The Bible: Book of truth, or of a misleading trust?

[KingExamin]

I've read the Bible, sorly because I wanted to know both sides. I made my choice of becoming atheist after I read it. What I percieved was simple: It's all lies. The fact that people have proved the existence of events in the Bible mean nothing. "Okay yeah, there was a big war and some guy was tripping on something that made him see things"

And in the Bible, "God" said something on the lines of (shitty quote) "If you don't believe in me, you're going to hell!" What does that tell you? Scarying people into beliefe?

Also, I have a question... Is the Bible in the fiction, or non-fiction area of the library?

[UnknownUser]

Well the bible does have many errors in it based on time, numerical values, and overall message...
I just say that the fact that it was written by humans ('god' inspired or not) it will be full of holes and errors...that and it has been translated many times...

There are many so ill just list a few sites...
Skeptics Annotated Bible (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/science/long.html)
Free Thought Debater (http://www.freethoughtdebater.com/tenbiblecontradictions.htm)
Atheism.com (http://atheism.about.com/od/errorsinthebibl/)

Also if you want the other side of the argument...
The Modern Religion ("http://www.themodernreligion.com/comparative/christ/bible_why_believe.htm)

"Also, I have a question... Is the Bible in the fiction, or non-fiction area of the library?"

Actually in our library they have a special section for religious covering the Kabala, Quern, and about everything you could want on religion...

Does anyone know if we have found evidence of tampering with the bible's message like from the dark ages, as the church would of certainly tried to fix all the errors in it...

Also i want to know if the bible is a perfect book why does everyone need interpretation of the bible, and why are there so many copies?

[ocmpoma]

In a library that has a librarian worth their degree, the Bible should be lodged in non-fiction, in the religions and mythology section.

[Kamikaze189]

I find that the bible fits perfectly between Garfield and Calvin and Hobbes.

[peepnklown]

I find that the bible fits better in the bathroom.

[Nikologos]

I have another question relating to this that I thought of a while back while I was eating... noodles or something. It doesn't matter.

Are there any accounts written by contemporary historians which dispute the claims of the bible? I mean, surely someone other than a Christian would have thought to write about the events which transpired at about the same time as the supposed events subsequent to Christ's martyrdom. If there aren't any other accounts, think they might have been burned? It seems all too likely... it's not like they had the printing press back then. There would not be copies everywhere for people to find and preserve for the sake of future generations.

Or maybe I just have no idea what I'm talking about. I haven't read the bible. I intend to this summer.

[Tenspace]

I have another question relating to this that I thought of a while back while I was eating... noodles or something. It doesn't matter.
This thread (http://www.ravingatheist.com/forum/viewtopic.php?pid=28417#p28417) has some links on bible history. Good starting point.

Tenspace

[Another brick in the wall]

I want chicken, I want liver, meow mix, meow mix please deliver . . .

[ocmpoma]

"Are there any accounts written by contemporary historians which dispute the claims of the bible?"

Also try The Bible Unearthed (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0684869136/qid=1121307433/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/103-8284055-6723047).

[Another brick in the wall]

Meow, Meow, Meow, Meow,
Meow, Meow, Meow, Meow . . .

[Nikologos]

Hm... I might just be a hopeless case, but by 'contemporary,' I meant contemporary at the time that Christianity was first beginning to gain popularity, or when books like Mark were written. For example, there are multiple ancient accounts of the campaigns of Alexander, some more reliable than others. Similarly, there must have been multiple ancient accounts of the Christian influence on the Mediterranean at the time of Christ's life, some of which might have been written by more reliable authors, i.e. disaffected historians who had no particular desire to embellish the truth in favor of Christianity, but which, perhaps, being 'heretical' in nature, did not make it into the bible...?

[GodlessHeathen]

Hm... I might just be a hopeless case, but by 'contemporary,' I meant contemporary at the time that Christianity was first beginning to gain popularity, or when books like Mark were written. For example, there are multiple ancient accounts of the campaigns of Alexander, some more reliable than others. Similarly, there must have been multiple ancient accounts of the Christian influence on the Mediterranean at the time of Christ's life, some of which might have been written by more reliable authors, i.e. disaffected historians who had no particular desire to embellish the truth in favor of Christianity, but which, perhaps, being 'heretical' in nature, did not make it into the bible...?
I may be way off base here, but didn't the Council of Nicea decide which "gospels" to accept, then ordered the destruction of the rest?

