those who claim to have "the truth" are usually the furthest from it, as such overt confidence can never be based rationally but emotionally. They believe in a truth so strongly because they "need" it to be true. Emotion blinds us to truth. This is why truth must be found using reason and evidence.
Religion is the bane of true understanding.
The bible contains errors because it was written by men, everything that has felt the touch of man's influence contains some degree of fallibility. Even if there is a single perfect truth (I doubt it), it could never be expressed or interpreted by any man without being influenced by man's own bias, prejudices, mis-communications and desires.
Again you have not provided evidence, also, hasn't the world changed over years? So even if there is not enough water now couldn't of there been enough water back then. Another thing, if God was the one to do, wouldn't he be able to make as much water to flood the earth because he is God.
Evidence :
Fossils don't form on lake bottoms today, nor are they found forming on the bottom of the sea. Instead, they normally only form when a plant or animal is buried soon after it dies. Therefore, the fossils themselves are evidence of a catastrophe such as a flood or volcanic eruption that took place in the past.
As we observe sedimentary strata throughout the world we see almost everywhere flat-lying (or "pancake") layered strata. Many of these layers are so extensive that they cover several states. Evolutionists believe that such layers were deposited slowly over millions and millions of years, or that they are simply "river" deposits or river deltas. Creationists, and a growing number of geologists see problems with such interpretations. First because there is virtually no evidence of erosion between the layers, and second, because the sheer size and extent of the strata suggests that the layers were neither formed by rivers, or river deltas. That's because many of the "layers" are quite thick, and cover (literally) hundreds and even thousands of square miles, and in many instances are the size of the state of Utah, or even larger.
Again you have not provided evidence, also, hasn't the world changed over years? So even if there is not enough water now couldn't of there been enough water back then.
Conservation of mass. More specifically, if there was enough water to cover the Earth four thousand years ago, then where did it go?
Another thing, if God was the one to do, wouldn't he be able to make as much water to flood the earth because he is God.
You defeat the basis of debate when you invoke magic to solve logical and physical contradictions.
Fossils don't form on lake bottoms today, nor are they found forming on the bottom of the sea. Instead, they normally only form when a plant or animal is buried soon after it dies. Therefore, the fossils themselves are evidence of a catastrophe such as a flood or volcanic eruption that took place in the past.
Fossils form in layers, with the deepest layers being oldest. There is no single layer of fossils dated at four thousand years which contains all life of that era without a gradient. Further as stated before, a worldwide flood would extinguish all life on Earth. In other words there is no recovery from it.
Creationists, and a growing number of geologists see problems with such interpretations. First because there is virtually no evidence of erosion between the layers, and second, because the sheer size and extent of the strata suggests that the layers were neither formed by rivers, or river deltas. That's because many of the "layers" are quite thick, and cover (literally) hundreds and even thousands of square miles, and in many instances are the size of the state of Utah, or even larger.
Creationists are the only people that reject modern science in favour of magical explanations which are incongruous with the evidence and basic logic. If a worldwide flood happened, then the water must have existed beforehand in some state. It must also have continued to exist after the flood on Earth in some state. There is no excess of water on Earth that would allow a flood to occur which could cover all of Earth. Secondly, there is no fossil evidence of a worldwide catastrophe that ended all life on Earth, recently. The last great extinction event was over sixty million years ago. Third, a worldwide flood would end all life, including aqualife, permanently. Subsequently there can be no way to survive such a flood with the Earth's ecosystem destroyed.
" Further as stated before, a worldwide flood would extinguish all life on Earth. In other words there is no recovery from it."
-You forgot that Noah had an ark that had all the animals on it. So that is why we are still here.
You also said,
"Creationists are the only people that reject modern science in favor of magical explanations which are incongruous with the evidence and basic logic"
I gave you evidence and basic logic.
In the Bible it said that the water came up from the ground also. Which means all the moisture in the ground. That is definitely enough water to cover the earth.
"More specifically, if there was enough water to cover the Earth four thousand years ago, then where did it go?"
It didn't go anywhere we still have enough water to cover the earth today. Also, many,many more mountains have formed so it would be alittle more tough to cover the earth today like it did back in the day but it is still possible.
"Fossils form in layers, with the deepest layers being oldest. There is no single layer of fossils dated at four thousand years which contains all life of that era without a gradient."
-How exactly can they date these rocks? This is a different debate because one side can show proof that they have been dated billions of years ago and another side can debate that they have been dated a million years ago. Truth is that no one can really no the facts on that.
-You forgot that Noah had an ark that had all the animals on it. So that is why we are still here.
No, I didn't forget it. Ark or not, a destroyed ecosystem is unrecoverable. It wouldn't matter if Noah had an Ark a thousand times larger than described, without a proper ecosystem, there is no oxygen or food to support life.
I gave you evidence and basic logic.
No you didn't. You just denied conservation of mass and invoked god.
In the Bible it said that the water came up from the ground also. Which means all the moisture in the ground. That is definitely enough water to cover the earth.
Again, conservation of mass. The Earth has a crust made up of heavy elements, with a dense metal core. There would not be water of this scale hidden in the crust because this violates the nature of gravity in that it sorts matter by mass, and water being lighter than the heavy elements should not be buried deep beneath them. This is why we don't have a canopy of water in the sky, or castles in the clouds.
Besides the more obvious point: conservation of mass. If the water flooded the Earth, then it must remain there. Also the entire crust must shift from the displaced mass which you allege. You are not obeying physics.
It didn't go anywhere we still have enough water to cover the earth today. Also, many,many more mountains have formed so it would be alittle more tough to cover the earth today like it did back in the day but it is still possible.
Water is a fluid which deforms to fit the surface which it occupies. If it didn't go anywhere then the Earth must remain flooded. This is the property of fluids.
-How exactly can they date these rocks? This is a different debate because one side can show proof that they have been dated billions of years ago and another side can debate that they have been dated a million years ago. Truth is that no one can really no the facts on that.
If you are dating fossils that are less than 50000-70000 years old, which retain some organic molecules, you may use Carbon-14 dating. If you are dating fossils which are older, or do not contain organic matter, you may use potassium-argon or rubidium-strontium to date the adjoining rocks. If you are using relative dating, you may date using index fossils and the depth of your fossil relative to it, thus giving a correlated age since deeper is generally older.
Do not rely on creationist misinformation. Read the actual science.
"If you are dating fossils that are less than 50000-70000 years old, which retain some organic molecules, you may use Carbon-14 dating. If you are dating fossils which are older, or do not contain organic matter, you may use potassium-argon or rubidium-strontium to date the adjoining rocks. If you are using relative dating, you may date using index fossils and the depth of your fossil relative to it, thus giving a correlated age since deeper is generally older."
so i figured i'd check out fossil dating... and from what i understand... they don't actually test the fossil... they date it according to how far down it's buried and what rocks are near it...
"The oldest method is stratigraphy, studying how deeply a fossil is buried. Dinosaur fossils are usually found in sedimentary rock. Sedimentary rock layers (strata) are formed episodically as earth is deposited horizontally over time. Newer layers are formed on top of older layers, pressurizing them into rocks. Paleontologists can estimate the amount of time that has passed since the stratum containing the fossil was formed. Generally, deeper rocks and fossils are older than those found above them.
Observations of the fluctuations of the Earth's magnetic field, which leaves different magnetic fields in rocks from different geological eras.
Dating a fossil in terms of approximately how many years old it is can be possible using radioisotope-dating of igneous rocks found near the fossil. Unstable radioactive isotopes of elements, such as Uranium-235, decay at constant, known rates over time (its half-life, which is over 700 million years). An accurate estimate of the rock's age can be determined by examining the ratios of the remaining radioactive element and its daughters. For example, when lava cools, it has no lead content but it does contain some radioactive Uranium (U-235). Over time, the unstable radioactive Uranium decays into its daughter, Lead-207, at a constant, known rate (its half-life). By comparing the relative proportion of Uranium-235 and Lead-207, the age of the igneous rock can be determined. Potassium-40 (which decays to argon-40) is also used to date fossils. "
"Radioisotope dating cannot be used directly on fossils since they don't contain the unstable radioactive isotopes used in the dating process. To determine a fossil's age, igneous layers (volcanic rock) beneath the fossil (predating the fossil) and above it (representing a time after the dinosaur's existence) are dated, resulting in a time-range for the dinosaur's life. Thus, dinosaurs are dated with respect to volcanic eruptions. "
bascially what i gather from this... it's just a long drawn out way of making a guess?
from what i figure... if tectonic plates shift... wouldn't it be possible for fossils to move further down in the earth? or if something collapsed on a person... and they are found 200 years from now... would they be dated at millions of years old?
how exactly is dating rocks an accurate way of testing the age of fossils?
isn't it possible that they could be wrong?
