The bible

Evrae · July 27, 2007

No i mean, everywhere, films books tv internet, Everyone is told about evolution as if it is a simple fact, day in, day out... So eventually people believe that without knowing better.

There is one possible axplanation that appears to have slipped your mind - it might just be correct.

Anyway, how do you know the bible is correct, and the truth?

Anyway, I'm not sure why I am... I suppose I just read the bible and knew I was going to hell if i didn't do something... Of course for all you know you could die today! Mabey your computer screen explodes or something... Who knows when they will die...

So basically you were brought up a christian, so thats what you are. You don't appear to have explored other avenues very thoroughly.

Personally, I have examined christianity, and other religions, and found them lacking. The logical flaws make them unappealing to me.

Its been proven that (evolution aside for a moment) the universe is relativley young...

If 13 billion years is young, I'd hate to see your grandparents! :P

Where is this 'proof' you talk about? Give us sources, give us links - anything!

The two towers, world wars, jews being persecuted, jetstream... In fact you all disagreeing with me is also there, only in a far wider sense...

It is correct that the bible has been interpreted as having predicted these events - after they have happened. I do not know of a definite prediction that has been shown to be correct. And if there was one it would have been publicised.

It is much easier to say that something was a prediction after the event than before.

Magicians agree, to pull off a trick with the act of a miracle, he would have needed a truckload of equipment per miracle...

Either he was the son of god, or those are fictional stories, devised to demonstrate a point by example. Which is more likely sounding?

The bible itsself states numerous times that it is fact not fiction and does not have some mystic meaning...

I am assuming that if I wrote a book saying

'I, Robert_evrae, am the son of god and rightful ruler of the world. You must give unto me all your worldly goods to ease your passage to heaven. This is the incontrovertible truth.'

then you would take it to be true?

If so, then I would be forced to assume you have squirrels living in your skull.

jonavolaii · July 27, 2007

The logical flaws make them unappealing to me.

I doubt you have found a single logic flaw but your pride, face it theres nothing wrong with it except it says you're a sinner.

Have you ever heard of the oort could? Its an evolutionist explanation of why there are still comets. Comets have a maximum lifespan of 10000 years and the evolutionists claim that an oort cloud spits them out. Onl problem is, unless it spits them out faster than light, the oort cloud does not exist. Also there is the dust from the moon. Only a couple of inces thin. The earths polarity would have been twice the size of a magnetic star only about 10500 years ago. I suppose the sun spat us out or something because its shrinking, only 1 million years ago it would have engulfed the planet..

It is correct that the bible has been interpreted as having predicted these events - after they have happened. I do not know of a definite prediction that has been shown to be correct. And if there was one it would have been publicised.

It is much easier to say that something was a prediction after the event than before.

Then you watch closeley, if you live to see it, read revelation and wait... just wait...

Either he was the son of god, or those are fictional stories, devised to demonstrate a point by example. Which is more likely sounding?

It depends on what you want to hear... You my freind dont want to hear you are hopelessley lost so you believe the latter...

I am assuming that if I wrote a book saying

'I, Robert_evrae, am the son of god and rightful ruler of the world. You must give unto me all your worldly goods to ease your passage to heaven. This is the incontrovertible truth.'

then you would take it to be true?

If so, then I would be forced to assume you have squirrels living in your skull.

Actually no, you haven't done miracles, there is no proof you even exist and besides, the bible profecides there would be people who would pretend to be God...

Matthew 7:15 "Watch out for phalse profits. They come in sheeps clothing, but in-wardly they are ferocious wolves."

It also makes a LARGE number of profecies as to who would be the messiah... You weren't born of a virgin in Israel were you? You cetainly wouldent blaspheme God almighty by claiming he doesn't exist would you? I certainly hope not...

Evrae · July 27, 2007

Oh, I'd pad the book of my religion out with a bunch of prophesies, that kind of rubbish. I was merely using that as an example to demonstrate my point. But this is what it comes down to:

You believe that the bible is correct based upon the fact that the bible says it is correct. That is a logical falacy.

Have you ever heard of the oort could? Its an evolutionist explanation of why there are still comets. Comets have a maximum lifespan of 10000 years and the evolutionists claim that an oort cloud spits them out. Onl problem is, unless it spits them out faster than light, the oort cloud does not exist. Also there is the dust from the moon. Only a couple of inces thin. The earths polarity would have been twice the size of a magnetic star only about 10500 years ago. I suppose the sun spat us out or something because its shrinking, only 1 million years ago it would have engulfed the planet..

Where do you get this bull from? Sources please?

But this is something you have trouble doing - providing sources for your claims. Could that be because no reputable sources exist? The only thing you use as a source is the bible.

Then you watch closeley, if you live to see it, read revelation and wait... just wait...

Oh, so thats the next thing that the bible predicts? I imagine that before 11/9/2001 people thought that. Then afterwards, the bible suddenly turned out to have predicted it. The fact is, the bible makes very few predictions, and they are ones that can never be verified.

It depends on what you want to hear... You my freind dont want to hear you are hopelessley lost so you believe the latter...

Yep, it does depend on what you want to hear. If you are especially insecure, I can imagine that believing in some magical being protecting you would be attractive. I imagine it gives you a nice warm fuzzy feeling, like a hot water bottle.

...there is no proof you even exist...

Dude, I'm writing this! Thats quite a lot more proof than there is of Jesus existence (though he did exist, there are only 2nd hand accounts. This is the original thing)

jonavolaii · July 27, 2007

Oh, I'd pad the book of my religion out with a bunch of prophesies, that kind of rubbish. I was merely using that as an example to demonstrate my point. But this is what it comes down to:

You believe that the bible is correct based upon the fact that the bible says it is correct. That is a logical falacy.

You believe the Fossils are dated by the rock layer they are in and the rock layer is dated by the fossils in it so dont start with that :) Anyway, there is more proof the bible is true than that ancient greece existed, theres just so many up to date copies of it! Homerus has the most, 643 known copies, the bible has more than 25000 copies. There were over 500 eye witnesses that saw Jesus after he was resurrected.

List of prophecies fulfilled in Jesus Crist

Born of the seed of woman

Born of a virgin

Son of God

Seed of abraham

Son of Isaac

Son of Jacob

Tribe of Judah

Family line of Jesse

House of david

Born at Bethlehem

Presented with gifts

Herod kills children

His pre-existence

He shall be called Lord

Shall be Immanuel (God is with us)

Shall be a prophet

Priest

Judge

King

Special annointing of Holy Spirit

His zeal for God

Preceeded by messenger

Ministry begin in Galilee

Ministry of miracles

Teacher of parables

Was to enter the temple

Was to enter Jeruzalem on a donkey

'Stone of Stumbling' to Jews

'Light' to gentiles

Ressurection

Ascension

Seated at right hand of God

These were fulfilled in one day

Betrayed by a freind

Sold for 30 pieces of silver

Money to be thrown into God's house

Price given for potters field

Forsaken by his disciples

Accused by false witnisses

Silent before accusers

Wounded and bruised

Smitten and spit upon

Mocked

Fell under the cross

Hands and feet pierced

Crucified with thieves

Made intercession for his persecuters

Rejected by his own people

Hated without cause

Freinds stood afar off

People shook their heads

Stared upon

Garments parted and lots cast

To suffer thirst

Gall and vinegar offered to him

His forsaken cry

Committed himself to God

Bones not broken

Heartbroken

His side pierced

Darkness over the land

Buried in a rich mans tomb

If this is not enough proof mabey some of the other nearly 300 prophecies made about him would be...

Where do you get this bull from? Sources please?

But this is something you have trouble doing - providing sources for your claims. Could that be because no reputable sources exist? The only thing you use as a source is the bible.

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

If you dont know one of evolutions most fundamental needed functions, you are in need of help... By the way, in this we also see that it is produced as if it exists although it has never been proven.

Oh, so thats the next thing that the bible predicts? I imagine that before 11/9/2001 people thought that. Then afterwards, the bible suddenly turned out to have predicted it. The fact is, the bible makes very few predictions, and they are ones that can never be verified.

As you can see above, there are nearly 300 prophecies on this thing alone. They can be verifyed as the dead see scrolls were made before Jesus came...

Yep, it does depend on what you want to hear. If you are especially insecure, I can imagine that believing in some magical being protecting you would be attractive. I imagine it gives you a nice warm fuzzy feeling, like a hot water bottle.

Actually it does... You know I have seen people walk away from an argument in the middle of it just because a christian told them too...

