Well that proves it then
-
All science does is give us ideas as to how God created things and how it is that He made everything work. Science is great but I would never claim it to be all knowing.
You'll find quite a few practising Christians here, myself included, who will still say your talking out of your arse.
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done. Drink. Get drunk. Fall over - P O'H OK, I will win to day or my name isn't Ethel Crudacre! - DD Ethel Crudacre I cannot live by bread alone. Bacon and ketchup are needed as well. - Trollslayer Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb - they're often *students*, for heaven's sake - Terry Pratchett
-
You'll find quite a few practising Christians here, myself included, who will still say your talking out of your arse.
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done. Drink. Get drunk. Fall over - P O'H OK, I will win to day or my name isn't Ethel Crudacre! - DD Ethel Crudacre I cannot live by bread alone. Bacon and ketchup are needed as well. - Trollslayer Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb - they're often *students*, for heaven's sake - Terry Pratchett
-
Of course I believe in the Bible. However I understand that a lot of what it contains is not absolute truth, but the best possible explanation fort the time it was written. As a simple example, do you own a Canadian? Lev. 25:44 states that you may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. So if you accept the Bible as absolute truth, where are your Canadian Slaves? Do you like American Football? Lev. 11:6-8 states that touching the skin of a dead pig makes you unclean; better you get some gloves. Do you work on the Sabbath (Exodus 35:2)? It's pretty clear if you do that you should be put to death. Children? Well if you're a bit short of cash then sell your daughters into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. If the bible is absolute and everything else mere smoke and mirrors, I doubt you'd last five minutes if we started going through all the 'truths'...
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done. Drink. Get drunk. Fall over - P O'H OK, I will win to day or my name isn't Ethel Crudacre! - DD Ethel Crudacre I cannot live by bread alone. Bacon and ketchup are needed as well. - Trollslayer Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb - they're often *students*, for heaven's sake - Terry Pratchett
-
Using reliable scientific methods, archaeologists [^] can calculate to reasonable accuracy the time when people lived. Even in the Holy Land, they've found remains 400,000 years old[^]. Now, can you disprove this or are you just trolling?
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done. Drink. Get drunk. Fall over - P O'H OK, I will win to day or my name isn't Ethel Crudacre! - DD Ethel Crudacre I cannot live by bread alone. Bacon and ketchup are needed as well. - Trollslayer Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb - they're often *students*, for heaven's sake - Terry Pratchett
I do not need to disprove. There is no possible way you can prove something is 400,000 years old. No one was there. I can plant 50 trees and every year cut one down and prove that rings develop each year and I can prove how weather affects it because I have 50 years of data. To prove something is 400,000 years old you have to extrapolate and then you are ASSUMING that your extrapolation is correct. It is nothing more than a theory. It MIGHT actually be very accurate, I have no idea. It is not proof though. It is merely educated theory.
-
Of course I believe in the Bible. However I understand that a lot of what it contains is not absolute truth, but the best possible explanation fort the time it was written. As a simple example, do you own a Canadian? Lev. 25:44 states that you may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. So if you accept the Bible as absolute truth, where are your Canadian Slaves? Do you like American Football? Lev. 11:6-8 states that touching the skin of a dead pig makes you unclean; better you get some gloves. Do you work on the Sabbath (Exodus 35:2)? It's pretty clear if you do that you should be put to death. Children? Well if you're a bit short of cash then sell your daughters into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. If the bible is absolute and everything else mere smoke and mirrors, I doubt you'd last five minutes if we started going through all the 'truths'...
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done. Drink. Get drunk. Fall over - P O'H OK, I will win to day or my name isn't Ethel Crudacre! - DD Ethel Crudacre I cannot live by bread alone. Bacon and ketchup are needed as well. - Trollslayer Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb - they're often *students*, for heaven's sake - Terry Pratchett
I am not trying to argue the Bible as religious truth or not. Everything you quoted is from the Old Testament and the Law of Moses and as you know, since you are Christian and believe in the Bible, when Christ came he fulfilled the Law of Moses and introduced the fullness of the Gospel and the higher law. No more eye for an eye so don't be silly with your Old Testament arguments. Take the religious aspect out of the Bible and you have a historical document that gives genealogy and dates showing that Adam and Eve left the Garden of Eden around 4000 BC. Are you saying that part is also incorrect?
