 |
|
|
|
|
January 28th, 2014
10:37 AM ET
Noah's Ark discovery raises flood of questionsOpinion by Joel Baden, Special to CNN (CNN) - That faint humming sound you’ve heard recently is the scholarly world of the Bible and archaeology abuzz over the discovery of the oldest known Mesopotamian version of the famous Flood story. A British scholar has found that a 4,000-year-old cuneiform tablet from what is now Iraq contains a story similar to the biblical account of Noah’s Ark. The newly decoded cuneiform tells of a divinely sent flood and a sole survivor on an ark, who takes all the animals on board to preserve them. It even includes the famous phrase “two by two,” describing how the animals came onto the ark. But there is one apparently major difference: The ark in this version is round. We have known for well over a century that there are flood stories from the ancient Near East that long predate the biblical account (even the most conservative biblical scholars wouldn’t date any earlier than the ninth century B.C). What’s really intriguing scholars is the description of the ark itself. The Bible presents a standard boat shape - long and narrow. The length being six times the measure of the width, with three decks and an entrance on the side. The newly discovered Mesopotamian text describes a large round vessel, made of woven rope, and coated (like the biblical ark) in pitch to keep it waterproof. Archaeologists are planning to design a prototype of the ark, built to the specifications of this text, to see if it would actually float. Good luck to them in trying to estimate the weight of its cargo. So, why does this new discovery matter? It matters because it serves as a reminder that the story of the Flood wasn’t set in stone from its earliest version all the way through to its latest incarnation. The people who wrote down the Flood narrative, in any of its manifestations, weren’t reporting on a historical event for which they had to get their facts straight (like what shape the ark was). Everyone reshapes the Flood story, and the ark itself, according to the norms of their own time and place. In ancient Mesopotamia, a round vessel would have been perfectly reasonable - in fact, we know that this type of boat was in use, though perhaps not to such a gigantic scale, on the Mesopotamian rivers. The ancient Israelites, on the other hand, would naturally have pictured a boat like those they were familiar with: which is to say, the boats that navigated not the rivers of Mesopotamia but the Mediterranean Sea. This detail of engineering can and should stand for a larger array of themes and features in the flood stories. The Mesopotamian versions feature many gods; the biblical account, of course, only one. The Mesopotamian versions tell us that the Flood came because humans were too noisy for the gods; the biblical account says it was because violence had spread over the Earth. Neither version is right or wrong; they are, rather, both appropriate to the culture that produced them. Neither is history; both are theology. What, then, of the most striking parallel between this newly discovered text and Genesis: the phrase “two by two”? Here, it would seem, we have an identical conception of the animals entering the ark. But not so fast. Although most people, steeped in Sunday school tradition, will tell you without even thinking about it that “the animals, they came on, they came on by twosies twosies,” that’s not exactly what the Bible says. More accurately, it’s one thing that the Bible says - but a few verses later, Noah is instructed to bring not one pair of each species, but seven pairs of all the “clean” animals and the birds, and one pair of the “unclean” animals. (This is important because at the end of the story, Noah offers sacrifices - which, if he only brought one pair of each animal, would mean that, after saving them all from the Flood, he then proceeded to relegate some of those species to extinction immediately thereafter.) This isn’t news - already in the 17th century scholars recognized that there must be two versions of the Flood intertwined in the canonical Bible. There are plenty of significant differences between the two Flood stories in the Bible, which are easily spotted if you try to read the narrative as it stands. One version says the Flood lasted 40 days; the other says 150. One says the waters came from rain. Another says it came from the opening of primordial floodgates both above and below the Earth. One version says Noah sent out a dove, three times. The other says he sent out a raven, once. And yes: In one of those stories, the animals come on “two by two.” Does this mean that the author of that version was following the ancient Mesopotamian account that was just discovered? Certainly not. If the goal of the ark is the preservation of the animals, then having a male and female of each is just common sense. And, of course, it’s a quite reasonable space-saving measure. Likewise, the relative age of the Mesopotamian and biblical accounts tells us nothing about their relative authority. Even if we acknowledge, as we probably should, that the biblical authors learned the Flood story from their neighbors - after all, flooding isn’t, and never was, really a pressing concern in Israel - this doesn’t make the Bible any less authoritative. The Bible gets its authority from us, who treat it as such, not from it being either the first or the most reliable witness to history. There is no doubt that the discovery of this new ancient Mesopotamian text is important. But from a biblical perspective, its importance resides mostly in the way it serves to remind us that the Flood story is a malleable one. There are multiple different Mesopotamian versions, and there are multiple different biblical versions. They share a basic outline, and some central themes. But they each relate the story in their own way. The power of the Flood story, for us the canonical biblical version, is in what it tells us about humanity’s relationship with God. But, as always, the devil is in the details. Joel S. Baden is the author of "The Historical David: The Real Life of an Invented Hero" and an associate professor of Old Testament at Yale Divinity School. The views expressed in this column belong to Baden. soundoff (5,820 Responses)« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Next »
« Previous entryAngry birds! Pope's peace doves attacked
|
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.  |
|
|
|
yah and how the hell did the behemoths and Unicorns get along so well the hate being in close proximity,... and yes they were actually in the region at the time
for the less educated among us
Behemoths = "Dire"hippos
Unicorns = "Dire" Rhino
@Sam Yaza : Behemoths = "Dire"hippos
WOW! How big do you think the tail of the hippo is? As big as a tree? It's a little smaller than that! So, the hippo doesn't fit the Biblical description of a behemoth.
<><
be·he·moth (bĭ-hē′məth, bē′ə-məth)
n.
1. Something enormous in size or power.
2. often Behemoth A huge animal, possibly the hippopotamus, described in the Bible.
http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2013/298/f/3/hippo_in_middle_late_pleistocene_mammalian_by_sinammonite-d6rrgdb.jpg
not to mention trees in Canaan are not exactly the trees in my backyard Redwood, trees are short and squat in Canaan.
Part of the Biblical is that a behemoth's "tail sways like a cedar". A cedar is a tree, thus his tail would sway similarly to a tree – large and slow moving.
"Large and slow moving," Which, naturally, doesn't include the lithe and nimble hippo.
Good grief.
My father told me I would grow up to be a behemoth with a mighty tail, but...
I wanted to be... a lumberjack!
Leaping from tree to tree, as they float down the mighty rivers of British Columbia. The Giant Redwood. The Larch. The Fir! The mighty Scots Pine! The lofty flowering Cherry! The plucky little Apsen! The limping Roo tree of Nigeria. The towering Wattle of Aldershot! The Maidenhead Weeping Water Plant! The naughty Leicestershire Flashing Oak! The flatulent Elm of West Ruislip! The Quercus Maximus Bamber Gascoigni! The Epigillus! The Barter Hughius Greenus!
With my best buddy by my side, we'd sing! Sing! Sing!
[singing]
I'm a lumberjack, and I'm okay.
I sleep all night and I work all day.
MOUNTIES:
He's a lumberjack, and he's okay.
He sleeps all night and he works all day.
BARBER:
I cut down trees. I eat my lunch.
I go to the lavatory.
On Wednesdays I go shoppin'
And have buttered scones for tea.
MOUNTIES:
He cuts down trees. He eats his lunch.
He goes to the lavatory.
On Wednesdays he goes shopping
And has buttered scones for tea.
He's a lumberjack, and he's okay.
He sleeps all night and he works all day.
BARBER:
I cut down trees. I skip and jump.
I like to press wild flowers.
I put on women's clothing
And hang around in bars.
MOUNTIES:
He cuts down trees. He skips and jumps.
He likes to press wild flowers.
He puts on women's clothing
And hangs around in bars?!
He's a lumberjack, and he's okay.
He sleeps all night and he works all day.
BARBER:
I cut down trees. I wear high heels,
Suspendies, and a bra.
I wish I'd been a girlie,
Just like my dear Papa.
MOUNTIES:
He cuts down trees. He wears high heels,
Suspendies, and a bra?!
[talking]
What's this? Wants to be a girlie?! Oh, My!
And I thought you were so rugged! Poofter!...
[singing]
He's a lumberjack, and he's okay.
He sleeps all night and he works all day.
He's a lumberjack, and he's okaaaaay.
He sleeps all night and he works all day.
@And : "Large and slow moving," Which, naturally, doesn't include the lithe and nimble hippo.
How large is the hippo's tail?
<><
Live, does it matter? The passage says "he makes his tail stiff like a cedar" not as tall as a cedar.
Good grief.
Live4Him,
Are you happy to be supported by the sadly demonstrated intellectual level and maturity of someone like Salero21?
I don't go for childish argumentum ad hominems.
Harvard Medical School. "Neanderthals' genetic legacy: Humans inherited variants affecting disease risk, infertility, skin and hair characteristics." ScienceDaily. , 29 January 2014.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140129134956.htm
Science: There is this article, I think it'll have L4H's head spinning and her prayer demons entering her...http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/neanderthal-dna-hides-in-genes-dictating-our-hair-skin-1.2515871?cmp=fbtl
truthprevails1
It would be intersting to see tje reply – topher too and where is fred ?
You're asking the person who posted every response as a new thread for the admitted pleasure of being annoying.
Saraswati,
Good point.
L4H: In other words, "I don't want to answer that, therefore I'll accuse you of..."
In case you missed my reply to you about you claiming LGBT indoctrinate our children....that is pure ignorance and bigotry. Something that is notably and indisputably natural can not be forced upon another person. If a person is LGBT, there is no changing that; it is not contagious and who knows maybe one your relatives is...people are born that way regardless of what your small mind makes you think. Ignorance is bliss...enjoy it.
look up a "saola".
It is a very rare animal, called the Vietnamese unicorn. ( it has two horns though)
How did the kangaroo get into the ark?
I know this one! He HOPPED on to the Ark!
That was one LONG hop!
Clearly the ark made a left turn to the Australia that, according to Topher, didn't exist yet.
Right, it was still a part of Pangea at that time.
Lol. Sure, okay. Whatever you say. Uh huh.
So before humans and writing?
Baaaahahahaha. C'mon really? I'm a Christian and I don't even believe that story as literal truth. Pangea existed 10,000 years ago? Good luck proving that one.
The land masses pre-flood were not the same ones we have today. Different locations, different mountains, valleys, sizes, etc.
Pangaea (/pænˈdʒiːə/ pan-JEE-ə; ) was a supercontinent that existed during the late Paleozoic and early Mesozoic eras, forming approximately 300 million years ago. It began to break apart around 200 million years ago.
