Comments (347)

101. Andrew
     November 19th, 2007 | 02:21

     I’ve heard it all before.

     Was once told by an Evangelist that because I’ve never truly suffered in my life (been to prison, addicted to drugs or otherwise lost in a living hell) and was born again through Jesus Christ I wasn’t a true Christian.

     

102. Not Stupid
     November 19th, 2007 | 02:28

     Just so you know. The real person who was sacrificed in this pagan “ritual sacrifice” was not done on a cross (as in “T”). But was sacrificed on a stake (as in “straight” up pole without ANY arms). The myth is to perpetuate the legend of Tammuz.

     Who is Tammuz? Read up on it.

103. Not Stupid
     November 19th, 2007 | 02:32

     Oh. And I use words like “incompetence” to jar some people into mental “shock”.

104. Redem
     November 19th, 2007 | 02:53

     I’ve heard many a creationist make claims about “scientific evidence for creation” or something similar..

     I’ve yet to see them actually produce any.

     Any of the creationists here care to go so far as to support their claims?
     Or shall we just declare this “debate” a win for real science?

105. Darth Arcon
     November 19th, 2007 | 02:57

     @88
     I am really getting sick of you. Accusing me of having no proof that “my” belief is true. Continue reading, Im going to address you and another person at the same time…

     @98
     Ive got nerve…IVE GOT NERVE! Standing up for what I believe in. You have got to be kidding me! Trying to impress me with shiny titles, yeah…Ya know what, buddy? You use these thinly coated attacks like all Christians are brainwashed, and I have no scientific proof that what I believe is true. It is rather pathetic…

     Ill tell you the truth, your post shook me up a bit at first. It took me a few minutes to see through the thin attack to what the actual issue was. You are pretty good at what you do. I respect that, but Ill be damned before I let you continue the way you have.

     Toward poster 70, your quite amusing. You see my reply and instantly overlook the logic because it doesnt agree with what you believe, which seems to be evolution. The unlimited being isnt limited because it cant limit iself, that doesnt make sense. You think that since such an action is impossible for the unlimited being, that it limits it in some way…By your logic, that is true. But when you look at it in the sense the being is perfect, such a limitation is non-existent. What does this mean? Well, in the sense of Christianity, God is perfect. That alone suggests that God has limits, since God is incapable of doing evil, but that doesnt mean He is limited in that right…You cant be perfect and not have some kind of limitation. When you look at it from a Christian perspective, within the limitations of being perfect, God is limitless. Yet, you seem to miss that point…convenient…You cant just take things out of context and say it must be wrong…Dont take me for a fool.

     Oh, and here we go again with you saying I have no proof…that is hysterical. Why? If I even begin to explain the proof I have, you would hammer me down saying that Im preaching…ironic. I have been forced into a position where it matters not what I say, you refuse to believe it. Therefore, lets turn the attack off of me and put it on you for a moment. Humor me, what proof do you have that your precious evolution is true?

106. wah
     November 19th, 2007 | 04:18

     @98 in response to 85

     AFIK, science can only prove something that can be repeatedly tested. Science can prove the existence of comets because it can be repeatedly tested by observing falling comets everyday, thus proving the theory that a comet exists but if there were only one such comet event in all of history then there would be no way for science to confirm or validate the theory that it did happen, only theorize or speculation, but not any undeniable confirmed fact. In light of that, only the reliability of the historical document could be tested by the same criteria that all historical documents are tested by.

     Is there irrefutable proof in the science department? IMO, no. But it looks to me that there are enough geologic evidence that suggests a global flood is certainly within the realm of possibility in the span of thousands of years.

     The filling of the Black Sea by a breach of the Med. through the Bosporus Strait? As far as I know, this has got to be about the worst natural disaster ever witnessed by western man. And at ca. 5500 BC, would have been documented by the Sumerians (whom some claim the story was copied from), and a number of other peoples. There is also physical evidence to back this up, as opposed to the lack of for a global flood. As far as more worldly flood stories are concerned, a few other things were going on. As little as 3000 BC, sea levels were still much lower than today. Florida Bay (as well as a lot more of the gulf coastal plain) was still dry land. There are indian middens off the west coast of Florida in 20-30 ft. of water. Areas such as the Grand Banks and George’s Banks off New England and the Maritime Provinces were islands (if not peninsulas) hosting critters like mastodons (personal obs.). Same goes with the North Sea. Mammoth parts as well as other material is commonly dredged up. Australia was colonized ca. 40,000 ybp. How many may had gone on to islands (that are now guyots) in the Pacific? A sea level drop at over 500 ft. at the last glacial maximum would have caused them to be islands by way of lesser weight on the Pacific Plate, causing it to rise, as the land areas from the weight of ice, are depressed to below sea level, in Antarctica and Greenland. Not to mention breaches in late Wisconsinian ice dams that caused such major devastation such as the Scablands of the Pacific Northwest and areas in Siberia. Local maybe, but in the context of several thousand years of years time, perhaps global too.

     @102 Not Stupid

     I beg to differ.

     Crucifixion is the process where a person is nailed or bound to a cross or a stake. It was first used by the Persians and later by the Egyptians, Carthaginians, and Romans as a form of capital punishment. Alexander the Great introduced it to the Mediterranean area and the Romans perfected it as a means of capital punishment. Normally, there was a permanent stake in the ground. The victim carried the crossbar on his back to the stake. The crossbar usually weighed between 50 and 75 lbs. Sometimes the person was nailed to the crossbar, other times he was tied to it. The crossbar, and victim, were then hoisted into place. One method was to hoist the crossbar into a notch on top of the stake so the whole thing looked like a T. Another method was to place the crossbeam a few feet below the top making a cross. Yet another method was to nail or tie the person to a single stake in the ground. Usually a small sign on a pole with the crime written on it was carried ahead of the victim in front of the procession to the cross. It was then nailed to the cross above the head of the victim. When nails were used, they were driven through the wrists between the radial and ulna bones and not through the palms since the nail would have ripped through the palm because the palm could not withstand all the weight of the body.

     Justus Lipsius, in one of the earliest writings that speak specifically of the shape of the cross on which Jesus died, describe it as shaped like the letter T (the Greek letter tau), or composed of an upright and a transverse beam, together with a small peg in the upright. In them, he describes the form of crucifixion you describe as well as the crucifixion of jesus that everyone is accustomed to know, the T cross. Even though we all know jesus’ death is recorded in all four gospels but for the sake of the discussion, I’ll list some non-Christian writings that record jesus’s death: Josephus, the Talmud, Tacitus, and Pliny/Seneca the Younger.

     I find it ironic how you make a claim that jesus’s death/ressurection if applicalbe, is a myth that perpetuates a legend when 1.) if the crucifixion text passes the history test, then who cares if he died sideways or upside down, he died. 2.) we have more evidence for jesus’s life than tammuz. So, whether Jesus was crucified in a T shape or stake form, the evidences and records showing proof of jesus’s death, even resurrection, surpasses most, if not, all ancient literature, including Tammuz’s. Which leads to one of the most important questions asked by non-Christians as they look into Christianity is whether or not the Bible is trustworthy. Can the Bible be trusted. If it has been corrupted, then we cannot trust what is attributed to Jesus’ words and deeds. So, is the Bible reliable or not?
     Yes, the Bible was reliable, at least in my informed opinion. The original writings of the Bible have been lost. But before they were lost, they were copied. These copies were incredibly accurate, very meticulous, and very precise. The people who copied them were extremely dedicated to God and their copying tasks. They took great care when copying the original manuscripts. This copying method is so exact, and so precise, that the New Testament alone is considered to be 99.5% textually pure. This means that of the 6000 Greek copies (the New Testament was written in Greek), and the additional 21,000 copies in other languages, there is only one half of 1% variation. Of this very slight number, the great majority of the variants are easily corrected by comparing them to other copies that don’t have the “typos” or by simply reading the context. You should know that copying mistakes occur in such ways as word repetition, spelling, or a single word omission due to the copyist missing something when moving his eyes from one line to another. The variants are very minor. Nothing affects doctrinal truth and the words and deeds of Christ are superbly reliably transmitted to us.
     The science of studying ancient literature and its accuracy of transmission to is called historicity. The Bible is so exceedingly accurate in its transmission from the originals to the present copies, that if you compare it to any other ancient writing, the Bible is light years ahead in terms of number of manuscripts and accuracy. If the Bible were to be discredited as being unreliable, then it would be necessary to discard the writings of Homer, Plato, and Aristotle as also unreliable since they are far far less well preserved than the Bible.
     The Bible was written by those who were inspired to God. When we look at the New Testament we realize that it was written by those who either knew Jesus personally, or were under the direction of those who did. They wrote what they saw. They wrote about the resurrection of Christ. They recorded His miracles and His sayings. It comes down to whether or not you believe what it says about Christ.

107. Andrew
     November 19th, 2007 | 04:35

     My understanding is that intelligent design (ID) isn’t a science as it can’t be tested in experiments, produces no predictions or creates any new hypothesis in contrast to the theory of natural selection (NS).

     If you (Darth Arcon) have an experiment that proves the theory correct or can produce a single prediction or a new hypothesis confirming the legitimacy of ID as a science then I would be very interested to hear about it.

     NS isn’t perfect but it’s clearly the best we have at the moment and will be until proven otherwise.

108. Wizard of the Orient
     November 19th, 2007 | 04:44

     All this stems from the fact that humans cannot comprehend the time frame of a million years, much less a billion years!

109. jonnyBoy
     November 19th, 2007 | 04:47

     This is getting too loud… Time for a drink after reading all the comments and the crap I’ve seen today.

     How about everybody do the same? Take a break, collect yourselves, and then see what you think about this then?

     I’ll see you in hell :-}

110. Not Stupid
     November 19th, 2007 | 05:00

     @106 Figured you were a textbook “christian”. Study some more, then you will notice that crucifixions occurred before the time periods YOU stated. Historically, Tammuz was crux’d and this was in Babylon! Oh, and the life and times of Tammuz are retold in your Jesus.

     Your Jesus said for the people NOT to worship him but the Father ONLY. As far as I know, christians worship Jesus, NOT The Creator or Grand Designer. That 3n1 joke you guys call “Trinity” comes from Egyption theology. “Jesus” did not want to be portrayed as a god-type but was merely pointing out how we should live by the manual. YOUR bible says, 1 Faith, 1 Baptism and 1 Father of all. That can not be Jebus now can it? The bible may not contradict itself but the followers sure do. And take it from an X-Christian.

     Guess what? I think we live in Warhammer times now and are starting to see The Horus Heresy.

     So much for what you know.

111. Jingle Jangle
     November 19th, 2007 | 05:25

     @90

     “But you can’t deny that the Christian religion has had a more positive lasting effect on the modern world than if it were to be Islam or Buddhism.”

     Oh, I can deny it and I will. The pursuit of Christianity has resulted in far more deaths than any other religion. What were the Crusaders, a bunch of fun-loving guys on a road trip? The Inquisitions? The war in Iraq led by the Christian fundamentalist president of the US, resulting in hundreds of thousands of deaths, injuries and untold misery? How about the hundreds and thousands of accusations of pedophilia perpetrated by some of the highest members of the church? This is the lasting contribution of christianity.

     Funny how when muslim nut jobs blow something up, it’s islam that’s the violent religion, but when christian nut jobs kill people, it’s just a few people acting on their own accord. It’s simple, all religions are just crutches for the weak, stupid and intolerant folks among us.

112. Darth Arcon
     November 19th, 2007 | 06:06

     Ah, @107. You bring an excellent point to the table. I reiterate the word excellent. Why? Because it is true. There is absolutely NO WAY to scientifically prove that ID is true. I couldnt agree with you more. On the flip side, however, stands the scientific backing of evolution. If you really think about it, and dont just think of ways to prove me wrong and prove you right, there is really no way to “scientifically” prove any world view or “beginning of time” theory to be true. Think about it, I implore you. When faced with the scientific method, which seems to help define reality with the least amount of effort, remember back to grade school science class. The main step in the scientific method is to “observe”. When faced with ID vs evolution, you cant observe the beginning of time, nor can you prove that there was an actual “beginning”. For all we know, time, and by extension the entire universe, has always existed. There is no way to prove it with science. That is where science falls short, and you need to focus on logical thought to guide you to the truth. And as far as I have “logically” thought, ID seems to be, IMO of course, the most logical choice. Obviously, others disagree with me, for they have come to a different conclusion. They try to use fossil records, carbon dating, and process of elimination to try and back their claims. But, when all is said and done, all the fossils in the world mean nothing without credibility. And who do you get credibility from? Other people? Is that a joke? How can you possibly use other people as credibility when faced with such a controversial subject? Sure, I can honestly tell you that Albert Einstein believed in “a” god. His god was the Jewish god, Jehovah. However, even when such a smart man believes in such a thing, you still cant use his claim for jack! What is Albert Einstein to me? Please, I dont mean to offend, but he is just another person with his own beliefs! Even though many people consider him to be one of the smartest men in history (I am one of those many people), they still believe other things. Im not jewish………The point Im trying to make is a simple one. Use your own brain, and draw your own conclusions from things that you ALONE can prove. Dont base it on any proof from someone else unless you can logically think it through to the same conclusion…

     I can almost guarantee you (I use “almost” to cover myself for future reference) that when the people I challenged come back on here, they will give me links and books and documentaries and the like. But as I said, such things require credibility to be true. After all, I have heard a lot about most of the fossil record. I have heard unbelievable things like these Lucy bones are either one of the first human beings, or just some person somebody dug up. That some bones from the Neanderthals (Im not sure on that, it could be from one of the other pre human…things) were pig bones and teeth. I have heard credible opinions from both sides, and both sides are credible by some person with a shiny degree or whatever. Point being? Only trust yourself. Heh, I think it is rather funny that most of the people on here are challenging me to prove ID to be true when in reality my “original” goal was to have equal representation in our schools. My motives have changed since then, true, but after thinking a lot about it, and your comment 107, I guess I need to return to that original intent. Please, dont base your belief on what I, or anybody else says, base your belief on what conclusion YOU logically come to…

     And for the record, just because I think everybody should use their own logic to find truth, I do personally believe in ID (not necessarily Christianity, though I do believe it is the closest ID theory). Because of this little fact, you will find bias in my writing. I suppose that is just how it works…sorry…

113. wah
     November 19th, 2007 | 06:22

     @110 [chuckle] Figured you were an Christian/Myth “believer”. “Study some more, then you will notice that crucifixions occurred before the time periods YOU stated. Historically, Tammuz was crux’d and this was in Babylon!”

     Tammuz crucifixion may have occurred before the time in question, but presumably the stake version, while the cross version followed. But, either way, it really doesn’t matter which one Jesus died on. The issue is whether or not He shed His blood for our sins. The Greek word used in many Bibles which is translated into “cross” is the Greek word “stauros” which means, “an upright stake, esp. a pointed one, a cross.” If a stake were used, instead of a cross, then Jesus’ hands would have been placed above His head with a nail driven through His wrists. Since the wrists would most likely overlap, only one nail is needed through both wrists. However, John 20:25 says, “The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, except I shall see in his hands the print of the [b]nails[/b], and put my finger into the print of the [b]nails[/b], and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.” Notice the use of the word nails (plural) in reference to hands (plural). It makes far more sense to say that Jesus was crucified on a cross with outstretched hands and one nail in each hand placed above each other on a stake. That is why it says “…in his hands the print of the nails…” So it’s most logical to state that Jesus died on a cross with outstretched arms.

     “Oh, and the life and times of Tammuz are retold in your Jesus.”

     And Tammuz’s name is mentioned only once in the bible, Ezekiel 8:13-15. hardly any manuscripts in support for Tammuz, not that I deny his existence.

     “Your Jesus said for the people NOT to worship him”

     Would you mind pointing out that verse?

     “but the Father ONLY. As far as I know, christians worship Jesus, NOT The Creator or Grand Designer.”

     It may appear to you that way, but it seems to be that you’re right only if Jesus did not claim to be God. If that’s the case, then Christians are worshiping Jesus and not the Father. I could be wrong, but if we can establish that Jesus claimed to be God/the Father/The Creator/Grand Designer, then we can conclude that the early Christians worshiped both Jesus and God the Father as one, which would negate your entire point.

     Did Jesus claim to be God? Considering he was a jew, speaking in jewish terms, he certainly made the point clear that him and the Father are one (in nature). John 10:30-33 quotes “I and the Father are one.” The Jews took up stones again to stone Him. Jesus answered them, “I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?” The Jews answered Him, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.” There are about 8 bible verses i can think of that support the claim that show that Jesus is God in flesh, or at least claimed to be one with the Father, like, John 5:18 - “For this cause therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God.” (John, Colossians, Phillipians, Hebrew and Psalms). I could list more at your if you want.