-
I am not trying to argue the Bible as religious truth or not. Everything you quoted is from the Old Testament and the Law of Moses and as you know, since you are Christian and believe in the Bible, when Christ came he fulfilled the Law of Moses and introduced the fullness of the Gospel and the higher law. No more eye for an eye so don't be silly with your Old Testament arguments. Take the religious aspect out of the Bible and you have a historical document that gives genealogy and dates showing that Adam and Eve left the Garden of Eden around 4000 BC. Are you saying that part is also incorrect?
ryanb31 wrote:
I am not trying to argue the Bible as religious truth or not.
Okay. But then you say:
ryanb31 wrote:
you have a historical document that gives genealogy and dates showing that Adam and Eve left the Garden of Eden around 4000 BC
Which is it going to be? The Old Testament is irrelevant or it's the truth? You cannot have it both ways. BTW. I don't know which Church you go to, but according to both the Anglican and Catholic Churches, the Old Testament is still very important and a relevant part of our faith. If you want to play the quote games, I can find you any amount of contradictions just from the Gospels. I may not take the blind acceptance of the Bible that you do, but [should you choose to actually study a bit of theology] one aspect of God's gift of free will was so that we do not just accept His word, but that we question it every day.
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done. Drink. Get drunk. Fall over - P O'H OK, I will win to day or my name isn't Ethel Crudacre! - DD Ethel Crudacre I cannot live by bread alone. Bacon and ketchup are needed as well. - Trollslayer Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb - they're often *students*, for heaven's sake - Terry Pratchett
-
The point was that educated men throughout all of history have been proven wrong after time and your whole argument is that you are educated. You are making the same exact mistake people have made for ages. As Christ said, "Always learning but never coming to the truth."
ryanb31 wrote:
men throughout all of history have been proven wrong after time
Correct. And in the case of science, the theories that were wrong were scrapped. With religion, lack of evidence and observed tests does not result in the same.
I wasn't, now I am, then I won't be anymore.
-
So, you accept one historical record because your faith is in science and cannot accept a different historical record because some people corrupted religion. The Bible did not teach the earth was flat or the sun revolved around it. How has the theory of evolution "held good - so far?" Since you are 1137 and I am not maybe I am missing something but the theory of evolution has a hole, it cannot explain how something came from nothing. That is not holding good at all. It is an incomplete theory.
Are you being trying really hard to be this obtuse, or is it that you really just can't understand logic and reasoning. Theories are not accepted on belief, they are accepted based on testing and observation. It is the existence of DD's termed "sky pixie" that requires blind belief. With the logic you are using, I could claim myself to be your god and that you should give me all of your money and your women.(At least the good looking ones) Would you believe me and do so. Of course not, you would require me to provide proof of the same before you believe any of it. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, which in the case of your beliefs, does not exist in anything other than conjecture. As a side note, there is more proof for the existence of the tooth fairy, or Santa Claus than there is for your deities.
I wasn't, now I am, then I won't be anymore.
-
And you use a 2000+ year old collection of writings full of ridiculousness.
I wasn't, now I am, then I won't be anymore.
-
I do not need to disprove. There is no possible way you can prove something is 400,000 years old. No one was there. I can plant 50 trees and every year cut one down and prove that rings develop each year and I can prove how weather affects it because I have 50 years of data. To prove something is 400,000 years old you have to extrapolate and then you are ASSUMING that your extrapolation is correct. It is nothing more than a theory. It MIGHT actually be very accurate, I have no idea. It is not proof though. It is merely educated theory.