So Noah sailed between 300 million years ago and 200 million years ago?
Explain.
The lion slept close to the deer and both snuggle with noah reading them bedtime stories of talking serpent.
And
"Pangaea (/pænˈdʒiːə/ pan-JEE-ə; ) was a supercontinent that existed during the late Paleozoic and early Mesozoic eras, forming approximately 300 million years ago. It began to break apart around 200 million years ago."
You can't know that. Presupposition.
"So Noah sailed between 300 million years ago and 200 million years ago?"
No. Something like 4500 years ago.
Topher,
"You can't know that. Presupposition."
Please give me some examples of things you do "know"? Do you know that George Washington lived? That Nepal and Ghana and Laos exist? That Jupiter is a large planet in our solar system? That the water going down your drain doesn't turn to gold when it leaves your house?
Saraswati
"Please give me some examples of things you do "know""
Yes to all of those things. They are observable. Pangaea is not. It's historical science. I also know Noah existed, built the ark and survived a world-wide flood.
How do YOU know Washington existed?
"Something like 4500 years ago."
You can't know that.
Presupposition.
And
"You can't know that. Presupposition."
Of course I can.
Let's not make fun of the Topher that believes it rained 25ft of rain an hour for forty days and forty nights covering the entire earth in water and the only survivors were a handful of humans, 7 pairs of each domesticated animal and one pair of all other animals on earth including fresh water fish that would not have survived a global flood, and the supposed raft was picked up in the middle east region and floated for a month and a half with no direction but somehow landed in almost the exact same region as they had left, and all plate techtonic then moved the continents where we see then now all 4500 years ago, regardless of the actual evidence and cultures which have existed for at least 11,000 years like Gobekli Tepe, which in short refutes almost every piece of this fairy tale...
Happy Atheist
"Let's not make fun of the Topher that believes it rained 25ft of rain an hour"
How do you know that?
"for forty days and forty nights covering the entire earth in water and the only survivors were a handful of humans, 7 pairs of each domesticated animal and one pair of all other animals on earth including fresh water fish that would not have survived a global flood,"
No fish
"and the supposed raft"
Not a raft.
"and all plate techtonic then moved the continents where we see then now all 4500 years ago"
Never said that.
"regardless of the actual evidence"
The evidence is quite good for the flood.
"and cultures which have existed for at least 11,000 years like Gobekli Tepe, which in short refutes almost every piece of this fairy tale..."
How do you know that age? And besides, it's more condusive to my worldview than yours.
And
“You can’t know that. Presupposition.”
Topher
"Of course I can."
No you can't. It's been explained again and again why those shifts takes millions a of years, not mere thousands.
Your belief isn't knowledge. It's belief, and although I am not going to say anything about God one way or another, your young earth theory is bunk.
And
"No you can't. It's been explained again and again why those shifts takes millions a of years, not mere thousands."
What shifts?
"Your belief isn't knowledge. It's belief, and although I am not going to say anything about God one way or another, your young earth theory is bunk."
Faith certainly is a part of it. And as far as my young earth theory ... are you calling God a liar?
The evidence for a global flood doesn't exist because it never happened and anyone who has done even a smidge of research can see that. Unless you want to claim that the current geological record from ice cores to deep sea floor cores along with the study of the geological strata were all faked by Satan then you have only evidence against a global flood. But then again if you believe the earth is only a few thousand years old and that God created things pre-aged and starlight intransit then you probably believe Satan faked the fosil record and any other crazy ideas that support your God delusion.
Happy Atheist
"The evidence for a global flood doesn't exist because it never happened and anyone who has done even a smidge of research can see that."
Presuppositions. And circular.
"Unless you want to claim that the current geological record from ice cores ..."
... have been shown to be untrustworthy. You know they found a WWII plane buried in some of those "ancient" ice cores, right?
"to deep sea floor cores"
Ah, yes, the sea. More evidence pointing to a young earth. If the earth is billions of years old, why isn't there more salt?
"along with the study of the geological strata"
Which doesn't explain how all those trees survived for "billions" of years standing up crossing several layers.
“Eighty- to eighty-five percent of Earth’s land surface does not have even 3 geologic periods appearing in ‘correct’ consecutive order. It becomes an overall exercise of gargantuan special pleading and imagination for the evolutionary-uniformitarian paradigm to maintain that there ever were geologic periods.” — Dr. John Woodmorappe, geologist, “The Essential Non-Existence of the Evolutionary Uniformitarian Geologic Column.”"
"were all faked by Satan then you have only evidence against a global flood."
Who said that? Not me.
"But then again if you believe the earth is only a few thousand years old and that God created things pre-aged and starlight intransit then you probably believe Satan faked the fosil record and any other crazy ideas that support your God delusion."
Ah, a Dawkins fan. There's all kinds of explanations for the distant starlight problem. You should look into them. And as far as things created pre-aged ... it only makes sense. If the Creation were to be ready for Adam and Eve, God would have created trees already full grown, not as seeds, etc.
Because the results of 40Ar-39Ar, K-Ar and other radiometric dating methods refute their antiquated Biblical interpretations, young-Earth creationists (YECs) are desperate to undermine the reliability of these methods. YEC John Woodmorappe (a pseudonym) is infamous for scouring hundreds of scientific references to find quotations that he believes dispute the accuracy of radiometric dating. However, when his quotations and references are viewed in context, they usually fail to support his claims and often refute them. Woodmorappe and his allies utterly fail to realize that misquoting large QUANTlTIES of references does NOT produce QUALITY arguments. Bigger is not necessarily better.
Woodmorappe's 1999 book, The Mythology [sic!] of Modern Dating Methods, is no exception to his ability to thoroughly misrepresent the scientific literature.
–Dr Kevin R. Henke (actual geologist) Dr. Kevin R. Henke has a Ph.D in geology from the University of North Dakota.
John Woodmorappe (born October 1954) is the pen name of Jan Peczkis, an author who has written several articles for the creation science groups Answers in Genesis and the Instltute for Creation Research, among others, and books including Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study and The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods.
Happy Atheist
"Because the results of 40Ar-39Ar, K-Ar and other radiometric dating methods refute their antiquated Biblical interpretations, young-Earth creationists (YECs) are desperate to undermine the reliability of these methods."
You don't need to be a YEC to understand the problems with radiometric dating. They require presuppositions to be true. Second, we know they don't work when we already know the age of a rock. But we're still supposed to trust them when we DON'T know the age. That takes a lot of faith.
"However, when his quotations and references are viewed in context, they usually fail to support his claims and often refute them."
That quote doesn't need anything else, it stands on its own. He's stating truth.
"Woodmorappe and his allies utterly fail to realize that misquoting large QUANTlTIES of references does NOT produce QUALITY arguments. Bigger is not necessarily better."
He's not quoting anyone, so your argument is fallacious.
"And as far as things created pre-aged ... it only makes sense. If the Creation were to be ready for Adam and Eve, God would have created trees already full grown, not as seeds, etc."
It makes no sense because if God just poofed a fully formed tree into existence then it would not have the same rings as a tree that had to grow and weather and be effected by the elements. Our earth too would not have the very clear and readable signs you want to ignore that show our earth is over 4 billions years old. The age of the earth isn't even up for debate anymore, if you wrote "10,000 years" on your geology exam for approximate age of the earth you will be getting flunked. Science and geology have moved on to answering other questions we have yet to find the answers for, we know how old the earth is, we know the earth has been home to millions of species over its history with the vast majority living and dying and going extinct long before humans ever made their move out of the trees.
Topher there's another little problem with your 4500 year old flood story. There's this pristine crater out in the Arizona desert that has been around about 50,000 years. It shows no sign of erosion from water. In fact there are a lot of natural formations and man made structures that predate your flood story and show no sign of water erosion or immersion.
Willful ignorance is NOT a virtue.
"He's not quoting anyone, so your argument is fallacious."
Every report and study he references in his books are what Dr. Henke is talking about. He took other geologists actual research and cherry picked little one liners that seemed to give wiggle room on radiometric dating and carbon dating. What Dr. Henke is saying is that when those quotes are read in context they often refute Peczkis' claims. The method of dating artifacts is as sound and reliable as an MRI to show you whats going on in your brain. If you want to believe the technology doesn't work thats up to you but i'll trust my doctors, or in this case, the thousands upon thousands of well educated geologists and scientists who refute the young earth theory and the claim of a global flood.
Happy Atheist
"It makes no sense because if God just poofed a fully formed tree into existence then it would not have the same rings as a tree that had to grow and weather and be effected by the elements."
One, He could have made it with rings. Two, rings aren't needed to survive, so even if He didn't create them with rings in place, so what? Three, trees have been shown to grow more than one ring per year. Four, those trees sticking up through several layers are evidence of the flood.
"Our earth too would not have the very clear and readable signs you want to ignore that show our earth is over 4 billions years old."
Like what? I can list you several evidences that demonstrate it must have been a young earth.
"The age of the earth isn't even up for debate anymore, if you wrote "10,000 years" on your geology exam for approximate age of the earth you will be getting flunked."
Of course it's up for debate. Do you know how often that number gets changed? Just a few decades ago when I was in grade school the number was only a fraction of what it is today.
"Science and geology have moved on to answering other questions we have yet to find the answers for, we know how old the earth is, we know the earth has been home to millions of species over its history with the vast majority living and dying and going extinct long before humans ever made their move out of the trees."
Presupposition on the trees thing and again, we DON'T know how old the earth is. I think you're misrepresenting. Even a scientist who believes in an old earth will tell you all they have is a guess.
"The evidence is quite good for the flood."
Eh . . . not so much. Consider the progressive order of the fossil record (e.g. first fish, then amphibians, then reptiles, then mammals, then birds) and that organisms of similar density/niche/biogeography are found separated by many, many layers of strata (confounding all of the creationist models attempting to account for the order). Consider that transitional forms bearing features which bridge the alleged specially-created "kinds" exist and that they just happen to exist at the boundaries between the adjacent vertebrate classes. Consider no rabbits in the pre-Cambrian, no humans alongside dinosaur fossils (apparently, every last aquatic-adapted dinosaur drowned and was buried long before the first old/crippled/very young human). Consider eolian geologic formations in the midst of alleged strata laid down by the flood, e.g. the Coconino Sandstone. Consider that zero oil/mineral companies employ "flood geology" to locate reserves/deposits. Consider that the fossils on mountain tops that creationists conclude were left by the flood are not "on" the mountain tops, rather, they are deposited within and throughout the uplifted strata. Consider that to account for present day observable biodiversity, creationists must invoke hyper-evolution from the incredibly limited gene pools of the various founding "kinds" pairs. Etc, etc, etc . . .