TrueThat said earlier that they found "soft tissue" in dinosaur bones... and maybe they should look closer at the how they date the age of dinos... instead of trying to figure out how "soft tissue" can survive as long as it has...
after further investigating the dating system... i really think they should take a closer look at the dating of fossils...
if it turns out their dating system is off...
1) how would it effect the theory of evolution?
2) would you still have faith in science if it turns out that the fossils were millions of years younger?
3) if the fossils were millions of years younger, would you still think evolution is correct?
There is some science for you. I believed you were misinformed by the evolutionist.
so i figured i'd check out fossil dating... and from what i understand... they don't actually test the fossil... they date it according to how far down it's buried and what rocks are near it...
Correct, basically.
bascially what i gather from this... it's just a long drawn out way of making a guess?
I don't know how you came to that conclusion, unless you expect that the fossils materialised into foreign rock layers, it is a very clever solution to determining age.
from what i figure... if tectonic plates shift... wouldn't it be possible for fossils to move further down in the earth? or if something collapsed on a person... and they are found 200 years from now... would they be dated at millions of years old?
As I understand it, fossils form in sedimentary rock, meaning that "new" stone forms around the preserved remains while converting it into fossilised remains. In this case the sedimentary layers are dated to be as old as their parent igneous rocks, which gives a time frame to the age of the sedimentary rock. Fossils are not found in igneous or metamorphic rock, which is the basis of your hypothetical situation. It wouldn't fit if we found remains trapped beneath metamorphic or igneous rocks, and as I understand it the remains wouldn't fossilise in the first place since the rocks are not the environment of mud and silt which is conducive to the process.
how exactly is dating rocks an accurate way of testing the age of fossils?
Sedimentary rocks form slowly over time and are the only type of rocks which contain fossils. The sediment contains the isotope ratios from the time of their parent igneous rock's formation (because igneous rocks trap the necessary radioactive isotopes), these igneous rocks within a time frame will break down into sediment which forms the layers of sedimentary rock which traps fossils. Therefore we have a reasonable way to infer the fossil's age (age of sedimentary rock minus the time it takes igneous rock to decay into sedimentary rock).
isn't it possible that they could be wrong?
There are always ways to make mistakes, likewise these ways are documented in scientific journals so as to prevent these mistakes from happening.
TrueThat said earlier that they found "soft tissue" in dinosaur bones... and maybe they should look closer at the how they date the age of dinos... instead of trying to figure out how "soft tissue" can survive as long as it has...
No, they never found soft tissue as you're thinking, they had to demineralise the tissues first. Secondly the fossils were dated as 68 million years old for the T. rex specimen. Creationist literature hijacked this research and misrepresented the process so that it appeared to suggest that unfossilised tissues were found in these fossils.
after further investigating the dating system... i really think they should take a closer look at the dating of fossils...
if it turns out their dating system is off...
Never trust creationist literature. You need to read the source.
The source says that the fossils were 68 million years old, and that the tissues required demineralisation.
1) how would it effect the theory of evolution?
Not much since the theory doesn't hinge on this. It is established that we are genetically related and descended from simpler animals. The fossil record mostly agrees with our genetic data. Quibbling over a T. rex isn't very big.
2) would you still have faith in science if it turns out that the fossils were millions of years younger?
Science doesn't operate on faith. You should know this. The conclusions are the best extrapolation of the facts.
3) if the fossils were millions of years younger, would you still think evolution is correct?
As said, it really isn't very important to the rest of the data. What would matter is if we found fossilised rodents dated as billions of years old.
There is some science for you. I believed you were misinformed by the evolutionist.
"Creationist literature hijacked this research and misrepresented the process so that it appeared to suggest that unfossilized tissues were found in these fossils."
please provide evidence
I said "maybe they should look closer at the how they date the age of Dino's... instead of trying to figure out how "soft tissue" can survive as long as it has... "
I never said that they didn't look at when the Dino's was dated. I just said they should look closer at it. Don't worry i read my sources and look over them.
"if it turns out their dating system is off...
Never trust creationist literature. You need to read the source."
The source says that the fossils were 68 million years old, and that the tissues required demineralization."
I know what they said and I read the source. I just stated that they were wrong. Never trust evolutionist literature.
Read those abstracts. They do not say what creationist literature presented them as.
I said "maybe they should look closer at the how they date the age of Dino's... instead of trying to figure out how "soft tissue" can survive as long as it has... "
What is your justification for such a statement? The fossils are 68 million years old, and fit within that time period. Unless you have conclusive evidence your statement is just idle speculation.
I never said that they didn't look at when the Dino's was dated. I just said they should look closer at it. Don't worry i read my sources and look over them.
I didn't say to read your sources, I said to read the abstracts from the scientists whose work was misrepresented by your sources.
I know what they said and I read the source. I just stated that they were wrong. Never trust evolutionist literature.
They being educated researchers who have performed numerous research programs and have published into respected journals are wrong because... you have a gut feeling?
The data disagrees with you. Read the source, not creationist misinformation.
Here is some more scientific proof. It tells the bible verse first then gives the scientific proof afterwards to back it up. Just so were clear that I was not misinformed.
Here is some more scientific proof. It tells the bible verse first then gives the scientific proof afterwards to back it up. Just so were clear that I was not misinformed.
It is false for the reasons I listed above:
-Where did the water come from and go to? They just use magic (god) as an answer.
-The earth's crust is not evidenced to have sat upon about five miles of ocean. Ad hoc reasoning on their part with no evidence.
-The fossil record does not support them, it instead shows a gradual progression of fossils with the major exceptions being extinction events (none of which occurred 4000 years ago).
-Life cannot survive upon a destroyed earth. Period. Magic is not an answer to this.
Examples:
If you put muddy water into a jar, you will see that denser matter settles first and layers begin to form until all the mud has been settled. The same holds true for materials that float in the water. It would seem reasonable that water animals would be the first to settle because they are already on the bottom of the ocean and they also have shells and denser body masses. Do we observe a progression of complexity in the fossil record, or do we observe natural settling? What could we expect if we saw millions of animals die and be swept away by water? You would expect to see the more dense matter settle first and as the less dense matter, as it became waterlogged, would also sink. Isn’t this what we see in the fossil record?
This is blatantly false as performing their experiment would demonstrate. Fossils are presently scattered in layers that are very deep. The sediment is measured to contain radioactive isotopes which reveals a progression of age the deeper the sediment is. If you took the earth's crust, water, and fossils and mixed it all together you would not have enough time for the fossil layers to sort themselves as they did because the sediment requires millions of years to form layers, and sludge settles in a much faster rate with a smooth gradient of density compared to the water (in other words, the bones which are all the same density more or less would fill the same layer with little deviation and the sediment would universally have the densest rock at the bottom).
It has been theorized that a comet could have possibly become the catalyst for the catastrophic flood event. A comet hit Saturn a few years back. As it entered the gravity of Saturn, it gained so much speed that it began to break apart. By the time it impacted, it was in 7 pieces, which hit in a central region. If we could add the same scenario to the earth, it would provide a plausible explanation of the flood. The moon has large craters on only one side, which would indicate that all these craters occurred in one event. If the craters built up over time, they should be evenly distributed. If perhaps a similar comet hit the moon and earth in pieces, it would fit. Frozen debris at –300 degrees would create a sudden cold air burst that would trigger violent storms as cold air met the warm climate. The impact would do two things, ad a sudden weight to the earth causing it to adjust like the spinning top with a new center of gravity and would trigger massive earthquakes that could easily fracture the earth’s plates. The water beneath would spew out in great eruptions and the flood would begin.
