100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: what Is The Truth About Dinosaurs | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
This is just a "what if..."
What if the New Testament, the Church and Christianity, were all the creation of the Calpurnius Piso (pronounced Peso) family, who were Roman aristocrats? What if The New Testament and all the characters in it - Jesus, all the Josephs, all the Marys, all the disciples, apostles, Paul, John the Baptist - all are fictional? What if the Pisos created the story and the characters; they tied the story to a specific time and place in history; and they connected it with some peripheral actual people, such as the Herods, Gamaliel, the Roman procurators, etc. But Jesus and everyone involved with him were created (that is fictional!) characters? How easy would this have been? How obvious it is that this is so? How much plagiarized scripture do you think is in the New Testament? How similar is the story of Jesus to stories of mythical Gods of the past? If any of this is true, there are no witnesses. I don't think these witnesses can be found anywhere outside of the fictional story in the New Testament. Of course that is just my personal conclusion.  JB |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
wouldee wrote, it's the same as saying the origins of man are as man says and not the record given says, which is that things are as they are. But wouldee, what 'wouldee' be your answer to the overwhelming majority of christians, whom reconciliate perfectly in their CHRISTIAN faith, what the 'record given' by faith offers, and what science says about evolution, AS THINGS AS THEY ARE??? Never mind exchanging with people whom don't even borrow the bible as a means to construct their beliefs, and faith. Take it up with the overwhelming majority of some 2,0 billion christians, WHOM 'LIVE' THEIR CHRISTIAN FAITH FULLY, AND 'UNDERSTAND' HOW EVOLUTION IS VERY MUCH 'A INTEGRAL PART' OF THE WHOLE EQUATION. It's like insisting for your chinese correspondent to speak english, because YOU claim that english is the only possible language for effective communications. As your mother tongue isn't the only language of ‘effective’ communication, your personal beliefs aren't the only beliefs of ‘effective’ faith, as it were. No personal belief, nor personal belief systems will ever amount to the RIGHT faith, AND MUCH LESS THE 'RIGHT' TRUTH, in spite of your claims to the contrary. When it comes to faith, beliefs are not the end of the road as you apply yourself to demonstrate with your particular blend of beliefs . Beliefs might be the road, or the gas to be on the road, but never the end state in itself, which we all 'SEEK' through our personal beliefs, and our personal faith. (I figured you might appreciate the automobile metaphor!) 'Record given' is a matter of belief to YOU wouldee!!! And that is irreproachable. But that is 'YOUR gas', NOT THE TRUTH (truth for you, but not THE TRUTH!). That is how you construct your personal faith, and faith is profoundly personal. In spite of apologetics and fundamentalist claims, MARKETING, AND MERCHANDIZING will never apply to faith. .’Record Given’ is possibly a vital belief for you, but don't confuse the gas with 'SEEKING the end state'. The gas one chooses in one's faith 'travel', is quite secondary, in spite of your insistence that beliefs are the end state, or that there is only a specific set of beliefs to 'SEEK' THE PROPER end state. Can you not see how incoherent that is. No one 'KNOWS' what the end state (the truth) is. That is why we are all on a 'seeking' journey!!! How can anyone claim to KNOW the right path, in 'SEEKING' that which he NO ONE KNOWS. To seek implies that we don't HAVE, as in THE TRUTH; thus FAITH! To 'seek', and yet assert that ‘you have’ at the same time, is a contradiction and a LIE. To assert that you are no longer 'seeking', because YOU ‘have’ the truth, is pure DELUSION, and is much beyond the competency and mandate of this forum. Again, beliefs, as in 'records given', are PERSONAL TRUTHS. As such, they are important to YOU, wouldee, but those same personal truths are of no value to anyone else, EVEN WHEN TWO OR MORE PEOPLE SEEM TO SHARE SIMILAR BELIEFS!!! Faith is not a numbers sport!!! There are no TEAMS in faith!!! There are no fights for the CUP of faith!!! If you insist on faith being a SPORT, then it is the ultimate individual SPORT where the only competition is YOUR 'SELF'!!! I am not in the know about 'THE' truth (and you and I share that as human beings wouldee), but I'm very clear about WHAT ISN'T TRUE!!! That is a matter of a clear conscience. Your clear conscience is none of my business my friend, and reciprocally my clear conscience, or the clear conscience of others is none of your business. However much some might want, sometimes without malice, to 'handle' other people’s conscience, it is a an OXYMORON. If your beliefs allow you to 'win' the individual 'match sport' against your 'SELF', such that it frees up the spirit to be fully accepting of others, than so be it!!! Mary was a virgin giving place to the Savior in favor and by the will of God and not the will of man. Same is true of the fossil record. Gaps between are gaps between thoise organisn=ms which God made just sa they are by His Word alone, and the gaps are not "fill in the blank" opportunities to imagine otherwise. Simple and far to advanced for temerity to suffer in patience. Faith is a personal sport against your own ‘self’ wouldee. Turn that statement around to ‘self’!!! Virtue, not audacity, is the value given the correct observation. I’ll take a wild stab at this one, and figure you meant ‘…Virtue, not audacity, is the value ‘given’ (which yields) the correct observation...' If my interpretation is incorrect, forgive me. Given my interpretation of your statement, I will say again, I don’t know THE TRUTH, and I share that with you wouldee, and with all other human beings of the planet. But my conscience supports me in distinguishing that your statement simply ISN’T TRUE!!! YOU don’t have the correct observation, virtuously so, or not. Neither do I, nor anyone else of human origin. How the heck can you seriously write such assertions?!?!? '... the correct observation...' Correct observation to YOU!!! Through virtue if YOU subscribe to it, no problem. But you have no dominion