     I think we can both agree that Jesus is worshipped. In fact, He said to worship God only, yet He receives worship. What does that tell you? Under the premise that Jesus is one with the Father, if he tells his followers to worship God only and they worship Him then they are worshiping both Jesus and God the Father at the same time. It’s impossible for them to worship Jesus and not ‘The Creator’ because Jesus IS one in the same with ‘The Creator’. For example, John 1:1 - “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” John 1:14 - “And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.”

     “That 3n1 joke you guys call “Trinity” comes from Egyption theology.”

     Please back that up.

     As far as your knowledge of Christianity vs Horus/Egytian religions, these kinds of arguments were popular in so-called “history of religions” circles until several decades ago, but they were generally abandoned. Atheistic fundamentalists and some people who took older religious studies classes still haven’t caught up entirely. The thesis was basically that Christian theology took its primary components from preceding traditions rather than from events which occurred in Jesus’ life. Usually it works this way: Jesus preached an inner kingdom of hippie social justice, but Paul put Jesus in the framework of a “mystery religion” (a category of pagan cult contemporary with early xianity). It turns out that you have to read those pagan cults using the terms of Christian theology in order to make that case, but obviously if you’re using the terms of Christian theology to read pagan cults then the thesis that the terms of Christian theology are basically lifted out of the mystery religions is false.

     Consider the first paragraph on the website
     http://www.pocm.info/getting_started_pocm.html:

     “What the ancient evidence will show you is that ancient western culture had a conceptual model of reality, and ancient Christianity adopted that model. Ancient Pagans believed in various levels of divinity, with miraculous powers, coming down and going up to its home in the sky. Divine beings cared about people, listened to and answered their prayers. Gave them the power to prophesy. Even gave them a better deal in the eternal life that comes after death.”

     So the facts are:
     1. They believed in some sort of non-human beings.
     2. They beleived that non-human beings had non-human powers.
     3. They believed that non-human beings lived in places that humans don’t.
     4. They believed that non-human beings interacted with humans.
     5. They believed that non-human beings could provide humans with non-human knowledge and power.

     Obviously these are so vague that we would only be surprised if there weren’t people all over the world who believed these kinds of things. This is basically on the order of, “Many people believed things fell from the sky in ancient times, so Newton must have gotten his laws of motion from them.” (There exist much better examples than this website, but…)

     Leithart offers the interesting epigram, “The Devil has no stories.” In other words, because only God can create out of nothing, whenever we make anything it will always be derivative in nature, so any story we write will unavoidably reflect the story, God’s story. Hence we get posts like some of those above.

     So, are there similarities? Sure, but not any kind of similarities that show that the fundamentals of Christian theology were derived from the mystery religions as opposed to the life of Jesus.

     C.S. Lewis, who argues along similar lines; that is, that each of these myths in some way foreshadow or give a glimpse of the fullness of the Gospel. Most pre-christian pagan myths contain, at some point or another, a god-man that dies and comes back (in some form or another). Lewis argues that these are prepatory to the actual coming of the true Messiah. This is one of the ways you can understand the bit about whole of creation groaning for a saviour. Even pagan religions are looking for someone to destroy death.

     They get aspects of the story right, use similar images and characters, and they set forth the problems really well; in the end, though, their solution is always skewed in a way.

     Take The Oresteia for example. Aeschylus uses very biblical imagery to describe justice (blood thick in the ground, crying out for vengeance). Yet at the end of the story, the problem is solved with an appeal to Athenian judicial procedures, and Athena is able to use rhetoric to convince the Furies to calm down. What is the message of this story? On one level, yes, that murder requires payment in blood. On another, though, it’s that politics and rhetoric are what saves us from this vicious cycle of death.

     it seems like the details of many of these early myths were a little more explicit than just generalizations - like they believed their god was born of a virgin birth, or specifically crucified, even called the ‘Lamb of God’… I mean those are some pretty exact details - and thats really what gets my interest. but you’re going to find two things the more you study it:

     1) Christ still looks quite a bit different in other ways. He really does come looking like their gods, but completely defying the mold at the same time. He is God descending to become man, and saving His people through a selfless death and resurrection that lifts him up to Lordship over the heavens and the earth. That story is unique.
     2) If we would say that just because two religions have similar images or themes, one must have come from another, then we simply can’t explain the history of religion. These connections and themes are literally global. When we are making this argument against Christianity we would really, eventually, have to argue for one common mother of all religions, but that wouldn’t really work very well with the rest of worldview in question.

     “The Horus Heresy.”

     I remember watching a video doco on comparisons between Jesus and Horus.

     First off, sunset is not a reference to “Set.” I worry about anyone who made it past that part of the video. I’m pretty sure “horizon” doesn’t come from “Horus is risen,” but I’m confident “Sunset” is not a reference to Set. That set off huge bells.

     Horus was not crucified. I think that’s the part where I became livid, not necessarily because I was religiously offended, but intellectually. It’s hard when someone is just spouting lies to me directly.

     Horus was not born to a virgin in the vast majority of the myths I’ve heard. At one point, he was regarded as Isis’ husband. But one of the most established myths is that he was regarded as the son of Osiris and Isis - so he was not born of a virgin. In most stories of this well-regarded paramount of Egyptian storytelling, Osiris was dismembered, then put back together by his wife, who copulated with him, his detached phallus, or a stand-in for his phallus.

     On top of that, I’m not sure “Meri” or “Mary” was ever a name attached to Isis. I’m also fairly sure Horus wasn’t born in what became our December. Other sun-gods may have been, but not Horus. A big bell also went off the video asserted Horus was born in a cave or a manger similar to Christ - he was born in a swamp.

     This video was the first time I heard the assertion (without proper documentation) that Horus had twelve disciples - I doubt this claim greatly. There are tales of an inner circle coming to him for guidance and advice in warfare, etc. but not a specific number twelve, and not ones that followed him around in an earthly ministry.

     I was shocked by how poor the scholarship is - besides many outright lies in it, the narrator/creator shows little to no grasp of the concept of shifting incarnations of divinity that the Egyptian religion had. I can go into further detail if anyone requires, but do yourself a favor and ignore “new age beliefs” from “Zeitgeist” - or use its blatant falsehoods to kindle an interest in Egyptian mythology.

     In fact, here was a list I made myself:

     HORUS (3000bc egypt)
     born dec 25
     born of virgin
     star in east appeared at birth
     adorned by 3 kings
     teacher at 12
     baptised at age 30
     had 12 disciples
     performed miracles
     known by ‘the lamb of god, the light, good shepard’
     crucified
     dead for 3 days
     resurrected

     Compare the Wikipedia article on Horus with the POTM website’s claims. Notice that they don’t describe Horus as somebody who lost an eye that was then restored, or associated with the Falcon, or that his eyes represented Sun and Moon, or that semen was the weapon of choice in a major battle with Set — even though these are central features to Horus. Notice that his “virgin birth” (say, reproduction by masturbation) and “death and resurrection” (closer to reincarnation, if anything) are nothing like the “virgin birth” or “death and resurrection” of Jesus. Obviously what’s going on is that somebody is looking for little data points that can be given labels that sound like the labels we give to parts of Jesus’ life.

     Even so, let’s see which looks better — that the stories about Jesus came from the Old Testament or from mystery religions.

     born dec 25 — Jesus wasn’t born Dec 25

     born of virgin — unique births commonly appear for special people in OT (e.g., Isaac)

     star in east appeared at birth — Perhaps they’re thinking of Magi (people) from the east who followed a star? East is first prominent at the beginning of Genesis, when Adam & Eve are kicked out of the Garden.

     adorned by 3 kings — There weren’t 3 kings who adorned Jesus

     teacher at 12, baptised at age 30 — This is on the level of, “Started driving at age 16.”

     had 12 disciples — 12 tribes of Israel

     performed miracles — Moses, Elijah, etc.

     known by ‘the lamb of god, the light, good shepard’ — “Light” motif starts in Gen 1. Lamb of God is Passover Lamb. Good shepherd appears in the famous Psalm 23.

     crucified, resurrected — death and resurrection is the hope throughout the Prophets

     And I didn’t even have to take things out of context.

     There are also many ideas out there among Christian circles of why so many of these ancient myths talk about virgin births, sons who die and resurrect, etc and I highly recommend you actually read the stories. To describe these things in terms of “virgin births” and “resurrection” makes it sound like there is a strong similarity, sure, but if you were just reading the stories it would never ever occur to you to use those terms. E.g., somebody goes to the Greeks’ Land of the Dead, does some stuff down there, and then leaves — would you call this “resurrection”? Only if you were trying to make it sound like the story of Jesus. If you read the stories you’ll probably actually start laughing at these claims.

     And that’s not quite much for what I know.

114. britney's flab
     November 19th, 2007 | 06:42

     scientists do not try to re-write the bible. that’s why we don’t allow christians to re-write science. two different subjects that should not try to define each other. either way DEATH TO ALL CHRISTIANS!

115. Darth Arcon
     November 19th, 2007 | 06:56

     @wah
     Wow, I dont think I could ever come up with as much historical backing as you. Im not saying I disagree with you or anything, but dont forget where your posting to. This isnt a forums with a dedicated community. It is a reply section to a documentary. Most people have the attention span of a 12 year old on here (which actually includes me…). I doubt rather much that they would be willing to read such a long explanation…good for you for knowing all this, though. Its a lot more than I will ever know…

116. wah
     November 19th, 2007 | 07:13

     @111

     You denial is interesting. lol. and you make an xlnt point. I guess the world would be better with islamic views or buddhist views. Let’s see your worldview:

     world islamic view = bloody wars and conflict is going to happen anyway over religion, except christianity would be on the opposing side, we would not have liberty and free thinkers and woman would be of a lower class, blacks and jews are unequal and none of us would be allowed to speak our mind on this internet against islam or any religion without being criminizled for that. well so much for that worldview

     world buddhist view = everyone is peaceful, but eventually someone’s going to fight and someone will die but hey, be peace and loving and sit idly by while other people are being killed. point is, war will happen either way, and eventually, if you’re a buddhist, you side with neither side, letting it happen instead of defending the oppressed or standing up for what’s/who’s right.

     Between those two views, I’d personally choose a world w/ Christianity. Ever heard of the Elmer Gantry myth? If followers of a religion start being hypotrical doesn’t mean the truth is negated. Truth is truth and salvation is still made available by the grace of God.

     “The pursuit of Christianity has resulted in far more deaths than any other religion. What were the Crusaders, a bunch of fun-loving guys on a road trip? The Inquisitions?”

     And their blood was spilled for your and our freedom to live in a world that believes in alleviating poverty, universal education, and the ideals of equality and liberty. I’m not trying to give the impression the world is perfect, bloodless, and full of justice, but at least you have the right to speak your mind on this board, if not for the virtues of freedom of speech. Innocent blood was never intended as an aftermath of Christianity, but Christianity arrived to divide people over their beliefs about jesus which would result in conflict, yet, it would have been the exact thing if it was another religion in place of Chrsitianity. Either way, it sucks, get over it.

     “The war in Iraq led by the Christian fundamentalist president of the US, resulting in hundreds of thousands of deaths, injuries and untold misery?”

     Do you even know why the war started in the first place? Instead of getting involved in the communities and fighting off terrorists from oppressing neighborhood, they’ve allowed problems in Iraq to fester until it was too great too ignore that they had to launch a massive invasion. War is never good so the only way to make sure another “Iraq” doesn’t happen is to prevent it. How do you prevent something like Iraq from happening? Easy. Not sit idly by and ignore them. Getting involved with people means sending in reserve troops in to help with everyday life by forming personal relationships. And why should we be involved in other countries? To reiterate, to alleviate poverty, universal education, and the ideals of equality and liberty. Values found in Christian virtues.

     “How about the hundreds and thousands of accusations of pedophilia perpetrated by some of the highest members of the church?”

     That’s a good one. But blame it on Catholicism, not Christianity. Where ever Christianity was, it left when the Protestants left Europe. Roman Catholicism is its own religions separate of that of what we normally call Protestant denominational ‘Christianity’, which resulted in movements like Evangelicals, Fundamentalism, and non-demoninations. and honestly, even if Christianity didn’t exist, you think these ‘would-be-priests’ in the highest elders of ‘church’ wouldn’t be able to find a way to hold themselves unaccountable for their crimes?

117. Charlie_Chap
     November 19th, 2007 | 07:28

     It seems like this is a very hot topic. Let’s see it for yourself.

     http://rapidshare.com/files/69812472/NOVA-ID_On_Trial.part01.rar
     http://rapidshare.com/files/70040918/NOVA-ID_On_Trial.part02.rar
     http://rapidshare.com/files/70146948/NOVA-ID_On_Trial.part03.rar
     http://rapidshare.com/files/70274621/NOVA-ID_On_Trial.part04.rar
     http://rapidshare.com/files/70252174/NOVA-ID_On_Trial.part05.rar
     http://rapidshare.com/files/70174601/NOVA-ID_On_Trial.part06.rar
     http://rapidshare.com/files/70211704/NOVA-ID_On_Trial.part07.rar
     http://rapidshare.com/files/70245541/NOVA-ID_On_Trial.part08.rar
     http://rapidshare.com/files/70241408/NOVA-ID_On_Trial.part09.rar
     http://rapidshare.com/files/70283311/NOVA-ID_On_Trial.part10.rar
     http://rapidshare.com/files/70298742/NOVA-ID_On_Trial.part11.rar
     http://rapidshare.com/files/70365298/NOVA-ID_On_Trial.part12.rar

118. Andrew
     November 19th, 2007 | 07:55

     I agree that the problem with all observations is that we tend to bring our preconceived biases to the conclusions we make.

     Few would have a problem with a glass that contains 50% water and 50% air being described as either half empty or half full.

     But a majority would have a problem when someone denies the glass existence as a matter of faith.

     My observation of the ID movement leads me to believe that they are trying to undermined/supplant NS science with faith based beliefs in the science curriculum.

     I also believe that this result will be to the detriment of all concerned as it is a obvious attempt to justify a preconceived fallacious religious bias that the glass sitting right in front of them doesn’t exist.

     GOD is in the detail.

119. wah
     November 19th, 2007 | 08:00

     @Death Arcon

     Thanks. but you get my overall point, right?

     Besides, I only split it up in 5 simple sections:

     1. Crucifixion
     2. Tammuz
     3. Jesus’s Divinity
     4. Christian/Pagan Myth
     5. Jesus Myth/Horus Heresy

     In regards to ID, it is a theory that ’settles for less’ for each side. It’s an attempt to reconcile two enemies. But in the end, there can be only one, for one will rise, one will fall. Like Matthew 6:24 and Luke 16:13 says: “No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money.”

120. NettiWelho
     November 19th, 2007 | 08:16

     @119

     disproving 1 of the 2 options at hand would NOT prove other one correct

     heck they could both be wrong and we might aswell be a simulation in a super-computer âla matrix, ran by flying spaghetti monsters and invisible pink unicorns aboard flying emerald turtle on the way to castle of clouds

     now thats a theory id like to be taught in schools, since both evidence used for scientific view and the creationist can be used to back it, and best of all, you cant disprove it!

121. wah
     November 19th, 2007 | 08:38

     @120

     that’s far out. But my point is that there’s no use in trying to reconcile both via a hybrid theory. Even if both are wrong, one will be ‘chosen’.

122. wah
     November 19th, 2007 | 08:45

     @ Death Arcon

     You seem to be passionate about what you’re talking about. Maybe we should get together for tea and discuss more.

123. wah
     November 19th, 2007 | 09:23

     @70

     This is a little too late but you seem to be missing the context of that ‘phrase’. “Can an almighty god create a stone so heavy he/she cant carry it?”

     The question is not measuring the ‘almightiness’ of god. If you want to see how almighty god is read the old testament. the question in mind is measuring the integrity of god. simply put, since god’s nature is perfect he cannot contradict himself/his nature. That’s on the order of, ‘can god kill himself?’ or ‘can god lust?’ god can not contradict his own nature. he is unable to deny himself. so it is not a matter of what god can or cannot do because by definition he can do anything and everything only within his own nature, which is perfection. taht being said, it is a matter of integrity and if god can keep his word/integrity then that means he is perfect in that sense. for instance, it’s like asking a leader to lead an unleadable person. since it’s in the leader’s nature to lead, he will lead those who he can only lead and by doing that he is keeping his integrity. since he can’t lead the unleadable, that doesn’t take anything away from his ability to lead or his leadership skills or his integrity as a leader for that fact. hope that helps.