Correct me if I'm wrong, or even if I oversimplified.

[calpurnpiso]

I find that the bible fits better in the bathroom.
Of course this book contains so much bovine excreta, which induces mental faltulence, that the bathroom is the best place to keep it!!....
:lol:

[calpurnpiso]

Hm... I might just be a hopeless case, but by 'contemporary,' I meant contemporary at the time that Christianity was first beginning to gain popularity, or when books like Mark were written. For example, there are multiple ancient accounts of the campaigns of Alexander, some more reliable than others. Similarly, there must have been multiple ancient accounts of the Christian influence on the Mediterranean at the time of Christ's life, some of which might have been written by more reliable authors, i.e. disaffected historians who had no particular desire to embellish the truth in favor of Christianity, but which, perhaps, being 'heretical' in nature, did not make it into the bible...?
I may be way off base here, but didn't the Council of Nicea decide which "gospels" to accept, then ordered the destruction of the rest?

Correct me if I'm wrong, or even if I oversimplified.
This is true. They picked and choose between those fairy tales texts. They rejected the gnostic gospel of Thomas which revealed the gayness of Jesus, also they ommitted the precursor of ancient sci-fi, the Book of Enoch. The Church kept having Councils throughout the centuries to refine their Fairy tales. Here is a list:

http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Valley/8920/churchcouncils/Ecum04.htm

..and here is the source of the Christian fairy tales. Which started in 44 b.c.e with the murder of Iulius Caesar and the amazing appearance of a comet! (aptly named the comet of 44 b.c.e) His divinity was assured and the birth of his alter ego, the myth of Christ became a reality.

http://www.carotta.de/subseite/texte/jwc_e/contents.html

[ocmpoma]

Until recently, history as we know it (that is, the study of history and writing of it) didn't exist. The Bible is what a work of history from about that time looked like - a bunch of information put together without any vetting process. There wasn't really any good way for people at that time to check up on facts and data from far away or in the past, and they also didn't see a reason to.

[Nikologos]

From what I understand, various parts of the bible were written at different times in history. For example, the accounts of Christ's life in the bible could only have been written... after Christ. The Greeks chronicled history long before that section of the bible was written. My bible, the History of the Peloponnesian War by Thucydides, is regarded as one of the first really accurate studies of history. Thucydides wrote his work in the late fifth century-- almost half a millenium before the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, etc.

What I'm asking is this: Why aren't there conflicting works by similar historians at the same time that the aforementioned biblical books were written? Obviously the means to gather facts and data existed in the past, by rule of precedent, with which to form an accurate summary of the actual events of the time. I assume that information about the Roman persecution of Christians can't have come entirely from the bible. I know that there were other "gospels" which didn't make it into the bible because they didn't paint a picture the church could approve; I'm not asking about gospels. Gospels are, I assume, "historical" tracts written to promote a particular religious perspective. I want to know if there are any surviving works by credible ancient historians-- NOT Christians with an agenda to push-- which present a rival account of the events subsequent to Christ's death in the bible.

[WITHTEETH]

The vast majority of people that could read were christians, taught to read their own texts. Also the catholic church would want those papers from that heretics, oops i mean historians burned. the same reason they want even the harry potter books burned.

[Nicole]

Think of the power that the church had....centuries of control over most of the civilized world. Any surviving texts could certainly have been destroyed or covered up to prevent contradicting them. I imagine that there are things in the Vatican archives that might be useful to atheist (or reasonable theist) argument but we'll never see them.

It also takes money to educate people to read, to copy texts and to store them. The church had it.

I don't want to sound like a conspiracy nut but there are lots of documented cases where the church forced scientists and other 'heretics' to recant or had them killed. Take a look at the temples around the world that were defaced in the name of Christ to hide the past....