The authors cook up an assertion that violates physics (have you ever observed what happens to a heavenly object entering our atmosphere? It burns and then releases massive amounts of energy on impact due to the cosmic velocities which are typical of these objects) and has no evidence. This is pure ad hoc reasoning, invented on the spot to justify speculation.
The following are extracts from some creationist bullshit you recently repudiated, to clarify. We have our own opinions on it, and consider you the most appropriate source of confirmation.
Frozen debris at –300 degrees would create a sudden cold air burst
Is it not impossible to reach to temperature colder than -273.4 C?
he impact would do two things, ad a sudden weight to the earth causing it to adjust like the spinning top with a new center of gravity
We cannot believe that this would actually occur. We understand that a Mars sized planet was required to give Earth the tilt is has today. An impact of such a magnitude would render subsequent flooding irrelevant, surely?
Also, would the centre of gravity not remain at the core regardless of orientation?
would trigger massive earthquakes that could easily fracture the earth’s plates. The water beneath would spew out in great eruptions and the flood would begin.
Is it not impossible for sufficient quantities of water to exist beneath the Earth's crust? Surely the steam produced would create an incredible amount of pressure and cause massive fissures to emerge across the entire surface of the Earth? And why would water be there in the first place? Accretion would leave Hydrogen at the outermost layer, surely?
One wonders how they sleep at night, knowing what bullshit they have typed.
Why is it that people that believe in the literal interpretation of the bible can't seem to cite credible sources?
The article you cited was written not by a scientist, but by a Baptist pastor. And he wasn't even a pastor with a background in science. He is an accountant and computer technician.
Hardly credible proof and definitely misinformed.
Please cite ACTUAL scientific papers and evidence that back up your claim. It doesn't need to be from evolutionary biology. It could be from archeology, geology, or anthropology if you would like, but at least cite sources from people that actually spend their time putting in the effort to answer questions, as apposed to data mining to suit your agenda.
Besides, we would have seen evidence in ice core records. The core from Dome C, high on East Antarctica's plateau, contains snowfall from the last 740,000 years and is by far the oldest continuous climate record obtained from ice cores so far.
There was absolutely NO record of a global flood contained in the core... ever.
Also there are several other problems with a global flood idea, such as...
Why are geological eras consistent worldwide?
How was the fossil record sorted in an order that supports evolution?
How does a global flood explain angular unconformities?
When did granite batholiths form if there was a flood?
How can a single flood be responsible for such extensively detailed layering?
Ever heard of the Ark (translate so you can understand) it was a big boat.
Sealife requires precise conditions to flourish, a deluge of rainwater would completely upset the pH and kill all ocean life. Likewise all river life which depends on freshwater would die from the salt of the ocean. All plantlife would die, and with the plantlife goes the ecosystem because everything else depends on plants. An ark would mean nothing to this.
"Sealife requires precise conditions to flourish, a deluge of rainwater would completely upset the pH and kill all ocean life. Likewise all river life which depends on freshwater would die from the salt of the ocean. All plantlife would die, and with the plantlife goes the ecosystem because everything else depends on plants."
Not all sea life would perish. The rain would consist of sea water "fountains of the deep" (referring to underwater volcanic activity [40,000 miles of volcanic activity] that caused ocean temperatures to rise) from rapid evaporation. You could also imagine the salt concentration would be extremely diluted as well. The world was covered for about a year are we entirely sure that seeds (submerged before the flood) wouldn't survive. If you say no I would like a cited source that shows they would not.
Sea life is remarkably sensitive to changes in salinity, and changes in temperature. Corals are an example of a ridiculously sensitive type of species.
The rain would consist of sea water "fountains of the deep" (referring to underwater volcanic activity [40,000 miles of volcanic activity] that caused ocean temperatures to rise) from rapid evaporation.
You know what they say: prove that 6.8 billion cubic kilometers of water (over two hundred times the content of the land mass of Antarctica) existed under the Earth.
Then prove that a source of heat could exist to vaporise that water. Finally witness how that much energy and vaporised water would annihilate everything on Earth by raising the temperature of the surface to around 100 degrees Celsius.
You could also imagine the salt concentration would be extremely diluted as well.
Thanks for killing all Sea and River life.
The world was covered for about a year are we entirely sure that seeds (submerged before the flood) wouldn't survive. If you say no I would like a cited source that shows they would not.
Seeds do not survive in completely wet conditions for very long. They decay from bacteria and fungus. In fact all seeds require very exact conditions to grow in the first place, for example a stratifying force, sunlight, and warmth. Salt kills plants because it causes the soil to become hypertonic, thus pulling water away from the roots.
Congratulations for killing all plant life with your ignorance of basic botany.
"You know what they say: prove that 6.8 billion cubic kilometers of water (over two hundred times the content of the land mass of Antarctica) existed under the Earth."
Could the continents have then sunk below today’s sea level, so that the ocean waters flooded over them?
No! The continents are made up of lighter rocks that are less dense than the rocks on the ocean floor and rocks in the mantle beneath the continents. The continents, in fact, have an automatic tendency to rise, and thus “float” on the mantle rocks beneath, well above the ocean floor rocks.4 This explains why the continents today have such high elevations compared to the deep ocean floor, and why the ocean basins can hold so much water.
So there must be another way to explain how the oceans covered the continents. The sea level had to rise, so that the ocean waters then flooded up onto—and over—the continents. What would have caused that to happen?
There had to be, in fact, two mechanisms.
First, if water were added to the ocean, then the sea level would rise.
Scientists are currently monitoring the melting of the polar ice caps because the extra water would cause the sea level to rise and flood coastal communities.
The Bible suggests a source of the extra water. In Genesis 7:11 we read that at the initiation of the Flood all the fountains of the great deep were broken up. In other words, the earth’s crust was split open all around the globe and water apparently burst forth as fountains from inside the earth. We then read in Genesis 7:24–8:2 that these fountains were open for 150 days. No wonder the ocean volume increased so much that the ocean waters flooded over the continents.
Second, if the ocean floor itself rose, it would then have effectively “pushed” up the sea level.
The Bible suggests a source of this rising sea floor: molten rock.
The catastrophic breakup of the earth’s crust, referred to in Genesis 7:11, would not only have released huge volumes of water from inside the earth, but much molten rock.5 The ocean floors would have been effectively replaced by hot lavas. Being less dense than the original ocean floors, these hot lavas would have had an expanded thickness, so the new ocean floors would have effectively risen, raising the sea level by more than 3,500 feet (1,067 m). Because today’s mountains had not yet formed, and it is likely the pre-Flood hills and mountains were nowhere near as high as today’s mountains, a sea level rise of over 3,500 feet would have been sufficient to inundate the pre-Flood continental land surfaces.
Toward the end of the Flood, when the molten rock cooled and the ocean floors sank, the sea level would have fallen and the waters would have drained off the continents into new, deeper ocean basins. As indicated earlier, Psalm 104:8 describes the mountains being raised at the end of the Flood and the Flood waters draining down valleys and off the emerging new land surfaces. This is consistent with much evidence that today’s mountains only very recently rose to their present incredible heights.
After we read in Genesis 7 that all the high hills and the mountains were covered by water, and all air-breathing life on the land was swept away and perished, the answer to the question above should be obvious. Wouldn’t we expect to find rock layers all over the earth that are filled with billions of dead animals and plants that were rapidly buried and fossilized in sand, mud, and lime? Of course, and that’s exactly what we find.
It is beyond dispute among geologists that on every continent we find fossils of sea creatures in rock layers which today are high above sea level. For example, we find marine fossils in most of the rock layers in Grand Canyon. This includes the topmost layer in the sequence, the Kaibab Limestone exposed at the rim of the canyon, which today is approximately 7,000–8,000 feet (2,130–2,440 m) above sea level.1 Though at the top of the sequence, this limestone must have been deposited beneath ocean waters loaded with lime sediment that swept over northern Arizona (and beyond).