...there is no proof you even exist...

Dude, I'm writing this! Thats quite a lot more proof than there is of Jesus existence (though he did exist, there are only 2nd hand accounts. This is the original thing)

ehm... lol? According to atheism and evolution, you have no reason to exist, so how could you claim that you do? If I were an evolution I would just say you dont exist and be done with it :)

If you want complete truth on the bible, look up this book:

"The new evidence that demands a verdict" by josh McDowel, he set out to prove that the bible was false and ended up a christian because of it :D

Rebdragon · July 27, 2007

jon, stop pulling information out of your [wagon], and show us some real sources for these pieces of crud you call arguments.

You believe the Fossils are dated by the rock layer they are in and the rock layer is dated by the fossils in it so dont start with that :)

warri0r has already shown that our methods of dating are pretty accurate. Is this the only piece of counter rhetoric that you can think of?

Anyway, there is more proof the bible is true than that ancient greece existed

Wow.

You're deluded. Are you trying to tell me you've got arguments now that say ancient greece never existed? Please, humor us.

theres just so many up to date copies of it! Homerus has the most, 643 known copies, the bible has more than 25000 copies.

Again, wow. You're basing the validity of something on how many copies of it there are in existence? Again, your moronic side is showing.

There were over 500 eye witnesses that saw Jesus after he was resurrected.

Source. Valid, source.

List of prophecies fulfilled in Jesus Crist

Born of the seed of woman

...

Buried in a rich mans tomb
If this is not enough proof mabey some of the other nearly 300 prophecies made about him would be...

Heh... I'm almost tempted to ask this guy to watch zeitgeist... almost.

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

First source: wikipedia.

Strike one.

Actually it does... You know I have seen people walk away from an argument in the middle of it just because a christian told them too...

No, most of the time they just leave because their opponent is as close-minded as they come.

ehm... lol? According to atheism and evolution, you have no reason to exist,

You heard this... where? Seriously, I'd love to see where you're pulling all this "information".

so how could you claim that you do? If I were an evolution I would just say you dont exist and be done with it :)

Not even gunna ask.

Okay fine. What the hell is the point you're making?

If you want complete truth on the bible, look up this book:

"The new evidence that demands a verdict" by josh McDowel, he set out to prove that the bible was false and ended up a christian because of it :D

Again, this makes the Bible true how?

warri0r45 · July 27, 2007

You believe the Fossils are dated by the rock layer they are in and the rock layer is dated by the fossils in it so dont start with that

Actually, dating rock layers is only a way of relative dating. Plugging isotope ratios into a mathematical equation gives us an absolute date via radiometric dating.

According to atheism and evolution, you have no reason to exist

Actually, although neither claim a reason for existance, that dosen't mean an atheist or someone who accepts evolution can't find a reason themselves.

Its been proven that (evolution aside for a moment) the universe is relativley young...

Actually, science has proven that the earth and the universe are not young. Radiometric dating and collaborating upwards of 30 independant dating methods all suggest that the earth and the universe are in the order of billions of years old.

Like everyone saying we came from monkeys

Actually, not everyone sais we came from monkeys. The majority of the human race chooses to disagree because of religous reasons. The theory of evolution and the fossil evidence and genetic homologies between humans and chimpanzees suggest we have a common evolutionary ancestor.

You need 20 different amino acids to even make a single protein

Actually, you need 20 different amino acids to make protiens required for life. A single protien itself may not require all 20 amino acids.

Science actually benefits creationism, however as soon as people hear that someone does not believe in evolution, thier programming, brainwashing, because that is what it is, tells them that that person is not being scientific.

Actually, it dosen't. The scientific community recognises creationism as a pseudoscience. The latter comment is not true of the nature of science. If a creationism paper is submitted to peer review, it's rejection is based on whether the claims it makes are truthful, coherent, novel, and/or scientific. Creation claims are largely none of these things.

On the contrary, they are not being scientific by manufacturing evidence...

Actually, evidence is not manufactured to fit the theory of evolution. There is no reason to do so yet there is for creationism. If the theory of evolution is demonstrably shown to be wrong, science will adjust accordingly and I will personally be happy that the scientific process has worked.

Whenever you say anything that I understand to be wrong, I'm simply going to pull you up on it. I encourage anyone to show where I go wrong while referencing something that isn't biased. I also encourage anyone to doubt and be skeptical of what I say; ask any scientist if you like. I'm interested in being truthful, I couldn't care less if I get proven wrong. The thing is if I do this and need to reference everything, I'll be here forever and I doubt jonavolaii will ever budge even if sufficient referencing is provided.

jonavolaii · July 28, 2007

sorry for not being on for so long, its called sleep :lol:

I can see that you find radiometric dating important, otherwise you would not be using it again and again while I have already pointed out the flaws in the theory. Mabey you like it because its one of the few scientific methods you know that you do not have to change the results because it really does support your theory, mabey you just think if you dazzle people with apparently important stuff they will think 'O yeah its big so it must be true'. Who knows? Anyway this is the last time I type it, from now on I will reply to radiometric dating as pure ignorance...

The following flaws make radiometric dating insecure...

Radiometric dating (eg C14) assumes that the amount of radioactive decay is constant. C14 gets pumped through the bodie until the animal dies and then it decays. By mesuring the amount of C14 left in the body you assume the age of the sample.

[*:3dxou5ut]You cannot know how much C14 there was in the beginning, eating disorders, plants that specificly do not absorb C14, all make this amount uncertain.[*:3dxou5ut]You cannot know if there have been outside sources, C14 can be washed into or out of a corpse

[*:3dxou5ut]You cannot know if the rate of decay has been constant

Not only this but even a LIVE animal tested out to be dead for 3600 years... All radioactive dating methods have these simple but thwarting flaws... I do NOT need a source for this as you can see for yourselves that these flaws exist.

You claim that there is 98% similarity with monkeys and humans... There isn't even that much similarity with you mother and father... they have about 93% of your DNA (no I cannot give you a source as every time I type it in I get the same evolutionist crap about humans and monkeys)

Again, wow. You're basing the validity of something on how many copies of it there are in existence? Again, your moronic side is showing.

Ehm... lol? I'm surprissed you would say that, the authenticity of litterature is defined by differences bettween current articles and older articles. By using this information combined with the fact that letters exist between first century persons which prove the bibles authenticity. Compared to the bible, all greek litterature pales. I'm not saying ancient greece did not exist, it did. Even the bible agrees with that :)

Here are some thing which are more reliable than the 'radiological dating method' that give evidence for the earth and the universe being young. The moon. The amount of dust on the moon is not even enough to bother stating evolution to be true. Comets have a maximum life span of 10000 years and there has never been any oort cloud found. During the radioactive decay of eg. uranium, It turns into lead, although this is not a trustworthy dating method the side effect is... During the decay, helium comes free. If the earth was 4.5 billion years old oyu would not be able to light a cigarette without setting the entire atmosphere on fire. The helium cannot excape earths atmosfere, so the earth has an age of 10000-6000 years.

The Question of Helium

Alpha particles, which are actually helium nuclei and are positive (+) are given off by the decay of the Earth's radioactive isotopes. Eventually, the helium migrates out of rocks in the earth's crust and ends up in the atmosphere as helium gas.

Here these particles of helium gas reach their upper limits in the atmosphere where a few molecules escape. There is continuing research going on concerning the helium inventory in the atmosphere and one of the scientists investigating this problem is Dr. Larry Vardiman of Christian Heritage College and the Institute for Creation Research. Even though helium in the atmosphere does not date the rocks, it does tell us something about the earth's age.

If the earth was billions of years old, the radioactive production of helium in the earth's crust should have added a large quantity of helium to its atmosphere. Current diffusion models all indicate that helium escapes to space from the atmosphere at a rate much less than its production rate. The low concentration of helium actually measured would suggest that the earth's atmosphere must be quite young. (Vardiman, 1986)

Now, do not bother to write back if you are going to fart the radiological dating method all over this forum.

I do not believe you are 'open minded' I believe you are religeous. If you were scientific you would go for creationism. Nieter of these theories can be proved however evidence suggests, as you no doubt didn't bother to even look at, that Evolution did not happen. I suppose if you had eternity on your hands, that it would be possible, but we did not have eternity, we had about 10000 years. Evolution may be possible, but it certainly did not happen here.

Now I expect you to give me some evidence for evolution (I will not even bother with things I have given proof against) Also, I would like to know Your sources... We'll see...

warri0r45 · July 28, 2007

Your posts are getting more and more rediculous.

