Scientific, archaeological, current events proof of bible!

[geoff]

So then you believe that the bible is some written conspiracy of men trying to manipulate the population at the time and holds no value for todays generation? You believe it was man made ideas and not inspired by God? And that it has no accuracy nor meaning? Is that about right?

This topic has been one that has come up several times. I have seen people quote atheistic writings from wikipedia and videos created by atheist that have no scientific or archaeological background. This thread is not for the faint of heart, if you are someone that wants to learn, that cares to see if it is real, or wants to know if the stories in the bible are real and not made up by men than i offer you this information. For those of you that honestly could not care less if the bible is real, if it was not made up by man, if it is truly the inspired Word of God, then leave your mocking comments out of here because you are truly close minded and are not wanting to learn but to be led by false teachers.

This thread will be updated with more information as I gather it and put it all together. Thank you for those that actually take the time to look and study and learn. I pray God would open your eyes to see the truth in the evidence, your ears to hear the truth from archaeologists and scientists, and your minds and hearts to process the information and then search to find more of the Lord.


Archaeological evidences, studies, and finds of the accuracy of the bible. It shows that the bible was not made up by men to manipulate, that it is historically accurate, and as reliable as an ancient historical text.

http://www.pb.org/pbdocs/bibleac.html
http://debate.org.uk/topics/history/bib-qur/bibarch.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWawV...eature=related
__________________

[geoff]

my next section will discuss biblical prophecy compared to current and historical events, and as such it will probably take some time to put it all together. Bare with me

[geoff]

This next section will talk about the biblical prophecies that have been fulfilled historically, the Messiahnic prophecy fulfilled by Jesus, and prophecy in the New Testament about the end times.

Examples of Old Testament prophecy fulfilled historically and the prophecies of the Messiah that were fulfilled by Jesus.

http://www.bible.ca/b-prophecy-60.htm
http://www.greatcom.org/resources/areadydefense/ch06/default.htm
http://www.bible-prophecy.com/otprophecies.htm

prophecy fulfilled by Christ:
http://www.biblestudy.org/prophecy/old-testament-prophecies-jesus-
fulfilled.html

NEW TESTAMENT PROPHECY ( given by Christ of the end times ):


"And Jesus, answering them, began to say: “Take heed that no one deceives you. For many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am He,’ and will deceive many. But when you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be troubled; for such things must happen, but the end is not yet. For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. And there will be earthquakes in various places, and there will be famines and troubles. These are the beginnings of sorrows. “But watch out for yourselves, for they will deliver you up to councils, and you will be beaten in the synagogues. You will be brought before rulers and kings for My sake, for a testimony to them.And the gospel must first be preached to all the nations. But when they arrest you and deliver you up, do not worry beforehand, or premeditate what you will speak. But whatever is given you in that hour, speak that; for it is not you who speak, but the Holy Spirit.Now brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; and children will rise up against parents and cause them to be put to death.And you will be hated by all for My name’s sake. But he who endures to the end shall be saved."

The Great Tribulation

“So when you see the ‘abomination of desolation,’ spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not” (let the reader understand), “then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.Let him who is on the housetop not go down into the house, nor enter to take anything out of his house.And let him who is in the field not go back to get his clothes.But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days!And pray that your flight may not be in winter.For in those days there will be tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the creation which God created until this time, nor ever shall be.And unless the Lord had shortened those days, no flesh would be saved; but for the elect’s sake, whom He chose, He shortened the days. “Then if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or, ‘Look, He is there!’ do not believe it. For false christs and false prophets will rise and show signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect." mark 13:5-22


For many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am He,’ and will deceive many.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0mhBVFz9zk


you hear of wars and rumors of wars
Just turn on the news some time, war on terrorism, middle eastern conflicts, Korean conflicts, ect...


Nation shall rise against nation...Kingdom against kingdom


Once again just turn on the news to see how many different conflicts of war or battle there are in the world today.


earthquakes in various places
This one is pretty interesting, especially with what has happened the past few months no? Just look up how many earthquakes there have been in the last month, the statistics don't lie my friends.
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/recenteqsww/
http://thechronicleherald.ca/Science/1171862.html


famines and troubles
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat8.htm
http://www.bread.org/learn/hunger-basics/hunger-facts-international.html


they will deliver you up to councils, and you will be beaten in the synagogues. You will be brought before rulers and kings for My sake
http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7018048699
http://www.christianpersecution.info/
http://agis10.tripod.com/id16.html


gospel must first be preached to all the nations
http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=30064
The gospel is now preached in every country, and the bible has been translated to 98% of the worlds fluent languages.


And you will be hated by all for My name’s sake
You don't need to look much further than some of the posts in this religion section....


when you see the ‘abomination of desolation,’
The anti-christ, who needs to be revealed, the only end time prophecy that has not been fulfilled......YET


“Then if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or, ‘Look, He is there!’ do not believe it.
http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pt193.htm
So many times throughout history there have been men claiming to know when Christ will return, several congregations even went as far as to sell every possession they owned, they were obviously wrong, but that does not mean that it His coming is further away, it makes it closer. So just as Jesus said, don't worry about when, just be prepared and watch.

More NEW TESTAMENT prophecy fulfillment:
http://www.teachinghearts.org/dre03propgospelnotes.html
http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/etstats2.html

WOW!!!!!! There are only a few options to explain this....
A) These guys are crazy and were smoking some serious hashish, but how then were they so accurate?
B) They must have gotten their hands on a DeLorean, flux capacitator, and 1.21 gigawatts :lmfao:
or..........
C) The Bible is the HOLY INSPIRED WORD OF GOD, given to men and recorded.:goodjob::yes:

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.....................:thinking:

[EJ25RUN]

Proof there is no God.

http://www.popentertainment.com/xanadu.jpg

[quickdodge®]

not wanting to learn but to be led by false teachers.

Give me tangible proof that it is not YOU who is led by "false teachers." You have no real proof that what you are being taught is actually real. You're going by what you've been told and taught.

BUT WAIT!!!

THERE'S MORE!!!

I remember you saying a couple of days ago in this POST (http://www.importatlanta.com/forums/showpost.php?p=38901423&postcount=98) "I am not one to be led around blindly and believe something someone told me i should. I came to be where I am today by lots of study."

I'd like to reiterate today's Christian word of the day..... "Hypocrite."

You're trying to so hard to be insulting in order to protect what you BELIEVE.

Speaking of the above post (linked in), I noticed that you managed to overlook where I questioned your claiming to be a religious scientist. Could you please provide any credentials you may have to support this claim? Later, QD.

[stillaneon]

Who has denied the Bible?

I know it exists, I have like 8.

[Vteckidd]

The bible was written by man, it is interpreted based on the time period. The people who wrote it can say they were inspired by god, but since there is no proof god actually spoke to them or actually told them to write what they wrote , or can give any substancial proof to back up any of the writings.....it is not able to be proven

again the fundamental point of religion is it is based on BELIEF and FAITH. Those 2 words mean believing in something you cannot see or prove.

You can cite YouTube all day long or he said she said links from websites it all boils down to you cannot prove a god exists nor does he not exist. You believe he does, congrats there are many like you.

This doesn't give you the right to come on a car forum and try to prove to people god does exist just cause you believe it.

Go watch religolous

[Vteckidd]

Oh and I'm sure there are truths in the bible like the people existed, cities existed etc

that is totally able to be proven, but just cause there is an Egypt doesn't mean Moses actually parted the Red sea. Just cause there is a Tigris river doesn't mean there's an actual tower of babel

tHey are stories. Some choose to believe, others don't

why can't you as a Christian except some people don't want to believe what you believe. God appears in many religions with different tales on how he came to be. There are many viewpoints , what makes yours right?

[geoff]

QD- You must have some kind of hero persona thought of yourself. You sit and pick a a post or two and try to prove what point? DID YOU NOT SEE ANY OF THE EVIDENCE ABOVE?
I put my faith in something that has not changed since it was instituted. Your science changes more and more with each passing moment. Once again you say I am trying to be insulting....And I never said I was a scientist of any sort, I didn't answer your question because it was stupid. As far as your " hypocrit" comment, I am not led blindly, I came to my belief and conclusion and faith because I personally took the time to personally study the available evidences and opinions and I took all of that and came to the conclusion that I believe in the Lord. You on the other hand contradict yourself my friend, you say, " I never said I don't believe in God " yet you sit there and argue against any evidence provided and try to disprove it, That would be the CORRECT definition of a hypocrit. I have stuck to my story and my beliefs whereas your actions and words don't match to your said stand on faith and God. Later, Geoff

stillaneon- I didn't post this thread to say the bible isn't real, obviously you can hold it in your hands. This information is merely to give evidences that it is not some man made fable.

Oh and this...
For those of you that honestly could not care less if the bible is real, if it was not made up by man, if it is truly the inspired Word of God, then leave your mocking comments out of here because you are truly close minded and are not wanting to learn but to be led by false teachers.

[geoff]

Vteckidd- I totally understand your view. The reason for this is because of all the threads that say, " Had a thought, maybe the bible was not from God ". I believe what makes mine right is because it can be archaeologically and historically tested and be proven on its accuracy, also the fact of the multiple detailed prophecies ,that are not vague in nature, that have come to pass.

[quickdodge®]

QD- You must have some kind of hero persona thought of yourself. You sit and pick a a post or two and try to prove what point? DID YOU NOT SEE ANY OF THE EVIDENCE ABOVE?
I put my faith in something that has not changed since it was instituted. Your science changes more and more with each passing moment. Once again you say I am trying to be insulting....And I never said I was a scientist of any sort, I didn't answer your question because it was stupid. As far as your " hypocrit" comment, I am not led blindly, I came to my belief and conclusion and faith because I personally took the time to personally study the available evidences and opinions and I took all of that and came to the conclusion that I believe in the Lord. You on the other hand contradict yourself my friend, you say, " I never said I don't believe in God " yet you sit there and argue against any evidence provided and try to disprove it, That would be the CORRECT definition of a hypocrit. I have stuck to my story and my beliefs whereas your actions and words don't match to your said stand on faith and God. Later, Geoff

HOLY MOTHERFUCK!!!

No I DID NOT SEE ANY OF THE "EVIDENCE" ABOVE!!! None of it was tangible proof. I did not see a photo of someone with God or of God Himself.

Do you know why science changes so much? Because as formulas and techniques evolve, some things that were thought one thing have been shown to be something totally different. Basically scientists are not afraid to find out where they may have been wrong about studies done in the past and learn to correct things. Seems they have it right. Whereas religious people refuse to accept that their FAITH could be the slightest bit wrong. There you go. Simple enough.

You never said you were a scientist and my questing you on that was stupid? Here you go, chumpelstiltskin...READ!!! (http://www.importatlanta.com/forums/showpost.php?p=38901311&postcount=95) In there is a line that reads,

"i can provide you with what I and countless other religious scientists have come to the conclusion,"

What "I and countless other religious scientists" sounds to me like you're lumping yourself in with scientists.

How am I a hypocrite? Do you know the meaning of the word or is this more useless babbling to "prove your point?" You don't see me going to church on Sunday and then turning around and talking shit about religion. I'm straight upfront about my beliefs and questions. I don't like a religious person in one sense and then act opposite in another spot.

You, sir, have not failed to prove, every time you've posted, that you're full of shit and that you have no idea what you're posting. Are you just doing this to up your post count? You do know that you have enough posts to post in the Whore's Lounge or For Sale section, don't you? Later, QD.

[geoff]

QD- Bro honestly, make your mind up. Your like one of those cowards that is too afraid to take a stand on what you believe. Jump off that agnostic fence and pick a side. Wait, let me guess, you are one of those that there is not enough evidence to support the existence of God nor to disprove Him, so instead you decide to be undecided. One thing I can say for some on this site, streethazard, babyj, ect... is that they may have a different point of view or belief but at least they are decided and stick to it. You sit there and denounce any and all slight evidence for the case of the existence of God, yet claim you believe in a God?

straight from the dictionary: hypocrite-a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.

I have no idea what I am posting? Ok, thank you for your opinion. I will no longer be arguing with you, because for one, you obviously have an issue with your own " faith " or lack thereof and are undecided yourself what you believe, and second, because you my friend have not once added anything to any of these topics that even resembles a well thought out statement or information. You simply go around with your little smiley police face and your Later, QD and just try and pick through posts and catch me in my words. You must think your pretty big around here huh? Any way, like I said, from this point on I will just be ignoring your nonsense posts and instead leave the real debate to those that care to search and stand by something.

















LATER, GEOFF

[quickdodge®]

Your like one of those cowards that is too afraid to take a stand on what you believe. Jump off that agnostic fence and pick a side.

Come on, man. What will it take for you to actually understand what is typed in front of you? My posts are straight and to the point. It isn't my fault that you're too stupid to get it. I've told you time and again where I stand and I've told you in plain English to where, if you had a half a brain, you'd understand.



straight from the dictionary: hypocrite-a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.

Well at least you do one thing right: COPY/PASTE.

So you just proved that I am NOT a hypocrite. I have moral beliefs. I have values. I stated that earlier. I don't steal, don't hit females, show proper respect to people, never done drugs, never committed any crime aside from speeding violations, never committed adultery. I've never acted like I posses these. I actually DO posses these qualities.


I have no idea what I am posting? Ok, thank you for your opinion. I will no longer be arguing with you,

That's because you have no argument.


from this point on I will just be ignoring your nonsense posts and instead leave the real debate to those that care to search and stand by something.


You're a fucking dummy, man. Can't take it that you didn't "convert" me, huh? Your pastor going to be mad at you because you have failed? You rise up to take a level over me like you're a religious know-it-all. Who the fuck are you to tell me that I post nonsense? Who the fuck are you to tell me I don't have a "real debate?" You're a goddamn nobody, trick.

Fuck you. I actually mean that. Later, QD.

