The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Zombrex

StealthRolex wrote: »

An atheist is not just a person who does not believe.
An atheist is a person who does not believe because they do not want to.

Meh, depends on what you mean by choose.

Do you choose to believe the sky is blue?

If by choose you mean are presented with the evidence and make a determination, then I agree with you.

If by choose you mean consciously decide to accept one thing over the other then I don't think that is the case.

I would love for there to be a god (not yours though) and I would love for there to be an afterlife (not yours though), but I don't choose to believe these things are imaginary, anymore than you choose to believe the sky is blue.

Sam Vimes

StealthRolex wrote: »

who said anything about theism or atheism? I said atheIST

How many times has it been said that atheism is nothing of itself?

lacking a belief in the obvious is oxymoronic.

belief in no belief is moronic

Ah, you mean from the perspective that it's so obvious that we should take the writings of 12 guys from 2000 years ago to be inspired by the omnipotent creator of the universe that not finding their tales any more convincing than any other is both oxymoronic and moronic. Right so.


Does this apply to all such supernatural tales or is it only moronic and oxymoronic not to find the tales of christianity convincing? Can I avoid such labels when I say that I don't find Islam or Mormonism convincing?

StealthRolex

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Ah, you mean from the perspective that it's so obvious that we should take the writings of 12 guys from 2000 years ago to be inspired by the omnipotent creator of the universe that not finding their tales any more convincing than any other is both oxymoronic and moronic. Right so.

Sorry mate but I'm a Catholic and none of that makes any sense whatsoever and I have to assume you have no knowledge of Christianity or it's history or even who or how many wrote the books you so easily dismiss. No matter ,the writings of any atheist are more easily dismissed.

Sam Vimes

StealthRolex wrote: »

Sorry mate but I'm a Catholic and none of that makes any sense whatsoever and I have to assume you have no knowledge whatsoever of Christianity or it's history or even who or how many wrote the books you so easily dismiss. No matter ,the writings of any atheist are more easily dismissed.

Oh I have plenty of knowledge of Christianity. I've learned all about the fantastical tales such as the bodies of saints raising from the dead, wandering into the city and appearing to many people. I also know that all I have is the word of 12 guys from 2000 years ago that any of this happened, just as I have for most other religions. There are many people in the world today who claim to be able to perform miracles and who have not just 12 but millions of followers who all swear to their leader's divinity. In a world where millions upon millions of people are taken in by false religions and superstitions I don't see what's so special about these 12 guys other than their particular story spread better back in the day. But of course that makes me a moron doesn't it :rolleyes:

monosharp

Wicknight wrote: »

I would love for there to be a god (not yours though) and I would love for there to be an afterlife (not yours though), but I don't choose to believe these things are imaginary, anymore than you choose to believe the sky is blue.

+1, I might nick this actually :pac:

wolfsbane

StealthRolex said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
But the debate is generated here by unbelievers using the supposed age of the earth to discredit the Bible's veracity. When you evangelise do you ignore any objection raised? Do you not try to show the Bible is entirely reliable? Why should they believe the gospel bit of it if other bits are mistaken?
Those who chose not to believe will not no matter how far you bend science or yourself.

We owe them the debt of answering any of their reasonable objections. Fobbing them off with excuses about why Genesis seems to contradict the scientific consensus is dishonest, and will not impress any thinking objectors.

Most take it as an introduction to God the Creator and leave it at that. Others may take the descrepancy incorrectly to mean evolution is abiogenesis. That is their problem and anyway that can be dealt without any need to adopt pseudo-science.

It is not their problem - it is a reasonable objection to a plain reading of the Bible, so it is our problem. If we have no explanation, we should say so and not tamper with the Bible. But many scientists, well-qualified in the relevant fields, have challenged the scientific consensus with their own scientific case.

So what if there is a discrepancy between the Bible time and Geological time - science cannot say who or what created life any more than it can say who or what created the universe. The only witnesses are God and His Angels.

It is not just a matter of who created the universe - the Bible makes claims about who, how and when. All of those must be accepted by the Christian. We cannot pick and choose and still speak of the Bible as God's word.

Take it as written - the Universe, the Earth and Life were created. Genesis says so even if it is in parable form so we get the idea of a seven day week with a day to worship God. Adam and Eve were create from matter, Genesis says so but uses the term dust or earth. Stop wasting time. You're still on just the first two chapters and there's a way to go yet.

But this is the whole point - we are not only on the first two chapters of Genesis, we are on every reference to it by Christ and the apostles. It all stands or falls together.
_________________________________________________________________
2 Peter 3:3 knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, 4 and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.” 5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, 6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water.

wolfsbane

StealthRolex wrote: »

Or maybe you and the YECs, IDers want us all getting our foreskins cut and giving up the breakfast bap too. After all that is the "literal" Bible you are talking about.

JC has said it well, but let me also point out that you are completely mistaken about what 'literal' (better, historical narrative) means.

Yes, both the Genesis creation account and the account of the law given to Moses are historical narrative. The first were actual events and the latter an actual giving of the law. Not metaphor/parable. Not stories made up later by the Israelites to account for their current customs. Actual historical events.

But history describes only what happened. It does not prescribe what must happen. The covenant and commandments that were given to Moses were for Israel then. They applied until God superseded them with the New Covenant. A 'literal' interpretation of the giving of the Law of Moses has nothing to say about whether or not we keep it today.
_________________________________________________________________
John 1:17 For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.

J C

Ghost Buster wrote: »

And that is your grasp of science in a nut shell. I study the clog dancing purple yeti in my closet that nobody can see. You have to believe its there.