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-science-figured-out-the-age-of-the-earth/
"It was not until 1926, when (under the influence of Arthur Holmes, whose name recurs throughout this story) the National Academy of Sciences adopted the radiometric timescale, that we can regard the controversy as finally resolved. Critical to this resolution were improved methods of dating, which incorporated advances in mass spectrometry, sampling and laser heating. The resulting knowledge has led to the current understanding that the earth is 4.55 billion years old."
"The age of the Earth is 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years (4.54 × 109 years ± 1%). This age is based on evidence from radiometric age dating of meteorite material and is consistent with the ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples. Following the scientific revolution and the development of radiometric age dating, measurements of lead in uranium-rich minerals showed that some were in excess of a billion years old. The oldest such minerals analyzed to date – small crystals of zircon from the Jack Hills of Western Australia – are at least 4.404 billion years old. Comparing the mass and luminosity of the Sun to those of other stars, it appears that the solar system cannot be much older than those rocks. Calcium-aluminium-rich inclusions – the oldest known solid constltuents within meteorites that are formed within the solar system – are 4.567 billion years old, giving an age for the solar system and an upper limit for the age of Earth." – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth
Happy Atheist
So in another month when a scientist wants to add a couple more million years to the age of the earth, you're going to recant, right? Again, the number is continually changing. There is NO set number.
I also notice how you keep coming up with any possible way you can still view the earth as young so you can stick to your pre-concieved idea of a young earth which is also "Presupposition" on your part. You do not want to view the geological record from an unbiased perspective that weighs the evidence on its individual merrits to come to your conclusion, you decide to believe in your God no matter what so no matter what the evidence is you have a ready explanation. "God did it." "God is a mystery" "God can do anything". Well that is not an argument, it's a cop out.
Happy Atheist
"I also notice how you keep coming up with any possible way you can still view the earth as young so you can stick to your pre-concieved idea of a young earth which is also "Presupposition" on your part."
Absolutely it is a presupposition. We both have them. Mine says the Bible is 100 percent true. Yours the opposite.
"You do not want to view the geological record from an unbiased perspective that weighs the evidence on its individual merrits to come to your conclusion, you decide to believe in your God no matter what so no matter what the evidence is you have a ready explanation."
No such thing as "unbiased." And yes, I trust God over fallible man. Every single time.
""God did it." "God is a mystery" "God can do anything". Well that is not an argument, it's a cop out."
Not if it's true. Besides, we're not talking about blind faith or just going with the Bible, although I can and still be correct. There's plenty of evidence for a young earth. You just choose to ignore the fact. That's fine. But it's also dishonest.
Again, the number is continually changing. There is NO set number.
----
Right, it's VERY old and measuring it is a complex process. We do know it's a heck of a lot older than 6k.
"There's plenty of evidence for a young earth. You just choose to ignore the fact. That's fine. But it's also dishonest."
There is no evidence of a young earth, there is just the fact that radiometric dating and the other methods used can only get an approximate age give or take half a million years. Just because the dating methods might be off by as much as half a million years that in no way validates the possibility it's only 10,000 years old. That claim is utterly laughable.
Happy Atheist
"There is no evidence of a young earth,"
False.
"there is just the fact that radiometric dating and the other methods used can only get an approximate age give or take half a million years."
And the fact it's been shown to be untrustworthy. Explain the volcano problem.
"Just because the dating methods might be off by as much as half a million years that in no way validates the possibility it's only 10,000 years old. That claim is utterly laughable."
Forget all the presuppositions and problems there are with dating methods ... there's still evidence the universe is young. A lot of it, in fact.
Look into these things, dude. At least know what you are rejecting.
I'm off to spend time with my wife. Have a good evening. Thanks for the conversation.
"Not if it's true."
I could claim that i'm communicating to you through an electrical cable in the back of your head and you are just living in a dream world of my making and you only believe exactly what I want you to believe. Just because you can touch the back of your head in the dream and you don't find the cable doesn't mean it's not there. You are living in a world of my making Topher, and there is nothing you can do about it if it's true...
But then again, maybe it's not true, but you'll never know until the day the plug gets pulled...
Topher you might want to read this – How old did you say Topher ?
University of Cologne – Universität zu Köln. "Large landmasses existed 2.7 billion years ago." ScienceDaily, 15 January 2014.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140115075414.htm>
Happy Atheist
Last post, I swear. 😉
Straw man.
"But then again, maybe it's not true, but you'll never know until the day the plug gets pulled..."
I'd disagree, but let's say that's true for a moment. If you're right, nothing will happen to me. If I'm right ... dude, that's pretty frightening for you.
"there's still evidence the universe is young. A lot of it, in fact."
So far you have submitted as proof one and only one argument, the claim that current geological dating methods are not exact. That so far is the entirety of your "evidence" for a young earth. If you have actual evidence and not just holes you try to poke through peer reviewed science and geology with your high school diploma then please present it.
Two points:
1) Literal creationism requires that every relevant scientific discipline be so fundamentally flawed as to be effectively useless. The principles underlying dating, evolution, etc are validated in direct applications too numerous to list, yet, literalists insist they are all inherently flawed because at some point, they contradict their preferred holy book. Creationism is not based on evidence; it is an anti-science position based on a web of pseudoscientific arguments of incredulity with no positive supporting evidence. It serves no useful purpose outside of apologetics.
2) Even if one were to concede (and I certainly don't) that dating methods are suspect, the relative positioning of strata and the progressive order of the fossil record contained therein (in addition to the various other issues identified above) confound the Genesis narrative.
"If I'm right ... dude, that's pretty frightening for you." Not at all. You are playing Pascals wager and the fact is the risks you take not worshiping other religions or other gods is the same as my risk not worshiping yours, so using that as an argument for belief is beyond silly.
Topher "Faith certainly is a part of it. And as far as my young earth theory … are you calling God a liar?"
No.
"If you're right, nothing will happen to me. If I'm right ... dude, that's pretty frightening for you."
Where would christianity be without the empty proxy threats illustrated by the likes of Gopher?
Please prove that Pangea existed 4,500 years ago, while humans were alive. I mean do you just sit there with your head in the sand whenever science makes a discovery? It's funny that you say that we couldn't possibly know this because we weren't here, yet you KNOW the great flood happened 4,500 years ago despite not being there or having ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER to support a global flood. Sorry but, the evidence and dating methods are well docu.mented. It's comical how you would deny proven science, yet at the same time use a computer device created by science to bash it. There's a reason that ZERO ancient human fossils have been found in America, Australia, or South America. They most likely haven't been there (at least not in large populations) until the last 10,000 years, out of the 200,000-300,000 years they've been on the planet.
deniers of GOD...you're bent towards hedonism and your heart is filled with hate towards GOD. you love evil and so you decry a GOD Who urges you to live holy.
you strive bullheadedly against what is mightier than you and you herald your foolishness and call it bravery, wisdom, truth, intellect. little do you know, you're inching closer and closer to your self-destruction.
oh that you would humble yourself and honor the ONE Who gave you breath...and if HE took it, you would be utterly helpless in a moment. oh that you would open your heart and let GOD set you free from what is killing you, stealing from you, destroying you. it is foolishness to strive against GOD; HE is not your enemy and HE does hate you, HE hates the sin you love so much. HE loves you and wants to give you eternal life. open up that stubborn heart and receive life. JESUS is LIFE.
"The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”
They are corrupt, doing abominable iniquity;
there is none who does good.
2 God looks down from heaven
on the children of man
to see if there are any who understand,[b]
who seek after God.
3 They have all fallen away;
together they have become corrupt;
there is none who does good,
not even one.
4 Have those who work evil no knowledge,
who eat up my people as they eat bread,
and do not call upon God?" Psalms 53:1-4 Holy Bible ESV
Sorry but Odin is the one true god.
And you know this how? the silence is deafening
hes right i just kicked Odin ass in Valkyrie profile. not exactly the strongest deity i had a harder time fighting Freya
@Sam Yaza
You're are real stand-up comedian, now aren't you?
<><
Shut up you bloviating buffoon, liver lips.
no i like picking on odin,...I'm a decedent of Macha and those of in the the "druid" call Odin "Balor" shre the dick killed her but its are way of getting back.
@Live4Him
I made this just for you....
<
Lol.
You can't prove Odin doesn't exist. It has been written, so it must be true. No offense but you use the same standards to believe your god exists, so why can't we believe in this one? How do you KNOW FOR AN ABSOLUTE FACT that your religion is right while the others are wrong? They all have the same exact amount of evidence... which is none.
Odin speaks to me in the night. Guiding my thoughts and dreams. I have read the old saga and they are full of his truth.
kumbi
That is nothing but belief.
Also, atheists don't really deny your god for the most part, just don't see any evidence of any gods, let alone yours.
Don't bother with your threats...most likely you are wrong.
too long.. too boring... too much BS....
I'm a polytheistic, ancestral oriented, animistic pagan, i think your god is evil,.. and i live a very ascetic life stile, i mean my Mormon coworkers think I'm a Mormon I'm don't even drink coffee.
although i do love some good Fornication
oh.,,, and my Morrigan is better then your Jesus and his Odin combined
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/01/27/angry-birds-popes-peace-doves-attacked/comment-page-8/#comments
Oh and my Amaterasu can save a Demon from damnation were is your Jesus now
"deniers of GOD...you're bent towards hedonism and your heart is filled with hate towards GOD"
deniers of the EASTER BUNNY you're bent towards hedonism and your heart is filled with hate towards the EASTER BUNNY.
deniers of SANTA CLAUS you're bent towards hedonism and your heart is filled with hate towards SANTA CLAUS.
get the point.... you've been brainwashed to believe that those you don't believe as you do are filled with hate but that is the lie, just like your religion.
hahaaa...ok. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYDCMg4d7ks
How can I hate something I don't believe exists? Can any religious people post anything that isn't completely and blatantly idiotic within the first sentence or two? I do hate religion though and what it does to the minds of the unfortunate and weak.
