Missing link found

[Master~Plan]

hah, when I first read the article I thought it was satire suggesting the less we talk, the smarter we will become....

Quote[/b] ]This is really a test of our faith. No matter what science finds, I will always believe in Christianity.

Well, as much as I agree with you about christianity, you can't honestly expect anyone to be open minded to your views if you say stuff like this... If archeology found the cities in the bible never existed, or the prophecy in the Bible didn't happen, or there were flaws proven through archeology, I would think Christianity to  be a hoax. However this is quite far from what archeology has really found. Theres mormans, pegans, and buhdists that are saying the same thing as you like it or not.

Quote[/b] ]Now, how the hell can you call evolution not scientific? I will never understand that. Evolution has indeed been proven -- that is, it has been observed. Gravity is a theory, just as evolution is. Would you argue against the occurance of gravity? And yet, its only a theory because they're not sure how it works, though they have some ideas. It's the same with evolution

I'm getting tired of the gravity false analogy... Gravity was observed and then given a name based on the observation. Gravity still can be observed. Evolution was given a name, and then people sent out looking for observations that could support evolution. How in any way shape or form has evolution been objectively proven? How can it be proven/disproven untill we get a space ship that travels faster than light w/ a really powerfull telescope, or an accurate dating method? Evolution in no way follows the scientific meathod...scientific meathod

Quote[/b] ]We have observed the emergence of new species.

Yeah, its called genetics. We pretty much know what were going to get, and we can breed dogs to herd sheep, or not drool as much, or grow big, or be as big as a rat. Evolution has nothing to do with pradictable species created through the concept of genetics. Genetics goes by a rule of dna, of traits being passed on from generation to generation. A concept Evolution lacks.

 

[timor]

Quote[/b] (Master~Plan @ Mar. 26 2004,5:57)]

Quote[/b] ]This is really a test of our faith. No matter what science finds, I will always believe in Christianity.

Well, as much as I agree with you about christianity, you can't honestly expect anyone to be open minded to your views if you say stuff like this... If archeology found the cities in the bible never existed, or the prophecy in the Bible didn't happen, or there were flaws proven through archeology, I would think Christianity to be a hoax. However this is quite far from what archeology has really found. Theres mormans, pegans, and buhdists that are saying the same thing as you like it or not.

Hrmm, only, archaeology has never found the ancient city of Nazareth. It's never even alluded to in any ancient writings. Prophecy is way too ambiguous. Here's a great article on prophecy: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/farrell%5Ftill/prophecy.html
Also, why do you consider archaeology to be the only applicable field of science (if I'm wrong, feel free to correct me, but it seems that you are implying this). While I understand that due to archaeologies nature it is inherently more directly involved with the Bible, other fields of science can (and philosophy!) can also show the Bible to be a hoax.

I'd also like to point out all of the things that ancient historians failed to record:

Quote[/b] ]They don't mention the star that heralded his birth.

They don't mention Herod's slaughter of boy babies.

They don't mention crowds gathered to hear him preach.

They don't mention his trial.

They don't mention his crucifixion.

They don't mention his resurrection.

They never mention anything he said, or anywhere he went, or anything he thought, or anything he did.

No one alive when Jesus lived ever mentions him at all.

The philosopher Philo, who lived until about 50 CE and wrote of unusual sects like the Essenes, has nothing to say about Jesus.

Pliny the Elder (died 79 CE) collected data on all manner of natural and astronomical phenomena, even those which were legendary and which he himself did not necessarily regard as factual, but he records no prodigies associated with the beliefs of Christians, such as an earthquake or darkening of the skies at a crucifixion, or any star of Bethlehem.

Epictetus, the great Stoic philosopher who preached universal brotherhood to the poor and humble masses, records not a word about jesus.

Nor does Seneca, the empire's leading ethicist during the reign of Nero, make reference to such a figure.

Now, it is impossible for archaeology to say "This city never existed." What sort of evidence could support such a claim? However, with history, silence speaks volumes. But lets not get into a debate regarding the historicity of Jesus.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]Now, how the hell can you call evolution not scientific? I will never understand that. Evolution has indeed been proven -- that is, it has been observed. Gravity is a theory, just as evolution is. Would you argue against the occurance of gravity? And yet, its only a theory because they're not sure how it works, though they have some ideas. It's the same with evolution

I'm getting tired of the gravity false analogy... Gravity was observed and then given a name based on the observation. Gravity still can be observed. Evolution was given a name, and then people sent out looking for observations that could support evolution. How in any way shape or form has evolution been objectively proven? How can it be proven/disproven untill we get a space ship that travels faster than light w/ a really powerfull telescope, or an accurate dating method? Evolution in no way follows the scientific meathod...scientific meathod

Where did you come up with this? Why would people ever do something like this? The theory of evolution was formed based upon observations just as much as gravity. While Darwin was not the originator of the theory of evolution, I'm sure I don't have to educate you on Darwin's finch's. Furthermore, as we're about to discuss, evolution has been observed.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]We have observed the emergence of new species.

Yeah, its called genetics. We pretty much know what were going to get, and we can breed dogs to herd sheep, or not drool as much, or grow big, or be as big as a rat. Evolution has nothing to do with pradictable species created through the concept of genetics. Genetics goes by a rule of dna, of traits being passed on from generation to generation. A concept Evolution lacks.

Evolution is all about genetics! That's another thing -- genetics could have easily falsified evolution, and yet they work great together. Regardless, it seems you've missed the entire point. I'm sorry to ask this, but really, did you read, or even visit, the site that I provided? Speciation has occured. These botanists did not expect to find these new species suddenly emerging in their gardens, and yet they did, and they were very much new, "foreign", evolved species.