Gimmie a break, really.:(

How about emphasising my original quote this way!!!

Originally Posted by J C
... yes it is indeed ironic that Darwinism, which claims to be materialistically based, has no logic or evidence supporting it ... while Creation Science, which scientifically studies the works of a Transcendent Invisible God, has all of the logic and the physical evidence on its side!!!
it is ironic, but true ... and the Darwinists haven't provided any evidence for Darwinism despite being asked numerous times to do so ... and I have provided extensive evidence for Creation!!!:):D

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

More often than not. I'm sure you can drag out the old examples of where it went wrong (live snails being 20,000 years old). All scientific measurement systems can go wrong from time to time.



Both.

While you may believe that the entire scientific establishment is simply interested in trying to demonstrate your religion is wrong (as if) in reality they are interested in forming working models of the Earth. Dating methods that are utterly unreliable are of no use. Scientists have spend a lot of time verifying the dating methods they use. They aren't just making it up as they go along.



No it isn't. Even if they were making it all up they were still around to write it when they should have been dead in a flood.

What's the difference between dating methods that are utterly unreliable and those that go wrong from time to time? Can one just ignore the discordant data and stick to the received truth? And are the methods that conflict with the others really utterly unreliable, or just reliably discordant?

As to the ancient authors you say wrote before the date we give of the Flood, have you any examples?
_________________________________________________________________
Genesis 10:5 From these the coastland peoples of the Gentiles were separated into their lands, everyone according to his language, according to their families, into their nations.

Soul Winner

Sam Vimes wrote: »

i don't see what's so special about these 12 guys other than their particular story spread better back in the day.

Their message spread better for a reason and that reason was because it was true or at least people genuinely believed that it was true, including the preachers of the message themselves, the apostles. Now that is not to say that other messages weren't true, they probably were or they probably weren't. But if Christianity is in fact TRUE then maybe the others aren't as true as some might believe they were.

But what could cause so many people to genuinely come to believe in something (Christ's resurrection) that was so obviously false and could be easily proven to be false so close to the events in question back then? All that one needed to do to show the falsity of this new message was to show them the body of Jesus who was crucified just weeks beforehand. I mean, if it was false then the body was still in the tomb right? So why didn't they exhume His body and show these gullible folks that He was dead i.e not risen from the dead? That would have shut them up because they were preaching that some guy rose from the dead and the common sense approach to debunking such testimony would be to produce a dead body.

Theory number 1: The disciples stole the body? If that is true then they were liars and not genuine believers in Jesus as the Son of God. Does anyone believe this theory? If you do then you cannot equate these disciples with followers of other religions because the other religious followers are for the most part genuine believers in their message (be it true or false) but the disciples of Jesus CLAIMED to have seen Him alive again after He died and that He ascended into heaven with the promise of return. So if they knew that this was false then they were liars who knew they were lying and not genuine believers in the message that they fooling others with.

So what must have happened is this: These disciples were once genuine followers of Jesus before He was publicly shown to be cursed of God and a blasphemer who cause many to stray from their national religion and who caused so much trouble in the region among the people and caused factions to arise and claimed things that no mortal man had any right to claim and so on. And these disciples being witness to this public humiliation and defeat for their movement right at its inception were able, after many weeks of grieving and coming to terms with this themselves, make up a story that not only vindicated Jesus so soon after all this happened but were able to make many believe in Him as the Son of God, and all of this because they felt such an affinity with this (obvious to everyone else except them) fraud, because that is what He was if He did not rise from the dead as reported.

If the original story is not true then this is what must happened.

Oh then after that, they were also willing to suffer ridicule, beatings, ostracism from general society, loss or jobs, family, friends, and then suffer horrific agonizing deaths, all the while knowing that they were liars, and as such, knowing that even if there is a God they knew that He hates liars and wouldn't welcome them into His kingdom anyway, so it was all in vain because they loved this deluded megalomaniac called Jesus.

If the original story is not true then this is what happened. I choose to believe the original story not because I'm gullible but because the alternatives are so ridiculous, and that the original story can be backed up by the facts which cannot be said for the alternatives. And just 3 of of the basic facts that most NT scholars and historians agree on are as follows:

• His tomb was in fact empty (whether the disciples, Jews or Romans stole the body or not)
• The disciples genuinely believed that Jesus was the Son of God (not many people debate this fact)
• The disciples had genuine experiences (be they illusory or real) of Jesus post mortem (again not many debate this fact, but what they do debate is the explanation, some say they hallucinated or some such but not many will submit that they were lying or didn't have these experiences)

These are just 3 basic facts of the story that most scholars agree are authentic, which admittedly can be explained by many other theories, but only the original explanation (the resurrection) can explain ALL of them together, no other naturalistic explanation can do that. Hence the most plausible explanation is that He rose from the dead as reported. All that is needed for this to actually happen is for a Supernatural God to exist with power enough to perform it, which was how it was reported to have happened. If you are already biased toward an atheistic and naturalistic worldview then of course this explanation won't wash with you, but just saying that it didn't happen because your worldview won't allow it, is as dumb a thing to do as you think some creationists are with their arguments against evolution.

I love this subject sorry

Sam Vimes

Soul Winner, I and many others have been through this with you many times. The main objections are

1. You only have to explain those "facts" if you take them to be facts, which creates a wonderful circularity where you are using claims of the bible to support other claims of the bible.
2. Even if we take them to be facts, there are plenty of perfectly reasonable explanations for them and many examples of similar things happening throughout history, you just reject all of them for your favoured one.