Other rock layers exposed in Grand Canyon also contain large numbers of marine fossils. The best example is the Redwall Limestone, which commonly contains fossil brachiopods (a clam-like organism), corals, bryozoans (lace corals), crinoids (sea lilies), bivalves (types of clams), gastropods (marine snails), trilobites, cephalopods, and even fish teeth.2
These marine fossils are found haphazardly preserved in this limestone bed. The crinoids, for example, are found with their columnals (disks) totally separated from one another, while in life they are stacked on top of one another to make up their “stems.” Thus, these marine creatures were catastrophically destroyed and buried in this lime sediment.
Marine fossils are also found high in the Himalayas, the world’s tallest mountain range, reaching up to 29,029 feet (8,848 m) above sea level.3 For example, fossil ammonites (coiled marine cephalopods) are found in limestone beds in the Himalayas of Nepal. All geologists agree that ocean waters must have buried these marine fossils in these limestone beds. So how did these marine limestone beds get high up in the Himalayas?
We must remember that the rock layers in the Himalayas and other mountain ranges around the globe were deposited during the Flood, well before these mountains were formed. In fact, many of these mountain ranges were pushed up by earth movements to their present high elevations at the end of the Flood. This is recorded in Psalm 104:8, where the Flood waters are described as eroding and retreating down valleys as the mountains rose at the end of the Flood.
The Bible suggests a source of the extra water. In Genesis 7:11 we read that at the initiation of the Flood all the fountains of the great deep were broken up. In other words, the earth’s crust was split open all around the globe and water apparently burst forth as fountains from inside the earth. We then read in Genesis 7:24–8:2 that these fountains were open for 150 days. No wonder the ocean volume increased so much that the ocean waters flooded over the continents.
The catastrophic breakup of the earth’s crust, referred to in Genesis 7:11, would not only have released huge volumes of water from inside the earth, but much molten rock.5 The ocean floors would have been effectively replaced by hot lavas. Being less dense than the original ocean floors, these hot lavas would have had an expanded thickness, so the new ocean floors would have effectively risen, raising the sea level by more than 3,500 feet (1,067 m). Because today’s mountains had not yet formed, and it is likely the pre-Flood hills and mountains were nowhere near as high as today’s mountains, a sea level rise of over 3,500 feet would have been sufficient to inundate the pre-Flood continental land surfaces.
Mt. Chimborazo is over 35000 years old, so this is just base assertions with no evidence. Also, that much magma would boil the oceans and kill every living thing.
Toward the end of the Flood, when the molten rock cooled and the ocean floors sank, the sea level would have fallen and the waters would have drained off the continents into new, deeper ocean basins. As indicated earlier, Psalm 104:8 describes the mountains being raised at the end of the Flood and the Flood waters draining down valleys and off the emerging new land surfaces. This is consistent with much evidence that today’s mountains only very recently rose to their present incredible heights.
So the seas are boiling for one year, and you introduce yet another problem: where did the water go? You just asserted that water came from under the earth, as well as more magma. That means all this new water must go somewhere.
We must remember that the rock layers in the Himalayas and other mountain ranges around the globe were deposited during the Flood, well before these mountains were formed. In fact, many of these mountain ranges were pushed up by earth movements to their present high elevations at the end of the Flood. This is recorded in Psalm 104:8, where the Flood waters are described as eroding and retreating down valleys as the mountains rose at the end of the Flood.
Bald assertions, unfalsifiable conjecture, and obedience to dogma. Typical creationism.
You cited a source that is responding to a theory by merely proclaiming it couldn't be true. There is no evidence listed to the contrary.
"Mt. Chimborazo is over 35000 years old, so this is just base assertions with no evidence. Also, that much magma would boil the oceans and kill every living thing."
How much magma do you suppose it would take to "boil" everything? I would like an amount that is scientificly proven if not you are just speaking conjecture. I have already told you the dating methods you support are flawed. I even gave you a cited source.
"So the seas are boiling for one year, and you introduce yet another problem: where did the water go? You just asserted that water came from under the earth, as well as more magma. That means all this new water must go somewhere."
You just ignored the entire paragraph on top of your response. You ask where all this water went, you have heard of the mid-Atlantic ridge right? And you still
assume the world has always had the same geographical features.
"Bald assertions, unfalsifiable conjecture, and obedience to dogma. Typical creationism."
So you are denying the envidence of marine fossils found in the mountains? Either you are ignorant or just stupid, because this is a secular fact.
There is some reading for you. Don't be scared it's a secular site.
"Answers in Genesis is not proof, nor evidence. It isn't even basic science. It is faith."
Have you never read their technical journals? Read them and compare them to the secular ones. If you simply dismiss based on the fact it doesn't agree with your conjecture, then you will never learn anything. If you want to say something is false you must provide evidence to substantiate your claim.
I have given you evidence. If you refuse to read an article simply because of your bias, then you are not understanding the argument in which you are participating.
If you say Answers in Genesis is "not science" again without evidence, this will lead me to believe you have none. Provide technical information about what is false, don't just make an empty claim.
How exactly do you propose that a flood would cause plate convergence?"
The flood is the byproduct of the tectonic shifts. I am not going to write this theory out. If you want I will give you a list of different sites and books.
The flood is the byproduct of the tectonic shifts.
So you're telling me that within the span of 150 days marine fossils go from the bottom of the seafloor to the tops of mountains, because of tectonic plate movement?
I am not going to write this theory out. If you want I will give you a list of different sites and books.
Because you yourself don't understand what you are copying and pasting from creation proselytistic websites. You accept it because it appears to confirm your beliefs. I want you to explain in "Your own words" what is causing these 'tectonic shifts' and how these tectonic shifts are related to the deluge?
You cited a source that is responding to a theory by merely proclaiming it couldn't be true. There is no evidence listed to the contrary.
Did you bother to read it? It lists basic facts:
Even two miles deep, the earth is boiling hot (260 to 270 degrees C at 5.656 miles in one borehole; Bram et al. 1995), and thus the reservoir of water would be superheated. Further heat would be added by the energy of the water falling from above the atmosphere. As with the vapor canopy model, Noah would have been poached.
The rock that makes up the earth's crust does not float. The water would have been forced to the surface long before Noah's time, or before Adam's time for that matter.
These are basic objections related to physics. When something falls it gains energy due to gravity. The area beneath the ground is hotter the further you go.
How much magma do you suppose it would take to "boil" everything? I would like an amount that is scientificly proven if not you are just speaking conjecture. I have already told you the dating methods you support are flawed. I even gave you a cited source.
The catastrophic breakup of the earth’s crust, referred to in Genesis 7:11, would not only have released huge volumes of water from inside the earth, but much molten rock.5 The ocean floors would have been effectively replaced by hot lavas.
Enough lava to cover the surface of the Earth's oceans and push the waters out so that they flood the land? Do you really need a physics lesson here? It's an absurd amount of heat that would cause the Earth to become uninhabitable. The dating methods work and agree with each other when used correctly, like any other tool. You read creationist propaganda that purposefully omits this, by listing examples of where a certain dating method may not be used, and not detailing how the process actually works.
You're not using critical thinking.
You just ignored the entire paragraph on top of your response. You ask where all this water went, you have heard of the mid-Atlantic ridge right? And you still assume the world has always had the same geographical features.
You are talking about 6.8 BILLION CUBIC KILOMETERS of water. That's more than ONE HUNDRED times the volume of Antarctica.
Your quote simply said:
Toward the end of the Flood, when the molten rock cooled and the ocean floors sank, the sea level would have fallen and the waters would have drained off the continents into new, deeper ocean basins.
Enough water to bury the land continents is too much to have simply drained off.
Also I never said that the Earth always had the same geographical features, I said that our reference point of Mt. Chimborazo is over 35000 years old. This is a fact.
So you are denying the envidence of marine fossils found in the mountains? Either you are ignorant or just stupid, because this is a secular fact.
Some mountains were buried under the ocean as flat land masses before they formed as volcanoes or were shoved up by colliding plates. What's so spectacular about this?
Have you never read their technical journals? Read them and compare them to the secular ones. If you simply dismiss based on the fact it doesn't agree with your conjecture, then you will never learn anything. If you want to say something is false you must provide evidence to substantiate your claim.
Science follows certain guidelines. This applies to all legitimate science. Science does not operate by forming a conclusion and then finding evidence to support it. Science requires that theories account for all evidence (examples of which are the immense age of the earth and our evolution from primates, if you have to deny these facts, then you are not practicing science).