124. Rekrul
     November 19th, 2007 | 09:29

     I know a woman who is heavily into the catholic religion. She’s always talking about saints, and important figures in the history of the catholic church, how great it is, etc. She didn’t believe me when I told her that the catholic church had spent more than 600 years arresting, torturing and executing every man, woman and child who didn’t agree with them. She accused me of making it up. :/

125. wah
     November 19th, 2007 | 09:39

     @Jingle Jangle

     Funny how when muslim nut jobs blow something up, it’s islam that’s the violent religion, but when christian nut jobs kill people, it’s just a few people acting on their own accord.

     Nope. that’s not true at all.

     “It’s simple, all religions are just crutches for the weak, stupid and intolerant folks among us.”

     that’s such an untrue statement totally based on your moronic biased opinion. You’ll be surprised to find out in the real world from your small cave that there are strong, intelligent and liberal people who adhere to a religion. You sir are an idiot for calling millions of people weak, stupid and intolerant, making yourself to be “elite”, which says a lot about your creed, let alone attitude and personality.

126. wah
     November 19th, 2007 | 09:55

     @124 Rekrul

     Ouch! did she cry? Well, that’s what happens when you integrate governmental law and religion and give too much power to radical fundamentalist zealots who grossly misinterpret the bible. You should tell her that even if church leaders have done evil things in the name of God, truth is still truth found in the Christian message, not the Catholic message.

127. LucidHarmony
     November 19th, 2007 | 10:09

     Fighting with religious people doesn’t make any sense, its arguing science versus religious dogma.
     Or reality versus imagination, as it were.

128. NettiWelho
     November 19th, 2007 | 10:22

     @127

     try telling that to the ones who want fairytales to be taught in schools as a science

129. Who cares
     November 19th, 2007 | 10:42

     @126
     “truth is still truth found in the Christian message”
     Truth meaning ‘whatever you impose upon it’?

130. SoniKalien
     November 19th, 2007 | 10:54

     Y’all gotta realise that you can’t use the bible as a source of information let alone facts. It is well known that the current bible is nothing like the original (whatever that was) and you can confirm this by getting hold of a King James version (oldest obtainable) and comparing it.

     The bible has been rewritten by religious zealots to make it work for their own purposes. So when you say stuff like “note plural NAILS” then coincidentally you could be just as wrong.

131. wah
     November 19th, 2007 | 11:00

     “Truth meaning ‘whatever you impose upon it’?”

     I’m taking what you mean by that question is that the message is made up by mortal men by picking a card out of magic hat? Certainly not! Truth meaning what God has already divinely revealed to us through Scripture. The canon of the christian bible is considered to be inspired by God as the Word of God.

     simply put, “Salvation is still by grace through faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.” That’s one of the main doctrinal truths that most Christians, and any true Church, do agree on, among other essentials of course.

132. Who cares
     November 19th, 2007 | 11:17

     @131:
     And why is the canon of the christian bible considered to be inspired by God as the Word of God? Because it says so.
     I humbly bow before your logic

133. NettiWelho
     November 19th, 2007 | 11:18

     @131

     If the faith of the world has already been decided by the christian god, why bother doing anything?
     i mean, really, what about the concept of free will, if our actions cant even change the outcome of our divinely planned lives?

     with blind religious logic i could make the assumption that “it would be OK to kill someone, because god has planned it all out, and if he doesnt want me to do it, i fail in my attempt, and since i believe in and worship god ill get to heaven anyway!”(=AKA mental illness)

     dun dun dun

134. Fridge
     November 19th, 2007 | 11:29

     Just to let you know i had a really good wank while reading all the comments here.

135. wah
     November 19th, 2007 | 12:05

     @130

     oh you shouldn’t have trodded down this road man. So you’re doubting the reliability of the bibliography test of the New Testament? My God man you don’t know how to pick your battles. BUT you are right that I could be wrong, since the copying of the original documents could have been maliciously tampered with. So let us look at how well accurate of the original manuscripts are compared to the copies we have today:

     If you’re talking about the NT, I consider the bible to be as historically reliable as how well it has been tested by the same criteria by which all historical documents are tested, which are the bibliography test and the internal/external evidence tests, but for you i’m only going to cover the first test.

     First, for the bibliography tests, when you compare the NT with other ancient literature as Homer’s “Iliad” or Plato’s work, it’s the best attested ancient writing in terms of the time span between events and the document, # of extant manuscripts, and the time gaps between the original dates written and the earliest copies we have. As far as the accuracy of the manuscripts goes, I believe they are supported by Syriac, Latin, Coptic (Egyptian), Armenian, Gothic, Georgian, Ethiopic and Nubian versions, as well as Greek NT lectionaries and early patristic NT quotations like Justin Martyr or Irenaeus. So there you have it. There are at least 8 different languages whose own copy of the NT substantiate its accuracy.

     I’ve already said this earlier in my earlier comment, but I’m going to reiterate to you once again.

     You make an xlnt point that the original writings of the Bible have been lost. But before they were lost, they were copied. These copies were incredibly accurate, very meticulous, and very precise. The people who copied them were extremely dedicated to God and their copying tasks. They took great care when copying the original manuscripts. This copying method is so exact, and so precise, that the New Testament alone is considered to be 99.5% textually pure. This means that of the 6000 Greek copies (the New Testament was written in Greek), and the additional 21,000 copies in other languages, there is only one half of 1% variation. Of this very slight number, the great majority of the variants are easily corrected by comparing them to other copies that don’t have the “typos” or by simply reading the context.

     You should know that copying mistakes occur in such ways as word repetition, spelling, or a single word omission due to the copyist missing something when moving his eyes from one line to another. The variants are very minor. And this is where we get different versions.

     But NOTHING affects doctrinal truth and the words and deeds of Christ are superbly reliably transmitted to us.

     The science of studying ancient literature and its accuracy of transmission to is called historicity. The Bible is so exceedingly accurate in its transmission from the originals to the present copies, that if you compare it to any other ancient writing, the Bible is light years ahead in terms of number of manuscripts and accuracy.

     “You can’t use the bible as a source of information let alone facts”

     If the Bible were to be discredited as being unreliable, then we would have to discard the writings of Homer, Plato, and Aristotle as also unreliable since they are far far less well preserved than the Bible.

     The Bible was written by those who were inspired to God. When we look at the New Testament we realize that it was written by those who either knew Jesus personally, or were under the direction of those who did. They wrote what they saw. They wrote about the resurrection of Christ. They recorded His miracles and His sayings. It comes down to whether or not you believe what it says about Christ. Do you?

     Of course not. Would you give the “benefit of the doubt”? Let me guess: probably not?

     One of the ways to test the internal evidence of ANY historical document, therefore measuring its reliability if in fact all, is to use, what John Warwick Montgomery states, the standard of test that literary critics still follow, Aristotle’s dictum that “the benefit of the doubt is to be given to the document itself, not arrogated by the critic to himself.” Therefore, “one must listen to the claims of the document under analysis, and not assume fraud or error unless the author disqualified himself by contradictions or known factual inaccuracies.”

     One of my favorite sayings of S.H. Horn is directed to 99% of all the Christian skeptics in this comment board:

     “Think for a moment about what needs to be demonstrated concerning a ‘difficulty’ in order to transfer it into the category of a valid argument against doctrine. Certainly much more is required than the mere appearance of a contradiction. First, we must be certain that we have correctly understood the passage, the sense in which it uses words or numbers. Second, that we possess all available knowledge in this matter. Third, that no further light can possibly be thrown on it by advancing knowledge, textual research, archeology, etc…..Difficulties do not constitute objections. Unsolved problems are not of necessity errors. This is not to minimize the area of difficulty; it is to see it in perspective. Difficulties are to be grappled with and problems are to drive us to seek clear light; but until such time as we have total and final light on any issue we are in no position to affirm, ‘Here is a proven error, an unquestionable objection to an infallible Bible.’ It is common knowledge that countless ‘objections’ have been fully resolved since this century began.

     It’s clear that most sincere christian critics and skeptics here on this board aren’t willing to give ‘the benefit of the doubt’ but instead spout out totally ignorant opinions that the bible/christianity is unreliable, myths, imaginations when, in fact, their presumptions really stems from their own procrastination to actually test the reliability of what they are attacking.

     This is the mindset of all of you of whom I’m referring to: “The bible is unreliable/fake/myth/imaginative because of this and that but I’ve never ACTUALLY read the bible or did any type of research, let alone, give the benefit of the doubt, to see if is IN FACT unreliable/fake/myth/imaginative through careful research. I honestly believe it, in fact I’m convinced, but I’ll say it as if I have some sort of authority even though I’ve never actually been on a quest to disprove the bible but only through my ignorance.”

     You all make me sick!

136. Who cares
     November 19th, 2007 | 12:18

     Hmmm…The benefit of doubt. I think it was Albert Camus who called this attitude “intellectual suicide”

137. tugo
     November 19th, 2007 | 12:29

     People always say there no proof o evolution, I got proof. Dogs, how many different breeds of are there ? Hundreds ?. Breeding is evolution on turbo. Back in the caveman days or the Moses days, there was no German Shepards or Bulldogs or Mexican Hairless. They where domesticated wolves and jackals. Then human beings started to breed the fastest with the fastest and we got Greyhounds. We bred the biggest with the biggest and got Great Danes and so on. We are still turbo evolving animals. Have you seen that breed of cats with the short front legs ? or those goats that faint when spooked ? We took animals with a genetic defect that was rare and bred them to bring it out. A fainting goat in nature would not survive, nor would a cat that has short legs. We even did it to other humans, have you heard of a Mandingo ? Google it.

138. velo
     November 19th, 2007 | 13:02

     At least try to give me proof. I’m not out to get you so calm down.

     A gut feeling is not proof, a 2000+ year old text is not proof more then any other holy text, like the hindu ones.

     You claim you have proof, and i assume you know what that means.

     If you give me hard evidence for the christian God´s existence, i will convert here and now within a heartbeat.

     So here is you chance. Go on, do your part, enlighten me.

139. velo
     November 19th, 2007 | 13:16

     oops that was ment @105 Darth Arcon

140. wah
     November 19th, 2007 | 13:42

     @132

     I knew you were gonna say that.

     Inspiration indicates how the bible received its authority, whereas canonization tells how the bible received i ts acceptance. it is one thing for god to give the scriptures their authority, and quite another for men to recognize that authority. Canonization, then, concerns the recognition and collection of the God-inspired, authoritative books of the sacred scriptures. canonicity is determined by god. actually, a canonical book is valuable and true because god inspired it. that is, canonicity is determined of fixed conclusively by authority, and authority was given to the individual books by God through inspiration. the real question is not where a book received its divine authority, for this can only come from God alone, but how did men recognize that authority? Authority is recognized by men of God. Inspiration determines canonicity. if a book was authoritative, it was so because god breathed it and made it so. how a book received authority, then, is determined by God. How men recognize that authority is another matter altogether. Precisely speaking, canonicity is determined by god, IOW, the reason there are only 66 books in the canon is that God inspired only that many. that is, only 66 books were found to have the stamp of divine authority, because God only stamped that many, or invested that number with authority for faith and practice. a book is valuable because it is canonical. a given book is not canonical because it was found to be valuable. rather, it was found to valuable because it was determined to be canonical by God. IOW, a book is not inspired because it is inspired; it is inspiring because it is inspired.

     @133

     That depends if the christian in question is a Calvinist or an Armenian. Calvinists believe in unconditional election where it asserts that God’s choice from eternity of those whom he will bring to himself is not based on foreseen virtue, merit, or faith in those people. Rather, it is unconditionally grounded in God’s mercy alone. Where as Armenians believe in conditional election where all believers have full assurance of salvation with the condition that they remain in Christ. Salvation is conditioned on faith, therefore perseverance is also conditioned. Apostasy (turning from Christ) is only committed through a deliberate, willful rejection of Jesus and renouncement of belief.

     “with blind religious logic…”

     funny. you only see it that way only because of your IGNORANCE to understand how God forgives people.

     “I’m going to kill someone (just for the hell of it) and then I’ll ask for forgiveness.” God’s forgiveness doesn’t work that way. He wants genuine repentance, not premeditated repentance. With that mindset, you’re playing a very dangerous mindgame with God and He knows the intent of your heart.

     dun dun dun.

     While God will forgive all sins, past, present and future, he will not allow people to take advantage of his forgiveness. SO by saying this in your heart, “it would be OK to kill someone, because god has planned it all out, and if he doesnt want me to do it, i fail in my attempt, and since i believe in and worship god ill get to heaven anyway!”, and applying that concept in real life, your salvation comes into question. God’s salvation and gift of forgiveness are for those who will accept it, not exploit it.

     So your attempt to find a logical loophole has failed once again in your miserable pathetic life.

     @136

     Hmmm… “intellectual suicide”. That’s ironic coming from someone who read the OT three times and attended churches regularly, not to mention, someone who read NT as well in the spirit of asking questions. What does that tell you? He, himself, believing that “benefit of the doubt” was “intellectual suicide” still risked the chance of killing himself intellectually for a chance to fill the spiritual void inside of him?

141. wah
     November 19th, 2007 | 13:53

     @137

     While that is certainly proof for the theory of MICRO EVOLUTION, it does not however, proof the entire theory of evolution, including macro evolution, which theorizes that monkeys turn into humans, or the mutation of one totally different species to another completely different set of mammal/reptilian/amphibian/insect/arachnid species. One of the main ways to scientifically prove that monkeys turn into humans is if we find all the ‘missing links’ fossil records, which we haven’t but would be very interesting to see if we do, OR are able to repeat the event in question to confirm/solidify the theory. But so far we’ve not found or are able to turn a monkey into a human or a monkey to naturally turn into one. So far, most of the evolution theory is pure speculation at best, while some theories can be proven, or in fact, fact.

142. wah
     November 19th, 2007 | 13:56

     @139

     oooo you were that close to getting owned…

143. Who cares
     November 19th, 2007 | 14:00

     So, in a nutshell this means: The holy scripture is considered authoritative because it has been cannonized by god. How do we know it? Because it says so!
     Once again, I humbly bow before your pristine logic.

     Concerning Camus: Of course he read the bible. It’s an interesting perspective on the human condition. However reading it is not intellectual suicide, believing it is.

144. wah
     November 19th, 2007 | 14:01

     @velo

     Trust me on this, but 9 out of 10 times, atheists who are convinced that God exists from out of a discussion/argument will leave convinced only for a short time and go back to where they were before. There’s a name for it, “something theory”.

145. Costa200
     November 19th, 2007 | 14:09

     @105 Darth Arcon

     I’m not trying to impress nobody. Clearly, when the barely literate McDonalds guy believes he is at the same level as me in arguing about evolution i cannot rely on my professional credentials to impress… And i prefer it that way. You see, unlike many i hold to no value the existance of authority.

     What my credentials give me, and that is why i mention them, is to be taken seriously as someone who have studied the subject for over a decade. The reason why i appear good at these type of arguments is practice. I know perfectly well what makes theists choke, like you did when #70 guy pointed out the falacy of an omnipotent being.

     Your response about my logic demonstrates clearly the rational holes you face when confronted with the issue. You could have summed up your answer in “this limitless being cannot do some stuff because…”. Now tell me if, with the most regards to intelectual honesty, a limitless being has limits how is he limitless.

     The long and old argument about God being perfect is based on what? I believe your not gonna say you go bowlling with the guy so i take it you are refering to what you read in the bible correct? And, if so, you uncapable of finding, in the bible, ocasions in which god made a mistake?

     Due to having debated this for years and having studied the “holy book” in detail i believe i would better most bible wavers in quiz about it.

     When god created Adam and then Eve and they screwed up by “eating the apple” (i LOL whenever i read this because it is like talking about bees and flowers with little children) wasn’t that a major blunder? Why does the “perfect god” creates mankind just to kill millions in a great flood afterwards? Why does god negotiate with Job? Why does he test Abraham? Did he not knew what the answer would be? Why does he let Job’s daughters do that incest thing? Why does he demand constant proof and test humans? Doesn’t he know the answers already?

     For me it is clear that no such god exist and that all the tests were a moral lesson to make people conform to the religious teaching. Again, why do you say he is “perfect”, and how does that perfectness is only in the eye of the beholder?

     Now for the challenge, proofs on evolution…
     Let’s just start by saying that i could fill your house with books and articles explaining, supporting and using evolution to make ediucated predictions that actually work (contrary to that ID stuff). It would take me months to teach you a full course in evolution (it actually takes months IRL due to the massive volume of information to have a clear picture of why this has been tested for 200 years and is still the biological paradigm today).