Think about how many Americans view Christopher Columbus as a noble explorer because they printed up tons of text books to say that while ignoring the evidence that showed he was a brutal product of his own time.

I say it's easy to hide the truth if you're organized enough.

[calpurnpiso]

Christians are the original book burners...they do not want the competition, with BETTER fairy tales to control the mind of the youth, from which their livelyhood depends.

I think Christians are truly at the end of "their times", for, one can fool some of the people some of the time but not all of the people all of the time. I think we atheists ought to create a BBD, babble burning Day, on April 1st. We can have a great festival and during that day, comdoms will be distributed, and babble or book of Mormon, will be exchanged for the "Origin of the Species" or "History of the Crusades" to be thrown on a pyre of logs with a sign that reads: "Please Throw Your babble on this fag after dipping."

For effect, the babbles can be dipped in a special liquid, which will make them burn green.

I'd love to see the Christ-psychotics reaction, but, hey, we are in a free country were the 1st Amendment is king........:)

[Nikologos]

Sign me up! I'll bring the ground puppy meat and dead babies, with which no public Atheist convention is complete without.

[Philboid Studge]

I want to know if there are any surviving works by credible ancient historians-- NOT Christians with an agenda to push-- which present a rival account of the events subsequent to Christ's death in the bible.
If the account(s) of Christ's life, death, and resurrection is(are) true, we would be hard-pressed to find a historian who was not also a Christian. Those closest to the events would be the most likely 'believers,' and rightly so.

[TheSnake]

I want to know if there are any surviving works by credible ancient historians-- NOT Christians with an agenda to push-- which present a rival account of the events subsequent to Christ's death in the bible.
If the account(s) of Christ's life, death, and resurrection is(are) true, we would be hard-pressed to find a historian who was not also a Christian. Those closest to the events would be the most likely 'believers,' and rightly so.
Not necessarily. I think that there were quite a lot of skeptics back then too. Credible enough evidence about someone being crucified and resurrected would have warranted investigation and documentation, even if one wouldn't buy all the religious dogma. Infact, I'd argue that the lack of extra-biblical accounts speaks agains Jesus being a real person.

[calpurnpiso]

I want to know if there are any surviving works by credible ancient historians-- NOT Christians with an agenda to push-- which present a rival account of the events subsequent to Christ's death in the bible.
If the account(s) of Christ's life, death, and resurrection is(are) true, we would be hard-pressed to find a historian who was not also a Christian. Those closest to the events would be the most likely 'believers,' and rightly so.
Not necessarily. I think that there were quite a lot of skeptics back then too. Credible enough evidence about someone being crucified and resurrected would have warranted investigation and documentation, even if one wouldn't buy all the religious dogma. Infact, I'd argue that the lack of extra-biblical accounts speaks agains Jesus being a real person.
The vast majority of them ( pagan historians, priests, philosophers etc) were either killed or exciled while their temples, texts, sculptures were been systematically destroyed!
One good example is the writings of the pagan philosopher Celsus which exists ONLY because the castrato Christian Origen ( a church father) wrote about him to refute his writings in "Contra Celsus" ( against Celsus). This latin text survives. Origen created "Diabolic mimicry" to explain why ALL of the amazing feats atributed to Christ had been done hundreds of years before by PAGAN gods!...

Why do you think the early Christian were Book Burners par excellence?,,and they still are at it today burning the fairy tales competitor of Harry Poter....:)

[Tenspace]

Cal's right on the money. Check out some of Richard Carrier's (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/resurrection/index.shtml) writings on the historicity of Jesus. He goes into detail as to what happened to competing authors in the first century.

Tenspace

[calpurnpiso]

Cal's right on the money. Check out some of Richard Carrier's (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/resurrection/index.shtml) writings on the historicity of Jesus. He goes into detail as to what happened to competing authors in the first century.

Tenspace
..and now there is a very recent investigative report about the origins of Christianity which hits the nail on the head, by connecting all of the dots!. I'd like to see Mr Carrier's opinion on this book. :)

http://www.carotta.de/subseite/texte/jwc_e/contents.html

[calpurnpiso]

Tenspace.