But most of all, magic is not an answer in science. You can never say that a rock fell because of magic words, or god, or the invisible man in the sky. Science requires NATURAL explanations. If you have to defy physics to explain something, it's not science.
I have given you evidence. If you refuse to read an article simply because of your bias, then you are not understanding the argument in which you are participating.
If you say Answers in Genesis is "not science" again without evidence, this will lead me to believe you have none. Provide technical information about what is false, don't just make an empty claim.
By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.
They state themselves without blushing that if reality contradicts the bible, then reality is wrong. This is not how science works. It is a swindle.
Yes, the mythological boat that was said to have carried all life that would repopulate the world. Only on a single wooden craft. Assuming the animals on it didn't devour each other or Noah. There are two zebra and two lions....we know all the animals were good friends and subsisted themselves solely on sunshine and friendship. Not to mention that if the story were true all the world's insects would have been wiped out.
Kircher, a Jesuit priest and scholar, concluded from his research that some of our modern species of animals were not on Noah’s Ark because they originated from other species after the Flood by a kind of divinely guided metamorphosis. In other words, after the Flood, some animals changed and generated new species. In this way, God did not have to preserve every modern species on the Ark. For example, Kircher believed that the North American bison was not aboard the Ark.5 He thought it might have originated after the Flood from some other cow-like animal.
Writing seven years before Kircher, Bishop Wilkins thought the same thing. When discussing the number of cattle on the Ark, he wrote that Noah needed only two basic cattle, arguing, “There being much less difference betwixt these, then there is betwixt several Dogs: And it being known by experience what various changes are frequently occasioned in the same species, by several countries, diets, and other accidents.”6 Like Kircher, Wilkins did not see a need (other than responding to skeptics) to put two bison on the Ark because they presumably could be generated from some other cow after the Flood “by several countries, diets, and other accidents.”6
This early view of animals and the Ark, which developed in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, is very similar to that of many creationists today. Creationist pioneer Byron Nelson wrote in 1928, “It is ... unjust to the Sacred Record to insist that the ark carried two of every variety, e.g., two fox terriers, two coyotes, two wolves, two jackals, two collies, etc. It is better to say that the ark carried two animals we might call ‘dogs,’ from which, after the flood, all the above-mentioned varieties have come.”
Based on my own biological research into created kinds, I would be even bolder than Nelson. Over the past decade, I have worked to develop new methods of studying created kinds using statistics.8 This research is still very new and preliminary, but a pattern is beginning to emerge. For land animals and birds, the created kind most often corresponds to the conventional classification rank called “family,” which includes many species. There is evidence that the camel, horse, cat, dog, penguin, and iguana families are each a created kind.9 Like Nelson, I would put the coyote, wolf, jackal, and dog in the same kind, and I would include the fox. I would put the lion and house cat in another kind, and the llama and camel in yet another kind. Today these species (i.e., llama and camel) look amazingly different, but they seem to have been generated after the Flood from information already present within their parent kind. Lions, coyotes, and dromedary camels were probably not on the Ark but were born to parents within the cat, dog, and camel kinds.
How many animals were on Noah’s Ark? If created kinds really are families, as few as 2,000 individual animals might have been on the Ark.10 There were probably a bit more than that since the clean animals came in by sevens. Whatever the exact number, though, there would have been plenty of room to house these and their food, plus Noah and his family. Caring for these animals for a year would have been difficult but not impossible. God’s wisdom ensured that basic kinds of animals would survive the Flood by allowing individual species to change.
The Ark is not mythology. If you want to dismiss the supernatural, then I challenge this to you what is your origin? I am sure you are aware of "cause and effect" you should then know about the importance of the First cause. If you know the scientific law I am talking about (secular one) then tell me what you believe.
Kircher, a Jesuit priest and scholar, concluded from his research...
...in music and theology?
that some of our modern species of animals were not on Noah’s Ark because they originated from other species after the Flood by a kind of divinely guided metamorphosis.
'Divine metamorphosis'? And what kind of research did this 'scholar' (aka priest) do to conclude this?
Is this divine metamorphosis responsible for the existence of different serpentine species across the different continents? How would you account for this considering these continents are separated by oceans?
In other words, after the Flood, some animals changed and generated new species. In this way, God did not have to preserve every modern species on the Ark
It's almost like God invoked this "divine metamorphosis" to fill logical holes in your argument.
.
.
.
Now, of course we know that plants and animals do change over time, it's a naturally occurring process that is happening all the time and not just when it convenient for your story.
Based on my own biological research into created kinds, I would be even bolder than Nelson. Over the past decade, I have worked to develop new methods of studying created kinds using statistics.
YOUR research!? This isn't even your writing, you copied and pasted it from ANSWERSINGENESIS, why are you masquerading this as your work? Cite your source.
How many animals were on Noah’s Ark? If created kinds really are families, as few as 2,000 individual animals might have been on the Ark.
Where is your source for this number? Also is this ark containing ecological habitats, to support the diverse array of life on this ark? Is this including dinosaurs and other extinct lifeforms?
Okay, but that still doesn't answer any of my questions. Where are you getting this 2,000 figure from? Is this anything more than guesswork? Is this figure including extinct fauna? Does the ark contain all the specialized habitats that is required by the diverse array of life?
There was a worldwide flood we see evidence in strata all over the world. In fact the flood is very easy to prove.
I'll just recycle and add to a previous rebuttal I made:
There isn't enough water on Earth to cover all land. If all land was covered with water at some point, all life on Earth except microbes would perish.
There have been many large floods in history, but never a worldwide flood.
Further, and this is obvious, a deluge sorts things out by mass density (buoyancy), while our strata is sorted by age. If there were a massive flood which upset all the silt and dirt as well as buried all the critters in the area, we shouldn't expect the present order of strata where density of objects is irrelevant to column position, but instead reflects radioactive dating ages.
"Further, and this is obvious, a deluge sorts things out by mass density (buoyancy), while our strata is sorted by age."
This you are definately wrong about. We witnessed rapid strata formations with the Mt. St. Helens lava dome. The RATE group studied this in detail.
Real science was done here (observational) we saw rapid strata layer formations within a day. These layers showed a timeline of millions of years, which is not true because we observed it happen.
"There isn't enough water on Earth to cover all land. If all land was covered with water at some point, all life on Earth except microbes would perish."
Obviously you have never heard of the polar ice caps or the Mid-Atlantic ridge. These were all caused by a catastrophic global flood. Have you never read Genesis which talks about the "fountains of the deep"? Or the "floodgates of Heaven opened up" referring to rapid evaporation due to deep ocean volcanic activity.
This you are definately wrong about. We witnessed rapid strata formations with the Mt. St. Helens lava dome. The RATE group studied this in detail.
I have an experiment for you. Buy or find a large, clear, plastic tub. Dig some samples of dirt, mud, rocks, gravel, any bones you find of various sizes, shale, igneous rocks, wood debris, etc. Put them into the tub or bucket until it is filled between 1/2 and 1/3 the way. Fill with water, and stir it all up completely. Make sure you have it all mixed and wet with water. Now let it sit, undisturbed, for a few days as it settles. Observe the strata and get back to me.
Real science was done here (observational) we saw rapid strata layer formations within a day. These layers showed a timeline of millions of years, which is not true because we observed it happen.
Obviously you have never heard of the polar ice caps or the Mid-Atlantic ridge. These were all caused by a catastrophic global flood. Have you never read Genesis which talks about the "fountains of the deep"? Or the "floodgates of Heaven opened up" referring to rapid evaporation due to deep ocean volcanic activity.
Water, being a fluid, has a defining characteristic that it deforms itself to fill surfaces.
Mt. Chimborazo is Earth's highest point, and if we calculate the volume of water it takes to fill Earth's surface from its mean radius to that point, we find we need about 6.8 billion cubic kilometers. The polar Ice Caps represent at maximum about 67.5 million cubic kilometers of water. This is less than one percent of the required volume. In other words there is not enough water on Earth to cover its land masses, conservation of mass requires that the water could not appear from nowhere or leave thusly, therefore we never had enough water to cover our landmasses.