...& who expends this much zest opposing a GOD that 'doesn't exist' lol smh
No one cares about opposing a god that doesn't exist. Many care about eliminating a belief system that is responsible for policies so backwards they hinder the competi.tiveness of the country.
Kumbi8,
ONLY BELIEVERS can hate God.
Ooooooooooooops!
In the video above, the scholar mentions that since excavations started in the 19th century, there has been a lot of retrieved ancient inscriptions in the museum he works at that have not been read yet. I wonder also if everything read goes to public.
Good question. It'd be interesting to know what other tablets say.
The RCC secrets would be what VIC ?
That's a very good question, indeed.
I always wondered what the RCC is holding on to in their secret vault! I lean towards non-public Apocrypha.
Deception maybe ?
I rather wish they would open up all of the books they hid away when deciding which books to put in the Bible. And why they felt the plebs were too fragile to handle complete information.
@Mmmmmmm : I rather wish they would open up all of the books they hid away when deciding which books to put in the Bible.
Why would you accept books written by people who never walked with Jesus to be an authentic description of what happened back then?
<><
@Live4Him: Why would you accept books written by people who never walked with Jesus to be an authentic description of what happened back then?
Where did I indicate that I would?
@Live4Him,
"Why would you accept books written by people who never walked with Jesus to be an authentic description of what happened back then?"
Like Paul?
@Mmmmmmm : I rather wish they would open up all of the books they hid away when deciding which books to put in the Bible.
@Live4Him: Why would you accept books written by people who never walked with Jesus to be an authentic description of what happened back then?
@Mmmmmmm : Where did I indicate that I would?
Okay, before we begin another round of miscommunication, let me lay out the facts.
1) The 27 NT manuscripts were authenticated by the early church fathers.
2) The pseudepigrapha (i.e. New Testament apocryphal writings) were either rejected when they first appeared or were never mentioned by the early church fathers. One example is the Gospel of Thomas.
Gospel of Thomas – first appeared between 125 AD and 150 AD. Promptly declared false.
3) The apocrypha (i.e. Old Testament apocryphal writings) were rejected by the Jewish leaders. These were canonized in 1545 by the Council of Trent, but previously were not considered divinely inspired.
So, you appear to be wanting the Gospel of Thomas 'revealed' to you (although it is readily available today), but this book was written well after Christ walked on the earth. Therefore, it could not be written by a disciple of Jesus who personally walked with him when he was on the earth.
<><
@ME II : Like Paul?
Paul DID walk with Jesus. Just because he wasn't a follower of his when Jesus was alive on the earth doesn't mean that he didn't listen to him. Even the Pharisees (of which Paul was one) talked with Jesus many times in the Bible. However, they just rejected his teachings. Paul did the same until he saw the light.
<><
@Live4Him,
"Paul DID walk with Jesus."
So, it's just a metaphorical "walk"? Then how do you know others didn't also "walk" with Jesus?
"Even the Pharisees (of which Paul was one) talked with Jesus many times in the Bible. However, they just rejected his teachings. Paul did the same until he saw the light."
Or, are you saying that Paul actually talked with Jesus while he was alive? I'd be interested in the basis for this.
Live4Him:
"So, you appear to be wanting the Gospel of Thomas ‘revealed’ to you (although it is readily available today), but this book was written well after Christ walked on the earth. Therefore, it could not be written by a disciple of Jesus who personally walked with him when he was on the earth."
You appear to either have reading comprehension problems, or are expert in fabricating extraneous motives to suit your agenda, whatever that may be.
Is this plain enough language for you: I want to know what the Vatican has hidden in their vaults.
Because, even though you would like to portray otherwise, not even YOU knows.
Why do you deliberately try to assign motive to even the most innocuous of posts? Is this your trademark?
"L" ,was an atheist when he/she was born. And only became religious after someone (or many someones) indoctrinated he/she and showed he/she specially selected extracts of the bible.
I doubt if "L" can rember back that far, but there is no way anything else happened.
god gets angry at the bad men and throws a hissy fit.
it's like an episode from the Real Housewives of the supernatural world.
Ahhh, bronze age Reality TV, they were the classics!
haahahahha
Jesus Christ Is Lord
of the rings ...
Awww baby troll is up. Did mommy change your diaper?
Internet Troll: In Internet slang, a troll is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, either accidentally or with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response.
I believe Dd's post was intended as comedy and would not be considered trolling. Your OP however, along with most of the intentionally argumentative threads you start, would be considered a fine example of trolling.
L, You could end this right now – just provide objective evidence for your god and there'd be no atheists.
http://www.thomasvan.com/wp-content/files/Internet-tough-guy-troll.jpeg
Looks like you have a fan, DD.
yes. and that "diaper" thing he hits me with is really good, don't you think. He's a clever one.
Guess he was watching Rugrats.
LOL
He's a member of the British Parliament?
Jesus Christ Is Lord
---–
"That's cool Vic, but who's Jesus Christ? I've never heard of him."
– signed,
your friend, a human being that God created and put in an area of the world where christianity doesn't exist.
Oh..
Jesus Christ (Savior God Messiah) is the Son of God, God's Incarnation in the flesh, the Second Person of the Triune God — Holy Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, the Actual Word of God, and Lord & Savior.
Is your god related to Vulcan, god of our volcano?
Wasn't it the Holy Ghost Vic?
"Really? He's all those things? Wow, seems pretty important. I wonder why God didn't tell me and my neighbors about him? I guess God cares more about you and your neighbors. Wanna hear about my culture's Messiah? No? Why not?"
– your friend
I recommend the Gospel of John for a reading.
vic
I read your heresy...Vulcan is very angry... Guards, throw him into the volcano.
And Rush Limbo is Lard.
I always thought the story of Noah was a parable, for having hope, even when things look bleak.
That's all.
I always thought it was a cute story told over the fire when there was nothing else to do, increasingly embellished over generations in a largely oral tradition.
Did you see Ricky Gervais's take on the Noah story? Hysterical.
it's brilliant isn't it?!?! LOLOL
"6 And the Lord regretted that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. 7 So the Lord said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them.” Genesis 6:6,7
That seems more like the lesson of the flood, deity with human emotion of regret that was unable to foresee the outcomes of his creations so decides to chuck it all like a petulant child.
If there was a God, he would have wiped out everybody and not ever try that experiment again...ever.
god throws a hissy fit.
it's like an episode from the real housewives of the supernatural world.
And all the animals looked at each other and said "W T F?" and God said "Do not worry my creatures, I will save 7 pairs of the dumb, er, i mean domesticated animals and one pair of all the rest, on a boat, cramped together with a handfull of those humans who got you into this mess for forty days and forty nights..." and the Unicorns said "Fvck that!"...
I'm sure that was an awkward month and a half, there on a boat with lions who know it was you humans who killed all their relatives... feeding time must have been fun...
The story of Noah is proof that the god of the bible is not omniscient. How can an omniscient being have regrets? It's impossible when you already know everything.
beyond all of our emotional tensions here.
God saves sinners, and not righteous all knowing people.
come as you are! He loves you right now.
it's a great sales pitch!
Amen!
Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.
Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
"Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God."
Since no one on this planet is absolutely pure at heart that means no one hwas seen your god. LOL!
those who loathe sin lmao
maybe one day you will be in a rut and need help. that is the point when a supernatural is there for you.
"maybe one day you will be in a rut and need help. that is the point when a supernatural is there for you."
Oh, that's right, you have to get into a rut in order to believe in your God because your religion teaches you to be negative toward others that don't believe in your myths.
no not negative towards others.
the curse of sin is negative, and Jesus is the true remedy for each person, His creation. He created your soul. He knew you would be typing back to me, the day He created you. His will is for you to seek him.
Acts 2
38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.”
"the curse of sin is negative, and Jesus is the true remedy for each person, His creation. He created your soul. He knew you would be typing back to me, the day He created you. His will is for you to seek him. "
No, that is you lying to try and sell your religion to others. We are in a debate of course I am going to write back to you. DUH! Thanks for proving how your religion gives people a negatve outook on reality and why it's so bad for our society.
Yep, you keep believing that...you are one of those righteous people. Sorry but you don't get a free pass...you put too many lives at risk the night you stupidly got behind the wheel of your car while in a drunken stupor...you're a liar and a hypocrite!
no one is not a hyporcite. yes you are correct.
John the baptist in prison
2When John, who was in prison, heard about the deeds of the Messiah, he sent his disciples 3to ask him, “Are you the one who is to come, or should we expect someone else?”
4Jesus replied, “Go back and report to John what you hear and see: 5The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosyb are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is proclaimed to the poor. 6Blessed is anyone who does not stumble on account of me.”
Christ understands that we are still stuck on the earth in our flesh, and He will never let go of His lost sheep. not even one.
Peter lied and denied Christ.
"Christ understands that we are still stuck on the earth in our flesh, and He will never let go of His lost sheep. not even one. "
Many of the posters on this site are former xtians or ministers of christianity proving that statement is not true. LOL!
king David went through a time where he walked away from God's will.
He stole Bathsheba and had her husband killled. He was guilty of murder and adultery, and he did not repent for quite a while.
Of course as always....Austin misses the point....Whoosh.....
@Sungrazer
I responded with the above... What are you doing during this the age of Grace?
There are 3 judgments to come.
Austin: Accordingly no matter what I do as a non-believer I would never get in to heaven (if it existed) but yet you committed a horrible crime and begged for 'forgiveness' and get a free pass...sounds like hypocrisy to me and stop quoting a book that you know is not agreed with it, it serves no other purpose than to prove you are not capable of thinking for yourself and dealing with reality.
Whoever sins you forgive, they are forgiven from your life.
Whoever sins you retain, they are retained in your life.
Why would you want to retain the sins of a stranger in your life.
God has already forgiven him, and you, and everyone else of our sins.... and the best part – He remembers them no more.
Please do the same.
God loves us all the same.
Blessings.
He doesn't remember your sins? So there is no day of Judgment?
"Why would you want to retain the sins of a stranger in your life.
God has already forgiven him, and you, and everyone else of our sins.... and the best part – He remembers them no more.
Please do the same.
God loves us all the same."
That's a lie. Your religious book is your rule book on how to love your God, if you don't follow those rules you will not get into your heaven. That is proof your God does not love all of you the same, if you break the rules it will not love you. Oh and if you truly knew your bible just accepting your Christ is not a get into heaven free card.
what are you doing to take advantage of this age of Grace.
LOL..
