A few question's for atheists ?

[Youwerecreated]

You have given me no reason to believe in a god. I already told you that the bible is an unreliable and unverifiable source by any scientific standard. No one has seen a god, no one can produce a god that everyone can see.

And as I said before, lack of a detailed explanation of events is not proof of a god.

In a few hundred years of serious study (much of that with unsophisticated scientific equipment), one cannot expect to explain in minute detail what happened over billions of years.

You're dismissing science before the work is even remotely finished.

Do you need a definition of empirical evidence ?
(ĕm-pîr'ĭ-kəl)
adj. 1. a. Relying on or derived from observation or experiment: empirical results that supported the hypothesis.
b. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment: empirical laws.

2. Guided by practical experience and not theory, especially in medicine.


Read more: empirical: Definition from Answers.com

The bible has provided many ;

hy·poth·e·sis/hīˈpäTHəsis/Noun


1. A supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.

2. A proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth

And science later tested and observed the hypothesis and wow it became empirical evidence.

That bloody book has been supported by empirical evidence.

[youtube]Pk0K1zgCDtE[/youtube]

[youtube]8G4zyBmgaeA&feature[/youtube]

[youtube]gvPkHpE-oks&feature[/youtube]

So this is what you're reduced to

Just call me Johnny.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWPX5nr6esM]YouTube - ‪CHARLIE DANIELS - DEVIL WENT DOWN TO GEORGIA (live)‬‏[/ame]

 

[Youwerecreated]

You have given me no reason to believe in a god. I already told you that the bible is an unreliable and unverifiable source by any scientific standard. No one has seen a god, no one can produce a god that everyone can see.

And as I said before, lack of a detailed explanation of events is not proof of a god.

In a few hundred years of serious study (much of that with unsophisticated scientific equipment), one cannot expect to explain in minute detail what happened over billions of years.

You're dismissing science before the work is even remotely finished.

Do you need a definition of empirical evidence ?
(ĕm-pîr'ĭ-kəl)
adj. 1. a. Relying on or derived from observation or experiment: empirical results that supported the hypothesis.
b. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment: empirical laws.

2. Guided by practical experience and not theory, especially in medicine.


Read more: empirical: Definition from Answers.com

The bible has provided many ;

hy·poth·e·sis/hīˈpäTHəsis/Noun


1. A supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.

2. A proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth

And science later tested and observed the hypothesis and wow it became empirical evidence.

That bloody book has been supported by empirical evidence.

[youtube]Pk0K1zgCDtE[/youtube]

[youtube]8G4zyBmgaeA&feature[/youtube]

[youtube]gvPkHpE-oks&feature[/youtube]

Questions On The Bible's Origin And Preservation


Questions On The Bible's Origin And Preservation
Page 1

Question 1. I was reading some of the other questions and in an answer you stated that all of the prophets of the Bible spoke different languages. How did the Bible become compiled as one book and receive its name and who authorized its translation?

Previous Question Top
Next Question

Answer To answer the first question, the books of the Bible are said to be in the canon of the Bible. This simply means that over time, scholars have come to accept certain books as authentic, inspired books that contain the Word of God, while rejecting other books as uninspired.

There are several books that people have tried to move into the biblical canon that never made it. For example, the Gospel of Thomas claims to be an inspired book about the childhood of Jesus. However, when this book is compared with the four Gospels (the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John), the Gospel of Thomas_ is clearly inferior.

The books that we have in the Old Testament today were accepted by the Jews as inspired before Jesus came to the earth. These scriptures were extremely important to the Jews (and us) even after the New Testament church was established. As the canon of the New Testament was established, the Bible came to include all of the books that we have in it today.

Establishing the canon of the Bible involves careful comparisons of text that we know were written by inspired men (the letters of Paul, the Gospel of Luke as well as the book of Acts, both written by Luke who accompanied Paul on his journeys) to text that may or may not have been written by inspired men.

For example, we do not know who wrote the book of Hebrews. However, we can compare the teachings of the book of Hebrews to other texts that we know were inspired (the writings of Paul, for example). If, like the _Gospel of Thomas_, Hebrews were not able to withstand this kind of scrutiny, it would not be included in the canon.

To answer the 2nd part of your question, the oldest copies of the Old Testament that we have were written in Aramaic and Hebrew. Before Christ was born, the Greeks translated the Old Testament into the Greek language. That translation is called the Septuagint.

Several translations of the Old Testament that we use today were translated from copies of the Aramaic and Hebrew versions of the Old Testament and the Septuagint. The Dead Sea Scrolls, copies of portions of the Old Testament which were written hundreds of years before Christ was born, validate the Old Testament translations that we use today because they (our current versions) are virtually identical to the text contained in the Scrolls.

The New Testament has a similar history. There are many copies of the New Testament that date to the 4th century AD and earlier. Although we have no original manuscripts of the New Testament writings, the early Christians were careful to maintain copies of the letters that were written by the inspired men of God. Like the Old Testament, the New Testament canon includes only the books that have withstood all challenges to their authenticity and inspiration.

The Bible has been translated into English from the original Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek several times in the last several hundred years. Some translations are more accurate than others. If you would like information on the benefits and problems with different translations available today, please let me know.

If you want to pursue this question further, try to find a copy of _You Can Trust Your Bible_ by Neale Pryor. Pryor deals with many of these subjects much better than I can. Contact Michael

Question 2. The early bibles ended Mark at 16:8. Where did verses 9 through 20 come from?

Previous Question Top
Next Question

Answer Thanks for your question on Mark 16. Below I have included a rather lengthy discussion from someone who has done considerable research on your question. In general, 2 manuscripts used for some of our translations do omit part of Mark 16. However, there is no doubt that it should be included in the text. The majority of scholars do not question that it should be there, and that it is part of the rest of Mark's gospel. If you have a specific question regarding those verses or any other passage please reply.

There are two Greek manuscripts that were written around 350 AD which do not contain the last twelve verses of the gospel of Mark. It is interesting that these same two manuscripts (Codex Vaticanus and Sinaiticus) also do not contain the 1,000 year reign of Christ in Revelation 20:1-6. None of these modern preachers claim this passage doesn't belong in theBible!

The end of the gospel of John is not found in the Vaticanus and Sinaitic manuscripts either, where John wrote, "And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. Amen" (John 21:25). Although this ending of John's gospel is missing in the same manuscripts that do not contain the ending of Mark's gospel, there are no footnotes in the new Bibles casting doubts in people's minds on the ending of John! John 21:25 is accepted because it is found in all other Greek manuscripts, but so is Mark 16:9-20! We should ask, why do some "scholars" reject the end of Mark but retain the end of John when both are missing from the same manuscripts?

Both the Vaticanus and Sinaitic do not contain the confession of faith by the blind man who said, "Lord, I believe!" (John 9:38). Also, both of these manuscripts do not contain Luke 6:1, which reads, "Now it happened on the second Sabbath after the first that He went through th grainfields. And His disciples plucked the heads of grain and ate them, rubbing them in their hands."

The account in John 19:33-34 of the soldiers piercing the side of Jesus while He was on the cross is also omitted in both theVaticanus and Sinaitic manuscripts. Footnotes are not added in modern translations to warn us about any of these passages because all other Greek manuscripts docontain them.

Where is the consistency? All other Greek manuscripts also contain Mark 16:9-20! In the Sinaitic manuscript, the book of Hebrews ends at chapter 9 verse 8. According to this so called "reliable ancient manuscript", Hebrews 9:14 to 13:25 do not belong in the Bible either! The passage, "Then an angel appeared to Him from heaven, strengthening Him. And beingin agony, He prayed more earnestly. Then His sweat became like great drops of blood falling down to the ground" ( Luke 22:43-44) is not found in the Sinaitic. Neither is the passage, "Then Jesus said, 'Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do.'" (Luke 23:34).

This is just a small sampling of the problems of these two manuscripts. The Greek Scholar Dean Burgon, writing of the Sinaitic and Vaticanus, along with the Codex Bezae, wrote that these three manuscripts, "are three of the most scandalously corrupt copies extant: exhibit the most shamefully mutilated texts which are anywhere to be met with: have become... the depositories of the largest amount of fabricated readings, ancient blunders, and intentional perversions of truth which are discoverable in any known copies of the word of God." Dean Burgon, The Revision Revised, pg. 16.

There is an eighth or ninth century unical manuscript called Codex L that contains a different ending to Mark 16. This manuscript is interrupted at Mark 16:8 with the words, "something to this effect is met with," and then, instead of the Great Commission in Mark, the author wrote, "All that was commanded them they immediately rehearsed to Peter and the rest. And after these thing from East even unto West, did Jesus Himself send forth by their means the holy and incorruptible message of eternal salvation."

After examining this manuscript, Dean Burgon described the Codex L as, "the work of an ignorant foreign copyist who probably wrote with several manuscripts before him; but who is found to have been wholly incompetent to determine which reading to adopt and which to reject." Dean Burgon, The Last Twelve Verses Of Mark, pg. 203.

The last twelve verses of Mark are included in all of the more than 500 known manuscripts of the New Testament except two, the Vaticanus and Sinaitic, and is in all of the more than two thousand manuscript copies, without exception, yet, modern editors add footnotes in the Bible to cast doubt on the authenticity of this passage! If the last twelve verses of Mark were rejected based on the authority of these two manuscripts, the gospel of Mark would end with, "for they were afraid" (Mark 16:8). Does it seem reasonable to anyone that God would have intentionally ended a gospel of Jesus Christ with the disciples being afraid?

Although there are many arguments made concerning Mark 16:16, it is important to know that the early Christians quoted thispassage before the Sinaitic and Vaticanus manuscripts were written. In his work directed against the Gnostics, Irenaeus quoted Mark 16:19 and even said it was at the end of the gospel of Mark! Remember, Irenaeus lived 120-205 AD, and the Vaticanus and Sinaitic manuscripts were not written until the fourth century! "Also, towards the conclusion of his Gospel, Mark says: 'So then, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God;' confirming what had been spoken by the prophet: 'The Lord saith to my Lord, sit Thou on My right hand, until I make Thy foes Thy footstool.'" Irenaeus, "Against Heresies," Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, pg. 426.