1) You seem to like pointing out the flaws in carbon dating. Why not do the same for methods that are actually used to date rocks at billions of years old, such as the uranium-lead dating method. Carbon dating is unreliable at dating objects over 60,000 years old due to a shorter half life of the C-14 isotope.

2) Most of your arguments for a young earth are all strikingly similar to those I've seen on creationist websites. Reference your sources please. Oh and "Dr. Larry Vardiman of Christian Heritage College and the Institute for Creation Research." Yes, a great unbiased gentleman there, no doubt. I'm not even going to bother unless you cite the sources for your young earth and anti-evolution arguments.

3) Are you saying that only 93% of your DNA comes from your mother and father? If so, where does the other 7% come from? Methinks missing 7% of a genome would be rather fatal. Sorry if I misrepresented you here.

4) Helium, chemical symbol He, atomic number 2, is a totally inert and thus non-flammable noble gas. You are mistaking it for hydrogen.

5) I'm not religous. If you refuse to recognise or have not yet recognised that the overwhelming majority of the scientific community rejects creationism and favours evolution and an old earth of around 4.5 billion years, you are either delusional or ignorant. Source. Source 2.

I expect you to give me some evidence for evolution

I already outlined some of the basics in this respect in my own words towards the top of page 35 but I don't think you even adressed any of it. Check source 2 below in the evidence section for a pretty good overview of what I covered.

6) My sources? Sure. Here's a start for now:

Basic overview/ideas.

More basic info including lines of evidence.

An expansive source of documentation on the creation/evolution 'controversy' also adresses creationsit claims.

Denismage · July 28, 2007

God exists, boogie man, Santa Claus and werewolfs exist too, just because you have never seen them doesn't mean they don't exist, there are so many witnesses, look at all the kids who saw a boogie man and Santa Claus, look at all the books written about them, so many people can't be wrong, can they? /sarcasm

Evrae · July 28, 2007

You cannot know how much C14 there was in the beginning, eating disorders, plants that specificly do not absorb C14, all make this amount uncertain.

I believe you compare the proportions of C-12, C-14 and decay products. Eating disorders? Plants specifically not taking in C-14? Those would be chemical factors, and C-14 is chemically identical to C-12.

You cannot know if there have been outside sources, C14 can be washed into or out of a corpse

References/source please? It is slightly vexing when you state things as fact withoutexplaining a mechanism for them. For all I know, this might be possible. Though 'washed' is a bit of a woolly term.

You cannot know if the rate of decay has been constant

Possibly true. But the only mechanism by which it could change would be act of god. But that doesn't really prove anything, does it?

Not only this but even a LIVE animal tested out to be dead for 3600 years... All radioactive dating methods have these simple but thwarting flaws... I do NOT need a source for this as you can see for yourselves that these flaws exist.

It is a test specifically for dead things. That might be for the reason that it is unreliable for living things, precisely because of how it works.

You claim that there is 98% similarity with monkeys and humans... There isn't even that much similarity with you mother and father... they have about 93% of your DNA (no I cannot give you a source as every time I type it in I get the same evolutionist crap about humans and monkeys)

You must have found this information out from somewhere, so surely that is the source. Unless it was word of mouth from some bloke at church, which isn't really a source.

Now, I'm not an expert on genetics, but I imagine that the genetic differences that make us all different are relatively small, in comparison to what makes us human.

Ehm... lol? I'm surprissed you would say that, the authenticity of litterature is defined by differences bettween current articles and older articles. By using this information combined with the fact that letters exist between first century persons which prove the bibles authenticity.

Erm, no. All that shows is that the bible was around then. Some parts of the bible will be fact, but so are some parts of the latest harry potter book.

Comets have a maximum life span of 10000 years and there has never been any oort cloud found.

Have you heard of progress. Its this thing where new information is discovered. The Oort cloud is a hypothesis, which may or may not be shown to be correct. Current telescopes are not capable of finding out. That does not mean that in the future that will not change. Some bodies have been found in roughly the predicted area. There may be more.

During the radioactive decay of eg. uranium, It turns into lead, although this is not a trustworthy dating method the side effect is... During the decay, helium comes free. If the earth was 4.5 billion years old oyu would not be able to light a cigarette without setting the entire atmosphere on fire. The helium cannot excape earths atmosfere, so the earth has an age of 10000-6000 years.

I dont think unranium does directly turn to lead from radioactive decay. I believe that Uranium may be a product of a nuclear fission though, which is very rare in rocks.

By helium do you mean an alpha particle is emitted? As has been said, helium is inert anyway.

You seem very certain about things that are plain wrong.

I do not believe you are 'open minded' I believe you are religeous. If you were scientific you would go for creationism. Nieter of these theories can be proved however evidence suggests, as you no doubt didn't bother to even look at, that Evolution did not happen. I suppose if you had eternity on your hands, that it would be possible, but we did not have eternity, we had about 10000 years. Evolution may be possible, but it certainly did not happen here.

I am forced to assume you are just thick. Everything about creationism is completely unscientific in its methodology. So why would it be scientific to go for creationism? Even if creationism was right, I'm afraid to say that it would still be unscientific. Read up on the scientific method, and maybe you will see why.

God exists, boogie man, Santa Claus and werewolfs exist too, just because you have never seen them doesn't mean they don't exist, there are so many witnesses, look at all the kids who saw a boogie man and Santa Claus, look at all the books written about them, so many people can't be wrong, can they? /sarcasm

Haha, good point. You wont get through to him though, he is too unwilling to take on new ideas.

jonavolaii - have you actually read any of the sources provided to you?

Rebdragon · July 28, 2007

Again, wow. You're basing the validity of something on how many copies of it there are in existence? Again, your moronic side is showing.
Ehm... lol? I'm surprissed you would say that, the authenticity of litterature is defined by differences bettween current articles and older articles. By using this information combined with the fact that letters exist between first century persons which prove the bibles authenticity. Compared to the bible, all greek litterature pales. I'm not saying ancient greece did not exist, it did. Even the bible agrees with that :)

That still doesn't make the Bible true, it just means that the current copies retain what the Bible says at a higher ratio than some other pieces of literature.

Oi... okay, you want to talk authenticity? Fine. Take the New Testament, the Gospels to be specific. When Jesus died, it's not exactly like four of his disciples instantly sat down and wrote out the Gospels right there, no, they were too busy spreading his word across the Meditteranean. Thus, as they spread his word, stories about Jesus spread all over the known world. This was the primary method of passing stories along through generations at the time- oral communication. Thus, the stories went through filter after filter that were the story tellers. It was not until a generations later that the stories were eventually written down, that is after they had been polluted and warped by the passers of the oral tradition.

The Gospels did not form a complete whole 'very early on'; it did not happen until more than a century after the end of Jesus's mission. The Ecumenical Translation of the Bible estimates the date the four Gospels acquired the status of canonic literature at around 170 A.D.

Justin's statement which calls the authors 'Apostles' is not acceptable either, as we shall see.

As far as the date the Gospels were written is concerned, A. Tricot states that Matthew's, Mark's and Luke's Gospels were written before 70 A.D.: but this is not acceptable, except perhaps for Mark. Following many others, this commentator goes out of his way to present the authors of the Gospels as the apostles or the companions of Jesus. For this reason he suggests dates of writing that place them very near to the time Jesus lived. As for John, whom A. Tricot has us believe lived until roughly 100 A.D., Christians have always been used to seeing him depicted as being very near to Jesus on ceremonial occasions. It is very difficult however to assert that he is the author of the Gospel that bears his name. For A. Tricot, as for other commentators, the Apostle John (like Matthew) was the officially qualified witness of the facts he recounts, although the majority of critics do not support the hypothesis which says he wrote the fourth Gospel.

Technically speaking, everyone who knew Jesus, or who was even alive at the same time he was, was already long-since dead by the time the Gospels were put together. Hell, the grandchildren of the people who were alive at the same time as Jesus were already dead.

If, on the other hand, one chooses to regard the Gospels as expressing the personal point of view of those who collected the oral traditions that belonged to various communities, or as writings suited to an occasion or combat-writings, it does not come as a surprise to find faults in the Gospels. All these faults are the sign that they were written by men in circumstances such as these. The writers may have been quite sincere, even though they relate facts without doubting their inaccuracy. They provide us with descriptions which contradict other authors' narrations, or are influenced by reasons of religious rivalry between communities. They therefore present stories about the life of Jesus from a completely different angle than their adversaries.

