Originally posted by benzene
Well, first of all I'd have to ask you if you even believed in God, because it would be foolhardy to show you evidence that would be relating to something you don't even think exists. But for the benefit of those out there who at least entertain the concept of a higher being, I'll do my best.
Why would it be foolhardy to give me evidence of something I dont think exists? Youre hardly going to prove existance by withholding the evidence. I dont know wether God exists. If there was evidence it would be established by now, and the whole world wouldn't be able to deny Gods existance. But it doesn't exist unless you want it to.
First, it's the oldest holy book that isn't laughably full of scientific holes (yes yes, I know some wiseass is going to throw a whole bunch of verses at me and ask me to explain them. bring it on)
Second, its progression of thought (from the old to the new testaments) makes sense of what I think God would be like. If I had been raised hindu, maybe that would be different, and I'd think the bhagavad gita would be it.
yet the literal word of Genesis is scientifically full of holes the size of jupiter - which is the topic were discussing.
Second, prove the progression of thought is the product of God and not man. By the time the new testament was written there had been thousands of years of refined philosophy. Mankind was more than capable. Personally I find the actions of God rather perverted.
Well in this instance I would invoke occam's razor, and say that if God really did make the world x thousand years ago, it's simpler to accept the account at face value, especially if there is not damning evidence to the contrary. (based upon my personal studies, there haven't been any)
The whole of evolution is damning evidence to the contrary, not that evolution says that God didn't create it. It just says that it didn't happen 10000 years ago. Oh and it also implies that if Genesis is not true, then there is no need for Jesus to save you - which is the real
reason its so important to prove it wrong isn't it.
Well, people are debating whether or not shakespeare wrote all of his plays, and he only live a couple of a hundred years ago. So trying to determine which came first, the bible or astrotheology would be difficult at best. However, given the fairly universal stories about creation (and even the flood), why can't they actually trace back to the actual event?
Its pretty clear that astrotheology came first and to pretend otherwise is another lie. And they do trace back to an actual event, the emergence of civilizations after the melting of the ice after the last ice age, but the flood was not global, didn't happen because God was angry.
LOL. That's what I thought this whole thread was about. Just because creationists hold a fairly simple theory (God made it) makes us "stupid" and "simple". Am I "stupid" and "simple" for wanting a non-intrusive operating system? As I remember, Mac users used to be characterized as such. I point you to my earlier statements about it being either A or B. If it's not one, it pretty much has to be the other
Yet another deception. Your arguing that god made it, I dont claim he didn't - but dont forget the important bit hey- "in accordance with a very strict literal interpretation of a book that evolved from sun-worship mythology". That is stupid and simple. A or B already adressed.
To quote a charismatic creationist, "Millions of dead things, buried in rock layers, laid down by water, all over the earth." (I guess that makes me a Decieved, doesn't it?)
It's no source of amazement to me to observe the conclusions different people can come to based on the same evidence. Fact of the matter is, many fossils exist in massive boneyards that consist of thousands of species all jumbled on top of each other (and these can be found all over the world in similar rock layers). You name a process other than a flood that can do that.
LIE. They're sorted very carefully. You know what I mean and you know its true. There is no jumbledness here. The process is that they died and sank to the bottom of the sea. No 'global' flood necessary.
Ah! Finally! Someone has asked that question. Interestingly enough, an inquiry into the original hebrew/aramaic root of the word used in the bible seems to lend credence to a type of man-made material, possibly similar to plywood. I'm sure you would scoff at the possibility that "primitive man" could have made such a item. However, don't forget that the egyptians were masters at electroplating and even developed batteries to do it with. Now that's early ingenuity!
How convienent, studies showed that natural wood could never be built into a boat the size of an ark,without steel reinforcements, so your evidence gives noah a man made super substance. And noah made this plywood and built an ark himself in 7 days?
Why couldn't God snap his finger and kill everything but Noah and family? Occams Razor is that the ark story is the collective memory of civilizations local floods and the boats built to escape.
Well, the Jewish (not christian) historian Josephus mentions him, and other writings recovered from (I believe) Rome also make mention about some rabblerouser (as they put it) named "Jesus" in Israel.
Also, places and people named in the bible have turned out to exist after all, even when many archaeologists scoffed at their existence. If you want to know more, ask me and I'll get you some more stuff when I get home.
Josephus's paragraphs are known to have been inserted by the Catholic Church, don't read in the style of Josephus writing, and when removed make the writing more coherant. Next.
Tell me, why would a Jew, expecting a divine prophet to appear as per scripture, actually witness the account, and write just a few paragraphs about this event. No its BS inserted by the Catholic Church to try to give some credibility to Jesus' existance when they realised there were no actual accounts of the man from his life, even though he was so famous and rode into Jerusalem on an ass and crowds lined the streets. Guess no-one took a photo either?
Of course places and people occured in the Bible, places and people important to the authors. Funny how all these other places and people have been recorded well in comtemporary history aswell, but somehow not the most important person to have ever existed.
Many scholars think that the name "Adam" came to be used as mankind after the original name "Adam" because older traces to the word "soil" or "ground" have been identified. (Which would be interesting, because the bible account has Adam created from soil)
Occams razor suggests the opposite.
Well, if you're using the KJV (which is pretty hairy stuff to read), it's "God". What is it supposed to be?
The word is Elohim, that doesn't mean god. This is because the ancient Hebrew culture was polytheistic. That means the Hebrews worshipped more than one god. No shit, because they were worshipping the sun-gods, more evidence that the Bible evolved out of mythology.
Well, the "flaming sword" that you are referring to was set in place to prevent Adam and Eve (or their children) from returning to the garden of eden. I believe this was done to serve as a reminder of Adam and Eve's disobedience to God's only command. Presumably, once the garden was destroyed in the flood, the sword was no longer necessary.
Why couldn't the authors have gotten it from the same place the author of genesis did?
I welcome these questions, as I don't have anything to hide. I'm not saying I'm some great thinker or anything, just that I have spent a lot of time going over what I believe and why. Having people ask questions only helps me be critical of what I hold as truth, and make sure that it makes sense.
They did, it comes from sun-worship. Im glad you dont have anything to hide - so just answer the question. How does disproving evolution make your fantasy true?