The "Constitutions of the Holy Apostles" is a compilation of several works that may have been written as early as the first century. Some of the earlier writers credited the work to Clement, who was an acquaintance of the apostles Paul and Peter. Later writers claim the "Constitutions" were written sometime in the 200's AD. Whichever view one takes, there is an agreement that the "Constitutions" were being circulated at a very early time in the church. This book indicates that the Christians were already familiar with the last few verses of Mark, which some modern "scholars" claim were a later invention centuries later. Not only was the writer familiar with the last twelve verses, he quoted Mark 16:17-18! "With good reason did He say to all of us together, when we were perfected concerning those gifts which were given from Him by the Spirit: 'Now these signs shall follow them that have believed in my name: they shall cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; they shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall by no means hurt them: they shall lay their hands on the sick, and they shall recover.'" "Constitutions of the Holy Apostles," Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 7, pg. 479.

The "Gospel of Nicodemus" is another early work whose authorship and date of writing are uncertain, although dates have been suggested as early as the late 100's AD. This work also indicates that the early Christians were familiar enough with the last twelve verses of Mark that they could quote Mark 16:15-19. "And Phinees a priest, and Adas a teacher, and Haggai a Levite, came down from Galilee to Jerusalem, and said to the rulers of the synagogue, and the priests and the Levites: 'We saw Jesus and his disciples sitting on themountain called Mamilch; and he said to his disciples, 'Go into all the world, and preach to every creature: he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, and he that believeth not shall be condemned. And these signs shall attend those who have believed: in my name they shall cast out demons, speak new tongues, take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall by no means hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall be well.' And while Jesus was speaking to his disciples, we saw him taken up to heaven.'" "The Gospel of Nicodemus," Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 8, pg. 422.

The evidence proves that the early Christians were familiar with the last twelve verses of the gospel of Mark and considered these verses to be authentic. How did they view the statement of Jesus concerning baptism in Mark 16:16? The "Constitutions of the Holy Apostles" quoted this verse to prove that anyone who is not baptized is to be condemned as an unbeliever. This was written over a century before the Vaticanus and Sinaitic manuscripts! "He that, out of contempt, will not be baptized, shall be condemned as an unbeliever, and shall be reproached as ungrateful and foolish. For the Lord says: 'Except a man be baptized of water and of the Spirit, he shall by no means enter into the kingdom of heaven.' And again: 'He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved but he that believeth not shall be damned.'" "Constitutions of the Holy Apostles," Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 7, pg. 456-457. Contact Larry

Question 3. What is the origin, inspiration, and inerrancy of the Bible?

Also How our present English text came into being from Hebrew and Greek?

Previous Question Top
Next Question

Answer This is two questions. I will deal with them separately.

In this epistle, we will deal with the first question, but I rephrased it a little bit.

How can we be assured of the Authenticity of the Bible? How do we know that what we have is really the words of God?

You ask a very important question. Not because it is difficult to answer, but because it is so fundamental to our faith. If we are not firmly convinced of the authenticity of the Holy Scriptures, then our faith will be weak and our obedience will be incomplete.

And it is difficult to find material to answer the question, but it is hard to pick and choose from the wealth of material available.

In this study then, let's consider three principle sources of evidence that the Bible is the Divinely inspired Word of God:

1. The Testimony of Jesus Christ 2. Why Should We Believe Jesus Christ? 3. The Life Of Paul As An Evidence of the Resurrection

First let's look at:

THE TESTIMONY OF JESUS CHRIST

Christ is the key to it all. And it is appropriate that we base our faith on Christ, because He is our ultimate authority in all things --

Matt 28:18-20 18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. (KJV)

As Jesus has all power (all authority), why should He not be our authority here?

We know that the Bible is authentic because He quoted from it. Remember when He kept saying "It is written ..." when He was tempted in the wilderness? It is that, and His many other references.

Consider that at the time of Jesus the Jews regarded what we call the Old Testament in three parts:

The "Law" --

Genesis Exodus Leviticus Numbers Deuteronomy

The "Prophets" --

Joshua Judges I Samuel II Samuel I Kings II Kings Isaiah Jeremiah Ezekiel Hosea Joel Amos Obadiah Jonah Micah Nahum Habakkuk Zephaniah Haggai Zechariah Malachi

The "Writings" --

Psalms Proverbs Job Song of Solomon Ruth Lamentations Ecclesiastes Esther Daniel Ezra Nehemiah I Chronicles II Chronicles

[An interesting detail here, the Saducees (they did not believe in the resurrection -- they were "sad you see") they only accepted the Law as authoritative. Notice how many times Jesus rubbed their nose in it as He referred to the Law and the Prophets as authoritative!]

Anyhow, the point is that the Divine Son of God quoted from and referred to the Old Testament scriptures in His teaching, and He considered them authentic.

Consider here -- Some Old Testament References by Our Lord

Get out your Bible and check these out. See if Jesus did not refer to these passages as if everybody knows that they are authentic.

The Law

Matt 4:4 Man shall not live by Bread Alone Deut. 8:3

Matt 4:7 Thou shalt Not Tempt God Deut. 6:16

Matt 4:10 Worship God Deut. 10:20

Matt. 5:27 On Adultery Ex. 20:14

Matt. 5:33 Thou shalt Not Swear Num. 30:2

Matt. 5:38 An Eye for an Eye Lev. 24:19-20

Luke 11:51 Abel Gen. 4

Luke 17:26-29 Noah, Lot & Sodom Gen. 7 & 19

The Prophets

Matt. 12:3 Hungry David I Sam. 21:6

Matt. 12:7 Mercy vs. Sacrifice Hos. 6:6

Matt. 12:38-40 Sign of Jonah Jonah 1:17

Luke 19:46 Den of Thieves Isa. 56:7 & Jer. 7:11

Matt. 13:13-14 Hearing not Hear Isa. 6:9-10

The Writings

Matt. 22:41-45 David's Lord Psa. 110:1

Mark 12:10 Chief Cornerstone Psa. 118:22

Luke 11:51 Zechariah II Chronicles 24:20-21

The Law and the Prophets

Matt 5:17 Jesus Came to Fulfill the Law & Prophets

Matt. 7:12 Golden Rule -- this is the Law & Prophets

Matt 22:40 On the Two Greatest Commandments hang the Law & Prophets

Luke 16:16 Law & Prophets Were Until John

Luke 24:44 Christ Fulfilled all the Law & Prophets

Did you look at these? [Remember that chapter and verse divisions did not exist in the first century. They did not come along until the 14th century or so.]

Next let's look at

WHY SHOULD WE BELIEVE JESUS CHRIST?

Everyone believes that Jesus Christ was a good person. No one back then could convict Him of sin, try as they did. The only thing resembling sin which they could pin on Him was His claim to be Deity. Blasphemy is an extremely serious sin. But, since He was (is) Deity, then it cannot be sinful for Him to claim it!

Jesus claimed to be Deity. Now if He was not Deity, then He lied. If He is a liar (and lying about claiming to be Deity would be a large size lie), then He could not be a "good person." Which all are in agreement that He was!

What evidence do we have to support our belief in the words of Jesus Christ? Many. Let's look at just a few.

Fulfilled Prophecy

There are more than 300 prophecies fulfilled in the life of Christ. Micah 5:2 spoke of Bethlehem. Matthew 2:5 referred back to this prophecy of Micah. And the Jews at that time (see context of Matt. 2:5) understood the passage to be a prophecy of where the Messiah was to be born!

The study of the fulfillment of prophecy in the life of Christ is a very rewarding study. I will leave it to you.

The End He Proposed

The Jews were looking for a Messiah to deliver them. They had seen the many prophecies and other references in the Old Testament. But they were looking for an earthly kingdom. Jesus was that Messiah. It would have been so easy for Him to accept the crown as king on earth. Because that was what the people wanted.

But He did not do it that way. He chose the way of perishing to accomplish His mission. He gave His life freely. Look at the accounts of His crucifixion, and it is striking how He so willingly gave His life, without resisting.

There is no way that He could gain anything by His death. Unless, of course, His death was Divinely appointed by His Divine Father!

The Testimony of His Father

The Hebrew writer, in warning us to not miss the boat, mentions that God provided signs and wonders (miracles) so that we would believe that Jesus Christ is Divine.

Heb 2:1-4 1 Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which we have heard, lest at any time we should let them slip. 2 For if the word spoken by angels was stedfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompence of reward; 3 How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him; 4 God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will? (KJV)

See also:

John 20:30-31 30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: 31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name. (KJV)

No body could disprove His miracles, then or now. From turning water to wine in John chapter two to raising dead, stinking Lazarus from the dead in John chapter eleven. There were just too many witnesses for Jesus' miracles to be a fraud. The only other possibility, then, is that Jesus Christ is Divine.

The greatest of Jesus' miracles, He did not even do Himself, but God did for Him. That is His resurrection from the dead.

No one could disprove it back then. And they had the most powerful reason to disprove it if at all possible. He was cramping the style of the local leaders, and making their life difficult. But they could not disprove it.

Some today try to disprove the resurrection. Long distance (time). I have not read all their arguments, but that seems silly. If the Jewish leaders could not disprove it back then, when they had the most reason to, how does anyone today expect to be able to disprove it when any evidence and eyewitness accounts are long gone?

But we do have eyewitness accounts and evidence in the Holy Scriptures which substantiates the fact that Jesus Christ was raised from the dead.

The Changed Apostles and other Christians

One of the greatest testimonies to the truth of the resurrection is the change in the life of the apostles. They were hicks from the sticks, and yet they turned the world upside down with their teaching and testimony. And for what earthly reason? None whatsoever. What was the effect on their lives?