How's that for authentic?

Source.

dutchdreams · July 28, 2007

Here are some thing which are more reliable than the 'radiological dating method' that give evidence for the earth and the universe being young. The moon. The amount of dust on the moon is not even enough to bother stating evolution to be true.

More reliable ? Heck, even creationist scientists are telling people NOT to use the moondust argument anymore to discredit the old-age universe. Found on answersingenesis.org:moon-dust argument no longer useful and Snelling (a creationist) on moondust Or are you now going to doubt creationist science as well?

Comets have a maximum life span of 10000 years and there has never been any oort cloud found.

During the radioactive decay of eg. uranium, It turns into lead, although this is not a trustworthy dating method the side effect is... During the decay, helium comes free. If the earth was 4.5 billion years old oyu would not be able to light a cigarette without setting the entire atmosphere on fire. The helium cannot excape earths atmosfere, so the earth has an age of 10000-6000 years.

Thanks for the laugh on helium: it's now flammable and explosive?

The Question of Helium

Alpha particles, which are actually helium nuclei and are positive (+) are given off by the decay of the Earth's radioactive isotopes. Eventually, the helium migrates out of rocks in the earth's crust and ends up in the atmosphere as helium gas.

Here these particles of helium gas reach their upper limits in the atmosphere where a few molecules escape. There is continuing research going on concerning the helium inventory in the atmosphere and one of the scientists investigating this problem is Dr. Larry Vardiman of Christian Heritage College and the Institute for Creation Research. Even though helium in the atmosphere does not date the rocks, it does tell us something about the earth's age.

If the earth was billions of years old, the radioactive production of helium in the earth's crust should have added a large quantity of helium to its atmosphere. Current diffusion models all indicate that helium escapes to space from the atmosphere at a rate much less than its production rate. The low concentration of helium actually measured would suggest that the earth's atmosphere must be quite young. (Vardiman, 1986)

This is what a different source has to say about your 'helium problem'. In it, data manipulation is discussed, misidentification of rock samples, the list goes on. Just a little quote:

In 2003, many Christian fundamentalists became very excited about a RATE project in Humphreys et al. (2003a), Humphreys et al. (2003b) and Humphreys (2003).  Humphreys et al. (2003a) claim that zircons from the "Jemez granodiorite" of the Fenton Hill rock core, New Mexico, USA, contain too much "radiogenic" helium to be billions of years old.  By inaccurately modeling the helium diffusion rates in the zircons, making numerous invalid assumptions and assuming some unfounded miraculous increases in radioactive decay rates, Humphreys et al. (2004) concluded that the zircons are only "6,000 ÃÆÃ¢â¬Å¡ÃâÃÂ± 2,000 years old."  Not surprisingly, their results conveniently straddle Bishop Ussher's classical 4004 BC "Genesis creation date" for the world.

Now, do not bother to write back if you are going to fart the radiological dating method all over this forum.

Just out of curiosity of course, but how were those zillions of copies of the book dated and tested for authenticity (a.k.a not forged)..... by carbon dating perhaps?

I do not believe you are 'open minded' I believe you are religeous. If you were scientific you would go for creationism. Nieter of these theories can be proved however evidence suggests, as you no doubt didn't bother to even look at, that Evolution did not happen. I suppose if you had eternity on your hands, that it would be possible, but we did not have eternity, we had about 10000 years. Evolution may be possible, but it certainly did not happen here.

Evolution happens on a continuous daily basis in the emerging of anti-biotic resistant bacteria, rapid changing of influenza and AIDS virus, pesticide-resistant insect plagues. Which is perfectly observable due to the short reproduction time of these organisms.

You can say what you want, but all that goes drastically against the belief that each and every organism has always existed in their present form.

Now I expect you to give me some evidence for evolution (I will not even bother with things I have given proof against) Also, I would like to know Your sources... We'll see...

You haven't given any proof against anything, just personal opinion, without backing up of your claims. A lot of sources have already been provided to you. The only thing so far you've tried doing is questioning earth's age and the methodology of carbon dating. Even creationist scientists stay away from some of the 'proof' you have given, as shown above.

As for evidence on evolution, this will do for now: be sure to read part 1 -5, not just the introduction

jonavolaii · July 29, 2007

Whoaaaaaaaah! way too much reading matter! :lol:

OK, I'm going to only do a few of these, I'll take your words for it on the sources :)

Lets see here... What is most defenitly a lie.... Oh heres one!

Oi... okay, you want to talk authenticity? Fine. Take the New Testament, the Gospels to be specific. When Jesus died, it's not exactly like four of his disciples instantly sat down and wrote out the Gospels right there, no, they were too busy spreading his word across the Meditteranean. Thus, as they spread his word, stories about Jesus spread all over the known world. This was the primary method of passing stories along through generations at the time- oral communication. Thus, the stories went through filter after filter that were the story tellers. It was not until a generations later that the stories were eventually written down, that is after they had been polluted and warped by the passers of the oral tradition.

The earliest known copy of the new testament is at 50 AD. Jesus was born at 0. He grew to be 33 years old... that leaves only 20 years between Jesus' resurrection and the complete finishing of the bible. Yes they did share the word through the people but in many cases the bible states:

Luke : "...therefore since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also for me to write an orderly account for you, most exelent Theophilius...

Furthermore we see that when there is a deviation from the original gospel, strict actions are taken agaainst it.

All of pauls letter begin like all letters of that time, and after that with praise of the church he was writing to. All but one. In Galations (not-so-strangley not very often read in churches today) Paul begins with "I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the ways of Christ and are turning to a different gospel..."

Later in that book he tells the astonishing story of how he opposed peter, the general leader of all christians of the time, to his face amongst a crowd because he was deveating from the truth.

"But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.

And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.

But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,

Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.

For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.

For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.

I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain."

If even correcting the leader of the christians is not strict enough, what is?

More reliable ? Heck, even creationist scientists are telling people NOT to use the moondust argument anymore to discredit the old-age universe. Found on answersingenesis.org:moon-dust argument no longer useful and Snelling (a creationist) on moondust Or are you now going to doubt creationist science as well?

Don't you find it very lucky that the new amounts deposited are just enough for evolution?

Thanks for the laugh on helium: it's now flammable and explosive?

Sorry my bad :)

...have already shown that the diffusion of noble gases in silicate minerals may decrease by at least 3-6 orders of magnitude at a given temperature if the studies are performed under pressure rather than in a vacuum...

If you even read your own source you would see that the flaws in the test that he is pointing out mean there would be even less helium than the earlier test indicates... This man is just trying to discredit humphrey, not his work...

Just out of curiosity of course, but how were those zillions of copies of the book dated and tested for authenticity (a.k.a not forged)..... by carbon dating perhaps?

By:

[*:1qa4qnte]Materials used[*:1qa4qnte]Letter size and form[*:1qa4qnte]Punctuation[*:1qa4qnte]Text divisions[*:1qa4qnte]Ornamentation[*:1qa4qnte]Ink color[*:1qa4qnte]The texture and color of parchement

Evolution happens on a continuous daily basis in the emerging of anti-biotic resistant bacteria, rapid changing of influenza and AIDS virus, pesticide-resistant insect plagues. Which is perfectly observable due to the short reproduction time of these organisms.

You can say what you want, but all that goes drastically against the belief that each and every organism has always existed in their present form.

You are confusing macro evolution with micro evolution. Variations within kinds were made by God, however you have not been able to breed a complete new kind of animal have you?

The structures that all known organisms use to perform these four basic processes are all quite similar, in spite of the odds

Can also be explained by creation, also, if the odds of them being alike are enough to prove evolution, woulden't the far greater odds against it be enough to dis-prove it?

No wait I'm not going to go into that now, could you just make a list of these so-called proofs?

The Gospels did not form a complete whole 'very early on'; it did not happen until more than a century after the end of Jesus's mission. The Ecumenical Translation of the Bible estimates the date the four Gospels acquired the status of canonic literature at around 170 A.D.

Justin's statement which calls the authors 'Apostles' is not acceptable either, as we shall see.