It's just a story. There are people alive today with millions of followers who all testify to their leader's divinity. we could all get on a plane tomorrow and see for ourselves a real live miracle worker and investigate the veracity of their claims first hand but most christians seem to have no inclination to do this and as long as this remains the case I will take any argument about how the only explanation for a 2000 year old story is that god got involved with a pinch of confirmation bias flavoured salt.

gosplan

J C wrote: »

and I have provided extensive evidence for Creation!!!:):D

Can you explain same evidence again please or just copy and paste. Looked through your old posts but there's too many. Thanks.

J C

MrPudding wrote: »

How does one "choose" not to believe?

... by going into denial !!!!

J C

gosplan wrote: »

Can you explain same evidence again please or just copy and paste. Looked through your old posts but there's too many. Thanks.

We're off again!!!!:eek::):D


Here is a summary of the evidence against Materialistic Evolution ... and in favour of the only other contender ... Divine Creation


A coherent, evidentially based explanation for Materialistic Evolution, which comprehensively answers the following 24 questions, would be required if materialistic mechanisms are to be considered as plausible scientific contenders for the emergence of Human Life, or indeed as the originators or developers of any life on Earth.


1. Why does conventional science have an a priori position that life could ONLY originate through natural mechanisms, when such mechanisms have never been identified or demonstrated and a supernatural origin for life is such a distinct possibility, as to be a probability?

2. Please explain in your own words how Evolution "Muck to Man" 'WORKS'.

3. What is the postulated mechanism for the spontaneous generation of life - or is there one postulated?

4. What is the postulated 'primitive' mechanism that provided the diversity upon which Natural Selection supposedly worked?

5. What is the postulated "conservation" mechanism for the supposed earliest life forms that would allow any "accidental" positive changes to be preserved from one generation to the next?


Equally, what facts, scientific laws, inferences or tested scientific hypotheses can satisfactory answer any of the following valid scientific questions in relation to evolution?
1. Have we observed any mechanism spontaneously generating life – it should still be there somewhere if Evolution is true?
2. How can life be generated spontaneously if the random production of the critical amino acid SEQUENCE for an essential protein is a MATHEMATICAL impossibility?
3. If the SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) radio telescopes were to pick up the DNA code for an Amoeba being transmitted from a distant point in our galaxy, Evolutionists would definitively conclude that they had found proof of extraterrestrial intelligence – so why do they not conclude that the Amoeba’s own DNA code, is also proof of intelligent design?
4. If Evolution is ongoing there should be millions of intermediate forms everywhere among both living and fossil creatures. Why has not even ONE functional continuum ever been observed among either living or fossil creatures for a functioning useful structure?
5. Why do our Mitochondrial DNA sequences (which are inherited in the female line i.e. 100% from our mothers) show that all human beings are originally descended from ONE woman who lived less than 10,000 years ago?
6. Why do our Y-chromosome sequences (which are inherited in the male line i.e. 100% from our fathers) show that all men are originally descended from ONE man who lived less than 10,000 years ago?
7. How do you explain the random (non-intelligent) design and production of observed biochemical systems at atomic levels of resolution that outclass the largest and most sophisticated manufacturing abilities of mankind?
8. How do you explain the random (non-intelligent) design of the observed levels of interlinked complexity and functionality within living systems that are multiple orders of magnitude greater than our most powerful computer systems?
9. Why do some scientists continue to believe that the Human Genome was an ”accident of nature” – when they know that the super computers and gene sequencers that they had to use to decode it, were created through the purposeful application of intelligent design and enormous personal effort?
10. Why do we observe great perfection and genetic diversity in all species when “dog eat dog” Evolution would predict very significant levels of “work in progress” and the bare minimum of diversity necessary for the short-term survival of the individual?
11. Why is the only mechanism postulated by Evolution to produce genetic variation – genetic mutation – invariably damaging to the genome resulting in lethal and semi lethal conditions that are recessive and therefore ‘masked’ most of the time?
12. Any putative ‘evolving organism’ is statistically just as likely to be taking two “critical amino acid sequence” steps backwards for every one step forwards, as it is to be going the other way around. If ALL critical amino acid sequences except the CORRECT one will confer NO advantage – how can a population “work up” to the correct critical amino acid sequence through “genetic drift” or Natural Selection ?
13. Why do we observe that all living systems use pre-existing SOPHISTICATED complex biochemical systems and bio-molecules to produce SIMPLE bio-molecules – and not the other way around, if Evolution is true?
14. How do you explain the origins of DNA when the production of DNA is observed to require the pre-existence of other DNA / RNA and a massively complex array of other biochemical “machinery”?
15. Why have we never observed any species to actually INCREASE genetic information over time if “upwards and onwards” Evolution is in action out there?
16. What is the evolutionary explanation for the "Cambrian explosion," in which most of the major animal and plant groups appear together in the fossil record fully formed instead of branching from a common ancestor - thus contradicting ‘the evolutionary tree of life’?
17. Why is it claimed that beak changes in Galapagos finches during a severe drought can explain the origin of species by natural selection - even though the changes were reversed after the drought ended, and no net evolution occurred?
18. Why is it claimed that fruit flies with an extra pair of wings is evidence that DNA mutations can supply the raw materials for evolution - even though the extra wings have no muscles and these disabled mutants cannot survive outside the laboratory?
19. Why are artists' drawings of apelike humans used to justify materialistic claims that we are just animals and our existence is a mere accident - when fossil experts cannot even agree on who our supposed ancestors were or what they looked like?