[geoff]

This is another pretty good video i found...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSpReeP4atY

[StreetHazard]

el oh fucking el!

I have had a couple of choice words for christians in my life, but I have never flat out cussed one out before. I feel inspired, I think it's the holy spirit.

:lmfao::lmfao::lmfao::lmfao:

[BallerDave04]

I'll say it again, QD doesn't know what he is talking about. Geoff makes plenty of good points, backed up by the Bible. QD comes in and just smashes his post with no information to back up his points. The Bible proves itself true with the over 2000 prophecies that have already came to pass.

I would like to say, I have been on both sides and there is no denying the truth once you have searched and found it. The problem is you have to seek the knowledge. I bet 90% of the people in this forum haven't cracked the Bible open in years. It's hard to disprove something you don't know anything about. Sorry QD, you can't say anything negative against the Bible until you have read some of it. If you have read some of it then you didn't do a very good job...try again. Get off the internet and read something healthy for your brain. Car magazines don't count.

P.S.


So you just proved that I am NOT a hypocrite. I have moral beliefs. I have values. I stated that earlier. I don't steal, don't hit females, show proper respect to people, never done drugs, never committed any crime aside from speeding violations, never committed adultery. I've never acted like I posses these. I actually DO posses these qualities.

Sorry to say, if you have ever had premarital sex or have jacked off you have committed adultery. Its all considered to be under the 6th commandment.

[bodhi]

i will shut down, geoff, ballerdave04, and that twat sport_122 or whatever...

soon...when, um.. i find enough time... which would probably be sometime next week - if i dont forget about this shit.
i will have some humor in my retorts, along with actual facts, and video clips... web links, ect...


ahh, who am i kidding???
im sure my retorts will only consist of insults, and funny pics of "jesus" getting nailed to a cross or sum shiet


EDIT: its 5am and im posting here
fuck me... and fuck the 10 bud lights in my system

[quickdodge®]

I'll say it again, QD doesn't know what he is talking about. Geoff makes plenty of good points, backed up by the Bible. QD comes in and just smashes his post with no information to back up his points. The Bible proves itself true with the over 2000 prophecies that have already came to pass.

I would like to say, I have been on both sides and there is no denying the truth once you have searched and found it. The problem is you have to seek the knowledge. I bet 90% of the people in this forum haven't cracked the Bible open in years. It's hard to disprove something you don't know anything about. Sorry QD, you can't say anything negative against the Bible until you have read some of it. If you have read some of it then you didn't do a very good job...try again. Get off the internet and read something healthy for your brain. Car magazines don't count.

P.S.



Sorry to say, if you have ever had premarital sex or have jacked off you have committed adultery. Its all considered to be under the 6th commandment.

I'm sorry, I forget, but when did we meet? Later, QD.

[EJ25RUN]

Proof there is no God.

http://www.popentertainment.com/xanadu.jpg

The HORROR :eek:

[RL...]

I'll say it again, QD doesn't know what he is talking about. Geoff makes plenty of good points, backed up by the Bible. QD comes in and just smashes his post with no information to back up his points. The Bible proves itself true with the over 2000 prophecies that have already came to pass.

I would like to say, I have been on both sides and there is no denying the truth once you have searched and found it. The problem is you have to seek the knowledge. I bet 90% of the people in this forum haven't cracked the Bible open in years. It's hard to disprove something you don't know anything about. Sorry QD, you can't say anything negative against the Bible until you have read some of it. If you have read some of it then you didn't do a very good job...try again. Get off the internet and read something healthy for your brain. Car magazines don't count.

P.S.



Sorry to say, if you have ever had premarital sex or have jacked off you have committed adultery. Its all considered to be under the 6th commandment.

1) geoff doesn't really have any valid points here except that he has faith in his religion...which he is entitled to that opinion

2) No denying the truth? lol Same could be said for you religious ppls...

3) You don't have to seek "the knowledge", as there is no knowledge out there that proves the existence of christianity's god. Or christianity's accuracy for that matter. If there was I'm pretty sure we would ALL know about it as it would be on every headline on every news channel, "this just in god showed himself and told us christianity is the way to go." The bible might predict of times when there will be war and such bs, guess what, that is common sense. We've been fighting each other since we've been on this planet, it is honestly just a human quality to fight and quarrel with each other to some extent. It's not hard to predict things like that. The bible didn't implicitly state that on Sep 11th 2001 the WTT would get hit...it didn't implicitly state that hiroshima would get bombed decades ago....ppl like to draw off vague predictions and think they are prophecy.

4) that is one reason why religious ppls are so damn stupid, is because of your last comment. Since the bible leaves everything so damn vague we have to interprete what we think it means. Which is why so many ppl have differing perspectives about the bible, and the rules to which they must adhere to. So basically you have 10 ppl reading the same book taking 10 different perspectives from it...

5) Think about it this way, if your god wanted you to live a certain way wouldn't he word the bible in such a way that is clear, and accurate, and could only be interpreted one way? If he was trying to predict future events in the bible, wouldn't he have used more accurate descriptions. No, of course not. It makes more sense that he would get moses to write a book in a vague manner so everyone in the world could interprete his words in their own way so christians could fight with other christians and countless denominations would come into fruition as a result of this. Makes perfect sense.

[geoff]

^ Your post just now shows that you are unlearned in the facts and don't care to crack the Word open. No accuracy for Christianity? Hmmm.....I am pretty sure I just posted up a video with an hour and something worth of archaeological evidence of the bible's accuracy. And the prophecies are not vague, you just don't care to see what they say, by the way the twin towers are in the bible. And God did give a clear and accurate way He wants His people to live, the reason there are so many perspectives is because people take certain scriptures and stories and twist them and alter the meaning. All it takes brother is a search, don't tell me you have taken the time to do this because your responses show you have no idea what you are talking about. Just for once I want to see someone come on here and prove they have searched and questioned and have taken in all the options and evidences and come to a rational personal conclusion. You don't see me claiming to be an astrologer or to know something about the chinese culture cuz I have not studied it. Plain and simple kids, the information is out there, just open your eyes and look.:goodjob:

[quickdodge®]

You don't see me claiming to be an astrologer or to know something about the chinese culture cuz I have not studied it.

Yeah, you just claim to be a goddamn religious scientist. Later, QD.

[Mchnhead2k5]

And the prophecies are not vague, you just don't care to see what they say, by the way the twin towers are in the bible.

So Jeff, where does it say that Islamic extremists would fly 2 planes into the WTC Towers? If that was the case, wouldn't the city of NY and the FAA put a preventative measure around that time the bible stated it would happen or did god want innocent people to die so he could gain more followers?

Maybe the "Islamic extremists" were really Christian and loved Jesus and this was their way of getting more followers of the Christian faith by masquerading as Islamic extremists.

[geoff]

Take a look for yourself, any information I provide will be dismissed right away because you all don't really care to know.

[sport_122]

So Jeff, where does it say that Islamic extremists would fly 2 planes into the WTC Towers? If that was the case, wouldn't the city of NY and the FAA put a preventative measure around that time the bible stated it would happen or did god want innocent people to die so he could gain more followers?

Maybe the "Islamic extremists" were really Christian and loved Jesus and this was their way of getting more followers of the Christian faith by masquerading as Islamic extremists.



....really....I mean....really?...

:(

[Paul]

^ Your post just now shows that you are unlearned in the facts and don't care to crack the Word open. No accuracy for Christianity? Hmmm.....I am pretty sure I just posted up a video with an hour and something worth of archaeological evidence of the bible's accuracy. And the prophecies are not vague, you just don't care to see what they say, by the way the twin towers are in the bible. And God did give a clear and accurate way He wants His people to live, the reason there are so many perspectives is because people take certain scriptures and stories and twist them and alter the meaning. All it takes brother is a search, don't tell me you have taken the time to do this because your responses show you have no idea what you are talking about. Just for once I want to see someone come on here and prove they have searched and questioned and have taken in all the options and evidences and come to a rational personal conclusion. You don't see me claiming to be an astrologer or to know something about the chinese culture cuz I have not studied it. Plain and simple kids, the information is out there, just open your eyes and look.:goodjob:


i opened my eyes.... i'm w/ this guy i got my golden ticket and i'm going to be one of the 144,000 going woo hoo

http://theithacan.org/blogs/allthatjazz/files/2009/11/ww_005.jpg

[XanRules]

you are so fucking brainwashed and full of shit it's not even funny.
Be glad I don't have the time to waste on you (I have important things to do, like have premarital sex and covet my neighbor's goods)


Take a look for yourself, any information I provide will be dismissed right away because you all don't really care to know.
bring it on.

[XanRules]

This is my 1,000th post.

[bodhi]

xanrules sounds like someone i could have a beer with...

though im sure he would love for me to get whiteboy wasted so he could have his way with me afterwards :/

[XanRules]

though im sure he would love for me to get whiteboy wasted so he could have his way with me afterwards :/
I'd just be doing what any good Christian would. :idb:

[Mchnhead2k5]

....really....I mean....really?...

:(

Geoff said that the Twin Towers were in the bible, I asked where, then came up with an opinion on why, whether or not it's what I believe could be something totally different.

[bu villain]

I predict that in 1000 years there will be earthquakes, wars, and famine. Religious people will still be hated by some and people will still lie, Think anyone will worship me when my amazing predictions come true?

[ghostrida3]

whats crazy is there are some prophecies in the bible that are more direct like in isaiah where God says he will use cyrus to deliver them from babylon and calls him specifically by name. This scripture was written like 500yrs before the actual event. Or the old testament prophecies in psalms that predict exactly how Jesus is going to die, where he is going to come from how the temple will be split..
historcially there is no denying that Jesus existed but what is really wild is what happens. lets say we throw away the gospels and say they are just fiction recorded by these fanatical guys trying to manipulate people and advance their cult. 1st off what happens to cults that we know of? usually when the leader dies the people scatter. But Christianity just the opposite happened. it continued to grow. And it grew in spite of the fact that at the time you were killed for being a Christian. This goes against all logic. In my opinion these people saw something that defied logic. Something that kept them believing in Jesus even though he was killed. The bible says he appeared to 100s of people after he was ressurected.
you could say the apostles fabricated their stories but why would they. they all ended up dying horrible deaths b/c of their beliefs. why would they die for something that was just a fabrication?
there is no denying Jesus existence. History supports it. The big question is he what the bible says about him? i think history supports that as well. just the fact that we are even still talkin about him says something. i cant think of any dead cult leader that died 2000 yrs ago that still has a strong following.

[geoff]

The reason Christianity still thrives and grows today is because of this, Christ rose again. That is the most powerful message contained in the entire Bible. Christ died for us, was burried, but unlike EVERY other god, prophet, hero, character in every other religion, belief, practice, theory, HE DID NOT STAY DEAD! Christ died for me, for Qd, for babyj, for streethazard, for ALL. His death cleared your name in heaven, but He rose again that you might have life, and have it more abundantly. Jesus Christ is my God, and I love Him. To me He is as real as the air that I breath. To those who mock it, I don't care, Christ died for me when I was not worthy, and He rose again so that I might live and know Him. Life is available to all who wish to accept Him.

[ghostrida3]

^^^ my point exactly. he didnt just stay in a grave He was resurected and the gospel accounts are true.

[RL...]

The reason Christianity still thrives and grows today is because of this, Christ rose again. That is the most powerful message contained in the entire Bible. Christ died for us, was burried, but unlike EVERY other god, prophet, hero, character in every other religion, belief, practice, theory, HE DID NOT STAY DEAD! Christ died for me, for Qd, for babyj, for streethazard, for ALL. His death cleared your name in heaven, but He rose again that you might have life, and have it more abundantly. Jesus Christ is my God, and I love Him. To me He is as real as the air that I breath. To those who mock it, I don't care, Christ died for me when I was not worthy, and He rose again so that I might live and know Him. Life is available to all who wish to accept Him.

Wrong, christianity is still around for the same reason that slavery existed in this country for so long, just on a much larger scale. Most people are scared to truly open their mind to new possibilities and ideologies, including racism and religion. That's why people have a tendancy to not change their ideologies once they've been conditioned to believe a certain thing, until society as a whole determines it's invalidity. Also, most people who are Christian are only so because they've been raised that way by their guardians in the household, and most people simply just go along with the notion that christianity is where their belief lies when they really never thought about any alternatives. How can you say hot dogs are better than burgers if you've never tried a burger?

Religions stop one from thinking outside of the box. It's inherent and fundamental logic is to "believe in this and every other belief is wrong." With that type of logic we can understand how religious peoples are so unwilling to even think outside of the box or try to learn about other possiblities..

Anyway, most people who are christian in this country may go to church, but they do not behave according to the guidelines set forth in the bible, or live religiously and for god, so that in my opinion does not make them christian. I can claim I am a good person all I want, but if I act contrary to that than I am not a good person regardless of what I say or preach.

[geoff]

That is exactly the problem, too many Christians and people trying to put God in a box, inside or outside, box and Jesus can not be in the same sentence because my Lord can not be bound, not even mentally or ideologically. Sorry, but I was not " raised " into this. I posted my story on here, read it some time.

[RL...]

That is exactly the problem, too many Christians and people trying to put God in a box, inside or outside, box and Jesus can not be in the same sentence because my Lord can not be bound, not even mentally or ideologically. Sorry, but I was not " raised " into this. I posted my story on here, read it some time.

A metaphor is an analogy between two objects or ideas, conveyed by the use of a word instead of another.

[ghostrida3]

Wrong, christianity is still around for the same reason that slavery existed in this country for so long, just on a much larger scale. Most people are scared to truly open their mind to new possibilities and ideologies, including racism and religion. That's why people have a tendancy to not change their ideologies once they've been conditioned to believe a certain thing, until society as a whole determines it's invalidity. Also, most people who are Christian are only so because they've been raised that way by their guardians in the household, and most people simply just go along with the notion that christianity is where their belief lies when they really never thought about any alternatives. How can you say hot dogs are better than burgers if you've never tried a burger?