As far as the date the Gospels were written is concerned, A. Tricot states that Matthew's, Mark's and Luke's Gospels were written before 70 A.D.: but this is not acceptable, except perhaps for Mark. Following many others, this commentator goes out of his way to present the authors of the Gospels as the apostles or the companions of Jesus. For this reason he suggests dates of writing that place them very near to the time Jesus lived. As for John, whom A. Tricot has us believe lived until roughly 100 A.D., Christians have always been used to seeing him depicted as being very near to Jesus on ceremonial occasions. It is very difficult however to assert that he is the author of the Gospel that bears his name. For A. Tricot, as for other commentators, the Apostle John (like Matthew) was the officially qualified witness of the facts he recounts, although the majority of critics do not support the hypothesis which says he wrote the fourth Gospel.
Technically speaking, everyone who knew Jesus, or who was even alive at the same time he was, was already long-since dead by the time the Gospels were put together. Hell, the grandchildren of the people who were alive at the same time as Jesus were already dead.

As I have explained above, BS

If, on the other hand, one chooses to regard the Gospels as expressing the personal point of view of those who collected the oral traditions that belonged to various communities, or as writings suited to an occasion or combat-writings, it does not come as a surprise to find faults in the Gospels. All these faults are the sign that they were written by men in circumstances such as these. The writers may have been quite sincere, even though they relate facts without doubting their inaccuracy. They provide us with descriptions which contradict other authors' narrations, or are influenced by reasons of religious rivalry between communities. They therefore present stories about the life of Jesus from a completely different angle than their adversaries.

Note that he 'forgets' to mention any one of these supposedly many flaws in the bible *sarcasm*

I believe you compare the proportions of C-12, C-14 and decay products. Eating disorders? Plants specifically not taking in C-14? Those would be chemical factors, and C-14 is chemically identical to C-12.

Whut? c'mon, any factors that change the ouput are contaminating factors, you cannot change that...

Possibly true. But the only mechanism by which it could change would be act of god. But that doesn't really prove anything, does it?

Let me refer you to dutchdreams source against helium where they propose that change in temperature would change output in helium which obviously means that the output in radioactive materials has changed.

...the fact that letters exist between first century persons which prove the bibles authenticity.
Erm, no. All that shows is that the bible was around then. Some parts of the bible will be fact, but so are some parts of the latest harry potter book.

Actually, all but 14 verses (to clarify, verse means spoken sentance) were found in letters from and to different people. This means that of all but 14 verses the authenticity can be proven.

I dont think unranium does directly turn to lead from radioactive decay. I believe that Uranium may be a product of a nuclear fission though, which is very rare in rocks.

uraniums radioactive decay turns it into lead, its a known fact. All radioactive substances turn into something when they decay, it just so happens that in this case it is lead (but anyway this is entirely beside the point so nvm)

You seem to like pointing out the flaws in carbon dating. Why not do the same for methods that are actually used to date rocks at billions of years old, such as the uranium-lead dating method. Carbon dating is unreliable at dating objects over 60,000 years old due to a shorter half life of the C-14 isotope.

All radioactive dating methods have these simple but thwarting flaws... I do NOT need a source for this as you can see for yourselves that these flaws exist.

Are you saying that only 93% of your DNA comes from your mother and father? If so, where does the other 7% come from? Methinks missing 7% of a genome would be rather fatal. Sorry if I misrepresented you here.

No, but your mothers and fathers DNA combined does give you 100%. The only thing is that your different characteristicks make that big a difference.

If you refuse to recognise or have not yet recognised that the overwhelming majority of the scientific community rejects creationism and favours evolution and an old earth of around 4.5 billion years, you are either delusional or ignorant.

I accept that... thats not the problem. the problem is that if all the world believed in God, you would probably say the same about creationism. Its not about majority (If it was evolution would have absolutly no foothold) Its about proof. Granted niether evolution nor creationism can be solidly proven, but I still believe there is scientific evidence that evolution is flawed.

For example, finding intermediates in a proposed whale evolutionary series is good, but not enough.

Then you haven't even approached good...

This observation fits evolutionary theory and has been further supported by radiometric dating which is further supported still by the simple principal of relative dating (deeper = older).

Radiometric dating = false

Relative dating follows a trend known as circular reasoning. It is not the highest form of logic.

General trends and patterns suggest older life, found in deeper sedimentary rock layers, was simple and the more complex forms of life, including humans and associated primates, only appear in peripheral layers of sedimentary rock.

comming soon.. (ps, there are positivly identified human remains below dinosaur remains. Got to look through "bones of contemption" to find it again, gonna take a while)

It is a test specifically for dead things. That might be for the reason that it is unreliable for living things, precisely because of how it works.

[*:1qa4qnte]Before death subject should hold more C14 than after death so it should show a negative reading if it was reliable[*:1qa4qnte]4 hour dead seal - 9000 years old tested (others comming)

Sorces: Bones of contemption, New evidence that demands a verdict, The bible, generaly some of your own sources...

dutchdreams · July 29, 2007

<>

More reliable ? Heck, even creationist scientists are telling people NOT to use the moondust argument anymore to discredit the old-age universe. Found on answersingenesis.org:moon-dust argument no longer useful and Snelling (a creationist) on moondust Or are you now going to doubt creationist science as well?
Don't you find it very lucky that the new amounts deposited are just enough for evolution?

Nope, not really, specially since NASA at the time of the lunar landing already predicted there would be a small deposit present. I find it funny that later on creationists debate the numbers, telling it should be far bigger, then later on when the old figures are confirmed, they cry havoc for data manipulation.

...have already shown that the diffusion of noble gases in silicate minerals may decrease by at least 3-6 orders of magnitude at a given temperature if the studies are performed under pressure rather than in a vacuum...
If you even read your own source you would see that the flaws in the test that he is pointing out mean there would be even less helium than the earlier test indicates... This man is just trying to discredit humphrey, not his work...

Lovely how you twist things around because you don't get them: creationist (Humphry) manipulates data, by applying a vaccuum in his testing. My source criticizes him for it, because of course you shouldn't do diffusion rate measurements under vacuum when you're interested in the diffusion of gases under subterranean pressure.

Here's the WHOLE quote, of which you conveniantly left out a part:

However, Dr. Humphreys' diagram has little scientific merit.  First of all, his helium diffusion experiments were performed under a vacuum rather than at realistic pressures that model the subsurface conditions at Fenton Hill (about 200 to 1,200 bars; Winkler, 1979, p. 5).  McDougall and Harrison (1999), Dalrymple and Lanphere (1969) and many other researchers have already shown that the diffusion of noble gases in silicate minerals may decrease by at least 3-6 orders of magnitude at a given temperature if the studies are performed under pressure rather than in a vacuum.

That's what your quote is refering to: it is shown (and known) that if you apply realistic (subterrenean) pressures, *rather than vacuum* (Humphrey) the rates as proposed by Humphrey already decrease by 3-6 orders. Which is more in line with earlier work done on the same crystals during the 1980s. Do you understand it now?

In short: Humphrey manipulated the test by applying a vacuum to come to a higher diffusion rate, so people like you can believe there should be an enormous amount of helium present in our atmosphere and thus supposedly have an arguement against an old-age earth.

Before you start on the descrediting work card: Humphrey and his buddies did their research to discredit earlier work on the same rock crystals done in the 80s. In fact, it's what their whole research is based on, only thing is Humphrey did it by wrong model assumptions, wrong experiments.

He even had the crystals etched with hydrofluoric acid at one time. Any chemist can tell you how the original crystal lattice will be destroyed by that kind of treatment and therefore hold no relevance anymore to the original sample diffusion coefficient. Diffusion experiments done on those etched crystals done by Humphrey's et al resulted in even *higher* diffusion rates. It was recognised in the 2003 paper that these were too high and therefore disregarded. His research is a show of how sample treatment and analysing techniques affect diffusion rates at best. His conclusion how it's proof for a young earth is completely laughable and easy to undermine.

Just out of curiosity of course, but how were those zillions of copies of the book dated and tested for authenticity (a.k.a not forged)..... by carbon dating perhaps?
By:
[*:2x0avf7z]Materials used[*:2x0avf7z]Letter size and form[*:2x0avf7z]Punctuation[*:2x0avf7z]Text divisions[*:2x0avf7z]Ornamentation[*:2x0avf7z]Ink color[*:2x0avf7z]The texture and color of parchement

Let's have a look at the dead sea scrolls both of these two sources mention C14 dating corroborates nicely with other techniques. So, we have a benchmark now: you either have to admit your own dating techniques are fallacy (since the C14 corroborates them) or you have to admit C14 dating isn't the crappy method you so adamantly believe. Which one is it going to be?

