the earth
- Thread starter michaelpi
- Start date
Dark Virtue
New Member
Master~Plan said:
Sincere?
Remove the plank from thine own eye.
How many theists of other faiths died for their beliefs?
You think Christians were the only ones persecuted? You think Christians are the only ones with martyrs?
Should we come up with some sort of body count to determine which faith lost more adherants?
![[toj.cc]WildBillKickoff](/forums/data/avatars/m/1/1206.jpg?1442680067){kind=avatar}
[toj.cc]WildBillKickoff
New Member
The difference between the Muslin suicide bombers and the 12 disciples is that they were in material knowledge of the veracity of the claims. Just as they die for their faith on faith alone, so would I die for mine if called to it. However, the disciples were with Jesus for 3 years and were witness to His death and resurrection.
Let's assume for a moment that the disciples made up the resurrection. What could plausibly be their reasoning for continuing a farce, even unto death?
Let's assume for a moment that the disciples made up the resurrection. What could plausibly be their reasoning for continuing a farce, even unto death?
Master~Plan
New Member
You guys diverted. I'm talking about eye witnesses -not martyrs and thiests...
^Bill got it
ChickenSoup
Banned
Also, the 12 diciples didn't take down dozens of people when they asploded themselves...
Dark Virtue
New Member
Master~Plan said:
Fine, I'll play your game...
Eyewitnesses to what?
If you don't want us to misinterpret your posts, then please be specific.
What, exactly, are you talking about?
SLNT_FIR
New Member
I think this topic is going a little bit off topic, its supposed to be about the earth... anyway,
we mean from a differnet viewpoint. the muslims and some of the other people who have died martyrs are from a different viewpoint, more radical. if you were to examine and talk to them, i believe you would find most of them are radicalists who don't have the most of the big picture.
we mean from a differnet viewpoint. the muslims and some of the other people who have died martyrs are from a different viewpoint, more radical. if you were to examine and talk to them, i believe you would find most of them are radicalists who don't have the most of the big picture.
Dark Virtue
New Member
SLNT_FIR said:
I think you're being a bit unfair here by making these extremists representative of the entire religion.
That's like someone claiming the Branch Davidians were representative of Christianity as a whole.
YOUR martyrs are no different than THEIR martyrs. Yours are no more holy than theirs or had higher ideals than theirs. They are, as you said, simply different. No better, no worse.
DarthDapor
New Member
That was wierd! I tried to post but it didn't show up.
Well anyhow, the basic idea of what I said was I looked up (and even listed) the entire webster dictionary definitions of the word faith. You con look it up if you want and you'll see that Dark Virtue does indeed hov faith that there is no God. Even though he has said on the first page that he would rather not take a leap of faith on something he is told to believe (I take it you hov run experiments otherwise you woouldn't listen to evolutionary scientists who say that stuff).
Well anyhow, the basic idea of what I said was I looked up (and even listed) the entire webster dictionary definitions of the word faith. You con look it up if you want and you'll see that Dark Virtue does indeed hov faith that there is no God. Even though he has said on the first page that he would rather not take a leap of faith on something he is told to believe (I take it you hov run experiments otherwise you woouldn't listen to evolutionary scientists who say that stuff).
Master~Plan
New Member
"Fine"Anything. Witness an event with thier eyes, and die because they are so certain of what they saw, and will not deny it. In the case of Christianity it was 12
could you fill me in, I"m drawing a blank
Avesther
New Member
And all this debate over eyewitnesses have gotten us closer to the probable age of the earth, solar system, universe and the whole ball of wax how?
Science has failed to predict the age the world. The fact that daughter material exists in newly formed rock and fossils (else they wouldn't be giving erroneous readings into the thousands of thousands of years) flies in the face of a fundamental corner stone of dating methods; that is no daughter material is present at the formation of the sample.
The only logical answer is that it is all created with an appearant age. What is that appearant age, I have no clue and science can not answer it. And I fully suspect that each samples appearant age variance varies sample by sample. I do believe that the contamination caused by pre-existing daughter material is material enough to seriously affect dates taken. If it were not the case, geologists and other schools of science would not be working so adimantly towards theories to explain this phenomenom(sp?).
All the theories that are based around the eventual bleeding away of this original daughter material do so at risk of a second foundational assumption of dating methods; that is that the samples system was closed. No parent or daughter material has been added to the sample since its inception.