Religions stop one from thinking outside of the box. It's inherent and fundamental logic is to "believe in this and every other belief is wrong." With that type of logic we can understand how religious peoples are so unwilling to even think outside of the box or try to learn about other possiblities..

Anyway, most people who are christian in this country may go to church, but they do not behave according to the guidelines set forth in the bible, or live religiously and for god, so that in my opinion does not make them christian. I can claim I am a good person all I want, but if I act contrary to that than I am not a good person regardless of what I say or preach.

study history. Christianity has survived in spite of Christians being persecuted for thousands of years. The 1st Christians who walked w/ Jesus were threatened w/ death. if it was all some big hoax i think i would have admitted it and kept my life. whats there to be afraid of? The guy that said he was God just died so obviously God's not real right? Like i said they saw something b/c it wasnt like it is now where you can go open a mega church and be rich-- name one apostle that didnt die a horrible death for what he believed.. Would you die for something that you just made up to manipulate people?
slavery existed in this country b/c of fear? hahahaha. People werent afraid they were greedy...thats all slavery was about..Money...
My relationship w/ God doesnt stop me from thinking outside of the box. i challenge God w/ questions i have. thats why i have answers to the stuff your saying b/c some of the stuff i have asked God before.. God lead me to him in my pursuit to find the truth. i thought if God is real than he can answer my questions. why do all these different religions exist? which one is right? Just cause my parents are Christians doenst mean its right, maybe i was brought up w/ the wrong ideas. so i researched everything i could get my hands on and not just the bible but outside rescources i wanted to hear all sides of the arguments...My conclusion is that all religions except one teach pretty much the same thing but in different colorful ways. BE REALLY GOOD AND YOU WILL BE REWARDED WHEN YOU DIE, Hopefully..like there is a scale of good and bad and your good deads need to out wiegh the bad and you won't really know until you die. that sounded like crap. why would a God put you here and not tell you how to succeed. why would he say "just be really good and hope you make it"... The bible said something completely different(contrary to popular belief) the bible works like cobb county.... you kill someone and they catch you in cobb county you cant tell the judge: "hey i helped like 4 old ladies cross the road yesterday and i paid my taxes can i get off?"
the bible is the same way. you cant get off for doing the things you were supposed to be doing anyway. Jesus takes your debt on b/c God loved us even before we loved him. we all have sinned and are condemned, so if we believe in him and his death and resurection we will be raised too.
anyway what your are saying is almost like if you believe in Jesus than you must be stupid and gullible but i assure you i am not some dumb idiot that just took what was given to me. i looked at all aspects objectively and came to my conclusion. I challenge you to do the same. pray about it. if God doesnt exist then whats the worst that could happen you just waste like a minute of your time praying and your research will just help solidify what you already beleive. something like this is definately worth doing the research..

[StreetHazard]

God I wanna get fucked up tonight, and I don't mean a little "buzzed". I want to come home and immediately start getting fucked up before my girlfriend comes home, so she cannot bitch me out for it because I will already be drunk, naked, and completely incoherent in the middle of the living room floor.

There will be no "how could you drink so much? You have only been home for a fucking hour!"

or "you need to stop this or you will become an alchoholic"

or "Why are you naked?"

no no....I will be far beyond her petty arguments while floating in a sea of liquor and silencing the noisy voices in my head.

[Glides]

Who has denied the Bible?

I know it exists, I have like 8.

Best post all thread.

[David88vert]

Wow, so much fail in this thread.

I will not get into everything, as I do not have enough time to post it in this thread, but I will make a couple of points.

Geoff,
You cannot prove the existence of an infinite being with archeological evidence. Your entire goal of this thread cannot be proven with certainty. The approach you take is like the mathematicians of the 19th century. The only certainty is uncertainty, and probabilites are the measure.

QD is correct in that he stated that you are defending what you believe. I will take that further. You choose to have faith, and there is nothing wrong with that. In fact, that is the only method in which you can truly grasp the concept of an infinite being. To attempt to rationalize the belief is falacy in and of itself, as that cannot be accomplished - see Godel and Turing's works. They proved that there is things we know to be true, without being able to calculate whether they are true. Intuition is also one of these items, and is one that people easily understand.

The only correct way to explain belief is through personal testimony. Obviously, it is the only argument that cannot be refuted in any manner, other than outright rejection.

As for you attempt to show evidence of the veracity of the Bible, it is the wrong approach entirely. In 2000 years, no one has been able to disprove the Bible, so no further argument needs to be made on that issue. It is purely a matter of faith. People can freely choose to believe what they wish. If they choose not to believe that there is a god, then they can.

As for evidence of the Christian version of God, this is another item that cannot be proven through finite, scientific means. While we can establish probabilites that intelligence was required to create us, we cannot use the same reasoning and logic to say it is the Christian version of truth. Again, it comes down to personal faith. I have discussed this in other threads in the past.

Personally, I do believe that God is real, and is the God in the Bible. I draw that conclusion based on what I have been able to study and observe in this universe, but - understand this - I accept it completely based upon faith. Faith is not based upon proof.

[David88vert]

^ Your post just now shows that you are unlearned in the facts and don't care to crack the Word open. .... by the way the twin towers are in the bible. ... just open your eyes and look.:goodjob:

Obviously, you are refering to Isaiah 30:25 - "And on every lofty mountain and every high hill there will be brooks running with water, in the day of the great slaughter, when the towers fall."

This scripture is being taken out of context. In reality, it has nothing to do with NYC, 9/11, or anything similar.

Reading the entire passage, it has to do with:
The Jews admonished for seeking aid from Egypt. (1-7)
The contempt of God's word by the Jews, and the resulting judgments . (8-18)
The mercy of God to His church. (19-26)
The ruin of the Assyrian army, and of all God's enemies. (27-33)


If you have knowledge of another scripture referring to the twin towers, please share it.

[geoff]

The point of this thread was not to prove a God or Christian God existed, like you stated that takes faith. The point of this thread was to show the bible was not made up of lies by men to control the population. One thing I have learned though is that these people just reject the facts, can't really do anything about that, it is in God's hands. And I know that scripture you are talking about, there is another one I read before that said something like, their towers will burn.....ect. I will try and locate it.

[David88vert]

The point of this thread was to show the bible was not made up of lies by men to control the population.

Then you have no point to make, and this thread cannot accomplish "its purpose".
The Bible can state every fact accurately, and be completely true, yet you still will not be able to prove or disprove this point. An absolute certainty cannot be determined on this. This is something that can be completely true, but cannot be proveable.

For religious discussions, your time would be better served by simply providing your own undisputable testimony.

[5speed]

The point of this thread was not to prove a God or Christian God existed, like you stated that takes faith. The point of this thread was to show the bible was not made up of lies by men to control the population. One thing I have learned though is that these people just reject the facts, can't really do anything about that, it is in God's hands. And I know that scripture you are talking about, there is another one I read before that said something like, their towers will burn.....ect. I will try and locate it.

This is where you messed up. You state that you only wish to provide others with the uninterpreted version of the Bible, but you just interpreted it by what you believe it to mean. I understand you only want to give God's word unmolested by mankind, but you just did it yourself.

[geoff]

Was not trying to interpret the scriptures, I just remember that was part of it and it was along those lines, more like a refrence not interpretation.

[David88vert]

Let me save you the effort. There is no reference to 9/11 in the Bible. There is no secret code, as some people have suggested. The entire nature of the argument that the Bible has a secret code is entirely against the will of God. He is not the author of confusion. If you have truly studied the Bible, you should know this already.

If you want proof that the Christian God exists, that cannot be proven by scientific methods. For that matter, you cannot prove if the ancient Egyptian god Ra exists or not either. How can you prove that the Egyptians were not correct? You cannot - scientifically.

[BABY J]

1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JS8iooeUcPc&feature=popular

2) http://www.youtube.com/user/AtheistMediaBlog#p/u/1/B6HrTC7IG_M

[David88vert]

1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JS8iooeUcPc&feature=popular

2) http://www.youtube.com/user/AtheistMediaBlog#p/u/1/B6HrTC7IG_M

Richard Dawkins is well-known for ignoring the laws of genetics to support his own anti-religion opinion. Specifically, he starts with his conclusion that there is no god that he needs to answer to, and then uses only information that supports his view - while ignoring basic items, such as the genetic code is not jsut an object (such as matter or energy), but a package of information. If you ready any of his books, you will find that he ignores how every current language that we are aware of has been created by intelligence. He believes in randomization.
The simple fact is that no known natural processes can produce a coded language with an interpretation decoding system - only intelligence has been observed to produce language with a decoder.

Here is a simple exercise that anyone can do, and one that defeated him.
Take any sentence of reasonable length. Change any two letters at a time. Make the message clearer to understand (improve the information). Example: "The brown cow jumped over the moon, while the mouse ate a piece of cheese."
A Creationist made a randomizer based upon this principle, so that you don't have to do it manually, if you prefer.
http://www.randommutation.com/

Again though, even if randomization has an extremely low probability, it does not make it impossible, nor does it prove the existence of God. Again, faith is required - and in that case, one can choose, as Richard Dawkins has, to believe in something that has very low odds of working.
You are also free to believe what you wish, and I am not making an effort to change your beliefs. My only suggestion is that you discover and learn for yourself, and believe what you determine to be the truth.

Some quotes from learned individuals:

Human DNA contains more organized information than the Encyclopedia Britannica. If the full text of the encyclopedia were to arrive in computer code from outer space, most people would regard this as proof of the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence. But when seen in nature, it is explained as the workings of random forces.
- George Sim Johnson

We have always underestimated the cell….The entire cell can be viewed as factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines….Why do we call [them] machines? Precisely because, like machine invented by humans to deal efficiently with the macroscopic world, these protein assemblies contain highly coordinated moving parts” – Bruce Alberts, President, National Academy of Sciences (The Cell as a Collection of Protein Machines, Cell 92, 1998)

We should reject, as matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations” – Biochemist Franklin M. Harold (Oxford: The Way of the Cell)

[bu villain]

He believes in randomization.

Random mutations yes, but also in natural selection which is absolutely NOT random.


Here is a simple exercise that anyone can do, and one that defeated him.
Take any sentence of reasonable length. Change any two letters at a time. Make the message clearer to understand (improve the information). Example: "The brown cow jumped over the moon, while the mouse ate a piece of cheese."
A Creationist made a randomizer based upon this principle, so that you don't have to do it manually, if you prefer.
http://www.randommutation.com/

I'm not sure what this proves. It sounds like in your analogy the sentence is a genetic sequence and each letter is a gene. However if that's the case it doesn't make sense because you can change a single gene in a genetic code and have a great effect (positive or negative). Thousands of diseases are caused by a single gene. Additionally there is a perfect English sentence but there isn't a perfect genetic code. If you start with a random assortment of letters and do enough random mutation you absolutely could get a perfect English sentence but you are trying to take something that is perfect and make it more perfect. Of course that's impossible.

[David88vert]

Random mutations yes, but also in natural selection which is absolutely NOT random.
I'm not sure what this proves. It sounds like in your analogy the sentence is a genetic sequence and each letter is a gene. However if that's the case it doesn't make sense because you can change a single gene in a genetic code and have a great effect (positive or negative). Thousands of diseases are caused by a single gene. Additionally there is a perfect English sentence but there isn't a perfect genetic code. If you start with a random assortment of letters and do enough random mutation you absolutely could get a perfect English sentence but you are trying to take something that is perfect and make it more perfect. Of course that's impossible.

How exactly does natural selection know if a genetic change is successful? What feedback does it get? It has to make random changes to even start to evolve.

In order to improve the genetic structure, it has to make changes to the code itself. Mutations are either neutral or harmful - very rarely has one been shown to be even minorly beneficial, and none have shown the steps between species.

Diploid organisms (plants and animals) have two copies of each chromosome. Change just one gene and see what happens.

[bu villain]

How exactly does natural selection know if a genetic change is successful? What feedback does it get? It has to make random changes to even start to evolve..

The only thing that determines if a gene change is "successful" is survival. Take a group of brown rabbits in a snowy environment. A genetic mutation (random) occurs in two rabbits, one is born with bright white fur and the other bright red. The white one is well camoflauged and thus more likely to survive. That rabbit then is more likely to reproduce white offspring with the white gene. The bright red rabbit would stand out and likely be eaten, thus no new generation to inheret the red gene.


In order to improve the genetic structure, it has to make changes to the code itself. Mutations are either neutral or harmful - very rarely has one been shown to be even minorly beneficial, and none have shown the steps between species.

I just gave an example above that shows a beneficial example. Of course most mutations would be harmful because there are far more ways to disrupt a system than improve upon it. What do you mean exactly by showing steps between species? A frog will never turn into a dog so there will never be something in between. Even assuming you are talking about two "species" on the same genetic line, let's say homo habilus and homosapiens, the "step" in between would be homo erectus. The word 'step' is a little misleading because there are an infinite number of 'steps' just as there are infinite color steps between orange and yellow.


Diploid organisms (plants and animals) have two copies of each chromosome. Change just one gene and see what happens.

What happens? You might get a different trait (e.g., hair color, eye color, etc). They aren't copies as in the exact same genetic code. You have 23 pairs of chromosomes. Each pair is made up of one from your mother and one from your father. Unless your mom and dad have the exact same DNA (highly unlikely), your chromosome pairs will not be identical to eachother.

[David88vert]

The only thing that determines if a gene change is "successful" is survival. Take a group of brown rabbits in a snowy environment. A genetic mutation (random) occurs in two rabbits, one is born with bright white fur and the other bright red. The white one is well camoflauged and thus more likely to survive. That rabbit then is more likely to reproduce white offspring with the white gene. The bright red rabbit would stand out and likely be eaten, thus no new generation to inheret the red gene.
Obviously, that would mean that you would have to have a lot of the exact same change happen in the exact same area, and those changed individuals would have to meet and propogate - in masses. One rabbit wouldn't only change - many would have to at the same time, in the same breeding area, from both genders, and would have to find each other - and not just one pair either. For a lot of creatures that have limited young, it would have to happen on a massive scale. The probability of that happening in just one instance is so rare that we have yet to observe it in action. It is nothing more than conjecture. Without proof, it must be believed through faith, like a religion.