 

[LionOfJudah]

Timor read the chronicles of Joepheous, he was a roman who did much on the history of Jews and is greatest resource outside of the Bible to what happened in Jerusalem during the times of Jesus.


as far as i know Nazareth is not a city, but rather was a Roman provence.

 

[Master~Plan]

Quote[/b] ]Prophecy is way too ambiguous.

I guess were not reading the same prophecy... I'm sorry I don't have time to read all the 20 page articles you post, but I do skim over them. Heres some of the prophecy that is quite blatant, and anything but vague. If you take any one of them, one might be fulfilled by someone, but the chances of one man fulfilling all of them is astronomical

Quote[/b] ]The Messiah will be born of a woman: Seems obviouse, but this is God were talking about, He could have come by other means.
The Messiah will be the Seed of Abraham (also prophecy about being the son of Issac, and Jacob.)Genesis 17:19 NIV)
The Messiah will be born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2 NASB)
A star will announce the birth of the Messiah (Numbers 24:17 NASB)
Herod will kill the children (Jeremiah 31:15 NASB)
The Messiah shall be called "Lord" (Psalms 110:1 NASB)
The Messiah shall be called Immanuel (God with us)(Isaiah 7:14 NASB)
The Messiah will be born of a Virgin (Isaiah 7:14 NASB)
The Messiah shall be a prophet(Deuteronomy 18:18 NASB)
The Messiah shall be anointed by the Holy Spirit(Isaiah 11:2 NASB)
The Messiah will be preceded by a messenger(Isaiah 40:3 NASB)
The Messiah will minister in Galilee- This is segnificant because Galilee was not a Jewish town.(Isaiah 9:1 NASB)
The Messiah's ministry will include miracles(Isaiah 35:5-6 NASB)
The Messiah will be a teacher of parables(Psalms 78:2)(Isaiah 6:9-10)
The Messiah would enter Jerusalem on a donkey(Zechariah 9:9 NASB)
The Messiah will be a "stone of stumbling" to the Jews(Psalms 118:22)
The Messiah will be betrayed by a friend(Psalm 41:9 NASB)
The Messiah will be betrayed for thirty pieces of silver(Zechariah 11:12 NASB)
The price of betraying the Messiah will be given for a potter's field(Zechariah 11:13 NASB)
The Messiah will be silent before his accusers(Isaiah 53:7 NASB)
The Messiah will be scourged and wounded(Isaiah 53:5 NASB)
The Messiah's hands and feet will be pierced(Psalm 22:16)
The Messiah will be put to death alongside transgressors(Isaiah 53:12 NASB)
The Messiah would rise from the dead(Psalm 16:10)

-all of this was written before the new testament existed. The gospel of mark was written within 12 years after Jesus' death/ressurection. No one objected to any of it. Jesus' biography fulfilled all the prophecy.

Quote[/b] ]as far as i know Nazareth is not a city, but rather was a Roman provence.

aye

Quote[/b] ]A very simple flaw in the prophecy-fulfillment argument is that foreseeing the future doesn't necessarily prove divine guidance.

heres a clip from your article. My argumentwould be that even if you don't accept God's divine inspiration, prophecy in general proves some supernatural guidance that can not be explained through science.

Quote[/b] ]They don't mention the star that heralded his birth.
They don't mention Herod's slaughter of boy babies.
They don't mention crowds gathered to hear him preach.
They don't mention his trial....

All this was covered by the historians whos writings were included in the Bible. There are other historians that did not write alot about Jesus, but did mention him, that weren't added to the Bible. I don't understand what reason you have to believe the Bible to not be credible... If any of the disciples made up any of thier testimony, when it came time to die for what they believed, they would have abandoned thier writtings to save thier life. Even if it was true, a coward might abandon it anyway. Luckily none of them were cowards, and they believed what they wrote whole heartedly, and died for it.

Quote[/b] ]Now, it is impossible for archaeology to say "This city never existed." What sort of evidence could support such a claim?

Thats a good point. At the same time, I think a majority of the cities have been found, and can be pointed out on a map that were mentioned in the Bible. Other books, like the book of mormon have rivers, that never existed. We would know if there was a river where the book says.

Quote[/b] ]Evolution is all about genetics! That's another thing -- genetics could have easily falsified evolution, and yet they work great together. Regardless, it seems you've missed the entire point. I'm sorry to ask this, but really, did you read, or even visit, the site that I provided? Speciation has occured. These botanists did not expect to find these new species suddenly emerging in their gardens, and yet they did, and they were very much new, "foreign", evolved species.

Genetics does falsify evolution. It is impossible for a cat to breed off anything other than a cat. It is impossible for a cat to grow tenticles. Do you have an article about genetics and evolution working together? Again, I'm sorry, but you keep comming up with these huge 20 page articles, and theres only but a few hours in the afternoon

I would appreciate it if you posted the paragraphs you are referring to. Thats why I will usually abbreviate articles, such as the prophecy one I gave.

I think this is my longest post yet, so I'll end it before it grows even more....

 

[Grand Master]

Quote[/b] ]And Evolution is? Really, how can you look at yourself and truly believe that Evolution is correct? Look at the digestive system, look at the reproductive system, look at the nervous system. Now look me in the eyes and tell me that it all happened because of an accident. Look at the complexity of an atom, the molecule, and the ameba. Look at the trillions of galaxies and the uncountable number of planets. By Evolutionists saying that all this is an accident, you're comparing the creation of life to a glass of milk being knocked over. Now look me in the eyes, and you tell me who is irrational.