Evolution happens on a continuous daily basis in the emerging of anti-biotic resistant bacteria, rapid changing of influenza and AIDS virus, pesticide-resistant insect plagues. Which is perfectly observable due to the short reproduction time of these organisms.

You can say what you want, but all that goes drastically against the belief that each and every organism has always existed in their present form.
You are confusing macro evolution with micro evolution. Variations within kinds were made by God, however you have not been able to breed a complete new kind of animal have you?

Evolution is evolution, be it micro or macro. I wasn't aware (micro) evolution was written in the bible?

Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations.

The DDT-resistance is passed on from generation to generation. The insects that die, will be removed from the gene-pool eventually. So, the population has changed into a DDT-resistent population. Now compare that to the genome of the insects when we started using DDT decades ago: it has changed, woah evolution.

On a side note, can you point out every wild (as in living in the wild) counterpart of all our breeds of dogs and cats, please?

How are you doing on the link I gave you for the proof on evolution? Or would you rather present us with a mathematical model about repopulation of earth after the Flood. Where starting from 8 (?) people, earth was repopulated in 700 years into a big enough population to sustain Egyptian dynasties, Chinese empires, Babylonian culture. Could you also point me to where Cro-Magnon and Neanderthals fit in the Bible? These Cro-magnons and Neanderthals showed qualities that are attributed nowadays to humans alone, toolmaking, but most of all ART and even signs of speech capability . So, what were they according to you? Humans? Apes? Sub-humans? I thought we were created in his image? Don't bother debating the age, I really want to know how you explain these archeological finds. Be sure to include their capability of art in your explanation.

EDITED: a paragraph

Rebdragon · July 29, 2007

Oi... okay, you want to talk authenticity? Fine. Take the New Testament, the Gospels to be specific. When Jesus died, it's not exactly like four of his disciples instantly sat down and wrote out the Gospels right there, no, they were too busy spreading his word across the Meditteranean. Thus, as they spread his word, stories about Jesus spread all over the known world. This was the primary method of passing stories along through generations at the time- oral communication. Thus, the stories went through filter after filter that were the story tellers. It was not until a generations later that the stories were eventually written down, that is after they had been polluted and warped by the passers of the oral tradition.
The earliest known copy of the new testament is at 50 AD. Jesus was born at 0. He grew to be 33 years old... that leaves only 20 years between Jesus' resurrection and the complete finishing of the bible.

Okay, that's complete BS and you know it. Every source I've ever read, everything I've ever learned in Scripture classes, points towards the contrary. Cite your sources please, not your own personal made-up points.

Fine, I'll give you yet another source that shows your making this crap up:

SCHOLARS

"There are various evidences which suggest that Luke made use of the works of Josephus, and it may well be that the two-part Luke-Acts was inspired by Josephus' two-part book Against Apion, published around A.D. 100." (Schonfield, 1975, p. 35)

"We now know that Luke wrote his gospel and the Acts of the Apostles in the early second century (Mack, 1995, p. 45)."

...

140-150 AD is the most likely time for the writing of Mark's Gospel - by Cerinthius." (Humphreys, 2005, p. 188)

"The first reasonably complete copy we have of Galatians... dates to about 200 C.E." (Ehrman, 2006, p. 60)"

...

Read through it, then come back with evidence explaining why you believe the ealiest copy of the New Testament was completed in 50 AD.

Source.

Yes they did share the word through the people but in many cases the bible states:

Luke : "...therefore since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also for me to write an orderly account for you, most exelent Theophilius...

Furthermore we see that when there is a deviation from the original gospel, strict actions are taken agaainst it.

All of pauls letter begin like all letters of that time, and after that with praise of the church he was writing to. All but one. In Galations (not-so-strangley not very often read in churches today) Paul begins with "I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the ways of Christ and are turning to a different gospel..."

...

For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.

I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain."

If even correcting the leader of the christians is not strict enough, what is?

:-s

Where exactly are you going with this? Quite sorry for not understanding the point you're making :| .

The Gospels did not form a complete whole 'very early on'; it did not happen until more than a century after the end of Jesus's mission. The Ecumenical Translation of the Bible estimates the date the four Gospels acquired the status of canonic literature at around 170 A.D.

...

the Apostle John (like Matthew) was the officially qualified witness of the facts he recounts, although the majority of critics do not support the hypothesis which says he wrote the fourth Gospel.
Technically speaking, everyone who knew Jesus, or who was even alive at the same time he was, was already long-since dead by the time the Gospels were put together. Hell, the grandchildren of the people who were alive at the same time as Jesus were already dead.
As I have explained above, BS.

Not really.

If, on the other hand, one chooses to regard the Gospels as expressing the personal point of view of those who collected the oral traditions that belonged to various communities, or as writings suited to an occasion or combat-writings, it does not come as a surprise to find faults in the Gospels. All these faults are the sign that they were written by men in circumstances such as these. The writers may have been quite sincere, even though they relate facts without doubting their inaccuracy. They provide us with descriptions which contradict other authors' narrations, or are influenced by reasons of religious rivalry between communities. They therefore present stories about the life of Jesus from a completely different angle than their adversaries.
Note that he 'forgets' to mention any one of these supposedly many flaws in the bible *sarcasm*

Great counterargument, I must say. You must have been up all night thinking up that one.

Fine, here's a small handful for ya, since you're so eager to learn:

1) How many generations were there between Abraham to David? Matthew 1:17 lists fourteen generations. Matthew 1:2 lists thirteen generations.

2) Is Paul lying? In Acts 20:35 Paul told people "to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, 'It is more blessed to give than to receive.'" Since Jesus never made such a biblical statement, isnÃÆÃÂ¢ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¡ÃÂ¬ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¾ÃÂ¢t Paul guilty of deception?

3) When did the leper become not a leper? (Matthew 8:13 & 8:14) Jesus healed the leper before visiting the house. (Mark 1:29-30 & 1:40-42) Jesus healed the leper after visiting Simon PeterÃÆÃÂ¢ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¡ÃÂ¬ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¾ÃÂ¢s house.

...

42) Is scripture inspired by God? "all scripture is given by inspiration of God." 2 Timothy 3:16 compared to: "But I speak this by permission and not by commandment." 1 Corinthians 7:6 "But to the rest speak I, not the Lord." 1 Corinthians 7:12 "That which I speak, I speak it not after the Lord" 2 Corinthians.

Source.

Evrae · July 29, 2007

I dont think unranium does directly turn to lead from radioactive decay. I believe that Uranium [lead] may be a product of a nuclear fission though, which is very rare in rocks.

uraniums radioactive decay turns it into lead, its a known fact. All radioactive substances turn into something when they decay, it just so happens that in this case it is lead (but anyway this is entirely beside the point so nvm)

I'm afraid you are wrong here. It is impossible for Uranium to directly decay to Lead. It decays to something, which decays to something else, and so on 15 times until you get to lead. It may seem a trivial point, but it shows something. You appear very, very cretain about things which are wrong. This is one case. Could there be others? its likely, methinks.

jonavolaii · July 29, 2007

Luke was not written in chronological order so there goes about half your theories.

[*:2w064pwd]Count them for once, or learn to...

[*:2w064pwd]Is it not true that the gospels have only partially told the tale? Just because it was not quoted does not mean it was never said.

[*:2w064pwd]Actually if you look at the verses this writer conveiniently skipped, we see that he:

Healed a lepard in the midst of the crowd following him,

stayed at peters for a whole day,

Traveled Galalee,

Healed another lepard that came to him.

[*:2w064pwd]It does not say in the first verse that Jesus and the centurion directly spoke, it says he came to him for help.

[*:2w064pwd]The differnce in timeframe may have been so short that by the time the witness came the messenger may have already dispatched the message. Also see 1.

[*:2w064pwd]

[*:2w064pwd]The capture of John was not even written in John (They are two different people) so Johns account may have happend after the others.

[*:2w064pwd]The mother asked for them, seeing the culture it is not a surprise she was not mentioned

[*:2w064pwd]Yet again just because it does not mention the donkey in Mark does not mean it was not there

[*:2w064pwd]Matthew wote the whole figtree event after it had completely finished, mark wrote it in the seperate pieces.

[*:2w064pwd]See above, also, noting Jesus parables all had to do with agriculture, it was obvious that many were farmers, Matthew knew the fig tree had (relativly) astonishingly quickly withered, so he called it immediatly

[*:2w064pwd]In matthew it talks of the elija that was to come, in jhon it talks of elija, being christ

[*:2w064pwd]Note that these are two very different blood lines... As for mary, they may not have concerned themselves with the female line however, If she had the son of God given to her while she was still a virgin, that would cause a fuss woulden't it? Also, seeing that Luke writes more about women than anybody else, that would give a strong argument that it indeed was Mary. The reason why this writer says christians will lie about it is because he knows we have reasonable evidence against it.