over mine or anyone else's subscription to virtue, and much less to 'OUR CORRECT PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS'!!! It's this GROSSLY ERRONEOUS PERSPECTIVE of 'ABSOLUTISM', which confuses beliefs (MY relative TRUTHS) and ‘THE’ absolute TRUTH, over which no one has dominion, regardless of false claims to the contrary. So - I would naturally conclude that this all stands equally true for Darwinism as an explination of he origin of the species, as well as the Bing Bang theory? That it remains as much a religion as does Islam and Pantheism. Wouldn't you call that a (mis) leading question Eljay!?!?!?! Not at all. I'm just calling what I see from your post. If you are suggesting that 'absolutism' (absolute absolutism, as in THE ONE AND ONLY THRUTH) applies in no way to science, and that would include all matters scientific, you would be 'absolutely' correct (absolutely is used here in a limited and relative manner!). But I somehow doubt that this was your intent, given your 'leading' and confused mischaracterization of science, ... as a religion!?!?!? I said nothing about science. You did. Let's not have any strawmen here Voile - I referenced Darwinism and Panthism - neither of which has anything to do with science. Let me remind you Eljay, quite to the contrary of faith: personal belief without evidence nor proof, that science is based on healthy scepticism, questioning the material or physical 'reality' of that which surrounds us. Science is based on the facts found in a laboratory through experiments which lead to proving or disproving theories - what we would call - "true science". I hope you would think I don't need you to explain the difference between science and philosophy. How will that ever make science a religion, when religion exists entirely on 'FREE ASSERTIONS' (not questions), which require no evidence nor proof, as do Islamism, Pantheism (OH! look at that!!! You omitted christianity and judaism!!! How convenient!), I'll never understand this rather disingeneous' opportunistic twist of rather simple facts. I didn't say science is a religion. You did. And why should I bring up Christianity - it was what YOUR post centered on! I just brought to your attention the omission of such things as Darwinism and Pantheism in your post. Was this a mere oversight on your part? Or did you purposely do so? How disingenuous that you would imply this theory of yours only apply to Christianity. Rather opportunistic of you to assure your agenda get accross. Science, last time I looked Eljay, had no stake in matters dealing with the spiritual, or dealing with faith. Science, contrary to faith, doesn't operate on the basis of PERSONAL BELIEFS WITHOUT EVIDENCE NOR PROOF. If science came out with a mythological 'book', offering legends and stories, and asked to treat it as if it were materialistically and physically 'word for word' REAL, it would be called 'charlatanism', not science!!! And that is the problem with those pushing 'bible inerrancy', the 'word for word' ABSOLUTE TRUTH of a book. They are pushing a falsehood, which obsessively twists faith and science. It is a profound disservice to both FAITH AND SCIENCE. So, while 'absolutism' in the sense of the absolute, final and only TRUTH, has never, and will never apply to science, it would appear that many religions, and their false dogmas will keep claiming the lies of 'absolutism' as their main foundation, and substitute for their lack of evidence and proof (which their faith doesn't require). Science is not based on faith, nor is it based on believing without proof, as faith and religions are, or should be!!! But I thought you already knew that!?!?!? Your question therefore seems opportunistic at best, or squarely misleading at worst. Again Voile - WHAT HAS SCIENCE GOT TO DO WITH MY POST! Stick to the subject I introduced. Would your theory not apply to Darwinism and Pantheism as well. Surely your not expecting me to believe Darwinism is a SCIENCE!? Non-sense. One needs more faith to believe in Darwinism than they ever would for Christianity or Pantheism. At least we have eye-witness testimony for one, and nature for the other. What do you have to convince me Darwinism is a science - and not a faith based religion? Eljay, Are you perfecting your apologetics tactics here!?!?!? I tried to save you from having to wipe some egg off your face, but you leave me with no choice. You are misleading everyone with this 'Darwinism' contraption. Confusing 'Darwinism' with Pantheism, a religion, or set of belief, or philosophy, you attempt, quite ineptly so, to install the term 'Darwinism', as is often used in the United States by promoters of creationism, notably by leading members of the intelligent design movement to describe evolution. Installing the term in this convenient context of yours, and some other of your apologetics fundamentalist friends, the term has connotations of atheism. For example, in Charles Hodge's book '... What Is Darwinism?...', (Have you heard of that book??? A must read for apologetics soldiers) Hodge answers the question posed in the book's title by concluding: "It is Atheism." Well the secret is out!!! If evolution is declared to be confused with atheism by a 'guru' of the fundamentalist movement, the apologetics army must fight the 'evolution' virus to the death!!! Creationists use the term Darwinism, often pejoratively, to imply that the theory has been held as true only by Darwin and a core group of his 'followers', whom they cast as dogmatic and inflexible in their belief (just like a cult, or religion). But why??? Why would good 'christians' go to such extent to mischaracterize, and mislead??? Simply because, in falsely casting evolution as a doctrine or belief, it bolsters their 'religiously motivated political arguments' to mandate equal time for the teaching of creationism in public schools. In the meantime, considerable confusion is created around the term, which is also used neutrally within the scientific community to distinguish modern evolutionary theories from those first proposed by Darwin, as well as by historians to differentiate it from other evolutionary theories from around the same period. For example, Darwinism may be used to refer to Darwin's proposed mechanism of natural selection, in comparison to more recent mechanisms such as genetic drift and gene flow. It may