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 🎁
You dont seem to grasp logic, which is weird for someone who named themselves logical4u...but whatever.
This isn't a fight between faiths...its one person believing what a religious text and the people who teach the text say...and people who believe in repeatable phenomena. That's it. End of story.
You want to believe shit you haven't seen or that no one can prove. We believe shit that people can reproduce and have peer-tested.
Believe the hocus pocus...but science isn't a religion.
I have nothing to prove, either you believe in God or you don't. Psalms 118:8 is all I need to know. It is better to trust in the Lord than trust in man.
Then why are you here? Why are you on the internet...in this thread?
You're telling us we're wrong...and your only back up is "BECAWSZE I BUHLEF!!"
That doesn't cut it.
We'll people the people who measure and calculate and study and test and prove things...you can believe the white bearded guy in the clouds...but don't expect us to.
(And before you say you didn't ask us to...uhm yeah you did)
I believe the dating methods are flawed and you're wrong to trust them. The Bible has shown to be historically accurate time after time whereas carbon dating has shown to be flawed time after time. Hell they carbon dated a freshly killed seal and said it was 1,300 years old and they dated live mollusk as being dead for 23,000 years.
Then why are you here? Why are you on the internet...in this thread?
You're telling us we're wrong...and your only back up is "BECAWSZE I BUHLEF!!"
That doesn't cut it.
We'll people the people who measure and calculate and study and test and prove things...you can believe the white bearded guy in the clouds...but don't expect us to.
(And before you say you didn't ask us to...uhm yeah you did)
I believe the dating methods are flawed and you're wrong to trust them. The Bible has shown to be historically accurate time after time whereas carbon dating has shown to be flawed time after time. Hell they carbon dated a freshly killed seal and said it was 1,300 years old and they dated live mollusk as being dead for 23,000 years.
The Bible has been proven to be historically accurate? Not really chief.
Surely SOME parts of the Bible are right (dumb luck? factual filler?) but not the ENTIRE thing. Not even close to MOST of the entire thing.
First lets talk about all the crazy shit. Angels...the devil being cast out...that even one person has come back from the dead...shit like that. None of it proven.
Then lets talk about the scientific shit. You haven't proven that a day then was any less than it is today ... or more. You just BELIEVE it's true. How about a full day of sun or full day of night...the exodus plagues...None of it proven.
Sure...there might be some proof for some facts...but that doesnt get us to Jesus risen from the dead...or blood/wine giving people literal eternal life.
Come back when you have some proof.
Oh...here's an entire article on that point:
The Skeptical Review Online - Print Edition - 1990-2002
Some doesn't equal all.
here's another:
Needed: Historical Inaccuracies in the BibleSome examples of biblical statements contradicting known history:
Daniel 5:1-2 says Belshazzar was king of the Chaldean Empire (Babylon), and son and successor of Nebuchadnezzar. In reality, Nebuchadnezzar's son and successor was Amel-Marduk. He was assassinated by his Brother-in-law Nergal-Ashur-Usur, who took the throne. His reign was followed by his son Labashi-Marduk, who was opposed by a faction that overthrew him and placed Nabu-naido on the throne. Belshazzar (who's name was actually Bel-shar-utsur) was the son of Nabu-naido. He was NEVER king, but crown prince, and was no relation at all to Nebuchadnezzar.
Hosea 5:13 tells us the Assyrian King at that time was named Jareb. There was never an Assyrian king by that name, and the name of the king who did rule at that time was Tiglath-Pileser the third.
Daniel 5:30-31 says that Darius the Median took over the Babylon empire, but it was Cyrus of Persia who overthrew the Babylonian Empire. While there is a Darius the first in history, there is no mention of a Darius of Median anywhere.
Esther 1:9 tells us Vashti was queen of Persia at the time the story occures, but the queen at this time was actually Amestris, and there never was a queen of Persia named Vashti. Vashti was the name of an Elamite goddess. Most probably that is the origin of the name in this story.
Jeremiah 29:10 Tells us the Babylonian Exile will last 70 years. 2nd Chronicles 36:21 tells us that this came about. However, the elapsed time from the destruction of the temple (beginning of the exile) in
586 B.C., to the return of the Israelites to their promised land after Cyrus overthrew the Babylonian Empire in 538 B.C. was 48 years, and not 70.