I just gave an example above that shows a beneficial example. Of course most mutations would be harmful because there are far more ways to disrupt a system than improve upon it. What do you mean exactly by showing steps between species? A frog will never turn into a dog so there will never be something in between. Even assuming you are talking about two "species" on the same genetic line, let's say homo habilus and homosapiens, the "step" in between would be homo erectus. The word 'step' is a little misleading because there are an infinite number of 'steps' just as there are infinite color steps between orange and yellow.
If evolution as currently stated is true, then you would have to have genetic disruptions between the existence of multiple species. This has never been observed in current nature by any biologist.


What happens? You might get a different trait (e.g., hair color, eye color, etc). They aren't copies as in the exact same genetic code. You have 23 pairs of chromosomes. Each pair is made up of one from your mother and one from your father. Unless your mom and dad have the exact same DNA (highly unlikely), your chromosome pairs will not be identical to eachother.
The proteins stay the same structure. They do not created a new species. The data inside is approximately 3 billion characters long. 99.7% of them copy over the same. The few characteristics that vary do not create a new species - ever. The copying of data is so exact that you only see one error per 10 billion letters. Try to type that well. If a mistake occurs in one of the most significant parts of the code, you get mutations such as sickle-cell anemia.

Even Francis Crick, stated in his book that "an honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going".


Currently, if you choose to believe that we exist by randomness, you are just using faith. Just like religion. Nothing wrong with that though. And no - it still does not prove the existence of God. It just means that we have to choose what we believe.

[5speed]

Obviously, that would mean that you would have to have a lot of the exact same change happen in the exact same area, and those changed individuals would have to meet and propogate - in masses. One rabbit wouldn't only change - many would have to at the same time, in the same breeding area, from both genders, and would have to find each other - and not just one pair either. For a lot of creatures that have limited young, it would have to happen on a massive scale. The probability of that happening in just one instance is so rare that we have yet to observe it in action. It is nothing more than conjecture. Without proof, it must be believed through faith, like a religion.


If evolution as currently stated is true, then you would have to have genetic disruptions between the existence of multiple species. This has never been observed in current nature by any biologist.


The proteins stay the same structure. They do not created a new species. The data inside is approximately 3 billion characters long. 99.7% of them copy over the same. The few characteristics that vary do not create a new species - ever. The copying of data is so exact that you only see one error per 10 billion letters. Try to type that well. If a mistake occurs in one of the most significant parts of the code, you get mutations such as sickle-cell anemia.

Even Francis Crick, stated in his book that "an honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going".


Currently, if you choose to believe that we exist by randomness, you are just using faith. Just like religion. Nothing wrong with that though. And no - it still does not prove the existence of God. It just means that we have to choose what we believe.

Very well put sir.

[Starrfire]

^^^I concur

[bu villain]

Obviously, that would mean that you would have to have a lot of the exact same change happen in the exact same area, and those changed individuals would have to meet and propogate - in masses. One rabbit wouldn't only change - many would have to at the same time, in the same breeding area, from both genders, and would have to find each other - and not just one pair either. For a lot of creatures that have limited young, it would have to happen on a massive scale. The probability of that happening in just one instance is so rare that we have yet to observe it in action. It is nothing more than conjecture. Without proof, it must be believed through faith, like a religion.

If evolution as currently stated is true, then you would have to have genetic disruptions between the existence of multiple species. This has never been observed in current nature by any biologist.

The proteins stay the same structure. They do not created a new species. The data inside is approximately 3 billion characters long. 99.7% of them copy over the same. The few characteristics that vary do not create a new species - ever. The copying of data is so exact that you only see one error per 10 billion letters. Try to type that well. If a mistake occurs in one of the most significant parts of the code, you get mutations such as sickle-cell anemia.

New species don't just appear, they never will so I'm not sure what your point is here. And about mutations causing diseases, I already addressed that in my last response.

Even Francis Crick, stated in his book that "an honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going".

Currently, if you choose to believe that we exist by randomness, you are just using faith. Just like religion. Nothing wrong with that though. And no - it still does not prove the existence of God. It just means that we have to choose what we believe.

I was going to respond to your remarks but I can tell it is futile. I admit the details of evolution are complex and confusing, even counterintuitive at times. But, no one has time to research the intracacies of everything and that's why we rely on experts. If I have a car question I trust a mechanic. If I have a medical question I ask a doctor. If you really care about knowing the answer to such details of evolutionary theory, you should go talk to an evolutionary biologist. If 98% of doctors say smoking can cause lung cancer, I believe them even though I don't know anyone with cancer. Why is it that when 98% of biologists say evolution is the method of speciation, you are so convinced you understand it better than they?

[NJSC]

Okay here it goes again.
Geoff, I understand what you are trying to do. You have faith and you want to share it. But bro you are going about it the wrong way. Think about it, you are trying to bring people to understand God but you are turning them off. What is better to stand there and say "this is what I think and the rest of you are going to Hell. Turn or burn baby" and not reach a single person, OR would it be better to actually just get down on people's level and love them the way that Christ loved them and show them why you love them and where you get that love and possibly make a positive impact in some people's lives. You are turning people further away with this approach than anything else.

[geoff]

^ FAIL. NOT ONCE did I condemn anyone, or tell them to convert. I listed archaeological findings that proved the stories in the bible to be accurate, I have given thoughts and studies that show the possiblility of a Creator to be plausible. I have given my own testimony of how God has worked in my life and my family's life. I have talked to some off of this forum about God, I have never once cussed anyone out, lost my temper, or bashed on anyone. I am NOT a judge and have not portrayed myself to be one. I see constant links to some study or book written that tell someone's opinion or theory about why God can not exist. I can not prove it but with tangible evidence only give examples that insinuate this truth. BUT, and this is a big one, God left His fingerprint on everything so that it can be found. I have heard that there is no evidence at all of His existence and any evidence provided has been tossed aside. What faith really is, is accepting these things as truth. God is not absent from this world as some unbelievers and believers alike state. He is very real and my bible tells me that He is a very present help in time of need, what does yours say?

I ask you this NJSC, you seem to believe, so which statement would be better?

A) Jesus died to clean me and rose again so I may have life, but i will not tell anyone about it because they might get offended, instead I will say," believe what you want it is all ok." and know in my heart that they are lost and missing out on the greatest love there is to experience.
B) Jesus died to clean me and rose again so I may have life, I thank Him so much and I rejoice and love Him for loving me when I was not worthy. So, I will go and tell others of this love and my Savior so that they too can experience the beauty of God that I have.

My friends, it is commanded to us by Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior, and the very God that made us; to go out into the world and preach the gospel. What is the gospel you ask? The gospel is this, Jesus was God wrapped in flesh, He made Himself as us to be with us. He provided Himself as the punishment for our sins(death) and made us clean and righteous. But He rose again so that we may have life. He sent back the Holy Spirit to comfort us and sanctify us. We are then expected to share this news and grace with the world because this world is lost and in need of a Savior. That's it, the whole gospel wrapped up in a nutshell. Some people will hear this and get offended, saying, " You think you're better than me? Typical christian." others will say, " What a load of crap, show me why I should believe." and then a few will say, " Wow, tell me more." The word of God is a mirror, but instead of showing us the outside man it seperates flesh and spirit and shows us how truly corrupt and dirty we are. That's why people don't like to hear the message, because they don't want to surrender or answer to someone besides themselves. You can keep your faith to yourself and pat people on the back and say it doesn't bother you, that they can do whatever they want. My friend that is a selfish mentality and to keep your faith to yourself shows that you do not truly know God and believe, if you did you would shout from the mountain tops to the world, " The Lord is coming as a thief in the night, are you ready to meet Him? Do you know Him?" For those of you " Christians" out there that condemn others, or keep silent, or instead condone false teachings and moralities than I pray for you, because you do not know God and you should be ashamed to call yourself Christ like. As far as I knew, Jesus preached to all, whether they accepted or tried to kill Him or laughed at Him.

[NJSC]

Okay lets look to Jesus as the example. When he was on the earth did he just stand up and say "See the rainbow that's proof that God exists. This is a piece of the Ark proof that God exists. Here's the tablets the 10 commandments were written on so that is proof." No he sat down with sinners, prostitutes, and tax collectors and ate with them. He built a relationship with people and then talked to them about who he was. So in answer to your query I would say neither because I don't think Jesus would choose either of the options. I choose to love people and love God. Somebody somewhere in the Bible said that was important. And through that love for the people I share the love of God.

[David88vert]

I was going to respond to your remarks but I can tell it is futile. I admit the details of evolution are complex and confusing, even counterintuitive at times. But, no one has time to research the intracacies of everything and that's why we rely on experts. If I have a car question I trust a mechanic. If I have a medical question I ask a doctor. If you really care about knowing the answer to such details of evolutionary theory, you should go talk to an evolutionary biologist. If 98% of doctors say smoking can cause lung cancer, I believe them even though I don't know anyone with cancer. Why is it that when 98% of biologists say evolution is the method of speciation, you are so convinced you understand it better than they?

It is futile because the current theory is flawed. Evolution was proposed without the current scientific knowledge we have now. Darwin marketed his theory before mathematics had shown that only probability can be determined, and DNA was not discovered until 1953.
Perhaps the theory can evolve into something plausible in the future, but to teach it as fact when it is obviously not probable, is irresponsible.

I question your 98% number. I do not know where you came up with that number but I do have comments on it.
According to this 2006 study (http://www.rice.edu/sallyport/2006/winter/sallyport/scientists.html), only 41% of biologists at "elite research universities" do not believe in God. Presumably the other 59% do believe in God or are agnostic.

If I was paid to promote evolution, I would be an evolutionary biologist. It's a simple concept really, you sell the concept, you get compensation. And if you do not wish to believe in religion, the field of choice is evolutionary biology. Dawkins, Moran, and Gould are all examples of this.

I have questioned evolutionists, and have yet to have one explain how evolution overcame mathematics and physics, much less DNA. As I stated earlier, you are free to believe whatever you wish. I have no problem with people believing evolution. Just understand that you are taking that on faith, not a definitive proof.

[David88vert]

^ FAIL. NOT ONCE did I condemn anyone, or tell them to convert. I listed archaeological findings that proved the stories in the bible to be accurate, I have given thoughts and studies that show the possiblility of a Creator to be plausible. I have given my own testimony of how God has worked in my life and my family's life. I have talked to some off of this forum about God, I have never once cussed anyone out, lost my temper, or bashed on anyone. I am NOT a judge and have not portrayed myself to be one. I see constant links to some study or book written that tell someone's opinion or theory about why God can not exist. I can not prove it but with tangible evidence only give examples that insinuate this truth. BUT, and this is a big one, God left His fingerprint on everything so that it can be found. I have heard that there is no evidence at all of His existence and any evidence provided has been tossed aside. What faith really is, is accepting these things as truth. God is not absent from this world as some unbelievers and believers alike state. He is very real and my bible tells me that He is a very present help in time of need, what does yours say?

I ask you this NJSC, you seem to believe, so which statement would be better?

A) Jesus died to clean me and rose again so I may have life, but i will not tell anyone about it because they might get offended, instead I will say," believe what you want it is all ok." and know in my heart that they are lost and missing out on the greatest love there is to experience.
B) Jesus died to clean me and rose again so I may have life, I thank Him so much and I rejoice and love Him for loving me when I was not worthy. So, I will go and tell others of this love and my Savior so that they too can experience the beauty of God that I have.

My friends, it is commanded to us by Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior, and the very God that made us; to go out into the world and preach the gospel. What is the gospel you ask? The gospel is this, Jesus was God wrapped in flesh, He made Himself as us to be with us. He provided Himself as the punishment for our sins(death) and made us clean and righteous. But He rose again so that we may have life. He sent back the Holy Spirit to comfort us and sanctify us. We are then expected to share this news and grace with the world because this world is lost and in need of a Savior. That's it, the whole gospel wrapped up in a nutshell. Some people will hear this and get offended, saying, " You think you're better than me? Typical christian." others will say, " What a load of crap, show me why I should believe." and then a few will say, " Wow, tell me more." The word of God is a mirror, but instead of showing us the outside man it seperates flesh and spirit and shows us how truly corrupt and dirty we are. That's why people don't like to hear the message, because they don't want to surrender or answer to someone besides themselves. You can keep your faith to yourself and pat people on the back and say it doesn't bother you, that they can do whatever they want. My friend that is a selfish mentality and to keep your faith to yourself shows that you do not truly know God and believe, if you did you would shout from the mountain tops to the world, " The Lord is coming as a thief in the night, are you ready to meet Him? Do you know Him?" For those of you " Christians" out there that condemn others, or keep silent, or instead condone false teachings and moralities than I pray for you, because you do not know God and you should be ashamed to call yourself Christ like. As far as I knew, Jesus preached to all, whether they accepted or tried to kill Him or laughed at Him.

This statement is quite different than the initial post of this thread.
You started the thread with the statement that you would provide scientific and archelogical proof of God. This cannot be proven.
The only thing that you can do is present data, and determine probabilities. No certainty of God's existence can be proven scientifically.
Godel stated it best -
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/9/8/6/986243ab779fa1d9b4d9ab8e0d8342da.png

[geoff]

^FAIL AGAIN, read the topic title. proof...of Bible.

[bu villain]

It is futile because the current theory is flawed. Evolution was proposed without the current scientific knowledge we have now. Darwin marketed his theory before mathematics had shown that only probability can be determined, and DNA was not discovered until 1953.
Perhaps the theory can evolve into something plausible in the future, but to teach it as fact when it is obviously not probable, is irresponsible.