also refer specifically to the role of Charles Darwin as opposed to others in the history of evolutionary thought — particularly contrasting Darwin's results with those of earlier theories such as Lamarckism or later ones such as the modern synthesis. A notable example of a modern scientist who has used the term in a positive sense is Richard Dawkins. Do you know about Richard Dawkins Eljay??? While he doesn't mischaracterize 'Darwinism' as you so ineptly do, you might find what he has to say on the subject, to be quite an 'eye-witness' opener!!! So 'darwinism' as this invention of Creationists, and spread irreponsibly by the apologetics army, just won't fly. If you don't consider evolution to belong to the domain of applied sciences, that is your RELIGIOUS privilege Eljay. But if your going to spread the lies of 'creationists', trying to twist and mischaracterize 'evolution' as some sort of cult, such that it better suits your personal agenda, and that of the creationists, DON'T BE SURPRISED IF WE CALL YOUR BLUFF!!! Don't think I don't see the slight of hand going on here Voile. You miraculousy moved from Darwanism to evolution and continued your conversation there-of. The study of "evolution" in the modern day sciences is far removed from the original concepts of Darwin - who's original >theories< remain so - just theories. It is quite possible to study the science of evolution from a pure Creationist stand, without having to accept that man evolved from Apes - or the elaborate assumptions of one species evolving from another back through a few billion years. What goes on today - is the study of fossels. Period. There are no experiments attesting that there have been any species that have evolved into another since Darwin introduced the concept. That still remains the hope of every aspiring scientist who dreams of winning the Nobel prize. Nothing to support the conjectures that elephants turned into Manatees. Yet - that doesn't stop the grant money from pouring in - in the hopes that one day that evidence will be found. So what we have - is not science - but a faith based system, cleverly disquised as science. You can dress this pig up all you want - it's still a pig. Until Darwinism - or "The Origin of The Species" has any evidence to support it's conjectures - it remains - to me, a religion. So what you have in America - is a public school system swapping out one religion for another. Claiming - as fact - their theories with the same voracity that believers do there theories. Now - you may not realize this, but I agree with that original post you wrote in response to Wouldee. Be it Christianity - Darwanism (origin of the species) or Pantheism - they are faith based systems of belief with no more proof than the experiences and perceptions of their adherants. Darwanism has the idea of the science of "evolution" in it's attempts to provide proof, Christianity has the science of Archiology in an attempt to prvide proof for theirs. As far away from providing proof for Christianity that Archiology may or may not be - so too can be said for the science of "evolution" providing proof od the Origin of the Species. I'm just surprised that you don't see that. It doesn't claim to have to believe either one to know that "they are what they are." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Eljay
on
Thu 08/28/08 10:25 PM
|
|
This is just a "what if..." What if the New Testament, the Church and Christianity, were all the creation of the Calpurnius Piso (pronounced Peso) family, who were Roman aristocrats? What if The New Testament and all the characters in it - Jesus, all the Josephs, all the Marys, all the disciples, apostles, Paul, John the Baptist - all are fictional? What if the Pisos created the story and the characters; they tied the story to a specific time and place in history; and they connected it with some peripheral actual people, such as the Herods, Gamaliel, the Roman procurators, etc. But Jesus and everyone involved with him were created (that is fictional!) characters? How easy would this have been? How obvious it is that this is so? How much plagiarized scripture do you think is in the New Testament? How similar is the story of Jesus to stories of mythical Gods of the past? If any of this is true, there are no witnesses. I don't think these witnesses can be found anywhere outside of the fictional story in the New Testament. Of course that is just my personal conclusion. JB If this were the case, than all of the Roman Historians who wrote anything about the period of the first two centries would be invalidated - and our total account of History would collapse, since most of it is based on what these men wrote of that time. Else, all we'd have of this time period would be the scriptures themselves. and since the premise is that they are a forgery - we would have no account of the first century, and likely nothing previous to it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is just a "what if..." What if the New Testament, the Church and Christianity, were all the creation of the Calpurnius Piso (pronounced Peso) family, who were Roman aristocrats? What if The New Testament and all the characters in it - Jesus, all the Josephs, all the Marys, all the disciples, apostles, Paul, John the Baptist - all are fictional? What if the Pisos created the story and the characters; they tied the story to a specific time and place in history; and they connected it with some peripheral actual people, such as the Herods, Gamaliel, the Roman procurators, etc. But Jesus and everyone involved with him were created (that is fictional!) characters? How easy would this have been? How obvious it is that this is so? How much plagiarized scripture do you think is in the New Testament? How similar is the story of Jesus to stories of mythical Gods of the past? If any of this is true, there are no witnesses. I don't think these witnesses can be found anywhere outside of the fictional story in the New Testament. Of course that is just my personal conclusion. JB If this weer the case, than all of the Roman Historians who wrote anything about the period of the first two centries would be invalidated - and our total account of History would collapse. You will have to be more specific than that. Which roman historians are you talking about and what did they write and when did they write it? How