Then why are you here? Why are you on the internet...in this thread?
You're telling us we're wrong...and your only back up is "BECAWSZE I BUHLEF!!"
That doesn't cut it.
We'll people the people who measure and calculate and study and test and prove things...you can believe the white bearded guy in the clouds...but don't expect us to.
(And before you say you didn't ask us to...uhm yeah you did)
I believe the dating methods are flawed and you're wrong to trust them. The Bible has shown to be historically accurate time after time whereas carbon dating has shown to be flawed time after time. Hell they carbon dated a freshly killed seal and said it was 1,300 years old and they dated live mollusk as being dead for 23,000 years.
Oh here go hell come...
So you're asking us to believe that your faith...unprovable is better than a scientific method. That's utterly daft.
I believe the dating methods are flawed and you're wrong to trust them. The Bible has shown to be historically accurate time after time whereas carbon dating has shown to be flawed time after time. Hell they carbon dated a freshly killed seal and said it was 1,300 years old and they dated live mollusk as being dead for 23,000 years.
The Bible has been proven to be historically accurate? Not really chief.
Surely SOME parts of the Bible are right (dumb luck? factual filler?) but not the ENTIRE thing. Not even close to MOST of the entire thing.
First lets talk about all the crazy shit. Angels...the devil being cast out...that even one person has come back from the dead...shit like that. None of it proven.
Then lets talk about the scientific shit. You haven't proven that a day then was any less than it is today ... or more. You just BELIEVE it's true. How about a full day of sun or full day of night...the exodus plagues...None of it proven.
Sure...there might be some proof for some facts...but that doesnt get us to Jesus risen from the dead...or blood/wine giving people literal eternal life.
Come back when you have some proof.
Oh...here's an entire article on that point:
The Skeptical Review Online - Print Edition - 1990-2002
Some doesn't equal all.
here's another:
Needed: Historical Inaccuracies in the BibleSome examples of biblical statements contradicting known history:
Daniel 5:1-2 says Belshazzar was king of the Chaldean Empire (Babylon), and son and successor of Nebuchadnezzar. In reality, Nebuchadnezzar's son and successor was Amel-Marduk. He was assassinated by his Brother-in-law Nergal-Ashur-Usur, who took the throne. His reign was followed by his son Labashi-Marduk, who was opposed by a faction that overthrew him and placed Nabu-naido on the throne. Belshazzar (who's name was actually Bel-shar-utsur) was the son of Nabu-naido. He was NEVER king, but crown prince, and was no relation at all to Nebuchadnezzar.
Hosea 5:13 tells us the Assyrian King at that time was named Jareb. There was never an Assyrian king by that name, and the name of the king who did rule at that time was Tiglath-Pileser the third.
Daniel 5:30-31 says that Darius the Median took over the Babylon empire, but it was Cyrus of Persia who overthrew the Babylonian Empire. While there is a Darius the first in history, there is no mention of a Darius of Median anywhere.
Esther 1:9 tells us Vashti was queen of Persia at the time the story occures, but the queen at this time was actually Amestris, and there never was a queen of Persia named Vashti. Vashti was the name of an Elamite goddess. Most probably that is the origin of the name in this story.
Jeremiah 29:10 Tells us the Babylonian Exile will last 70 years. 2nd Chronicles 36:21 tells us that this came about. However, the elapsed time from the destruction of the temple (beginning of the exile) in
586 B.C., to the return of the Israelites to their promised land after Cyrus overthrew the Babylonian Empire in 538 B.C. was 48 years, and not 70.
blond guy?
Repeatable phenomena? Can you repeat evolution? Can you turn one species into another species? I mean after all that's basically what evolutionist want you to believe. Tell me how can you know how old a rock is without anything to compare it with like a known sample? Ah... you have to rely on science and dating methods of which we all know is a flawed science.
And you just proved what I said. There are people who will take things out of the Bible and make claims on the age of the earth. But there is not one place in the Bible that claims the earth is 10,000 years old or less. We have only "Bible historians and scholars" to go from. And I couldn't care less what some Bible historians and scholars think they know from taking bits and pieces out of the Bible.