"Mt. Chimborazo is Earth's highest point, and if we calculate the volume of water it takes to fill Earth's surface from its mean radius to that point, we find we need about 6.8 billion cubic kilometers. The polar Ice Caps represent at maximum about 67.5 million cubic kilometers of water. This is less than one percent of the required volume. In other words there is not enough water on Earth to cover its land masses, conservation of mass requires that the water could not appear from nowhere or leave thusly, therefore we never had enough water to cover our landmasses."
What you fail to mention is that these land masses (mountains for example) have not always been. Massive tectonic shifts created the mountains we see today. So for you to say the global terrain we see today has always been is absurd.
As far as your example of Dalrymple this article gives a good rebuttal, you may read it in entirely or skip to the AR40 dating method.
No Radiogenic Argon Assumption Violated by Many Anomalous “Ages”
The assumption of no radiogenic argon (40Ar) when the rocks formed is usually stated as self-evident. For example, Geyh and Schleicher state:
What is special about the K-Ar method is that the daughter nuclide is a noble gas, which is not normally incorporated into minerals and is not bound in the mineral in which it is found.118 (p. 56)
Similarly, Dalrymple and Lanphere state:
a silicate melt will not usually retain the 40Ar that is produced, and thus the potassium-argon clock is not “set” until the mineral solidifies and cools sufficiently to allow the 40Ar to accumulate in the mineral lattice.119 (p. 46)
Dalrymple has recently put the argument more strongly:
The K-Ar method is the only decay scheme that can be used with little or no concern for the initial presence of the daughter isotope. This is because 40Ar is an inert gas that does not combine chemically with any other element and so escapes easily from rocks when they are heated. Thus, while a rock is molten the 40Ar formed by decay of 40K escapes from the liquid.120
However, these dogmatic statements by Dalrymple are inconsistent with even his own work on historic lava flows, some of which he found had non-zero concentrations of 40Ar in violation of this key assumption of the K-Ar dating method.121 He does go on to admit, “Some cases of initial 40Ar remaining in rocks have been documented but they are uncommon,” but then refers to his study of 26 historic, subaerial lava flows.122, 123 Five (almost 20%) of those flows contained “excess argon,” but Dalrymple still then says “that ‘excess’ argon is rare in these rocks!” The flows and their “ages” were:124
Hualalai basalt, Hawaii (AD 1800–1801) 1.6±0.16 Ma
1.41±0.08 Ma
Mt. Etna basalt, Sicily (122 BC) 0.25±0.08 Ma
Mt. Etna basalt, Sicily (AD 1792) 0.35±0.14 Ma
Mt. Lassen plagioclase, California (AD 1915) 0.11±0.03 Ma
Sunset Crater basalt, Arizona (AD 1064–1065) 0.27±0.09 Ma
What you fail to mention is that these land masses (mountains for example) have not always been. Massive tectonic shifts created the mountains we see today. So for you to say the global terrain we see today has always been is absurd.
Mt. Chimborazo is at least 35000 years old, as this was the last known period of activity (it was a volcano).
Filling the Earth with enough water to cover all landmasses is an extreme claim, because even ignoring Mt. Chimborazo, it would require an absurdly large amount of water to do so, which you have yet to account for.
As far as your example of Dalrymple this article gives a good rebuttal, you may read it in entirely or skip to the AR40 dating method.
No Radiogenic Argon Assumption Violated by Many Anomalous “Ages”
By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.
This is not how knowledge grows, and this is just one of many reasons that AiG is not science. If you must define your position as being unassailable by fact, then it is faith, and will never be knowledge.
By what dating method? And by what groups world view?
Most likely radiometric dating. Scientists, in other words those who are experts and operate with integrity.
dont underestimate gods power. If god created all the earth surely anything is possible under his name.
If you have to retreat to "God did it using his omnipotence to defy reason" then you already left the boundaries of debate. When you enter a debate about god, then it is expected that you abide by the rules of reason and thus god must.
Thank you finally, you are attempting to describe God with the natural when he is in reality supernatural, it simply cannot be done, that is why argumetns like these ones are pointless, because certain foundational ideas or truths have not been accepted before discussion was begun.
The bible puts the age of the Earth at around 6000 years. The measurement of the rate of decay of Uranium isotopes shows this to be impossible, given that it has a half-life of 703,800,000 years. The Bible has therefore erred and from that fact alone has a total veracity of <100%.
You are depending on uniformitarism which states radioactive decay rates have always been the same. This is not true and has been monitored as recently as the 1800s.
You are depending on uniformitarism which states radioactive decay rates have always been the same. This is not true and has been monitored as recently as the 1800s.
The time provided was the decay constant, or average rate. We suggest that you refrain from presuming superior knowledge of radioactive decay to established nuclear physicists.
But do those same physicists adapt for catastrophic events. Like the New Zealand volcano that spread an ash cloud big enough to blanket the globe for several months. Do they consider the massive tectonic shifts due to vulcanic activity which all scientists agree occured in the past. I.E. Nuclear winter brought on by atmospheric dust.
But do those same physicists adapt for catastrophic events. Like the New Zealand volcano that spread an ash cloud big enough to blanket the globe for several months.
We apologise, but we have no conception of how this is at all relevant.
Do they consider the massive tectonic shifts due to vulcanic activity
You have that the wrong way around. Volcanic activity is caused by tectonic plate movement.
Nuclear winter brought on by atmospheric dust.
Now that's just impossible. Nuclear winter is a scenario which can only be caused by a nuclear war.
"Now that's just impossible. Nuclear winter is a scenario which can only be caused by a nuclear war."
Certainly you can't be serious. Nuclear winter is a scenario in which the atmosphere is blocked out by dust particles. In science we use the term "nuclear winter" to describe a darkened atmosphere due to debris. This is common knowledge.
Certainly you can't be serious. Nuclear winter is a scenario in which the atmosphere is blocked out by dust particles
We emphasise the word "Nuclear". The dust particles in the scenario are the direct result of atomic weapons being detonated.
In science we use the term "nuclear winter" to describe a darkened atmosphere due to debris.
Who are "we"? You are not a scientist, that is certain. We also reject your apparent terminology; other events would be more accurately described as a volcanic winter or an impact winter.
This is common knowledge.
Then we repudiate it. Notwithstanding, how can you presume to explain "common knowledge"?
We did not emphasise nuclear I was giving you an example, which most people understand.
"Who are "we"? You are not a scientist, that is certain. We also reject your apparent terminology; other events would be more accurately described as a volcanic winter or an impact winter."
This sounds like you are claiming to be a scientist. I would be very careful to claim such an advanced education. By your language and impression alone I highly doubt you are more then an undergraduate if even that educated.
Just a funny little video. It is not to be taken as my argument, but it is still funny. Ignore the annoying voice of the little cherub. But contemplate it's message... try to be skeptical of what you were taught as a young religious child..
That being said, I'm quoting something I just recently read that made so much sense. It said this:
There are no thought forms or models of reality that can represent the entirety of the thing they attempt to describe.
They are each finite, and therefore incomplete. Expression can only be a reduction of the fullness being sensed. For truly objective awareness to be experienced, it must occur outside of time and the language structures bound to it.
When the experience of spiritual illumination reduces itself into the corridors of expression its narrowness defines the parameters of its inaccuracy.
Any attempt to describe God (presuming it exists) would be a limitation as God -by definition- is not only indescribable, but also unknowable. The best place we can stay is in the mystery.
"The majority of the Bible is Mythology, false prophesies, and moral stories. It hardly has any truth to it at all."
You say this, yet you know nothing of what is written inside it. Perhaps educating yourself, rather then just regurgitating the first page of your search engine results.
"You say this, yet you know nothing of what is written inside it."
Wrong again. I have read the Bible. Not all of it, of course. Few have. So yes, I do know. You might want to think before arrogantly assuming next time.
"Perhaps educating yourself, rather then just regurgitating the first page of your search engine results."
Might want to take your own advice there, hypocrite.
"Wrong again. I have read the Bible. Not all of it, of course. Few have. So yes, I do know. You might want to think before arrogantly assuming next time."
This proves my point. First of all to say few people have read the Bible is just stupid. Many people have read the Bible, believers and unbelievers alike.
