group discussion
topic:
Debating on Christianity
Well you can debate till the sun goes out(which eventually it will meaning the end of the Earth) but you will not convince someone into being a true Christian. Even if you seem to have convinced a person logically that Jesus is the reason for our existence, eventually they will find a logical way to not believe. It's just how we are. The only way for someone to truly become a Christian is through God revealing himself to that individual. God's like the wind, we can't bottle him up, we can only study his effects. And for atheists seeing is believing. So all atheists with their either genuine or condescending questions will eventually come to the conclusion that Christianity is what they always thought it was, a bore(which it is without having a personal relationship with God). This is not to imply that Christians must not be open to learning and knowledge, just know that apologetics can only get a man so far, God has to step in to change the heart.
Even if you seem to have convinced a person logically that Jesus is the reason for our existence
How on earth could one ever do that logically?
The only way for someone to truly become a Christian is through God revealing himself to that individual.
It always makes me chuckle when someone gives their personal perscription for what it takes for someone to be a "true Christian." How exactly do you know what it takes to be a true Christian? How is your opinion of true Christianity any more valid than anyone else's opinion?
So all atheists with their either genuine or condescending questions will eventually come to the conclusion that Christianity is what they always thought it was, a bore(which it is without having a personal relationship with God).
I don't think it is boring. It is actually quite entertaining. It just doesn't happen to have any evidence supporting it that shows it is actually true. Unfortunately entertaining and true are not synonymous.
Sorry didn't mean to say true Christian. Christianity is normally looked as a religion, but true Christianity is a relationship with God, not all these rules we put on ourselves. I'm saying we shouldn't follow rules, I'm saying if we have conversations with God then we won't have to worry about trying to follow rules, we just will. Nathan I could argue with you about how to prove the Bible is a true document but you won't believe whatever I say unless God appeared to you face to face.
Actually I think he would believe you if you had evidence that showed it was at least 50.00001% likely to be true.
I think if you could show the bible to be probable then Nathan would change his opinion.
No I'm pretty doubtful. Koe I've had a hard time placing you, are you an atheist or a evolutionist-creationist?(I think thats the term for Christians who believe in evolution)
I'm an atheist.
However I have no problem discussing things from other people’s points of view. Hence my thread on rejecting evolution being a sin.
I can tell you that I personally would be more than happy to believe in God/Christianity if it could be shown to be probable. It doesn't need to be shown to be true. Heck it may not even need to hit that 50% mark. It just needs to be shown to be more likely than the other explanations.
I've just never seen a reason for God/Christianity that raises the probability of it's being true to anything like equal with the scientific explanations we have for the world.
I do think one of the big misunderstandings most Christians have about atheists is that they are unwilling to change their beliefs about god. We just need the right evidence for it.
Let's give an example:
Nathan, or any other atheist hanging around, would these things make you believe, or be more likely to believe, in a God if they were true.
1) Every person born was able to recite the bible without need of ever having seen it or heard it?
2) When a person with an amputation prays to Jesus it is healed instantly and miraculously.
3) The starting digits of PI spelled out the bible exactly.
4) Different cultures that never interacted with each other independently arrived at the Christian religion. For example Native Americans and Australian Aborigines had been Christian before European Christians arrived.
5) Jesus had said something like "Let the energy in an object be equal to its mass times the speed of light times the speed of light."
Some of those are more convincing than others and we'll have to see Nathan's response but I suspect most of those will be more likely to make him believe in God and a few of them would make him believe in God.
Nathan I could argue with you about how to prove the Bible is a true document but you won't believe whatever I say unless God appeared to you face to face.Such a judgmental statement coming from a "nonjudgmental Christian." You can argue with me all you want friend, but until you show evidence, your Bible is simply another book of mythological stories.
Um I can show you plenty of evidence but in the end it's what you want to believe. Look it's not being judgmental it's a fact only true Christianity comes from a relationship with God. But here is Scientific evidence for the Bible. Tell me if that impresses you at all Nathan and Koe
http://www.pleaseconvinceme.com/index/Th...