They lost everything, they lived in poverty, they died horrible deaths in torture (all except John, who died a natural death). And why would they do all that, if it was not for the fact that they could see a greater, eternal reward. They had seen the resurrected Christ, and He changed their lives.

As He promised them in John chapters 14 through 16, He send the Holy Spirit to teach them all things. Right after Christ was crucified, they were scattered and confused. But shortly after the church was established on the day of Pentecost in Acts chapter two, they got their act together and "turned the world upside down" with their teaching about the risen Christ.

How could all this have happened at all if it were not for the fact that Christ was (is) Deity, and He was actually raised from the dead?

There are more arguments along these lines; and I am sure that the above argument could be presented in a more convincing manner, but I trust that you get the idea.

Finally let's look at:

THE LIFE OF PAUL AS AN EVIDENCE OF THE RESURRECTION

[Before we get into the meat of the following argument, be sure you are familiar with the conversion of Saul of Tarsus, as recorded in Acts chapter nine, and also as he retold it in Acts chapters 23 and 26.]

This is Lesson 27 from Homer Hailey's Internal Evidences of Christianity, copyright 1964 (so don't sell any of this).

----- Start of Homer Hailey's Material -----

Proof From The Conversion Of Saul

This is an outline of the argument made by Lord George Lyttelton, which first appeared about 1747. Lyttelton and his friend, Gilbert West, were "Fully persuaded that the Bible was an imposter and determined to expose the cheat. Lord Lyttelton chose the conversion of Paul and Mr. West the Resurrection of Christ for the subject of hostile criticism ... the result of their separate attempts was, that they were both converted by their efforts to overthrow the truth of Christianity." (The Fundamentals, vol. V, p. 107, Reprinted in Evidence Quarterly, I:2, p. 9.)

Lyttelton lays down four propositions which he considers exhaust all the possibilities in the case:

1. Either Paul was "an imposter who said what he knew to be false, with an intent to deceive;" or

2. He was an enthusiast who imposed on himself by the force of "an overheated imagination;" or

3. He was "deceived by the fraud of others;" or finally

4. What he declared to be the cause of his conversion did all really happen; "and, therefore, the Christian religion is a divine revelation."

I. Paul Was Not An Imposter

Men act from motive and there could have been no motive for imposture:

1. Wealth could not have been the motive; wealth was on the side of those forsaken, poverty on the side espoused. Even though poor and in want, he refused to accept help when such would hinder the gospel, I Cor. 4:11-13; 2 Cor. 12:14; Acts 20:33-34. The closing picture of his life is that of an old man in a Roman prison, asking that a cloak be sent him to protect him from the cold, 2 Tim. 4:13.

2. Reputation was not the motive, for reputation lay on the side of the Pharisees, universal contempt on the side chosen, 1 Cor 1:26-29; 4:11-13.

3. Power did not motivate him; that is the desire for power. He had no eye for worldly ambition when he became a Christian. He addresses his inferiors as "co-laborers," "fellow-workers;" he neither lorded it over individuals, nor over the churches he established. Paul preached Christ as head, hid himself behind the cross, and rebuked sin of all kinds in the churches, without fear or favor, but never with an air of superiority, Philemon 23-24; 1 Cor 1:13-17; 2 Cor. 4:5.

4. The gratification of fleshly passion could not have been the motive. Some may claim revelations in order to indulge in loose conduct, but Paul preached the highest standard of morals, and condemned all departures from such a standard, Eph. 4:17-5:33; Col 3:5-17; Gal. 5:19-25.

5. Was it simply a pious fraud? Did Paul pretend conversion simply to spread Christianity? Answer: We are back to where we started, What was the motive? Men have some motive in what they do, what was Paul's? Where did he get his knowledge? How account for his success?

II. Paul Was Not An Enthusiast Who Imposed On Himself

1. Definition of enthusiast: "A religious madman; a fanatic. One whose mind is wholly possessed and heated by what engages it ... A fervent and imaginative person." Webster.

2. Elements of an Enthusiast:

a. Great heat of temper. Thought Paul was fervent, he was always governed by reason and discretion. Before all, his effort was to reach men with the gospel, Acts 24:24-27; 26:2-29. He had one aim only, Phil 3:13-14.

b. Melancholy. This is a mark of misguided zeal, but it is never found in Paul; he is always rejoicing, never brooding, Col. 1:24; Phil 4:4-7, etc.

c. Paul was not swept away as an enthusiast, for such men always see what they are looking for; he was looking for anything else. he was persecuting Christ, not looking for Him.

III. Paul Was Not Deceived By Others

1. Nor was he deceived by others, for such was a moral impossibility. While Paul was bitter against the disciples they could never have attempted such a feat as deceiving him in such a way -- a moral impossibility.

2. It was physically impossible for them to have produced the light and the voice with which to deceive him.

3. Therefore, Paul saw Jesus Christ on the road to Damascus, Christ Raised >From The Dead.

IV. Testimony Of Paul To The Resurrection (supplementary to the above by Candler)

1. Universal belief in the resurrection;

a. Paul's unquestioned epistles: Romans, Galatians, 1 and 2 Corinthians.

b. Claims in them: Romans 1:4; Gal. 1:1; 1 Cor 15:14-15.

c. Also, the resurrection was a matter of faith in those churches addressed, even the one Paul had not visited, i.e. Rome.

d. Paul met his opponents by an appeal to having seen Jesus, 1 Cor. 9:1. This establishes the fact that his opponents believed in the resurrection and that Paul's having seen Jesus was requisite to apostleship.

2. Three theories by which to account for this universal belief:

a. An intended fraud by the apostles.

b. The apostles were deceived.

c. Jesus was raised from the dead.

3. A consideration of these:

a. The early disciples lacked motive and ability for a fraud so stupendous and successful. If Christ were not raised, we have here a wonderful effect without an adequate cause.

b. "These men lacked the mental conditions required for such an hallucination as the 'vision theory' attributed to the early followers of Jesus. One of the three mental conditions must exist before the mind can yield itself to an hallucination, viz., prepossession, a fixed idea, or a state of expectancy." (Candler, Christus Auctor, p. 86.)

"Again, why should the same form of hallucination have possessed the minds of so many and so different persons at the same time?" (Ibid, p. 87.)

"Furthermore, if the appearances of Jesus were mere visions, why did they cease within a very limited time after the crucifixion -- say forty days? What cured the visionaries of their hallucinations all at once? Why were they all cured simultaneously? Why did not the distemper last them longer?" (Ibid. p. 88)

Conclusion:

There is only one logical answer: Jesus Christ was raised from the dead; He is the Son of God; and The Bible is a Special Divine Revelation. The evidence sustains the proposition with which the study began. It is more rational to believe than to disbelieve.

----- End of Homer Hailey's Material -----

I am going to still see if I can get some answers to your other questions.

But I wanted to get this on out without further delay.

And I apologize for it taking so long already. Contacts David

Question 4. Hello! Please give me the # of writers, countries they were from, and the period of time it took to write (the Bible). Thank you.

Previous Question Top
Next Question

Answer Here is some material, which I think might help:

Evidences: Documentation Of The Bible

There are many today who are under the impression that the Bibles we have today are not true to the original documents. Moreover, there are some who still think that the various books of the Bible were not written when the books themselves claim to have been written. Some folks think that the Gospels, for instance, were not eyewitness accounts as they claim to be, but are rather mythical accounts written much later in order to establish the Christians' doctrine. In pursuing this type of question, we are not trying to establish whether the Bible is inspired, but whether it is authentic: whether the text is true to the original, and whether the original books were written when they claim to have been. In this article, we will look at some of the evidence, which can help us to answer this type of question.

In order to understand the evidence for the Bible, it is necessary to have a little background. First, we know that the Bible is a collection of books written over a span of some centuries by approximately 40 different authors. These books are divided into two main sections, which we call the Old and New Testaments. There is a span of hundreds of years between the writing of the last Old Testament book, and the first New Testament book. The scholars who study the questions surrounding the Bible's authenticity apply to it the very same tests they apply to all ancient documents (although they tend to apply them a little more rigorously to a book which claims to be inspired by God.) These tests cover a variety of subjects, including both internal and external evidence. Internal evidence is what can be determined by looking within the pages of the books themselves: we have looked at some of this in past issues. [For examples of internal evidence, see these issues of PTW: October '95, Nov. '95, Feb. '96, Mar. '96, Apr. '96, Jun. '96, Aug. '96, and Sep. '96.] External evidence includes archaeological and scientific evidence, [For examples of scientific and archaeological evidence, see the Jan. '96, May '96, and Jul. '96 issues.] historical and cultural evidence, [For an example of historical/cultural evidence, see the Dec. '95 issue.] and manuscript evidence. A manuscript is a document written by hand. For our current purposes, a manuscript is a document written before the advent of the printing press (ca. 1450 AD). Because of the circumstances of the writing of the Bible, the study of the manuscript evidence is generally divided into two separate areas, one for each Testament. In the interest of space, we will look at some of the evidence for the New Testament only.

First, it is interesting to note that the earliest manuscripts of the New Testament still in existence date much closer to the time of authorship than is the case with other ancient books. The earliest manuscripts of Herodotus' writings, for example, date approximately 1300 years after his death; and this is not unusual in ancient books. By contrast, there is a fragment of the Gospel of John in the John Rylands University Library in Manchester, England, which is dated ca. 125 AD. Since scholars generally agree that John wrote his Gospel at a later date (between 60-90 AD) than the other three Gospel writers, this fragment is especially significant. Moreover, there is a fragment of the Gospel of Matthew found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, dating from before 68 AD: less than 35 years after Jesus' death! In addition to these, there are manuscripts containing the Gospel of John, the Epistle to the Hebrews, and most of the Epistles of Paul, dated ca. 200 AD. There are manuscripts of all four Gospels, as well as other New Testament books, from the 200's AD. And in the British Library's manuscript room is the manuscript called Sinaiticus, which is dated ca. 350 AD, and which contains the entire New Testament. In short, the manuscript evidence points to the conclusion that the New Testament was written when it claims to have been written: between ca. 50 - 100 AD.