All the theories that are based around calculating the original amount of daughter material assume that there is actually a way to tell the difference between a 2 minute old N14 atom versus a 2,000 year old N14 atom. They are identical, that is why a recently deceased fish can get a reading of thousands of years. Granted, the recently deceased fish may have gotten its Nitrogen from a Nitrogen rich diet, but how does the gas spectrometers tell the difference between the nitrogen in a nitrogen rich diet of a fish that died 10 years ago compared to one that died 2,000 years ago? It can't, it doesn't and thusly the existance of it brings dates calculated by radioactive decay into serious quesion, serious enough that one should not be relying on it.
As a matter of fact, there is no way for science to predict the conditions of any sample at its inception. Without making unreasonable assumptions, there is no way to verify the results. And making assumptions is not verification of the results. What does the scientific method have to say when results are unverifiable? I do believe it is to reject the results. I know the scientific community would like to say that this is why they seek correlating evidence. But is that evidence also not based on unverifiable assumptions and results? Of course they are. There is absolutly no way to verify the conditions (whether they be the presence of daughter material, or the atmospheric conditions, or the general conditions of the planet, specific conditions of a local region, or the diet of an organism) of a sample at the time of its inception.
And when we can verify the conditions, we find that they are so chaotic to the point that we are told to disregard the results of the dating tests on new samples. And that the dating methods only work on samples that are older. How can you tell that a sample is old? Does it have a particular look? A particular smell? A different feel? How do you tell the difference between a ten year old sample and a 5,000 year old sample or a really really old sample that could be 200 million years old so you know not to date the 10 year old sample? How do you know for sure that a sample that is dated to 200 million years didn't form 4,500 years ago under such conditions that it would give a 200 million year old date?
Science has failed to predict the age the world. The fact that daughter material exists in newly formed rock and fossils (else they wouldn't be giving erroneous readings into the thousands of thousands of years) flies in the face of a fundamental corner stone of dating methods; that is no daughter material is present at the formation of the sample.
The only logical answer is that it is all created with an appearant age. What is that appearant age, I have no clue and science can not answer it. And I fully suspect that each samples appearant age variance varies sample by sample. I do believe that the contamination caused by pre-existing daughter material is material enough to seriously affect dates taken. If it were not the case, geologists and other schools of science would not be working so adimantly towards theories to explain this phenomenom(sp?).
All the theories that are based around the eventual bleeding away of this original daughter material do so at risk of a second foundational assumption of dating methods; that is that the samples system was closed. No parent or daughter material has been added to the sample since its inception.
All the theories that are based around calculating the original amount of daughter material assume that there is actually a way to tell the difference between a 2 minute old N14 atom versus a 2,000 year old N14 atom. They are identical, that is why a recently deceased fish can get a reading of thousands of years. Granted, the recently deceased fish may have gotten its Nitrogen from a Nitrogen rich diet, but how does the gas spectrometers tell the difference between the nitrogen in a nitrogen rich diet of a fish that died 10 years ago compared to one that died 2,000 years ago? It can't, it doesn't and thusly the existance of it brings dates calculated by radioactive decay into serious quesion, serious enough that one should not be relying on it.
As a matter of fact, there is no way for science to predict the conditions of any sample at its inception. Without making unreasonable assumptions, there is no way to verify the results. And making assumptions is not verification of the results. What does the scientific method have to say when results are unverifiable? I do believe it is to reject the results. I know the scientific community would like to say that this is why they seek correlating evidence. But is that evidence also not based on unverifiable assumptions and results? Of course they are. There is absolutly no way to verify the conditions (whether they be the presence of daughter material, or the atmospheric conditions, or the general conditions of the planet, specific conditions of a local region, or the diet of an organism) of a sample at the time of its inception.
And when we can verify the conditions, we find that they are so chaotic to the point that we are told to disregard the results of the dating tests on new samples. And that the dating methods only work on samples that are older. How can you tell that a sample is old? Does it have a particular look? A particular smell? A different feel? How do you tell the difference between a ten year old sample and a 5,000 year old sample or a really really old sample that could be 200 million years old so you know not to date the 10 year old sample? How do you know for sure that a sample that is dated to 200 million years didn't form 4,500 years ago under such conditions that it would give a 200 million year old date?