Rick
ok agreed that is doesnt say that exact words. can you agree then that the bible also make no mention of science, the other planets, comets and other galaxies? by your current logic, you are saying that if its not in the bible, then it is false. there is no room for study or interpretation. then there are many things that shouldnt exist because of the bible. we shouldnt have science, because no one should question how the bible describes the world. we also shouldnt have other religions, because the word of the bible should stand true to everyone everywhere. we also shouldnt have evidence of evolution, because we were just put here roughly 6,000 years ago.
see where this argument goes...... you are now taking bits and pieces of the bible and molding your story to fit them. when some type of evidence is found that refutes whats in the bible, it simply gets brushed off blindly as an act of god. the topic of the thread is that people claim the earth is less than 10,000 years old, if you dont believe that, then you disagree with religious scholars who state so. which by that reasoning then, you should question more than just that from the bible.
I have nothing to prove, either you believe in God or you don't. Psalms 118:8 is all I need to know. It is better to trust in the Lord than trust in man.
Then why are you here? Why are you on the internet...in this thread?
You're telling us we're wrong...and your only back up is "BECAWSZE I BUHLEF!!"
That doesn't cut it.
We'll people the people who measure and calculate and study and test and prove things...you can believe the white bearded guy in the clouds...but don't expect us to.
(And before you say you didn't ask us to...uhm yeah you did)
I believe the dating methods are flawed and you're wrong to trust them. The Bible has shown to be historically accurate time after time whereas carbon dating has shown to be flawed time after time. Hell they carbon dated a freshly killed seal and said it was 1,300 years old and they dated live mollusk as being dead for 23,000 years.
so when do you believer that "time" started exactly? was this after "god" completed the earth? or when god put man on the earth?
and when did what we perceive as time start?
Time is a human concept.
Then why are you here? Why are you on the internet...in this thread?
You're telling us we're wrong...and your only back up is "BECAWSZE I BUHLEF!!"
That doesn't cut it.
We'll people the people who measure and calculate and study and test and prove things...you can believe the white bearded guy in the clouds...but don't expect us to.
(And before you say you didn't ask us to...uhm yeah you did)
I believe the dating methods are flawed and you're wrong to trust them. The Bible has shown to be historically accurate time after time whereas carbon dating has shown to be flawed time after time. Hell they carbon dated a freshly killed seal and said it was 1,300 years old and they dated live mollusk as being dead for 23,000 years.
Some things you just "know". For instance, we ALL know there were dinosaurs on Noah's Ark.
No REAL scientist would use carbon dating on a live or freshly killed sample!!!!! This was pointed out to you earlier in this very thread and yet you continue to post this deliberate deception!!!! A sample should be about 300 to 500 years old in order to have an accurately measurable amount of decay. Our instruments can only measure about 5 to 6 half-lives so with a half-life of about 5000 years that sets the upper limit around 30,000 years. Within those upper and lower ranges, carbon dating is quite accurate, and YOU know it!!!!I believe the dating methods are flawed and you're wrong to trust them. The Bible has shown to be historically accurate time after time whereas carbon dating has shown to be flawed time after time. Hell they carbon dated a freshly killed seal and said it was 1,300 years old and they dated live mollusk as being dead for 23,000 years.
The Bible has been proven to be historically accurate? Not really chief.
Surely SOME parts of the Bible are right (dumb luck? factual filler?) but not the ENTIRE thing. Not even close to MOST of the entire thing.
First lets talk about all the crazy shit. Angels...the devil being cast out...that even one person has come back from the dead...shit like that. None of it proven.
Then lets talk about the scientific shit. You haven't proven that a day then was any less than it is today ... or more. You just BELIEVE it's true. How about a full day of sun or full day of night...the exodus plagues...None of it proven.
Sure...there might be some proof for some facts...but that doesnt get us to Jesus risen from the dead...or blood/wine giving people literal eternal life.
Come back when you have some proof.
Oh...here's an entire article on that point:
The Skeptical Review Online - Print Edition - 1990-2002
Some doesn't equal all.
here's another:
Needed: Historical Inaccuracies in the Bible
blond guy?