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

Here is a summary of the evidence against Materialistic Evolution ... and in favour of the only other contender ... Divine Creation

That's pretty much the logic gosplan. Creationists think that if they argue against evolution then for some reason creationism wins by default. There is no evidence for creationism, there can't be any by definition because you can't provide scientific evidence for something that is outside science.

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

That's pretty much the logic gosplan. Creationists think that if they argue against evolution then for some reason creationism wins by default. There is no evidence for creationism, there can't be any by definition because you can't provide scientific evidence for something that is outside science.

... there are only two real alternatives ... Creation or Materialistic Evolution ... and therefore evidence against Evolution is also evidence in favour of Creation.:):D

antiskeptic

J C wrote: »

... there are only two real alternatives ... Creation or Materialistic Evolution ... and therefore evidence against Evolution is also evidence in favour of Creation.:):D

Creation by what though?

Soul Winner

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Soul Winner, I and many others have been through this with you many times.

I know but its fun to go through it again.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The main objections are

1. You only have to explain those "facts" if you take them to be facts, which creates a wonderful circularity where you are using claims of the bible to support other claims of the bible.

So it is not an historical fact that a Jesus who was viewed as the Christ existed? And it is not an historical fact that this same Jesus was executed by the same means described in the New Testament record? Even non Christian historians can agree on these two facts independent of the Bible. So if the New Testament record is accurate on these events then why can't we assume that they are accurate in relation to the other facts that they recount? i.e. the fact of the empty tomb, the post mortem appearances etc..? What good reasons have we got to dismiss these as fanciful events? I mean to intermingle the empty tomb narrative into the story they way it is seems like a pretty arduous task if it was made up? Especially when you consider that it comes across as unembellished with legendary and apologetic motifs as in the case in the Gospel of Mark and even earlier in Paul's passing on of an even earlier creed which implies the empty tomb. That's why this fact is not really questioned that much by the scholars. What is debated though is how the tomb got to be empty but that's another thing altogether.

Same thing with the fact that the disciples genuinely believed that Jesus was the Son of God and that God had raised Him from the dead as a fact of history. Whether it happened or not is not really the point, the point is that nobody really debates the fact they they (the apostles) at least believed it happen.

Same thing for the post mortem appearances. When you consider the fact that the disciples genuinely came to believe that Jesus was the Son of God then its very plausible that they might have visions or hallucinations of Jesus, so the fact that experienced post mortem appearers of Jesus is not really a point of debate. What is a point of debate in regard to this fact is what caused them to have these experiences? If we say that they were in fact hallucinating then that would explain these appearances but how does that explain the empty tomb? I mean all that would need to be done to show these hallucinating disciples that Jesus did not really appear to them would be to go to the tomb and produce His body.

Now if you want to argue that Jesus wasn't buried in a tomb, that His body was discarded in a shallow grave to be devoured by dogs then you have to explain why these so called genuinely believers in Jesus would lie about the tomb in such a way as to make it gel so well with the rest of the narrative and creeds which pre-existed the Gospel accounts themselves. From the very start the empty tomb narrative was part and parcel of the story, but how could they have propagated such a lie so early on when everyone else knew that Jesus' body was devoured by dogs? It just doesn't make an sense to think that His body was discarded in this way and that the disciples were lying about this element of the story, if they were lying then all potential converts in Jerusalem at least would have know about it and hence they would not have been able to gain the initial foothold that Christianity got in those early days. So we can be 99.9% sure that it was a tomb that he was laid in and not a shallow grave.

So if we can be sure that these facts are in fact facts then how do you explain them with one simple naturalistic explanation? You can't. And if all that is required is for a Supernatural God to exist to perform a resurrection, and there are many good reason to think that such a being does in fact exist, then what is the problem with the original explanation that God raised Jesus from the dead? Nothing as far as I can see, especially to those who have an open mind to the possibility that He just might exist after all.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

1. Even if we take them to be facts, there are plenty of perfectly reasonable explanations for them and many examples of similar things happening throughout history, you just reject all of them for your favoured one.

OK for one, give me your explanations for those facts, and two, what other examples of similar stories are you talking about? And what ones do I reject?

Sam Vimes wrote: »

It's just a story.

Yes you're right, it is just a story, a story that is either true or false. If it is false then I want to know about it. If it is false then it is the wickedest and cruelest joke ever perpetrated on mankind and I want it exposed for what it is if anyone can do it. If Jesus was not who He claimed to be then He is a character of a worst kind of nature than what is described about the biblical devil. But I've shown you a little bit if of why I believe that it is in fact true and I've yet to hear any good counter arguments that can make me think otherwise. Your argument that this particular story is false is based on the fact that there are other similar stories around and all I want to know is what these stories are and how they parallel the New Testament story of Jesus, parts of which can be independently attested by secular sources i.e. that Jesus lived and that He was executed by means of crucifixion etc.. Show me the similar stories that have similar secular attestation and show me why proving them false is the same as proving Christianity false?

Sam Vimes wrote: »

There are people alive today with millions of followers who all testify to their leader's divinity.

But even if that were true I still don't see any parallels to Jesus. Did they fulfill any previous prophecies concerning their mission? What claims do they make concerning themselves? On what authority do they say they things they say? And have any of their followers suffered horrendous deaths by simply not reneging on their own testimony that they have personally eye-witnessed the proof that their leader was divine. And what former enemies have been converted to their cause? Enemies like Paul was to Christianity. A pursuer and persecuter to death of the early church from which he was totally turned around by the resurrected Jesus Himself into His greatest apostle. Have you any parallels to that story or was that just made up as well?

