Originally posted by David Cwhat evidence do you have to present that demonstrates a "worldwide flood catastrophe" actually occurred?
It doesn't matter, you wouldn't accept anything as evidence anyway.
Much more than just the fact that it (the bible) exists, I can assure you.
I was hoping to get something here we could work with. I see you're not intersested in new ways of looking at things nor in new information. Your mind is made up and your not willing to accept the possibility of change.
[b>]Nonsense. If I write a story about little green elves saving mankind from flesh eating demons and base it around real-world geographical locations like Madrid and New York, this somehow makes it true? You might want to double check your "logic" on this one.[/b]
I have. The Bible contains more than just real places. It contains real people.
Example: For centuries, secular scholars denied the existence of the Hittites, a group of people mentioned 21 times in the Bible. When the topic of Hittites came up in scholarly circles, statements were made like, “If they really existed, someone else [beside the Bible] would have written about them. Or archaeologists would have found remains of their work.” Then, in 1906, Hugo Winckler uncovered a library of over 10,000 cuneiform tablets in a dig in Boghaz-Köy, Turkey. When translated in 1924 by the Czech scholar Friedrich Hrozny, the tables were found to be the official archives of Hattusas, the capital city of the Hittite empire. The tablets describe the Hittite Empire in great detail, including their foreign relations with the Egyptians, Babylonians, Cypriots, and Greeks. Furthermore, it proved the Bible’s references accurate and silenced the scoffing scholars.
Archaeology has also confirmed the existence of a number of people named in the Bible, including Jesus, Caiapas, Lysanias, Erastus, Pilate, Sargon, Baruch, Darius, Cyrus, and Uzziah, just to name a few.
BTW, if Soddom and Gohmorrah are real-world geographical locations, where are they located?
The Bible is real. You don't have to accept it, but that doesn't change the truth of it. Look at the evidence. There are literally hundreds of skeptics that went out to prove the Bible wrong and ended up Christians (Josh McDowell, Lee Strobel, etc) The difference between them and most skeptics is that they took a good hard look at the evidence and accepted what it told them. Most skeptics only go so far as go find a good one-liner that supports their current idea.
Please, do the research. Prove me wrong. I dare you.
DF
Originally posted by STANGThere is no getting around the concept of God. If there is no God, then you make yourself into one. If you are an atheist, then your religion is evolution. The Greeks had a similair belief. They beleived that "the gods" evolved from the earth and created man. Evolutionists simply eliminate "the gods" part of the Greek myth and say that man evolved from the earth. In your science text books you will see a graph about evolution. In the graph is a little fish, that turns into an amphibian, that turns into a mammel, that turns into a monkey, that turns into a man. Then you see the man slowly becoming erect and miracuosly transformed into modern man. Soon our brains will be the size of basketballs and we will become the master race!!!!!!! You see, man has been created by the mystic force of mother nature and continues to evolve. Man has both intelligence and a certain degree of power. Therefore he must be a god, correct? He is a god because man has no rival. Granted, both man's power and intellect is pathetic in comparison to what we perceive as God.
The car of a family of 7 ran out of fuel this week. A woman driving by stopped to talk to them and then drove with her son to fetch some fuel. Upon her return, the car still wouldn't start. She drove her car closer to help jump start it. In front of the family of 7, a truck came up the road and slammed into her car, killing her and her son.
There is no God.
Evolution, however, has two problems. Where did matter come from and how did life evolve. Sceintists cannot so much as create the simplest life form which is a cell in their laboratories using intellegent thought. They then expect us to believe that it just happened without intelligent thought. As far as matter coming into existence, sceintists point to the "Big Bang". Problem is where did the Big Bang come from. You also may ask where did God come from. This question assumes, however, that God did not create time. Time demands a begining and therefore there must be one. The begining came when God created the deminsion of time.
Originally posted by whodeyEvolution is not a religion. It does not require belief in the unprovable. All the tennents of evolutionary theory have been proven. Evolution has never been disproven, although several factual errors in the biblical creation account have been noted by myself and others. There are many, many threads where these points have been discussed at great length, and I'm in no mood to go through them all again, I'm sick of refuting the same tired old points. Just because YOU can't believe in evolution doesn't mean it's not real - we've proven all the tennents (genetic variation, speciation, hetrogenous environment and huge amounts of time) and have a huge amount of evidence that lines up with the predictions made by evolutionary theory.
There is no getting around the concept of God. If there is no God, then you make yourself into one. If you are an atheist, then your religion is evolution. The Greeks had a similair belief. They beleived that "the gods" evolved from the earth and created man. Evolutionists simply eliminate "the gods" part of the Greek myth and say that man evolved from t ...[text shortened]... d therefore there must be one. The begining came when God created the deminsion of time.