While we were yet sinners Christ died for us. He didn't die for some... He died for ALL.
He has already accepted us...
the question is, will you believe that you are accepted and loved unconditionally by Him. Will you accept Him?
The fact that you think Christ is your get out of jail card is hilarious and only proves you don't even understand your own religion and rule book.
JB, you are doging me. You said God doesn't remember your/our sins. So is there going to be a day of Judgment or what?
@LOL:"The fact that you think Christ is your get out of jail card is hilarious and only proves you don't even understand your own religion and rule book."
Isn't it for this very reason that Christ came to redeem mankind (you and me)... to get us out of the prison of sin.
Christ is MESSIAH. He is SAVIOR.
And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins.
I was once in a prison of sin... now because of Christ, I'm in a "prison" of RIGHTEOUSNESS.
"I was once in a prison of sin... now because of Christ, I'm in a "prison" of RIGHTEOUSNESS."
No, you're not and neither are many Christians, just because you "accepted" Christ into your life doesn't mean you are going to heaven automatically. The fact you don't know this is priceless.
@LOL...
accepting Christ as my savior is basic salvation.
I next have to renew my mind to the word of God... not conforming to the standards set by the world.
Being Baptized in the Holy Spirit is essential in receiving first the earnest of the spirit (in-part) as on the day of Pentecost... then moving on from Pentecost to Tabernacles where we receive the fullness of the Spirit.
Christianity is a process... a journey...
"Christianity is a process... a journey..."
The fact you don't know the answer is priceless...
@LOL...
I gave you the answer: accepting Christ as my savior is basic salvation.
I next have to renew my mind to the word of God... not conforming to the standards set by the world.
Being Baptized in the Holy Spirit is essential in receiving first the earnest of the spirit (in-part) as on the day of Pentecost... then moving on from Pentecost to Tabernacles where we receive the fullness of the Spirit.
Christianity is a process... a journey...(This part I added to explain to you that one doesn't move from Pentecost to Tabernacles in just one step.
How long did Jesus take to prepare for His 3 and 1/2 yr ministry? It's not one step. Preparation is a process.
"How long did Jesus take to prepare for His 3 and 1/2 yr ministry? It's not one step. Preparation is a process."
Just because you "accepted" Christ and got baptized is still not a quarantee you get into your heaven even with your process.. LOL! This is what is so funny about Christians, they don't even understand their own rule book.
@LOL... "Just because you "accepted" Christ and got baptized is still not a guarantee you get into your heaven even with your process.. LOL! This is what is so funny about Christians, they don't even understand their own rule book."
Clearly you have little to no concept of Salvation through Jesus' perfect sacrifice. Because I've indulged you without telling you you're wrong doesn't mean you aren't.
If you understood the Word of God, you wouldn't keep making the same comments to me based on our discussion.
For God so love the World, that He gave His only begotten Son, that WHOSOEVER BELIEVE in Him, will not perish but HAVE EVERLASTING life.
For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
Don't try to add to the Word of God.
This is too funny. You really don't know do you, if you don't follow your rule book you won't get into heaven no matter how hard you "accepted" Christ. Your religion has told you how to love your god and if you don't follow those exact rules, well then to he..ll with you. LOL!
"Son, that WHOSOEVER BELIEVE in Him, will not perish but HAVE EVERLASTING life"
So that means a gay person who is in a loving married relationship that believes in Christ will have your everlasting life, right.
@LOL...
Let this be settled in your heart, Salvation is a gift. You did nothing to earn it... therefore you can do nothing to lose it.
It's not earned by a person's hard work... so hard work or lack of works for that matter will not cause one to lose their salvation.
Righteousness just means Right Believing. When a person believes right, they will live right. They will not take their Salvation for granted, because even though it was free to them, it was bought with a very hefty and high price. (Because I know people love to say, we're advocating sin.... that's far from the truth. A person who knowingly sins is transgressing against God, and only opening themselves up to bondage (first) then eventual death... because the wages of sin is still death).
Death just means separation from God. Because usually when a Christian sins, they feel condemned in their soul (mind), and instead of going to God and knowing that He's already forgiven them, they believe the lies of the devil, and continue co.mmitting more sins, distancing themselves even further. (Not true for all cases, but just covering some bases here).
Blessings.
LOL!"This is too funny. You really don't know do you, if you don't follow your rule book you won't get into heaven no matter how hard you "accepted" Christ. Your religion has told you how to love your god and if you don't follow those exact rules, well then to he..ll with you. LOL!"
All you've been doing all along is demonstrating how little you know or understand the Bible.
One has to actually READ the Bible in order to understand it.
The contradictions in your post is hilarious.
@LOL...
You demonstrated this lack of understanding by having the answer told to you twice (2 times), yet still unable to recognize it.
However, if we have all knowledge, understand all mysteries, and have all faith, and have not love, we are nothing.
This is the only command/rule that a Christian has to uphold: LOVE
This is my commandment, that ye love one another, as I have loved you.
Blessings.
The fact that you think I haven't read the bible is priceless and you are still wrong about what the bible actually states. Even if you "accept" christ it is NOT a quarantee you will go to your heaven. Oh and if you think "love" is the only answer you'd be wrong on that too. LOL!
@LOL...
If you noticed, I haven't asked for your answer.
I know what the Word of God says. I Believe what the Word of God says. I'm settled. I'm saved.
I am the righteousness of God in Christ because it's Christ in me, the hope of glory. Let that be settled in your heart.
"I am the righteousness of God in Christ because it's Christ in me, the hope of glory. Let that be settled in your heart."
Just because you think you do still doesn't mean you'll actually get into heaven because obviously you are clueless to the rules in the bible. You are quoting just one phrase in it what about the other 1900 or so pages. LOL! That's why you don't know the answer.
Hey Austin when you are in wa wa land (maybe permanent) are they nightmares or dreams ?
I remember in 7th grade taking a course in Greek Mythology. It was interesting in the moment, but I simply dismissed it as mythology and haven't given it much thought since.
It's always fascinating to observe the significant amounts of time, energy and vitriol that are expended by those who relegate the Christian God and his revelation to mythology. I can think of no scenario in which I would waste my valuable time discussing and debating what I thought to be fairy tales.
Did you also dismiss christianity as mythology?
I'll let you figure that one out
I'll let you figure that one out.
Oh I see. You want to be able to make false claims without contradiction. That might be acceptable if believers kept that within their homes and churches.
" false claims without contradiction" ? Please explain.
That the christian god exists. There is no more objective evidence for your god than for the gods of Greek mythology that you dismiss.
Santa
" I'll let you figure that out" Perhaps I assumed too much. I thought from my previous post it was more than evident that I adhere to biblical christianity. No attempt or ploy to hide from the fact.
Your comments could have been by a believer in some other gods.
There is no more objective evidence for your god than for the gods of Greek mythology that you dismiss.
Luckily for you no one is trying to ban lightening rods as an offense against Zeus.
"History does not record anywhere at any time a religion that has any rational basis. Religion is a crutch for people not strong enough to stand up to the unknown without help. But, like dandruff, most people do have a religion and spend time and money on it and seem to derive considerable pleasure from fiddling with it."
– Robert Heinlein
" History does not record anywhere at any time that atheism has any rational basis."
– devin
And the pretty white baptism dress that Grandma bought !
Atheism is the only reasonable position to take when faced with the fact that there is as much evidence for Leprechauns as there is for God.
You're making this up aren't you. As there is no evidence for a personal god, why would a rational person believe in one?
Santa
Not really sure what you're referring to with " Your making this up" As for the rationality of my faith, I readily admit rationalism is not the sole component. Faith and reason combined have brought me to the conclusions I hold. I have found sufficient evidence ( as I always clarify, EVIDENCE not PROOF) that my ideology is legitimate. Obviously you disagree, but that's what makes the world go round.
devin,
I was referring to your comment "History does not record anywhere at any time that atheism has any rational basis." – not sure what else you thought I might be referring to. You have no objective evidence of your god.
Santa
Of course I made that up. Did you think I borrowed it from Tolstoy? I thought you must be referring to something else in that it seemed to me quite obvious that I was employing sarcasm. Although, truthful sarcasm.
You are absolutely correct in stating I have no OBJECTIVE evidence. Significant amounts of subjective evidence, but no objective evidence. Which is EXACTLY your same predicament with your belief in the non-existence of God.
You don't seem to grasp what atheism is – I see no evidence for a god therefore I don't believe the claims for a god, not yours, not Vishnu, not Odin, etc.
If you could provide evidence there would be no atheists and only belief in one god (or gods)
Oh and it is not truthful as it clearly is not irrational to not believe in something for which there is no evidence. And I did write this in the same comment "As there is no evidence for a personal god, why would a rational person believe in one?"
Hilarious.Atheism is rational because there is no objective evidence at all to suggest ANY god, let alone YOUR GOD. It's logical to not believe in something with no evidence behind it.
Precisely the same reason people dismiss your flavor of myth. Now you understand.
Let me refocus your thoughts on my point. Why do you ( if not you, others) spend such significant amounts of time on fairy tales?
I don't.
@devin,
Because other people believe in them and do things like teach creationism in science class, ban stem cell research, ban gay marriage, pass "blue" laws, erect monuments on public property, etc.
And I would never be so arrogant as to speak for others.
Because a culture's myths can reveal a lot about a people's mindset.
For example, most of what we know about ancient ango-saxon culture is thanks to their myths, like Beowulf, that reveal what they considered noble, heroic traits (which are decidedly un-christian).
America's current internal debates can only properly be understood when one takes into account how the puritan ethic maintains a subconscious edge on large segments of society.
This influence manifests itself to irreligious citizens in very real and sometimes oppressive ways – for example, at least seven states–Arkansas, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas–have in place const.itutional provisions that bar atheists from holding public office. One state (Arkansas) even has a law that bars an atheist from testifying as a witness at a trial.
Doc
Some 75 years ago a lun a tic with a little black mustache tried to annihilate an entire race and justify it based on his brand of christianity. History is littered with those who have marred society with their warped take on the faith. I have yet to find in the bible where I am told to prohibit atheists from holding office.
My point is this: Why is so much time spent on denying the fairy tale of "God" Not legislation you may or may not agree with, not ethical issues that you see differently than others, but "GOD" Why?
@devin,
"Why is so much time spent on denying the fairy tale of "God" Not legislation you may or may not agree with, not ethical issues that you see differently than others, but "GOD" Why?"