How can you prove that something written several thousand years ago is true? Were you there? As for the your assertion that the dating is done by extrapolation based on wild assumptions you are so badly misinformed. C-14 is found in all living creatures, it decays at a fixed rate [half life of 5,730±40 years] and so by the level of C-14 in a sample you can tell how long ago it lived. C-14 is a very accurate technique and it is used with other methods to reduce error levels. Of course the older things are, the greater margin of error, but give the 400 millennia only a 75% accuracy and it could be anywhere between 100,000 and 700,000 years. Go and read a bit, maybe you'll understand that just because something isn't in the Bible it does not hold true that it is fake.
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done. Drink. Get drunk. Fall over - P O'H OK, I will win to day or my name isn't Ethel Crudacre! - DD Ethel Crudacre I cannot live by bread alone. Bacon and ketchup are needed as well. - Trollslayer Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb - they're often *students*, for heaven's sake - Terry Pratchett
-
I am not trying to argue the Bible as religious truth or not. Everything you quoted is from the Old Testament and the Law of Moses and as you know, since you are Christian and believe in the Bible, when Christ came he fulfilled the Law of Moses and introduced the fullness of the Gospel and the higher law. No more eye for an eye so don't be silly with your Old Testament arguments. Take the religious aspect out of the Bible and you have a historical document that gives genealogy and dates showing that Adam and Eve left the Garden of Eden around 4000 BC. Are you saying that part is also incorrect?
If your god was all-knowing and all-powerful and such, then don't you think he could have come up with 1 perfect set of rules that would stand the test of time as opposed to changing the rules to coincide with man's discoveries and knowledge? I can respect the position of a Christian like Nagy who doesn't claim that absolute truth in a 2000 year old book, but uses his intellect to decide what is simply poppycock. What I cannot respect is willful ignorance which is what you are demonstrating here. The only foot you have to stand on is circular-reasoning where you believe what the book told you because the book told you it's right and you have to believe that because the book told you.
I wasn't, now I am, then I won't be anymore.
-
Again, the point is anyone can post anything. So to say it WAS accurate, how would you know? Where you around 8000 years ago? You cannot prove any of what you say.
ryanb31 wrote:
Again, the point is anyone can post anything.
And this is exactly the case with how your bible was constructed. There was a collection of arbitrary writings from arbitrary authors and an arbitrary collection of men who made all the decisions on what would be included or excluded from their holy book. It sounds very much like everything written in the final collection of books deserves to be scrutinized to the deepest level, the same as I believe that anything written on Wikipedia should be taken with a grain of salt. As a side note, Wikipedia, like scientific theories, is open to change in content if the current is proven to not be sufficient or accurate.
I wasn't, now I am, then I won't be anymore.
-
ryanb31 wrote:
men throughout all of history have been proven wrong after time
Correct. And in the case of science, the theories that were wrong were scrapped. With religion, lack of evidence and observed tests does not result in the same.
I wasn't, now I am, then I won't be anymore.
-
ryanb31 wrote:
I am not trying to argue the Bible as religious truth or not.
Okay. But then you say:
ryanb31 wrote:
you have a historical document that gives genealogy and dates showing that Adam and Eve left the Garden of Eden around 4000 BC
Which is it going to be? The Old Testament is irrelevant or it's the truth? You cannot have it both ways. BTW. I don't know which Church you go to, but according to both the Anglican and Catholic Churches, the Old Testament is still very important and a relevant part of our faith. If you want to play the quote games, I can find you any amount of contradictions just from the Gospels. I may not take the blind acceptance of the Bible that you do, but [should you choose to actually study a bit of theology] one aspect of God's gift of free will was so that we do not just accept His word, but that we question it every day.
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done. Drink. Get drunk. Fall over - P O'H OK, I will win to day or my name isn't Ethel Crudacre! - DD Ethel Crudacre I cannot live by bread alone. Bacon and ketchup are needed as well. - Trollslayer Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb - they're often *students*, for heaven's sake - Terry Pratchett
-
And you use a 2000+ year old collection of writings full of ridiculousness.