Do I find this website impressive? Not in the least. This website tries to pull the same crap that other websites try to pull with the Koran. It takes passages out of context and tries to spin them in the direction of science. I mean if the Bible was going to say anything about science, why wouldn't it just say it? No, instead it says it in language that needs to be deciphered. I especially like the one about the universe expanding. The Bible doesn't say, "The universe is expanding." No, it says, "My own hands stretched out the heavens." Wow, holy crap! Really? No person who has a functioning brain can possibly assume that this line from the Bible actually has anything to do with the universe expanding. In fact, the passage seems to say the opposite. It implies that god stretched out the heavens to make them huge and wide, but that it now sits still. He stretched them out at one point, he didn't continue to stretch them.
D.C, not everyone is called by the Holy Spirit, some persue it and don't get called. If there names are not in the book of life, they will have a hardened heart towards the concept of a relationship with Jesus. I walk in the same line of faith, as you seem to relate to on this thread.Don't stop trying to witness, but with some people, they will have to be called to have a quickened heart.I do believe they are seeking their creator, I hope he calls them.peace
Michelle:
Excellent response! Paul clearly believed in the doctrine of Election (Romans 8:29-30) and Salvation through Christ alone (Ephesians 2:1-10). The Bible is absolute, literal truth for it is the Word of God. Only God can save men, but the preaching of the Word is the power of God unto salvation, so we must continue to preach the Gospel.
Nathan:
You're right, modern science wasn't around when the Bible was being written through the inspiration of God, but that doesn't mean that there weren't learned men. For example, the Roman Empire, one of the most technologically advanced ancient civilizations was nearing its peak. The Romans discovered the strength of the arch, they constructed aqueducts that carried water thousands of miles, and they had the most strategically and tactically advanced military in the world! While that might not be "modern science," what is modern science? Identifying a problem, creating a hypothesis, test the hypothesis, observe and record the results, and make sure it can be repeated. How can you test the theory of macro-evolution? If it takes millions of years, how can you experiment with it? Even the family trees in text books are mostly made-up of somebody's educated guess, without any proof behind it. Lucy was just a bunch of bones collected in a huge radius mixed together and made to look like a missing link. The fact is, no missing between ape and man has ever been found. The truth is, God created the world in six days, and enjoyed the completion of it of the seventh. Science was designed to discover the glory of God in creation. but when man's corrupt, sinful heart has an opportunity to twist the minds of multitudes with blatant lies, he will certainly do so.
I'm not trying to appear better than you or anyone else. The only difference between you and I, spiritually at least, is that I know how sweet the grace of God is, and how precious the cross of Christ appears on that hill, and how white the blood of Jesus can make my sin-stained soul. Like Paul says in Romans 7, I constantly battle with the sin of my flesh, that "I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man, but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin."
Tommy,
If evolution isn't true I'd love to see how some of the studies I've linked to in another group are wrong: http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1555...
Please site specific inaccuracies in the articles.
Dear Koe:
I stand on the Bible. The Bible is absolute truth. God created the world in six days. I've tried to disprove the theory of macro-evolution before, but the deceitfullness of sin that blinds the eyes of men tell them to put faith in what one man said, that since species can change over time to adapt to their environment, therefore species can also change into other species, instead of trusting the unfalterable Word of God. However, I will try. The theory of macro-evolution (it is important to distinguish between macro- and micro-evolution) is not scientific in the least. The hypothesis is there, but since it takes millions of years for one species to develop into another you can't really form a controlled experiment. Therefore, scientists have twisted the process of proving or disproving hypothesis so that since the theory cannot be disproved (because no experiment can be done) it must be a valid theory. However, you cannot test the hypothesis at all, therefore, I, at least, do not see it as a valid hypothesis of the creation of the world.
Tommy is your real name Poe?
Links to why you're wrong.
Evolution has not been, and cannot be, proved. We cannot even see evolution (beyond trivially small change), much less test it experimentally.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA...
A true science must make predictions. Evolution only describes what happened in the past, so it is not predictive.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA...
Any fact can be fit into the theory of evolution. Therefore, evolution is not falsifiable and is not a proper scientific theory.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA...
Science requires experiments that can be replicated. Evolution can not be replicated, so it is not science.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA...
Dear Koe:
Would you mind explaining it to me yourself, in your own words, if you don't mind.
And no, my real name isn't Poe. ;)
Here's the problem Tommy your one short post has so very many problems in it that in order to correct everything I'd have to write a post that would even make RGB cry at its length.