The story goes that the old man in the mountain took orders for the deaths of others. He needed assassins (as they were called) who had no fear and would strike their targets - even at the cost of their lives.
What he did was he built a sumptuous garden retreat at the top of the mountain he lived in and he staffed it with the most beautiful of women, furnished it with the best and stocked it with the finest provender. When he was ready to send an assassin out he would get the poor dope wasted on hash and cart him up the mountain, where the drugged killer would awaken in what he thought was paradise. When the assassin succumbed to his next stupored sleep they would cart him back down the mountain and tell him that paradise awaited him after death IF he succeeded.
That's the story. The assassin would go and fight for a paradise that he believed he'd seen with his own eyes. But it was all fake.
What he did was he built a sumptuous garden retreat at the top of the mountain he lived in and he staffed it with the most beautiful of women, furnished it with the best and stocked it with the finest provender. When he was ready to send an assassin out he would get the poor dope wasted on hash and cart him up the mountain, where the drugged killer would awaken in what he thought was paradise. When the assassin succumbed to his next stupored sleep they would cart him back down the mountain and tell him that paradise awaited him after death IF he succeeded.
That's the story. The assassin would go and fight for a paradise that he believed he'd seen with his own eyes. But it was all fake.
Dark Virtue
New Member
DarthDapor said:That was wierd! I tried to post but it didn't show up.
What are you talking about?
Would you mind actually explaining why you feel this to be true?
Saying that I have faith that there is no God would negate what I have been saying all along, that I would gladly believe in God if I had evidence, proof and reason for his existence.
However, it's easier for you to argue that I simply deny God. Either prove your point, or stop falsly attributing ideals to me.
Also explain your evolutionary scientist bit. As I have stated before, I am not a supporter of macro-evolution, so once again, it looks like you are wrongly attributing things to me.
Last edited by a moderator:
Dark Virtue
New Member
Master~Plan said:
Now would you mind addressing the question?
Martyrs or witnesses, it makes no difference, choose whatever term you like. Answer the question.
Master~Plan
New Member
(^GP is kind of right, but I don't want to look like a cop out, so back to witnesses I guess?)
of course it does, why would someone simply dieng for a cause make it right? Theres always 2 sides to any war.
The whole point derrived of a nonbiased witness dieng is because even though it cost thier life, they made sure the truth was told. People in war are either paid, or drafted, or expected to fight, etc...
So I will rephrase your question
it should go something like:
"how many non biased witnesses of other faiths died on account of thier testimony of what they saw?"
I don't know of any, do you?(except for Eon's story \/ )
Thats a interesting story. The difference is that the assassins were drunk/wasted witnesses... Drunkeness is a sin, and the apostles were Jews. I don't see how a relation can be feasible. There are qualifications to be a valid witness, but I did enjoy the storyEon said:
Anyway, back on topic, I did like your post very much GP. kudos
Dark Virtue
New Member
Master~Plan said:
And the twelve disciples were nonbiased?
You dig yourself deeper with each post.
Dark Virtue
New Member
Gods_Peon said:
So what do you suggest? Don't ever test anything because our testing methods aren't perfect? How else do you expect to create better testing techniques?
Science doesn't always have to answer every question NOW. That's not how it works. We answer the questions before as best we can with the information we currently have.
"The only logical answer is that it is all created with an appearant age. " Are you serious? Or is that the only answer you want to BELIEVE in?
If you can't back it up with evidence, proof or reason, please don't call it logical.
Master~Plan
New Member
no they weren't. Keep in mind if they could have gotten out of thier horrendous death by denying thier claim. So if they were lying, then they died a horrible death, for no reason because if they were lying, they would know they would not be going to Heaven. This is simply insane. OR they were telling the truth, and held thier testimony to death because they knew Heaven was just on the other side. So its either totally insane, or telling the truth
heh, hey look its a resort to intimidation.... well good luck with that
I take it you know of no other faiths where the founding witnesses were put to death because of what they testified to seeing
Avesther
New Member
If the testing is imperfect, then stop relying on the results. Why is it so important for you to have a 4.5billion year old earth? If it isn't really that important, why are you so defensive over it?
Statement of faith. Plain and simple.
But that is not how science reports it. It states it findings of fact, people believe and rely on them.
And you blindly accept that the world is 4.5billion years old. Or is it the only answer you want to BELIEVE in?
I think I just shown how dating methods are not backed up with evidence, proof and reason.