     So to sum it up (each of these subjects diserve several books):

     - Fossils (and yes, we do have transitional fossils all over the place, the accusation that we don’t, no matter how many times repeated is false)
     - Embryological data (you may want to check with your god why you had branchial arches in your development)
     - Celular data (Eucaryotic cell organization clearly demonstrates common ancestry)
     - Genetics (next time you go to the zoo search the chimps, because when you look at one you will be looking at a creature that has over 97% of your genes)
     - Compared anatomy (funny god was so unimaginative that gave whales and us the same damn bones…)
     - Population ecology (changing in genetic padrons in populations with reproductive isolation lead to speciation as described in tons of mathematical models)
     - Geology and plate tectonics are compatible with evolution, not ID
     - Geophysics
     - Basically every field of science that studies anything remotely related to the subject.

     And on and on…

     Compared to this you have… What?

     @106

     You are using localized floods as proof? Or phenomena that took thousands of years? I’m sorry mate, but that won’t cut it. If you are gonna argue about a real flood geology you are going to do much better.

     OR

     You just admit that some middle eastern tribe witnessed a local event and then started some fables regarding that episode. And that was probably what happened. I had to take a whole freaking course on Stratigraphy and there was never any chance that a worldwide flood happened. Fossils on top of mountains could not get there in a flood simply because the ecological marks and core samples indicate that the ecosystems established themselves over thousands or millions of years, not in days. You guys not only want to kill modern biology, you want to take geology with it too

146. Costa200
     November 19th, 2007 | 14:09

     @105 Darth Arcon

     I’m not trying to impress nobody. Clearly, when the barely literate McDonalds guy believes he is at the same level as me in arguing about evolution i cannot rely on my professional credentials to impress… And i prefer it that way. You see, unlike many i hold to no value the existance of authority.

     What my credentials give me, and that is why i mention them, is to be taken seriously as someone who have studied the subject for over a decade. The reason why i appear good at these type of arguments is practice. I know perfectly well what makes theists choke, like you did when #70 guy pointed out the falacy of an omnipotent being.

     Your response about my logic demonstrates clearly the rational holes you face when confronted with the issue. You could have summed up your answer in “this limitless being cannot do some stuff because…”. Now tell me if, with the most regards to intelectual honesty, a limitless being has limits how is he limitless.

     The long and old argument about God being perfect is based on what? I believe your not gonna say you go bowlling with the guy so i take it you are refering to what you read in the bible correct? And, if so, you uncapable of finding, in the bible, ocasions in which god made a mistake?

     Due to having debated this for years and having studied the “holy book” in detail i believe i would better most bible wavers in quiz about it.

     When god created Adam and then Eve and they screwed up by “eating the apple” (i LOL whenever i read this because it is like talking about bees and flowers with little children) wasn’t that a major blunder? Why does the “perfect god” creates mankind just to kill millions in a great flood afterwards? Why does god negotiate with Job? Why does he test Abraham? Did he not knew what the answer would be? Why does he let Job’s daughters do that incest thing? Why does he demand constant proof and test humans? Doesn’t he know the answers already?

     For me it is clear that no such god exist and that all the tests were a moral lesson to make people conform to the religious teaching. Again, why do you say he is “perfect”, and how does that perfectness is only in the eye of the beholder?

     Now for the challenge, proofs on evolution…
     Let’s just start by saying that i could fill your house with books and articles explaining, supporting and using evolution to make ediucated predictions that actually work (contrary to that ID stuff). It would take me months to teach you a full course in evolution (it actually takes months IRL due to the massive volume of information to have a clear picture of why this has been tested for 200 years and is still the biological paradigm today).

     So to sum it up (each of these subjects diserve several books):

     - Fossils (and yes, we do have transitional fossils all over the place, the accusation that we don’t, no matter how many times repeated is false)
     - Embryological data (you may want to check with your god why you had branchial arches in your development)
     - Celular data (Eucaryotic cell organization clearly demonstrates common ancestry)
     - Genetics (next time you go to the zoo search the chimps, because when you look at one you will be looking at a creature that has over 97% of your genes)
     - Compared anatomy (funny god was so unimaginative that gave whales and us the same damn bones…)
     - Population ecology (changing in genetic padrons in populations with reproductive isolation lead to speciation as described in tons of mathematical models)
     - Geology and plate tectonics are compatible with evolution, not ID
     - Geophysics
     - Basically every field of science that studies anything remotely related to the subject.

     And on and on…

     Compared to this you have… What?

147. velo
     November 19th, 2007 | 14:29

     @141

     Why would a monkey turn into a human? Its like saying a human would turn into a monkey. (and i bet you mean apes)

     Apes and humans share a common ancestor. (quite different)
     With that being said evolution does not have a goal, it does not automatically make a creature smarter/stronger/less hairy
     if it doesn’t benefit to its survival.

     We find more “missing links” for every year that passes. Just look at the homo-species found over the last 30 years.
     We will never find ALL missing links. Fossils are very rare to start of with, and add to it that 90% of all twigs on the “tree of life” have died out, i.e. leading to nowhere. To find a missing link is truly to find a needle in a haystack.

148. velo
     November 19th, 2007 | 14:45

     @144

     Proof for me is making something a fact. If i thought the world was flat and someone proved to me that it was round.
     Why the hell would i go back to believing it was flat?

     If 9/10 goes back to not believing in god, the proof must have been flawed.

     I’m talking about absolute proof here, evidence. Not “look, it says so here in this book so it must be true” or ” wow look at that tree, amazing isnt it, has to be magic man who done that”.

149. NettiWelho
     November 19th, 2007 | 14:52

     Theres no diffrence between micro and macro evolution, only creationists or scientists who have spent too much time in same space with creationists even recognize the ‘diffrence’

150. wah
     November 19th, 2007 | 15:16

     @143

     :LOL: “how do we know it?
     well, what i said wasn’t certainly in a nutshell. I was just warming you up. There’s more later…. But on top of that, YOU GOT THE TERMS ALL MIXED UP. Again, you failed to distinguish between the two terms. God determines the authority of a book by breathing His Word, speaking His Word. Allow me to repeat myself once again (sigh),

     Inspiration = it is one thing for god to give the scriptures their authority,
     canonization = and quite another for men to recognize that authority.

     In light of that,

     canonization = concerns the recognition and collection of the God-inspired, authoritative books of the sacred scriptures.

     canonicity is determined by god.

     Your question “how do we know if God inspired these books?” well i’ve already told how god inspired the books. what you really want to ask is:

     “How do we recognize, or know, the canonicity (that God canonized the scripture)?”

     Simple: the witness of the Holy Spirit.
     The recognition of canonicity was not a mere mechanical matter settled by a synod or ecclesiastical council. it was a providential process directed by the Spirit of God as He witnessed to the church about the reality of the Word of God. Man of himself could not identify the Word of God, but the Holy Spirit opened the eyes of their understanding so that they could recognize God’s Word. Are you still awake?

     John 10:27
     “My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me.”

     John 16:12-13
     “I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

     Time to get technical. This ain’t no to say that in some mystical way the testimony of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of believers settled the question of canonicity. The witness of the Spirit only established the reality of the canon, not its extent or limits. THE CANON WAS ESTABLISHED BY A TWOFOLD METHOD OF FAITH AND SCIENCE. Objective principles were used, but the subjective testimony of the Holy Spirit was in operation, confirming the reality of God’s Word to His people. in the providence of God, the principles were used to determine the extent of the canon, while the Holy Spirit gave assurance as to the reality of its essential message. The tests for canonicity were not mechanical means for measuring out the amount of inspired literature, nor did the Holy Spirit say, “This book or passage is inspired, that one is not.” This would be a revelation, not an illumination. Get it? The Holy Spirit neither witnessed to the exact extent of the canon nor settled the matters of textual criticism. He did providentially guide the process which gave assent to the limits of the canon as well as give witness to the people of God as to the reality of God’s Word wherever they read or heard it.

     There’s also the testimony of Christ, which is probably one of the most important ways we know it was God-inspired. Jesus taught definitely that God was the Originator of the Hebrew OT. He quoted as authoritative or authentic most of the 22 books of the Hebrew canon.

     Here’s a brief breakdown for ya:

     A. He considered every section, “Law and Prophets” and “Law, Prophets, and Psalms”, to be prophetic of Him.
     B. He believed that inspiration extended from Genesis through Chronicles, which was equivalent to saying “Genesis to Malachi”
     C. He asserted that the OT as a whole was unbreakable Scripture that would never perish, and that it must be fulfilled.
     D. Jesus personally authenticated persons and events of which i’m not at liberty to list, unless you want me to you,you ignorant bastard [J/K. a test to see if you're reading lol].
     E. Jesus not only defined the limits of the canon, that is the 22 books of the Hebrew OT, but He laid down the principle of canonicity, namely, the canon consists of that which is the “word of God.” i’m not at liberty to list His OT references, unless you want me to you

     Basically, the principle that “canonicity is determined by inspiration” was pronounced by Jesus concerning the OT and promised for the NT.

     NOTE: At first, it may appear that a circular argument is used, when it is stated that “Christ is the key to canonicity,” when all that is known about the teachings of Christ comes from that very canon, and the truth of that canon is being assumed in order to prove the underlying principle of the canon. However, such is not the case. What is presently being challenged is that:

     -Canonicity is determined by authority (inspiration).
     -Authority is known by Christ’s testimony.
     -Christ’s testimony is known by the authenticity of the record.

     since there is enough evidence to support the authenticity (and genuineness) of the NT (considering the 3 basic principles of historiography discussed earlier), and since the NT reveals that Christ taught that divine authority is imparted to the Scriptures through the process of inspiration, the authority of Christ becomes the crux of the canonicity of the bible.

     “However reading it is not intellectual suicide, believing it is.”

     wow. i know you didn’t read or understand the context of what i said earlier. John Warwick Montgomery states, the standard of test that literary critics still follow, Aristotle’s dictum that “the benefit of the doubt is to be given to the document itself, not arrogated by the critic to himself.” Therefore, “one must listen to the claims of the document under analysis, and not assume fraud or error unless the author disqualified himself by contradictions or known factual inaccuracies.” S.H. Horn’s text, in a nutshell, said, “to test the reliability of a historical document, one must read it to CRITICALLY analyze it, but not have to believe it.”

     And that is exactly what Camus did, and, to my guess, NOT ONE OF YOU have EVER done: is read the bible under criticism, to see if it is indeed true to what it said. Camus basically “checked out” the bible. Did he believe in the truth of the bible? probably not. But by reading the bible with an open mind, he certainly “gave the benefit of the doubt”. IOW, even though he didn’t believe in the bible, he assumed what the bible said is correct ONLY for the sake of critical analysis (something I doubt any of you are capable of). And that’s what Montgomery and Horn were saying: Once you critically analyze something only then you can make a final decision if it is logical or not. Did Camus not ask many questions about the bible? certainly he is critically analyzing the bible. And he couldn’t critically analyze the bible without first recognizing what the bible is really saying and you can’t recognize it without “giving it the benefit of the doubt” and you can’t “give it the benefit of the doubt” without reading it.

     It’s funny how you used a source that ‘opposes’ the use of a ‘tactic’ yet uses that very same ‘tactic’.

     to put in short, “giving it the benefit of the doubt” means believing, not Believing. Like, “If what this says is true, then this must happen.” Once you willfully block yourself off from opening up your mind to what could be true, whether it is true or false doesn’t matter, then you’ve immediately prevented yourself from knowing if it was true or not. There’s another term for that attitude. Willful ignorance. Camus believed that the quote in question was intellectual suicide because he was afraid what was before him might be true. and if it was true it would shake the foundations of his existence. even if he found what was to be true, he would not Accept or Believe it, if you catch my drift. Why? Pride and ignorance.

151. jurgnn
     November 19th, 2007 | 16:03

     If they allow ID in science class they should allow other creation stories also, hindus believe that lord brahmin split himself in two to create man and woman other creatures were made in same way.
     Other gods mostly snap fingers or say something like ‘be’ to create life, internet says that there is more than 500 different stories.

     I find it funny that some christians get offended by the idea that we evolved from apes, “we are no animals! we have morals etc!”.
     Show me ape that has killed 6m other apes.

152. NettiWelho
     November 19th, 2007 | 16:14

     Some mammal species show more human-like emotions than most humans in general

     so-called morals are vastly overrated, especially when with religion or politics they tend to be double-standards too

     me myself, if i have to choose between creation stories i pick the one regionally closest to me, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalevala#The_Storyline

     it has over 22 thousand verses

153. Who cares
     November 19th, 2007 | 16:18

     Thank you for this wonderful example (Inspiration - canonization) of circular reasoning. I have seen a lot of hollow sophistry, but this ranks top. How do you come up with this?

     Say, as someone who believes in talking snakes and giant wooden houseboats…don’t you think you might have the wrong character to appeal to another one’s respect of the benefit of the doubt?

154. NettiWelho
     November 19th, 2007 | 16:30

     actually im trying to parodise a generic fundamental christian if youre referring to me

     clearly not working tho

155. wah
     November 19th, 2007 | 16:53

     @133 in regards to free will

     God knows the future of what the free will creatures choose. Free will does not stop becoming free because God knows what will happen. For example, I know that my child will choose to eat chocolate cake over a bowl full of stinking dead mice. If I were to set them both before my child, it is safe to say she will not eat the dead mice. Knowing this is not taking away the freedom of my child since she is freely choosing one over the other. Likewise, for God to know what a person will choose does not mean that the person has no freedom to make the choice. It simply means that God knows what the person will choose. This is necessarily so since God knows all things (1 Joh 3:20). Besides, if a person were to choose A instead of C, then that is what God would have known would happen.

     Furthermore, if God knows all things and knows what we are going to choose, then by definition, we are still making the choice; after all, the argument says that God knows what “we are going to choose.” If we are going to choose” something, then we really are making the choice — otherwise it wouldn’t be logical to assert that God knows what we are going to choose. Choice implies the ability to decide between different options. Again, by definition if God is knowing what we are going to choose, then He knows what we are going to choose between options…otherwise we are not choosing anything and the statement is illogical.

     Back to the bowl of dead mice. The father, however, is not omniscient where God is. But does this difference negate the analogy? Not at all. Knowing what a person will do still does not force them or limit them to doing what is known. The complaint of those who say that if God knows what we are going to do then we don’t have “real” freedom is logically stating that God’s foreknowledge of an event somehow limits the event and the choice of the individual. The complaint implies that there is an action by God upon a person that negates His freedom to choose. It would be up to the complainer to establish some logical connection between what God knows what will happen and the mind of the one who makes a choice so that the mind of the person making the choice no longer is making a choice. It seems that the critics are saying that the choice-maker is affected by God’s knowledge to such an extent that his freedom is lost. If that is the case, then can they prove this logically? If not, then how can they maintain their position?

     God’s knowing what we will choose is a function of His omnipresence since He is in all places all the time. If He were not, He would not know what choices were were freely going to make. To deny that God is all knowing, even of the choices we make, is to deny His omnipresence and reduce God’s nature to something more like ourselves, which would be a mistake.

     Nevertheless, some people try and claim that God does not know what we will freely choose. But, this cannot be since it would violate the biblical teaching that God knows all things.

     @146 in reply to #105
     “What my credentials give me, and that is why i mention them, is to be taken seriously as someone who have studied the subject for over a decade. The reason why i appear good at these type of arguments is practice. I know perfectly well what makes theists choke, like you did when #70 guy pointed out the falacy of an omnipotent being.

     Your response about my logic demonstrates clearly the rational holes you face when confronted with the issue. You could have summed up your answer in “this limitless being cannot do some stuff because…”. Now tell me if, with the most regards to intelectual honesty, a limitless being has limits how is he limitless.

     The long and old argument about God being perfect is based on what? I believe your not gonna say you go bowlling with the guy so i take it you are refering to what you read in the bible correct? And, if so, you uncapable of finding, in the bible, ocasions in which god made a mistake?

     Due to having debated this for years and having studied the “holy book” in detail i believe i would better most bible wavers in quiz about it.”

     Certainly you deserved to be addressed seriously, from another person with a degree in computer science to one with a biology degree.

     CAN GOD MAKE A ROCK SO BIG HE CAN’T PICK IT UP?

     That’s the almighty question, no pun intended.

