Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
think about if what was going on in the bible was happening today. a guy named jesus was walking around telling everyone that he communicated with god and that he spoke the word of god. How reputable would he be in this society? would he be this savior, or would he be declared to have a mental illness?
ok....so what if that same guy walked on water,and did the other things he supposedly had done, in front of hundreds....then what would you say?.....
since you can not prove that jesus even actually existed, or that he walked on water the argument is pointless.
Also, we see magicians do amazing things, all of which in the end can be explained through science, not an act of god. do you really thing a magician can fly? or teleport? or levitate object? or is it just slight of hand and smoke and mirrors?
it has also been proven today, that eye witnesses get it wrong. look at may of the court cases where eye witness testimony is proven to be false. sometime the mind believes what the mind wants to believe. (hence optical illusions). when its really hot outside, if you look off into the distance you see water. now this water doesnt actually exist, but our mind thinks it does.
What does the Bible say about witchcraft?It is interesting that several of the Greek words translated "witchcraft" and "sorcery" have the root pharm, from which our words "pharmacy" and "pharmaceuticals" are derived. This root (pharm) refers to "drugs, potions, and poisons."
I haven't bothered to follow all 20+ pages of this thread thus far.
Is there anybody making the argument that the earth is actually 10,000 years old?
I have asked for someone to define a year, so far, no takers.
You havent given enough context for someone to reply correctly. A calendar year? Seasonal year? Fiscal year? Academic year? Julian year? Sidereal, tropical, and anomalistic years?
Are you looking for the amount of time it takes the earth to revolve around the sun 1 time completely...or the ancient historical term of reverence not marking actual solar years?
Thank you for answering the question. Do you believe that the year (the time it takes the earth to revolve around the sun) has been consistant since the time the earth was formed (a bunch of stuff put together, and then held together by gravity)? Those that want to declare "science" as all knowing will not answer that question. I believe the earth was made as stated in the Bible. I do not know how old that would be in "today's" years. I believe it would take a very, very long time to gather the material (or make it) to form a planet (the second day). It would take a very long time to seperate the earth from the water. The Bible (OT) is told to a man by the Lord. The beginning is time on His terms, not man's.
I do not know how old the earth is, but I do believe the Bible is more accurate than any circumstancial evidence that is put forward by "scientists" for how it was formed and where life originated. If you choose to believe the stories of men over the story told by the Creator, that is entirely, your choice. Please do not try to belittle me for believing that there is a "plan", and not a random "cluster".
Then they should still do it today! Please tell me where I can go to see a believer walk on water.That's not true, of course. There was no witness to Mary being impregnated by an spirit. Most everything in the new testament was written well after the life span of any possible witness. All the writers were "believers" and any third party writings have been shown to be forgeries.What other being was born of a virgin? What other being divided food and it multiplied? What other being walked on the water and then called another person to walk on water (that did)? What other being brought people back from the dead (after a day)? What other being rose from the dead? What other being appeared to many after their death? All of these had witnesses, that wrote down the events. They were not the work of a "scientist" using circumstancial evidence and making up a story to go with it. Because you choose to believe the storytellers over the witnesses is your choice.
Furthermore there are telltale signs that the "miracles" were not so miraculous. For example, turning water into wine. There are a great number of wine tastes from sweet to dry and very few people agree on which wine tastes best. But everyone said the water/wine Jesus made was the best they ever tasted, clearly mass hypnosis.
Jesus also said that by faith believers could do everything he did and more, yet no believer can raise the dead or even stand on water which is a lot easier than walking on water.
Check the saints, you will find some did, exactly, what you are saying they didn't.
Originally Posted by Lonestar_logic
You have no evidence, only theories about disoveries that were found. There is no scientific law or demonstrable process that can account for non-living objects coming to life. There is no known scientific law that would allow one kind of creature to turn naturally into a completely different kind. Thousands of fossils and fossil fragments of apes and humans have now been found and they don't show a steady progression from apes to humans at all.
Now you're really getting desperate, citing a religion as science!!! But even your own religious link supports me and contradicts you when it tries to work some real science into its spin. Notice how apes and man branch off separately from a common ancestor!!!!!!!!!