The links I posted and the general Talk Origins counters to creationist arguments (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list....) do a fine job of demonstrating why you are incorrect. I don't see a great need to clutter up this thread repeating the same things they have already posted. If you do want to see more in my own words take a look at the original thread I linked to.
I realize I did leave one link out though on the subject of Micro vs. Macro evolution (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB... )
Really saying you agree with one and not the other is like saying you agree there are inches but disagree there are miles. They are the same thing and to pretend they are different shows either a complete lack of understanding about evolution or a willingness to lie.
Do you even have definitions to go along with microevolution & macroevolution?
Tommy, Tommy, Tommy-----Your ignorance is embarrassing. The real difference between you and I is that I am rational and logical. You, however, are fooled by ancient mythological stories.
Koe:
Microevolution is change within a species, which is what Darwin saw in his finches. Macroevolution is the changing of one species into another, such as ape evolving into man. Just because one thing can change itself to adapt to its environment, while still remaining the same species, does not mean that one thing can change into a different species altogether. You cannot make the leap from one to the another. There has to be some sort of evidence, some way to prove or disprove. Without that, how can it be true science?
Besides, the true argument isn't over the origin of species. Evolution doesn't explain how the first creature came into being, something else has to do that. The true argument is over the literalness of the Bible. Did God really create the world in six days, or did Moses just say that because he didn't know any better? If God did not create the world, then the whole Scripture would be tainted; it would no longer be the Word of God. But thanks be to God, because He did create the world, the universe, and everything in it. He did send His son, Jesus Christ, to live a perfect life and to die on a cross for sinners. Christ did rise from the dead three days after He had died. Christ will come agains to bring the adopted sons and daughters of God into their inheritance of glory and to judge all men. Thanks be to God that Christ's blood can wash away the most crimson of stains.
Michelle wrote: "D.C, not everyone is called by the Holy Spirit, some persue it and don't get called. If there names are not in the book of life, they will have a hardened heart towards the concept of a relationshi..."Ah, so you note that it isn't really up to us, is it? Jesus calls us or he doesn't. So much for free will.
Jesus has a standing invitation to call me. If he manifests in my living room in the flesh, I'll start to believe in his divinity. After all, the original Apostles didn't recognize Jesus when he was supposedly "risen" (strange, don't you think)? Thomas refused to believe in Jesus until he appeared right before him and let him touch his wounds. Jesus appeared to Paul and "hundreds of others" in the early church (according to Paul). And Paul was openly prosecuting Christians at the time! He was hardly praying for a vision or enlightenment, he was riding on a horse thinking about something else entirely.
Well, if that isn't too injurious of their free will, if Jesus can take a bit of time out of his infinitely long day to visit Paul and set him straight, he can take some time to visit me.
Well, once again he was a no show. Too bad.
rgb
Tommy wrote: "Koe:Microevolution is change within a species, which is what Darwin saw in his finches. Macroevolution is the changing of one species into another, such as ape evolving into man."
A process that is clearly evident in the fossil record. Radiometrically dated.
You really cannot even debate the issue of science versus Genesis if you remain as appallingly ignorant as you seem to be. Go outside right now. Look up. You can see the light of stars. Look with a telescope, and you can see nearby galaxies. "Nearby" means that they are hundreds of thousands to millions of light years away. You can see Andromeda with a good sized pair of binoculars and it is enormous even though it is two and a half million light years away, where a light year is six trillion or so miles.
Look with a good telescope (like the Hubble) and you can see so far away that galaxies the size of the Milky way or Andromeda are reduced to pinpricks in size, you can see so many of them it becomes clear that they are so much dust compared to the vast empty spaces in between, and so distant that the light the Hubble sees is well over twice as old as the Earth itself.
The order of events in the visible cosmos post Big Bang are well understood, and nobody seriously doubts them on the basis of evidence at this point (except people who doubt them for religious -- silly, non-evidence-based -- reasons). They bear absolutely no resemblance to the order of events in Genesis even metaphorically. Seriously, the Earth created before the Sun and the Moon? Flowering plants created before the Sun and the Moon? Are you joking? There is zero evidence that there were flowering plants "created" at all, but there is a ton of evidence that they evolved long, long after plants in general covered the earth.