You have no argument, Jango. Basically, you're saying "Oh wow, life is so amazing and complex and this universe is so wondrous. This must mean that there is a god who is even more amazing, complex, and wondrous who must have created it all." That is about as lame an argument as you can make.

 

[timor]

Quote[/b] (LionOfJudah @ Mar. 26 2004,7:15)]Timor read the chronicles of Joepheous, he was a roman who did much on the history of Jews and is greatest resource outside of the Bible to what happened in Jerusalem during the times of Jesus.


as far as i know Nazareth is not a city, but rather was a Roman provence.

Josephus, who gave pages and chapters to the obscure, gives Jesus no more than a paragraph -- not only that, but he makes statements that are totally in contradiction to his being Jewish, thus leading many scholars to believe this to be a mere interpolation, a cameo created by Christians after the fact. Regardless, Josephus is not contemporary.

There was no ancient Nazareth, at least none that has been found. Not a city, not a province.

 

[timor]

Quote[/b] (Master~Plan @ Mar. 26 2004,8:17)]

Quote[/b] ]Prophecy is way too ambiguous.

I guess were not reading the same prophecy... I'm sorry I don't have time to read all the 20 page articles you post, but I do skim over them. Heres some of the prophecy that is quite blatant, and anything but vague. If you take any one of them, one might be fulfilled by someone, but the chances of one man fulfilling all of them is astronomical

Quote[/b] ]The Messiah will be born of a woman: Seems obviouse, but this is God were talking about, He could have come by other means.
The Messiah will be the Seed of Abraham (also prophecy about being the son of Issac, and Jacob.)Genesis 17:19 NIV)
The Messiah will be born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2 NASB)
A star will announce the birth of the Messiah (Numbers 24:17 NASB)
Herod will kill the children (Jeremiah 31:15 NASB)
The Messiah shall be called "Lord" (Psalms 110:1 NASB)
The Messiah shall be called Immanuel (God with us)(Isaiah 7:14 NASB)
The Messiah will be born of a Virgin (Isaiah 7:14 NASB)
The Messiah shall be a prophet(Deuteronomy 18:18 NASB)
The Messiah shall be anointed by the Holy Spirit(Isaiah 11:2 NASB)
The Messiah will be preceded by a messenger(Isaiah 40:3 NASB)
The Messiah will minister in Galilee- This is segnificant because Galilee was not a Jewish town.(Isaiah 9:1 NASB)
The Messiah's ministry will include miracles(Isaiah 35:5-6 NASB)
The Messiah will be a teacher of parables(Psalms 78:2)(Isaiah 6:9-10)
The Messiah would enter Jerusalem on a donkey(Zechariah 9:9 NASB)
The Messiah will be a "stone of stumbling" to the Jews(Psalms 118:22)
The Messiah will be betrayed by a friend(Psalm 41:9 NASB)
The Messiah will be betrayed for thirty pieces of silver(Zechariah 11:12 NASB)
The price of betraying the Messiah will be given for a potter's field(Zechariah 11:13 NASB)
The Messiah will be silent before his accusers(Isaiah 53:7 NASB)
The Messiah will be scourged and wounded(Isaiah 53:5 NASB)
The Messiah's hands and feet will be pierced(Psalm 22:16)
The Messiah will be put to death alongside transgressors(Isaiah 53:12 NASB)
The Messiah would rise from the dead(Psalm 16:10)

-all of this was written before the new testament existed. The gospel of mark was written within 12 years after Jesus' death/ressurection. No one objected to any of it. Jesus' biography fulfilled all the prophecy.

Quote[/b] ]as far as i know Nazareth is not a city, but rather was a Roman provence.

aye

Quote[/b] ]A very simple flaw in the prophecy-fulfillment argument is that foreseeing the future doesn't necessarily prove divine guidance.

heres a clip from your article. My argumentwould be that even if you don't accept God's divine inspiration, prophecy in general proves some supernatural guidance that can not be explained through science.

Quote[/b] ]They don't mention the star that heralded his birth.
They don't mention Herod's slaughter of boy babies.
They don't mention crowds gathered to hear him preach.
They don't mention his trial....

All this was covered by the historians whos writings were included in the Bible. There are other historians that did not write alot about Jesus, but did mention him, that weren't added to the Bible. I don't understand what reason you have to believe the Bible to not be credible... If any of the disciples made up any of thier testimony, when it came time to die for what they believed, they would have abandoned thier writtings to save thier life. Even if it was true, a coward might abandon it anyway. Luckily none of them were cowards, and they believed what they wrote whole heartedly, and died for it.

Quote[/b] ]Now, it is impossible for archaeology to say "This city never existed." What sort of evidence could support such a claim?

Thats a good point. At the same time, I think a majority of the cities have been found, and can be pointed out on a map that were mentioned in the Bible. Other books, like the book of mormon have rivers, that never existed. We would know if there was a river where the book says.

Quote[/b] ]Evolution is all about genetics! That's another thing -- genetics could have easily falsified evolution, and yet they work great together. Regardless, it seems you've missed the entire point. I'm sorry to ask this, but really, did you read, or even visit, the site that I provided? Speciation has occured. These botanists did not expect to find these new species suddenly emerging in their gardens, and yet they did, and they were very much new, "foreign", evolved species.