     I’ve encountered many atheists who use this type of paradoxes in attempts to prove that God cannot exist. It works like this. God is supposed to be omnipotent. If He is omnipotent, then He can create a rock so big that He can’t pick it up. If He cannot make a rock like this, then He is not omnipotent. If He can make a rock so big He can’t pick it up, then He isn’t omnipotent either. Either way demonstrates that God cannot do something. Therefore God is not omnipotent. Therefore God does not exist.

     Is this logical? A little. However, the problem is that this bit of logic omits some crucial information, therefore IMO, it’s conclusion is inaccurate.

     What the above “paradox” lacks is vital information concerning God’s nature. His omnipotence is not something independent of His nature. It is part of His nature. God has a nature and His attributes operate within that nature, as does anything and everything else.

     For example, I have human nature. I can run. But, I cannot outrun a lion. My nature simply does not permit it. My ability to run is connected to my nature and I cannot violate it. So too with God. His omnipotence is connected to His nature since being omnipotent is part of what He is. Omnipotence, then, must be consistent with what He is and not with what He is not since His omnipotence is not an entity to itself. Therefore, God can only do those things that are consistent with His nature. He cannot lie because it is against His nature to do so. Not being able to lie does not mean He is not God or that He is not all powerful. Also, He cannot cease to be God. Since He is in all places at all times, if He stopped existing then He wouldn’t be in all places at all time. Therefore, He cannot cease to exist without violating His own nature.

     The point is that God cannot do something that is a violation of His own existence and nature. Therefore, He cannot make a rock so big he can’t pick up, or make something bigger than Himself, etc. But, not being able to do this does not mean He is not God nor that He is not omnipotent. Omnipotence is not the ability to do anything conceivable, but the ability to do anything consistent with His nature and consistent with His desire within the realm of His unlimited and universal power which we do not possess. This does not mean He can violate His own nature. If He did something inconsistent with His nature, then He would be self contradictory. If God were self contradictory, He would not be true. Likewise, if He did something that violated his nature, like make a rock so big He can’t pick it up, He would also not be true since that would be a self contradiction. Since truth is not self contradictory, as neither is God, if He were not true, then He would not be God. But God is true and not self contradictory, therefore, God cannot do something that violates His own nature.

     Another way to look at it is realize that in order for God to make something so big He couldn’t pick it up, He would have to make a rock bigger than Himself. Since He is infinite in size, He would have to make something that would be bigger than Himself. Since it is His nature to be the biggest thing in existence because He created all things, He cannot violate His own nature by making a rock that is larger than He.

     Also, since a rock, by definition, is not infinitely big, then it isn’t logically possible to make a rock, something that is finite in size, be infinite in size (no longer a rock) since only God is infinite in size. At dictionary.com, a rock is defined as a “Relatively hard, naturally formed mineral or petrified matter; stone. a) A relatively small piece or fragment of such material. b) A relatively large body of such material, as a cliff or peak. c) A naturally formed aggregate of mineral matter constituting a significant part of the earth’s crust.” A rock, by definition is not infinitely large. So, to say that the rock must be so big that God cannot pick it up is to say that the rock is no longer a rock.

     What you are asking is that God become self contradictory as a proof He doesn’t exist. Such assertion is illogical from the start. So what you are doing is trying to get God to be illogical. You want to use illogic to prove God doesn’t exist instead of logic. It doesn’t work and the “paradox” is self-refuting and invalid.

     “You are using localized floods as proof? Or phenomena that took thousands of years? I’m sorry mate, but that won’t cut it. If you are gonna argue about a real flood geology you are going to do much better.”

     Taking this from your perspective, I should mention that stories are wonderful tools for teaching. Sometimes historical events have a tendency to be exaggerated to make a point. If Noah’s flood was not a local flood, then it didn’t happen since no evidence exists for such an event in the geologic record

     Or maybe it’s not that there is no evidence, Costa200, maybe it’s just that there is no evidence you are willing to accept.

     “You just admit that some middle eastern tribe witnessed a local event and then started some fables regarding that episode. And that was probably what happened. I had to take a whole freaking course on Stratigraphy and there was never any chance that a worldwide flood happened. Fossils on top of mountains could not get there in a flood simply because the ecological marks and core samples indicate that the ecosystems established themselves over thousands or millions of years, not in days. You guys not only want to kill modern biology, you want to take geology with it too”

     You mean like the Tigris-Euphrates river valley? To delight myself in the possibility that it has occurred to me that the story was not meant as a straightforward historical account of a real event, but maybe, just maybe, have been dressed up a little to make a point, I’d say that if we believe the story was based upon something that actually happened at one time, then given the physical evidence, it could only have been local (whether or not it was a “borrowed” story I don’t see as a separate issue–I don’t see why it couldn’t have been a borrowed account of a real local event that happened somewhere else–but I ramble). This is not to say that it was not a devastating event to those it happened to–anyone who lives along the great North American river valleys in the past decade can probably affirm that huge (but local) floods are incredibly devastating, both physically and emotionally. The apparent flooding of the Black Sea at about the right time sounds to me like an excellent candidate for the gem of such a story, considering the enormous extent such a flood would cover, and the different cultures it would have affected.

     Yet there’s 2 things that bother me in that scenario.

     1. The point of the flood was to destroy human civilization, rather than to destroy almost all life. If, at the time, all human civilization was in one valley (perhaps the future Black Sea and the surrounding area), it may be possible to flood the entire human world, w/o flooding the globe. Nowadays, the globe would need to be flooded to drown human civilization. Regardless if local, or global, God’s warning to Noah surely indicates the miraculous happening w/ the flood.

     2. Abraham is regarded as a Patriarch because all the Hebrews were his descendants. Abraham was from Ur, which was the capital of Sumer about the time that Abraham left. If the Bible is correct in both the flood narrative and biography of Abraham, the culture whose flood story most closely approximates the Hebrew flood, should be Sumer. For now, that seems to be the case. Though some may imagine they have challenged the credibility of the Bible, they are in fact validating it.

     BUT, on the other hand, if it was local, then the whole account is simply a lie.

     1. No possibility of forewarning. Even in our modern day, we can only warn of flooding being immanent or possible. In neither case do we find people building boats to ride it out. When one is warned, one presumably goes to higher ground!
     2. No time to build a boat. Why build a boat for a localized flood? That does seem a bit silly to me. Move, if you know ahead of time. Get to higher ground!
     3. No reason to save any animals. To entertain the idea of saving local animals? Maybe some livestock — by driving them to (ahem…grin…) higher ground…. Carry a pet with you or loaded in the wagon or something. But all the birds of the air, too?
     4. Since Mesopotamia is located west of the Zagros Range and south of the Turkish Ararat Range, the Mesopotamians knew about those mountains and lied about “all the high mountains everywhere” being covered.

     Yes, localized flooding, such as that which produced the Pacific Northwest scablands and cut the Columbia Gorge can be devastating. We see flooding in China and India and the various monsoon countries that are awful. Flash flooding in dry areas can be deadly. But these are all missing the elements of THE flood story which is found in so many cultures around the world: all men were killed except a family who survived on a boat and saved the animals with them; a family who was forewarned so they could build that boat for that flood.

     The Noah story really has to stand or fall as a worldwide flood due to those elements in it. There is too much “wrong” with it for it to be a story of a local flood, no matter how bad.

     But even so Costa200, your suggestion further intrigues me to critically analyze another question I’ve had for awhile in regards to a local flood.

     Is God a low pressure system?

     The best Biblically-based argument I know of that the Flood in Genesis was not merely some exaggerated local event but a world-wide one is Gen. 9:11. There God promised never to use a flood to destroy all flesh or the earth again. The argument continues by saying that since we still see deaths from localized flooding, God must have been talking about something truly global - or else Genesis is a lie as I suggested earlier.

     Again, trying to take this from your POS, the problem with this argument is that it presupposes that God is a direct causative agent in all storms. I call this the “God is a low pressure system” conjecture.

     Even with this, one can still have a localized flood exaggerated to make a point (mythologized) and still maintain God’s and the Bible’s integrity by claiming that all storms that have caused localized flooding since the time that the Flood myth supposedly took place are due to naturalistic causes rather than by God’s direct intervention - thus leaving God’s hands clean, so to speak, and the covenant unbroken (i.e. Insurance companies are wrong to call them “acts of God.”).

     However, my instincts is telling me that God isn’t a ‘low pressure system’. In regarding to God’s involvement with nature, I think there are a couple of Bible passages that speak to that:

     Colossians 1:16-17 — For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

     Zechariah 10:1 – Ask the LORD for rain in the springtime; it is the LORD who makes the storm clouds. He gives showers of rain to men, and plants of the field to everyone.

     Nevertheless, it seems to me that the causes of natural disasters points back to being the results of man’s rebellion against God. This would take us back to the judgment of the Flood and the changed ecosystem. The word of both comfort and encouragement we are given, though, can be found in Romans 8:28 – We know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.

     To me, this means God is always in control, no matter what happens, and that He won’t allow anything to happen that will not, in some way, benefit those who love Him.

     I guess what I am trying to say is that I don’t see where the Bible allows for a localized flooding at the time of Noah. Not just the narrative itself, but so many other points in the Bible indicate a one-time disaster which inundated the entire world. You say there is no evidence of this geologically. I say there obviously is. We both seem well-educated and smart, so I guess the answer is in how we interpret the geologic record…..

     In the meantime, about the rainbow. I don’t see it as saying that God is only involved in those storms that result in rainbows. I see the verse as saying that when there is a rainbow it will be a reminder of the covenant.

156. NettiWelho
     November 19th, 2007 | 17:03

     What about genetic diseases and inbreeding? it would take much more than 1 family to sustain a healthy population after the flood

     and no way they could have procreated fast enough with that child and mother mortality rate they used to have back then

     and there was no global flood, and if there was how the hell did the animals from other continents get there, and if america and australia were supposedly populated after noah’s time(much later after since required population to move), how come knowledge of the continents didnt survive?

     and they say science cant awnser the simpliest questions ^^

157. NettiWelho
     November 19th, 2007 | 17:12

     Aaand what about the apocalypse, theres this very hypothetical question ive been wondering, but no christian been able to awnser properly,

     if the apocalypse doesnt occur in few upcoming centuries, theres bound to be human colonies on other planets, and possible in other starsystems as well, would the people there be safe from the horrors mentioned in the … …. cant remember the english name… book of revalition or what it was?

     and since the horsemen/demons/locusts are all on earth humanity could practice some orbital bomboardment on them, or, since if they appear on earth, that can mean 2 things, therye made of regular matter/energy as the rest of us, therefore following the rules of our universe

     what if you killed them off with antimatter based weaponry, annhilitating their every atom, leaving absolutely nothing behind, converting them all into energy, nothing left to regenerate

     or just trap them in a black hole, the space bending on itself, and the fact that time practically would stop from observers point of view if something was alive in a black hole, stuck there for rest of the lifespan of the hole

158. wah
     November 19th, 2007 | 17:54

     hello?

159. wah
     November 19th, 2007 | 17:57

     @153 WHo Cares

     See I knew you weren’t gonna read the whole. I did a test you failed miserably. In fact, I added the following response at the end of the first half of my response, anticipating your response of “circular reasoning”:

     NOTE: At first, it may appear that a circular argument is used, when it is stated that “Christ is the key to canonicity,” when all that is known about the teachings of Christ comes from that very canon, and the truth of that canon is being assumed in order to prove the underlying principle of the canon. However, such is not the case. What is presently being challenged is that:

     -Canonicity is determined by authority (inspiration).
     -Authority is known by Christ’s testimony.
     -Christ’s testimony is known by the authenticity of the record.

     since there is enough evidence to support the authenticity (and genuineness) of the NT (considering the 3 basic principles of historiography discussed earlier), and since the NT reveals that Christ taught that divine authority is imparted to the Scriptures through the process of inspiration, the authority of Christ becomes the crux of the canonicity of the bible.

     “I have seen a lot of hollow sophistry, but this ranks top.”
     That’s well thought out answer. How convenient. But seriously appreciate the kind rejection.

     “How do you come up with this?”
     Research. Anyone can do it. Even a lab monkey.

     “Say, as someone who believes in talking snakes and giant wooden houseboats…don’t you think you might have the wrong character to appeal to another one’s respect of the benefit of the doubt?”

     If you’re able to entertain the idea that God could exist, then it is to be expected to consider the plausibility of miracles.

     And speaking of house boats. wow. you tripped on another land mine there.

     Could Noah’s Ark hold all the animals?

     God said to Noah in Genesis 6:14-16, “So make yourself an ark of cypress wood; make rooms in it and coat it with pitch inside and out. This is how you are to build it: The ark is to be 450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet high. Make a roof for it and finish the ark to within 18 inches of the top. Put a door in the side of the ark and make lower, middle and upper decks” (NIV). According to God’s Word, Noah built the ark. Eight people entered it and all humanity died in the ensuing flood.

     Could the ark really contain all the animals of the world? Let’s look at this in more detail. The ark took about 120 years to build. Noah was 480 years old when he began the work and he had the help of his wife, three sons, and his son’s wives. He probably hired local people to help in the construction.

     The dimensions of the ark have a ratio of six to one. The Ark was six times longer than it was wide. This is the best ratio for modern ship building. Model stability tests have shown that the design is stable for waves up to 200 feet high and that the ark could have rotated 90 degrees and still righted itself.

     The volume of the ark would be 450 feet long by 75 feet wide by 45 feet high. This equals 1,518,750 cubic feet and is comparable to 569 modern railroad boxcars. Therefore each boxcar, by comparison, would be 1,518,750 ÷ 569, or 2,669 cubic feet of space. The average size of an animal on the earth is smaller than a cat. But, just to keep it safe let’s consider the average size of an animal to be a sheep. The average double deck stock car holds 240 sheep. The Ark capacity would be about 569 x 240 equaling 136,560 animals of that size. However, that still is not accurate for our needs. Since most birds, reptiles, and amphibians are much smaller, let’s double the boxcar capacity for them. Therefore, the boxcars could each hold 480 different kinds of birds, reptiles, amphibians.

     Noah had to take two or seven of every kind of animal on the earth. Though it is not really known exactly what is meant by a biblical kind, it is generally considered to be animals that are fertile within their own groups. Any dog can breed with any dog, therefore, dogs are one kind. It would only be necessary to bring representatives of each kind since the parents could produce offspring that would carry the genetic information for all variations within their kind.

     Classification_____#of Species____#of Kinds on the Ark
     Mammals . . . . . 3,700 . . . . .3,700 (a few live in water)
     Birds . . . . . . 8,600 . . . . .60,200 (7 pairs [Gen. 7:3])
     Reptiles. . . . . 6,300 . . . . .6,300
     Amphibians. . . . 2,500 . . . . .2,500
     Fishes. . . . . . 20,600. . . . .zero
     Other marine life 192,605. . . . zero
     Insects . . . . . .850,000 . . . (Since insects are very small, and a great many could be stored in a small area, calculation would be difficult.)

     Total . . . . . . .1,072,305 . . .72,700

     The total number of mammals would be 3,700 times two pair which equals 7,400 animals. 7,400 divided by 240 = 31 boxcars used.

     Since Gen. 7:3 says to take seven pairs of every bird then the total for birds would be 8,600 times two pair times 7 or 120,400 animals. 120,400 ÷ 480 = 250 boxcars. The reptiles and amphibians would be 6,300 plus 2,500 or 8,800. 8,800 times two pair equals 17,600 animals. 17,600 divided by 480 = 37 boxcars.

     The total number of boxcars used would be 318 with a total number of animals at 145,400. There would be 251 boxcars left over. That means that only 56% of the ark would be used for storing the animals. Obviously, then, the rest of the space would be used for food for the people and animals and sleeping quarters. In addition, considering that insects are extremely small, it is easily conceivable that they could be housed in part of the remaining space.

     It should also be considered that many animals can hibernate. Additionally, predators and prey have been known to habitat peacefully together during situations of stress like fire, flood, or earthquake. In the Ark, normal animal behavior would probably have been different from normal. Specialists in animal behavior have noted that animals can sense danger and have often migrated to escape it. Perhaps God used their migratory instincts to get them to the Ark.

     Though this is only a brief analysis, it should present enough evidence that the Ark account is certainly within the realm of possibility.