But WAIT you want to say (I'm sure) -- how do we KNOW when these things happened? Because of radiometric dating. Basically a variety of rocks contain minerals that formed originally with e.g. Uranium as one of the components of its molecular crystal structure. Over time, Uranium decays via alpha decay and spontaneous fission into a series of well-known decay products at a very accurately known rate. It is a very slow rate, to be sure, but Avogadro's number is huge, so even a small sample of Uranite minerals is constantly decaying.
The minerals that Uranium decays into are never found in the same crystal structure as the original one. If you heat the rock, it rearranges itself into a new stable form. We therefore know that when we find these "impossible" minerals (mixed freely with Uranium based minerals) they could only have been produced by radioactive decay since the rock was last heated -- usually when it was formed. By simply doing a assay and determining the ratio of Uranium to its decay byproducts, one can accurately measure the age of the rock.
Except that it isn't just one mineral and it isn't just Uranium. There are many radioactive elements, and each one forms "clocks" of this sort, clocks that generally cover different but overlapping ranges. In rocks that contain several of these mineral radiometric clocks which overlap, they generally agree -- which gives us confidence that our results are indeed quite accurate and reliable.
Using this sort of method we find that the layers of the rock that are clearly visible in the fossil record are dated in the order they were laid down via sedimentation. They are very, very old -- the oldest fossils are nearly four billion years old, formed not long after the Earth itself cooled from its formation. By examining that fossil record in this accurately dated rock one can clearly follow the evolution of species, the emergence of phyla, the divergence of several species from a common progenitor, the disappearance to extinction of most of the species that have ever lived. We can even date major extinction events, ones that caused cataclysmic upheaval in the biosphere and caused extremely rapid macro-evolution as a consequence as only animals who by chance had favorable mutations could survive the new conditions.
We can see the emergence of ourselves from this natural progression, written in the rocks. I trust the rocks far, far, more than I trust the Bible, written by ignorant and superstitious men way back in the Bronze Age. They clearly write of a flat Earth, one that is fixed in the heavens in the center of Creation, floating on a sea, surmounted by a solid bowl on which are hung stars so that they can be shaken down by earthquakes. The moon glows with its own light (it isn't a solid ball of rock that reflects sunlight). The sun and moon go around the Earth. The earth does not rotate and most certainly doesn't go around the sun. The "purpose" of the stars is to mark of the seasons -- a reasonable assumption for a superstitious culture that used them to mark a calendar without knowing how or why they worked. What about the other trillion trillion stars they couldn't see? What was their purpose? What was the purpose of the species that went extinct long before man evolved?
The Catholic church fully understood the danger of Galileo's work. It was Galileo, not Darwin, that proved that the Bible is a collection of myths -- that it is fallible and wrong. Everyone right up to Galileo thought that the Bible had to be literal truth, and if you denied it they would cheerfully torture you until you recanted your heresy and them burn you or hang you before your "poison" could be spread. They imprisoned Galileo for the rest of his life and burned all of his books that they could, but it didn't stop him from being correct, and the Bible from being wrong, wrong, wrong.
Nowadays it requires a special sort of mind to fool itself into thinking that it is still literal truth. It has to juggle facts, blinking one out of existence, bending another, "interpreting" this piece of scripture so that it seems less contradictory. All of it prophecied by none other than Saint Bellarmine, the man who persecuted and prosecuted Galileo.
You are too lazy to actually study the real, scientific truths of the world in which you live, even though they have never been easier to study. Instead you grasp for the "easy" solution -- a book you can't understand anyway is right, and only you (and a few others) know the secret key of how to "interpret" it so that it ends up true after all. You just ignore the many contradictions within that book itself, and above all blind yourself to the many and obvious ways it is contradicted by common sense and observation. For example, you will now somehow manage to try to convince yourself that radiometric dating must be wrong. The methods used for dating the Universe, the very light of the stars and galaxies recorded by the Hubble are all a conspiracy, a mistake, a lie. The clear progression of species visible in the dated layers of rocks aren't a record of time, they are a miraculous accident of sedimentation following a flood. You will ignore the fact that it would take 19 years to load all of the species in the world at a species a minute into an "ark" the size of a small Wal Mart -- think about how long it would take to collect them all. You will avoid using any arithmetic -- it is your enemy -- or logic -- it leads you to an unacceptable conclusion of contradiction -- or knowledge that is actually derived from looking at the world itself just so you can preserve the silly notion that a work of obvious myth and fiction is somehow "special".