But the dates of the various manuscripts are not the only important factor. The sheer quantity of them is nothing short of impressive. The earliest New Testament manuscripts were written on papyrus, which is relatively fragile and subject to decay, not unlike paper. If you have seen a newspaper clipping from as recently as the 1960's, you will see it shows signs of deterioration after only 30 years. With this in mind, it is a wonder that any of the early papyrus manuscripts of the New Testament have survived a span of 1500 years or more. In fact, there are over 80 such manuscripts. And these are only the beginning. In the fourth century AD, parchment replaced papyrus as the primary medium for copies of the Bible. There are nearly 3000 parchment manuscripts of the Greek New Testament dating from the fourth century through the fifteenth century, when the printing press took over. By contrast, we only have one manuscript copy of the Annals of Tacitus, who lived ca. 55 - 120 AD: the very same era as the New Testament writings.

So far in our discussion, we have looked only at the manuscripts of the New Testament in Greek, which is the language in which it was originally written. In addition to the Greek, there are also a large quantity of manuscripts which are versions, or translations into other languages. The mere fact that the New Testament was translated at all is impressive when one considers that it was very unusual to translate a book in ancient times. And the New Testament was not translated only once, nor was it long after the writing that translations began to appear. The Bible was translated independently into both Latin and Syriac somewhere between 100 - 150 AD. It was translated into Coptic (an Egyptian dialect) in the 200's, Armenian and Gothic in the 300's, Georgian in the 400's, etc. In all, there are over 5000 manuscripts of the New Testament still in existence. With such a huge number of manuscripts, it is inevitable that variations would arise among them. The question which remains, then, is the extent and significance of these variations. In order to answer this question, we will first consider some more facts regarding the versions.

Each of the translations, of course, began a new tradition. For example, when making copies of the Bible in Armenian, the copyist would not generally have access to the Greek manuscript from which the original translation was made. So, he would have to copy directly from the Armenian translation itself. And likewise in making later revisions of the translation: the revisers would have to go by the existing Armenian, along with whatever Greek editions they had available to them; but they would not have access to the manuscript from which the translation was originally made. And this is so with each of the languages into which the Bible was translated. Thus, when looking at the accompanying chart, keep in mind that each of the vertical lines represents a separate line of transmittal. In determining the accuracy of the text, then, the modern scholars can compare copies of the New Testament in a number of different languages, representing different cultures and different religious points of view.

When we consider the great differences between the various cultures represented by the ancient translations, and the large number of variant doctrines existing in the religions of those cultures, we would expect there to be tremendous differences in the Biblical texts. But that is not the case. On the contrary, even with the enormous number of manuscripts, and the diversity of languages, approximately 85% of the New Testament text is not even questioned: in other words, there is no disagreement between the manuscripts for this portion of the text. As to the 15% for which variant readings exist among the manuscripts, most of the variant readings are easily recognized as false, simply because of the overwhelming manuscript evidence against them. As for the tiny portion that remains, most of the variant readings which are not easily dismissed as unauthentic, are so insignificant that they do not substantially change the meaning of the passages in which they occur. [International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, G.W. Bromily, general editor. Copyright 1988 Wm. B. Eerdmans publishing co.; vol. IV, p. 818] In fact, the renowned Bible scholar F.J.A. Hort estimates that the "substantial" variations (those which affect the meaning of the passage) affect only about one one-thousandth of the text. [The Gospel Argument For God, by Kenneth L. Chumbley. Copyright 1989. Page 26] And, even in those few instances wherein the sense of the passage is affected by the variant reading, the actual teaching of scripture remains unchallenged.

In conclusion, we may note that the manuscript evidence for the New Testament is truly overwhelming. If we approach the subject objectively, we must admit that all of the manuscript evidence points to the genuineness and authenticity of the books. They were written when they claim to have been written, and by whom they claim to have been written. Moreover, the text we have today is true to the original documents. Any claim, then, that "the Bible has been changed", or that "the Gospels were written generations after the fact", is demonstrably false. Consequently, any argument or doctrine built upon such a claim necessarily falls apart. Whenever we pick up a literal translation of the Bible, we have in our hands a substantially accurate rendition of some authentic - and very important - ancient documents.

Jim Robson

The following material was taken from individual prefaces to each book in the Open Bible by Thomas Nelson publishers, and from my own personal study. If you do a lot of study on the individual books, you may come to some different conclusions than I have below. But this is a good start.

Book
Author
Place of Writing
Time

Genesis Moses Egypt 1400 BC
Exodus Moses Egypt 1400 BC
Leviticus Moses Egypt 1400 BC
Numbers Moses Egypt 1400 BC
Deuteronomy Moses Egypt 1400 BC
Joshua Joshua Canaan 1405 -1390 BC
Judges Samuel (?) Palestine 1043 -1004 BC
Ruth Samuel (?) Palestine 1043 -1004 BC
I Samuel Samuel (?) Israel 1015 BC
II Samuel Nathan & Gad (?) Israel 931 BC
I Kings Jeremiah (?) Israel 646 - 570 BC
II Kings Jeremiah (?) Israel 586 BC
I Chronicles Ezra (?) Judah 450-430 BC
II Chronicles Ezra (?) Judah 450-430 BC
Ezra Ezra Judah 457 BC
Nehemiah Nehemiah Judah 444-425 BC
Esther Mordecai (?) Persia 483-473 BC
Job Unknown Uz 2000 BC
Psalms David & others Judah 1410-430 BC
Proverbs Solomon & others Judah 950-700 BC
Ecclesiastes Solomon Jerusalem 935 BC
Song of Solomon Solomon Jerusalem 965 BC
Isaiah Isaiah Israel/Judah 740-680 BC
Jeremiah Jeremiah Judah/Babylon 627-580 BC
Lamentations Jeremiah Jerusalem 586 BC
Ezekiel Ezekiel Babylon 592-570 BC
Daniel Daniel Babylon 605-536 BC
Hosea Hosea Israel 755-710 BC
Joel Joel Judah 835 BC
Amos Amos Israel 760-753 BC
Obadiah Obadiah Israel 840 BC
Jonah Jonah Nineveh? 760 BC
Micah Micah Judah 735-710 BC
Nahum Nahum Judah 660 BC
Habakkuk Habakkuk Judah 607 BC
Zephaniah Zephaniah Judah 630 BC
Haggai Haggai Jerusalem 520 BC
Zechariah Zechariah Jerusalem 520-470 BC
Malachi Malachi Jerusalem 432-425 BC
Matthew Matthew Syria or Palestine 58-68 AD
Mark Mark Rome 55-65 AD
Luke Luke Rome or Greece 60-68 AD
John John Ephesus 89-90 AD
Acts Luke Rome or Greece 62 AD
Romans Paul Corinth 56-57 AD
I Corinthians Paul Ephesus 56 AD
II Corinthians Paul Macedonia 56 AD
Galatians Paul Syrian Antioch 49 AD
Ephesians Paul Rome 60 AD
Philippians Paul Rome 62 AD
Colosians Paul Rome 61 AD
I Thessalonians Paul Corinth 51 AD
II Thessalonians Paul Corinth 51 AD
I Timothy Paul Macedonia 62-63 AD
II Timothy Paul Rome 67 AD
Titus Paul Corinth 63 AD
Philemon Paul Rome 60-61 AD
Hebrews Maybe Paul Unknown 64-68 AD
James James Jerusalem 46-49 AD
I Peter Peter Rome or Babylon 63-64 AD
II Peter Peter Rome 64-66 AD
I John John Ephesus 85-90 AD
II John John Ephesus 85-90 AD
III John John Ephesus 85-90 AD
Jude Jude Unknown 66-80 AD
Revelation John Patmos or Ephesus

 

[Skull Pilot]

Cut and paste all you want.

If your only source for proof of god is the bible, you will never prove your case because your source is utterly flawed.

Tell me have you stoned your disobedient children lately?

 

[Sheldon]

Proof that foxes wear socks.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You have given me no reason to believe in a god. I already told you that the bible is an unreliable and unverifiable source by any scientific standard. No one has seen a god, no one can produce a god that everyone can see.

And as I said before, lack of a detailed explanation of events is not proof of a god.

In a few hundred years of serious study (much of that with unsophisticated scientific equipment), one cannot expect to explain in minute detail what happened over billions of years.

You're dismissing science before the work is even remotely finished.

Do you need a definition of empirical evidence ?
(ĕm-pîr'ĭ-kəl)
adj. 1. a. Relying on or derived from observation or experiment: empirical results that supported the hypothesis.
b. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment: empirical laws.

2. Guided by practical experience and not theory, especially in medicine.


Read more: empirical: Definition from Answers.com

The bible has provided many ;

hy·poth·e·sis/hīˈpäTHəsis/Noun


1. A supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.

2. A proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth

And science later tested and observed the hypothesis and wow it became empirical evidence.

That bloody book has been supported by empirical evidence.

[youtube]Pk0K1zgCDtE[/youtube]

[youtube]8G4zyBmgaeA&feature[/youtube]

[youtube]gvPkHpE-oks&feature[/youtube]

Let's tackle their very first complaint of the bible.

does Genesis give us 2 creation stories?
July 27, 2010


People who are critical of the Bible and who hate the God of the Bible often take aim at the account of creation found in Genesis. They claim that Genesis chapters 1 and 2 are two different stories that are contradictory in that they have two different sequences of the events. Therefore, they conclude that Genesis was written by more than one author. But is this really the case?