You speak of what's in the Bible based on your own misunderstood assumptions. Don't just make generalizations about a book you only have second hand knowledge about.
"Maybe some of it. The majority, especially believers, haven't read the full bible."
Do you have any statistics backing this statement. Or is this just another ill-fated generalization based on your poor understanding of anything outside your own world (momma's house).
"How many false assumptions are you planning to make today?"
None, unlike what you have demonstrated time and time again.
Thanks for proving my point. You have no real argument so you've resorted to attempted discretization. This is what all Theists do when they've run out of bullshit. Looks like I struck a nerve. XD
"This is what all Theists do when they've run out of bullshit. Looks like I struck a nerve."
The fact you don't contend to my previous statement shows you to be out of bullshit, friend. Or should I say "child" as you would put it. But of course you wouldn't resort to such things.
Maybe if you didn't think you are "god" then perhaps you would have a more positive outlook on life.
I would presume based on your name you are very empty inside. That could be why you have such a world view as you do. Emotional problems should not be taken lightly.
"You don't know how I view the world. You really haven't learned your lesson about assumption have you?"
To summarize your statements, it appears you lack any credible rebuttal to my previous comments. Instead it appears you have resorted to short answers to try, and deflect the complete incompetence you possess for basic argumentative skills.
Under your profile you have nothing but two and three sentence responses. This leads me to believe you are very simple. Seeing how your best rebuttal is to say "that is an assumption". Anytime you speak about scientific theories you are assuming. If you are not then it would be law.
Didn't we already talk about assumption? Or have you still not learned? For someone as outspoken as you are, it's amazing that you can't get past this mental disadvantage you have.
I personally, don't study the bible. BUT: I do know the Adam and Eve story. I don't think snakes talk or convince you to eat a forbidden fruit. Just a thought...
well, has a snake ever spoken to you? if so, i strongly recommend checking into that mental hospital on Gennesee AVE. they have a whole program for people with hallucinations. just a thought.
How many times has the Bible been translated and re-translated? I recall that childhood game where the first person whispers something to the next in line, then that second whispers it to a third, and so on down the line; when the last person reveals the whisper to the first person, is it exactly the same? I'm sure the same thing has occurred with the Bible. And, yes, I capitalize the word Bible when I write, because it is a special book for me, even when it has flaws in translation... As far as "the rules" of the Bible are concerned, why is it really called the OLD testament anyway...
To say that the Bible isn't an important piece of literature is ignorant. The words in the Scriptures have been used for almost 2000 years to show people many things. The Church has accomplished many great things with the Holy Book, many of those things terrible, but to deny the Book's greatness is absurd. It is, one of, if not the single most important text in the Western world.
However, it is not important because the words in it are true. The words in it are tales of morality laced in allegory to remind mankind that we need not fear, that we can be better men and that, if we need Him, God can be in your soul. The Bible is important because it gave mankind an answer when no suitable one existed.
Anyone who says the Bible is 100% True is obviously misguided. A book that old, written with the means and relatively primitive language and understanding of the period's people could not possibly be more than allegory.
For instance, The Great Flood. To put it simply, there is not enough water on the planet to drown the world. It's a plain and simple fact. But, when you see that the Flood is simply an image to project the cleansing of man, say, the first steps into civilization, it starts to make sense. You can even throw in the fact that the Nile River floods every year. Though, I'm aware that the Nile is quite a distance from Israel, the environmental conditions for such events also occur elsewhere in the world. A particularly violent storm along with the natural swelling of a river during that time of year could catalyze a flood of (at the time) massive proportions. Such things could be seen by relatively primitive man as acts of God.
The bible has many valid things in it,I mean whether you're a Christian or not you can still admit that the bible has proven to be somewhat prophetic. But there are some things in the bible that make absolutely no sense and no amount of rationalization can be put behind them. The bible condemns some groups of people for being who they naturally are,it convinces people that possession of slaves are ok(as long as you treat them right),and it just says all of these other contradicting things. It's best to not consider the bible a completely reliable source but at the same time,don't blow it off as being totally inaccurate because you're allowing yourself to be just as closed minded as the ones that believe in it 100%
Nope, it's "according to" only. The originals (if they were even written as Jesus never wrote a word) are long gone. Though some say the vatican hold fragments but becasue they differ so much from modern teachings it exposes the faith as a human creation.
Your understanding of the Bible especially the new testament is severly uneducated. Jesus never wrote anything in the Bible. He was only quoted by the authors. The four gospels were written as eyewitness testimony by the apostles. You should do some research before judging a book you know nothing about.
As with most religious texts the contents of it are true until broken apart with facts. When that inevitably happens you are of course labeled as one who would attack another's faith, regardless of the many logic holes it possesses.
You know, for me the Bible is a book as another ones. We don't know, exactly, who wrote it and if was someone reliable who can prove that when the translators translated it was completely right? In addition, we know that the Church wanted to control all the world and write about God and his son is a good way to do it. For me, Jesus even was a God's son. He was a smart and witty guy and the Church just used him to earn money and devotees. I believe in God tough. But not in religion or bible.
i agree with you on some points. but the bible is completely true. remember, the bible was inspired meaning God directed the writing and construction of the bible. as for religion. yes Jesus disliked religion. religion is man made and destroys the fact that we are to have faith in God for salvation, not follow rituals and good works for salvation or listen to a religious leader as being equal in authority as the bible is, for they are not.
remember, the bible was inspired meaning God directed the writing and construction of the bible
If you really believe that, perhaps you could explain why God directed the writing and construction of the part about beating slaves to death and it being completely A-OK with him, so long as they didn't die right away, because they're just property after all.
What kind of God would condone slavery, let alone beating them to death?
when i mean inspired by god. obviously god did not inspire David's son to rape his family member or for Salomon to consult a medium then to individually write about the experience, some events in the bible are just history, nothing spiritual.
what i do mean is that there is a anomalous belief in scripture that all Christians accept which is that God inspired the overall work of the bible. that is, he's rules and characteristics or attributes, or who God is was accurately written down over the generations by people who were inspired or directed by God to do so, but also most importantly his mission or plan, the scarlet thread of redemption. the story of God to bring a salvation to all the world, aka Jesus.
also just as important, that the bible is the ultimate authority on everything. so when we have questions we go to the bible for answers knowing it will be correct because the bible is God inspired.
but to your point about slavery. please read this article on the subject you brought up.
Sorry, but where is that in the bible, seeing as God says "love your enemies" Matthew 5:44, and It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Galations 5:1
It's more probable than not that a man named Jesus lived. My problem with him being more than a man is the fact that he did not know how to write. It seems to run in the family. We gods can create everything... but don't know how to write.
If you won't accept a deity that created everything and is eternal and infinite, then what is your answer? What are the origins of everything? This is where the law of cause and effect choose your answers. Either the universe has always existed and is infinite. Which we know that's not the case as it ages and the energy depletes over time (novas, comets, black holes) so then what is it? The idea of a First cause one that would have to be omnipotent and infinite has no beginning or end.
You tell me your theory. If you speak of the Big Bang I want to know it's first cause. For example how was the first matter created?
If you won't accept a deity that created everything and is eternal and infinite, then what is your answer?
It's not that I won't accept this, it's that I don't anymore. This is why I left religion. Religion encourages irrational certainty in things which are beyond our ability to know. The truth is that nobody knows how it all began, despite the fact that some people claim the "Know how it all happened" (which is BS). This is why the Bible and all other sacred texts require faith. Without faith religion could not survive.
I can tell you what I think happened, and why I think that way, but I don't claim to have all the answers. I think the universe is infinite in age, it has no beginning or end, and thus requires no creator because it has always been. The universe merely undergoes a cycle of big bangs and big crunches. The universe expands and collapses, expands and collapsed and so forth...Some people have a hard time understanding this but it makes perfect sense to me.
Which we know that's not the case as it ages and the energy depletes over time (novas, comets, black holes) so then what is it?
Please do not go regurgitating tired polemical arguments about scientific laws in which you don't understand. It gets old very quickly, people quoting the 2nd law of thermodynamics which they read on some website. The 2nd law of thermodynamics only applies to isolated systems that are out of equilibrium, and it is a postulate about the movement of heat.