would this fact "invalidate" their accounts? I really would like to know what you are referring to Eljay. Jb |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is just a "what if..." What if the New Testament, the Church and Christianity, were all the creation of the Calpurnius Piso (pronounced Peso) family, who were Roman aristocrats? What if The New Testament and all the characters in it - Jesus, all the Josephs, all the Marys, all the disciples, apostles, Paul, John the Baptist - all are fictional? What if the Pisos created the story and the characters; they tied the story to a specific time and place in history; and they connected it with some peripheral actual people, such as the Herods, Gamaliel, the Roman procurators, etc. But Jesus and everyone involved with him were created (that is fictional!) characters? How easy would this have been? How obvious it is that this is so? How much plagiarized scripture do you think is in the New Testament? How similar is the story of Jesus to stories of mythical Gods of the past? If any of this is true, there are no witnesses. I don't think these witnesses can be found anywhere outside of the fictional story in the New Testament. Of course that is just my personal conclusion. JB If this weer the case, than all of the Roman Historians who wrote anything about the period of the first two centries would be invalidated - and our total account of History would collapse. You will have to be more specific than that. Which roman historians are you talking about and what did they write and when did they write it? How would this fact "invalidate" their accounts? I really would like to know what you are referring to Eljay. Jb Well - there's Pathios, Ignacious, Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Thalus... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Do you know about Richard Dawkins Eljay??? He's an outspoken - devote Atheist and academic, who is on a personal mission to disavow religion and champions the theory of Evolution and survival of the fittest. He goes out of his way to provide precieved contradictions in Christianity, and makes no attempt to answer for the percieved contradictions in evolution - claiming that these evidences are clear proofs, and doen't feel he has to lower himself to answer to his critics, thus robbing them of any potential "air time" to state their views. What about him? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is just a "what if..." What if the New Testament, the Church and Christianity, were all the creation of the Calpurnius Piso (pronounced Peso) family, who were Roman aristocrats? What if The New Testament and all the characters in it - Jesus, all the Josephs, all the Marys, all the disciples, apostles, Paul, John the Baptist - all are fictional? What if the Pisos created the story and the characters; they tied the story to a specific time and place in history; and they connected it with some peripheral actual people, such as the Herods, Gamaliel, the Roman procurators, etc. But Jesus and everyone involved with him were created (that is fictional!) characters? How easy would this have been? How obvious it is that this is so? How much plagiarized scripture do you think is in the New Testament? How similar is the story of Jesus to stories of mythical Gods of the past? If any of this is true, there are no witnesses. I don't think these witnesses can be found anywhere outside of the fictional story in the New Testament. Of course that is just my personal conclusion. JB If this weer the case, than all of the Roman Historians who wrote anything about the period of the first two centries would be invalidated - and our total account of History would collapse. You will have to be more specific than that. Which roman historians are you talking about and what did they write and when did they write it? How would this fact "invalidate" their accounts? I really would like to know what you are referring to Eljay. Jb Well - there's Pathios, Ignacious, Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Thalus... Flavius Josephus was said to have been born Joseph ben Mattathias, a jewish general, if he indeed even existed. The name Flavius Josephus was very likely a pen name used by Calpurnius Piso. In any case, what you claim is that the writings of these historians would be invalidated if the New Testament is a forgery written by Calpurnius Piso. Why? JB |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Thu 08/28/08 11:18 PM
|
|
Flavius Josephus was said to be a Jewish general who led the revolt of the Jews against the Romans and then wrote a history of those events (37-100)
BUT his real name was not Flavius Josephus.He was born Joseph ben Mattathias in Jerusalem in 37 CE a few years after the alleged time of Jesus, during the time of the Roman occupation of the Jewish homeland. In his early twenties he was sent to Rome to negotiate the release of several priests held hostage by Emperor Nero. When he returned home after completing his mission he found the nation beginning a revolution against the Romans He was taken prisoner. For some reason they spared his life. Taken prisoner by Vespasian, Josephus presented himself as a prophet. Noting that the war had been propelled by an ancient oracle that foretold a world ruler would arise from Judaea, Josephus asserted that this referred to Vespasian, who was destined to become Emperor of Rome. Intrigued, Vespasian spared his life. When this prophecy came true, and Vespasian became Emperor, he rewarded Josephus handsomely, freeing him from his chains and eventually adopting him into his family, the Flavians. Josephus thus became Flavius Josephus. During the remainder of the war, Josephus assisted the Roman commander Titus, Vespasian's son, with understanding the Jewish nation and in negotiating with the revolutionaries. Called a traitor, he was unable to persuade the defenders of Jerusalem to surrender to the Roman siege, and instead became a witness to the destruction of the city and the Holy Temple. Therefore, this alleged Roman historian was really a Jewish guy who betrayed his own people. Interesting. I think then, his new name was used as a pen name to for the writings of Calpurnius Piso, a Roman, who wanted to undermine the Jews by creating a new religion. JB |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eljay wrote: The study