Good question. I'd say that without addressing blind adherence to dogma, in many cases, attempting to deal with the other things may be unproductive.
ME
Agreed.
Devin:
The real question, is why do you spend so much valuable time trying to defend your faith?
It is FAITH. By definition that means it's based on personal belief. It cannot be defended by logic or science. Why the need to waste your time defending something that cannot be defended? If you believe it, that's fine, but you have to admit that its faith, not fact and move on. The majority of creationists on here cannot admit that. It's funny when somebody tries to act like their faith is the truth but If someone asks for evidence of this truth, they'll say it's based on faith. Faith and fact are opposites. They cannot both be true. Either your belief system is faith or truth. If it's faith, then it's your personal belief and guess on the matter. If it's truth then there should be evidence to support it. I'm just tired of the hypocrisy.
Because your set of fairy tales is DANGEROUS. It puts the future of humanity in jeopardy now that weapons of mass destruction can be acquired. Through the Catholic Church, it almost single handedly is responsible for the majority of AIDS cases in Africa. It teaches that humans are worthless creatures. Zeus is not a threat. Your religion is.
" It puts the future of humanity in jeopardy."
Folks, you just can't make this stuff up. Priceless.
but you death cult is a problem its the number one cause of your current Eco crises, your faith teaches that the earth was put here for man to use, and we do not have to worry of the consequences because were going to heaven any way, that one of many ways your killing this planet
You're right. You can't make it up. There's always a religious war going on. India and Pakistan both have nuclear bombs. If you don't think the potential is there to put humanity in jeopardy, you've got your head in the sand and you are a big part of the problem.
Do you run into a lot of Greek pantheon worshipers trying to use their religion to deny others civil rights in the US? Or any that feel we should "teach the controversy" and teach that it's also possible that Zues creates lightning and not just ionized air? Afterall electromagnetism is 'just a theory"...
Electromagnetism is a proven theory. It is part of Classical Physics.
By definition, all theories are proven.
Only in pseudoscience all theories are proven!
A theory is what one or more hypotheses become once they have been verified and accepted to be true. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. Unfortunately, even some scientists often use the term "theory" in a more colloquial sense, when they really mean to say "hypothesis."
"Theory = Theory"
But that's besides the point. Did I answer the question to your satisfaction?
"Proven Theory = Law"
"Proven Theory = Law"
In other words, "Electromagnetism = Proven Theory = Law"
Theories do not graduate into laws.
A law generalizes a body of observations. Scientific laws explain things, but they do not describe them. In other words, they tell "how", whereas a theory tells "why".
@Doc Vestibule : A law generalizes a body of observations. Scientific laws explain things, but they do not describe them.
You're STILL making things up! First it was 'max length of a wooden ship' and now it is the difference between a scientific law and a scientific theory.
http://www.livescience.com/21457-what-is-a-law-in-science-definition-of-scientific-law.html
While scientific theories and laws are both based on hypotheses, a scientific theory is an explanation of the observed phenomenon, while a scientific law is a description of an observed phenomenon.
@Vic : In other words, "Electromagnetism = Proven Theory = Law"
Let me push back some on this issue. I would state it as Accepted Theory = Law, since science holds that nothing can ever be proven. For example, does electromagnetism work in other galaxies? Maybe, be it cannot be proven. Otherwise, you're right on target.
<><
correction: but it cannot be proven.
Addendum:
http://www.livescience.com/21457-what-is-a-law-in-science-definition-of-scientific-law.html
While a scientific theory can become a scientific law, it does not happen often and each process has a revered and separate purpose as part of the scientific method.
<><
@Live4Him,
keep reading:
"A common misconception is that a theory becomes a law after a certain amount of data has accu[]mulated. That is not the case."
To stop this sort of thing from happening, believers flocking like a mob of crows to find something to support their special beliefs, laws should be logically necessary and true, following from a minimal set of axioms.
@ME II : A common misconception is that a theory becomes a law after a certain amount of data has accu[]mulated. That is not the case.
No one on this forum advanced such a case. All Vic stated was that a law has more evidence than a mere theory (i.e. they CAN graduate to a law, but not may not). To which, 'Doc Vestibule' declared that Theories do not graduate into laws.
<><
@Live4Him,
"All Vic stated was that a law has more evidence than a mere theory"
"A common misconception is that a theory becomes a law after a certain amount of data has accu[]mulated. That is not the case."
1) That's not all Vic was saying, e.g. "proven" theory = law, implying that theories are "unproven".
2) My quote is specifically addressing a misconception that theory v law has to do with the amount of evidence.
@live4him
Firstly, go back to page ten and you'll see that none of the examples you gave are valid.
My statement regarding maximum ship length stands.
The law of gravity describes what happens when you drop something.
The theory of gravity explains why it happens.
I am not making up these basic scientific terms or their definitions.
You're the one who makes things up like all the water in the world being fresh, Jesus visiting the moon, the variability of the speed of light, the inconsistency of Antarctic light/dark cycles etc. ad nauseum
@Doc Vestibule : Firstly, go back to page ten and you'll see that none of the examples you gave are valid.
They sailed the oceans, but they are not valid? I call BS.
@Doc Vestibule : My statement regarding maximum ship length stands.
so, which is it? Is 300 the max length? Is it 387 feet for a act? Or do you REALLY know? You don't. And you've failed to present ANY empirical evidence, unlike my posts. As I pointed out previously, you don't know the design specs (i.e. size and number of keels) which impacts the rigidity of a given ship (and indirectly it's size). You don't know the dimensions of the keel(s). And yet you want to proclaim that you know the max limit to be 300 feet, which I've demonstrated to be false.
Next, let me demonstrate just how little you know about hogging and sagging. These terms are used to describe the curvature of the keel due to pressures on the ship. The keel was typically an external part of the ship that formed the backbone of the ship. It's secondary purpose was to keep the ship from moving sideways due to wind pressure. Additionally, ships needed to be kept light so that they could move through the water. Yet, the Ark didn't have the requirement to be wind powered (i.e. no sails) so it didn't need the keel to resist the sideways movement. Therefore, its keel could be internal AND multiple keels. Thickness didn't matter, since it wasn't meant to move in a given direction – just float. A typical wooden sailing ships keel was about 12"x12" and joined together with a scarph joint. If the length of a 12×12 wooden beam was too long, it would flex. But what if it were 4 times larger (i.e. 4 beams all tied together)? It could be much longer than a ship required to move. Again, there could also be multiple of these. Thus, there is no real limit for a wooden Ark that is not required to be wind powered. It would just be a matter of cost – how much, how large, etc.
BTW – I forgot to mention that I'm a history buff specializing on Tall Ships between 1750 – 1850. 🙂
@Doc Vestibule : The Great Republic had more than just wood – it had some 335 tons of iron and 56 tons of copper.
And how much iron/copper did the Ark have? Duh? you don't know. Just keep spreading your BS all over the place. But I'm tired of your lies, and repeat lies and still MORE lies to cover the exposed lied. It never ends with you. So, I'm done with your lies on this topic AND the one on Scientific Laws vs. Scientific Theories.
<><
@ME II : 1) That's not all Vic was saying, e.g. "proven" theory = law, implying that theories are "unproven".
Scientifically, no law or theory is EVER proven – which I pointed out earlier. However, Laws are universally accepted because of the LACK of contrary evidence with sufficient supporting evidence. A theory may have a lot of supporting evidence, but if it has any contrary evidence, then the scientific mind hits the 'pause button' on accepting it.
@ME II : My quote is specifically addressing a misconception that theory v law has to do with the amount of evidence.
Ahhh... so you ADMIT that you introduced a strawman logic fallacy. That explains it.
So, do you dispute my point to the so-called 'Doc' who claimed that theories never graduate into laws?
<><
My original statement (see page 2) was:
"the practical limit on the length of a wooden-hulled ship is about 300 feet."
When you need a crew of people to pump water out of the ship or when you need to buttress the ship with metal lest it break apart, the wooden design can no longer be considered practical.
The impracticality of such large ships is evidenced in your own examples.
Tthe Orlando, the Mersey and all ships in their class were decommissioned due to their structural instability.
How much metal was on the Ark?
The only building material God gave Noah was wood – it says so right there in the inerrant, historically accurate Bible.
If the authors left out important details like Noah's mastery of metallurgy and advanced ship building skills, what other salient points might God have omitted?
So, back to junior high science terminology.
"Laws differ from scientific theories in that they do not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena: they are merely distillations of the results of repeated observation."
"scientific laws are descriptive accounts of how nature will behave under certain conditions. Scientific theories are broader in scope, and give overarching explanations of how nature works and why it exhibits certain characteristics. Theories are supported by evidence from many different sources, and may contain one or several laws."
– Wikipedia
I'm sure you've seen me say many times over that the Theory of Evolution is comprised of 5 laws.
I'm not making this stuff up, I promise.
@Vic,
"Ahhh... so you ADMIT that you introduced a strawman logic fallacy. That explains it."
How so?
"So, do you dispute my point to the so-called 'Doc' who claimed that theories never graduate into laws?"
Honestly, I've never heard of it being stated they way that your source does and wonder from where LiveScience is basing its definitions.
I've always understood that Theories were larger explanations that involved other Theoris, Laws, facts, etc. and that Laws were descriptions of specific situations.
For example, the Theory of Universal Gravitation explains how all matter attracts all other matter.
The Law describes the actual effect, e.g. F = G ((M1 * m2)/ r^2)
Regardless, though even your quote does not indicate a higher level of "proof" or evidence for laws. In other words a Theory does not get promoted to Law once it is "accepted" as you suggest.
Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circu[]mstances.
Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.
(http://ncse.com/evolution/education/theory-fact)
From the National Academies of Science:
In science, theories do not turn into facts through the accu[]mulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the end points of science. They are understandings that develop from extensive observation, experimentation, and creative reflection. They incorporate a large body of scientific facts, laws, tested hypotheses, and logical inferences. In this sense, evolution is one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have.
(http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6024&page=2)
@ME II : 1) That's not all Vic was saying, e.g. "proven" theory = law, implying that theories are "unproven".
Scientifically, no law or theory is EVER proven – which I pointed out earlier. However, Laws are universally accepted because of the LACK of contrary evidence with sufficient supporting evidence. A theory may have a lot of supporting evidence, but if it has any contrary evidence, then the scientific mind hits the 'pause button' on accepting it.