Sam Vimes wrote: »

we could all get on a plane tomorrow and see for ourselves a real live miracle worker and investigate the veracity of their claims first hand but most christians seem to have no inclination to do this and as long as this remains the case I will take any argument about how the only explanation for a 2000 year old story is that god got involved with a pinch of confirmation bias flavoured salt.

But that is not really proving or showing evidence that Christianity is false is it? What has investigating another miracle worker's claims to divinity got to do with the truthfulness or not of Christianity? Stop beating around the bush and show me with solid argumentation that Christianity is false and don't give me this crap about the things that are described in the story are impossible therefore they did not happen. If that is true then explain everything to me, what am I not seeing that is glaringly obvious to you. Thanks

Soul Winner

J C wrote: »

We're off again!!!!:eek::):D


Here is a summary of the evidence against Materialistic Evolution ... and in favour of the only other contender ... Divine Creation


A coherent, evidentially based explanation for Materialistic Evolution, which comprehensively answers the following 24 questions, would be required if materialistic mechanisms are to be considered as plausible scientific contenders for the emergence of Human Life, or indeed as the originators or developers of any life on Earth.


1. Why does conventional science have an a priori position that life could ONLY originate through natural mechanisms, when such mechanisms have never been identified or demonstrated and a supernatural origin for life is such a distinct possibility, as to be a probability?

2. Please explain in your own words how Evolution "Muck to Man" 'WORKS'.

3. What is the postulated mechanism for the spontaneous generation of life - or is there one postulated?

4. What is the postulated 'primitive' mechanism that provided the diversity upon which Natural Selection supposedly worked?

5. What is the postulated "conservation" mechanism for the supposed earliest life forms that would allow any "accidental" positive changes to be preserved from one generation to the next?


Equally, what facts, scientific laws, inferences or tested scientific hypotheses can satisfactory answer any of the following valid scientific questions in relation to evolution?
1. Have we observed any mechanism spontaneously generating life – it should still be there somewhere if Evolution is true?
2. How can life be generated spontaneously if the random production of the critical amino acid SEQUENCE for an essential protein is a MATHEMATICAL impossibility?
3. If the SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) radio telescopes were to pick up the DNA code for an Amoeba being transmitted from a distant point in our galaxy, Evolutionists would definitively conclude that they had found proof of extraterrestrial intelligence – so why do they not conclude that the Amoeba’s own DNA code, is also proof of intelligent design?
4. If Evolution is ongoing there should be millions of intermediate forms everywhere among both living and fossil creatures. Why has not even ONE functional continuum ever been observed among either living or fossil creatures for a functioning useful structure?
5. Why do our Mitochondrial DNA sequences (which are inherited in the female line i.e. 100% from our mothers) show that all human beings are originally descended from ONE woman who lived less than 10,000 years ago?
6. Why do our Y-chromosome sequences (which are inherited in the male line i.e. 100% from our fathers) show that all men are originally descended from ONE man who lived less than 10,000 years ago?
7. How do you explain the random (non-intelligent) design and production of observed biochemical systems at atomic levels of resolution that outclass the largest and most sophisticated manufacturing abilities of mankind?
8. How do you explain the random (non-intelligent) design of the observed levels of interlinked complexity and functionality within living systems that are multiple orders of magnitude greater than our most powerful computer systems?
9. Why do some scientists continue to believe that the Human Genome was an ”accident of nature” – when they know that the super computers and gene sequencers that they had to use to decode it, were created through the purposeful application of intelligent design and enormous personal effort?
10. Why do we observe great perfection and genetic diversity in all species when “dog eat dog” Evolution would predict very significant levels of “work in progress” and the bare minimum of diversity necessary for the short-term survival of the individual?
11. Why is the only mechanism postulated by Evolution to produce genetic variation – genetic mutation – invariably damaging to the genome resulting in lethal and semi lethal conditions that are recessive and therefore ‘masked’ most of the time?
12. Any putative ‘evolving organism’ is statistically just as likely to be taking two “critical amino acid sequence” steps backwards for every one step forwards, as it is to be going the other way around. If ALL critical amino acid sequences except the CORRECT one will confer NO advantage – how can a population “work up” to the correct critical amino acid sequence through “genetic drift” or Natural Selection ?
13. Why do we observe that all living systems use pre-existing SOPHISTICATED complex biochemical systems and bio-molecules to produce SIMPLE bio-molecules – and not the other way around, if Evolution is true?
14. How do you explain the origins of DNA when the production of DNA is observed to require the pre-existence of other DNA / RNA and a massively complex array of other biochemical “machinery”?
15. Why have we never observed any species to actually INCREASE genetic information over time if “upwards and onwards” Evolution is in action out there?
16. What is the evolutionary explanation for the "Cambrian explosion," in which most of the major animal and plant groups appear together in the fossil record fully formed instead of branching from a common ancestor - thus contradicting ‘the evolutionary tree of life’?
17. Why is it claimed that beak changes in Galapagos finches during a severe drought can explain the origin of species by natural selection - even though the changes were reversed after the drought ended, and no net evolution occurred?
18. Why is it claimed that fruit flies with an extra pair of wings is evidence that DNA mutations can supply the raw materials for evolution - even though the extra wings have no muscles and these disabled mutants cannot survive outside the laboratory?
19. Why are artists' drawings of apelike humans used to justify materialistic claims that we are just animals and our existence is a mere accident - when fossil experts cannot even agree on who our supposed ancestors were or what they looked like?

I've always pondered on those questions myself especially number 12 :rolleyes:

J C

antiskeptic wrote: »

Creation by what though?

... that is a very good question ... and one that science hasn't yet answered.