of "evolution" in the modern day sciences is far removed from the original concepts of Darwin - who's original >theories< remain so - just theories. It is quite possible to study the science of evolution from a pure Creationist stand, without having to accept that man evolved from Apes - or the elaborate assumptions of one species evolving from another back through a few billion years. That's a Creationists wet dream Eljay. There is no way that anyone can seriously claim that the modern science of evolution is saying anything other than the fact that we evolved from lower life forms. To try to even pretend that it could be saying something other than this is turly ludicous. If Creations don't want to believe in evolution they they should just say so. To try to claim that the modern science of evolution can somehow be wiggled around to imply that mankind did not evolve from lower life forms is truly not even a plausible argument. That's just a wishy-washy pretense to try to convince people that somehow the biblical creationism and evolution don't actually conflict with each other. They most certainly do. The only way that they can be made to be compatible is too accept that God indeed did create Adam from the dust of the earth via evolution, which means that God used lower lifeforms between finally evolving that into Adam. There just no way that the modern science of evolution is compatible with a verbatim biblical creationism. Evolution does not deny the possiblity of a 'god' in the most absract sense, but it asbsolutely flies in the face of the verbatim idea that God created Adam directly from the dust of the earth without any intervening lower life forms. I'm sorry to have to tell you this Ejay, but we did indeed evolve from lower primates. If religious people want to cling to a biblical picture they are just going to have to accept that the biblical story is a gross abstraction and cannot be taken literally. To do otherwise is to denounce evolution altogether. Trying to pretent that a verbatim biblical account is compatible with evolution is just play ignorant. It truly displays an ignorance of what is actually known about evolution and what it is actually showing us had to have occured. Either denounce science all together, or accept an abstract interpretation of the religion doctrine. But to try to pretend that they are compatible is truly nothing more than a display of gross misunderstanding what is actually known and understood about evolution. And like Voil suggests, to 'preach' otherwise is to truly preach lies just to try to support an unproven picture of God. A picture that has mankind fallen from grace and responsible for having his creator nailed to a pole. Why you would even want to support such a negative picture of a man/God relationship is totally beyond me. You should be absolutely thrilled to know that it can't be true. It means that we haven't fallen from grace from our creator, and we aren't responsible for having him nailed to a pole. I'll take that to the bank any day! We've been vindicated Eljay! We've been exonerated! We are innocent! The trial's over! We didn't do what the Bible charges! We are truly blamless Ejay! We aren't responsible for the crucifixion of Christ! We aren't responsible for the fact that the world is a dog-eat-god world. The world has been like this long before we ever came to be! Run out and celebrate! We're NOT GUILTY Eljay! It was all a big fat LIE! It was never true. All these years we were made to believe that we were guilty of something that we were never guilty of! Why are you so anxious to insist that we're guilty! The evidence is in. The book that made those claims is a big fat LIE! You're an innocent man Eljay! You can go home now and know that you've been exonerated from any wrong doing with respect to your creator! You're innocent! The trial's over, the world was always dog-eat-dog. There never was a perfect "Garden of Eden" where Adam and Eve ate an apple and then all hell broke loose. It was all a LIE Eljay! It was all a big fat LIE! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
MorningSong
on
Fri 08/29/08 03:34 AM
|
 http://www.ancientdays.net/fivepillars.htm http://www.ancientdays.net/geotime.htm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Absolutely brilliant! To add to the historical evidence of humans and dinosaurs co-existing, there have been cave paintings discovered in Natural Bridge national park in Montana. These paintings are of various kinds of dinosaurs. The interesting thing is, these paintings are dated 300 years before than the first dinosaur discovery! Now, how can you precisely draw, or paint something that had not yet been discovered??
Also, there are dinosaur legends o every continent in the world, as well as reports of recent pterodactyl sightings out west, such as in Utah, and other areas. The thing that I find interesting about evolutionists is that they constantly change their theories to fit constantly emerging new evidences, while Creationists never change our views. Instead of trying to make "science" fit the framework of the Bible, they should simply trust the accuracy and validity of the first 10 chapters of Genesis, and accept it as literal history. All observable science fits the framework of Genesis. On a final note, evolution is NOT science. It is still, and always will be, a "theory". It is not based on anything observable in the here and now. Creation , and evolution, are both religions, or, belief systems. Based on your presuppositions, you will accept one, and reject the other. For all you skeptics about Creation, I suggest you visit the Creation Museum in northern Kentucky. Go with an open mind, and a receptive heart. The apostle Paul wrote that the splendor of Creation is so great, and so unique, that it speaks of the One that Created it, so everyone is without excuse. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If the Bible is not true, if Jesus did not die, to be raised on the third day, then all Christians, dead and alive, are the sorriest, most pitiful people ever, and we have fallen victim to the greatest scheme ever devised by man.
P.S: If my aunt had balls, she would be my uncle! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Without a sense for critical comprehension, its neigh impossible to point out the logical inconsistencies in Genesis.