Darwin was only the beginning. To credit him entirely for the modern theory is to disregard the last 100+ years of contributions and study. It's not "fact" so to speak but neither is gravity for that matter. No one can tell you why two masses are attracted to each other but do you advocate not teaching about it until we figure that out? Science is always up for revision when new evidence comes to light but until it does, we teach the best theories we have.


I question your 98% number. I do not know where you came up with that number but I do have comments on it.
According to this 2006 study (http://www.rice.edu/sallyport/2006/winter/sallyport/scientists.html), only 41% of biologists at "elite research universities" do not believe in God. Presumably the other 59% do believe in God or are agnostic.

Belief in God does not mean you don't believe in evolution so I'm not sure why you are referencing that study. Here is an example from a 1997 Gallup Poll that states 95% of scientists believe in evolution. (http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm) Notice 40% believe in theistic evolution.


If I was paid to promote evolution, I would be an evolutionary biologist. It's a simple concept really, you sell the concept, you get compensation. And if you do not wish to believe in religion, the field of choice is evolutionary biology. Dawkins, Moran, and Gould are all examples of this.

Every scientist is paid to study their field, so do you question all scientific findings to this extent or only evolution? I don't see what religion has to do with any of this other than religious people seem to only disregard science when it conflicts with their religious beliefs.


I have questioned evolutionists, and have yet to have one explain how evolution overcame mathematics and physics, much less DNA. As I stated earlier, you are free to believe whatever you wish. I have no problem with people believing evolution. Just understand that you are taking that on faith, not a definitive proof.

I don't see what is to overcome in math and physics and DNA. Either something is possible or its not. I am taking it on "faith" in the same way as I take the idea that things are made of protons and electrons on "faith". The same way I know the sun is a giant ball of gas burning at millions of degrees. If you want to argue that this "faith" is the same as religious faith, I guess there is no point in testing hypothesis, collecting data, or doing experiments.

[David88vert]

Darwin was only the beginning. To credit him entirely for the modern theory is to disregard the last 100+ years of contributions and study. It's not "fact" so to speak but neither is gravity for that matter. No one can tell you why two masses are attracted to each other but do you advocate not teaching about it until we figure that out? Science is always up for revision when new evidence comes to light but until it does, we teach the best theories we have.



Belief in God does not mean you don't believe in evolution so I'm not sure why you are referencing that study. Here is an example from a 1997 Gallup Poll that states 95% of scientists believe in evolution. (http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm) Notice 40% believe in theistic evolution.



Every scientist is paid to study their field, so do you question all scientific findings to this extent or only evolution? I don't see what religion has to do with any of this other than religious people seem to only disregard science when it conflicts with their religious beliefs.



I don't see what is to overcome in math and physics and DNA. Either something is possible or its not. I am taking it on "faith" in the same way as I take the idea that things are made of protons and electrons on "faith". The same way I know the sun is a giant ball of gas burning at millions of degrees. If you want to argue that this "faith" is the same as religious faith, I guess there is no point in testing hypothesis, collecting data, or doing experiments.

I'm not throwing out any scientists work, including Darwin's. But I'm also not going to swllow it hook, line, and sinker without learning about it first with my own research.
I don't see scientists proclaiming that gravity is spawning new species, new elements, or anything like that. I have not problem with scientists trying to further the studying of the evolutionary theory. I do have a problem with it being taught as fact, when it clearly is not fact. Scientists that push evolution do it with the same conviction and tactics as religious doctrines - and with just as much missing answers.
You are correct that belief in one does not require a disbelief in the other. I agree 100% with you on that. Again, that is faith - which I have advocated that it is the entire time.
I question any science that makes outlandish claims that go against mathematical probability. I question religions also - unfortunately, they do not have to attempt to prove their claims.
You appear to not understand possibility and probability. Possibility is either 0 or 1, and since we cannot prove that something is always impossible, the answer is always 1. Probability is always measured between the two, and will move up and down the scale. The probability that teh current evolution theory got us to where we are was once calculated as 1 in 10x38th power. You have a much better chance of winning the lottery every day for the rest of your life. Do you have faith that you can do that?

[David88vert]

^FAIL AGAIN, read the topic title. proof...of Bible.

John 1:1

[ahabion]

@geoff,you probably find it emotionally exhilarating to stir emotions on this forum. How then does it help promote the Gospel when in so many ways what you're posting will only cause your brothers to sin against our Father? Is this where you find your ministry? Does this edify you?

@David88vert, great points all around.

[StreetHazard]

@geoff,you probably find it emotionally exhilarating to stir emotions on this forum. How then does it help promote the Gospel when in so many ways what you're posting will only cause your brothers to sin against our Father? Is this where you find your ministry? Does this edify you?

X2

Yea Goeff, what is wrong with you? Your internet posting offends my christian sensibilities, and now I feel inclined to commit mortal sins in response to your callousness in not considering my emotional needs.

excuse me....I have to go kill a baby and it's all your fault.

And hey! how is that christian car club "riding for God crew" coming along? I want to sign up because after all of your posts and all of your commentary, I am happy to tell you I have finally found a god and it is all because of you Geoff.

Check it out "it's sort of like the Bible........but different" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnbYcB9ctu8&feature=player_embedded)

"if knowing the unknowable is crazy, then I don't want to be sane"

[bu villain]

I'm not throwing out any scientists work, including Darwin's. But I'm also not going to swllow it hook, line, and sinker without learning about it first with my own research.
I don't see scientists proclaiming that gravity is spawning new species, new elements, or anything like that. I have not problem with scientists trying to further the studying of the evolutionary theory. I do have a problem with it being taught as fact, when it clearly is not fact. Scientists that push evolution do it with the same conviction and tactics as religious doctrines - and with just as much missing answers.
You are correct that belief in one does not require a disbelief in the other. I agree 100% with you on that. Again, that is faith - which I have advocated that it is the entire time.
I question any science that makes outlandish claims that go against mathematical probability. I question religions also - unfortunately, they do not have to attempt to prove their claims.
You appear to not understand possibility and probability. Possibility is either 0 or 1, and since we cannot prove that something is always impossible, the answer is always 1. Probability is always measured between the two, and will move up and down the scale. The probability that teh current evolution theory got us to where we are was once calculated as 1 in 10x38th power. You have a much better chance of winning the lottery every day for the rest of your life. Do you have faith that you can do that?

In the end you either trust the scientific method and scientist or you don't. If you don't trust them, I doubt I can convince you otherwise. The evidence I have seen is convincing to me, obviously not so to you. I guess you just have a higher threshold for belief than 95% of scientists. Btw, if current evolutionary theory is true, then the chance it got us to where we are today is 100%. The chance of one person winning the lottery may be 1 in a million and yet someone always wins the lottery.

Also, I would like to know, what are the consequences of teaching evolutionary theory that you fear? Since it is really the only scientific theory on the subject out there right now, do you suggest we not teach it at all or do you simply want more emphasis placed on the fact that we can't answer every single question associated with it?

[David88vert]

In the end you either trust the scientific method and scientist or you don't. If you don't trust them, I doubt I can convince you otherwise. The evidence I have seen is convincing to me, obviously not so to you. I guess you just have a higher threshold for belief than 95% of scientists. Btw, if current evolutionary theory is true, then the chance it got us to where we are today is 100%. The chance of one person winning the lottery may be 1 in a million and yet someone always wins the lottery.

Also, I would like to know, what are the consequences of teaching evolutionary theory that you fear? Since it is really the only scientific theory on the subject out there right now, do you suggest we not teach it at all or do you simply want more emphasis placed on the fact that we can't answer every single question associated with it?

First, let me expain probability to you.
Cover all of North America in dimes, with the edge of each one touching each other. Then stack dimes in columns on those all the way to the moon. Now take that one pile that is the size of North America piled all the way to the moon, and multiply it 1 million times. Take one dime and paint it red and put it a random somewhere in those 1 million piles of dimes each the size of North America and piled to the moon. Have a blindfolded person pick out that one dime. That is the odds that a single living cell came from nothing, and became our current civilization.
The question was can you personally always win the lottery - every day. It is mathematically improbably, but its odds are much better, but I doubt that you believe that you can do that.
Show me the scientific method for testing how something comes from nothing (spontaneous creation from the lack of matter), plus scientific method of an inorganic object becoming a living organism (creation of life), and the utilization of the scientific method to observe the natural creation of a new species through DNA mutation.

You seem to be easily convinced. That is fine. You are free to believe whatever you wish, I have no problem with that. If someone tells you the world is flat, and you believe them, it probably won't affect your daily life.

I have no problems or issues with teaching evolution. I do believe that evolution should not be taught as fact, when it is clearly not. It should be taught that it has ample data available that makes it improbable, but do not rule it out entirely. That is very different than what you see presented by biased individuals currently.

[geoff]

David88vert- one of my favorite scriptures.
ahabion- how would my witnessing cause someone to sin? your not technically a " brother " until you accept Christ. The unbelieving populous will still continue to sin just as the Christians will.

[BABY J]

LOL @ this. I'll just say "who created God?".. you know, since you "can't get something from nothing." But I'm sure the thumpers will say "God just IS" - that's laughable as well.

[geoff]

actually no, in order for there to have been something created it would of had to been created by something that is not bound by the physical laws of nature

[BABY J]

So the supernatural creates natural objects that can then spawn supernatural objects - makes PERFECT sense.

[David88vert]

Our universe is finite - it has bounds. In order to have a omniscient and omnipotent deity, the diety would have to be infinite. From a conceptual viewpoint only, as it could never be proven from a finite being like us, it would be logical that an infinite being could create a finite structure.
Think of us living in a box, and the deity is located outside of the box. It would be easy for the diety to reach in the box, get into the box, move the box around, etc. But it would be impossible for a microscopic organism like a bacterium to have any effect on the box.
Of course, this is all conjecture.

[JDM onlyy]

Proof Jesus exists....at least thats what the cop said...

http://www.aceshowbiz.com/images/still/the_hangover15.jpg

[bu villain]

First, let me expain probability to you.
Cover all of North America in dimes, with the edge of each one touching each other. Then stack dimes in columns on those all the way to the moon. Now take that one pile that is the size of North America piled all the way to the moon, and multiply it 1 million times. Take one dime and paint it red and put it a random somewhere in those 1 million piles of dimes each the size of North America and piled to the moon. Have a blindfolded person pick out that one dime. That is the odds that a single living cell came from nothing, and became our current civilization.
The question was can you personally always win the lottery - every day. It is mathematically improbably, but its odds are much better, but I doubt that you believe that you can do that.
Show me the scientific method for testing how something comes from nothing (spontaneous creation from the lack of matter), plus scientific method of an inorganic object becoming a living organism (creation of life), and the utilization of the scientific method to observe the natural creation of a new species through DNA mutation.

You seem to be easily convinced. That is fine. You are free to believe whatever you wish, I have no problem with that. If someone tells you the world is flat, and you believe them, it probably won't affect your daily life.

I have no problems or issues with teaching evolution. I do believe that evolution should not be taught as fact, when it is clearly not. It should be taught that it has ample data available that makes it improbable, but do not rule it out entirely. That is very different than what you see presented by biased individuals currently.

Your coin image is very powerful but I have a hard time believing it. Could you please explain how you arrived at those numbers. I don't see how you could calculate the probability of something like that without making unsubstantiated assumptions. There are far too many unknowns.

Also, the theory of evolution does not make any comment on how the first life started, it only tries to explain how life developed once it had started. So your comment about something from nothing is irrelevant to this discussion.

And your right. I am easily convinved by people I trust. That's what trust means! On this biological issue I trust the biologists more than a random guy on a message board (although I have no doubt you are intelligent as well). However, I would probably trust you on car issues more than an evolutionary biologist. I would argue that's how most people handle complex issues outside of their expertise.

[David88vert]

Your coin image is very powerful but I have a hard time believing it. Could you please explain how you arrived at those numbers. I don't see how you could calculate the probability of something like that without making unsubstantiated assumptions. There are far too many unknowns.

Also, the theory of evolution does not make any comment on how the first life started, it only tries to explain how life developed once it had started. So your comment about something from nothing is irrelevant to this discussion.

And your right. I am easily convinved by people I trust. That's what trust means! On this biological issue I trust the biologists more than a random guy on a message board (although I have no doubt you are intelligent as well). However, I would probably trust you on car issues more than an evolutionary biologist. I would argue that's how most people handle complex issues outside of their expertise.

I did not calculate it to that degree - nor could I spend that much time doing it. It came years ago from a DNA calculation book which included the example. They definitely did not have to make as many assumptions as you do to believe in evolution - as it is currently presented.
I do have lots of information on DNA that I could send you - if you are interested in it. It's pretty dry reading material, but it is pretty clear that DNA does not mutate like the old textbooks claimed in support of evolution.

Ok, ignore the fact that something cannot come from nothing. Show an example of an inorganic object becoming a living organism (creation of life) from inorganic matter through the scientific method, and the utilization of the scientific method to observe the natural creation of a new species through DNA mutation.

So, you choose to trust a random person who you cannot name, question, research, etc? Care to buy a bridge in Brooklyn? It's cheap..:D
I would hope that you would question everything told and taught to you - however, that being said, there is no real harm in you believing something that does not daily impact your life. Like I said earlier, it is all about faith. I personally cannot have faith in something that defies probability to such an extent as the current theory does, but whether I believe it or not does not affect my daily decisions either of how I provide for my family.

[The Creeper]

No one in this world has the knowledge of how life was created on our planet. Not as a fact, anyways. Because of this, the argument will never end, so realistically there is no point in arguing.