It is at this point that faith takes over.
Life on Earth could have been developed by a very sophisticated ET that is / is not still alive somewhere in the Universe (like Prof Dawkins has speculated upon from time to time) ... but then the problem of explaining who created the ET arises ... i.e. the issue of the 'Ultimate Creator'.

I believe that the 'sophisticated ET' is a Transcendent Omnipotent Doubly Eternal God ... who became man ... and thereby ceased being an ET by becoming one of us!!!:):D

... and He gave us an account of His actions in the Bible.

... I could be wrong ... but I am still waiting for any other account that better fits the known facts of Creation.

Sam Vimes

Soul Winner wrote: »

So it is not an historical fact that a Jesus who was viewed as the Christ existed? And it is not an historical fact that this same Jesus was executed by the same means described in the New Testament record? Even non Christian historians can agree on these two facts independent of the Bible. So if the New Testament record is accurate on these events then why can't we assume that they are accurate in relation to the other facts that they recount?

The Da Vinci code is set in Paris, London and Switzerland and mentions many real people throughout. I despair at the thought of someone unearthing the book in a thousand years and using the same logic to say the rest must be true. Each claim must be independently verified, you cannot take a few basic claims that appear to correlate with records of the time and infer that the rest is true. I know for a fact that L. Ron Hubbard existed but I'm still not a Scientologist

Soul Winner wrote: »

But that is not really proving or showing evidence that Christianity is false is it? What has investigating another miracle worker's claims to divinity got to do with the truthfulness or not of Christianity?

Christianity claims to be the one true religion. If the claims of a miracle worker who follows or starts another religion can be validated then the claims of christianity must be false, regardless of the perceived strength of any inferential arguments supporting it. Even within Christianity a maximum of one of the denominations has all of their claims about the nature of god correct so if there was a Calvinist miracle worker that would disprove Catholicism and vice versa

Sam Vimes

Soul Winner wrote: »

I've always pondered on those questions myself especially number 12 :rolleyes:

In answer to number 12:

1. Creationists vastly underestimate the number of "correct" sequences. Just look at the incredibly large variation in the life that exists and has existed on this planet; every one of them represents a "correct" sequence and that's just a tiny representation of the number of "correct" sequences that exist.
2. Even if there is only one sequence that will provide benefit and a billion to one chance of hitting it, a bacterium could have a billion offspring in a few days. Even if only one of them hits the correct sequence, that's enough. So a species can take "two steps backward for every one step forward" because the offspring that hit the wrong sequence take the step backward and die off, leaving the species as a whole exactly where it was and the offspring that takes the step forward, well, takes a step forward. The species never has to start again, that's the whole point of cumulative selection, that individual offspring might take steps backward but the species doesn't.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

What's the difference between dating methods that are utterly unreliable and those that go wrong from time to time?

Ones that are utterly unreliable cannot correlate with other ones more often than not.

You guys like to talk about coincidences. What is the odds that an utterly unreliable dating system will consistently date objects the same date as another utterly unreliable dating system?

If they are giving random results then this seems rather unlikely, particularly if you have been using these methods for the last 40 years.

Say you have 4 objects and 3 dating methods.

======Method 1 Method 2 Method 3 Conclusion
Object 1 || 050k || 051k || 050k -- Approx 50k old
Object 2 || 200k || 300k || 200k -- Approx 200k old
Object 3 || 150k || 150k || 160k -- Approx 150-160k old
Object 4 || 070k || 070k || 002m -- Approx 70k old

Can you see what is happening here.

There are anomalies in the dating methods (2 million years for Obj 4 Method 3), but when you do enough of these dating (instead of 1-4 objects imagine thousands and instead of 1-3 methods imagine 50+) you build up an accurate picture of the accuracy of these systems.

No dating system is perfect, but you guys want to throw them out not because you are worried about their accuracy (no measurement system in science is 100% accurate, dating methods are no worse than anything else) but simply due to religious ideology because they conflict with the Bible.

wolfsbane wrote: »

As to the ancient authors you say wrote before the date we give of the Flood, have you any examples?

The Egyptians have an unbroken historical record going right through the period where they should be underwater.

Some what of a different matter they also don't have people living for hundreds of years in their records which in my mind would make their record rather more trust worthy than the Biblical one.

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

I've always pondered on those questions myself especially number 12 :rolleyes:

Considering it has been explained to you ad nausea one can only assume you aren't listening and don't really care. :rolleyes:

Soul Winner

Sam Vimes wrote: »

…you cannot take a few basic claims that appear to correlate with records of the time and infer that the rest is true.

Take a deep breath now...... OK? Go...

Well in the absence of any evidence to the contrary then why can't we take it on face value that the story is true? Why should our default position but one of doubt and distrust? If we could find evidence that would justify doubting then I would doubt too but in the absence of any such evidence then what else can we infer save that the story must be true? You have said many times before that the reason you guys don't accept the supernatural is because there is no evidence for it. I would beg to differ, I would say that the whole Bible is evidence of the Supernatural its just that some don't or can't believe it. But why should that be a justifiable cause to make those of us who do believe it doubt it?