Energy does not "deplete" over time, it merely changes form and location. This in accordance with the Conservation of energy.
"The truth is that nobody knows how it all began, despite the fact that some people claim the "Know how it all happened" (which is BS)."
Why would make such a generalization? Is there not the possibility you have heard the answer, yet refuse to accept it (not just christianity)?
"This is why the Bible and all other sacred texts require faith. Without faith religion could not survive."
I love this kind of statement. It just displays the arrogance and self entitlement atheists (and much of our world culture) possess. Why do you think the God of creation should show himself to you? The fact people think they should have to see God to believe him, shows a severe inclination toward a self-righteous attitude.
With so few people in history having a real impact (compared to total people who have ever lived), why should God have to display himself to you?
God has revealed himself in the word of scripture.
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse," Romans 1:18–20
"I think the universe is infinite in age, it has no beginning or end, and thus requires no creator because it has always been."
My question is what was the First Cause, we know matter doesn't create itself. Despite how some try to impose that to quantum theory (which states no new matter is created). Something had to create the universe, this fact can't be ignored. There is always a First Cause, this is a scientific law you should be aware of it.
"Energy does not "deplete" over time, it merely changes form and location. This in accordance with the Conservation of energy."
This refers to quantum mechanics in which interconnected mechanisms exchange energy without friction. This is typically in a controlled enviroment, not in such a place full of variances like the universe.
Why would make such a generalization? Is there not the possibility you have heard the answer, yet refuse to accept it (not just christianity)?
Anything is possible. Not everything is probable.
I love this kind of statement. It just displays the arrogance and self entitlement atheists (and much of our world culture) possess. Why do you think the God of creation should show himself to you? The fact people think they should have to see God to believe him, shows a severe inclination toward a self-righteous attitude.
It shows an inclination towards skepticism. How is that self-righteous?
With so few people in history having a real impact (compared to total people who have ever lived), why should God have to display himself to you?
Why would he have to pick and choose? Is not your god omnipresent? If your God is real why would he expect me to simply take other people's word for it? Do not tell me God is real, let him tell me himself.
God has revealed himself in the word of scripture.
So say the men who wrote it. Along with the authors of every other religious text ever written.
If God really had an important message to spread, why would he rely on a number of obscure ancient texts, and expect people to just accept the word of their authors in the midst of so many "false prophets" and myths? Why not just tell us?
My question is what was the First Cause, we know matter doesn't create itself.
You don't get it, do you? If the universe is chronologically infinite, that means there is no first cause.
Despite how some try to impose that to quantum theory (which states no new matter is created).
That's not what quantum mechanics states at all.
This refers to quantum mechanics in which interconnected mechanisms exchange energy without friction. This is typically in a controlled enviroment, not in such a place full of variances like the universe.
What is this? What interconnected mechanisms?
What are you talking about, and what does it have to do with thermodynamics or conservation of energy?
"It shows an inclination towards skepticism. How is that self-righteous?"
Answer coming after next quote.
"Why would he have to pick and choose? Is not your god omnipresent? If your God is real why would he expect me to simply take other people's word for it? Do not tell me God is real, let him tell me himself."
You say the God of creation has to prove himself to you, and you don't know how this makes you self-righteous? Who are you that God should have to show himself to you? In the Bible, God tells Moses that no man can see him or they will die.
"So say the men who wrote it. Along with the authors of every other religious text ever written."
This generalization is simply false. We know of many religions that are written with no inspiration of any kind of deity.
You must remember the inerrant word of God is quoted in his book. When the Bible quotes God that is him directly speaking. When it talks of historical narrative this is from the perspective of the people witnessing it or the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
"You don't get it, do you? If the universe is chronologically infinite, that means there is no first cause."
Apparently you don't get it. We know the universe has a beginning because it ages and no new matter is created. Also, no new energy is created. To suggest the universe is infinite and had no beginning is along the lines of the supernatural. You believe it cycles from "expanse" to "crunch" but I am asking is when that all started. What evidence do you have to say it has no beginning?
"That's not what quantum mechanics states at all."
I was speaking about quantum theory as a whole. I was not stating the theory. I was merely mentioning to you within that theory it states no new matter is created.
The LAW (not theory 'conjecture') of cause and effect must have a first cause. Because every effect has a known or unknown cause. The universe is in the realm of our scientific understanding, God is not.
You say the God of creation has to prove himself to you, and you don't know how this makes you self-righteous? Who are you that God should have to show himself to you? In the Bible, God tells Moses that no man can see him or they will die.
When did I say this? I did not say he HAD to do anything. I am simply telling you that I am not going to take someone's word for it that there is a omnipotent, omnipresent being, residing in another plane of existence. If such a being had any desire whatsoever to eliminate all doubt of his existence, it is entirely within his (or her?) power to do so. So then we must submit that either he does not exist, desires some degree of doubt in humans or is completely indefferent.
This generalization is simply false. We know of many religions that are written with no inspiration of any kind of deity.
And we know of many that are (or so they claim).
You must remember the inerrant word of God is quoted in his book.
We know the Bible is inerrant how? Because the author said it was....And we know the author was inspired by God, how? Because the author said he was....
See a pattern here?
Apparently you don't get it. We know the universe has a beginning because it ages
Which only demonstrates the passage of time, not the beginning of it.
...and no new matter is created.
Matter is formed from energy, Matter is nothing but super dense energy. Enrgy can be converted into matter, and matter can be converted into energy.
Remember:
E=MC^2
We have learned from Einstein that the total quantity of energy+matter is constant.
I was speaking about quantum theory as a whole. I was not stating the theory. I was merely mentioning to you within that theory it states no new matter is created.
I don't know who told you this, but they are wrong. Quantum Theory says nothing of the sort. Quantum theory, in laymens terms speaks of the instability/unpredictability of matter on a sub-atomic level.
The LAW (not theory 'conjecture') of cause and effect must have a first cause. Because every effect has a known or unknown cause. The universe is in the realm of our scientific understanding, God is not.
Causality is not a law, it is a principal in physics. Causality does not even apply on a planck level of time.
It is no better to say that God is uncaused, than it is to say the Universe is uncaused. At least we know the Universe exists.
no! they use their mermaid magic to somehow figure out the intentions of an all knowing being that knows that they will just write random hypocritical bs, Islam, same thing, no religion is 100% true, maybe, even if it was true, it states that people shouldn't go to a big, fancy church, and sit around and mumble to their god that told them not to do that!
yes i belive that it is all true its just peoples interpretations of the message of god that can lead them astray.
Ahaziah acceded to the throne when his father died, and his father acceded to the throne at the age of 32 and died 8 years later at the age of 40. If Ahaziah was 42 when he took to the throne, then he would have been 2 years older than his father
So when you say you believe it's all true, does that include parts that mention people who are older than their parents?
Maybe I'm just not interpreting the impossibility of people being older than their parents correctly, or perhaps I'm just taking the impossibility of people being older than their parents out of context.
Wutan for your information you claim the bible is false yet your profile picture is of THE THINKER A MAN LOOKING INTO HELL. A little ironic dont you think?
I'm somewhat of a christian, but i would say that even true stories can have some faulty notes behind it to make it more interesting. God didn't write the bible, a bunch of dusty guys wearing dresses and sandals did.
So, if the bible is true, we should kill all gays, wiccans, atheists and believers of other religions? Should we drink the blood and eat the body of Jesus? Should we believe that God let Adam and Eve to eat the apple? Didn't he know what was going to happen? Why didn't he send Jesus in sooner? He could've prevented the flood. The word 'trinity' isn't in the bible. Hell was not described in the bible as the church would have you believe it. Why, if God has a "plan", did he incorporate Hitler and cancer and starvation and war into it. If there is a God, I hate him and his whole regime up there in the clouds well down here we suffer.
I cannot believe this is really much of a dispute.
"cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree..."
When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)
I am Christian and I don't believe the bible 100%. Just some things can change over interpretative. Yes, I belive in the recomming of Jesus. I belive in his reserection etc. Do I belive it to the word no. Who could. If we played a game where I told you one thing and it passed on and on and on at some point there would be a mastake.