[bu villain]

I did not calculate it to that degree - nor could I spend that much time doing it. It came years ago from a DNA calculation book which included the example. They definitely did not have to make as many assumptions as you do to believe in evolution - as it is currently presented.
I do have lots of information on DNA that I could send you - if you are interested in it. It's pretty dry reading material, but it is pretty clear that DNA does not mutate like the old textbooks claimed in support of evolution.

Are you saying you have something that claims DNA does not have mutations? Either way I'm up for learning something new.


Ok, ignore the fact that something cannot come from nothing. Show an example of an inorganic object becoming a living organism (creation of life) from inorganic matter through the scientific method, and the utilization of the scientific method to observe the natural creation of a new species through DNA mutation.

I don't know how life was first created but once again that is not part of evolutionary theory. Here is an example of a new species being created:
http://www.nytimes.com/1996/05/07/science/first-ever-re-creation-of-new-species-birth.html?pagewanted=1


So, you choose to trust a random person who you cannot name, question, research, etc? Care to buy a bridge in Brooklyn? It's cheap..:D
I would hope that you would question everything told and taught to you - however, that being said, there is no real harm in you believing something that does not daily impact your life. Like I said earlier, it is all about faith. I personally cannot have faith in something that defies probability to such an extent as the current theory does, but whether I believe it or not does not affect my daily decisions either of how I provide for my family.

I do question such things. I have read more books on evolutionary theory than probably 99% of people and the logic and evidence are convincing to me. Of course some amount of trust is required because I haven't inspected these fossils myself, or verified that DNA even exists by myself. I think its unfair for you to equate believing what an expert says about something in their field to what a random guy on the street says.

[RandomGuy]

The point of this thread was not to prove a God or Christian God existed, like you stated that takes faith. The point of this thread was to show the bible was not made up of lies by men to control the population. One thing I have learned though is that these people just reject the facts, can't really do anything about that, it is in God's hands. And I know that scripture you are talking about, there is another one I read before that said something like, their towers will burn.....ect. I will try and locate it.


1. Who incited David to count the fighting men of Israel?

* God did (2 Samuel 24: 1)
* Satan did (I Chronicles 2 1:1)

2. In that count how many fighting men were found in Israel?

* Eight hundred thousand (2 Samuel 24:9)
* One million, one hundred thousand (I Chronicles 21:5)

3. How many fighting men were found in Judah?

* Five hundred thousand (2 Samuel 24:9)
* Four hundred and seventy thousand (I Chronicles 21:5)

4. God sent his prophet to threaten David with how many years of famine?

* Seven (2 Samuel 24:13)
* Three (I Chronicles 21:12)

5. How old was Ahaziah when he began to rule over Jerusalem?

* Twenty-two (2 Kings 8:26)
* Forty-two (2 Chronicles 22:2)

6. How old was Jehoiachin when he became king of Jerusalem?

* Eighteen (2 Kings 24:8)
* Eight (2 Chronicles 36:9)

7. How long did he rule over Jerusalem?

* Three months (2 Kings 24:8)
* Three months and ten days (2 Chronicles 36:9)

8. The chief of the mighty men of David lifted up his spear and killed how many men at one time?

* Eight hundred (2 Samuel 23:8)
* Three hundred (I Chronicles 11: 11)

9. When did David bring the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem? Before defeating the Philistines or after?

* After (2 Samuel 5 and 6)
* Before (I Chronicles 13 and 14)

10. How many pairs of clean animals did God tell Noah to take into the Ark?

* Two (Genesis 6:19, 20)
* Seven (Genesis 7:2). But despite this last instruction only two pairs went into the ark (Genesis 7:8-9)

11. When David defeated the King of Zobah, how many horsemen did he capture?

* One thousand and seven hundred (2 Samuel 8:4)
* Seven thousand (I Chronicles 18:4)

12. How many stalls for horses did Solomon have?

* Forty thousand (I Kings 4:26)
* Four thousand (2 chronicles 9:25)

13. In what year of King Asa's reign did Baasha, King of Israel die?

* Twenty-sixth year (I Kings 15:33 - 16:8)
* Still alive in the thirty-sixth year (2 Chronicles 16:1)

14. How many overseers did Solomon appoint for the work of building the temple?

* Three thousand six hundred (2 Chronicles 2:2)
* Three thousand three hundred (I Kings 5:16)

15. Solomon built a facility containing how many baths?

* Two thousand (1 Kings 7:26)
* Over three thousand (2 Chronicles 4:5)

16. Of the Israelites who were freed from the Babylonian captivity, how many were the children of Pahrath-Moab?

* Two thousand eight hundred and twelve (Ezra 2:6)
* Two thousand eight hundred and eighteen (Nehemiah 7:11)

17. How many were the children of Zattu?

* Nine hundred and forty-five (Ezra 2:8)
* Eight hundred and forty-five (Nehemiah 7:13)

18. How many were the children of Azgad?

* One thousand two hundred and twenty-two (Ezra 2:12)
* Two thousand three hundred and twenty-two (Nehemiah 7:17)

19. How many were the children of Adin?

* Four hundred and fifty-four (Ezra 2:15)
* Six hundred and fifty-five (Nehemiah 7:20)

20. How many were the children of Hashum?

* Two hundred and twenty-three (Ezra 2:19)
* Three hundred and twenty-eight (Nehemiah 7:22)

21. How many were the children of Bethel and Ai?

* Two hundred and twenty-three (Ezra 2:28)
* One hundred and twenty-three (Nehemiah 7:32)

22. Ezra 2:64 and Nehemiah 7:66 agree that the total number of the whole assembly was 42,360. Yet the numbers do not add up to anything close. The totals obtained from each book is as follows:

* 29,818 (Ezra)
* 31,089 (Nehemiah)

23. How many singers accompanied the assembly?

* Two hundred (Ezra 2:65)
* Two hundred and forty-five (Nehemiah 7:67)

24. What was the name of King Abijahs mother?

* Michaiah, daughter of Uriel of Gibeah (2 Chronicles 13:2)
* Maachah, daughter of Absalom (2 Chronicles 11:20) But Absalom had only one daughter whose name was Tamar (2 Samuel 14:27)

25. Did Joshua and the Israelites capture Jerusalem?

* Yes (Joshua 10:23, 40)
* No (Joshua 15:63)

26. Who was the father of Joseph, husband of Mary?

* Jacob (Matthew 1:16)
* Hell (Luke 3:23)

27. Jesus descended from which son of David?

* Solomon (Matthew 1:6)
* Nathan(Luke3:31)

28. Who was the father of Shealtiel?

* Jechoniah (Matthew 1:12)
* Neri (Luke 3:27)

29. Which son of Zerubbabel was an ancestor of Jesus Christ?

* Abiud (Matthew 1: 13)
* Rhesa (Luke 3:27) But the seven sons of Zerubbabel are as follows: i.Meshullam, ii. Hananiah, iii. Hashubah, iv. Ohel, v.Berechiah, vi. Hasadiah, viii. Jushabhesed (I Chronicles 3:19, 20). The names Abiud and Rhesa do not fit in anyway.

30. Who was the father of Uzziah?

* Joram (Matthew 1:8)
* Amaziah (2 Chronicles 26:1)

31. Who was the father of Jechoniah?

* Josiah (Matthew 1:11)
* Jeholakim (I Chronicles 3:16)

32. How many generations were there from the Babylonian exile until Christ?

* Matthew says fourteen (Matthew 1:17)
* But a careful count of the generations reveals only thirteen (see Matthew 1: 12-16)

33. Who was the father of Shelah?

* Cainan (Luke 3:35-36)
* Arphaxad (Genesis II: 12)

34. Was John the Baptist Elijah who was to come?

* Yes (Matthew II: 14, 17:10-13)
* No (John 1:19-21)

35. Would Jesus inherit Davids throne?

* Yes. So said the angel (Luke 1:32)
* No, since he is a descendant of Jehoiakim (see Matthew 1: I 1, I Chronicles 3:16). And Jehoiakim was cursed by God so that none of his descendants can sit upon Davids throne (Jeremiah 36:30)

36. Jesus rode into Jerusalem on how many animals?

* One - a colt (Mark 11:7; cf Luke 19:3 5). And they brought the colt to Jesus and threw their garments on it; and he sat upon it.
* Two - a colt and an ass (Matthew 21:7). They brought the ass and the colt and put their garments on them and he sat thereon.

37. How did Simon Peter find out that Jesus was the Christ?

* By a revelation from heaven (Matthew 16:17)
* His brother Andrew told him (John 1:41)

38. Where did Jesus first meet Simon Peter and Andrew?

* By the sea of Galilee (Matthew 4:18-22)
* On the banks of river Jordan (John 1:42). After that, Jesus decided to go to Galilee (John 1:43)

39. When Jesus met Jairus was Jairus daughter already dead?

* Yes. Matthew 9:18 quotes him as saying, My daughter has just died.
* No. Mark 5:23 quotes him as saying, My little daughter is at the point of death.

40. Did Jesus allow his disciples to keep a staff on their journey?

* Yes (Mark 6:8)
* No (Matthew 10:9; Luke 9:3)

41. Did Herod think that Jesus was John the Baptist?

* Yes (Matthew 14:2; Mark 6:16)
* No (Luke 9:9)

42. Did John the Baptist recognize Jesus before his baptism?

* Yes (Matthew 3:13-14)
* No (John 1:32,33)

43. Did John the Baptist recognize Jesus after his baptism?

* Yes (John 1:32, 33)
* No (Matthew 11:2)

44. According to the Gospel of John, what did Jesus say about bearing his own witness?

* If I bear witness to myself, my testimony is not true (John 5:3 1)
* Even if I do bear witness to myself, my testimony is true (John 8:14)

45. When Jesus entered Jerusalem did he cleanse the temple that same day?

* Yes (Matthew 21:12)
* No. He went into the temple and looked around, but since it was very late he did nothing. Instead, he went to Bethany to spend the night and returned the next morning to cleanse the temple (Mark I 1:1- 17)

46. The Gospels say that Jesus cursed a fig tree. Did the tree wither at once?

* Yes. (Matthew 21:19)
* No. It withered overnight (Mark II: 20)

47. Did Judas kiss Jesus?

* Yes (Matthew 26:48-50)
* No. Judas could not get close enough to Jesus to kiss him (John 18:3-12)

48. What did Jesus say about Peters denial?

* The cock will not crow till you have denied me three times (John 13:38)
* Before the cock crows twice you will deny me three times (Mark 14:30) . When the cock crowed once, the three denials were not yet complete (see Mark 14:72). Therefore prediction (a) failed.

49. Did Jesus bear his own cross?

* Yes (John 19:17)
* No (Matthew 27:31-32)

50. Did Jesus die before the curtain of the temple was torn?

* Yes (Matthew 27:50-51; Mark lS:37-38)
* No. After the curtain was torn, then Jesus crying with a loud voice, said, Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit! And having said this he breathed his last (Luke 23:45-46)

51. Did Jesus say anything secretly?

* No. I have said nothing secretly (John 18:20)
* Yes. He did not speak to them without a parable, but privately to his own disciples he explained everything (Mark 4:34). The disciples asked him Why do you speak to them in parables? He said, To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given (Matthew 13: 1 0-11)

52. Where was Jesus at the sixth hour on the day of the crucifixion?

* On the cross (Mark 15:23)
* In Pilates court (John 19:14)

53. The gospels say that two thieves were crucified along with Jesus. Did both thieves mock Jesus?

* Yes (Mark 15:32)
* No. One of them mocked Jesus, the other defended Jesus (Luke 23:43)

54. Did Jesus ascend to Paradise the same day of the crucifixion?

* Yes. He said to the thief who defended him, Today you will be with me in Paradise (Luke 23:43)
* No. He said to Mary Magdelene two days later, I have not yet ascended to the Father (John 20:17)

55. When Paul was on the road to Damascus he saw a light and heard a voice. Did those who were with him hear the voice?

* Yes (Acts9:7)
* No (Acts22:9)

56. When Paul saw the light he fell to the ground. Did his traveling companions also fall to the ground?

* Yes (Acts 26:14)
* No (Acts 9:7)

57. Did the voice spell out on the spot what Pauls duties were to be?

* Yes (Acts 26:16-18)
* No. The voice commanded Paul to go into the city of Damascus and there he will be told what he must do. (Acts9:7;22: 10)

58. When the Israelites dwelt in Shittin they committed adultery with the daughters of Moab. God struck them with a plague. How many people died in that plague?

* Twenty-four thousand (Numbers 25:1 and 9)
* Twenty-three thousand (I Corinthians 10:8)

59. How many members of the house of Jacob came to Egypt?

* Seventy souls (Genesis 4 & 27)
* Seventy-five souls (Acts 7:14)

60. What did Judas do with the blood money he received for betraying Jesus?

* He bought a field (Acts 1: 18)
* He threw all of it into the temple and went away. The priests could not put the blood money into the temple treasury, so they used it to buy a field to bury strangers (Matthew 27:5)

61. How did Judas die?

* After he threw the money into the temple he went away and hanged himself (Matthew 27:5)
* After he bought the field with the price of his evil deed he fell headlong and burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out (Acts 1:18)

62. Why is the field called Field of Blood?

* Because the priests bought it with the blood money (Matthew 27:8)
* Because of the bloody death of Judas therein (Acts 1:19)

63. Who is a ransom for whom?

* The Son of Man came...to give his life as a ransom for many (Mark 10:45). Christ Jesus who gave himself as a ransom for all... (I Timothy 2:5-6)
* The wicked is a ransom for the righteous, and the faithless for the upright (Proverbs 21:18)

64. Is the law of Moses useful?

* Yes. All scripture is... profitable... (2 Timothy 3:16)
* No. . . . A former commandment is set aside because of its weakness and uselessness... (Hebrews 7:18)

65. What was the exact wording on the cross?

* This is Jesus the King of the Jews (Matthew 27:37)
* The King of the Jews (Mark 15:26)
* This is the King of the Jews (Luke 23:38)
* Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews (John 19:19)

66. Did Herod want to kill John the Baptist?

* Yes (Matthew 14:5)
* No. It was Herodias, the wife of Herod who wanted to kill him. But Herod knew that he was a righteous man and kept him safe (Mark 6:20)

92. Does God change his mind?

* Yes. The word of the Lord came to Samuel: I repent that I have made Saul King... (I Samuel 15:10 to 11)
* No. God will not lie or repent; for he is not a man, that he should repent (I Samuel 15:29)

Yes. And the Lord repented that he had made Saul King over Israel (I Samuel 15:35). Notice that the above three quotes are all from the same chapter of the same book! In addition, the Bible shows that God repented on several other occasions:

i. The Lord was sorry that he made man (Genesis 6:6)

I am sorry that I have made them (Genesis 6:7)

ii. And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do to his people (Exodus 32:14).

iii. (Lots of other such references).