[*:2w064pwd]See number 1

[*:2w064pwd]See number 2

[*:2w064pwd]It does not say it was his FIRST sermon, it says it is the first sermon in that book (see number 2)

[*:2w064pwd]John 2:23 "while he was in Jeruzalem..." (obviously this is not the same time)

[*:2w064pwd]Cannaan was a large region of before abraham (although he did live in it) Cannaan

Quote wikipedia "Etymology from "low" applied to the coast as the "lowlands" and by extension to the neighboring region"

[*:2w064pwd]"A blind beggar" not "one blind beggar"

[*:2w064pwd]Matthew 4:8 "again, the devil took him to a high mountain..."

Besides, luke is not chronological

[*:2w064pwd]He condemned praying in public for to show off, not praying in public sincerely

[*:2w064pwd]See above

[*:2w064pwd]Luke does not specify if a crowd was near

[*:2w064pwd]Jewish days started at sundown, the 6th hour was in the middle of the night, the 3rd hour was in the evening, Of course the usual battering and brusing took place and by the time Jesus was ready to be crucified (which is later than the source claims that John claims) it would have been the 3rd hour

[*:2w064pwd]Just because one took Jesus' side in the matter does not mean he didn't insult him.

[*:2w064pwd]"For christ sent ME not to baptize but to preach the Gospel"

[*:2w064pwd]Ehmmm... Luke 23:3-4 & 7 sais nothing about Judas...

[*:2w064pwd]See number 2

[*:2w064pwd]At the beginning of the trip it was dark, on the way to the tomb it was just light

[*:2w064pwd]Mark ends at chapter 16 =D>

[*:2w064pwd]Same as 19

[*:2w064pwd]He said "recieve the holy spirit" not "you have recieved the holy spirit"

[*:2w064pwd]It does not state that one happened before the other

[*:2w064pwd]The vecinity of Bethany, not in Bethany

[*:2w064pwd]So? Jesus states before that that all blasfemies are forgivable except...

[*:2w064pwd]I Don't know, however Jesus was right about John. Mabey John thought he was being refferred to Elijah from the old testament?

[*:2w064pwd]John says nothing about this.

[*:2w064pwd]The voice (Jesus) spoke in aramic. Sauls servants did not understand aramic.

[*:2w064pwd]Got me stumped. Never heard of this... I'll look into it...

[*:2w064pwd]By Jewish law he had to die, By Roman law which ruled at the time, they were not allowed to kill anyone.

[*:2w064pwd]At the time Jesus said this no man had gone into heaven, Abraham just hadden't died yet, where he went, who knows?

[*:2w064pwd]"But I speak this by permission and not by commandment" so? He is allowed to do it. Even picasso was inspired although he did it himself (and it turned into a mess anyway #-o )

I even recognise some of the riddles from maths class in this thing!

Anyway, this person must be sided against christianity (I mean come on! evilbible.com? thats proof he's out to get us)

May I quote Revelation in case this person is listening?

For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

As for you, you have tryed to make me prove myself right while you have not shown a shred of evidence except what you think exists. If you say intermediates exist, give examples, if you think you have any evidence at all! Give examples.

The problem is I am going to be asked to prove my points over and over and over again because you are working from the basic belief that God does not exist.

Evrae · July 29, 2007

But if us working from the assumption god does not exist is bad, surely the assumption he does exist is equally bad?

Anyway, I'm not sure that we are. We merely want evidence of that existence, that does not rely upon god's existence to be evidence. That would be self referencing, and logicaly dodgy.

We have come to the conclusion that god does not exist, having studied the available evidence.

Rebdragon · July 29, 2007

Luke was not written in chronological order so there goes about half your theories.

Stop fabricating responses. Take #1, where you say that the writer of the primary article needs to count. Go back, and check your Bible at least. I checked my own to see if you had a point, and you don't. Matthew 1:2 does in fact list 13 generations inbetween Abraham and David, and Matthew 1:17 clearly says fourteen generations.

Checked #14 as well, same thing. You didn't even bother to check, did you?

And your response #13 is wrong. If you knew anything about history, or weren't completely biased towards the bible being an absolute truth, you'd know (or admit) that they were patriarchal societies. Good job trying to dodge the bullet, it hit you straight through the skull.

As for your response to #19, I checked them both myself. Matthew does indeed say "two blind man", while Luke says "a certain blind man", i.e., singular. Your response to #31, which you referenced back to #19, is also incorrect. John mentions "two angels in white", and Mark mentions "a young man in a white robe"

I'd go on, but of the few responses I've checked (I don't have all day for this), you've fabricated an answer every time, just to fill up space and feign a mein of having an idea what you are talking about.

I'm getting really pissed off having to check out your own arguments, rather than accepting them and making my own. You keep posting fallacy after fallacy after fallacy, and it's just getting irritating and wasting time. If you think you're right, make a proper argument with valid points. If not, then keep doing what you're doing, 'cause it sure as hell isn't helping you.

I even recognise some of the riddles from maths class in this thing!

Anyway, this person must be sided against christianity (I mean come on! evilbible.com? thats proof he's out to get us)

May I quote Revelation in case this person is listening?

For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Cute. A Biblical threat. Points for being original.

And hey, there are plenty of Bible fanatics running around, so why are you offended by the fact that there are actually people in the world to keep them in check, by examining the Bible without a bias of everything having to be true?

The problem is I am going to be asked to prove my points over and over and over again because you are working from the basic belief that God does not exist.

I never said I believed God does not exist, and that has nothing to do with the argument anyways. I'm agnostic, and that changes what exactly?

Is it just me, or is this the kind of end to a creationists arguments that I've seen before? I'm feeling a bit of deja vu...

underu2000 · July 29, 2007

1) How many generations were there between Abraham to David? Matthew 1:17 lists fourteen generations. Matthew 1:2 lists thirteen generations.

Why is it 90% of these so called "biblical contradictions" are statistical? Honestly, does it really matter if there were 14 or 13 generations? In any case, looks like the number 14 is wrong, and if counted it turns out to be 13. It may be a mistake on the author's part, but it isn't that serious.

2) Is Paul lying? In Acts 20:35 Paul told people "to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, 'It is more blessed to give than to receive.'" Since Jesus never made such a biblical statement, isnÃÆÃÂ¢ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¡ÃÂ¬ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¾ÃÂ¢t Paul guilty of deception?

I don't really understand the basis of this one. Does it say "because it isn't written so, Jesus never said it"? That, is anyone's guess, but not enough to say "It isn't written, therefore it never happened." Regardless, it could also be a paraphrasing, since much of Jesus' ministries revolved around generosity and that kind of thing. It most definitely is not "deception".

3) When did the leper become not a leper? (Matthew 8:13 & 8:14) Jesus healed the leper before visiting the house. (Mark 1:29-30 & 1:40-42) Jesus healed the leper after visiting Simon PeterÃÆÃÂ¢ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¡ÃÂ¬ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¾ÃÂ¢s house.

This one is odd. :-k It's not much of a contradiction, seeing that neither account refutes the other. It's just the order of events which results in some logical incompatibility. Seeing that the gospel of Mark is supposedly older than Mathew, it may be more accurate. But that's anyone's guess.

42) Is scripture inspired by God? "all scripture is given by inspiration of God." 2 Timothy 3:16 compared to: "But I speak this by permission and not by commandment." 1 Corinthians 7:6 "But to the rest speak I, not the Lord." 1 Corinthians 7:12 "That which I speak, I speak it not after the Lord" 2 Corinthians.

This one is very contextual; it's merely the wording that throws the reader off. All these accounts in Corinthians are by Paul, preaching to gentile churches. In the first one he says "I wasn't commanded by God to say this, but I say it anyway", so it isn't technically uninspired by God. And the second one deals with marriage and gentiles, for which there is no backing from previous scriptures, thus it is "not from the Lord". It's all in the misleading wording, but if you read the context it makes more sense.

I believe there's like 600 of these "contradictions", which aren't so much of conflicting claims as they are different numbers, or slightly varying accounts of an event. They are all very minor, I have yet to see something like "God has a little brother".

Satenza · July 29, 2007

1) How many generations were there between Abraham to David? Matthew 1:17 lists fourteen generations. Matthew 1:2 lists thirteen generations.