If a close look is done of Genesis chapters 1 and 2, there are truly differences, but the fact that there are differences does not mean contradictions exist. It is clear from the wording and layout of the two chapters that each chapter has a separate purpose. We should also note that the idea of telling a story more than once is not something unusual for the Bible and was not unusual for writings of Semitic people. After all, the Bible gives us the books of Kings and Chronicles which tell some of the same stories. And some of the stories in Kings or Chronicles also appear in the writings of prophets like Isaiah. We also have four different accounts of Christ’s life, each gospel having a different purpose.

It is obvious from the language of Genesis 1 that its purpose is to give a broad outline of God’s creating the universe and things in it with the general sequence of the events. When Genesis 2 is written, the focus changes to giving specific details about how each gender was created, the specific environment created for humans, and how humans interacted with each other, with God, and with God’s creation in the beginning. Chapter 2 is setting us up for what comes to pass in the next chapter–how humans messed everything up and the negative impact it had on human relationships, interaction with God, and interaction with God’s creation.

Since the main difference between the two chapters is simply the purpose of the chapters, we can conclude that the whole book was written by one person. And it is believed that that one person is Moses. This seems to be backed up by the resurrected Jesus Christ when he explains the scriptures to the two disciples he encounters on the road to Emmaus. Luke 24:27 says Jesus began with Moses and then proceeded through the whole Old Testament to explain everything that was written about the Messiah and how he fulfilled them. The fact he began with Moses tells us that must be who wrote Genesis since the very first prophecy about a Messiah appears in Genesis 3.

Critics also question how it was possible for all of the things that happen on the sixth day to occur in one day. Namely, the creation of beasts of the earth, cattle, and creeping things followed by the creation of humans. What really throws them off is how it was possible for God to bring animals to Adam for him to name them all and then making Adam fall asleep to create Eve from his rib and then Adam’s awakening to meet Eve and naming her–all in a single day.

This was possible because God created everything in an instant. Since Adam was superior to modern humans in that he was sinless at this time and therefore had the best mental capacity and physical prowess without any distractions of human civilizations that came afterward, it would have been nothing for him to name animals in a very short time span, fall asleep, then awake to meet Eve.

Debunking the theories of Bible critics is rather easy when it comes to the Genesis account of creation. These critics are often in such a hurry to tear down what the Bible says that they dismiss the simplest and most sound explanations of things. “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,” [Romans 1:22]

For a more detailed view of this topic, see the article “Are there two creation accounts in Genesis?” at apologeticspress.org.


creationism « Sun & Shield

 

[Youwerecreated]

Cut and paste all you want.

If your only source for proof of god is the bible, you will never prove your case because your source is utterly flawed.

Tell me have you stoned your disobedient children lately?

I have presented more emiprical evidence for proof in what i believe than your side has presented for support of your view i wonder why

 

[JScott]

Cut and paste all you want.

If your only source for proof of god is the bible, you will never prove your case because your source is utterly flawed.

Tell me have you stoned your disobedient children lately?

I have presented more emiprical evidence for proof in what i believe than your side has presented for support of your view i wonder why

No, you supplied hearsay.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Cut and paste all you want.

If your only source for proof of god is the bible, you will never prove your case because your source is utterly flawed.

Tell me have you stoned your disobedient children lately?

Well i have already shown you why your theory could never happen the way you say it did. Let's look at other problems that's causing your theory to unravel before your eyeS.



New fossil shows snakes & lizards didn’t share ancestor
May 19, 2011


A recently discovered fossil of a lizard in Germany has debunked another macro-evolutionist theory that lizards and snakes evolved from the same ancestor. The fossil, according to the scientists, is the oldest known fossil of a lizard and shows indisputable anatomical evidence that snakes and limbless lizards could not have evolved from the same animal. Their fossil dating puts it at 47 million years old.

The lizard, called Cryptolacerta hassiaca, was a burrowing lizard closely related to amphisbaenians, or worm lizards. X-rays taken of the fossil were compared to DNA and anatomies of various snakes and lizards. According to researchers at Humboldt-Universität in Berlin, Germany, “This fossil refutes the theory that snakes and other burrowing reptiles share a common ancestry and reveals that their body shapes evolved independently.” More than likely, these scientists are now trying to conjure up another myth evolutionary theory to explain their findings.

Basically, the scientists spent a lot of time and money to find out what the Bible already tells us in Genesis, that God created every type of animal group after its kind. Snakes and lizards are two separate groups of reptiles, two separate kinds of animals, so godly wisdom and godly knowledge would automatically draw a person to the conclusion that they obviously didn’t come from the same animal. Duh! Not only was their previous theory way off base, but so is their dating. Since we know their conclusions highlight how correct the Bible is, we can also draw the conclusion that this fossil is not 47 million years old, but only thousands of years old because that’s how old the Bible tells us the Earth is.

Their findings not only show how accurate the Bible is (even if they don’t realize it), but their wrong-headed conclusions about the data highlight how Darwinist scientists, even in the face of being shown how wrong evolutionary theories are, will still cling to macro-evolutionary theories because they are afraid to give up their false philosophical notions that God doesn’t exist. So their false philosophies will continue to render their misintrepretations of the evidence.

The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction. [Proverbs 1:7]

Source: Lizard Fossil Provides Missing Link to Show Body Shapes of Snakes and Limbless Lizards Evolved Independently, ScienceDaily.com, May 19, 2011.

–posted by Harry A. Gaylord–



3 Comments | Bible, Christianity, evolution, religion, science | Tagged: lizards, reptiles, snakes | Permalink
Posted by harryagaylord

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Anthropologists critical of calling fossils “human ancestors”
February 16, 2011


In a report today at ScienceDaily.com, biological anthropologists from George Washington University and New York University were critical of their colleagues as jumping the gun when it comes to fossil discoveries they claim are human ancestors. Professors Bernard Wood and Terry Harrison have submitted their findings to the journal Nature which is scheduled to appear in the next issue.

The paper by these two co-authors takes aim at the discoveries of Ardipithecus (commonly called “Ardi”), Orrorin, and Sahelanthropus which have been dated as far back as 7 million years ago. They argue that the scientists who made the discoveries were so quick to assume the fossils were ancestors of humans that they failed to take all vital scientific evidence into account.

Harrison says regarding these fossils, “…their status has been presumed rather than adequately demonstrated, and there are a number of alternative interpretations that are possible. We believe that it is just as likely or more likely that they are fossil apes situated close to the ancestry of the living great ape and humans.”

To back up this claim, the co-authors point out the cases of the Ramapithecus discovery in south Asia which was touted in the 1960s and ’70s as a human ancestor and Oreopithecus bambilii discovered in Italy which was assumed to be a human ancestor because of some of its skeletal features. After more detailed research was done on both of them, both were found to be fossil apes instead.

Harrison and Wood, whose paper is called “The evolutionary context of the first hominims,” have inadvertently shown what lengths evolutionists will go to when they can’t find transitional fossils to prove their theories and when they want funding. There are no transitional fossils to show how humans evolved from any form different than what we are today because we didn’t evolve from any lesser being. The same form we humans have today is the same form we have always had since the time God created us in the beginning.

But with the pressure these delusional scientists have placed on themselves, they have to fabricate findings every now and then to pass themselves off as legit and to avoid the obvious fact that we are created by a Higher Power, otherwise known as Jehovah. “It is he that hath made us, and not we ourselves,” [Psalm 100:3].

Source: Fossils may look like human bones: biological anthropologists question claims for human ancestry, ScienceDaily, February 16, 2011.

–posted by Harry A. Gaylord–



Leave a Comment »| Christianity, evolution, religion, science | Tagged: anthropology, apes, fossils, human ancestors, Monkeys | Permalink
Posted by harryagaylord

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Arduous “Ardi” hailed as new human evolution link
October 3, 2009


If you’ve been paying attention to science news this week, you’ve seen the latest link in the human evolution chain being promoted by scientists from the University of California, Berkeley. The fossil which was discovered in Ethiopia in the early 1990s was named Ardipithicus ramidus, or Ardi for short. Scientists at UC Berkeley claim the hominid is older than Lucy who years ago was thought to be the oldest. They claim Ardi is 4.4 million years old.

The fossil is made up of 125 pieces and according to Tim White, who co-leads the team of scientists, “To understand the biology, the parts you really want are the skull and teeth, the pelvis, the limbs and the hands and the feet. And we have all of them,” (see Time magazine). And Time also reports that Ardi has good bones, even though it took 15 years to reconstruct the skeleton. Furthermore, all that has been shown in the news reports of the skeleton are a few small bone fragments and an artists’ rendition of what the scientists think the hominid must have looked like.

But other scientific publications seem to contradict the reports that Ardi has good bones. In fact, it has been reported that the reconstruction took so long because the bones were brittle and extremely fragile. Casey Luskin of Evolution News & Views highlights some of the articles on Ardi. Time magazine states the following as quoted by Luskin:


One problem is that some portions of Ardi’s skeleton were found crushed nearly to smithereens and needed extensive digital reconstruction. “Tim [White] showed me pictures of the pelvis in the ground, and it looked like an Irish stew,” says Walker. Indeed, looking at the evidence, different paleoanthropologists may have different interpretations of how Ardi moved or what she reveals about the last common ancestor of humans and chimps.

Michael D. Lemonick and Andrea Dorfman, “Excavating Ardi: A New Piece for the Puzzle of Human Evolution,” Time Magazine (October 1, 2009).