I'd suggest you go and get yourself a really good book on statistics and arm yourself with the concept of how long 4,000,000,000 years is (especially since nearly everything that has ever lived has had an average generation time of less than 1 day), then come back and debate from a position of strength and understanding.
Originally posted by DragonFriend
Example: For centuries, secular scholars denied the existence of the Hittites, a group of people mentioned 21 times in the Bible. When the topic of Hittites came up in scholarly circles, statements were made like, “If they really existed, someone else [beside the Bible] would have written about them. Or archaeologists would have found remains of their work.” Then, in 1906, Hugo Winckler uncovered a library of over 10,000 cuneiform tablets in a dig in Boghaz-Köy, Turkey. When translated in 1924 by the Czech scholar Friedrich Hrozny, the tables were found to be the official archives of Hattusas, the capital city of the Hittite empire. The tablets describe the Hittite Empire in great detail, including their foreign relations with the Egyptians, Babylonians, Cypriots, and Greeks. Furthermore, it proved the Bible’s references accurate and silenced the scoffing scholars.
Just a second. Archeology as a discipline is only like 200 years old, at best. For secular scholars
to deny the Hittites because there was no 'proof' is kind of silly, because no one was looking for
proof to begin with.
Can you list which secular scholars denied the existence of the Hittites and in which documents
they did so?
Nemesio
Originally posted by scottishinnzEvolution has never been disproven,
Evolution is not a religion. It does not require belief in the unprovable. All the tennents of evolutionary theory have been proven. Evolution has never been disproven, although several factual errors in the biblical creation account have been noted by myself and others. There are many, many threads where these points have been discussed at great le ...[text shortened]... ess than 1 day), then come back and debate from a position of strength and understanding.
Evolution, as an ongoing thing, is a fact. True. But it can't account for the origin of life. Scientists have proven this (reference Dr. Behe's work, and others).
The barrier is at the acid level. Cells are made of proteins. Proteins of amino acids. But these acids need to be combined in a very specific way to create each protein, thus DNA. But there is no mechanism to create the DNA. The proverbial brick wall.
So yes, the creatures we see today are going through evolution, but evolution can't account for the origin of life. Thus the tired old points get re-addressed.
I can give you references if you'd like to read more about the barrier.
DF
Originally posted by David CAsking if there is any evidence of a worldwide flood invites all sorts of nonsense. DragonSheep will simply throw out a couple of suspect scraps fed to him by his youth pastor. If you press him, he will run to a wackie website and try to drown us all in obfuscation.
[b]My assumption was: if the Bible story of the flood is true, then the Christian god must be the real god because if the others existed they wouldn't let their people drown.
So, you are using an a priori belief drawn from the Christian bible as a starting point for believing the Christian bible. Seems circular, IMO. What evidence do you have t ...[text shortened]... tian bible to be a complete fabrication. That would, however, require a new thread.[/b]
The real problem for Flood literalists is that they don't need to find just a couple of pieces of evidence. They need to explain why if 30,000 ft of water covered the earth in 40 days and receded (where?) in a year, we cannot find evidence EVERYWHERE. A castastrophe of that magnitude should be so obvious that teachers could dig up signs in the backyard for their 2nd grade science lesson.
The overwhelming number of problems with a literal Flood account are so numerous that the only possible defense for the believer is to claim that Goddunnit and then covered his tracks afterwards.
Originally posted by telerionGoddunit and covered his tracks afterward.
Asking if there is any evidence of a worldwide flood invites all sorts of nonsense. DragonSheep will simply throw out a couple of suspect scraps fed to him by his youth pastor. If you press him, he will run to a wackie website and try to drown us all in obfuscation.
The real problem for Flood literalists is that they don't need to find just a ...[text shortened]... ble defense for the believer is to claim that Goddunnit and then covered his tracks afterwards.
To "test" our faith.
Originally posted by STANGIf there is no God, then why is all his prophecies in the Bible being fulfilled? Why are there seven heads in the papacy reflecting Revelation Chapter 17? Why is the deadly wound healed? Why is there an empty seat in the European Union number 666!!!??? Why are there inverted witchcraft pentagrams on the top of the European Union building? Why is a "woman riding the beast" on a mural in the European Union? Why do the 12 stars on the European coinage represent the stars around the head of marry, or rather - as one European Union associate put it - represent and/or the "woman of the apocalypse?" I could go on and on... But, it would be way too much too put in post? But, ask your self the question, "Do I have Jesus in my heart? Do I know Him who sits at the right hand of GOd?" He loves you. He's waiting for you to accept him, for terrible times come upon the Earth and every Word of His Word shall be fulfilled! He is God and not one of his Words will ever pass away! Praise Jesus! It's all true and cannot be disproven!