Genetics does falsify evolution. It is impossible for a cat to breed off anything other than a cat. It is impossible for a cat to grow tenticles. Do you have an article about genetics and evolution working together? Again, I'm sorry, but you keep comming up with these huge 20 page articles, and theres only but a few hours in the afternoon

I would appreciate it if you posted the paragraphs you are referring to. Thats why I will usually abbreviate articles, such as the prophecy one I gave.

I think this is my longest post yet, so I'll end it before it grows even more....

Those are people's interpretations of those verses, not the exact verses themselves. Did you even read the article I gave you? Due to its length, I highly doubt it, but I even more highly recommend it. I know you took a snippet from it, but that's all you took -- a snippet. A very small one.

Again, Nazareth has not been found to be either a city or provine. Feel free to prove me wrong, though.

The reason I think you just randomly chose a snippet is because the author gives several reasons for making that statement, such as the existence of non-divinely-inspired prophets in the Bible. He even gives verses referring to them, in which Yahweh warns his people to beware of such false prophets.

As for the gospels, you do realize that they were anonymous, and the names were assigned to them in the second century, correct?

Still, even if archaeology were to show us every single city from the Bible, that would do absolutely nothing to add to its credibility. Many fictional books today are set in real life cities and towns in America, yet the stories they tell are completely fabricated.

I've already given you a link to a rather short page listing many observed cases of speciation -- what more do you want? This is exactly the "macro-evolution" Creationists talk so much of. Also, it should be noted here that even if you were to somehow completely blow evolution out of the water, it would do absolutely nothing to add to the credibility of Creationism. Creationism must be defended completely upon its own merits.

Also, if you consider your "the gospel writers wouldn't have died for what they wrote" argument to be sound, consider this. If a scientist were to disprove evolution, he would be given a Nobel Prize. Such a thing has not been done, because it cannot be done, and yet repeatedly on this board I have seen claims from normal, every-day pew-sitters claiming that evolution is an idea of the past. Please, please, please submit your findings to some scientific journals -- there is great fame to be awarded to you.

 

[timor]

Quote[/b] (Grand Master @ Mar. 26 2004,9:05)]

Quote[/b] ]And Evolution is? Really, how can you look at yourself and truly believe that Evolution is correct? Look at the digestive system, look at the reproductive system, look at the nervous system. Now look me in the eyes and tell me that it all happened because of an accident. Look at the complexity of an atom, the molecule, and the ameba. Look at the trillions of galaxies and the uncountable number of planets. By Evolutionists saying that all this is an accident, you're comparing the creation of life to a glass of milk being knocked over. Now look me in the eyes, and you tell me who is irrational.

You have no argument, Jango. Basically, you're saying "Oh wow, life is so amazing and complex and this universe is so wondrous. This must mean that there is a god who even more amazing, complex and wondrous who must have created it all." That is about as lame an argument as you can make.

I totally agree. An appeal to wonder is technically no more unsound than any other logical fallacy, but as it strikes me personally, it is certainly one of the most ridiculous.

Oh, and Jango. Look at those same galaxies and planets. Now, do you really think that your God created all of that, and yet God's attention is focused on this ridiculously small sphere called Earth? That you, an almost immeasurably small part of the entire universe, have a personal relationship with it's creator? This, my freind, is the human ego at its worst. How arrogant.

 

[MichaelLogos]

"This interesting quote, as I expected, was shot immeadiately.

Quote
Other researchers strenuously disagreed that human evolution could literally hinge on a single mutation affecting jaw muscles, and that once those muscles around the skull were unhooked like bungee cords, the brain suddenly could grow unfettered.

“Such a claim is counter to the fundamentals of evolution,” said C. Owen Lovejoy of Kent State University. “These kinds of mutations probably are of little consequence.”


I want to know why its of little consequence." - Vanaze

The school of scientists who do not believe in sudden, rare mutations becoming highly influencial to evolution prefer the concept of small genetic differences changing species gradually. This is because if the evolution of animals rely on radical mutations in individuals, creatures would be too slow to change to environmental conditions or other situations. They would also be doomed to extinction or evolutionary stagnation if that single individual was to die of a cause not related to the gene, such as a big rock falling on them. Those who believe in gradual evolution think small genetic differences that are beneficial are slightly more likely to spread their genes and survive,but that slight difference makes it take several generations to make a noticable change. Those who favor dramatic change caused by mutation are illustrated by the movie "x-men", and that is something most people who believe in evolution are not silly enough to accept.
Vanaze, i doubt the article was not expanding on that quote because it was "closing our ears" and censoring it because of bias. It was probably assuming the readers of the article understood the debate between sudden mutation vs slow evolutionary change, wich it briefly mentioned. Unfortunately, many articles describe things as though they are speaking with specialists, not a mass audience.

 

[MichaelLogos]

"Quote

Creation, on the other hand, is unfalsifiable. It is was a supposedly 6-day occurance. It is not longer observable. It cannot make any useful predictions for the present time. Creationism does not even qualify as a scientific hypothesis, much less a theory!

And Evolution is? Really, how can you look at yourself and truly believe that Evolution is correct? Look at the digestive system, look at the reproductive system, look at the nervous system. Now look me in the eyes and tell me that it all happened because of an accident. Look at the complexity of an atom, the molecule, and the ameba. Look at the trillions of galaxies and the uncountable number of planets. By Evolutionists saying that all this is an accident, you're comparing the creation of life to a glass of milk being knocked over. Now look me in the eyes, and you tell me who is irrational."

Look at indigestion. Look at cancer. Look at paralysis. Our bodies work, but just barely. People are in pain and dieing constantly. Men are just different enough from women to cause tension, but not different enough to prevent reproduction. The ecosystem works well enough to keep itself going, but not well enough to attain perfection. Every creature works just well enough to reproduce. I'd say our strangely semi-symetrical bodies, itchiness, constant disease, strief in society, all of these are proof of the guess and check, happinstance workings of evolution.