Please explain why (beyond the simple first 6 days) it is that there are two diverging stories of creation, why there are whole cities and nations of people into which Cain is able to emigrate and find shelter. If Adam and Eve were the first people made by God how do we have them? That's a convenient little part to skip over in church school, and if you ask about it you get your ear twisted and stuck in a corner... it also leads to a sound reason why 6000 years is too short for the Earth too have been around, but that's a different part of the discussion. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Absolutely brilliant! To add to the historical evidence of humans and dinosaurs co-existing, there have been cave paintings discovered in Natural Bridge national park in Montana. These paintings are of various kinds of dinosaurs. The interesting thing is, these paintings are dated 300 years before than the first dinosaur discovery! Now, how can you precisely draw, or paint something that had not yet been discovered?? Well I'm an artist. "Imagination" comes to mind.  Also, there have been found in cave paintings, flying saucers. There are several possibilities here. You can choose to believe that both dinosaurs and flying disks existed back then. The cave drawings are frauds. Some time vortex opened up and the creatures came out and went back in like bigfoot does. Man existed a long time before we think they did... even before Adam and Eve were supposed to have been created and during the time of dinosaurs. But if you choose to believe that dinosaurs actually existed because of cave drawings, then you must also believe that space ships in the sky much have existed. Also, there are dinosaur legends o every continent in the world, as well as reports of recent pterodactyl sightings out west, such as in Utah, and other areas. The thousands of stories about aliens, abductions etc. aren't old enough to be called "legends" but no one, especially Christians, like to accept that they exist because it goes against their beliefs. The thing that I find interesting about evolutionists is that they constantly change their theories to fit constantly emerging new evidences, while Creationists never change our views. Instead of trying to make "science" fit the framework of the Bible, they should simply trust the accuracy and validity of the first 10 chapters of Genesis, and accept it as literal history. All observable science fits the framework of Genesis. Huh? Some magical being made a man from dust? That fits observable science? All the people in the world were descendants from Adam and Eve? That fits observable science? I don't really see how you can think that. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is just a "what if..." What if the New Testament, the Church and Christianity, were all the creation of the Calpurnius Piso (pronounced Peso) family, who were Roman aristocrats? What if The New Testament and all the characters in it - Jesus, all the Josephs, all the Marys, all the disciples, apostles, Paul, John the Baptist - all are fictional? What if the Pisos created the story and the characters; they tied the story to a specific time and place in history; and they connected it with some peripheral actual people, such as the Herods, Gamaliel, the Roman procurators, etc. But Jesus and everyone involved with him were created (that is fictional!) characters? How easy would this have been? How obvious it is that this is so? How much plagiarized scripture do you think is in the New Testament? How similar is the story of Jesus to stories of mythical Gods of the past? If any of this is true, there are no witnesses. I don't think these witnesses can be found anywhere outside of the fictional story in the New Testament. Of course that is just my personal conclusion. JB If this weer the case, than all of the Roman Historians who wrote anything about the period of the first two centries would be invalidated - and our total account of History would collapse. You will have to be more specific than that. Which roman historians are you talking about and what did they write and when did they write it? How would this fact "invalidate" their accounts? I really would like to know what you are referring to Eljay. Jb Well - there's Pathios, Ignacious, Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Thalus... Flavius Josephus was said to have been born Joseph ben Mattathias, a jewish general, if he indeed even existed. The name Flavius Josephus was very likely a pen name used by Calpurnius Piso. In any case, what you claim is that the writings of these historians would be invalidated if the New Testament is a forgery written by Calpurnius Piso. Why? JB No, actually, that is not what I said. You asked - what if all of the people were "made up" to make the story seem plausable. Well, the people in the bible have also been documented in the writings of the historians I provided for you. That was my point - that would indicate that Piso was a world travelor, and involved in a conspiracy with all of the historians of Rome, Syria, Jerusalem, etc. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eljay wrote: The study of "evolution" in the modern day sciences is far removed from the original concepts of Darwin - who's original >theories< remain so - just theories. It is quite possible to study the science of evolution from a pure Creationist stand, without having to accept that man evolved from Apes - or the elaborate assumptions of one species evolving from another back through a few billion years. That's a Creationists wet dream Eljay. There is no way that anyone can seriously claim that the modern science of evolution is saying anything other than the fact that we evolved from lower life forms. To try to even pretend that it could be saying something other than this is turly ludicous. If Creations don't want to believe in evolution they they should just say so. To try to claim that the modern science of evolution can somehow be wiggled around to imply that mankind did not evolve from lower life forms is truly not even a plausible argument. That's just a wishy-washy pretense to try to convince people that somehow the biblical creationism and evolution don't actually conflict with each other. They most certainly do. The only way that they can be made to be compatible is too accept that God indeed did create Adam from the dust of the earth via evolution, which means that God used lower lifeforms between finally evolving that into Adam. There just no way that the modern science of evolution is compatible with a verbatim biblical creationism. Evolution does not deny the possiblity of a 'god' in the most absract sense, but it asbsolutely flies in the face of the verbatim idea that God created Adam directly from the dust of the earth without any intervening lower life forms. I'm sorry to have to tell you this Ejay, but we did indeed evolve from lower primates. If religious people want to cling to a biblical picture they are just going to