There's that cop out word BELIEVE!I cited a religion as science? No, I don't believe I did.
Nice picture but it proves nothing.
There I made your post with your link to a religious site a little bit bigger so you can't pretend to have missed your own post!
When I pointed out that science does not claim man came from apes, you posted the link to the religious site as what science says to counter my claim.
The nice picture comes from your own link!!!!!!! Obviously you got no farther into your link than the nice picture that proves nothing your religious link opens with.
The biblical day, evening to morning, takes 1/1000 of a second longer each day. That means days were shorter in the days of Jesus than today and even shorter before the days of Jesus. So God had LESS time to do his magic back then than today.I have asked for someone to define a year, so far, no takers.
You havent given enough context for someone to reply correctly. A calendar year? Seasonal year? Fiscal year? Academic year? Julian year? Sidereal, tropical, and anomalistic years?
Are you looking for the amount of time it takes the earth to revolve around the sun 1 time completely...or the ancient historical term of reverence not marking actual solar years?
Thank you for answering the question. Do you believe that the year (the time it takes the earth to revolve around the sun) has been consistant since the time the earth was formed (a bunch of stuff put together, and then held together by gravity)? Those that want to declare "science" as all knowing will not answer that question. I believe the earth was made as stated in the Bible. I do not know how old that would be in "today's" years. I believe it would take a very, very long time to gather the material (or make it) to form a planet (the second day). It would take a very long time to seperate the earth from the water. The Bible (OT) is told to a man by the Lord. The beginning is time on His terms, not man's.
I do not know how old the earth is, but I do believe the Bible is more accurate than any circumstancial evidence that is put forward by "scientists" for how it was formed and where life originated. If you choose to believe the stories of men over the story told by the Creator, that is entirely, your choice. Please do not try to belittle me for believing that there is a "plan", and not a random "cluster".
While I don't respect what you actually believe, I do acknowledge you should be able to believe it without insult.
Faith, by its nature, has no proof. If you've decided that you don't want proof for what you believe in, that's your decision. I personally think it's a faulty one, but I wont characterize it in any way worse than that.
We can go round and round on what can and can't be proven...but at the end of the day...there science has certain repeatable processes that are based on theories that are at least repeatable.
Religion on the other hand is totally unsubstantiated. People say "thank god!" when someone survives a car crash...but then say we shouldn't curse god when someone doesn't. If you can prove to me that prayer works, I'd love to listen.
I just lost a case where the forces of evil lined up in a manner so Machiavellian that even the Devil himself would think our opposition was despicable. The judge threw it out on summary judgment and the case is over. My client was a school teacher for over 30+ years who was fired for proving there was corruption in our state education system...cheating children out of millions of dollars...and then fired for it...with no protection. Where was God? (this is where we devolve into why is there evil in the world...we can table that for now)
I've studied apologetics...and comparative religion...and a myriad of other theological subjects at seminary. I eventually left
I wish you well on your journey of understanding, but it's not one that I can share. It's unfortunate to me that literal interpretation interpretation of a historical document is still taught. There's no ancient text in history, written by humans, that doesn't bear contextual reading.
The biblical day, evening to morning, takes 1/1000 of a second longer each year. That means days were shorter in the days of Jesus than today and even shorter before the days of Jesus. So God had LESS time to do his magic back then than today.You havent given enough context for someone to reply correctly. A calendar year? Seasonal year? Fiscal year? Academic year? Julian year? Sidereal, tropical, and anomalistic years?
Are you looking for the amount of time it takes the earth to revolve around the sun 1 time completely...or the ancient historical term of reverence not marking actual solar years?
Thank you for answering the question. Do you believe that the year (the time it takes the earth to revolve around the sun) has been consistant since the time the earth was formed (a bunch of stuff put together, and then held together by gravity)? Those that want to declare "science" as all knowing will not answer that question. I believe the earth was made as stated in the Bible. I do not know how old that would be in "today's" years. I believe it would take a very, very long time to gather the material (or make it) to form a planet (the second day). It would take a very long time to seperate the earth from the water. The Bible (OT) is told to a man by the Lord. The beginning is time on His terms, not man's.