Here there is evidence of Christ-psychosis devious manipulation, distortion and destruction of of ancient "pagan" knowledge!...Christians are simple a drag on the intellect and a bunch of delusional folks bend on IMPOSSING their disgusting immoral mental flatulence on everyone!! They have been at it for centuries!. If it weren't for those delusional insane fools, humanity would have landed on the moon 1200 years ago!!

Just take a look at this. It is as if someone would take Stephen Hawkins electronic book, erases it and then would write a copy of "Harry Porter" on it, since it is more interesting, easy to read, inducing greater delusional a belief than that of Hawkins.

This is the reason, IMHO, that the Grand Christ-psychotic of them all, Benedictus XVI, is condemning Harry Porter!..Alas, children will prefer to read it than the idiotic anachronistic fairy tales of the Babble:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/archimedes/palimpsest.html

[thomas]

Carotta condemns himself with his own words

The main discrepancy lies in the fact that Caesar was stabbed and Jesus crucified. At this point the parallels seem to come to an end.
Well, exactly, in fact there were nothing but the most coincidental parallels in the first place, but anyway give Carotta some credit: he doesn't give up.

Concerning Caesar we have (a) the conspiracy, (b) the assassination, (c) the posthumous trial, (d) the cremation, (e) the conflict about his heritage, (f) the succession.

Concerning Jesus we have (a) the conspiracy, (b) the capture, (c) the trial, (d) the crucifixion, (e) the burial, (f) the resurrection.

A structural correspondence is plain to see. The main discrepancy is that Caesar was murdered at the attack, whereas Jesus was merely captured.
This is really funny. The only thing that is plain to see is that there is no structural correspondance. Surely now Carotta will give up and go home ? NO !. And what is his fine explanation of this destruction of his argument ? He claims that Jesus must have been killed when he was captured and that the Romans put on trial, led through the city, offered up for release and crucified a dead man ! A dead man who can speak, nonetheless.

This is a fatal blow to his argument. He goes on to explain how the Gospel writers really meant to say something other than they actually wrote, forgetting for a moment that his whole argument rests on them secretly writing a disguised tale of Ceasar. Oooops.

It appears that Mr Carrota spent quite a lot of time on this thesis. Shame.

[suttsteve]

The bible is just a collection of short stories, written by an ordinary person(s), centuries after the events in it supposedly happened. Actually, it's fiction that was taken far too literally. Over the centuries, the stories in it have been accepted as fact by a populous wanting to believe they were based in fact, when, actually, they're no more factual than the Harry Potter novels of today. As a result, the Bible has become a religious icon. It's unfortunate that most modern-day people can't see the book for what it really it.

[calpurnpiso]

The bible is just a collection of short stories, written by an ordinary person(s), centuries after the events in it supposedly happened. Actually, it's fiction that was taken far too literally. Over the centuries, the stories in it have been accepted as fact by a populous wanting to believe they were based in fact, when, actually, they're no more factual than the Harry Potter novels of today. As a result, the Bible has become a religious icon. It's unfortunate that most modern-day people can't see the book for what it really it.
The reason is these people are infected with a neurological disorder that impedes them from distinguishing between fact and fiction. This is not unlike those folks infected with schizophrenia, temporal lobe epilepsy, alzheimer, or those who had simply bumped their heads or ingested mind altering substances...:)

[thomas]

Tenspace.

Here there is evidence of Christ-psychosis devious manipulation, distortion and destruction of of ancient "pagan" knowledge!...Christians are simple a drag on the intellect and a bunch of delusional folks bend on IMPOSSING their disgusting immoral mental flatulence on everyone!! They have been at it for centuries!. If it weren't for those delusional insane fools, humanity would have landed on the moon 1200 years ago!!

Just take a look at this. It is as if someone would take Stephen Hawkins electronic book, erases it and then would write a copy of "Harry Porter" on it, since it is more interesting, easy to read, inducing greater delusional a belief than that of Hawkins.