Luskin points out that the pelvis is one of the main parts that has to be in good shape to determine if a creature is bipedal. Yet the pelvis in this instance is in poor shape if it was crushed so bad it looked like a stew. Here’s another quote pointed out by Luskin in an article published several years ago:


The next field season, team member Yohannes Haile-Selassie found the first of more than 100 fragments that make up about half of a single skeleton of this species, including a pelvis, leg, ankle and foot bones, wrist and hand bones, a lower jaw with teeth—and a skull. But in the past 8 years no details have been published on this skeleton. Why the delay? In part because the bones are so soft and crushed that preparing them requires a Herculean effort, says White. The skull is “squished,” he says, “and the bone is so chalky that when I clean an edge it erodes, so I have to mold every one of the broken pieces to reconstruct it.” The team hopes to publish in a year or so, and White claims that the skeleton is worth the wait, calling it a “phenomenal individual” that will be the “Rosetta stone for understanding bipedalism.” [emphases mine]

Ann Gibbons, “In Search of the First Hominids,” Science, 295:1214-1219 (February 15, 2002)

But didn’t this same White tell Time that the bones were good? How can bones be soft, crushed, squished, and chalky one minute and then, voila, the next minute they’re called good? Methinks it sounds rather hokey. Then Luskin points out that this same Ann Gibbons in her latest article for Science magazine observes the following:


But the team’s excitement was tempered by the skeleton’s terrible condition. The bones literally crumbled when touched. White called it road kill. And parts of the skeleton had been trampled and scattered into more than 100 fragments; the skull was crushed to 4 centimeters in height.

Ann Gibbons, “A New Kind of Ancestor: Ardipithecus Unveiled,” Science, Vol. 326:36-40 (Oct. 2, 2009)

If the skeleton had been trampled and crushed by wildlife to the point of being seriously fragmented and emaciated, and reconstruction of skeletons depends on precise measurements, as pointed out by Luskin, how is it even possible for these scientists to get an accurate view of what Ardi should look like? Ardi’s reconstruction was truly arduous based on these accounts and based on the statements published about the skeleton, the scientists cannot possibly come up with an accurate description or depiction of what this Ardi actually looked like. I have a feeling that these scientists are desperate for their 15 minutes of fame and want to promote their October 11th documentary on the Discovery channel and want so badly for the theory of evolution to be true that they will do anything, even fudge evidence with artists’ imagined renderings, to make everyone think they’re on the right track. I, for one, refuse to be hoodwinked by this sleight of hand they’ve conjured up for the masses.

…keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: [1 Timothy 6:20]

–posted by Harry A. Gaylord–

Leave a Comment »| Christianity, evolution, religion, science | Tagged: Ardi, Ardipithicus ramidus, hominids, University of California Berkeley | Permalink
Posted by harryagaylord

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Evolutionists discover they were wrong, again
August 15, 2007


By now, everyone has heard of the discovery in Kenya that Homo habilis fossils were found near Homo erectus fossils. They were discovered to have co-existed for thousands of years. This blows their theory right out of the water that the two were millions of years apart –that is, if you believe in such things as Homo habilis and Homo erectus. Previous thinking held that man’s so-called ancestors followed one another in a linear timeline. Now the thinking is that they both evolved from a common ancestor over millions of years.

The Homo erectus fossils date back 1.55 million years while the Homo habilis dates back 1.44 million years, according to the scientists. Farah Idle, the Kenya museum director stated that “The story of human evolution has not yet been [told]. The more discoveries you make, the more questions you raise.” And the more you find out how off-course you are if you’re a God-hating, Bible-hating evolutionist.

Darwinists have had to re-think some of their theories over the years. At one time, they thought dinosaurs and humans did not live during the same era, but there is proof now that this was wrong. Many museums have also had to reconstruct their displays of standing dinosaur bones because they have discovered the various dinosaur species did not have the specific postures or other characteristics they once thought. They’ve gotten their models and ideas wrong time and time again, and we’re supposed to believe that Evolution is not a theory but the truth.

These scientists have shown themselves to be wrong and we’re still supposed to believe whatever they tell us? How is it that they were able to determine the age of the fossils? Did they use uranium radiodating or radiocarbon dating? Radiodating is inaccurate since the radioactive substances that are measured in the fossils are very unstable, as explained in detail at this website. If the dating methods are unreliable, then the dates themselves are way off.

How do we know that these Homo erectus and Homo habilis are not some extinct species of the monkey family? Evolutionists have been known to fudge the truth in favor of their theories. The article originating from Reuters even acknowledges that the female Homo erectus suggests they ”may have been physiologically closer to modern gorillas and chimpanzees.” Could that be because they are the remains of monkeys and nothing more? If Homo erectus and Homo habilis are both ancestors of Homo sapiens and they co-existed yet had very different traits from each other, then how is it possible for both of them separately to evolve into the same species? How is it possible for them to evolve from the same ancestor to occupy the same time period with so many differences between them? I imagine these questions will spark more lies theories.

I believe this information has been recently made newsworthy because the evolutionists fear they are losing ground to the intelligent design/creationist crowd, especially with the opening of the Creation Museum in northern Kentucky. So out of desperation they conjured up some PR to defend themselves to make them look legitimate because Creationism is looking more and more promising and truthful. But I suspect none of these questions will matter in the end since we allow these junk scientists to have as much leeway as possible to come up with their fairy tales ideas to explain man’s existence apart from an almighty God. Farah Idle was right that the story of human evolution has not come together yet and that’s because it’s a story that has to be made up as they go along since it’s not based on truth. When you tell one lie, you have to make up so many others to cover it. And pretty soon those lies become the truth to those who are blind. The true story of man’s origin has already been told in the Bible. The more I see evolutionists trip over their theories, the more I have to laugh at how ridiculous they are and the more I’m thankful I know the real truth that’s in Genesis.

Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools… Romans 1:21-22

For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. 1 Corinthians 3:19

–posted by Harry A. Gaylord–

11 Comments | Bible, Christianity, evolution, God, religion, science | Permalink
Posted by harryagaylord

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


More information on the co-existence of dinosaurs & humans
June 2, 2007


I recently purchased a booklet by John Allen Watson, Man Dinosaurs and Mammals Together, that goes into detail about his research of the South Carolina phosphate beds where fossils had previously been recovered showing man roaming the Earth at the same time as dinosaurs. Mr. Watson, who is now retired and resides in Texas, got his Bachelor of Science in geology from the University of Texas @ Austin with continuing education courses in hydrology and meteorology, working for a time as a hydrologist with the Texas Water Commission. He worked with creation scientists on his research project. Here are excerpts from his booklet to update my previous post:

“In South Carolina, centering on the Charleston vicinity, is a geological/paleontological phenomenon which defies satisfactory explanation by popular evolutionary-uniformitarian theory. This is the enigma of the rock phosphate beds, locally known loosely as the Ashley Beds, an enormous graveyard of animals ranging through the geologic column from Cretaceous to Holocene–and including the occurrence of man. Mixed together in a pell-mell fashion are the remains of living things as ancient (by popular theory) as dinosaurs and as recent as early man.” (p. 10.)

“The origin of the rock phosphate beds/stratum is rather obvious: a derivation of the phosphoric acid of the bones. Such was the opinion from chemists of many fertilizer companies engaged in mining the valuable deposits. The deposits, as a result, were popularly known by the chemists and the public as true bone phosphates. By one estimate … the bones made up 65% of the deposits in the region of the Ashley River basin. Creationists of the time accepted this idea. But uniformitarian geologists/paleontologists in general have not accepted the obvious bone origin of the rock phosphate deposits and still cast about for an evolutionary-uniformitarian origin for them.” (p. 11)

Since remains of land animals and sea animals were found together, a catastrophic event “would have included the burial of enormous numbers of animals … and their subsequent conversion into rock phosphate over a region of at least 200 miles by 30 miles in extent–which is only the partially exposed part. Such an event is of the order and magnitude of the worldwide Noahic Flood.”, (p. 13)

“The occurrence of hadrosaurine dinosaur remains in the Ashley phosphate beds … has not been dealt with in the secular scientific literature–the silence is typical. The occurrence is documented in two sources: 1) by Frances S. Holmes, a well known professor of geology/paleontology and agriculture at the College of Charleston [Holmes, F. S., 1870. The Phosphate Rocks of South Carolina and the Great Carolina Marl Bed, Holmes Book House, p. 31], and 2) by J. C. Keener, a minister of rank [Keener, J. C. 1900. The Garden of Eden and the Flood, Publishing House of the M. E. Church, South, p. 63].” (p. 20)

Mr. Watson discusses all of the arguments conjured up by evolutionists to explain away this phenomenon. One such argument by Maurice Slansky (Geology of Sedimentary Phosphates) deals with upwelling currents to explain the amount of phosphate found in the region. But his “uniformitarian view ignores the great potential that animal bones have as a source of calcium phosphate. … The first phosphate fertilizers consisted solely of crushed bones. Bones were burned for fuel (Ezekiel 24:5) and the ash used for manufacturing very high grade super phosphate and pure phosphate products. The ash of the average bone is 87 percent calcium phosphate. Thus, bones are probably the richest source of calcium phosphate of sedimentary phosphates. By contrast, the ocean water source of phosphate from upwelling currents is very, very meager, only 1 x 10 [to the -5th] percent … One estimate of the bone fraction of the South Carolina phosphate rocks is 65 percent … The rocks are reported ‘…to contain as high as 60 or even more, per centum of calcium phosphate…’ …Therefore, how can we escape the reasonableness and evidence of a bone origin for the rocks and opt for the popular oceanic origin? We can do so only to serve evolutionary theory at the cost of truth.” (p. 26-27)

A list of the many fossils found in the phosphate beds include, but are not limited to, the following:
o Mastodon (teeth, vertebrae, bones)
o Elephant (teeth, tail, ear bones, tusk)
o Horse (extinct species, teeth, tibia)
o Monkey (femora)
o Raccoon (teeth)
o Dolphin (skull, vertebra, tail bone)
o Manatee (skull, bones, ribs)
o Iguanodon dinosaur (bones)
o Hadrosaurus dinosaur (bones)
o Plesiosaurus dinosaur (teeth)
o Crocodile (heads, teeth, ribs)
o Sand shark (teeth)
o Tiger shark (teeth)
o Swordfish (Jaw)
o American Indian (jaws, teeth, bones, pottery, arrowheads, brass weights)

I would suggest that you purchase John Allen Watson’s inexpensive and informative booklet for more information.