Kind of pathetic, really.
rgb
rgb wrote: "Michelle wrote: "D.C, not everyone is called by the Holy Spirit, some persue it and don't get called. If there names are not in the book of life, they will have a hardened heart towards the concept..."
Yes it is too bad, keep seeking your creator.peace
Dear rgb:
Paul wasn't one of the first Apostles, so he didn't see Jesus before He ascended into heaven. Jesus revealed Himself to Paul on the road to Damascus, and I'm sure you've heard that story.
As for the Creation:
Day 1: God creates the light and, consequently, the darkness.
Day 2: God creates the heavens, or sky.
Day 3: God creates the land and the seas. Then God creates vegetation.
Day 4: God creates the Sun and the Moon to give aid with time.
Day 5: God creates the fish and the birds.
Day 6: God creates the land animals. Then God creates man.
Day 7: God enjoys the rest of completion.
Note that, though plants were created before the Sun and Moon, there was still light and darkness, day and night.
The radiometric dating:
You said that Uranium's rate of decay is slow. How slow are we talking? Hundreds of years, thousands of years, ten years? Seconds, days, weeks, months, or years? According to http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/radiome... the two figures for one half-life of uranium is 4.5 billion years and 704 million years for Uranium-238 and Uranium-235, respectively. How do you figure these half-lives out? Even one hundred years is a long time to us humans, so how can you determine what the decay rate of uranium is? After all, to find out accurately, wouldn't you have to see it decay, to set up some experiment in order to see how Uranium decays?
"We can see the emergence of ourselves from this natural progression, written in the rocks. I trust the rocks far, far, more than I trust the Bible, written by ignorant and superstitious men way back in the Bronze Age. They clearly write of a flat Earth, one that is fixed in the heavens in the center of Creation, floating on a sea, surmounted by a solid bowl on which are hung stars so that they can be shaken down by earthquakes. The moon glows with its own light (it isn't a solid ball of rock that reflects sunlight). The sun and moon go around the Earth. The earth does not rotate and most certainly doesn't go around the sun. The "purpose" of the stars is to mark of the seasons -- a reasonable assumption for a superstitious culture that used them to mark a calendar without knowing how or why they worked. What about the other trillion trillion stars they couldn't see? What was their purpose? What was the purpose of the species that went extinct long before man evolved?"
Do you remember when you were a child? Did you have your degree in...physics, is that right? Were you a professor? Did you know about all the galaxies and scientific theories and radiometric dating? The world was still new, and fresh.
Give me one example, just one, of your favorite contradiction in the Bible. I will refute it. I don't know how to interpret the Bible, just to let you know. I haven't been to Seminary, or college. But I have faith that my Lord Jesus Christ will reveal His word to those who believe. (And yes, arithmetic is my enemy. I really don't like geometry; I can't draw very well.) ;)
D.C. wrote: "Even if you seem to have convinced a person logically that Jesus is the reason for our existence, eventually they will find a logical way to not believe...."
I can certainly understand your opposition to logic when it comes to your religious beliefs, since it only serves to counter faith. Faith requires you to believe thing for which you have insufficient supporting evidence.
Even your analogy between God and the wind is an age-old flawed argument used by religious brainwashers, since Atheists do believe the winds exist. They do because contrary what you may have been misled to think, they rely on all their senses, not just sight to prove existence. What else are you wrong about?
Tommy wrote: "Michelle:
Excellent response! Paul clearly believed in the doctrine of Election (Romans 8:29-30) and Salvation through Christ alone (Ephesians 2:1-10). The Bible is absolute, literal truth for..."
You want me to believe that your religious faith gives you some special lock on knowledge and truth. My experience is it is quite the opposite. Throughout the decades of my life, I have yet to find a religious person that an analysis of his beliefs does not show them to be mostly flawed and unfounded. Because of this, I would rather analyze the evidence you used to come to your conclusions for myself, rather than just accept yours or any other religious person’s opinions.
The Bible is an example of how easy it is, with the aid of religion, to elevate man’s words into inspired words from God. Anyone can write anything claiming to be influenced by God in some way and someone, somewhere will believe it as the gospel truth, especially if it gets included in a holy book of some sort. There is no need for logic, or any verifiable evidence to support its authenticity.