When I read the Bible (which is a collection of writings written down by many different hands and in many different periods of time and in many different places) from Genesis to Revelation there is a consistent Personage who is centre stage speaking all the time. If you can tell me how mankind was able to weave this fabric of personality trait throughout the scriptures, which said Personality trait is interwoven with consistency throughout all the books of the Bible by men who lived at different times from each other and in different geographical locations. It boggles the mind how blind some people are to this very basic simple fact that is glaringly obvious to others. There is no way that men from different generations were able to collaborate and lay it down like this, why? Because they did not all live at the same time. So how was it done? Do you believe that one person sat down and wrote all of it? That would explain it, but who were they? If mankind did not collaborate and one person didn't write it all then from whence comes this Personage locked within its pages dictating His ways to us? There is only one explanation. God exists and it is He who is controlling all of this. I cannot explain everything in the Bible but what I can discern is that it is not simply a random collection of writings written by primitive men, something else is at work, something Supernatural because it has the ability to speak through different people in different generations directing history.

There is also corroboration in the constellations of stars that the Bibles is true . Each of the constellations have stars in them which have names which give meaning to the constellations themselves. From the very earliest Dendara Zodiacs in Egypt the first sign was always Virgo the Virgin lying prostrate with a branch in one hand and a type of seed or crop in the other. Jesus is called the Branch and fulfilled the prophecy of the seed of woman who will destroy the enemy one day but in turn will be bruised. And the last sign in the Zodiac is Leo the Lion with his paws crushing the head of the serpent. Jesus also bares the title of The conquering Lion of the Tribe of Judah who will come again one day to put down all His enemies including Satan that old serpent called the devil. In between both of these signs we have ten other signs each of their star names giving meaning to the whole. From the scales of Justice in Libra through the two natured (man and God together) centaur in Sagittarius pointing His arrow at the Scorpion (Satan), we have the story of Jesus written in the heavens. You tell me that that's is purely coincidental.

And then to make matters worse we have what's known as God's Gospel in Stone. The Great Pyramid of Egypt. Called the Pillar of Enoch by the Egyptian scrolls called the Books of the dead (i.e. they were found with the dead). This marvel in the land of Egypt was spoken of by the prophet Isaiah in chapter 19:19-20, he calls it a Pillar and Witness to the LORD in the land of Egypt, in the middle of the land and at the border thereof. The name Giza means border. The pyramid lies at the center of all the earth's land mass. It's four sides are lined up almost perfectly with the four cardinal points and is something like 3 minutes or an arc off true north today, this discrepancies lies in the fact that it has stood in that spot for more than 4000 years and has been subjected to much seismic activity, and yet to day it is still only 3" or an arc off true north. Do you know how difficult it is to find true north without the aid of modern instruments? The 17th century AD observatory in Paris is 6 minutes of an arc off true north. How did the Pyramid builders know how to find true north over 4000 years ago? How did they know longitude and latitude? How did they know that where they were building the pyramid was on the cross point between the longest and meridian and land parallel in the world? How did stone age man know how to build this marvel beyond wonder with primitive tools? How did they carry the stone? How did they quarry the stone? Who oversaw the project? Why did it have to be so exact if all it was was a tomb? And if it is a tomb then why did the bdilders deliberately build air shafts running from the King's Chamber to the outside world? Tombs are supposed to be sealed air tight.

Anyway within this mind boggling massive monument there are a series of passageways starting from the north face down through a descending passage to a pit. A little ways in to this passage you will find two scored lines on the the walls of the passage perpendicular to the floor. At only one point in history 2141 BC did these scored lines line up with Alcyone (a star in the Pleiades which means ‘Centre’). When this line up is made the descending passage lines up perfectly with a star in the Dragon constellation called Draco (star name is Thuban) which was at that this time in history the north star, any astronomer will tell you this. The descending passage symbolizes man's decent under the influence of Satan that old dragon. If we take the scored lines in this passage and use the the date of their line up to Alcyone i.e. 2141 BC and use the pyramid inch (a unit of measurement found everywhere in the Pyramid and in the Bible, i.e. 25 X Pyramid inches = 1 cubit) to a year scale and continue on down the passage you will hit an ascending passage which is blocked by huge granite plugs (50+ tons each) right at the time of the Exodus out of Egypt. This ascending passage is symbolic of God's deliverance of His people out of Egypt by the hand of Moses. The reason this passage is blocked is because it symbolizes the way of the Law which is impossible to for man to live by and keep, only a miracle from God can enable us to go that route. But if we were to ascend this passage imagining that those plugs were not there for a second and keep using or inch to a year scale we will hit the grand gallery passage at exactly 33AD. Coincidence? At this point the gallery opens up in what the Egyptian book of the dead calls the Hall of truth in Light the lower passage they call the Hall of truth in Darkness. If we continue on up we eventually come to an anti chamber and then the the King’s Chamber. In the Kings chamber there is an empty sarcophagus which just so happens to have the same cubic volume as the Ark of the Covenant. Another coincidence.

Some believe that the word ‘Inch’ itself is derived from the name Enoch and that it was this unit that he used in the building of the Great Pyramid. In the anti chamber we can draw a circle which will hit all sides of the walls and that circle will just so happen to have a circumference of exactly 365.2 pyramids inches, the same amount of days in a solar year and coincidently enough the same amount of years that Enoch lived if you read the Bible record in Genesis. This is where we get our inch to a year scale for tracking other dates in history in this Great Pyramid. There is a vast number of other coincidences like this in the Great Pyramid, too many to go into here. But I will give you one more. The passage in Isaiah 19:19-20 which speaks of this monument has what’s known as a Gematria i.e. a numeric value. The Hebrew and Greek letters are also numbers and if you add up the numerical value of Isaiah it comes to 5449 the exact height of the Great Pyramid in Pyramid inches, and also the average height of all land mass above sea level, a measurement that can only be arrive at using modern satellite technology, yes I know, another coincidence.