The car of a family of 7 ran out of fuel this week. A woman driving by stopped to talk to them and then drove with her son to fetch some fuel. Upon her return, the car still wouldn't start. She drove her car closer to help jump start it. In front of the family of 7, a truck came up the road and slammed into her car, killing her and her son.
There is no God.
Originally posted by powershakerAre you saying Satan has chosen the EU as his seat of power?
If there is no God, then why is all his prophecies in the Bible being fulfilled? Why are there seven heads in the papacy reflecting Revelation Chapter 17? Why is the deadly wound healed? Why is there an empty seat in the European Union number 666!!!??? Why are there inverted witchcraft pentagrams on the top of the European Union building? Why is a " ...[text shortened]... of his Words will ever pass away! Praise Jesus! It's all true and cannot be disproven!
A major strategic blunder, I reckon.
2 edits
Originally posted by scottishinnzEvolution has been far from being proven. There is sceintific data that is used to back up its claims, however. I do not dispute that. There are sceintific data to back up the Bible as well. One such sceintist has used his data to back up the Biblical account of Genesis if you are interested. The web site is
Evolution is not a religion. It does not require belief in the unprovable. All the tennents of evolutionary theory have been proven. Evolution has never been disproven, although several factual errors in the biblical creation account have been noted by myself and others. There are many, many threads where these points have been discussed at great le ess than 1 day), then come back and debate from a position of strength and understanding.
http://www.worshipradio.com/home/ZolaVideo.html
Just go to the web site and select the video on creation. Be warned, however, the video lasts about an hour. According to the sceintist, the universe is approxamatly 15 billion years old. He says that time is susceptable to distortions and has theories as to how to account for them. For example, if you travel in a space ship at the speed of light and come back a year later to earth, more time has elpased on earth than for you in the space ship. The Bible also says that a day to the Lord is as a 1000 years to man. I do not claim that creation was created in 6 literal days. What is a day to man? It is a full rotation of the earth that is rotating around the sun, is it not? How then could day one of creation occur before the earth was even created? It seems to me that a day to God is very different to that of man's limited perseption. Let me know what you think of the video if you are open minded enough to consider the facts he presents. Just remember, the more you realize that you don't know, the more you actually understand. Its a big universe out there!!!!!!!!!!!
I see in your last post that you mention statistics. Do you know the statistical chances of evolution occuring are? I will give you a taste.
I will read you some findings by Doctor Hugh Ross about the big bang.
This is from his book, "Fine tuning parameters for the Universe"
1. Strong nuclear force constant....if larger; no hydrogen would form; atomic nuclei for most life-essential elements would be unstable; thus, no life chemistry. If smaller; no elements heavier than hydrogen would form; again no life chemistry.
2. Weak nuclear force constant......if larger; too much hydrogen would convert to helium in big bang; hence, stars would convert too much matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible. If smaller; too little helium would be produced from big bang; hence, stars would convert too little matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible.
3. Gravitational force constant....if larger; stars would be too hot and would burn too rapidly and too unevenly for life chemistry. If smaller; stars would be too cool to ignite nuclear fusion; thus, many of the elements needed for life chemistry would never form.
4. Electromagnetic force constant......if greater; chemical bonding would be disrupted; elements more massive than boron would be unstable to fission. If lesser; chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry.
5. Ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant....if larger; all stars would be at least 40% more massive than the sun; hence, stellar burning would be too brief and too uneven for life support. If smaller; all stars would be at least 20% less massive than the sun, thus incapable of producing heavy elements.
6. Ratio of electron to proton mass....if larger; chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry. If smaller; same as above.
7. Ratio of number of protons to number of electrons...if larger; elecrtromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation. If smaller, same as above.
8. Expansion rate of the universe....if larger; no galaxies would form. If smaller, universe would collapse, even before stars formed.
9. Entropy level of universe....if larger; stars would not form within proto-galaxies. If smaller; no protogalaxies would form.
10. Mass density of the universe....if larger, overabundance of deuterium from big bang would cause stars to burn rapidly, too rapidly for life to form. If smaller, insufficient helium from big bang would result in a shortage of heavy elements.
11. Velocity of light.....if faster; stars would be too luminous for life support. If slower; stars would be unsufficiently luminous for life support.