So just for the record...
you can't disprove what he's saying about biblical inaccuracies...your response is an emoticon.
AWESOME
Repeatable phenomena? Can you repeat evolution? Can you turn one species into another species? I mean after all that's basically what evolutionist want you to believe. Tell me how can you know how old a rock is without anything to compare it with like a known sample? Ah... you have to rely on science and dating methods of which we all know is a flawed science.
you can not "repeat" evolution, but you can observe and record evolution.
Macro-evolution observed in the laboratory | Digital Bits Skeptic
"Indeed, its hard to simulate our planets biodiversity in a laboratory, because all laboratories are much smaller than the planet and have been operating for a far shorter period of time. Nevertheless, we can now say that macro-evolution has been observed in the laboratory under carefully controlled conditions, and that the results can be replicated. The results are described in a paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of the Sciences titled Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli.
In 1988, scientists at Michigan State University created twelve population lines of E. coli so that they could watch them evolve. Since then, the bacteria have been growing under carefully controlled conditions in a culture containing low concentrations of glucose and high concentrations of citrate. Under oxic conditions (that is, when oxygen is present), E. coli cannot grow on citrate and that inability has long been viewed as a defining characteristic of this important, diverse, and widespread species. Many traits were observed changing over time. Creationists dismissed these changes as micro-evolution. For over 30,000 generations, the E. coli in the experiment did not evolve the ability to grow on citrate. Finally, one of the populations evolved, and gained this ability."
so when do you believer that "time" started exactly? was this after "god" completed the earth? or when god put man on the earth?
and when did what we perceive as time start?
Time is a human concept.
So humans created time?
Time is gauged by the rotation of the earth around the sun.
How did we create that?
The oceans tides are measured by time.
Are the tides a human concept?
My ancestors were all farmers and planted based on the seasons, the time of year.
Are the changing of the seasons a "human concept".
Religous beliefs are a human concept.
Then why are you here? Why are you on the internet...in this thread?
You're telling us we're wrong...and your only back up is "BECAWSZE I BUHLEF!!"
That doesn't cut it.
We'll people the people who measure and calculate and study and test and prove things...you can believe the white bearded guy in the clouds...but don't expect us to.
(And before you say you didn't ask us to...uhm yeah you did)
I believe the dating methods are flawed and you're wrong to trust them. The Bible has shown to be historically accurate time after time whereas carbon dating has shown to be flawed time after time. Hell they carbon dated a freshly killed seal and said it was 1,300 years old and they dated live mollusk as being dead for 23,000 years.
Some things you just "know". For instance, we ALL know there were dinosaurs on Noah's Ark.
No REAL scientist would use carbon dating on a live or freshly killed sample!!!!! This was pointed out to you earlier in this very thread and yet you continue to post this deliberate deception!!!! A sample should be about 300 to 500 years old in order to have an accurately measurable amount of decay. Our instruments can only measure about 5 to 6 half-lives so with a half-life of about 5000 years that sets the upper limit around 30,000 years. Within those upper and lower ranges, carbon dating is quite accurate, and YOU know it!!!!I believe the dating methods are flawed and you're wrong to trust them. The Bible has shown to be historically accurate time after time whereas carbon dating has shown to be flawed time after time. Hell they carbon dated a freshly killed seal and said it was 1,300 years old and they dated live mollusk as being dead for 23,000 years.
No...you're thinking that you've proven something. That's the same as asking us to believe.
Faith, by definition, is unproven. You lose.
No REAL scientist would use carbon dating on a live or freshly killed sample!!!!! This was pointed out to you earlier in this very thread and yet you continue to post this deliberate deception!!!! A sample should be about 300 to 500 years old in order to have an accurately measurable amount of decay. Our instruments can only measure about 5 to 6 half-lives so with a half-life of about 5000 years that sets the upper limit around 30,000 years. Within those upper and lower ranges, carbon dating is quite accurate, and YOU know it!!!!I believe the dating methods are flawed and you're wrong to trust them. The Bible has shown to be historically accurate time after time whereas carbon dating has shown to be flawed time after time. Hell they carbon dated a freshly killed seal and said it was 1,300 years old and they dated live mollusk as being dead for 23,000 years.