 

[MichaelLogos]

I've read many posts that say evolution is unproven, because we do not have the means to look into the future, or have experiments that bridge the vast amount of time required. However, this all refers to a human timescale. The birth rate of flies is much shorter. The ability of some to breed in two weeks allows genetic testing to take place spanning many generations in a short amount of time. Although the evolution of HUMANS is speculation, survival of the fittest, and genetic influence on survival, are proven thousands of times over in laboratories with a variety of multicellular organisms.

 

[Vanaze]

Timor, in response to your message waaaaaaaaay back on page two or somewhere around there......

The emergence of new species does not dictate evolution. I, with scientific backing that isn't solely "religious", find that the idea of mutation is much more believable and observable.

We can daily see animals mutating to adjust to an envioronment, on the other hand, NO, we can't see some animal evolve into something else.



Humans all have their own mutations, as do birds, and other things such as that.

 

[Grand Master]

Quote[/b] ]Genetics does falsify evolution. It is impossible for a cat to breed off anything other than a cat.

Yeah, imagine if lions could breed with tigers, or if donkeys could breed with horses. That would be crazy! If something like that happened, we would have to consider god incompetent.

 

[Dr. Tek]

*Yawn*

Sadly enough, the unfounded claims of proof and the resulting arguments are rather amusing, goes great over a cup of café. Both sides have at one time claimed there is proof, but neither can show any. BOTH are beliefs, accepted by faith. Neither can be proved, nor ever will, by any human means. When compared to the reality of the world, and Ive found this only after years of research, evolution has a lot of discrepancies with fact, while Ive yet to find a single contradiction in nature to the Biblical account of creation, not the distorted views most Christians, sadly have taken in recent decades. Yall can argue the live-long day which is "true" but neither side is going to gain any gorund as long as there are claims of proof being thrown around.

 

[Mr.Bill]

Quote[/b] (Dr. Tek @ Mar. 27 2004,11:17)]*Yawn*

Sadly enough, the unfounded claims of proof and the resulting arguments are rather amusing, goes great over a cup of café.  Both sides have at one time claimed there is proof, but neither can show any.  BOTH are beliefs, accepted by faith.  Neither can be proved, nor ever will, by any human means.  When compared to the reality of the world, and Ive found this only after years of research, evolution has a lot of discrepancies with fact, while Ive yet to find a single contradiction in nature to the Biblical account of creation, not the distorted views most Christians, sadly have taken in recent decades.  Yall can argue the live-long day which is "true" but neither side is going to gain any gorund as long as there are claims of proof being thrown around.

I don't know if it's lack of evidence so much...more like the excessive amounts of stubborness and bigotry running rampant in this thread and forum in general. But you're right...no ground is going to be gained in this way..and they still feel compelled to argue. I think that's becuase they just want to re-affirm their own beliefs by trying to convince others...it's a show of just how insecure they are...but..of course...I cannot prove that..just a theory. Another thing..I do believe we will be able to 'prove' that evolution has taken place...or has not taken place..eventually. There's no reason to doubt human ingenuity thus far in our species' history...look back at all that we've discovered, and pretty much nothing is hard to believe.

 

[Master~Plan]

Quote[/b] ]Yeah, imagine if lions could breed with tigers, or if donkeys could breed with horses. That would be crazy! If something like that happened, we would have to consider god incompetent.

Both lions and tigers are cats, and mules can't reproduce... Just because we have different views doesn't call for sarcasm. Make a point, or support your point, don't make quarrels...

Quote[/b] ]Those are people's interpretations of those verses, not the exact verses themselves.

no, these verses are referenced to the messiah

Quote[/b] ]Did you even read the article I gave you? Due to its length, I highly doubt it, but I even more highly recommend it.

Quote[/b] ]Again, I'm sorry, but you keep comming up with these huge 20 page articles, and theres only but a few hours in the afternoon  I would appreciate it if you posted the paragraphs you are referring to. Thats why I will usually abbreviate articles, such as the prophecy one I gave.

I may not have read much of your article, but are you reading my posts? I'll cut you a deal, I"ll spend the time to read your very long article if you read one of my very long articles. Bible's validity Theres nothing wrong with long articles, they are very good. Theres just so many of them. So do we have a deal?

Quote[/b] ]Again, Nazareth has not been found to be either a city or provine. Feel free to prove me wrong, though.

I just googled it and came up with this site, These people are pretty convinced they live in nazareth. Do you have any reason as to why they are wrong?
nazareth town I thought nazareth to be a providence, what would be evidence to you, that would prove Nazareth?

Quote[/b] ]Still, even if archaeology were to show us every single city from the Bible, that would do absolutely nothing to add to its credibility. Many fictional books today are set in real life cities and towns in America, yet the stories they tell are completely fabricated.

Sure, but these books don't in any way claim to be true. If anyone tried to pass off fiction as non fiction, well today they would get sued up the butt, but other than that everyone would reject it, and the writer would lose any credibility. If a writer wrote about a true story with false towns, again, no one would give the story any validity. The towns checking up do give alot of credibility.

Quote[/b] ]I've already given you a link to a rather short page listing many observed cases of speciation -- what more do you want? This is exactly the "macro-evolution" Creationists talk so much of. Also, it should be noted here that even if you were to somehow completely blow evolution out of the water, it would do absolutely nothing to add to the credibility of Creationism. Creationism must be defended completely upon its own merits.

fine, I'll read your "short" speciation article, but you owe me one... I understand Evolution and Creation are independant matters. I'm not trying to prove Creation by disproving Evolution. I just find it amazing that every detail of Creation gets scrutinized while every article a evolutionist writes is quickly accepted.