@ME II : My quote is specifically addressing a misconception that theory v law has to do with the amount of evidence.
Ahhh... so you ADMIT that you introduced a strawman logic fallacy. That explains it.
So, do you dispute my point to the so-called 'Doc' who claimed that theories never graduate into laws?
<><
@Live4Him,
"So, do you dispute my point to the so-called 'Doc' who claimed that theories never graduate into laws?"
Answered on anther thread, but also, yes.
I'm not certain of the wording from LiveScience, and rather would say that Theories can produce Laws, not become them, but regardless they do not *graduate* to Laws, as that would imply that Laws are the top level of Scientific ideas, which I think is incorrect.
From the National Academies of Science:
In science, theories do not turn into facts through the accu[]mulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the end points of science. They are understandings that develop from extensive observation, experimentation, and creative reflection. They incorporate a large body of scientific facts, laws, tested hypotheses, and logical inferences. In this sense, evolution is one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have.
(http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6024&page=2)
Maybe we wouldn't have reason to speak of it if you'd learn to keep it out of the public square. Stop trying to dictate what is taught in schools; stop trying to dictate what rights LGBT have; stop trying to dictate if a woman can have an abortion or use birth control.
So the LGBT have a right to indoctrinate our children in the public school system?
L4H: LGBT are natural, thus no indoctrination happens. It is only your ignorance of reality that makes you think they are not natural. You're a horrible person for treating them so badly.
When you find yourself surrounded by people who not only believe inmythology, but want you to live your life according to their rules you will put more time into dismissing their myths.
Mr. Baden assumes since this Babylonian account was recorded before the Bible, that the Bible account derived from it. There is another explanation. This is a separate record of the same historical event by a different group of people. The main points are similar enough to be recognized and a few details affected by the passage of time and local experiences.
Practically all ancient peoples, with no influence on or by Jewish accounts, have a legend that their ancestors survived a global flood. African Pygmies, European Celts, South American Incas—all have similar legends, as do peoples of Alaska, Australia, China, India, Lithuania, Mexico, Micronesia, New Zealand, and parts of North America, to mention only a few.
Of course, over time the legends have been embellished, but they all include several details indicating a common source narrative: God was angered by mankind’s wickedness. He brought a great flood. Mankind as a whole was destroyed. A few righteous ones were preserved. These built a vessel in which humans and animals were saved. In time, birds were sent out to search for dry land. Finally, the vessel came to rest on a mountain. Upon disembarking, the survivors offered a sacrifice.
Such harmony among 100s of unconnected accounts all over the world is a strong proof that all these people had a common origin and that their early forefathers shared that Flood experience in common.
http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200001150#h=12:0-13:1577
No he doesn't.
Did you read the article?
"Likewise, the relative age of the Mesopotamian and biblical accounts tells us nothing about their relative authority."
The author's statements are somewhat contradictory. In addition to what you quoted he also said:
"the story of the Flood wasn’t set in stone from its earliest version all the way through to its latest incarnation."
"Even if we acknowledge, as we probably should, that the biblical authors learned the Flood story from their neighbors"
These imply the biblical account derived from the earlier.
Flood stories are pervasive becuase human settlements have always been neccessarily close to bodies of fresh water.
The larger the body of water, the larger the civilization and the greater the inevitable catastrophe.
AnotherTake,
I agree. I think there is a logical reason that most all cultures have a flood story. There was a flood.
There are many myths and legends that explain natural phenomena related to natural disasters. These myths fall under the themes of cosmic disasters (the end of the world), the Great Flood, cyclical disasters, punishment of humanity, the doom of the gods, or cosmic fires. Of all the many myths relating to disasters, those related to the creation of the world, and of floods and storms are the most numerous ones.
J.F. Bierlein wrote a wonderful book called "Parallel Myths" that explores common themes in the world's mythologies throughout history, including flood stories.
You can read the whole think on Google books for free.
What's more likely, that widely disparate sources would agree on so many specific details or that they all derived from retellings of the same event after those peoples dispersed?
As noted, the commonality of flood myths is likely due to the commonality of early civilizations developing in areas subject to flooding events. However, the notion of a literal global flood is unsupported by the available physical evidence. This is particularly true when considering the Genesis narrative requiring all "kinds" to have coexisted both before and after the flood, and that the fossil record is the product of a single mass event. The fossil record clearly shows a progressive order (e.g. first fish, then amphibians, then reptiles, then mammals, then birds) with organisms of similar density and niche separated by many, many layers of geologic strata (effectively confounding creationist "hydrodynamic sorting," "eco-zonation," "differential escape," and "floating biomes" explanations). Add to this the presence of eolian formations interspersed among strata claimed to have been deposited during the flood, e.g. the Coconino Sandstone. Like many other myths, the independent flood narratives may be based in some local event; but again, the evidence directly contradicts a single global flood as described in Genesis.
people here go to great lengths to pervert the truth intentionally.
When you hand us a basket of feces and say "Here! Truth!" I can but point out that it is a basket of feces.
As do you, on a regular basis.
Let not your heart be troubled. We only witness to the Lord Jesus Christ, and Holy Spirit takes care of the rest.
That just means that you conflate asking questions to perverting the truth.
Tad bit of hypocrisy there Austin?
Austin,
Do you mean when Christians try to claim the Bible doesn't support slavery?
Do you mean when Christians try to pretend that negative verses about gays are more important than the Golden Rule?
you can look at it Biblically, and my opinion does not change the biblical lessons. it can be difficult to grasp why God does things from His perspective. I don't always know or my flesh does not agree with His higher ways.
and we all are like this. but He is faithful to forgive and save sinners just as they are.
Abraham and Moses were slaves. Cain killed Abel.
Austin
"I don't always know or my flesh does not agree with His higher ways."
So do you think beating slaves and helpless children with rods without punishment is a "higher way"?
Proverbs 13:24
24 Whoever spares the rod hates their children,
but the one who loves their children is careful to discipline them.
Austin,
So do you believe that God was right to say to BEAT helpless children with rods?
You do know it's against the law. Fortunately, our laws aren't determined by the Bible.
Do you support God's advocating to beat children?
Austin,
"Proverbs 13:24
24 Whoever spares the rod hates their children,
but the one who loves their children is careful to discipline them."
This was allegedly written by Solomon. Look what his son, Rehoboam, grew up to say:
"My father beat you with whips, but I will beat you with whips that have sharp points.’” 1 Kings 12
And then the brat and tyrant, Rehoboam, went on to lose half of the kingdom!
His "higher" ways is correct. He must have been baked off his ass to come up with rules like that.
Austin
Yes they do, like trying to explain where the amount of water to flood the whole earth over the highest mountains came from and then disappeared to, do you believe in magic!!!
don't you know? God is so smart, He used all the water on Mars along with the water on earth, then He took it out and put it in asteroids.
LOL.
Vic,
I missed the Bible verse. Which one was it? lol.
IF true, the Noah's ark story could have supplied all kinds of explanations that would have added NEEDED credibility to the Bible. It didn't.
@Vic,
Interesting. So He intentionally mislead us by hiding His activities?
More deception Vic ?
So not only did god wipe out earth with a giant flood, he also stole the water from Mars, which probably killed all life on that planet as well. This god guy just keep getting better. I mean nothing says "I love you" more than drowning the entire world at once.
Now actually THINK about it. Doesn't that sound like something THE DEVIL would do? I'm still surprised that people actually buy the story and think this god character is actually a loving being. If anything the Noah story says that nobody is perfect, not even god.
oh the irony!
On a side note, there is a silver lining in all the spamming I see, it is an indication that "Free Speech" is live and well. "Individual Freedom" cannot be prorated; anything less than "Individual Freedom" is not true freedom.
Another side note:
The OP posting suffered some traffic jam. It should've been at 2:48 pm.
If a nasal spritz of oxytocin can adjust a persons moral choices, what part does the "soul" play in making those moral choices? If there is a soul or spirit that is making those decisions why would a brain chemical have any effect on our behavior?
http://www.wimp.com/trustmorality/
@Austin
Confucius was preaching the Golden Rule centuries before jesus was born.
If you want the bible to get credit for uniformitarianism, let's give credit where credit is due for how we should treat each other.
The Code of Hammurabi?
and for extra credit, let's talk about Horus from Egypt in 3000 BC (Jesus is a copy of Horus), or Attis from Greece in 1500 BC (Jesus is a copy of Attis), or Mithra from Persia in 1200BC (Jesus is a copy of Mithra), or Krishna from India in 900BC (Jesus is a copy of Krishna), or Dionysus from Greece in 500 BC (Jesus is a copy of Dionysus) .... or any of the DOZENS of other gods predating the bronze age book character Jesus who were born of a virgin, traveled as a teacher, had 12 disciples, performed miracles, was killed and lay dead for 3 days and was resurrected.
Agent Coulson from S.H.I.E.L.D was dead for a week, and he came back to life ...three days?....childs play.
Yes and there is verifiable evidence for Coulson's resurrection...I saw it with my own two eyes. 😉
Perhaps Christ's tomb was a portal to Tahiti?
It's a magical place.
or any of the DOZENS of other gods predating the bronze age book character Jesus
what about the book of enoch and the Son of Man prophecy. does you stuff predate the book of Enoch?
furthermore, Job, clearly portrays what Satan does, and this possibly predates the completion of Genesis. also the Genesis "our image" denotes Jesus Christ and you can figure out what is at work. who is here claiming that the Holy Spirit confirmed your false gods? no one.
on the other hand, I am claiming to have experienced the Holy Spirit. you are focused on dead knowledge. I am testifying about a live spirit. a supernatural and real birth within me through the Word of God.
there are others here doing the same. they are telling you the truth, and i believe my own experience as objective, and i therefore identify with JB, Russ, Vic, Lawrence of Arabia, ect. they are telling you the truth about spiritual reality from the Father of all Spirits, through resurrection power and the gift of the Holy Spirit.
So have you started that online dream journal to allow independent verfication of your prophecies?
if i did that, I would be interfering with your salvation. my testimony is fair, but i am not a prophet . I speak in hind sight, and i could not predict anything with any accuracy because i have no idea, and looking back, i never did know that any one of them were coming true.
direct revelation to the prophets was a different thing than the tiny little revelations i have experienced looking back at my dreams .
Wow Austin you speak with your hind in sight ?
Austin,
"I speak in hind sight, and i could not predict anything with any accuracy"
Finally the TRUTH.