The Bible cannot authenticate itself, so tell me, how did you authenticate this wonderful book you are quoting from?
Dear D.G.:
"I can certainly understand your opposition to logic when it comes to your religious beliefs, since it only serves to counter faith. Faith requires you to believe thing for which you have insufficient supporting evidence."
What about macroevolution? What evidence is there, solid, unshakeable evidence, to prove that man evolved from ape? Lucy was just a collection of bones found scattered over a large part of Africa; she was completely made up. The "family trees" in science text-books are drawn based on what scientists think belongs there, to support their view. There is no evidence to back it up.
All the evidence points to intelligent design; that is, creation by God. Think about the intricate nature of a plant. Think about the intricate nature of all multicelluar organisms. Then think about the simplicity (yet still with its own measure of complexity) of a unicelluar organism. Think about the nature of the human mind. No other creature has developed such an intricate society. The internet, television, radio, automobile, electric stove. What other creature has made these things? Humans are unique amongst God's creatures because He created Man in His own image.
Tommy wrote: "You said that Uranium's rate of decay is slow. How slow are we talking? Hundreds of years, thousands of years, ten years? Seconds, days, weeks, months, or years? According to http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/radiome... the two figures for one half-life of uranium is 4.5 billion years and 704 million years for Uranium-238 and Uranium-235, respectively. How do you figure these half-lives out? Even one hundred years is a long time to us humans, so how can you determine what the decay rate of uranium is? After all, to find out accurately, wouldn't you have to see it decay, to set up some experiment in order to see how Uranium decays? "and
"Give me one example, just one, of your favorite contradiction in the Bible. I will refute it. I don't know how to interpret the Bible, just to let you know. I haven't been to Seminary, or college. But I have faith that my Lord Jesus Christ will reveal His word to those who believe. (And yes, arithmetic is my enemy. I really don't like geometry; I can't draw very well.) ;)"
I accept. We'll start with Uranium, and I will demonstrate several things to you, if you dare to look in the mirror that I hold up to show yourself to you.
Every one of your questions about Uranium are good ones. Because they are good questions, in order for the science to be consistent, they require consistent answers supported by measurements that one can perform in a laboratory with completely understandable methods and equipment. Because things like the website or wikipedia or any good nuclear physics textbook provide answers -- things like the half-life of Uranium -- it is reasonable to expect that that chain of reasoning exists. Of course it does -- I teach it. It is readily available in numerous books and online. In a minute I'll provide a link that answers this and all of your questions concerning radiometric dating by exposing the entire chain of reason and evidence that it works.
However, instead of doing your homework and trying to answer the question for yourself, your reply is clearly intended to suggest that there is no such answer, that we couldn't know this, that it is impossible that anybody could measure such a thing. This is pure laziness on your part, and is typical of the "argument from ignorance" of most BICC apologists.
However, here's the reason. Suppose one has one mole of Uranium. That is N=6x10^23 atoms -- an amount that weighs about a half a pound. The meaning of "half life" is that in this amount of time, 1/2 of the material will have decayed. That is 3x10^23 atoms. Now 4.5 billion years sure sounds like a lot of time, doesn't it? However, in seconds and rounding to make the arithmetic easier to follow:
5x10^9 (years) x 3x10^7 (seconds per year) = 1.5 x 10^17 seconds. Now as an exercise, how many decays on average should we expect to see in a second? 3x10^23/1.5x10^17 = ?
Wow, it seems like it wouldn't be too difficult to observe 2 million decays per second, does it? And this isn't quite accurate -- the decay process is exponential so it would be much higher early on (like the interest fraction is within a mortgage payment) but I don't want to do even first order differential equations with the math-challenged. Simple arithmetic is fine.
If you hadn't been asleep in science and math class in high school, you'd probably know this already, as they cover these ideas and numbers in high school chemistry and of course any sort of calculus class. But ignorance, even after the fact, is no excuse. You claim perfect knowledge, and yet are self-confessed unable to engage in even simple reasoning processes that don't involve reading things in a book and believing them (or not) without understanding them either way.
The promised link:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens....