have to accept that the biblical story is a gross abstraction and cannot be taken literally. To do otherwise is to denounce evolution altogether. Trying to pretent that a verbatim biblical account is compatible with evolution is just play ignorant. It truly displays an ignorance of what is actually known about evolution and what it is actually showing us had to have occured. Either denounce science all together, or accept an abstract interpretation of the religion doctrine. But to try to pretend that they are compatible is truly nothing more than a display of gross misunderstanding what is actually known and understood about evolution. And like Voil suggests, to 'preach' otherwise is to truly preach lies just to try to support an unproven picture of God. A picture that has mankind fallen from grace and responsible for having his creator nailed to a pole. Why you would even want to support such a negative picture of a man/God relationship is totally beyond me. You should be absolutely thrilled to know that it can't be true. It means that we haven't fallen from grace from our creator, and we aren't responsible for having him nailed to a pole. I'll take that to the bank any day! We've been vindicated Eljay! We've been exonerated! We are innocent! The trial's over! We didn't do what the Bible charges! We are truly blamless Ejay! We aren't responsible for the crucifixion of Christ! We aren't responsible for the fact that the world is a dog-eat-god world. The world has been like this long before we ever came to be! Run out and celebrate! We're NOT GUILTY Eljay! It was all a big fat LIE! It was never true. All these years we were made to believe that we were guilty of something that we were never guilty of! Why are you so anxious to insist that we're guilty! The evidence is in. The book that made those claims is a big fat LIE! You're an innocent man Eljay! You can go home now and know that you've been exonerated from any wrong doing with respect to your creator! You're innocent! The trial's over, the world was always dog-eat-dog. There never was a perfect "Garden of Eden" where Adam and Eve ate an apple and then all hell broke loose. It was all a LIE Eljay! It was all a big fat LIE! Abra - why do you insist on attempting to prove the validity of evolution by discrediting Creationism. Do you think this will provide adequate proof for me? I'm not attempting to prove that Creationism is the only option. I have stated, and will continue to state that youcan no more prove we evolved from lower primates - than I can trace your dna back to Adam and Eve. We have no idea where the remains are for Adam and Eve, as we have no idea where the transitional fossels are to prove man mysteriously evolved from an Ape. We have drawings of these supposed transitions, just as we have drawings of Adam and Eve. Straight from the imaginations of artists. You can go on and on about the overwhelming proof you think supports your premises - but you can supply no evidence to back it up. You say you have absolute faith in this. Congradulations - you have now joined the ranks of the "fundies". You have your religion. It is a faith based theory - nothing more, nothing less. Until you provide me with a semblance of evidence for man evolving from primates - your rhetoric remains the rantings of a "fundamentalist Eve-ist". You "fundies" are all alike. You listen to the council of men and take it as fact. Think for yourself - don't let these "fundies" drag you in and make you a slave to their unfounded premises. Free yourself. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Without a sense for critical comprehension, its neigh impossible to point out the logical inconsistencies in Genesis. Please explain why (beyond the simple first 6 days) it is that there are two diverging stories of creation, why there are whole cities and nations of people into which Cain is able to emigrate and find shelter. If Adam and Eve were the first people made by God how do we have them? That's a convenient little part to skip over in church school, and if you ask about it you get your ear twisted and stuck in a corner... it also leads to a sound reason why 6000 years is too short for the Earth too have been around, but that's a different part of the discussion. Please explain why you think there are two creation accounts in Genesis, and not two accounts of creation. Adam and Eve lived over 900 years - it is quite possible, that they themselves could have had well over 1000 children, let alone the expodential expansion of their children's children. More than enough children to populate all 6 states of New England. How could there NOT be at least two cities for Cain to pass amoungst? This should be more than enough to tell you that you shouldn't take for granted what you are told, and not told in school. Church or otherwise. After all - children are brainwashed every year about the "truth" of evolution. Why aren't they told there is no fossel evidence for transitional species? And if you don't believe what they tell you - you don't get your ear twisted and put in a corner... They FLUNK you! How's that for being held hostage! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ever hear of the Gap Theory. Gap.... crap....You'll find out everything when you crock |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Fri 08/29/08 10:13 AM
|
|
This is just a "what if..." What if the New Testament, the Church and Christianity, were all the creation of the Calpurnius Piso (pronounced Peso) family, who were Roman aristocrats? What if The New Testament and all the characters in it - Jesus, all the Josephs, all the Marys, all the disciples, apostles, Paul, John the Baptist - all are fictional? What if the Pisos created the story and the characters; they tied the story to a specific time and place in history; and they connected it with some peripheral actual people, such as the Herods, Gamaliel, the Roman procurators, etc. But Jesus and everyone involved with him were created (that is fictional!) characters? How easy would this have been? How obvious it is that this is so? How much plagiarized scripture do you think is in the New Testament? How similar is the story of Jesus to stories of mythical Gods of the past? If any of this is true, there are no witnesses. I don't think these witnesses can be found anywhere outside of the fictional story in the New Testament. Of course that is just my personal conclusion. JB If this weer the case, than all of the Roman Historians who wrote anything about the period of the first two centries would be invalidated - and our total account of History would collapse. You will have to be more specific than that. Which roman historians are you talking about and what did they write and when did they write it? How would this fact "invalidate" their accounts? I really would like to know what you are referring to Eljay. Jb Well - there's Pathios, Ignacious, Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Thalus... Flavius Josephus was said to have been