The angle of the Pyramid 50 degrees 51" or thereabouts creates a pyramid that has a height that has the same relation to the perimeter of its base that the radius of a circle has to its circumference i.e. the builders knew Pi. The rectangle in the floor of the King's Chamber reveals that they also understood the Golden Section - Phi. How did they know these things 4000 pus years ago?

Anyway these are just a very very few reason why I believe that the Bible is not just some random act of mankind the stories of which just so happen to correlate to the cosmos and the Great Pyramid in Egypt, a monument that has baffled every scientist that has ever studied it indebt. I suggest that folk do some research before proclaiming their ignorance of the Bible. It is a mind bogglingly amazing collection of writings, with a Supernatural personage at its centre. It contains the story of Jesus which is also written in the Stars and in Stone in case you have trouble believing the product of man's hands. Paul was right after all when he said that men are without excuse.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Christianity claims to be the one true religion. If the claims of a miracle worker who follows or starts another religion can be validated then the claims of christianity must be false, regardless of the perceived strength of any inferential arguments supporting it. Even within Christianity a maximum of one of the denominations has all of their claims about the nature of god correct so if there was a Calvinist miracle worker that would disprove Catholicism and vice versa

Show me another miracle worker who is venerated in ancient stone? And in the Stars of the heavens like the way Jesus is. Jesus is central in the Bible because He was prophesied about thousands of years before He came, and Who fulfilled these prophecies in His life time on earth (well most of them so far, still a few to go). Show me where you can make any kind of correlation like this to any other personage in history never mind other miracle workers.

God exists, get over it…

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

Take a deep breath now...... OK? Go...

Well in the absence of any evidence to the contrary then why can't we take it on face value that the story is true?

Because that is stupid.

You wouldn't apply that logic to any other historical story, particularly ones that claim fantastical things.

So why do you apply it to Christian? Oh yes, thats right, because you really really want it to be true. :rolleyes:

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

Because that is stupid.

Why is it stupid though? Its either true or its not true. The teller so the stroy are either BS-ing you or they're not. If you beleive that they are then you must have good reason for it. If you don't then why not beleive them?

Wicknight wrote: »

You wouldn't apply that logic to any other historical story, particularly ones that claim fantastical things.

Absolutely I would. Give me an example of a story that I would not apply this logic to please.

Wicknight wrote: »

So why do you apply it to Christian? Oh yes, thats right, because you really really want it to be true. :rolleyes:

Me wanting it to be true is not what makes it true, just like you wanting it to be false doesn't make it false. Granted I do want it to be true I admit that, because it is a mind staggeringly amazing thing if it is. But listen to what you're saying, I want it to be 'TRUE'. So I study it and try to find out if it is true or false. In my quest I cannot find any evidence or good reason to think that it is false, in fact the more I probe for answers, i.e. read books by people who have spent a lifetime studying it, the more convinced of its truth I become. What else do you want me to do? Be convinced that its true and not tell anyone? I don't think so, God would not be pleased

StealthRolex

Soul Winner wrote: »

Take a deep breath now...... OK? Go...

An excellent piece of work Soul Winner.

As for logic and other historical books - if the same logic that atheists use to dismiss the Bible were applied to all historical books then none are true or can be believed.

The Bible is a work of Divine inspiration but those who do not believe it have hearts of stone and minds of mud. They cannot rationalize why they can even think never mind see God in everything and everywhere. They present science as evidence not realizing that science is nothing more than a study of God and His works. Energy is immortal. All matter is energy. Only energy can create matter. Energy exists without time. Energy is everywhere, even in a quantum vacuum.

The Bible describes the kind of life in Genesis before the fall that everyone wants - a nice garden, free food, decent weather with no rain a sexy spouse and explicit directions to make as many babies as possible with no childbirth pains. It provides an explanation for why we fail, the flesh is weak because it is matter and not spirit or energy in its purest form, and in some cases willing to accept a lie before it accepts the truth.
The Bible provides guidelines to an earthly Utopia, the Commandments and directions of Christ, yet some will not even take that on board as good advice.

God Bless you Soul Winner

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

Why is it stupid though?

Because the simple fact that a story or claim exists has no bearing on whether it is true or not so there is no reason to have the default position be it is true until proven otherwise. That has nothing to do with the Bible or even religious claims it holds for anything. No one assumes an historical story is true just because it exists.

There are thousands of religious historical stories from around the world that cannot be conclusively shown to be not true, mostly because the only part of the story that exists is the religious claim.

The resurrection story is no different. So if you accept that as true by default you should accept all the others true by default. Which of course you don't do because that would be stupid.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Absolutely I would. Give me an example of a story that I would not apply this logic to please.

What, an example other than every other non-Christian religious claim?

Have you disproved the claims of every other religion that makes supernatural claims in conflict with Christian teaching (ie they can't both be right)?

If not then surely you must, by default, accept them as true, thus nullifying your faith in Christianity?

Thought not :rolleyes:

Soul Winner wrote: »

But listen to what you're saying, I want it to be 'TRUE'. So I study it and try to find out if it is true or false. In my quest I cannot find any evidence or good reason to think that it is false, in fact the more I probe for answers, i.e. read books by people who have spent a lifetime studying it, the more convinced of its truth I become. What else do you want me to do?

Not assume it is true simply because you can't prove it is false.

Such terrible critical thinking simply betrays your true motivation here.

Zombrex

StealthRolex wrote: »

An excellent piece of work Soul Winner.

As for logic and other historical books - if the same logic that atheists use to dismiss the Bible were applied to all historical books then none are true or can be believed.

Surely by that logic to a theist all of them must be true and can believed, including all religious books in existence?

Or just the Bible?

Let me guess...