You'll like this link -- the website was created by a Christian geologist who regretfully cannot in good conscience accept the propagation of lies, even lies (or more generously, "myths") in the Bible.
If you read it and work through it -- no laziness or head in the sand stuff permitted -- you simply cannot help but conclude that radiometric dating is reliable proof at the very least that the earth is old and Genesis is false, not the literal truth. Note well that he presents graphs, curves, a certain amount of math, and describes forty different radiometric clocks and demonstrates their agreement with clocks obtained from entirely different, non-radiometric ways. You don't need a lot of math to follow it, but you do have to actually read it, word by word, maybe two or three times until you fully understand it. View it as the most important bit of Bible study you will ever do, because until you learn what it has to teach you all the Bible study you've ever done has been on the basis of a false premise and needs to be thrown out and done over.
This would serve (one would think) as a favorite contradiction in the Bible -- although I'm fond of the Flood as being just as bad. Until you understand how radiometric dating works and why you should believe it, you will never accept evolution and will yammer on about micro vs macro (which is all bullshit as there is no such distinction and macro evolution has been clearly demonstrated in laboratories even on human timescales) until you are forced to agree, kicking and screaming, that the earth is OLD and the dating of the fossil record is ACCURATE.
However, that wouldn't be fair -- you obviously don't know how to multiply and divide and so you don't have any way of doing the arithmetic that demonstrates e.g. that Noah couldn't even load an ark the size of a small Wal Mart with every one of the ten million or so species that would have died in a Biblical flood -- many of them evolved to live in cold climates that would have died quickly in the Middle East without air conditioning -- in less than twenty years, let alone collect all of those species from their ecological niches in the Amazon river basin and Antarctica -- we haven't found all of them YET with armies of people looking and jet airplanes. So let's pick something on "your turf". The problem here is that there are so many to choose from. A "perfectly true" document shouldn't have even little inconsistencies, and places like the Skeptics Annotated Bible and this site:
http://www.evilbible.com/contradictions....
have whole lists. However, I'm certain that you'll shrug off "little" contradictions and pretend they don't exist, or are even proof that the gospels are real (look, they contain mistakes!) right before you contradict yourself and then say they are perfect (because they contain mistakes we know they are unmistaken!).
Let's pick a big one, with solid historical analysis and evidence to back it up, not just opinion or "hermenuetics".
Let's do the date of Jesus's birth, the Nativity. Matthew unambiguously places it in the reign of Herod the Great, who died in roughly 4 BCE. Luke equally unambiguously places it in the reign of Herod Archelaus, during the Roman census that is documented by Josephus as occurring in 6 CE, when Quirinius was governor of Syria. We'll skip their other contradictions -- Matthew having Jesus run off to Egypt to avoid the undocumented "slaughter of innocents" that somehow missed getting into Josephus, Luke having him go home, as of course he would if there were no slaughter of innocents, but that's part of the evidence, for sure.
A simply lovely analysis of this problem is here, where it is shown that this is an unavoidable, unmistakable contradiction in historical fact between two of the Gospels.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/r...
Carrier is an e-friend of mine at this point, and I assure you that this is objective and clear scholarly work, not atheistic "attack" of any sort.
rgb
Tommy wrote: There is no evidence to back it up...All the evidence points to intelligent design; that is, creation by God. ..."
Tommy,
I am not sure if you are demonstrating true scientific ignorance, religious logic, just being provocative or a combination of all of these. I wish I had the time and talent of RGB to try and help you, but I don’t and do not think it fruitful to try and use facts and logic with a religious person, - he must first thirst for truth. When you reach that stage, this is the correct procedure to follow:
a) Gather all relevant evidence
b) Analyze all relevant evidence
c) Form opinion based on that thorough analysis.
I bet you will then see your post in a different light!
Let’s face it, if someone is very happy with their idea of reality, what incentive would he/she have to do anything that could prove him/her wrong and jeopardize the status? Add to that mix, the fact that some people are not brave enough to defy the “believe or die” doctrine. Such a person is willing to believe anything to “save” his life, no matter how farfetched.
exactly D.G.
now to get away from micro-evolution. are you really saying there is a big magical INVISIBLE man in the sky, with a list of ways to live, and a list of people who live that way. and he constantly watches us. sounds alot like santa.
now, the ark thing. how old was noah? it would have taken years and years to build this ark. then, he has to get two of every animal, how, if he was somewhere of in europe or the middle east (since this seems to be where all the bible stories take place) how did noah get animals from south and north america? and australia? and antartica? then, while they were on this long voyage, how was it the lions didnt eat the deer? and the tigers didnt attack the zebras? or the wolves and bears didnt attack noah himself?
see, its just not logical.