REMEMBER WHAT YOU SAID. We will.
"direct revelation to the prophets was a different thing than the tiny little revelations i have experienced looking back at my dreams ."
Austin 20% of people on this planet have dreams that come true religious or not, that is not proof of your god or your religion. You are also forgetting that in the past five years you should have had 1825 dreams if 30 of them come true that means it's about 0.01%, that is not proof either.
correct i am not a prophet observer. i have experienced spiritual revelation.
Pete, if i am working on a job, and i have a dream about the job, that is fine. these are the things you are talking about. I am talking about spiritual transmission or revelation.
for example . synchronicity of the spirit. this happens more dramatically in the lives of believers, and if you do not claim to be born again, how can you comment on the things that the spirit does, if you don't believe He is there.
you see? you are simply rationalizing .
"you see? you are simply rationalizing ."
No you are, just because you can relate your dreams to some scriptures do not prove it is about your religion or your god. I have had my dreams verified by books, friends, etc... We are talking about the same thing, which proves there is no spirituality in it, it's about our brains. Plus when you factor in the % of your dreams that might come true and I am being generous in the .01% it furthers proves this is nothing to do with spirituality. If you are trying to make that claim, it's really lame and the spirits get it wrong far more than they get it right.
AMAZON.COM LISTING
The Bible
"a collection of stories by bronze age desert dwelling goat herders"
REVIEWS:
Bob from Seattle says "it's a useful tool to keep my kids in line".
Benny H says "it's an invaluable fund raising tool. I made millions!"
Arthur from Little Rock says "I like how it makes me right about them gays and them educated types"
Martha M from Dallas says "it is great comfort in my old age and reassures me that I will have somewhere to go."
General William B, USMC says "great tool to get my men to charge in to battle harder than the enemy's men."
Cletus from Birmingham says "I like it 'cos it helps me meet purdy ladies when I go to church on sunday"
Excellent
A from Texas says "it's a great comfort as it helps me explain all the voices in my head"
John from Oklahoma City says "I cannot recommend this book highly enough. Reading it has give me a university degree, when I thought I was never going to get a real one!"
Sgt. A, NOPD "It's heavy and the flexible cover makes it useful for interrogations. No Marks."
Am azon,com – Futurescape – Replacing God – Dec. 2013.
Cpt. Obvious – "Anybody can say anything about invisible and undetectable beings. It's not like there's any proof that could contradict what you say."
Do you agree that it's the increased frequency of vibrations of an object/body that "quickens" it above our ability to see, therefore making that object/body invisible?
What is light.
What is God?
What were the words of creation in Genesis 1? =Let there be Light
What language were these Words spoken in?
How many letters are in the alphabet of creation ? = The Hebrew alphabet is given in Psalm 119
I agree that imaginary things should be invisible.
I don't agree with anything you just said.
"Do you agree that it's the increased frequency of vibrations of an object/body that "quickens" it above our ability to see, therefore making that object/body invisible?"
Uh, no. We see objects because light bounces off of them and enters our eyes. To be invisible, an object would need to move faster than light (so far as we know, impossible) or cause light to bend around it ("invisibility cloaks").
Invisibility cloaks do not actually make things invisible any more than hiding behind a tree can make you invisible.
You can only see in the "OPTICAL" region of the electromagnetic spectrum (which is a very narrow little slice of the total spectrum.
No wonder the scriptures call us blind!
First, you should know that I'm speaking of the invisibility cloaks that physicists create, not something that a wizard would wear. Second, we can debate semantics, but if you throw an invisibility cloak around something, it cannot be seen, so calling it invisible doesn't seem objectionable.
JB, human eyes can only detect light in a narrow range, that is true. But scientific instruments can detect light across the ENTIRE spectrum. So tell me, what is your point?
JB
"Do you agree that it's the increased frequency of vibrations of an object/body that "quickens" it above our ability to see, therefore making that object/body invisible?"
Seriously, go slap whoever taught you that.
In a word. NO
That just shows an unbelieveable level of ignorance of physics.
"That just shows an unbelieveable level of ignorance of physics."
Yes, on your part. Go look at/study the electromagnetic spectrum.
Tell me where to look that supports the statement you made.
JB
Physics is where I live.
just because we cannot see some things with our eyes, we can see a great deal with our technology.
What you propose is not at all correct.
Your assertion that something can be "quickened" to the point we can't see it...pure hogwash.
That was just made up by religious zealots that have no grasp of physics.
Typical christina response.
He said 'invisible and undetectable' but all you did was focus on invisible.
Your logic and entire post fails.
for Jebus' gay buddy, (his "beloved")
Get a life.
"...(even the most conservative biblical scholars wouldn’t date any earlier than the ninth century B.C)." That is a flat out lie. It undermines everything else in the article. The Biblical account in Genesis was written somewhere around 1450 BC. It was written based on oral tradition passed down from Noah and by the Word of God Himself. The fact that so many cultures have a flood story testifies to the fact that the flood happened (along with geological evidence the world over). But only the Bible gives the true account of what happened. These 'scientists' have been changing their story for years, you can't trust them. Trust the historical account that has never been proven wrong despite the best efforts of these 'scientists.'
"These 'scientists' have been changing their story for years..."
That's called LEARNING. And that should tell you something about one particular story that hasn't changed for 2,000 years.
Oh but yet trusting a book that is 2000 years old and has never been updated is such a brighter thing to do???
Obviously you fail to comprehend how science works...an education in it might beneficial.
"It was written based on oral tradition passed down from Noah"
It was written by Moses who had been educated in Egypt and indoctrinated in their creation myths where "Atum" was the ancestor of the first Egyptians. Moses then attempted to created for his people a sense of belonging by tying them to the original "Adam" with a geneology in which he includes Noah.
"The fact that so many cultures have a flood story testifies to the fact that the flood happened (along with geological evidence the world over)."
Most likely a local flood did happen. But not a worldwide flood. The fact that so many people have the same alien abduction stories doesn't testify to the fact that there have been alien abductions.
"But only the Bible gives the true account of what happened."
Convenient! Why is that? What did the BIble get right that other stories got wrong? Show your work.
How could there be tons of flood myths, if all humans were wiped out besides Noah and his family? Who wrote down the ones from Asia if they all died? It's actually quite simple. Between 10,000 and 12,000 BC the ice age ended. When ice ages end, polar caps shrink and ocean levels rise. There were isolated floods all over the world during this time period. This is verified fact. There was never a giant global flood, just lots of small ones. It's also VERY possible that a comet impact could have caused flooding, which actually makes sense when looking at ice core data. Around 7000 BC, there was a short period of global warming, and then a mini ice age. During this time the ice cores showed lots of debris in the cores. This is exactly what one would expect from an impact event. Comets have also been discovered that carry ocean water, so it's not surprising that massive flood damage would result from it. The flood myths obviously refer to one of these 2 events. The comet impact seems likely as well because everybody seemed to think the flood came from god. What else would you think during a time like that seeing a comet come from the sky and hit the earth?
I hate to tell you this, but the global flood story HAS ALREADY been proven wrong by science. There would be tons of evidence that would obvious and all over the place. None of this evidence exists. NONE. I mean, if you'd rather believe liars like Kent Hovind that know nothing about science but claim to, then that's your prerogative, but to suggest the flood has evidence is a lie.
the bible tells us that god made adam first, and eve was only an afterthought.
if that is the case, then why was adam the proud owner of a pen.is and all other male reproductive organs? Was that decoration?
And even apart from all that, why did god give adam ni.pples?
Afterthought? No... God wanted Adam to first see how lacking he was without a mate so that he might better appreciate the perfect gift that He gave man in woman.
Nice spin. Care to cite the sources for this tid bit of info??
@ truthprevails1:
Gen.1:26 – God declares his intention for *both* prior to making either.
Why? What's the point? You wouldn't believe it if I did.
LoA: Right, just as you forever deny everything we point out. You're just a fake trying to make the stories fit your delusions.
Gen.1:26 – God declares his intention for *both*
----
Slight correction: in Gen. 1:26, "man gives his opinion" that God declares his intention for both.
@Russ
26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
Why is he speaking in plural ? Who is helping the one god make man?
God must ba a male and a female, as both could not be in the image of one being.
This odes not seem to declare his intention in reference to Eve at all, just what 'Man' is going to do.
"Elohim" – the plural form of God, referring to the Triune godhead.
The Shema bears this out.
"Shema Yisrael, Adonai Eloheinu Ehad!"
@ Alias:
1) google the "royal we." that's what is being used here.
2) "YHWH Sabaoth" means "Lord of hosts." The "In the beginning..." of Gen.1:1 marks the beginning of *our* time, but the Bible clearly drops hints that there was more before that – the angels, Satan, etc. Jesus even says in Lk.10:18 "I saw Satan fall like lightning..." referencing Satan being kicked out of heaven. When did that happen? PRIOR to Gen.1:1. point being, the "hosts" that accompany God are what make the "royal we" – which, if you googled it, is why British monarch would say that (referring to herself, but also referencing her entire entourage).
3) God transcends gender. and yet chooses to reveal himself in the masculine – which probably is a purposeful theological statement (ancient feminine "creator" gods always led to pantheistic views b/c feminine 'creation' entailed birthing images, inherently deifying the creation).
as Christians (notably, not what Jewish commentators would claim), we see a clear reference to the inner relationship of the Trinity here (the technical term is perichoresis – "mutual indwelling" – the manner in which the persons of the Trinity relate). that is what is echoed in human relationships. what is being stated in Gen.1:26-27 is both God's inner life and our purpose in relation to him and to one another. it is the design of the human race: we were made for relationship.
4) you said "This does not seem to declare his intention in reference to Eve at all..." did you read v.26-27? it explicitly states the opposite: "Let us create humanity in our image... in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them." v.26 declares the intention. v.27 gives an appositive (two parallel statements with the same meaning): where male & female are used interchangeably with "in the image of God."
Tsk Tsk LoA – no added to the bible now...
In most respects the female phenotype is the default phenotype in humans. People with an androgen receptor defect turn out pretty much female in appearance. Just another thing the Bible gets wrong. Females were first.
fiction: 1. literature in the form of prose, esp. short stories and novels, that describes imaginary events and people.
Talking snakes, talking donkeys, global flood, walking on water, ressurection, making the sun stand still, living in the belly of a fish for 3 days... if that doesn't fit the definition of fiction i'm not sure what would...