160. NettiWelho
     November 19th, 2007 | 18:02

     *cough* continents separetd by oceans *cough*

     kangaroos, buffalos etc…

161. wah
     November 19th, 2007 | 18:02

     @139 regards to my alternate view of a global flood

     Did the flood really happen? Yes. Jesus said in Matt. 24:37-39 that the flood happened. If you can’t trust Jesus, you can’t trust anyone. As far as physical evidence goes there are numerous sedimentary deposits world wide which suggest a universal flood. There are countless fossil deposits world wide (For fossilization to occur organisms must be buried rapidly with sediment.). Every major culture has a flood legend. Of over 200 flood legends, 95% say the flood was universal; 70% say survival depended upon a boat; 66% say the wickedness of man was the cause; 88% say there was a favored family; 66% say the remnant was warned; 67% say animals were also saved; 57% say the survivors ended up on a mountain; 35% say birds were sent out; 9% say eight people were saved; and 7% mention a rainbow.

     Is there enough water to flood the entire earth? Absolutely! If the earth were perfectly spherical the oceans would cover all the land by more than a mile in depth. The biblical account is that it rained for 40 days and nights in which the floodgates of the heavens were opened up as well as the fountains from the earth (Gen. 7:11;8:2). There is a theory known as the canopy theory that states it had never rained on the earth up to the time of Noah and that a mist watered the plants (Gen. 2:6-6). The theory goes on to state that there may have been a heavy cloud or water vapor layer over the entire earth and that it was this canopy of water that became torrential rains during the flood period.

     Did the flood cover all the earth? Yes it did. The depth of the flood waters is described in Gen. 7:19 as covering “all the high mountains under the entire heavens.” Also, there are many references in the Bible to it being global: Gen. 6:1,4-5,12,13,17,19;7:4,6,10,19;8:3;9:15. There were 40 days of rain (Gen. 7:12), 110 days of flooding (Gen. 7:24) and 221 more days of draining (Gen. 8:1-5,13-14). That is a total of 371 days of flooding that covered the mountains. That could not be a local flood.

     I’m aware you don’t believe in anything from the bible, but be very careful about the next words you’re going to say.

162. BOB
     November 19th, 2007 | 18:15

     @159
     Ships aren’t boxes, theyre more wedge shaped. That cuts down about 50% of volume.

     You’ve packed the animals in like sardines, they don’t like that too much and they only pack them like that for transport, not for 40 days.

     For a ship to wright it self like that, especially one of that size, the ballasts would need to take up about half the hull. Modern day ships use ultra dense DU. I doubt noah had that.

     Wooden ships can’t be built that big. Biggest wooden ship ever built was 100m or about 330ft and that was using modern steel bracing.

     I’m an engineer, I get paid to know these things.

     Also your animal estimates are wrong. As of 2004, the figures are:

     1,250,000 animals, including:

     * 1,190,200 invertebrates:
     o 950,000 insects,
     o 70,000 mollusks,
     o 40,000 crustaceans,
     o 130,200 others;
     * 58,808 vertebrates:
     o 29,300 fish,
     o 5,743 amphibians,
     o 8,240 reptiles,
     o 10,234 birds, (9799 extant as of 2006)
     o 5,416 mammals.

163. wah
     November 19th, 2007 | 18:16

     @160
     *cough* geology of ancient times *cough*

164. wah
     November 19th, 2007 | 18:23

     @162

     Check this out:
     http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/has-noahs-ark-been-found/20060629173309990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001

165. wah
     November 19th, 2007 | 18:25

     @162 you also need to consider petrified wood.

166. wah
     November 19th, 2007 | 18:30

     @162 http://www.mexicobeachcwc.com/Noahsarkphotos.html/www.imdb.com/title/tt0473700/board/nest/83672803?p=2&d=90128347#90128347

     more pictures

167. Who cares
     November 19th, 2007 | 18:32

     Nono wah, I understood perfectly well: Some guys made gut decisions (about the texts) and then invented fany terms to make them appear justified. Happens every day in politics.

     Say, could you be a darling and stop copy-pasting nonsense from this pathetic apolegetics website carm.org?

168. wah
     November 19th, 2007 | 18:32

     @162

     Okay. Maybe ship science isn’t my speciality. I commend you for your expertise. Bravo.

     However, it’s important to mention in this discussion the historical non-Christian evidence of Noah’s ark…..

169. wah
     November 19th, 2007 | 18:33

     Anyway, here are some quotes from past notable historians about the subject that were compiled by a scholar named Richard Riss. This is Part One of a long article, as for some reason this website is refusing to let me post the whole thing at once due to content standards.

     THE HISTORICAL EVIDENCE FOR NOAH`S ARK
     Josephus (A.D. 37-c.100) stated that, in the country called Carroe, there were “in it the remains of the ark, wherein it is related that Noah escaped the deluge, and where they are still shown to such as are desirous to see them.”1 Elsewhere, Josephus wrote:
     .
     However, the Armenians call this place , the Place of Descent; for the ark being saved in that place, its remains are showed there by the inhabitants to this day.
     Now all the writers of barbarian histories make mention of this flood, and of this ark; among whom is Berossus the Chaldean. For when he was describing the circumstances of the flood, he goes on thus: “It is said, there is still some part of this ship in Armenia, at the mountain of the Cordyaeans; and that some people carry off pieces of the bitumen, which they take away, and use chiefly as amulets, for the averting of mischiefs.”–Hieronymus the Egyptian also, who wrote the Phenician antiquities, and Manases, and a great many more, make mention of the same. Nay, Nicholas of Damascus, in his ninety-sixth book, hath a particular relation about them; where he speaks thus: “There is a great mountain in Armenia, over Minyas, called Baris, upon which it is reported, that many who fled at the time of the deluge were saved; and that one who was carried in an ark, came on shore upon the top of it; and that the remains of the timber were a great while preserved. This might be the man about whom Moses the legislator of the Jews wrote.”2
     .
     The existence of the ark on Mt. Ararat is also mentioned by Theophilus of Antioch (c. 115-185), who stated, “and of the ark, the remains are to this day to be seen in the Arabian mountains.”3 A similar statement is made by Epiphanius of Salamis (c. 315-403), who said, “Do you seriously suppose that we are unable to prove our point, when even to this day the remains of Noah’s Ark are shown in the country of the Kurds?”4
     .
     Chrysostom (c. 345-407), wrote, “Have you heard of the Flood–of that universal destruction? That was not just a threat, was it? Did it not really come to pass–was not this mighty work carried out? Do not the mountains of Armenia testify to it, where the Ark rested? And are not the remains of the Ark preserved there to this very day for our admonition?”5
     .
     Isidore of Seville (c. 560-636) wrote: “Ararat is a mountain in Armenia, where the historians testify that the Ark came to rest after the Flood. So even to this day wood remains of it are to be seen there.”6
     .
     A thirteenth century Armenian prince, Jehan Haithon, wrote as follows:
     .
     In Armenia there is a very high mountain–the highest in existence–and its name is Ararat. On that mountain Noah’s Ark landed after the Flood. No one can climb this mountain because of the great quantity of snow on it winter and summer. But at the summit a great black object is always visible, which is said to be the ark of Noah.7
     Sir John Mandeville (d. 1372), an English knight, wrote an account of his travels between 1322 and 1356. In The Travels, chapter 13, he writes:
     .
     From that city of Artyroun men go to a mountain called Sabissocolle; and there beside is another mountain called Ararat, but the Jews call it Taneez, where Noah’s ship rested, and still is upon that mountain; and men many see it afar in clear weather. That mountain is full seven miles high; and some men say that they have seen and touched the ship, and put their fingers in the parts where the devil went out, when Noah said “Benedicte.”8

170. wah
     November 19th, 2007 | 18:35

     HISTORICAL EVIDENCE FOR NOAH’S ARK, Part Two
     (Continued)

     Adam Olearus (1603-1671) also travelled extensively, and wrote that “the Armenians, and the Persians themselves, are of opinion, that there are still upon the said Mountain some remainders of the Ark, but that Time hath so hardened them, that they seem absolutely petrified.”9
     .
     The ancient traditions of India and China include accounts of a time when the ancient world was carried away by a flood and re-peopled by a few who had been preserved miraculously. According to Hindu tradition, Manu was warned by a great fish that the earth was about to be engulfed by water. He was told to build a ship and to put into it all kinds of seeds, together with the seven Rishis, or holy beings. The flood came as predicted and covered the whole earth. The ship was made fast to the horns of the fish, which drew it on safely and finally landed it on the highest summit of the Himalayas. Manu was then permitted by God to create the new race of mankind.
     .
     There were seven companions of Manu, and, including himself, eight were saved. Manu is called Satya, or “the righteous.” After the flood, he drank mead and became senseless and lay asleep, [exposing himself]. One of the three sons who had been born to him, Charma, found him and called on his two brothers to witness the shame of their father, and said, “What has now befallen? In what state is our sire?” The two brothers were more dutiful than Charma and hid him with clothes. When he recovered his senses, and knowing what had happened, he cursed Charma and said to him, “Thou shalt be a servant of servants.”10
     .
     According to Chinese tradition, Fah-he escaped from a deluge which destroyed the human race with the exception of himself, his wife, his three sons, and three daughters, and from these, the whole earth was peopled.
     .
     Manetho, who lived about 250 B.C., wrote the ancient history of the Egyptians, according to which there was a worldwide catastrophe in which a person called Toth was saved. Before the cataclysm, Toth inscribed on a slab of stone in sacred language the principles of all knowledge. Afterward, he translated it into common language. The Egyptians connected the Deluge tradition with their commemoration of the dead, which was done by symbolic ceremony, in which the priest placed the image of Osiris in a sacred ark and launched it into the sea and watched it disappear from sight.11
     .
     In the ancient town of Apamea in Phrygia, there was a pillar upon which was carved an ark, which, according to tradition, had come to rest on that very spot. A coin was also found on one side of which was represented an ark with the door wide open and a patriarchal figure receiving a returning bird into the ark. On the other side of the coin is a man and his wife leaving the ark. On the ark itself appears the name “Noe.”12
     .
     The Roman Flood tradition was preserved by the well-known Latin poet Ovid, in Metamorphoses, while the Greek writer Plato preserved material on the flood tradition in his unfinished dialogue, Critias. Another ancient writer, Lucian (A.D. 120- 180), renders the Greek tradition as follows in his Dialogues on the Syrian Goddess:
     .
     Not one of us now living is descended from the original race of men, who all perished. We, numerous as we are, are no other than a second race sprung from Deucalion. The aborigines were full of pride and insolence, unfaithful to their promises, inhospitable to strangers, deaf to supplicants. Hence they were overtaken by a greater disaster. The earth suddenly opened its sluices, heavy showers of rain fell, the rivers swelled, and the sea arose until the waters everywhere prevailed, and every mortal [perished] except Deucalion, who on account of his virtue and piety, was saved to give birth to a new race of men. He put himself with his wives and children in a great chest, and thereupon there came to him boars and horses and lions and serpents and all kind of land animals. He took them all in, and all the time they were with him Zeus ordered it so that they did no injury, but lived together in harmony.13
     .
     The native North American Kolushes of Alaska had an ancient tradition that the father of the Indian tribes formerly lived toward the rising sun. Having been warned in a dream that a deluge would desolate the earth, he built a raft on which he saved himself and his family, and all animals. He floated for several months on the water. The animals, who could then talk, complained against him. A new earth at length appeared, and he then alighted with all the animals, which then lost the power of speech as a punishment for their complaining.14
     .
     The native Mexican historian, Ixtilxochitl, wrote as follows:
     .
     It is found in the histories of the Toltecs that this age and the first world, as they call it, lasted 1,716 years; that men were destroyed by tremendous rains and lightning from the sky, and even all the land, without the exception of anything, and the highest mountains were covered up and submerged in water fifteen cubits (caxtolmolatlic); and here they add other fables of how men came to multiply from the few who escaped from this destruction in a `toptipetlocali,’ which nearly signifies a closed chest; and how, after men had multiplied, they erected a very high `zacvali,’ which is today a tower of great height, in order to take refuge in it should the second world (age) be destroyed. Presently their languages were confused, and, not being able to understand each other, they went to different parts of the earth. The Toltecs, consisting of seven friends, with their wives, who understood the same language, came to these parts, having first passed great land and seas, having lived in caves, and having endured great hardships in order to reach this land; they wandered 104 years through different parts of the world before they reached Hue Hue Tlapalan, which was in Ce Tecpatl, 520 years after the Flood.15
     .
     Flood traditions of this kind are characteristic of just about all ancient cultures. Dr. Richard Andree, a German scholar, has compiled a collection of 88 different flood traditions from various cultures around the world.16
     There have been many modern sightings of Noah’s ark. In 1905, a ten-year-old Armenian boy, Georgie Hagopian, went with his uncle from Azerbajain in Old Persia to Mount Ararat and saw Noah’s ark.17 An interview with Mr. Hagopian is printed in John Warwick Montgomery’s book, The Quest for Noah’s Ark, which refers to him as George Tamisian.18
     .
     In 1916, during the First World War, a Russian airman, W. Roskovitsky, flying over Mt. Ararat, stated that he had observed on one of the slopes of Mt. Ararat the remains of an ancient vessel. The Czar organized an expedition, which found the remains in question and brought back a description of them which was conclusive with respect to their identification. The report was lost during the Bolshevik revolution in 1917.19
     .
     In the 1930s a New Zealander, Hardwicke Knight, stumbled upon the remains of Noah’s ark without realizing what it was until some time later.20 Then, in 1952, George Jefferson Greene took photographs of Noah’s ark from a helicopter. These photographs were lost ten years later, when he was murdered for his gold.21
     .
     There have been many recent reports of sightings of Noah’s ark, including that of Chuck Aaron of Orlando, Florida, in September of 1989. He and Bob Garbe photographed the ark during a September 15 flight. These photos are available from the Immanuel Expedition Foundation in Orlando, Florida.22

171. wah
     November 19th, 2007 | 18:36

     HISTORICAL EVIDENCE FOR NOAH’S ARK, Part Three
     (Continued)

     REFERENCES
     1. Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Je_ws, XX, ii, 2, in The Works of Flavius Josephus, 2 vols., trans. William Whiston (Philadelphia: J. Grigg, 1833), vol. II, p. 107.
     .
     2. Josephus, Antiquities of the Je_ws, I, iii, 5 and 6, in Whiston, vol. I, pp. 17, 18.
     .
     3. Ad Autolycum, book 3, chapter 19, trans. Marcus Dodds, in the Ante-Nicene Fathers (1885), vol. II, p. 117.
     .
     4. Panarion, I,i,18, trans. John W. Montgomery, The Quest for Noah’s Ark, 2d ed. (Minneapolis, Minn.: Bethany Fellowship, 1974), p. 77.
     .
     5. John Chrysostum, sermon, “On Perfect Charity,” trans. John W. Montgomery, The Quest For Noah’s Ark, p. 78.
     .
     6. Isidore of Seville, Etymologies, in “Scriptorium Classicorum Bibliotheca Oxoniensis,” (1911), XIV,8,5, trans. Montgomery, p. 80.
     .
     7. Trans. Montgomery, pp. 82-83.
     .
     8. Quoted by Montgomery, pp. 93-94.
     .
     9. The Voyages and Travels of the Ambassadors, trans. John Davies (London, 1662), Book IV, p. 187.
     .
     10. Hugh Miller, The Testimony of the Rocks (Edinburgh: Thomas Constable & Co., 1857), p. 290.
     .
     11. John Urquhart, Modern Discoveries and the Bible (London: Marshall Brothers, 1898), p. 175.
     .
     12. Alfred M. Rehwinkel, The Flood (St. Louis, Mo.: Concordia Publishing House, 1951), p. 144.
     .
     13. Quoted by Byron C. Nelson, The Deluge Story In Stone (Minneapolis, Minn.: Bethany Fellowship, 1968), p. 175.
     .
     14. Ibid., p. 183.
     .
     15. Quoted by Ibid., pp. 186-187.
     .
     16. Richard Andree, D_ie Flutensagen, ethnologisch betrachtet, as cited by Rehwinkel, pp. 129-130.
     .
     17. Violet Cu_mmings, Has Anybody Really Seen Noah’s Ark? (San Diego, Ca.: Creation-Life Publishers, 1982), p. 217.
     .
     18. Montgomery, pp. 113-118.
     .
     19. Ibid., pp. 119-125; Cu_mmings, pp. 61-108.
     .
     20. Montgomery, pp. 125-128.
     .
     21. Montgomery, pp. 128-131; C_ummings, pp. 143-148.
     .
     22. “Yanks: We Discovered Noah’s Ark,” in The Home News, Friday, September 22, 1989, p. A6.

172. wah
     November 19th, 2007 | 18:37

     Here is the real site with pictures of NOah’s ark.

     http://www.mexicobeachcwc.com/Noahsarkphotos.html

173. BOB
     November 19th, 2007 | 18:38

     “Bible Archaeology Search and Exploration”

     Sorry science seeking an explanation for an ends is not valid. You’re starting off with a definite answer and trying to fill the gaps.