12. Age of the universe....if older; no solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would exist in the right (for life) part of the galaxy. If younger; solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would not yet have formed.
13. Initial uniformity of radiation....if more uniform; stars, star clusters, and galaxies would not have formed. If less uniform, universe by now would be mostly black holes and empty space.
14. Average distance between galaxies....if larger; star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material. If smaller, gravitational tug-of-wars would destabalize the sun's orbit.
15. Density of galaxy cluster.....if denser; galaxy collisions and mergers would disrupt the sun's orbit. If less dense, star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material.
16. Average distance between stars.....if larger, heavy element density would be too sparse for rocky planets to form. If smaller, planetary orbits would be too unstable for life.
17. Fine structure constant (describing the fine-structure splitting of spectral lines).....if larger; all stars would be at least 30% less massive than the sun. If larger than 0.06, matter would be unstable in large magnetic fields. If smaller, all stars would be at least 80% more massive than the sun.
18. Decay rate of protons....if greater; life would be exterminated by the release of radiation. If smaller, universe would contain insufficient matter for life.
19. 120 to 160 nuclear energy level ratio....if larger, universe would contain insufficient oxygen for life. If smaller, universe would contain insufficient carbon for life.
20. Ground state energy level for 4He....if larger, universe would contain insufficeint carbon and oxygen for life. If smaller, same as above.
21. Decay rate of 8Be....if slower, heavy element fusion would generate catastrophic explosions in all stars. If faster; no element heavier than beryllium would form; thus no life chemistry
22. Ratio of neutron mass to proton mass....if higher, neutron decay would yield too few neutrons for the formation of many life-essential elements. If slower; neutron decay would produce so many neutrons as to collapse all stars or black holes.
23. Initial excess of nucleons over anti-nucleons...If greater; radiation would prohibit planet formation. If lesseer; matter would be insufficient for galaxy or star formation.
24. Polarity of the water molecule...if greater, heat of fusion and vaporization would be too high for life. If smaller; heat of fusion and vaporization would be too low for life; liquid water would not work as a solvent for life chemistry; ice would not float, and a runaway freeze-up would result.
25. Supernovae eruptions....if too close, too frequent, or too late; radiation would exterminate life on the plantet. If too distant, too infrequent, or too soon; heavy elements would be too sparse for rocky planets to form.
26. White Dwarf binaries....if too few; insufficient fluorine would exist for life chemistry. If too many; planetary orbits would be too unstable for life. If formed too soon; insufficient fluorine production. If formed too leate; flourine would arrive too later for life chemistry.
27. Ratio of exotic matter mass to ordinary matter mass....if larger; universe would collapse before solar-type stars could form. If smaller; no galaxies would form.
28. Number of effective dimensions in the early universe....if larger; quantum mechanics, gravity, and relativity could not coexist; thus, life would be impossible. If smaller, same result.
29. Number of effective dimensions in the present universe....if smaller; electron, planet, and star orbits would become unstable. If larger, same result.
30. Mass of the neutrino....if smaller; galaxy cluster, galaxies, and stars would not form. If larger, galaxy clusters and galaxies would be too dense.
31. Big Bang ripples.....if smaller, galaxies would not form; universe would expand too rapidly. If larger; galaxies/galaxy clusters would be too dense for life; black holes would dominate; universe would collapse before life-site cold form
32. Size of the relativistic dilation factor.....If smaller, certain life-essential chemical reactions will not function properly. If larger, same result
33. Uncertainty magnitude in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle....If smaller, oxygen transport to body cells would be too small and certain life-essential elements would be unstable. If larger, oxygen transport to body cells would be too great and certain life-essential elements would be unstable.
34. Cosmological constant...If larger, universe would expand, universe would expand too quickly to form solar-type stars.
How is that for sceintific data to back up the creationists veiw? As you can see I do not argue with the Big Bang theory. After all, the first creation was light, was it not? However, as we can see, there was some intelligent thought behind it. I will not even go into Intellegent Design theory as my hands are begining to hurt now. If nothing else, its food for thought.
Originally posted by whodeyI'm going to come back to both yours and Dragonfriends posts and take them apart piece by piece - again. Yours can basically be refuted with two words; anthropic principle.
Evolution has been far from being proven. There is sceintific data that is used to back up its claims, however. I do not dispute that. There are sceintific data to back up the Bible as well. One such sceintist has used his data to back up the Biblical account of Genesis if you are interested. The web site is
http://www.worshipradio.com/home/ZolaVideo. ...[text shortened]... esign theory as my hands are begining to hurt now. If nothing else, its food for thought.