93. The Bible says that for each miracle Moses and Aaron demonstrated the magicians did the same by their secret arts. Then comes the following feat:

* Moses and Aaron converted all the available water into blood (Exodus 7:20-21)
* The magicians did the same (Exodus 7:22). This is impossible, since there would have been no water left to convert into blood.

94. Who killed Goliath?

* David (I Samuel 17:23, 50)
* Elhanan (2 Samuel 21:19)

95. Who killed Saul?

* Saul took his own sword and fell upon it.... Thus Saul died... (I Samuel 31:4-6)
* An Amalekite slew him (2 Samuel 1:1- 16)

96. Does every man sin?

* Yes. There is no man who does not sin (I Kings 8:46; see also 2 Chronicles 6:36; Proverbs 20:9; Ecclesiastes 7:20; and I John 1:810)
* No. True Christians cannot possibly sin, because they are the children of God. Every one who believes that Jesus is the Christ is a child of God.. (I John 5:1). We should be called children of God; and so we are (I John 3: 1). He who loves is born of God (I John 4:7). No one born of God commits sin; for Gods nature abides in him, and he cannot sin because he is born of God (I John 3:9). But, then again, Yes! If we say we have no sin we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us (I John 1:8)

97. Who will bear whose burden?

* Bear one anothers burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ (Galatians 6:2)
* Each man will have to bear his own load (Galatians 6:5)

98. How many disciples did Jesus appear to after his resurrection?

* Twelve (I Corinthians 15:5)
* Eleven (Matthew 27:3-5 and Acts 1:9-26, see also Matthew 28:16; Mark 16:14 footnote; Luke 24:9; Luke 24:3 3)

99. Where was Jesus three days after his baptism?

* After his baptism, the spirit immediately drove him out into the wilderness. And he was in the wilderness forty days ... (Mark 1:12-13)
* Next day after the baptism, Jesus selected two disciples. Second day: Jesus went to Galilee - two more disciples. Third day: Jesus was at a wedding feast in Cana in Galilee (see John 1:35; 1:43; 2:1-11)

100. Was baby Jesus life threatened in Jerusalem?

* Yes, so Joseph fled with him to Egypt and stayed there until Herod died (Matthew 2:13 23)
* No. The family fled nowhere. They calmly presented the child at the Jerusalem temple according to the Jewish customs and returned to Galilee (Luke 2:21-40)

101. When Jesus walked on water how did the disciples respond?

* They worshipped him, saying, Truly you are the Son of God (Matthew 14:33)
* They were utterly astounded, for they did not understand about the loaves, but their hearts were hardened (Mark 6:51-52)



Just curious of how you'd respond...

I don't want to get too involved in this thread though, Its an interesting read though.

[David88vert]

Are you saying you have something that claims DNA does not have mutations? Either way I'm up for learning something new.
I said nothing of the sort. DNA has mutations, but by the vast majority, they are not considered more than mildly beneficial, at best. Most mutations are a detriment, or of no consequence.


I don't know how life was first created but once again that is not part of evolutionary theory. Here is an example of a new species being created:
http://www.nytimes.com/1996/05/07/science/first-ever-re-creation-of-new-species-birth.html?pagewanted=1
Did you read all the way to the end? Even evolutionary biologists were not convinced. It was a hybrid - which is common when you mate two different sunflowers. The important part of the study (and his work still on-going today), was that he successfully reproduced the same genetic change 3 times of breeding. In reality, it is similar to the mating the two different species of a donkey and horse - in that case you get a mule, all males are infertile, and cannot reproduce a new species. The difference here was that his flower was extremely similar to the existing wild sunflower - which does continue to reproduce. So, did selective breeding of a hybrid help it evolve to a higher level (i.e. - the benefit that evolution makes claim to)? The answer is - no, no benefit that we know of - yet. I do like the research program though, and am all for it. Like I said before, I do not want them to stop researching possibilities, I just don't agree that the current data supports the current theory (theories can be rewritten though). As most evolutionary biologist will state themselves, replication is much more complex on animals than plants.



I do question such things. I have read more books on evolutionary theory than probably 99% of people and the logic and evidence are convincing to me. Of course some amount of trust is required because I haven't inspected these fossils myself, or verified that DNA even exists by myself. I think its unfair for you to equate believing what an expert says about something in their field to what a random guy on the street says.
You should question it. The majority of current thesis on evolutionary biology are flawed from being based upon an incorrectly calculated report.
Evolutionary biologists start with an agenda, rather than observation. That is no different than trusting a random individual on the street - both try to sell something. For that matter, religious zealots try to do the same thing - sell their unproven beliefs. In their own minds, they make perfect sense.


BTW - I apologize for not responding sooner. I didn't notice your reply until now. I was not ignoring you.

[XanRules]

is this thread still going..?

[bu villain]

I said nothing of the sort. DNA has mutations, but by the vast majority, they are not considered more than mildly beneficial, at best. Most mutations are a detriment, or of no consequence..

Agreed. I guess I misunderstood your previous post on this. It is the rare, mildly beneficial changes which over immense stretches of time which evolutionary theory credits for evolving traits.


Did you read all the way to the end? Even evolutionary biologists were not convinced. It was a hybrid - which is common when you mate two different sunflowers. The important part of the study (and his work still on-going today), was that he successfully reproduced the same genetic change 3 times of breeding. In reality, it is similar to the mating the two different species of a donkey and horse - in that case you get a mule, all males are infertile, and cannot reproduce a new species. The difference here was that his flower was extremely similar to the existing wild sunflower - which does continue to reproduce. So, did selective breeding of a hybrid help it evolve to a higher level (i.e. - the benefit that evolution makes claim to)? The answer is - no, no benefit that we know of - yet. I do like the research program though, and am all for it. Like I said before, I do not want them to stop researching possibilities, I just don't agree that the current data supports the current theory (theories can be rewritten though). As most evolutionary biologist will state themselves, replication is much more complex on animals than plants..

I took this article as more like a proof of concept rather than a be all end all of evolution. If you look at dog breeds, they are getting to the point where certain breeds could never realistically mate with other breeds (e.g., chihuahua and great dane). I know this is not a perfect example but it seems plausable to me that a continued divergence of those two types of dogs could eventually lead to them being considered different species since usually a species is defined as a group which can reproduce fertile offspring.



You should question it. The majority of current thesis on evolutionary biology are flawed from being based upon an incorrectly calculated report.

As I stated before, I do question it. Otherwise, why would I read books on it or continue this discussion with you. Don't mistake my being convinced by the arguments as I understand them for unquestioning faith.


Evolutionary biologists start with an agenda, rather than observation. That is no different than trusting a random individual on the street - both try to sell something. For that matter, religious zealots try to do the same thing - sell their unproven beliefs. In their own minds, they make perfect sense..

And this seems to be the crux of our disagreement. I don't believe evolutionary biologists start with an agenda anymore than any chemist, physicist or any other biologist.


BTW - I apologize for not responding sooner. I didn't notice your reply until now. I was not ignoring you.

Haha, no need to apologize. We could probably go on indefinitely. It's perfectly understandable that evolutionary debates on IA are not your foremost concern. Even though we disagree I respect that your position comes from your interpretation of the evidence rather than blind disbelief. Skepticism is the most important driver of scientific discovery!

[David88vert]

Agreed. I guess I misunderstood your previous post on this. It is the rare, mildly beneficial changes which over immense stretches of time which evolutionary theory credits for evolving traits.
As stated before, this is not probable in reality. Especially the vast number of changes needed. What we currently know about DNA does not support it.
But there is no reason why they should not keep researching theory - they just shouldn't push it as proven fact.




I took this article as more like a proof of concept rather than a be all end all of evolution. If you look at dog breeds, they are getting to the point where certain breeds could never realistically mate with other breeds (e.g., chihuahua and great dane). I know this is not a perfect example but it seems plausable to me that a continued divergence of those two types of dogs could eventually lead to them being considered different species since usually a species is defined as a group which can reproduce fertile offspring.
As stated previously, even evolutionary biologists don't consider it the same. We haven't been able to successfully breed animals into a new species that can continue to reproduce in nature. That is not saying that we never could, of course, but if it is so hard to do when we are trying on purpose, with a plan, how did it happen at random so many times?



As I stated before, I do question it. Otherwise, why would I read books on it or continue this discussion with you. Don't mistake my being convinced by the arguments as I understand them for unquestioning faith.
That was my misperception. I apologize for my assumption.




And this seems to be the crux of our disagreement. I don't believe evolutionary biologists start with an agenda anymore than any chemist, physicist or any other biologist.
We can agree to disagree. The vast majority of the ones that I have met or studied have carried their agenda first. I'm sure there are some good ones out there also though.



Haha, no need to apologize. We could probably go on indefinitely. It's perfectly understandable that evolutionary debates on IA are not your foremost concern. Even though we disagree I respect that your position comes from your interpretation of the evidence rather than blind disbelief. Skepticism is the most important driver of scientific discovery!
Thanks. I do feel that I owe a response within a reasonable amount of time when someone takes the time to produce the effort to type out what they feel addressed to me.

[bu villain]

Let's focus this a little because I feel we are actually debating the method of evolution rather than evolution itself. Just to get our definitions clear:
Evolution = plant/animal species come from significantly different plant/animal species
Darwinian Natural Selection = A mechanism of changing traits in a species (one possible method of evolution)

Let's stick to debating evolution rather than the method through which occurs.

I'm curious as to your interpretation of the fossil record. Why do you think it is that the older the fossil, the less complex the lifeform? Out of the billions of fossils, it would only take one significantly more advanced lifeform during an early stage of the earth to disprove evolution.

[David88vert]

Let's focus this a little because I feel we are actually debating the method of evolution rather than evolution itself. Just to get our definitions clear:
Evolution = plant/animal species come from significantly different plant/animal species
Darwinian Natural Selection = A mechanism of changing traits in a species (one possible method of evolution)

Let's stick to debating evolution rather than the method through which occurs.

I'm curious as to your interpretation of the fossil record. Why do you think it is that the older the fossil, the less complex the lifeform? Out of the billions of fossils, it would only take one significantly more advanced lifeform during an early stage of the earth to disprove evolution.

I do not think that they have the ability to accurate date fossils. To many factors come into play, and too many assumptions are made. Current methods of dating based upon sedimentation layers are flawed by the assumption that sedimentation layers are not upheaved and changed in position. Radiocarbon dating of known items has produced incorrect results many times, and is based on too many assumptions. Currently, they try to place fossils into the model that they have already determined that they support, rather than seek the truth.

Let me make this crystal clear - even with knowning exactly what we are looking for, with all of the best technology that the world can offer, we cannot find even one example of where we have two species of animals, with the missing links between the two species existing. Rather than trying to disprove something that we cannot accurately determine in the first place, you should be focusing on why is it that evolution is not currently working? If something so mathematically improbable happened over 1.5 million times that we have already counted, then why can't we find a link between 2 of those existing? Why did evolution just stop?

[bu villain]

I do not think that they have the ability to accurate date fossils.

When multiple methods of dating produce consistent results formillions of fossils, I find that pretty convincing. If you don't believe we can date fossils to any meaningful degree than this whole evolution discussion is pointless because the fossil record is the primary evidence for evolution.


Let me make this crystal clear - even with knowning exactly what we are looking for, with all of the best technology that the world can offer, we cannot find even one example of where we have two species of animals, with the missing links between the two species existing. Rather than trying to disprove something that we cannot accurately determine in the first place, you should be focusing on why is it that evolution is not currently working? If something so mathematically improbable happened over 1.5 million times that we have already counted, then why can't we find a link between 2 of those existing? Why did evolution just stop?

First of all the term "missing link" is a misleading term. It's like saying what is the missing color between red and orange. Is it orangish red or reddish orange? In reality there are an infinite number of colors between red and orange. Every animal that ever lived is a "missing link" between what came before it and what came/will come after it. It's not like one day a dinosaur gave birth to a bird and a new species was born. There are countless transitional fossils but since you don't believe in the accuracy of fossils I guess this is meaningless as well.

Also, why do you think evolution stopped? I wasn't aware it had.

[David88vert]

When multiple methods of dating produce consistent results formillions of fossils, I find that pretty convincing. If you don't believe we can date fossils to any meaningful degree than this whole evolution discussion is pointless because the fossil record is the primary evidence for evolution.



First of all the term "missing link" is a misleading term. It's like saying what is the missing color between red and orange. Is it orangish red or reddish orange? In reality there are an infinite number of colors between red and orange. Every animal that ever lived is a "missing link" between what came before it and what came/will come after it. It's not like one day a dinosaur gave birth to a bird and a new species was born. There are countless transitional fossils but since you don't believe in the accuracy of fossils I guess this is meaningless as well.

Also, why do you think evolution stopped? I wasn't aware it had.

Find me a case of a new species evolving currently. To show that it is creating a new species, you should have multiple instances of species one, multiple instances of species two, species two must be able to reproduce to sustain the new species, and you should be able to show the specific genetic changes between the two species - presumably it should have multiple genetically mutated versions of species one.
I'll save you the trouble - there aren't any. Hence, evolution is not progressing in an observable way. of course, stopped is a poor term, considering that would mean that it had to be moving along previously - which is far from proveable.