Quote[/b] ]If a scientist were to disprove evolution, he would be given a Nobel Prize. Such a thing has not been done, because it cannot be done

exactly, evolution is not falsifiable at this point. Maybe with the improvement of science it will become falsifiable, but I don't think we have the technology yet to test it.

 

[timor]

Quote[/b] (Vanaze @ Mar. 27 2004,1:15)]Timor, in response to your message waaaaaaaaay back on page two or somewhere around there......

The emergence of new species does not dictate evolution. I, with scientific backing that isn't solely "religious", find that the idea of mutation is much more believable and observable.

We can daily see animals mutating to adjust to an envioronment, on the other hand, NO, we can't see some animal evolve into something else.



Humans all have their own mutations, as do birds, and other things such as that.

Well then how the heck are you defining evolution? If mutations can occur, and if these mutations can create new species, then easily follows that many many mutations coupled with the branching out of species could easily account for the vast amount of life we have today, and all from one or a few original life forms. What are you arguing against?

 

[timor]

Quote[/b] (Master~Plan @ Mar. 27 2004,12:50)]

Quote[/b] ]I may not have read much of your article, but are you reading my posts? I'll cut you a deal, I"ll spend the time to read your very long article if you read one of my very long articles. Bible's validity Theres nothing wrong with long articles, they are very good. Theres just so many of them. So do we have a deal?

Deal. I'll be responding to your website shortly.

Quote[/b] ]I just googled it and came up with this site, These people are pretty convinced they live in nazareth. Do you have any reason as to why they are wrong?
nazareth town I thought nazareth to be a providence, what would be evidence to you, that would prove Nazareth?

That is modern day Nazareth, well-understood to differ from the supposed ancient Nazareth. Here's a short article.
http://www.infidelguy.com/modules....sid=263

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]Still, even if archaeology were to show us every single city from the Bible, that would do absolutely nothing to add to its credibility. Many fictional books today are set in real life cities and towns in America, yet the stories they tell are completely fabricated.

Sure, but these books don't in any way claim to be true. If anyone tried to pass off fiction as non fiction, well today they would get sued up the butt, but other than that everyone would reject it, and the writer would lose any credibility. If a writer wrote about a true story with false towns, again, no one would give the story any validity. The towns checking up do give alot of credibility.

No, they don't. The writers of the Bible could very well have been writing about false towns, as we're currently discussing regarding Nazareth.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]I've already given you a link to a rather short page listing many observed cases of speciation -- what more do you want? This is exactly the "macro-evolution" Creationists talk so much of. Also, it should be noted here that even if you were to somehow completely blow evolution out of the water, it would do absolutely nothing to add to the credibility of Creationism. Creationism must be defended completely upon its own merits.

fine, I'll read your "short" speciation article, but you owe me one... I understand Evolution and Creation are independant matters. I'm not trying to prove Creation by disproving Evolution. I just find it amazing that every detail of Creation gets scrutinized while every article a evolutionist writes is quickly accepted.

That's an assumption, and a wrong one -- evolution's workings, the whole theory part of evolution, are hotly debated among scientific circles. Yet the bare facts cannot be denied.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]If a scientist were to disprove evolution, he would be given a Nobel Prize. Such a thing has not been done, because it cannot be done

exactly, evolution is not falsifiable at this point. Maybe with the improvement of science it will become falsifiable, but I don't think we have the technology yet to test it.

I refer you to this article, from which I'll take a few paragraphs

:

Quote[/b] ]Back to evolution. It becomes clear why the simple-minded parroting, even by scientists, that if it can't be falsified it isn't science, is not sufficient to rule out a theory. What science actually is, is a matter for extreme debate. The rediscovery post-Merton of the social nature of science has thrown eternal Scientific Methods out the window, but that doesn't mean that science is no longer distinguishable from non-science. It just isn't as easy as one would like in an ideal world. Last I looked, it wasn't an ideal world, anyway.

However, on the ordinary understanding of falsification, Darwinian evolution can be falsified. What's more, it can be verified in a non-deductive sort of way. Whewell was right in the sense that you can show the relative validity of a theory if it pans out enough, and Popper had a similar notion, called 'verisimilitude'. What scientists do, or even what they say they do, is in the end very little affected by a priori philosophical prescriptions. Darwin was right to take the approach he did.

It is significant that, although it is often claimed that Darwinism is unfalsifiable, many of the things Darwin said have in fact been falsified. Many of his assertions of fact have been revised or denied, many of his mechanisms rejected or modified even by his strongest supporters (e.g., by Mayr, Gould, Lewontin, and Dawkins), and he would find it hard to recognise some versions of modern selection theory as his natural selection theory. This is exactly what a student of the history of science would expect. Science moves on, and if a theory doesn't, that is strong prima facie evidence it actually is a metaphysical belief. [note 4]

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/falsify.html

 

[timor]

Ok, in response to your website.

Quote[/b] ]What, then, should we expect from a book that claims to be the written record of the word and works of God and His relationship with mankind? We have every right to expect this book to meet the highest standards of accuracy.

Damn right we do.

Quote[/b] ]In a book where the history of man and the revelation of God are so intertwined, if we have doubts concerning what it says about man and his world, we will also have a right to doubt what it says about God. If part of the Bible were to be proven wrong, then the rest of it would be suspect. However, the Bible has proven itself to be reliable in history, science, and fulfilled prophecy. Its record is accurate and trustworthy.