Why is it 90% of these so called "biblical contradictions" are statistical? Honestly, does it really matter if there were 14 or 13 generations? In any case, looks like the number 14 is wrong, and if counted it turns out to be 13. It may be a mistake on the author's part, but it isn't that serious.

Yes, because if one thing is in doubt then the whole thing becomes doubtful as to whether one passage is correct or just another blip in wording or something. If thats wrong other things can be wrong and essentially literalists are therefore following and believing something that is wrong.

2) Is Paul lying? In Acts 20:35 Paul told people "to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, 'It is more blessed to give than to receive.'" Since Jesus never made such a biblical statement, isnÃÆÃÂ¢ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¡ÃÂ¬ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¾ÃÂ¢t Paul guilty of deception?

I don't really understand the basis of this one. Does it say "because it isn't written so, Jesus never said it"? That, is anyone's guess, but not enough to say "It isn't written, therefore it never happened." Regardless, it could also be a paraphrasing, since much of Jesus' ministries revolved around generosity and that kind of thing. It most definitely is not "deception".

How is this not deception, Jesus didn't (apparently) say this so Paul therefore contructed it himself and is passing it off as Jesus' words (therefore GODS word) rather than his mortal, falliable own.

3) When did the leper become not a leper? (Matthew 8:13 & 8:14) Jesus healed the leper before visiting the house. (Mark 1:29-30 & 1:40-42) Jesus healed the leper after visiting Simon PeterÃÆÃÂ¢ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¡ÃÂ¬ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¾ÃÂ¢s house.

This one is odd. :-k It's not much of a contradiction, seeing that neither account refutes the other. It's just the order of events which results in some logical incompatibility. Seeing that the gospel of Mark is supposedly older than Mathew, it may be more accurate. But that's anyone's guess.

"Anyones guess", how reliable for a book in which people base their life around.

I believe there's like 600 of these "contradictions", which aren't so much of conflicting claims as they are different numbers, or slightly varying accounts of an event. They are all very minor, I have yet to see something like "God has a little brother".

That doesn't matter 600 errors proves the Bible is nothing but work of man, not divine or perfect and so all of it comes into question as to whether its Gods commandment or not. Error has no place if this was the product of perfection the one book in which he can communicate with man. Tell me, this is Gods chance to really convey himself to us and show us we must believe. If this is correct then why has the Christian God become such a paradoxical mess that the majority of people do not beleive in him, and why the hell did he choose to become such a logical absurdity (assuming he is perfect). I mean its quite funny really, since he created the world and humans he also created empiricism and logic the two things that show him to be nothing more than a fairytale.

Rollyboy · July 30, 2007

The Bible:

The authors knew the facts. Two were companions of Christ (Matthew and John). And two were disciples of the Apostles, living in constant contact with them (Mark and Luke).

The facts would of been honest and upright, they were Saints!

They almost all died for the message they wrote (The Bible). It would be illogical to think they laid their lives down for a lie, for a text that had been corrupted or tampered with. Anyone found with a Christian manuscript had to surrender it to be destroyed or face death.

The Bible can be interpreted in many ways. So the Catholic Church has produced a book (Can't remember the name), that explains the true teachings of the church.

The existence of God:

St. Thomas Aquinas;

The argument from change:

- Change occurs

- No thing changes without an external involvement, out side itself.

- There cannot be an infinite series of things each causing change in the next

- There must be a unchanging source of changes. This we call "God"

The Argument from Efficient Causality

- We observe that some things cause other things to be

- Is every thing caused? This is absurb, what could "every thing" be caused? Nothing?

- Therefore, there must be an uncaused being who is the first cause: This we call "God".

The argument from Time and Contingency

- The things we observe can either be or not be

- In infinite time there would have been a time when all such things did not exist

- If at any time nothing existed then nothing could come into being

- Therefore there must be a being whose existence is necessary. This we call "God".

The argument from degrees of Perfection

- We observe that some beings are more perfect than others (a man is better than a dog is better than a worm is better than a drop of water).

- Everything less than perfect in being and goodness must be caused by a being perfect in being and goodness. This we call "God"

The argument from design

- We observe that things lack intelligence act for an intelligible end

- This cannot be caused by chance and must be caused by an intelligent designer

- Therefore there is an intelligent designer who mad the universe. This we call "God"

The only arguments I have seen that God does not exist is:

1. We cannot see it, so God does not exist

But we cannot see hope, love etc. Does that mean it does not exist?

You'll say it does. So draw it for me? Measure it for me?

2. The Bible has flaws, so there is no God

Refer to "The existence of God". Even if the Bible is "false", the logic and reason that God exist is still there.

warri0r45 · July 30, 2007

Rollboy, some of your arguments for god seem great. I was wondering if could enlighten me on something that I often wonder. There are arguments for god, yet why do people like concluding the christian god; a very specific and documented deity?

On your argument from design, you've fallen into the common trap of misdefining an evolutionary process as chance. Mutations are random chance yet natural selection is anything but; nature demands change by forcing selective pressure on a population's gene pool. Such a fallacy is either down to ignorance or intellectual dishonesty. Would you agree?

Rollyboy · July 30, 2007

There are arguments for god, yet why do people like concluding the christian god; a very specific and documented deity?

I'm not sure why. But since this topic was on The Bible, i wanted to stick within the context.

Yes, i know that evolution is not caused by chance. Hence the argument from design states that it is caused by an intelligent designer.

"In other words, all physical laws and the order of nature and life were designed and ordered by God, the intellgent designer. "

Satenza · July 30, 2007

The Bible:

The authors knew the facts. Two were companions of Christ (Matthew and John). And two were disciples of the Apostles, living in constant contact with them (Mark and Luke).

The facts would of been honest and upright, they were Saints!

That word has no meaning if the Bible isn't true, kind of circular reasoning there.

They almost all died for the message they wrote (The Bible). It would be illogical to think they laid their lives down for a lie, for a text that had been corrupted or tampered with. Anyone found with a Christian manuscript had to surrender it to be destroyed or face death.

So have thousands of others for different religions.

The existence of God:

St. Thomas Aquinas;

The argument from change:

- Change occurs

- No thing changes without an external involvement, out side itself.

- There cannot be an infinite series of things each causing change in the next

- There must be a unchanging source of changes. This we call "God"

I do love Thomas Aquinas, and this argument shows only that it is illogical to have an infinite regress, nothing more. That uncaused first cause can be the Big Bang maybe? God could be an event rather than a supernatural being.

The Argument from Efficient Causality

- We observe that some things cause other things to be

- Is every thing caused? This is absurb, what could "every thing" be caused? Nothing?

- Therefore, there must be an uncaused being who is the first cause: This we call "God".

Same as above, I have no problem with this argument other than when people then take what the see as "God" and apply charactaristics to it.

The argument from Time and Contingency

- The things we observe can either be or not be

- In infinite time there would have been a time when all such things did not exist

- If at any time nothing existed then nothing could come into being

- Therefore there must be a being whose existence is necessary. This we call "God".

Aquinas beleived in two forms of finding truth, empiricism and supernatural revelation. These arguments show only the need logically for an uncaused first cause (which is kind of logically inept anyway) and still relied on supernatural revelation for his belief in a specific God with characteristics.

The argument from degrees of Perfection

- We observe that some beings are more perfect than others (a man is better than a dog is better than a worm is better than a drop of water).

- Everything less than perfect in being and goodness must be caused by a being perfect in being and goodness. This we call "God"

I disagree completley since this already assumes evolution is incorrect and creation is correct. I can imagine my oerfect house, my perfect partner and my perfect anything. Perfection apparently entails existance and so therefore these things must exist. But they don't because existance isn't a property of perfection.

The argument from design

- We observe that things lack intelligence act for an intelligible end

- This cannot be caused by chance and must be caused by an intelligent designer

- Therefore there is an intelligent designer who mad the universe. This we call "God"

Aquinas never explained what he was refering to i don't think. However he also didn't explain why order or intelligence can't come about by chance.

The only arguments I have seen that God does not exist is:

1. We cannot see it, so God does not exist

But we cannot see hope, love etc. Does that mean it does not exist?

You'll say it does. So draw it for me? Measure it for me?

2. The Bible has flaws, so there is no God

Refer to "The existence of God". Even if the Bible is "false", the logic and reason that God exist is still there.

Which is why I am agnostic, however I assert no one can know what Gods characteristics are.

The bible

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Important Information