born Joseph ben Mattathias, a jewish general, if he indeed even existed. The name Flavius Josephus was very likely a pen name used by Calpurnius Piso. In any case, what you claim is that the writings of these historians would be invalidated if the New Testament is a forgery written by Calpurnius Piso. Why? JB No, actually, that is not what I said. You asked - what if all of the people were "made up" to make the story seem plausable. Well, the people in the bible have also been documented in the writings of the historians I provided for you. That was my point - that would indicate that Piso was a world travelor, and involved in a conspiracy with all of the historians of Rome, Syria, Jerusalem, etc. Okay then I will reread what you wrote: ""If this weer the case, than all of the Roman Historians who wrote anything about the period of the first two centries would be invalidated - and our total account of History would collapse."" Fair enough. I agree. IF THIS WERE THE CASE (and I believe it is the case) then all of the alleged "Roman Historians" are now suspect. I totally agree. All of them are suspect and should be scrutinized. For that matter all Historians are suspect and should be scrutinized. (I'm a conspiracy theorist at heart)  But in this case I totally agree with you. Hence forth all recorded history of that time should be looked at with a raised eyebrow. ------->  raised eyebrow JB  |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
tribo
on
Fri 08/29/08 10:22 AM
|
|
Eljay wrote: The study of "evolution" in the modern day sciences is far removed from the original concepts of Darwin - who's original >theories< remain so - just theories. It is quite possible to study the science of evolution from a pure Creationist stand, without having to accept that man evolved from Apes - or the elaborate assumptions of one species evolving from another back through a few billion years. That's a Creationists wet dream Eljay. There is no way that anyone can seriously claim that the modern science of evolution is saying anything other than the fact that we evolved from lower life forms. To try to even pretend that it could be saying something other than this is turly ludicous. If Creations don't want to believe in evolution they they should just say so. To try to claim that the modern science of evolution can somehow be wiggled around to imply that mankind did not evolve from lower life forms is truly not even a plausible argument. That's just a wishy-washy pretense to try to convince people that somehow the biblical creationism and evolution don't actually conflict with each other. They most certainly do. The only way that they can be made to be compatible is too accept that God indeed did create Adam from the dust of the earth via evolution, which means that God used lower lifeforms between finally evolving that into Adam. There just no way that the modern science of evolution is compatible with a verbatim biblical creationism. Evolution does not deny the possiblity of a 'god' in the most absract sense, but it asbsolutely flies in the face of the verbatim idea that God created Adam directly from the dust of the earth without any intervening lower life forms. I'm sorry to have to tell you this Ejay, but we did indeed evolve from lower primates. If religious people want to cling to a biblical picture they are just going to have to accept that the biblical story is a gross abstraction and cannot be taken literally. To do otherwise is to denounce evolution altogether. Trying to pretent that a verbatim biblical account is compatible with evolution is just play ignorant. It truly displays an ignorance of what is actually known about evolution and what it is actually showing us had to have occured. Either denounce science all together, or accept an abstract interpretation of the religion doctrine. But to try to pretend that they are compatible is truly nothing more than a display of gross misunderstanding what is actually known and understood about evolution. And like Voil suggests, to 'preach' otherwise is to truly preach lies just to try to support an unproven picture of God. A picture that has mankind fallen from grace and responsible for having his creator nailed to a pole. Why you would even want to support such a negative picture of a man/God relationship is totally beyond me. You should be absolutely thrilled to know that it can't be true. It means that we haven't fallen from grace from our creator, and we aren't responsible for having him nailed to a pole. I'll take that to the bank any day! We've been vindicated Eljay! We've been exonerated! We are innocent! The trial's over! We didn't do what the Bible charges! We are truly blamless Ejay! We aren't responsible for the crucifixion of Christ! We aren't responsible for the fact that the world is a dog-eat-god world. The world has been like this long before we ever came to be! Run out and celebrate! We're NOT GUILTY Eljay! It was all a big fat LIE! It was never true. All these years we were made to believe that we were guilty of something that we were never guilty of! Why are you so anxious to insist that we're guilty! The evidence is in. The book that made those claims is a big fat LIE! You're an innocent man Eljay! You can go home now and know that you've been exonerated from any wrong doing with respect to your creator! You're innocent! The trial's over, the world was always dog-eat-dog. There never was a perfect "Garden of Eden" where Adam and Eve ate an apple and then all hell broke loose. It was all a LIE Eljay! It was all a big fat LIE! Abra - why do you insist on attempting to prove the validity of evolution by discrediting Creationism. Do you think this will provide adequate proof for me? I'm not attempting to prove that Creationism is the only option. I have stated, and will continue to state that youcan no more prove we evolved from lower primates - than I can trace your dna back to Adam and Eve. We have no idea where the remains are for Adam and Eve, as we have no idea where the transitional fossels are to prove man mysteriously evolved from an Ape. We have drawings of these supposed transitions, just as we have drawings of Adam and Eve. Straight from the imaginations of artists. You can go on and on about the overwhelming proof you think supports your premises - but you can supply no evidence to back it up. You say you have absolute faith in this. Congradulations - you have now joined the ranks of the "fundies". You have your religion. It is a faith based theory - nothing more, nothing less. Until you provide me with a semblance of evidence for man evolving from primates - your rhetoric remains the rantings of a >>>>>>"fundamentalist Eve-ist"<<<<<<<<<. You "fundies" are all alike. You listen to the council of men and take it as fact. Think for yourself - don't let these "fundies" drag you in and make you a slave to their unfounded premises. Free yourself. That's "fudilusionist" eljay please use proper grammer from now on or i will report you - 
|
|
|
|
|