This is the reason, IMHO, that the Grand Christ-psychotic of them all, Benedictus XVI, is condemning Harry Porter!..Alas, children will prefer to read it than the idiotic anachronistic fairy tales of the Babble:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/archimedes/palimpsest.html
This is not evidence of deliberate destruction, it's evidence of re-use of papyrus. Stupid but not malicious. If they'd wanted to destroy it then surely throwing it away or burning it would have been more effective.

[thomas]

The bible is just a collection of short stories, written by an ordinary person(s), centuries after the events in it supposedly happened. Actually, it's fiction that was taken far too literally. Over the centuries, the stories in it have been accepted as fact by a populous wanting to believe they were based in fact, when, actually, they're no more factual than the Harry Potter novels of today. As a result, the Bible has become a religious icon. It's unfortunate that most modern-day people can't see the book for what it really it.
It is a collection of literature, not all stories, and not all written centuries after the events. It's not really correct to say that it is fiction, in the sense that is wasn't deliberately written as such. The people who wrote the Bible believed they were recording history in one way or another. So, they didn't become accepted as fact, they always were accepted as fact.

Yes, I agree, most modern people can't see it as it is. You seem to be included in that.

[Lurker]

Yes, I agree, most modern people can't see it as it is. You seem to be included in that.
Zing! ;)

[Tenspace]

This is not evidence of deliberate destruction, it's evidence of re-use of papyrus. Stupid but not malicious. If they'd wanted to destroy it then surely throwing it away or burning it would have been more effective.
In this case. You're right, it's not malicious, more likely an attempt at saving money by reusing papyrus, which was very expensive back in the day.

But that doesn't exonerate the Christian history of stifling knowledge. There are many, many references to the intentional destruction of texts by Christians. Shall we start in Alexandria?

Tenspace

[Tenspace]

The people who wrote the Bible believed they were recording history in one way or another. So, they didn't become accepted as fact, they always were accepted as fact.
It would be more appropriate to say that they were making up and recording history in many cases. thomas, not even you accept everything in the bible as fact. I'm not slamming you, just stating that no rational human can believe the entire bible is literal truth. And I consider you rational.

Ten

[thomas]

There are many, many references to the intentional destruction of texts by Christians. Shall we start in Alexandria?
Ah, that old atheist campfire story. Try here (http://www.ehistory.com/world/articles/ArticleView.cfm?AID=9) for what appears to be a relatively unbiased article on the subject

[thomas]

The people who wrote the Bible believed they were recording history in one way or another. So, they didn't become accepted as fact, they always were accepted as fact.
It would be more appropriate to say that they were making up and recording history in many cases. thomas, not even you accept everything in the bible as fact. I'm not slamming you, just stating that no rational human can believe the entire bible is literal truth. And I consider you rational.
Agreed, that's why I wrote "in one way or another". I mean that in places they considered themselves to be writing history but in a way that wouldn't necessarily be accepted as history today.

[Nikologos]

There are many, many references to the intentional destruction of texts by Christians. Shall we start in Alexandria?
Ah, that old atheist campfire story. Try here (http://www.ehistory.com/world/articles/ArticleView.cfm?AID=9) for what appears to be a relatively unbiased article on the subject
Huh. Putting all of my inbred sarcasm and skepticism aside, that was actually extremely helpful. I always took it for granted that the Christians burned down the library of Alexandria, and didn't know that there were other theories. Still doesn't exonerate them, though.

I thought that this was interesting:

Alexandria was founded in Egypt by Alexandria the Great. His successor as Pharaoh, Ptolomy II Soter, founded the Museum or Royal Library of Alexandria in 283 BC.
I always thought it was Alexander of Macedon, aka Alexander the Great who founded the city of Alexandria. I guess I'm more uneducated than I thought.

[Crackerus Dadderus]

I was wondering about Alexandria the Great as well. Not a good way to build a reputation as an accurate historian in one of the first sentences in your article.