Kind of. While showing a part of the Bible to be erroneous makes the entire thing suspect, the opposite is not true -- showing a part of the Bible to be true does not necessarily bolster the validity of the rest of it. The Bible must be proven in its entirety. The Bible should be able to be proven in its entirety

Quote[/b] ]Nelson Glueck, a Jewish archeologist, said, "It may be stated categorically that no archeological discovery has ever controverted a biblical reference" (Rivers in the Desert: History of Neteg, p.31).

Appeal to a no-name authority, anyone? Moving on...

Quote[/b] ]The discoveries not long ago of tablets in the ancient city of Ebla in northern Syria has brought to light a wealth of historical material that supports the biblical record. An article in Time magazine reported, "Their discovery does more than provide documentary evidence of a little known kingdom that existed between 2400 and 2250 BC; it also provides the best evidence to date that some of the people described In the Old Testament actually existed" (October 18, 1976, p.63).

Let's see some more information about these tablets, eh?

Quote[/b] ]The New Testament record is also supported by research and discovery. The Gospel of Luke and the book of Acts (both written by Luke) have gained the respect of scholars who have investigated their numerous references to people and places in the Jewish and Roman worlds. Concerning Luke, F. F. Bruce has written, "A man whose accuracy can be demonstrated in matters where we are able to test it is likely to be accurate even when mears of testing him are not available" (The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? p.90).

Eh, that really doesn't follow, especially since those instances are most likely regarding miracles. It's also another appeal to authority.

Quote[/b] ]So the believability of the New Testament in matters of our physical world lends credibility to what it says about the spiritual world.

No, that does not follow at all. That's a ridiculous statement.

Quote[/b] ]ohn Warwick Montgomery has written, "What, then, does a historian know about Jesus Christ? He knows, first and foremost, that the New Testament documents can be relied upon to give an accurate portrait of Him. And he knows that this portrait cannot be rationalized away by wishful thinking, philosophical presuppositionalism, or literary maneuvering" (History and Christianity, p.40).

Again, an appeal to authority. Where is all this evidence this article speaks of? Let's see it -- we're big boys and girls, we can handle it. Let the documents speak for themselves, eh?

Quote[/b] ]Those who deny miracles are at odds with those who say that the miracles recorded in the Bible actually happened. This is because people who deny God reject the view of those who believe in a supernatural God who at times intervened in the affairs of men.

Um, no shitaki mushrooms?

Quote[/b] ]The Bible is not a science textbook. It often uses figures of speech to describe facets of life that science would explain in different terms. For example, it speaks of the sun setting and of the four corners of the earth. Scientists, of course, would not accept these statements as accurate. But they were never meant to be taken literally. When the Bible does speak directly about matters of science, however, it speaks correctly.

This is a problem. Where do figures of speech end and literal communication begin? Why was not Jesus, or especially the Gospel writers, not speaking and writing in mere metaphors? Why take them so literally? Why reject "four corners of the earth" as a figure of speech, and yet accept a 6-day creation, talking snakes and donkeys, a garden of paradise, a Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, a god-man, a resurrection, walking on water, etc. as literal accounts rather than metaphor and mythology?

Quote[/b] ]In the final analysis, the Bible and science are in perfect agreement.

Prove it.

Quote[/b] ]The God who created the universe and set in motion the laws that govern our world is the same God who inspired the Bible. He is the God of truth and does not contradict Himself. Therefore, when the Bible is interpreted correctly and science arrives at proven conclusions, they will be in perfect agreement.

Circular logic.

Quote[/b] ]The Bible is not like that. The Word of God has proven that it can be trusted. It has never been wrong in its diagnosis of man's ills. It has never made false promises. It has never given man reason to think it is a collection of fables and lies.

Biting...tongue...Mouth filling...with blood.

One clear confirmation of its reliability is the accuracy of its prophecy.

Ha!

Quote[/b] ]It says in Deuteronomy 18:20-22 that the test of a prophet's authority is the accuracy of his predictions.

This flies in the face of Deuteronomy 13:1-3, which admits that prophets may be accurate and yet attempt to lead people to other gods -- obviously, then, their authority comes not from Yahweh.

I can't really quote the rest real well since it's in table form.

The virgin birth -- this is something that must be taken totally on faith. How can such a thing be proven? Rather, how can such a thing even be taken seriously? To ever allude to the "virgin birth" as any form of proof is absolutely absurd.

I believe just about all the rest of the "prophecies" are addressed in Farell Till's article. I should also point out that that entire table of prophecies has their fulfillments recorded in the Bible. You can't use the Bible to prove the Bible, that's circular logic.

Quote[/b] ]Another example of fulfilled prophecy was the destruction of the city of Tyre. Hundreds of years before, Ezekiel had predicted that the city would be destroyed and the ruins scraped off and dumped into the sea, never to be rebuilt (Ezekiel 26). It happened exactly as predicted. First Nebuchadnezzar destroyed the city, then Alexander had his men use the ruins to build a causeway out to an offshore island where the people had fled. That causeway may still be seen today as a silent witness to the accuracy of Bible prophecy.

Wow, the exact opposite is true. Observe:

Quote[/b] ]From: "VanAllen" <mail@v...>
Date: Sat Sep 1, 2001 11:40 am
Subject: A Failed Prophesy

ADVERTISEMENT

I have often heard the claim that the Bible contains many hundreds of accurate prophecies, all of which have been fulfilled. However, this far-fetched claim conveniently forgets about Ezekiel's prophecy against the island-city1 of Tyre!