Fossils exist, but our current methods for dating rely on many assumptions that do not take into account historical events. Do you realize that volcanic eruptions affect the amount of carbon and affect the results of dating via that process? Do you realize that the Industrial Revolution did this as well? Do you realize that the half life is 5730 years, so do you think that it can be used accurately back past 11,460 years? Do you realize that not all plants process C14 the same? And that they usually test older than they are?

For any radiometric measurements of isotopes, you have to make these assumptions:
1. The starting conditions are known (no daughter isotope present at the start, or that we know how much was there).
2. Rate of decay is constant.
3. Systems were closed or isolated so that no parent or daughter isotopes were lost or added.

Those are some pretty big assumptions. You may chose to accept them, but if you do, then you are doing it on faith, and are making science into a religion.

[BABY J]

I'll save you the trouble - there aren't any. Hence, evolution is not progressing in an observable way. of course, stopped is a poor term, considering that would mean that it had to be moving along previously - which is far from proveable.



Quick example that evolution is still occurring... 1) the development of resistance to antibiotics by bacteria and 2) resistance to pesticides by locusts.



I love the way this discussion is being handled by ADULT conversation... I'm just a fly on the wall watching it unfold and learning at the same time. Thanx to all involved so far. Keep it going.

[bu villain]

Find me a case of a new species evolving currently. To show that it is creating a new species, you should have multiple instances of species one, multiple instances of species two, species two must be able to reproduce to sustain the new species, and you should be able to show the specific genetic changes between the two species - presumably it should have multiple genetically mutated versions of species one.
I'll save you the trouble - there aren't any. Hence, evolution is not progressing in an observable way. of course, stopped is a poor term, considering that would mean that it had to be moving along previously - which is far from proveable.

Ok how about chimpanzees and humans (only a few percent genetic differences). If you are looking for an example on the verge of a split, I would say look at dogs and wolves. Was there a certain percentage of genetic differences you are looking for?


Fossils exist, but our current methods for dating rely on many assumptions that do not take into account historical events. Do you realize that volcanic eruptions affect the amount of carbon and affect the results of dating via that process? Do you realize that the Industrial Revolution did this as well? Do you realize that the half life is 5730 years, so do you think that it can be used accurately back past 11,460 years? Do you realize that not all plants process C14 the same? And that they usually test older than they are?

I will respond to all carbon/radiometric dating below but I just wanted to point out that carbon dating is actually considered valid for up to 50,000 to 75,000 years, not 11,460 (that's only two half-lives).


For any radiometric measurements of isotopes, you have to make these assumptions:
1. The starting conditions are known (no daughter isotope present at the start, or that we know how much was there).
2. Rate of decay is constant.
3. Systems were closed or isolated so that no parent or daughter isotopes were lost or added.

Those are some pretty big assumptions. You may chose to accept them, but if you do, then you are doing it on faith, and are making science into a religion.

Nice copy and paste from http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c007.html. Still these are valid but I think you overestimate the innacuracy such factors can introduce. Fossil dating is done through numerous methods other than carbon/rediometric dating including:

dating against objects with a known age
cyclical sedimentary deposits
glacial cycles
coral cycles
tree rings
luminescence

Now you can attack the possible innacuracies in any of these methods as you did with radiometric dating but when mulitple methods give consistent answers, eventually you gotta think it's more than coincidence.

[David88vert]

Quick example that evolution is still occurring... 1) the development of resistance to antibiotics by bacteria and 2) resistance to pesticides by locusts.


Those are not genetic changes that will create a new species.

[BABY J]

Those are not genetic changes that will create a new species.



Not tomorrow - but someday it could. That's why it's called "evolution".


Imagine locusts over 100,000 years that develped alongside pesticides, built a resistance and can't be stopped via this medium.



Now imagine on the other side of the planet locusts that developed in areas where there is no pesticides available.

Would there be no genetic drift between the 2?

[David88vert]

Ok how about chimpanzees and humans (only a few percent genetic differences). If you are looking for an example on the verge of a split, I would say look at dogs and wolves. Was there a certain percentage of genetic differences you are looking for?

There are huge differences between chimps and humans. Even the split is just an assumption, that even your favored fossil record does not support the theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolutionary_genetics

BTW - Did you know that ape and chimps diets cannot support enough energy for us to have split from them 5 million years ago? I suggest you watch the BBC's "Did Cooking Make Us Human?". They showed that we would have had to split off much earlier - 230+ million years ago at minimum. Take a person, and feed them only fresh fruit. Even if they eat non-stop, they cannot get enough energy to sustain their current weight. Raw meat gives more energy, but we do not see apes and chimps following on that diet today. Then to really release energy, you have to breakit down at a celular level by cooking it - which only humans do.



I will respond to all carbon/radiometric dating below but I just wanted to point out that carbon dating is actually considered valid for up to 50,000 to 75,000 years, not 11,460 (that's only two half-lives).

Half-life. Pretty self explanatory. Did you know that our carbon content has increased over Europe just this past week? BTW - Do you realize that the Minoan eruption by itself screwed up the results of carbon dating? The BBC has a documentary on that available also. Good viewing.




Nice copy and paste from http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c007.html. Still these are valid but I think you overestimate the innacuracy such factors can introduce. Fossil dating is done through numerous methods other than carbon/rediometric dating including:

dating against objects with a known age
cyclical sedimentary deposits
glacial cycles
coral cycles
tree rings
luminescence

Now you can attack the possible innacuracies in any of these methods as you did with radiometric dating but when mulitple methods give consistent answers, eventually you gotta think it's more than coincidence.
With ALL technologies involving dating item from before recorded history, you are taking in assumption that it has consistency. It used to be thought that pertrification took millenia, now they are finding out that it can happen in only a couple of centuries through instant oxygen deprivation. Of course, they have to wait for that to be conclusive, so I wouldn't bet completely on that.

Personally, I try to look at all viewpoints, and keep an open mind. I am not telling you to believe in Creationism, just realize that their are a lot of possibilities and none of them is proveable currently. To me, current evolution theory is just completely mathematically improbable from many calculations - you have faith in it, and that can be your belief/religion. Nothing wrong with it.

As I have stated from the beginning - everyone has a choice to believe what they wish. I will add that no ones beliefs should be changed based upon what is typed on a forum.

[David88vert]

Not tomorrow - but someday it could. That's why it's called "evolution".


Imagine locusts over 100,000 years that develped alongside pesticides, built a resistance and can't be stopped via this medium.



Now imagine on the other side of the planet locusts that developed in areas where there is no pesticides available.

Would there be no genetic drift between the 2?

They would still be locusts - the same species.

[BABY J]

^^ would you be able to look at DNA from each locust and tell which one is resistant to pesticides w/out seeing the locust? Would their DNA be different?

[bu villain]

There are huge differences between chimps and humans. Even the split is just an assumption, that even your favored fossil record does not support the theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolutionary_genetics

Yes there are huge differences (a few percent in DNA) between chimps and humans because they split millions of years ago. Practically the whole article is talking about when the split occured so how does it contradict my statement? Please present evidence of fossil records not fitting with the split because this article doesn't mention fossils at all.

Back to the original issue, I am really confused on what you are looking for as far as divergent species. It seems like you want to see two different species with the same DNA and that doesn't make any sense. As I asked before, is there a certain percentage difference in DNA you are looking for? Please give clear guidelines for what you are looking for.


BTW - Did you know that ape and chimps diets cannot support enough energy for us to have split from them 5 million years ago? I suggest you watch the BBC's "Did Cooking Make Us Human?". They showed that we would have had to split off much earlier - 230+ million years ago at minimum. Take a person, and feed them only fresh fruit. Even if they eat non-stop, they cannot get enough energy to sustain their current weight. Raw meat gives more energy, but we do not see apes and chimps following on that diet today. Then to really release energy, you have to breakit down at a celular level by cooking it - which only humans do.

I'd definitely like to check out that documentary. Until I do, all I can say now is that modern ape and chimp diets may or may not be similar at all to our common ancestor (which is neither ape nor human). Chimps and other apes have evolved over the previous millions of years just as humans. Ape diets most likely changed greatly over that time.



Half-life. Pretty self explanatory. Did you know that our carbon content has increased over Europe just this past week? BTW - Do you realize that the Minoan eruption by itself screwed up the results of carbon dating? The BBC has a documentary on that available also. Good viewing.

You seem to be confused with what the 'half' in half-life means. After one half-life there will be 50% of the original element remaining. After two half-lives there will be 25% of the original element remaining, not 0. It's exponential, not linear.


With ALL technologies involving dating item from before recorded history, you are taking in assumption that it has consistency. It used to be thought that pertrification took millenia, now they are finding out that it can happen in only a couple of centuries through instant oxygen deprivation. Of course, they have to wait for that to be conclusive, so I wouldn't bet completely on that.

So even though we have methods that work for recorded history they suddenly become invalid any earlier than that? So you must be open to the idea that dinosaurs lived with humans, and that it's conceivable that the earth has only been around for a few thousand years since we are not able to determine dating in any meaningful way before that, right?


Personally, I try to look at all viewpoints, and keep an open mind. I am not telling you to believe in Creationism just realize that their are a lot of possibilities and none of them is proveable currently. To me, current evolution theory is just completely mathematically improbable from many calculations - you have faith in it, and that can be your belief/religion. Nothing wrong with it.

Show me something with more evidence than evolution and I'll gladly change my mind. Unfortunately I doubt many religious believers will say the same.


As I have stated from the beginning - everyone has a choice to believe what they wish. I will add that no ones beliefs should be changed based upon what is typed on a forum.

I think that's unfortunate. You should believe what has the most evidence for it, not just what you would like to believe is true. I have no reason to want to believe in evolution. If we found a human skeleton from 100 million years ago tomorrow I would not mourn the loss of evolutionary theory. It's simply the most plausable answer given the vast amounts of data we have. There is still much work to be done too!

Why shouldn't beliefs be changed based upon a forum conversation? If a discussion between people is not the time to reevaluate your beliefs then when is? I personally wouldn't be engaged in this conversation if I didn't think I could learn something new from you and thus potentially change my mind on something. I'm not here just to try to show you how smart I am.

[David88vert]

Yes there are huge differences (a few percent in DNA) between chimps and humans because they split millions of years ago. Practically the whole article is talking about when the split occured so how does it contradict my statement? Please present evidence of fossil records not fitting with the split because this article doesn't mention fossils at all.

Back to the original issue, I am really confused on what you are looking for as far as divergent species. It seems like you want to see two different species with the same DNA and that doesn't make any sense. As I asked before, is there a certain percentage difference in DNA you are looking for? Please give clear guidelines for what you are looking for.



I'd definitely like to check out that documentary. Until I do, all I can say now is that modern ape and chimp diets may or may not be similar at all to our common ancestor (which is neither ape nor human). Chimps and other apes have evolved over the previous millions of years just as humans. Ape diets most likely changed greatly over that time.




You seem to be confused with what the 'half' in half-life means. After one half-life there will be 50% of the original element remaining. After two half-lives there will be 25% of the original element remaining, not 0. It's exponential, not linear.



So even though we have methods that work for recorded history they suddenly become invalid any earlier than that? So you must be open to the idea that dinosaurs lived with humans, and that it's conceivable that the earth has only been around for a few thousand years since we are not able to determine dating in any meaningful way before that, right?



Show me something with more evidence than evolution and I'll gladly change my mind. Unfortunately I doubt many religious believers will say the same.



I think that's unfortunate. You should believe what has the most evidence for it, not just what you would like to believe is true. I have no reason to want to believe in evolution. If we found a human skeleton from 100 million years ago tomorrow I would not mourn the loss of evolutionary theory. It's simply the most plausable answer given the vast amounts of data we have. There is still much work to be done too!

Why shouldn't beliefs be changed based upon a forum conversation? If a discussion between people is not the time to reevaluate your beliefs then when is? I personally wouldn't be engaged in this conversation if I didn't think I could learn something new from you and thus potentially change my mind on something. I'm not here just to try to show you how smart I am.

Not much time with all of my work right now to type everything.

In response to your question: Show me where eveolution can be tracked conclusively from one existing animal species to another. Scientists have not been able to do this.
You are assuming that chimps split with humans. It has not been proven.

Watch the documentary - it puts forth that eating meat and cooked food is the only way to collect enough energy to sustain humans. Raw fruits are not enough.

Recorded history - your words - does not go back millions of years. Everything else is speculation with our current technologies.
Why would humans have to live with dinosaurs? Couldn't it be possible that dinosaurs lived in a different area of the world? But if you want to think that they were together, I suspect you are referring to Job 40. Yes, it sounds like a reference to a dinosaur - perhaps the current evolutionary theory is wrong, and some survived longer? After all, how could they have been able to describe a creature with the tail the size of a cedar tree? Since it comes from a religious book, we won't consider it - agreed?

I'm not telling you to believe in anything. If you wish to believe in something with an extremely low mathematical probability, that is up to you.
No, you shouldn't change your beliefs simply because of what one person puts to you. You should critically look at all input, and come to your own conclusion. I am not pushing you to believe in any religion, as it is completely faith-based, with minimal evidence.

[Ncturnal]

I find it humorous how religions will cite science in a very few specific instances (typically in which they don't understand the science in question) that they think validates their bullshit claims and yet reject it wholesale in every other instance. I know religions are used to picking and choosing from their own texts but you don't get to do it with science too.

[Ncturnal]

Not much time with all of my work right now to type everything.

In response to your question: Show me where eveolution can be tracked conclusively from one existing animal species to another. Scientists have not been able to do this.
You are assuming that chimps split with humans. It has not been proven.

You are misrepresenting what the theory states.
http://www.youtube.com/user/AronRa#grid/user/126AFB53A6F002CC