I do not know how old the earth is, but I do believe the Bible is more accurate than any circumstancial evidence that is put forward by "scientists" for how it was formed and where life originated. If you choose to believe the stories of men over the story told by the Creator, that is entirely, your choice. Please do not try to belittle me for believing that there is a "plan", and not a random "cluster".
Thank you for answering the question. Do you believe that the year (the time it takes the earth to revolve around the sun) has been consistant since the time the earth was formed (a bunch of stuff put together, and then held together by gravity)? Those that want to declare "science" as all knowing will not answer that question. I believe the earth was made as stated in the Bible. I do not know how old that would be in "today's" years. I believe it would take a very, very long time to gather the material (or make it) to form a planet (the second day). It would take a very long time to seperate the earth from the water. The Bible (OT) is told to a man by the Lord. The beginning is time on His terms, not man's.
I do not know how old the earth is, but I do believe the Bible is more accurate than any circumstancial evidence that is put forward by "scientists" for how it was formed and where life originated. If you choose to believe the stories of men over the story told by the Creator, that is entirely, your choice. Please do not try to belittle me for believing that there is a "plan", and not a random "cluster".
why is the bible more accurately correct than a scientist? what makes the evidence put forth by these scientists circumstantial? ive said this many times before, science is meant to be questioned. that is why science never claims things to be 100% correct. if new evidence is discovered and pass the test know as the scientific process, a theory or assumption can be adjusted based upon this new evidence. there are also thousands of scientists worldwide who work independently through different processes and come to the same end result. the bible on the other hand is a collection of stories that have been interpreted to be the word of and actions of god. but yet, the majority of the bible is not proven fact, it is taken on faith. now im not saying that faith is wrong or incorrect, but saying a faith based idea or more accurate than a scientifically proven idea, is just incorrect.
I ask this simple question. it has been proven through science that man has evolved over time (now that amount of time is up for interpretation).
but we have evidence that man has evolved in the following manner:
Homo habilis, Homo rudolfensis, Homo ergaster, Homo georgicus, Homo antecessor, Homo cepranensis, Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo rhodesiensis, Homo neanderthalensis, Homo sapiens idaltu, Archaic Homo sapiens, Homo floresiensis, to what we now call ourselves in homo sapiens sapiens.
(Human evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) there are many other sites, but this has the easiest to read chart.
Now if god created man in his own image as the bible state, what man is the correct version that god created?
I believe it was 40,000 polled and self proclaimed conservatives it is over 50%.
Religion gives conservatism a bad name.
Dec. 10-12 with a random sample of 1,019 adults, ages 18 and older, living in the continental United States. The findings were weighted by gender, age, race, education, religion and phone lines to make the sample nationally representative.
Not impressed. It even blows away your rant about conservatives.
Where are the complete skeletons that "document" this? A piece of bone here and a piece of bone there with a good story is not "scientific". Talk about a collection of stories.
An archeologist just found a tooth of a "modern man" that is "400,000 years old" (that is twice the age that scientists previously said that modern man existed. Already, other scientists (I would guess the evolutionists) are claiming the tooth is "probably" from a neanderthal (even though there is no complete adult skeleton of a neanderthal).
You say the Bible is a collection of stories. That collection of stories has the Lord as a common tie. If a man was mentioned in such a detailed manner, scientists would be jumping up and down trying to prove the existance, but because this Lord has more power than they could ever hope to have, they find ways to erode the belief (it adds to their power to collect a paycheck, because if the Lord doesn't exist, then "science" is really needed).
Where are the complete skeletons that "document" this? A piece of bone here and a piece of bone there with a good story is not "scientific". Talk about a collection of stories.
An archeologist just found a tooth of a "modern man" that is "400,000 years old" (that is twice the age that scientists previously said that modern man existed. Already, other scientists (I would guess the evolutionists) are claiming the tooth is "probably" from a neanderthal (even though there is no complete adult skeleton of a neanderthal).
You say the Bible is a collection of stories. That collection of stories has the Lord as a common tie. If a man was mentioned in such a detailed manner, scientists would be jumping up and down trying to prove the existance, but because this Lord has more power than they could ever hope to have, they find ways to erode the belief (it adds to their power to collect a paycheck, because if the Lord doesn't exist, then "science" is really needed).
you didnt exactly answer my question, but i will answer yours.
the oldest most complete skeleton found has been dated to 3.2 million years.