Ezekiel's Original Prophecy against Tyre

As you will know, the prophet Ezekiel prophesied (in 586BC2) that King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon would destroy Tyre completely, and that it would never be rebuilt. Yet, the city of Tyre still exists today!!

Ezekiel was very explicit in his prophecy. He said that Nebuchadnezzar would lay siege to Tyre,3 Tyre's walls would be broken,4 and the island-city's people killed and riches plundered.5

In fact, Ezekiel clearly reports God as saying that, "Tyre shall never again be rebuilt, for I Yahweh have spoken."6

However, as history shows, the prophecy never came true. The historian Josephus, quoting Philostratus tells us that "Nebuchadnezzar unsuccessfully besieged Tyre for 13 years." Nebuchadnezzar never broke the walls of Tyre, and never plundered the city, as (incorrectly) foretold in Ezekiel's prophecy.

Ezekiel's response: Issue a Revised Prophecy!

So what was Ezekiel's response to this? He simply issued a revised prophecy! The revised prophecy was dated two years after the 13-year siege ceased (in 571BC7), when it was apparent that Ezekiel's original prophecy had failed to come true. The revised prophecy reads as follows:

"Yahweh said, 'King Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon made his army labor hard against Tyre; every head was made bald and every shoulder was rubbed bare; yet NEITHER HE NOR HIS ARMY GOT ANYTHING FROM TYRE to pay for the labour that he had expended against it. Therefore,' thus says Yahweh God, 'I will give the land of Egypt to King Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon; and he shall carry off its wealth and despoil it and plunder it; and it shall be the wages for his army. I have given him the land of Egypt as his payment for which he laboured, because they worked for me,' says Yahweh God."

There you have it! Ezekiel rather frankly acknowledges Nebuchadnezzar's failure to take Tyre, even though the great Babylonian king laboured for 13 years to do so. So Ezekiel, seemingly without any embarrassment at the failure of his original prophecy, simply changed it after the fact to fit the historical situation as it had actually unfolded!!!

In fact, if you read scholarly Christian commentaries on the Book of Ezekiel, you will find something that is probably not taught at a fundamentalist church: these commentaries all agree that Ezekiel's original prophecy failed to come true. Here's a small sampling of what the main scholarly commentaries have to say:

Zimmerli: "In the oracles against Tyre, the fall and devastation of Tyre and, quite explicitly in 26:7, her surrender to the great king from the north were expressed. The end of the siege of Tyre appeared quite differently. Whatever the details of the end may have been, Tyre WAS IN ANY CASE NOT DESTROYED AND PLUNDERED."

Vawter/Hoppe: "The date of this oracle [29:17-21] is 26 April 571. Of the dated oracles in Ezekiel this is the latest. What this text ATTEMPTS TO DO IS TO RESTORE THE PROPHET'S CREDIBILITY AFTER THE PROPHECIES THAT HE UTTERED AGAINST TYRE DID NOT COME TRUE… The biblical tradition had to deal with THE FAILURE OF THE PROPHETIC TEXT."

Eichrodt: "Nebuchadnezzar's campaign against Tyre, after having lasted thirteen years, had come to an end two or three years previously, WITHOUT HAVING HAD THE RESULT EXPECTED BY THE PROPHET IN HIS ANNOUNCEMENT OF JUDGEMENT AGAINST TYRE. Tyre was not destroyed or even plundered."

But it was Still Wrong!!
To make matters worse, Ezekiel's revised prophecy about Egypt didn't come true either!

Harpers (Robert R Wilson): "This oracle [29:17-21], the latest dated oracle in the book, is set in April of 571BC, shortly after the end of Nebuchadnezzar's unsuccessful siege of Tyre. The prophet or his disciples were apparently worried that the earlier prophecies against Tyre had not been fulfilled. To explain this situation, God tells Ezekiel that Egypt is to be given to Nebuchadnezzar as compensation for the effort he expended trying to capture Tyre... As later events developed, EZEKIEL'S SUBSTITUTE PROPHECY AGAINST EGYPT WAS NOT FULFILLED EITHER. Nebuchadnezzar apparently did campaign in Egypt and may have even exacted tribute from the pharaoh, but the country was NOT DESTROYED IN THE WAY THAT THE PROPHET PREDICTED."


What do you say about that,? Did a Biblical prophecy fail to come true?


Notes: (1) Tyre "in the midst of the sea": Ezekiel 26:5; 27:32; "on the sea… imposing terror on the mainland": Ezekiel 26:17; "borders in the heart of the seas" Ezekiel 27:4; 28:2; cf Esarhaddon: "I conquered Tyre which lies in the middle of the sea (sa qabal tamtim)". (2) The eleventh year of exile of King Jehoiachin: Ezekiel 26:1. (3) Ezekiel 26:8. (4) Ezekiel 26:4, 9-10. (5) Ezekiel 26:5, 11-12; 28:7. (6) Ezekiel 26:14, cf 26:21; 27:36. (7) in the 27th year of exile: Ezekiel 29:17. (8) Ezekiel 29:18-20.

Quote[/b] ]Daniel accurately predicted the succession of four great world powers: Babylonia, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome (Daniel 2 and 7).

Haha, Daniel's prophecies are incredibly vague.


Thanks for the entertaining read.

 

[LionOfJudah]

This is random but i do believe that they have breed tigers and lions...... (not 100% sure) i saw it on the discovery channel a few years ago (ok now i am the expert i saw it on the discovery channel

)