Source: Watson, John Allen. Man Dinosaurs and Mammals Together: Phosphate Rocks/Bone Phosphates of South Carolina: An Analysis of Their Occurrence, Origin, Importance and Instruction for the Creation/Evolution Controversy. Crosbyton, TX: Mt. Blanco Publishing Co., 2001.

–posted by Harry A. Gaylord–

17 Comments | Bible, Christianity, creationism, evolution, religion | Permalink
Posted by harryagaylord

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Evaluations of Darwin’s speculations
May 31, 2007


Evolution, or natural selection, is often assumed to be true because it’s taught in public schools, many scientists back it, and because those who buy into it either hate the idea of God’s involvement in creation or they want to minimize his influence. Even Darwin called the idea of natural selection a theory and it’s a theory which did not originate with him, but he became the most prominent figure to espouse the idea. Here’s what he said about this theory:

“When on board H.M.S. Beagle, as naturalist, I was much struck with certain facts in the distribution of the organic beings inhabiting South America … On my return home, it occurred to me, in 1837, that something might perhaps be made out on this question [of origin of species] by patiently accumulating and reflecting on all sorts of facts which could possibly have any bearing on it. After five years’ work I allowed myself to speculate on the subject, and drew up some short notes; …

In the five succeeding chapters, the most apparent and gravest difficulties in accepting the theory will be given: namely, first, the difficulties of transitions, …” Origin of Species, Introduction, ¶¶1, 8 (emphasis mine).

Darwin also acknowledged his theory was not the only possible explanation of species–”Furthermore, I am convinced that natural selection has been the most important, but not the exclusive, means of modification.” Origin of Species, Introduction, ¶9 (emphasis mine).

In essence, Darwin took the facts he observed and twisted the facts to suit his own personal beliefs. Although he grew up in a Christian home, he rebelled against what he was taught. It might be possible that he blamed God for his mother’s death in his early childhood. But here are some other statements made by Darwin in comparison to the Bible:
o “Although much remains obscure, and will long remain obscure, I can entertain no doubt, after the most deliberate study and dispassionate judgment of which I am capable, that the view which most naturalists until recently entertained, and which I formerly entertained–namely, that each species has been independently created–is erroneous.” Origin of Species, Introduction, ¶9 (emphasis mine)
o Genesis 1 says God created each species individually after its own kind.
o Darwin said, “Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.”
o According to the Bible, there are many problems which science cannot solve. Science cannot deal with the sin in one’s heart, it does not always heal sickness, nor can it resist devilish forces. Only God through Jesus Christ has the power to cleanse us from sin (1 John 1:9), heal every disease (Psalm 103:2-3), and give us victory over evil spirits (Luke 10:19).
o Darwin said, “In the struggle for survival, the fittest win out at the expense of their rivals because they succeed in adapting themselves best to their environment.”
o Although adapting oneself to one’s environment helps one survive, the Bible is filled with examples of God defending the weak against those who are stronger in spite of adapting (e.g. David vs. Goliath, Moses vs. Pharoah, Elijah vs. Ahab and Jezebel, etc.). It is ultimately God who determines whether a nation stands or falls (Jeremiah 18:7-8).
o Darwin said, ” Believing as I do that man in the distant future will be a far more perfect creature than he now is, it is an intolerable thought that he and all other sentient beings are doomed to complete annihilation after such long-continued slow progress”
o God clearly states in his word that man will become worse in his sinfulness (2 Timothy 3:1-5). God will have to punish man with plagues and ultimately destroy sinful man and the earth because of man’s ever-increasing evil (Revelation 6-20).
o Darwin said, “I am a strong advocate for free thought on all subjects, yet it appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against christianity & theism produce hardly any effect on the public; & freedom of thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men’s minds, which follow from the advance of science. It has, therefore, been always my object to avoid writing on religion, & I have confined myself to science. I may, however, have been unduly biased by the pain which it would give some members of my family, if I aided in any way direct attacks on religion”
o Darwin claimed to have avoided direct attacks on religion, but his theories are just that. Science can help man understand certain things about his world, however ”[t]he fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.” And Darwin was a fool indeed. God can reveal much more about science to those who seek him out than people like Darwin who want to avoid him altogether.

Darwin had the wisdom of this world which is foolishness with God. His theories will one day be shown openly to be complete folderol, poppycock, and utterly bogus. He was a man who was “ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.” (2 Timothy 3:7) and those who follow his beliefs are like him.

13 Comments | Bible, Christianity, creationism, evolution, religion | Permalink
Posted by harryagaylord

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The intelligent design of wild wheat seeds
May 12, 2007


This post is for those who love science. If you don’t, this info will put you to sleep. It proves that things that happen in nature are not happenstance and are intricately designed for a reason by Someone who had a purpose for how and why things function the way they do.

“Seeds Muscle Their Way into the Soil 05/11/2007

A biological motor has been found, of all places, on the seeds of wild wheat. A team of German and Israeli scientists watched wheat seeds and found they could dig themselves into the ground. How can a dry seed, with no muscles, nerves or circulatory system, accomplish such a feat? It all becomes clear when you look under the awning.
You’ve probably seen the long strands attached to the seeds of grasses like wheat and oats. These are called awns. They’re not just decorative; they are actively involved in seed dispersal. Once the seed drops to the ground, with awns still attached, a remarkable mechanism goes into action. As the humidity rises and falls throughout the day and night, the awns respond by bending or twisting.
How does the bending take place? At first, it seemed surprising anything would happen, because the tissues in cross section look uniform under an electron microscope. The authors, though, found a remarkable feature: a “huge acoustic impedance contrast” in cross section that affects the stiffness of the awn shaft from one side to the other. In cross section, the shaft resembles the shape of a mushroom with a cap. The cap portion had twice the Young’s modulus as the stem – a stiffness the equivalent of spruce wood. As humidity changes, the differential stiffness causes the entire awn to bend. By analogy, consider how a bimetal strip, like the coil in a thermostat, bends and straightens in response to temperature. Not only that, “silica tiles stiffen the epidermis and protect the structure as it interacts with the soil.”
So let’s follow the action in the wild. The seed, awns and all, falls to the ground. In real time, it might look like nothing is happening. The seed, after all, is dead; its tissues are removed from any source of nourishment or internal energy. A time lapse movie, however, shows the seed appearing to spring back to life. This time, it’s a robotic life exacting its energy from the air. The alternate bending and unbending of the awns gives a kind of “muscle” to the seed, propelling it along the ground – and even into the soil!
This mechanism for seed dispersal has been known for some time. What’s new is that the scientists found tiny silicified hairs on the outside of the awns that act like a ratchet – they force the motion to go one way. As a result, when oriented horizontally, the seed will swim like a frog along the ground. (They actually said this: “The movement is reversible; thus, the humidity cycle causes a periodic movement of the awns, which resembles the swimming stroke of frog legs.”) When oriented vertically, the seed acts like a power shovel. The awns open and close like the handles of a post hole digger. Meanwhile, those silicified hairs latch onto the soil particles, only allowing the seed to go down, not up. Thus, the seed works its way deeper and deeper into the soil – safely out of the reach of predators, fire and drought. “This suggests that the dead tissue is analogous to a motor,” they said. “Fueled by the daily humidity cycle, the awns induce the motility required for seed dispersal.”
This mechanism is optimized, they said, for the soil environment of the Fertile Crescent, where civilization first began to farm wheat thousands of years ago. In some kinds of domesticated wheat, the awns are no longer active. The authors speculated that the length of time since domestication has reduced the function of the awns without removing them entirely. Because humans now provide the muscle to plow the seeds into the soil, the awns have atrophied. Apparently “use it or lose it” applies to seed muscle as well as the animal kind.”

The whole article is at the Creation-Evolution Headlines website.

And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. Genesis 1:11-12

And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain: But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body. 1 Corinthians 15:37-38

–posted by Harry A. Gaylord–

1 Comment | Bible, evolution, religion, science | Permalink
Posted by harryagaylord

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Dinosaurs and humans co-existed
May 12, 2007


This information isn’t new, but bears repeating since it is often ignored by the God-hating Darwinists. It is an article that appears at the Creation Moments website.

“Proof of Humans and Dinosaurs Together
Genesis 1:31
“Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day.”

According to the story of life offered by evolution, dinosaurs became extinct 65 million years before man ever set foot on Earth. According to the Bible, all living things were made during a six-day period of time. This means that humans and dinosaurs walked the Earth at the same time. If evidence that they lived together could be found, evolutionary history would be very seriously challenged.

Scientists who believe in creation know that if human remains were found fossilized with dinosaur remains, evolutionists could not ignore the evidence. That evidence has been discovered in a giant fossil graveyard that has even been described in the scientific literature. Textbooks on evolution neglect to mention it for obvious reasons.

The layer is a 15- to 18-inch thick layer of phosphate rock in the southeastern United States. The rock is 65 percent phosphate, which means that the layer is made primarily of the bones of dead animals. The bones were clearly deposited by a huge flood – the deposit is at least as large as the Everglades! And mixed into the layer are bones of all sorts of animals that evolution says could not have lived together, including human bones and Hadrosaurus bones.

Did men of the generations recorded in the Bible see great herds of duckbill dinosaurs ranging the grasslands of the Earth? According to the Bible, they could have. Now geology has finally caught up with the Bible!

References: John Allen Watson. 1991. Phosphate Rocks/Bone Phosphates of South Carolina. The Ark Today VI:5, Nov./Dec. p. 14-19.”

evolution « Sun & Shield

 

[Sheldon]

Their findings not only show how accurate the Bible is (even if they don’t realize it), but their wrong-headed conclusions about the data highlight how Darwinist scientists, even in the face of being shown how wrong evolutionary theories are, will still cling to macro-evolutionary theories because they are afraid to give up their false philosophical notions that God doesn’t exist. So their false philosophies will continue to render their misintrepretations of the evidence.