     Would you trust an article on race from, say for example, “White Supremisist Weekly”?

     Do you have an article from a more neutral institute?

     From wiki
     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Searches_for_Noah%27s_Ark#Locating_the_mountains_of_Ararat
     “In June 2006, Bob Cornuke of the fundamentalist Christian Bible Archeology Search and Exploration Institute took a team of 14 American “business, law, and ministry leaders” to Iran to visit a site in the Alborz Mountains purported to be a possible resting place of the Ark. The team did not include any archaeologists or geologists among its members.”

     So there was no one qualified? I wouldn’t trust a priest to do my plumbing. You shouldn’t trust a business/law/ministry leader to do your science.

     You havent addressed my issues of ballasts, free space and size constraints on modern ship building. Even the most high tech steel hulled ship is only 450m long and that’s still sitting in a dry dock in Korea.

174. BOB
     November 19th, 2007 | 18:41

     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BASE_Institute#Noah.27s_Ark_Controversy

     What say you?

     Also petrified wood is not a legitimate construction material. It’s basically fosilized wood.

175. wah
     November 19th, 2007 | 18:45

     @167

     Why? does it bother you?

     If it does, i’ll save the hassle.

     Here’s breakdown of Noah’s ark:
     http://www.carm.org/questions/noahsark.htm

     But what’s his name argues otherwise, expertly I might add. Hence posts for “Historical Evidence of Noah’s Ark”

176. wah
     November 19th, 2007 | 18:47

     @145 Costa200

     “When god created Adam and then Eve and they screwed up by “eating the apple” …blah blah blah”

     This is in continuation of my earlier response (post 155).

     For such an intellectual person, you don’t seem to score high on the EI test if you know what i mean…[to.be.continued]

177. wah
     November 19th, 2007 | 18:50

     Have you ever entertained the idea that God wanted to have a deep personal intimate relationship with His own creation? And you can’t have that without ‘drama’ if you know what i mean. ‘drama’ as in all those unnecessary things you were talking about. even so, it doesn’t negate god’s nature. His understanding is beyond ours. He has a purpose for everything if you actually read it in proper context before making ignorant statements. He works in mysterious ways. If God was playing golf, He’d more than likely hit the ball to ricochet off of many objects just to get to the hole in one instead of just hitting it just straight to the hole, know what i mean?

     But let’s take it from your POS.

     If God is all knowing why did He create Satan who He knew would fall?

     That question basically sums up your concerns.

     Before I begin, I’d like to point out to you that maybe because you haven’t realized the following clarification is because trying to understand some things about God from a intellectual/logical standpoint is extremely difficult, if not, impossible. Why? God mostly operates from an emotional/relational level. If you can’t relate to him on that level then you can’t understand what God is trying to say to us in the bible. You see we have three parts in the brain: physical, emotional, and logical. Super-intellects normally operate in the logical, and most of the time they’re geeks and nerds and nice boys, that’s why they don’t get the girls because they can’t relate to them on the emotional gut level. The problem with men is that our physical part of the brain overpowers our emotional part while the emotional part overpowers our logic. Physical = involuntary reactions, sneezing, sexual drive. Emotional = our natural reaction to past life events, like trauma, bad/good experiences. Logical = rational. SO just because something doesn’t logically make sense, doesn’t mean it’s automatically moot on the emotional/physical level or, in this case, state of being is non-existent. OK so now wer’e through with human physiology 101.

     At the risk of sounding flippant, why not tackle your previous question: If God is all knowing why did He create Satan who He knew would fall? For what reason or reasons should God have not created the devil even if he was going to fall? Just because God knows what will happen doesn’t mean that the person (angel) isn’t free to make choices. Satan freely chose to rebel against God. God knew this would happen. Nevertheless, let me offer some possible reasons why God would create Satan even though He knew he would fall and rebel.

     1. It was necessary to have the fall so that God could then have a reason to die for our sins thereby demonstrating that God can and does provide the greatest act of love which is to lay ones life down for his friend (John 15:13).
     2. The fall of Satan provides yet another method for God to be glorified in that God can use sin to prove that sin is “bad” and that God’s word about righteousness is true.
     3. If God is to have creatures with free will, then the risk of rebellion is part of that freedom. Satan had that freedom and used it to rebel.
     4. If God had not created Satan and instead another angel fell, then we’d be asking why God made that angel knowing he would fall.
     5. God has reasons that we simply do not know about.

     You know your children will act badly at times, but knowing that does not mean that you shouldn’t have kids. Part of the risk of freedom is that rebellion will be a reality.

178. wah
     November 19th, 2007 | 18:51

     @157

     LOL. You have quite an imagination. I commend that. But your hypothetical question coupled even with a proper hypothetical answer means nothing for either side. Basically, it means nothing because it doesn’t correspond with reality at all. Any hypothetical situation can be taken to basically any extreme to accommodate the question in doubt. And even without a proper answer, the theory actually doesn’t prove or negate anything for that matter. It’s pure speculation at its best. I have close personal friends who use to ask me a whole bunch of “what if” questions. God it was annoying. I felt like they were knats buzzing around. Who cares. Stop living in never-never land. But if you’re looking for a closing answer to all that. God won’t allow your story to happen. Period.

179. BOB
     November 19th, 2007 | 18:54

     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Ararat#History

     “and of the ark, the remains are to this day to be seen in the Arabian mountains.”

     Mount Ararat was never an Arab moutain. The closest thing to Arab is Persian and they’re completely different.

     Also why is Jesus always depicted as a white guy? He was born in Bethlehem which is smack bang in the Middle-East. Most likely he would have had olive skin.

180. wah
     November 19th, 2007 | 18:55

     Wow. you seem to know your stuff. But that doesn’t negate Noah’s Ark. You must disprove all evidence before it, including historical ones buddy.

181. wah
     November 19th, 2007 | 18:58

     Mr. Bob Cournoke you sire are first challenge of the week.

     @179 Jesus’s sking.

     Jesus is depicted as a white guy because the European Roman Catholics gave him that image. Olive skin? probably the same color any other people in those areas. ALthough, i’ve heard there were black jews in those areas at the time so i guess jesus could’ve been black. Possible but i highly doubt it.

182. Who cares
     November 19th, 2007 | 19:00

     Yo, wah @177
     “God has reasons that we simply do not know about”

     So the best thing would be to shut down our brain and declare a theocracy

183. wah
     November 19th, 2007 | 19:03

     @182

     oops what i meant was his reasoning is beyond our understanding.

184. BOB
     November 19th, 2007 | 19:05

     No the onus is on you to prove something exists, not for me to prove something doesn’t exist.

     There are two ways to “prove” something. To search every corner of this universe and explore every possibility and say “I can’t find it” OR to positively prove something by showing evidence.

     Obiously the former is impossible and impractical. Logical reasoning demands for you to pressent evidence to prove your claim.

     That’s why the criminal law system is based on “innocent until proven guilty”.

     Or for example if I claimed I had a billion dollars in a Swiss bank account. You’d say “prove it” - It’s up to me to prove it. Me saying “disprove me” doesnt make any sense.

185. wah
     November 19th, 2007 | 19:16

     it may appear to you that way. but look at it from my perspective.

     “No the onus is on you to prove something exists, not for me to prove something doesn’t exist.”

     ahh. on the contrar mi amigo. I’ve already presented evidence, it’s up to you to disprove it.

     “There are two ways to “prove” something. To search every corner of this universe and explore every possibility and say “I can’t find it” OR to positively prove something by showing evidence.”

     I heard this one before. In fact I use it sometimes and while the former is true, the ladder is not, as I can see you changed it, thereby making it a fallacious statement. IN regards to the ladder part, all you need is the slightest evidence that indicates the possibility of the object in question. Then it is up to you disprove that.

     “Obiously the former is impossible and impractical. Logical reasoning demands for you to pressent evidence to prove your claim.”

     Yes. You would be correct IF THAT STATEMENT IS TRUE. But that doesn’t belong to the equation.

     “Or for example if I claimed I had a billion dollars in a Swiss bank account. You’d say “prove it” - It’s up to me to prove it. Me saying “disprove me” doesnt make any sense.”

     Consider this example: Gold. Base on the two premises above, in order to prove that gold does not exist you would have to search every crevice of the earth to prove that it does not exist. However, if one shred of evidence that is found to indicate that gold might exist, then the proof must be disproved by the other side. Either case, the evidence in question is enough to substantiate a plausibility. What is the evidence in question: gold dust. One can find gold dust and know that gold exist, even though you’ve haven’t found the actual gold. OR let’s replace the object in question with water. ALl you need is rust, or whatever evidence that water leaves behind.

     So, i’ve already provided evidenece, or ‘trail’, that indicates the historicity of NOah’s ark. NOw it’s time for you to disprove them. It’s simple as that.

186. BOB
     November 19th, 2007 | 19:28

     Gold dust is equivalent to gold.

     You can only prove water exist if the evidence left behind is exclusive to water.
     Bits of petrified wood is not ark. It could be a number of things. Did you read the part about the one person in a group that described it as basalt? Or the part about several other creationist geologists denouncing the group? There’s a 7000 word article on why that wasn’t the ark on one of the links.

     I provided several sources that showed that your evidence was dubious at best.

     Not to sound condescending, bu t how old are you? I’m guessing you’re fairly young from the way you type and the mistakes in some simple words.

     Anyway I’m going to bed. All I can say is ask more questions , get your information from less biased sources and read both sides of the arguments so you know what you’re debating against.

187. Who cares
     November 19th, 2007 | 19:32

     Yes wah, exactly what I mean. If his reasoning is beyond our understanding, then we cannot rely on our own reasoning in principle, because our very institution of reasoning, science, clearly contradicts the bible, in respect to our genesis and to the history of the middle east.
     That’s why I said: Let’s abondon your reason and declare a theoracy. I mean…it would be the sensible thing to do

188. velo
     November 19th, 2007 | 19:57

     Just a bit of fun for you flood suporters.

     http://youtube.com/watch?v=w6-8XhJa6Ds

     http://youtube.com/watch?v=mcA7s4UO4sY

     http://youtube.com/watch?v=0rwwg1olQ68

189. costa200
     November 19th, 2007 | 20:56

     @155 wah

     “Or maybe it’s not that there is no evidence, Costa200, maybe it’s just that there is no evidence you are willing to accept. ”

     Floods leave very clear signs in the geological evidence. The sediments and hydrologic selection along with certain depositions of strata are a dead give away that a flood has ocurred in a certain timeframe. If someone tomorrow managed to demonstrate that there is a continum of such evidence worldwide he would bust most of modern geology (which would then be old geology)and have his name ingraved in the halls of science. Apparently nobody, not for the lack of trying, could ever do this. The padron of sea rise and fall, the sediments left behind, all of it indicate a very old Earth with tectonics and an absence of a worldwide flood.

     This is not saying the biblical account is totally made up. Certain local events, such as the ones you mentioned, may be the root of this myth. Let us not forget that the story must have been centuries old when it was laid on writting. Oral tradition certainly took its price on the accuracy.

     Plus, there isn’t enough water in the planet to do what the biblical version tells us. Even if all the ice and water vapor suddenly became liquid there isn’t enough water to rise the sea level to do what the biblical version says. Unless one is to resort to magical thinking (in which case everything is possible) i cannot see how this would be feasible in this planet.

     “To me, this means God is always in control, no matter what happens”

     Being in control and then just wipe out all the world? In computer science that would be the equivalent of a techie guy saying he had the system “under control” and then went on formating the hard drive. If that is control…

     “You say there is no evidence of this geologically. I say there obviously is. We both seem well-educated and smart, so I guess the answer is in how we interpret the geologic record…..”

     It’s not how i interpret it. Although i’ve taken some heavy duty Geological training (i freaking hate foraminids) i’m not even an expert. The way Geologists as a community see the issue is the point here. If you go to a Geologist and ask him to look at some data regarding the possibility of a worldwide flood what are you going to show him?

     Because he can bury you (literally…) in Core sample data of places that should have been flooded and never were.

     Also, if there was such a flood how is it that fresh water fish survived? A tiny unbalance in salt levels kills fish like nothing else. A worldwide flood with the sea covering mountains would just wipe out every single fresh water fish that could not cope with salt. Given this, you either resot to magic to explain it or fresh water fish evolved from other fish, but in this case we don’t have enough time for that to happen (isn’t the flood supposed to have happened some 4000 years ago?)

     Also, there is the slight problem that certain archeological findings should show marks of the flood. After all, the Sphynx is older than that and shows no marks. Also, how can one family populate the whole world fast enough to, after the flood, build great works, like the pyramids and other wonders. Where did all the manpower come from?

     If you look at the population graph we have until the industrial revolution, human growth was very low at all times. This only changed with modern technology. How can a family suddenly populate everyware?

     And why could paintings in caves survived intact? those caves must have been underwater during the flood!

     Clearly, the fact point to a local event (many candidates here, just take your pick), and not a worldwide event.

     Also, on the ark. A ship that big (although not big enough to hold half the animal species for 40 days, as writters seem to have forgot about plants or something since many species of plants would not have survived in the salted land after the flood) would brake itself apart. There is no way a pre industrial age guy would be able to make such a boat and have it floating around for 40 days in what would seem harsh conditions. Not even mentioning the fact that such an ark built on land would probably crash itself on the solid ground as it would not have a propulsion mechanism. Again, only by resorting to divine help can you hope to keep that baby floating. But, if you are going to use magic to get rid of every pratical impossibility then you can basicaly stop concerning yourself with all these matters because magic explanations cannot be tested and are not scientific.

     And the “petrified wood”… Sorry but i just had to LOL at it. Any kid at my class could point out a very common formation of basaltic columns. Mount ararat is vulcanic, so what you see is a natural aspect of a vulcanic basaltic cone.

     See here, more petrified wood all over the place:

     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basalt

     (using wiki cuz i’m lazy and even wiki had to have this)

     See this one (i use it as an example in class):

     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Boyabat.jpg

     I can see how a person with no geological training can mistake it with “petrified wood” but i cannot accept that people pretending to do serious scientific work just ignore something i’ve taught to 7th graders… What kind of “scientific” background do they have?

190. Darth Arcon
     November 19th, 2007 | 21:34

     @wah
     Ive got to hand it to you, you are much more passionate about this than I will ever be. I would love to show fallacy in these people, but I could tell from the very beginning it was a lost cause. I honestly was surprised I pursisted as long as I did. These people (mainly Costa and velo to my observation, mainly Costa) continue to give me the same excuses they have been trying to disprove me. It was a pleasure to read your replies. Anyways, this is a wrap for me. BTW, its Darth not Death… =)

     In reply to Costa, heh…How many times would you like me to state the same thing I have been saying? Im sorry, but I just cant continue on like this. Perhaps if it was just you and me without the worry that something is going to be said while Im not here, I could show interest. Obviously, though, that is not the case. You should be proud of yourself, though. You have got to be the best insulter I have ever met…what a thing to be respected for…

     And for velo, I know you wernt trying to attack me, that is why I settled down a bit in my last post. You, unlike the Costa guy, actually have an open mind and are willing to hear both sides of the argument. While you do have bias, you cant claim more bias than what I would show myself. I respect you, and for that Im going to give you one of the thoughts I have had. I have logically thought through this quite a bit, and I give it to you at face value. As I said before, your logic is what gets you to the conclusion you end up at. It doesnt matter how hard I think it through, it is you that needs to choose. Do with this what you will: ignore it, think through it yourself, believe it. It is up to you. As for me, Im not going to be coming back on to this page again. Honestly, I dont have the time to waist debating when I can already see the conclusion, right back where we started. Anyway, here it goes…

     The subject of morality is a tough one to think about. It is a subject that science fears, mainly because science has virtually no hold on it. When one thinks of morality, it requires only thought; no experiments, no observation of phenomenon, no hypothesizing.

     When dealing with morality, there are two sides of debate: moral objectivism and moral subjectivism (I think I made up those words…). When one enters the thought of morality, they HAVE to join one side, and it is usually the side that agrees with his/her disposition to life.

     If you believe morality is objective, it means you believe in absolute truth. If you believe in absolute truth, you believe in absolute power. Finally, if you believe in absolute power, you believe in a god of some kind.

     If you believe morality is subjective, it means you believe truth is relative to the situation. This means you dont believe in a god.

