Senate Christianity Discussion Thread

That passage from Isaiah describes the Earth as a circle. Guess what? The earth is a sphere (actually closer to an ellipsoid). Science 1, Isaiah 0.

Again, how does the Bible provide proof about dinosaurs? Where in the Bible does it say that humans and dinosaurs lived alongside each other?

And since the Omo I and II remains have been reliably dated to 195000 years old, plus or minus 5000, your assertion that the Earth is only 6000 years old is wrong.

Remember, in order for data to be scientifically sound, it must be unbiased, it must be falsifiable, and it must be repeatable. There has been no reliable data supporting your young earth hypothesis.

 

Using the Bible to prove the Bible is such a ludicrous concept. Allow me to demonstrate:

 

He'll bring up the Leviathan, you know he will.

 

I'll admit that I could have been wrong about the Austin Cline article I linked to a few pages ago. I just found that page via a quick Google search for "Biblical contradictions," and I didn't have the time to peruse the page entirely. But I'm sure a more thorough examination of Google will turn up a number of contradictions in the Bible, both internally, and when it contradicts with the known sciences of the world.

Here's a pretty good list of contradictions to check out. A couple highlights:

I and my father are one.
- John 10:30
... I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.
- John 14:28

God is not a man, that he should lie: neither the son of man,
that he should repent.
- Numbers 23:19
And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his
people.
- Exodus 32:14

I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.
- Genesis 32:30
No man hath seen God at any time.
- John 1:18

... for I am merciful, saith the Lord, and I will not keep anger
forever.
- Jeremiah 3:12
Ye have kindled a fire in mine anger, which shall burn forever.
- Jeremiah 17:4

 

Why not change it up. Your trying to prove the Earth is millions of years old using scientific knowledge of Earth.

Use space time instead.

 

Linking to one fringe scientist is supposed to convince anyone? How about linking to mainstream science? How about the vast majority of scientists who agree that evolution is a better answer? But no, let's go with this one guy on creation.com.

Bones don't rot and disappear; the flesh and meat does. It's the bones that fossilize over millions of years. You have a complete misunderstanding of fossilization.

Do some learning: http://www.oum.ox.ac.uk/thezone/fossils/intro/form.htm

That's because you don't reply with scientific sources. You're as bad as I used to be years ago. "I have provided all the proof I'm going to provide." You've provided NOTHING. Nothing at all. A link to creation.com to a discredited pseudoscientist here and there will not cut it.

You sit here and complain that your terrible links won't convince us, but you have to look in the mirror. The ENTIRE VOLUME of scientific evidence, put together by millions of people, won't convince you of basic science. The same methods that give the science that allows you to sit in front of a computer and type on the internet are what tell us of evolution and fossils.

 

Why is the sky blue, Vivec?

 

LT!

 

To me, anyone that believes that the earth is 6000 years because the Bible says so even though all the evidence points to the earth being 4.5 billion years old is clearly a follower of the great deciever, Satan. Who else would create everything in such a way as to mislead people so thoroughly?

Also, this Onion article seems relevant

 

Science that is, yet again, conducted by a FLAWED and imperfect humanity that can make mistakes. We don't know everything and never will.

I and my father are one.
- John 10:30
... I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.
- John 14:28

God is not a man, that he should lie: neither the son of man,
that he should repent.
- Numbers 23:19
And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his
people.
- Exodus 32:14

I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.
- Genesis 32:30
No man hath seen God at any time.
- John 1:18

... for I am merciful, saith the Lord, and I will not keep anger
forever.
- Jeremiah 3:12
Ye have kindled a fire in mine anger, which shall burn forever.
- Jeremiah 17:4

1. Jesus and the Father are both God and on equal standing with each other; Jesus has God's authority. At the same time, we have the Trinity: Father, Son, Spirit. Jesus is equal with God the Father as the only begotten Son.

2. Again, context. The Exodus verse comes right in the middle of the Golden Calf debacle. Only Moses' pleading changed the Lord's mind about destroying the Israelites. The Numbers verse appears in the context of Balak hiring Balaam to curse Israel, but Balaam blesses them instead, and tells Balak he can only speak what God tells him to speak. Balak's hope that God could be persuaded to curse Israel didn't work.

3. In Jacob's encounter, he wrestled with God in the form of a Man. Neither he, nor anyone else, in the OT, saw God in His full unveiled glory.

4. Read the verses and the surrounding sections yourself. 3:12 is in the context of Israel and Judah's unfaithfulness; God calls "backsliding Israel more righteous than treacherous Judah", but He says if they will return to worship of Him, His wrath will not fall on them. 17:4 deals with Judah alone: because they have consistently refused to acknowledge their sins and repent He will give them over to the nations and scatter them to the winds.


Try again, timmoishere.

 

Are we going around in circles or is it just me?

 

God of the Baby GAP.

 

anakinfansince1983, if you've read my Senate post yet, do you still maintain it's impossible for Quirinius to have conducted a census before Herod died?

 

Compared to a bible that was written, compiled, edited, transcribed, and translated by an imperfect humanity that can make mistakes. We don't know what the original version was and never will.

The difference is, science can be tested and independently verified.

 

Fictional once again is the claim that these two events could have overlapped, what with Herod having died in 4 BC and the census having taken place in 6 AD.

From this, it appears to me you seem to think that Luke is claiming that the census of Quirinius and Herod's death overlap and therefore he is in error, and I've been trying to explain that there are actually two different censuses in view here. Do you get it now?

 

Humans that wrote down the words as God told them to write it. The editors and translators have made mistakes over the centuries, yes, but the original authors (Moses, Isaiah, Matthew, Luke, Mark, Paul, ect.) DID NOT.

 

Moses did not write the books that are traditionally attributed to him. I'm not sure if the text even claims they were. They were oral tradition for centuries (well, and stories from other religions) before being written down. Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John also did not write the Gospels and the names really weren't meant to imply that they were the authors (apocryphal gospels include the Gospel of Mary, for example). Luke and Matthew use Mark as a source as well as a hypothetical "lost" Gospel. John, the most gnostic-like text, was written as late as the year 100 CE.

 

John was still iving around 95 - 100 CE, (he wrote Revelation, which was his last book), so your argument on that front is blown. The Books of the Law are repeatedly referred to as the "Law of Moses", so your claim that Moses didn't write them doesn't hold. Besides, Exodus through Deuteronomy are primarily concerned with Moses' life. If the Gospels weren't written by those authors, then you tell me why they're referred to as the Gospel of Matthew, Gospel of Mark, ect, hmm?

 

First of all, prove that. There's not a way to independently verify those statements. And more to the point, why don't you include Muhammad and Joseph Smith in that list? What about Judith, included by Protestants but not Catholics? Or Esdras, included by Eastern Orthodox, but not by Protestants and Catholics? Or the Gospel of Thomas, not included in any?

Well, Harry Potter is referred to as Harry Potter even though that's not who wrote it. That's not exactly proof there.