Yes,but Jenn,there are actually many explanations for that,not to mention the fact that Noah had God's help.Christianity is the oldest religion,Noah didn't have to road up the animals,God sent them to him,God made sure the aniamls did not eat each other or Noah and his family by the same means he did not let the lions eat Daniel.I have full faith in God and nothing will shake it.
yes but Judaism is the first religion and it is in a way Christianity because they believe in God,they may not believe in Jesus as the savior but they still believe in God,that was the religion Jesus was born into and it has been around since Adam and Eve because they believed in God and they were the first people.
in a way it is not christianity thoguh. and what about hinduism, thats actually older than judism. and the whole adam and eve thing. if they were the first people, then they 'mated' and had kids, then the kids would all be brothers and sisters. how then did the world get populated??!?? even ANIMALS know not to mate with your brother or sister. that makes for some freaky mutations. so either adam and eve had like tails and three heads, and the mutations from brothers/sisters mating eventually got to the human being we see today. or the bible is illogical.
No,the Bible is not illogical,by the time Adam and Eve had children God had placed more people on the earth.Adam and Eve were the first people,that does not mean they were the only people.And actually,I'm not sure where you are hearing this but even history classes will tell you Judaism was the first religion.
no, social studies class will tell me hinduism was the first. and yes, it is illogical. if it was logical, there would be a way to explain a giant magical invisible man in the sky, with rules on how to live. and i swear to...well not god(though that is what i would say, but thats only a figure of speech), i swear to whatever ghost it is that kept slamming by bedroom door yesterday, i swear to that ghost, that if you say the way to explain it is the bible, or faith, im going to find a way to jump inside the computer and find you and smack u in the back of the head.
♥Pudding♥ wrote: "No,the Bible is not illogical,by the time Adam and Eve had children God had placed more people on the earth.Adam and Eve were the first people,that does not mean they were the only people.And actua..."
yeah
Thats fine,I'm not worried about it because if you read the Bible you would understand,I think I've been to more social studies classes than you seeing that I am 17.Another thing is,is that maybe you don't choose to believe,that is of your own choosing and I respect that,but I'm still going to believe.God was the one who created the Earth,humans are not to be abkle to grasp that.They were put here to choose either to believe or not to and only if you believe does it become truely understandable.Faith is believing without seeing.
♥Pudding♥ wrote: "No,the Bible is not illogical,by the time Adam and Eve had children God had placed more people on the earth.Adam and Eve were the first people,that does not mean they were the only people.And actua..."
if they were not the only people than shouldnt the story be adam and eve and john and sue and chris and jen and ashley and brendan?
♥Pudding♥ wrote: "Thats fine,I'm not worried about it because if you read the Bible you would understand,I think I've been to more social studies classes than you seeing that I am 17.Another thing is,is that maybe y..."
well actually we were made to have a fellowship with God. same thing really though.
See,it was Adam and Eve,they were the first people and then they had children,when the children grew up God created other people.
yes, thats what i said, then there grandchildren would be mutated because adam/eve's kids would had to have mated. pudding said they were not the only people, so then the story should have had all the other people there.
that last comment probably makes it sound like im insane, because when i put that message 41 was the last one up there, so i was responding to that.
Jenn{ AKA duncanator } wrote: "yes, thats what i said, then there grandchildren would be mutated because adam/eve's kids would had to have mated. pudding said they were not the only people, so then the story should have had all ..."
are you trying to prove mutation or what?
i think that the clildren, even if they were inbred, would have turned out how God wanted them to.
and I think that the story is God created Adam and Eve, and then the childeen were a result of birth. 2 different levels or creation in my opinion.
Dapplenose you're not familiar with goatse.cx are you?
Goatse.cx was essentially a man using both his hands to pull his anus wide open. Your image is in fact a Photoshop tribute to that.
http://www.snopes.com/photos/natural/god...
Got any 2 girls 1 cup miracles for us also?