     Yet, when you look at morality without bias (or as little as possible at least), you notice something. Lets look at a simple hypothetical situation: Lets say a boy on his 16th birthday steals a gun, shoots 200 men, rapes those men’s wives, and then is shot and killed by police. Gruesome, huh? I can guarantee you it doesnt matter what you believe in, that is a horrible crime. Why do you think that, though? If we look at, say, a monkey (for lack of a better subject) that kills 200 other monkeys and has sexual intercourse with 200 female monkeys, the situation is perfectly normal (maybe not “normal” normal, but it is a possibility). During my studies in Biology, I was told that according to natural selection, the most fit of a species is the one who has the most offspring. I can honestly say that a large number of the females in both situations above are going to be pregnant because of the situation. That monkey is one of the most fit monkeys of all time; it had a lot of offspring. However, that boy would be called a psychopath and put to death, obviously, when he refused to cooperate with authority. So, if your evolution is true, how would you explain that situation (<–rhetorical question)? At what point between the evolution of the monkey (the animal) into a human (the…human) did such a situation become wrong? The answer? It didnt, because it never happened.

     Conclusion: evolution fails to explain why theft, rape, and murder are considered bad in human society. After all, according to evolution, that boy would be one of the fittest human beings to ever live. If evolution really did happen, then it is impossible to look at human life as being worth anything. It doesnt matter if a giant meteor destroys the planet, or if the human race destroys itself with atomic bombs. Who cares in evolution? Who cares what happens? What advantage does the survival of humans play in the grand scheme of things if evolution is true? The energy level of the universe stays the same while matter is neither created nor destroyed. Whether humans exist or not has no effect on that fact…

     When evolutionists try to argue that their belief is true, they pretty much contradict themselves just by opening their mouth. According to evolution: There is no overall effect on the universe whether human beings believe in evolution or a fantasy. It doesnt change anything. Therefore, at the very least, why would you take the chance believing in evolution if there is even the slightest possibility that youre wrong. Because if YOU are wrong, you end up in a rather bad place while if IM wrong, I end up just like you…in the ground…dead…What advantage did you have in being right?

     So, there is some brain food for you to munch on a while. Ignore it if you want, criticize it if you want, believe it if you want. It matters not to me. Cant say I didnt try…

191. costa200
     November 19th, 2007 | 21:50

     “Conclusion: evolution fails to explain why theft, rape, and murder are considered bad in human society.”

     Pfff… Hey! The theory of gravity also fails at this and the theory of germ caused diseases… Lets replace it with bible study.

     It is clear, by your tone, that you cannot argue this subject and clearly you can’t even keep your head over the water in this type of intelectual debate.

     “Because if YOU are wrong, you end up in a rather bad place while if IM wrong, I end up just like you…in the ground…dead…What advantage did you have in being right?”

     Are you kidding? not mentioning the advantage of going for the truth instead of what might happen, the fact that you choose to live your whole life with limitations to your sex life (yes i’m into humour right now) because a supposed divinity is watching doesn’t ring a bell? Yes, we will end up mostly the same way (you with a cross on top and me without it i believe) but i will not go deprived of the fun i could have gotten out of life. Can you say the same?

     Also, how do you know you are following the right god? What if purgatory is like that Mr Bean comedy show and a guys says “to the left to hell… Lawyers… thiefs… Christians… what is that? OH sorry… the jews were right…)

     I don’t honestly see how you can get a point on me. I’m living the life i want as a moral person and i feel, at the moment, very well with myself both professionally and with my family. I’ve never wronged anyone intentionally and honestly i do not believe a kind god (he is that right) would ever screw me over because i did not believe he existed. On the other hand i think he would be very pissed at that christian assassin that went to church every sunday.

192. SoniKalien
     November 19th, 2007 | 23:47

     Is anybody actually reading any of these diatribes?

193. Not Stupid
     November 20th, 2007 | 00:09

     Damn, I thought this thread was dead by now. Anyway, seeing that “(G)god(s)” is a title and NOT a name, what is his name? The word “god” comes from “El” and “gods” come from “Elohim”. Now these words are not Hebrew or Aramaic but instead are Philistine (or modern day Palestine). Strange enough, these words could ALSO be used for “demon” or “demons”. So, clearly using “(G)god(s)” in-place of using his REAL name shows ignorance on those who profess to love the TRUE CREATOR (insert name here). Oh, I wont accept the “He has many names” lame azz excuse either (this saying stems from Egypt). He has 1 name like you and I have. It is known so look around. And no… we can not call Steve by David’s name either and vice versa.

     Let me ask you another, since you “Christians” love to type novels that would show MORE of your paganism roots. In ancient times the title “BAAL” was used to address the beings that these people worshiped. But not only was it used to that effect but the title was also used to address men AND animals. Throughout time this word was changed to HIDE or conceal what is now going on, rampant paganism within the churches and synagogues(sic). How do you feel every time you use the word “Lord” to address YOUR Saviour? Do you know the root word for “Lord” is “BAAL”?

     Christianity today, is for people who can not think for themselves or unable to search the truth to save them from lets say a…. a fiery pit? But they love to celebrate “Christmas” Jeremiah 10:1-10 (i think) and crap like that.

     It seems to me that people who “profess” to love the Creator (insert name here) really mean to PISS him off!

194. Not Stupid
     November 20th, 2007 | 00:14

     Nobody can trust the KJV anymore.

195. Darth Arcon
     November 20th, 2007 | 01:23

     You have no idea how much I wanted to keep my promise and stay off this page. Unfortunately, I am only human…I guess Im going to have to break my promise…

     Costa, dont flatter yourself. Your responses were pathetic at best…

     “Pfff… Hey! The theory of gravity also fails at this and the theory of germ caused diseases… Lets replace it with bible study.”

     Hmm…wow…what kind of half thought through response is that?! So tell me something, you want me to solve your little contradicting saying, yet you are too scared to even try mine? If not by science, how would you confront what I said? Science seems to be the only thing you hold dear, yet you arnt even going to try? Bah…

     “Are you kidding? not mentioning the advantage of going for the truth instead of what might happen, the fact that you choose to live your whole life with limitations to your sex life…”

     Who cares if you hit the truth or not? Who cares about your happiness. Cmon, guy? Surely you must have a better response than that. I love it when people like you take things I say way out of context, ignoring entire segments I say. Your happiness means NOTHING! Your truth means NOTHING! Hmm…I can go on…Im not saying that I think they are nothing, or that you think they are nothing. On the contrary, they are the entire reason Im still typing. No, it is your belief that says they mean nothing! Oh and FYI, even though I “limit” myself as to what I do, I can say without any doubt that my life is a rather happy one. I wont lie, there are some bumps I would prefer to get rid of (to make it clear, the bumps wernt caused by my “limited” morality…), but overall I could be as happy as you seem to be with your limitless morality…

     “Also, how do you know you are following the right god?”

     Funny, yet again you warp my words…I never told you which god I follow. I said I believe in (get ready for it!) “A” god. I could tell you I believe in Christianity, but I really dont have much knowledge of history like my friend “wah” does, so Im not even going to try. Your right, I could be following the wrong god. That really doesnt help your case much, though…stay on subject.

     “I don’t honestly see how you can get a point on me. I’m living the life i want as a moral person and i feel, at the moment, very well with myself both professionally and with my family.”

     I appreciate you proving my point for me…did you even read what I said, or were you thinking too much about how cool you are? I hate repeating myself, but Im afraid it is the only way to get you to see it…According to the belief that YOU follow, that being evolution and survival of the fittest, the boy in my hypothetical situation is just as, if not more, fit as a human than you are. You apparently pride yourself on being a moral individual, yet you turn around and stab yourself in the back saying evolution is true. According to evolution, there are no moral truths! You do those things fruitlessly. It doesnt help you! Your going to die just like everybody else…including that psychopath boy…so why dont you go out and kill all your enemies, rape all the women you want, and get shot by that mean looking bouncer at the club? What is stopping you? You will accomplish the exact same thing you are by continuing on like this…

     And to the lovely person trying to…oh, warp my words yet again (you people seem quite good at doing that)…ooo, your cool with your definition of a god! Lets give a round of applause! You were too busy looking at yourself in the mirror to realize the context of the word “god” in my post. Im curious, what word you would like me to use…if not “god”. I was trying to stay neutral within the boundaries of ID so that we could stay on the subject at hand instead of branching off to some tangent about how the Catholic Church had crusades hundreds of years ago…what word (or phrase) would you like me to use? Fine, from now on I will use the term “almighty being”. That work for you?

     I hope I dont have to come back, but this time Im not going to promise. I dont want to have to break another one…

196. wah
     November 20th, 2007 | 02:42

     @186 Bob, @187 Who cares, @188velo, @189Costa200

     haha. :LOL: that’s plenty of people to debate online at one time. [clap]

     “the flood didn’t happen”

     God created the universe just 6 chapters earlier. He’s about to cause a flood that will destroy virtually all life on the planet. However, your big hang up is over rocks, pebbles, and puddles…it seems rather reasonable that the God destroying the planet could also make them ‘wash out’.

     once again, I’ll be briefly open minded to take from YOUR perspective, though I’ve not seen you reciprocate. Anyhow, there is ample evidence for massive regional floods in the near east but I will consider the lack of evidence for a global flood 4,400 years ago. There are trees living that are 6000 years old (See Guiness book of records). A global flood that is claimed to have caused the grand canyon would have destroyed any mere tree. Plausible on your part.

     “the Ark and all the animals?”

     well you could always take the baby’s there smaller. You could also only take two dogs, not a dog of every kind. Dogs do change and still remain dogs. Let me also point out that if God can find a way to flood the Earth i think he can work out these small details. ….likewise, if God can create the universe, organize the cosmos, design DNA and well everything else, I’m sure He can figure SOMETHING out. and since we don’t know what kind of trees existed before the flood, its possible that Noah had really strong trees even without a miracle occuring. Besides and more importantly, all of these seem like rather petty obstacles when compared to creating and organizing the cosmos from scratch.

     @173, 179, 189 BOB and Costa200
     “mount. ararat? nope”

     There’s already historical evidence substantiating this. Of course, over the past 4000 years its probably been destroyed.

     “yes wah, exactly what I mean. If his reasoning is beyond our understanding, then we cannot rely on our own reasoning in principle, because our very institution of reasoning, science, clearly contradicts the bible, in respect to our genesis and to the history of the middle east.
     That’s why I said: Let’s abondon your reason and declare a theoracy. I mean…it would be the sensible thing to do”

     if you’re a naturalist or materialist it would appear that way. However, I’m a Biblical theist. There is a world of difference between being rational and being a rationalist. There is also a world of differene between believing in nature and science and being a naturalist. Those “ists” and “isms” change everything. For you, there is a world of difference between possibly believing in a god of sorts and being a theist. So i’m less inclined to agree with you as much as you are to me. To look to ones self before looking to a higher source would seem to be pure arrogance. Given how many mistakes I’ve made over my life and my limited knowledge and the limits of science it really doesn’t seem all that reasonable to not put my faith and trust in myself and science. Personally, when speaking from a Scriptural standpoint, the flood story is this: if you believe in God, then His power shouldn’t be an issue in performing miracles. How anyone can believe that God is capable of creation ex-nihilo but not stretching the laws of physics is beyond me. You put your faith in your reason and understanding. I put my faith in a book I believe God wrote. I believe that God has a much better grasp of His univere than I could ever have. Therefore, it seems quite reasonable to trust the Bible. And don’t get met started on the “Reliability of the bible’s historicity”.

     “Being in control and then just wipe out all the world? In computer science that would be the equivalent of a techie guy saying he had the system “under control” and then went on formating the hard drive. If that is control…”

     I guess if you consider creating the universe weird, then yes that is our argument. However, I’m not certain why it would be weird or far fetched for a theist to believe that God could protect Noah’s ark. It seems well established in the story that God was in control and God wanted Noah to survive. Therefore, its really not unreasonable that God would pull a few tricks out from His sleeves to help out Noah and the animals.

     As stated before, I’ve always felt the needless point in scientifically proving any historical event or, in our cases, merging naturalistic presuppositions with an active theistic worldview. One can’t prove Lincoln’s assassination any more than a recorded miracle from a scientific perspective. On the other hand, looking at it from a historical perspective, there’s ample literature, writings and accounts to suggest the flood story otherwise, local or global, unless you can disprove all the testimonies of Riss’s article, let alone the historicity of the OT, then we can consider all other ancient literature/writings, such as Homer, Plato, and Aristotle as also unreliable since they are far far less well preserved than the Bible.

     As you can see from my openness of perspectives on the matter, I personally ‘don’t hold a gun’ at standpoint on a minor issue such as the flood, biblically speaking that is, particularly when we [should all be] aware that not all of the OT is to be taken literally, as authors/writers of the books use many different literary devices to convey a message, let alone to be read scientifically, and that the OT explains more of the ‘history’ of things than the ’science’ of things. lol. Science wasn’t even ‘invented’ back in those days as opposed to history. So again I see a ‘lost cause’ to validate the OT stories on a scientific basis compared to literal history. But still it’s been quite an interesting experience with you to look at from your perspectives.

     @190 “Darth” Arcon. sorry hehe.
     If what you say is true, then either way, I don’t really hold any type of grudge on this type of issue, although we do have fundamentalists on the ‘flood’ story, it’s not a major doctrinal or salvational issue and shouldn’t have people hung up over what’s more important issues in Christianity, like Jesus’s testimony.

197. wah
     November 20th, 2007 | 03:08

     @193 Not Stupid

     your point?

     By your logic we all better change our names to its original Latin meaning to avoid from stepping over each other’s toes. ooooooo

     Exodus 3:13-14 Moses said to God, “Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ Then what shall I tell them?” God said to Moses, “I am who I am . This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I AM has sent me to you.”

     Notice how God didn’t attribute a “name” or “title” to identify him by. He did that to point out that He will not be manipulated by any calling of names. His identity surpasses our ability to control or summon God at any time. and there you’re worried about how the calling of names affecting God, including the very word “god”? seems very moot.

198. wah
     November 20th, 2007 | 03:11

     @194 Not Stupid

     that’s why we have different versions. and don’t get me started on the whole manuscript-extant accuracy.

199. Darth Arcon
     November 20th, 2007 | 03:32

     @wah
     I highly appreciate you taking the time to do this research, and I highly respect you. I do believe Christianity is the right path, but I really cant provide solid historical proof to confirm my position to others. However, if I maintain a neutral standing within the general ID belief, I can use logic that they will actually listen to. That is why they are trying to debunk history against you and trying to confuse me with self contradictory hypothetical’s. Id say we compliment each other fairly well. (if any part of this post is offending, please dont take it that way…that wasnt my intention… <_<).

     Anyway, Im not a history buff and will never pretend to be. I do have quite a bit of thinking time, so it isnt uncommon to see me sitting, starring at the wall in math class thinking about random things. I just dont have the patience to do historical research…

200. wah
     November 20th, 2007 | 04:01

     @147 Velo

     “Why would a monkey turn into a human? Its like saying a human would turn into a monkey. (and i bet you mean apes)

     Apes and humans share a common ancestor. (quite different)
     With that being said evolution does not have a goal, it does not automatically make a creature smarter/stronger/less hairy
     if it doesn’t benefit to its survival.

     We find more “missing links” for every year that passes. Just look at the homo-species found over the last 30 years.
     We will never find ALL missing links. Fossils are very rare to start of with, and add to it that 90% of all twigs on the “tree of life” have died out, i.e. leading to nowhere. To find a missing link is truly to find a needle in a haystack.”

     for someone who can create the universe by scratch it shouldn’t be too hard to create a human.

     @148 Velo
     “Proof for me is making something a fact. If i thought the world was flat and someone proved to me that it was round.
     Why the hell would i go back to believing it was flat?”

     Recognizing the existence of something is one thing but placing your trust in “a personal being” is a whole different matter. You should Lucifer that question.

     “If 9/10 goes back to not believing in god, the proof must have been flawed.”

     it has nothing to do with proof. my point is that 1/10 times means it would take a miracle for you to trust in God, while it’s natural for you 9/10 times to not believe.

     “I’m talking about absolute proof here, evidence. Not “look, it says so here in this book so it must be true” or ” wow look at that tree, amazing isnt it, has to be magic man who done that””

     again, it, as in my previous statement, has nothing to do proof. all bout complete trust. your problem is you’re trying to reconcile an empiricist viewpoint to theist philosophy.

     @186 BOB

     “Not to sound condescending, bu t how old are you?”
     i’m young enough to be a teacher.

     “I’m guessing you’re fairly young from the way you type and the mistakes in some simple words.”

     it’s called not being anal and in a hurry. what am i, writing an essay here?

Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 »

Leave a reply