The irony is too much

 

[Youwerecreated]

Cut and paste all you want.

If your only source for proof of god is the bible, you will never prove your case because your source is utterly flawed.

Tell me have you stoned your disobedient children lately?

I have presented more emiprical evidence for proof in what i believe than your side has presented for support of your view i wonder why

No, you supplied hearsay.

Before the fact get it ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Their findings not only show how accurate the Bible is (even if they don’t realize it), but their wrong-headed conclusions about the data highlight how Darwinist scientists, even in the face of being shown how wrong evolutionary theories are, will still cling to macro-evolutionary theories because they are afraid to give up their false philosophical notions that God doesn’t exist. So their false philosophies will continue to render their misintrepretations of the evidence.

The irony is too much

The irony is how this junk science ever found it's way in our schools supposedly filled with intelligent people.

 

[SW2SILVER]

I am wondering, Mr. Youwerecreated, did you PERSONALY find all these "facts" yourself? I am scratching my head here wondering were you DID gets these tidbits, and more to the point, how much training do you have in archeology and anthropology? You cherry pick the stuff that proves your point and dismiss evidence to the contrary. That, friend, isn't rational and it sure and heck isn't the scientific method. Shakespeare wrote: “There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy“. I think we all would agree to that. Your motto, about only two choices…soup or creation? Rather limiting, don’t you think?

 

[JScott]

I have presented more emiprical evidence for proof in what i believe than your side has presented for support of your view i wonder why

No, you supplied hearsay.

Before the fact get it ?

A judge asks a witness if he saw the crime. The witness answers, "No but I did read it in the newspaper". Thats hearsay.

 

[JScott]

Their findings not only show how accurate the Bible is (even if they don’t realize it), but their wrong-headed conclusions about the data highlight how Darwinist scientists, even in the face of being shown how wrong evolutionary theories are, will still cling to macro-evolutionary theories because they are afraid to give up their false philosophical notions that God doesn’t exist. So their false philosophies will continue to render their misintrepretations of the evidence.

The irony is too much

The irony is how this junk science ever found it's way in our schools supposedly filled with intelligent people.

You posted this- New fossil shows snakes & lizards didn’t share ancestor
May 19, 2011

Heres what your preachers failed to supply-

"This fossil refutes the theory that snakes and other burrowing reptiles share a common ancestry and reveals that their body shapes evolved independently," says lead author Professor Johannes Müller of Humboldt-Universität, Berlin.

The fossil reveals that amphisbaenians are not closely related to snakes, but instead are related to lacertids, a group of limbed lizards from Europe, Africa and Asia. "This is the sort of study that shows the unique contributions of fossils in understanding evolutionary relationships," says Professor Robert Reisz from the University of Toronto Mississauga, the senior author of the study. "It is particularly exciting to see that tiny fossil skeletons can answer some really important questions in vertebrate evolution".
The Dragon's Tales: Cryptolacerta hassiaca: A New Basal Amphisbaenian

 

[Youwerecreated]

I am wondering, Mr. Youwerecreated, did you PERSONALY find all these "facts" yourself? I am scratching my head here wondering were you DID gets these tidbits, and more to the point, how much training do you have in archeology and anthropology? You cherry pick the stuff that proves your point and dismiss evidence to the contrary. That, friend, isn't rational and it sure and heck isn't the scientific method. Shakespeare wrote: “There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy“. I think we all would agree to that. Your motto, about only two choices…soup or creation? Rather limiting, don’t you think?

I can't remember who i said it to earlier but i said i would not go into detail in to what school i attended and my background but i will give you just a little bit of info.

I have done a lot of reading and discussing these subjects with others that are well schooled in the subjects you have seen discussed here. I have always been interested in science and have taken many classes in varying subjects from earth science. My specialty is molecular biology.

Some of the specialties you mention very little schooling, but i read lot's of articles on such subjects. I have debated this subject for many years so i have covered and learned a lot varying fields of science from the school of hard knocks.

My philosophy does not come from man it comes from God that is what i believe. I do not dismiss real evidence sir, that is very inaccurate statement.

I have not seen your side produce anything to make me reconsider my stand.

 

[JScott]

Say's who ? Tell me how these men that wrote the bible knew what they did and what they wrote about was later confirmed through modern day science?

Are You still looking for a reason to doubt skull ?

I gave evidence, but you can't bring yourself to admit the evidence of intelligence and design was involved with life as we know it ,as well as the evidence that exists in our atmoshere and that great big awesome universe.

You have presented zero empirical EVIDENCE to prove your case that everything we see, touch, feel, and observe, is a result of a Non-intelligent, and Non-thinking process.

If you're gonna make the claim that everything is a result of a natural process, i think by your own reasoning you need to prove it ?

You have given me no reason to believe in a god. I already told you that the bible is an unreliable and unverifiable source by any scientific standard. No one has seen a god, no one can produce a god that everyone can see.

And as I said before, lack of a detailed explanation of events is not proof of a god.

In a few hundred years of serious study (much of that with unsophisticated scientific equipment), one cannot expect to explain in minute detail what happened over billions of years.

You're dismissing science before the work is even remotely finished.

Do you need a definition of empirical evidence ?
(ĕm-pîr'ĭ-kəl)
adj. 1. a. Relying on or derived from observation or experiment: empirical results that supported the hypothesis.
b. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment: empirical laws.

2. Guided by practical experience and not theory, especially in medicine.


Read more: empirical: Definition from Answers.com

The bible has provided many ;

hy·poth·e·sis/hīˈpäTHəsis/Noun


1. A supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.

2. A proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth

And science later tested and observed the hypothesis and wow it became empirical evidence.

That bloody book has been supported by empirical evidence.

No, its supported by hearsay.

Hearsay is information gathered by one person from another person concerning some event, condition, or thing of which the first person had no direct experience. When submitted as evidence, such statements are called hearsay evidence. As a legal term, "hearsay" can also have the narrower meaning of the use of such information as evidence to prove the truth of what is asserted. Such use of "hearsay evidence" in court is generally not allowed. This prohibition is called the hearsay rule.

For example, a witness says "Susan told me Tom was in town". Since the witness did not see Tom in town, the statement would be hearsay evidence to the fact that Tom was in town, and not admissible. However, it would be admissible as evidence that Susan said Tom was in town, and on the issue of her knowledge of whether he was in town.Hearsay - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The word empirical denotes information gained by means of observation or experiments.[1] Empirical data is data produced by an experiment or observation.

A central concept in modern science and the scientific method is that all evidence must be empirical, or empirically based, that is, dependent on evidence or consequences that are observable by the senses. It is usually differentiated from the philosophic usage of empiricism by the use of the adjective empirical or the adverb empirically. The term refers to the use of working hypotheses that are testable using observation or experiment. In this sense of the word, scientific statements are subject to, and derived from, our experiences or observations.Empirical - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

None of the "scientific discoveries" of the bible benefited man until man took the initiative to discover them themselves.

 

[Youwerecreated]

No, you supplied hearsay.

Before the fact get it ?

A judge asks a witness if he saw the crime. The witness answers, "No but I did read it in the newspaper". Thats hearsay.

No, someone wrote on a manuscript many years ago and describes the earth as a circle.

Hey it didn't become fact for many years after the hypothesis not hearsay,it was someone that knew the earth was round before man confirmed it.

At the time of the writing man did not fly and could not confirm the earth was round, space is where it was confirmed.

 

[JScott]

Their findings not only show how accurate the Bible is (even if they don’t realize it), but their wrong-headed conclusions about the data highlight how Darwinist scientists, even in the face of being shown how wrong evolutionary theories are, will still cling to macro-evolutionary theories because they are afraid to give up their false philosophical notions that God doesn’t exist. So their false philosophies will continue to render their misintrepretations of the evidence.

The irony is too much

The irony is how this junk science ever found it's way in our schools supposedly filled with intelligent people.

You posted this- Anthropologists critical of calling fossils “human ancestors”

This argument isn't new. In 1998, Christopher Wills (who taught human evolution for an evolutionary biology course I took in college) wrote: "Upright posture may not be unique to our own lineage. An ape that lived ten million years ago on Sardinia, Oreopithecus bambolii, seems to have acquired similar capabilities, perhaps independently." (Children of Prometheus, p. 156) Wood and Harrison's article now elaborates on the dangers of assuming that even an "impressive suite of shared features with fossil hominins" found in Oreopithecus ought to imply a close relationship to humans: <i>Nature</i> Publishes Paper Critical of Ardi's Status as Human Evolutionary Ancestor - Evolution News & Views

In other words, a theory has been tested. That is science.

 

[JScott]

Before the fact get it ?

A judge asks a witness if he saw the crime. The witness answers, "No but I did read it in the newspaper". Thats hearsay.

No, someone wrote on a manuscript many years ago and describes the earth as a circle.

Hey it didn't become fact for many years after the hypothesis not hearsay,it was someone that knew the earth was round before man confirmed it.

At the time of the writing man did not fly and could not confirm the earth was round, space is where it was confirmed.

And then man later found out the earth was a sphere, proving the bible incorrect.

 

[HUGGY]

Before the fact get it ?

A judge asks a witness if he saw the crime. The witness answers, "No but I did read it in the newspaper". Thats hearsay.

No, someone wrote on a manuscript many years ago and describes the earth as a circle.

Hey it didn't become fact for many years after the hypothesis not hearsay,it was someone that knew the earth was round before man confirmed it.

At the time of the writing man did not fly and could not confirm the earth was round, space is where it was confirmed.

A circle is not a sphere. Implying it IS is a flat out lie. To show that the bible indicated that the earth is a sphere it must state that the "EARTH IS A SPHERE"....not a circle...not round.