Scientists today announced the discovery of the oldest fossil skeleton of a human ancestor. The find reveals that our forebears underwent a previously unknown stage of evolution more than a million years before Lucy, the iconic early human ancestor specimen that walked the Earth 3.2 million years ago. (Oldest Skeleton of Human Ancestor Found)
In Isreal they have found many artifacts that have been linked historically to the Bible. Christians rallied around this and and pointed to the validity of the Bible.
And guess what? NONE, NOBODY, NOT ANYONE challenged the validity of the carbon dating that linked these artifiacts to the Bible.
A few weeks ago the SAME archaeologists found teeth and dated them at tens of thousands of years old, possibly a few hundred thousand years old.
And the same folks that never questioned the carbon dating of the artifacts are questioning the carbon dating of the teeth.
Some religous folks are the worst kind of hypocrits.
In Isreal they have found many artifacts that have been linked historically to the Bible. Christians rallied around this and and pointed to the validity of the Bible.
And guess what? NONE, NOBODY, NOT ANYONE challenged the validity of the carbon dating that linked these artifiacts to the Bible.
A few weeks ago the SAME archaeologists found teeth and dated them at tens of thousands of years old, possibly a few hundred thousand years old.
And the same folks that never questioned the carbon dating of the artifacts are questioning the carbon dating of the teeth.
Some religous folks are the worst kind of hypocrits.
Do you think those dates were 100% accurate? For Christians, those dates are irrelevent; it was what they found (actual evidence) that was more important, not the dates.
How does a country move forward and compete in a world market when so many shun science and trust in myths to make our decisions?
Where are the complete skeletons that "document" this? A piece of bone here and a piece of bone there with a good story is not "scientific". Talk about a collection of stories.
An archeologist just found a tooth of a "modern man" that is "400,000 years old" (that is twice the age that scientists previously said that modern man existed. Already, other scientists (I would guess the evolutionists) are claiming the tooth is "probably" from a neanderthal (even though there is no complete adult skeleton of a neanderthal).
You say the Bible is a collection of stories. That collection of stories has the Lord as a common tie. If a man was mentioned in such a detailed manner, scientists would be jumping up and down trying to prove the existance, but because this Lord has more power than they could ever hope to have, they find ways to erode the belief (it adds to their power to collect a paycheck, because if the Lord doesn't exist, then "science" is really needed).
you didnt exactly answer my question, but i will answer yours.
the oldest most complete skeleton found has been dated to 3.2 million years.
Scientists today announced the discovery of the oldest fossil skeleton of a human ancestor. The find reveals that our forebears underwent a previously unknown stage of evolution more than a million years before Lucy, the iconic early human ancestor specimen that walked the Earth 3.2 million years ago. (Oldest Skeleton of Human Ancestor Found)
Still, you did not answer the question on the consistancy of earth years. Why don't scientists consider the time frame of earth years in the formation of the earth could have been vastly different from the earth years, today?
Yes, they found a "partial" skeleton. The scientists (the ones that make the evidence fit their stories) are claiming the skeleton is .... They cannot prove that age, is is a guess, circumstancial evidence. It is no fact. The only fact they have is that they discovered a partial skeleton and it "appears" to be very old. If they found a "modern man" perfect skeleton that dated older than that, they would claim it was the missing link (who would know the difference) to keep the paychecks coming. Those that put their faith in men are fools (nothing personal). BTW, I believe that I am a fool (nothing personal), but I am trying real hard, to join the Lord in eternity.
In Isreal they have found many artifacts that have been linked historically to the Bible. Christians rallied around this and and pointed to the validity of the Bible.
And guess what? NONE, NOBODY, NOT ANYONE challenged the validity of the carbon dating that linked these artifiacts to the Bible.
A few weeks ago the SAME archaeologists found teeth and dated them at tens of thousands of years old, possibly a few hundred thousand years old.
And the same folks that never questioned the carbon dating of the artifacts are questioning the carbon dating of the teeth.
Some religous folks are the worst kind of hypocrits.