I wasn't, now I am, then I won't be anymore.
-
Funny how you can admin that science has had wrong theories but yet you will defend them to the death now.
I don't defend anything that has either been proven wrong or has not been tested sufficiently enough to be considered valid. What I defend is the process. At one time science agreed with religion that the world was flat. When it was proven otherwise, science moved on and accepted the new knowledge, religion did not. The point here is that science is flexible to change it's conclusions based on significant testing. Science takes on the burden to prove it's claims, religion makes claims and then places the burden of proof on those who would disagree to prove it wrong. Religion has it all backwards on that one.
I wasn't, now I am, then I won't be anymore.
-
How can you prove that something written several thousand years ago is true? Were you there? As for the your assertion that the dating is done by extrapolation based on wild assumptions you are so badly misinformed. C-14 is found in all living creatures, it decays at a fixed rate [half life of 5,730±40 years] and so by the level of C-14 in a sample you can tell how long ago it lived. C-14 is a very accurate technique and it is used with other methods to reduce error levels. Of course the older things are, the greater margin of error, but give the 400 millennia only a 75% accuracy and it could be anywhere between 100,000 and 700,000 years. Go and read a bit, maybe you'll understand that just because something isn't in the Bible it does not hold true that it is fake.
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done. Drink. Get drunk. Fall over - P O'H OK, I will win to day or my name isn't Ethel Crudacre! - DD Ethel Crudacre I cannot live by bread alone. Bacon and ketchup are needed as well. - Trollslayer Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb - they're often *students*, for heaven's sake - Terry Pratchett
So, you proved my point. Thank you. "Of course the older things are, the greater margin of error." It is extrapolation. You are ASSUMING the half life remains predictable. Like I said, you may actually be completely right. I am not arguing that. You claim it as proof and you cannot prove it. Saying that the half life is x and therefore y is 400,000 years old is just plain theory. It is ASSUMPTION. And you know what assumption makes you.
-
If your god was all-knowing and all-powerful and such, then don't you think he could have come up with 1 perfect set of rules that would stand the test of time as opposed to changing the rules to coincide with man's discoveries and knowledge? I can respect the position of a Christian like Nagy who doesn't claim that absolute truth in a 2000 year old book, but uses his intellect to decide what is simply poppycock. What I cannot respect is willful ignorance which is what you are demonstrating here. The only foot you have to stand on is circular-reasoning where you believe what the book told you because the book told you it's right and you have to believe that because the book told you.
I wasn't, now I am, then I won't be anymore.
-
I asked you a question, have the good manners to answer it. Do you believe in the Bible as the word of God handed down to man? If you do, which from you are saying I think may be the case, then how can you decide that one part is 'wrong' and the other is 'right'. The position you have taken is that the only truth is God. So stand up for yourself and state if you believe in EVERY LAST WORD of the bible? If you doubt any of it, then the reasoning you use to justify your earlier drivel is nullified. If you accept it all, then go kill the Denver Broncos; it's okay God told you to do it. :laugh:
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done. Drink. Get drunk. Fall over - P O'H OK, I will win to day or my name isn't Ethel Crudacre! - DD Ethel Crudacre I cannot live by bread alone. Bacon and ketchup are needed as well. - Trollslayer Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb - they're often *students*, for heaven's sake - Terry Pratchett
-
I don't defend anything that has either been proven wrong or has not been tested sufficiently enough to be considered valid. What I defend is the process. At one time science agreed with religion that the world was flat. When it was proven otherwise, science moved on and accepted the new knowledge, religion did not. The point here is that science is flexible to change it's conclusions based on significant testing. Science takes on the burden to prove it's claims, religion makes claims and then places the burden of proof on those who would disagree to prove it wrong. Religion has it all backwards on that one.
I wasn't, now I am, then I won't be anymore.