[Tenspace]

There are many, many references to the intentional destruction of texts by Christians. Shall we start in Alexandria?
Ah, that old atheist campfire story. Try here (http://www.ehistory.com/world/articles/ArticleView.cfm?AID=9) for what appears to be a relatively unbiased article on the subject
Thanks for the link. I based my opinion on the fact that the Christians were on a rampage at the time, trying to eradicate paganism. The Early Christian control of knowledge (oftentimes through destruction) also weighs in, although it would take some other texts and a bit of digging on the bookshelf to provide references.

Ten

[calpurnpiso]

Tenspace.

Here there is evidence of Christ-psychosis devious manipulation, distortion and destruction of of ancient "pagan" knowledge!...Christians are simple a drag on the intellect and a bunch of delusional folks bend on IMPOSSING their disgusting immoral mental flatulence on everyone!! They have been at it for centuries!. If it weren't for those delusional insane fools, humanity would have landed on the moon 1200 years ago!!

Just take a look at this. It is as if someone would take Stephen Hawkins electronic book, erases it and then would write a copy of "Harry Porter" on it, since it is more interesting, easy to read, inducing greater delusional a belief than that of Hawkins.

This is the reason, IMHO, that the Grand Christ-psychotic of them all, Benedictus XVI, is condemning Harry Porter!..Alas, children will prefer to read it than the idiotic anachronistic fairy tales of the Babble:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/archimedes/palimpsest.html
This is not evidence of deliberate destruction, it's evidence of re-use of papyrus. Stupid but not malicious. If they'd wanted to destroy it then surely throwing it away or burning it would have been more effective.
LOL..you're so gullible....stupid but not malicious?...since when? Please STUDY each LINK from this site, you'll find the obsrvations HISTORICALLY ACCURATE....if you doubt them, go READ the manuscripts, epigraphy, art from the period. I have!!..go the Bibliotheque NAtional de Paris and peruse over the William, bishop of Tyre manuscripts (1150s c.e.). look at its illuminations....AHHH Christian piety at its best!.

http://www.geocities.com/iconoclastes.geo/victims.html

Compare the links with other narrativers of the same period. You'll find the stories match...ergo.....The Christ-psychotics have the worst record ever in history. Their genocide, intolerance, psychotic behavior ( when the word did not exist) can be corroborated by other texts!. Remember, those delusional psychos did NOT destroyed everything!...history and EVIDENCE of their crimes UNEARTHED by archaeologists is hunting them to this day!, and since they can not hide anymore behind their idiotic fairy tales, they better accept the evidence of their crimes......AHHH,,,but they can always plead INSANITY...and it will be accepted in this 21st Century....:)

I think being called a Christian is the worst insult ever!!...the facts are there for all to see why this is so...:)

[KingExamin]

That was what I said in my first post. (In a nut shell.) In the 1950's dinosaurs were discovered (I do believe, if that date is wrong tell me.) and no one else new that they existed. And recently didn't they find a dragon? (once again, correct me if I'm wrong.) Every day discoveries are being made agaisnt christians. And Jesus, what happened to coming back in a 1,000 years? I don't like a mosiha that's late.

[CFett]

Dinosaurs were unearthed in large numbers starting in the middle of the 1800s, if I still remember my dinosaur facts correctly.
There was a walking with dragons type show where had a "dragon autopsy" if that's what you're thinking of.
No, if a dragon were actually discovered, I'd say it'd turn the world on it's side for a while, and we'd all know all about it.
It seems like we can blame pretty much everyone but Alexander(ia? i should email the author about that) of burning the Library. That's an interesting little whodunit.

[calpurnpiso]

There is a hypothesis, backed up by circumstancial evidence, that the remains of dinosaurs been unearthed by ancient people thousands of years ago, brought about the legends of chimeras, basilisk, dragons, giant serpents, etc that are depicted and described in ancient religious texts....:)

[Empire]

That was what I said in my first post. (In a nut shell.) In the 1950's dinosaurs were discovered (I do believe, if that date is wrong tell me.) and no one else new that they existed. And recently didn't they find a dragon? (once again, correct me if I'm wrong.) Every day discoveries are being made agaisnt christians. And Jesus, what happened to coming back in a 1,000 years? I don't like a mosiha that's late.
I'm not quite sure how you can say that these discoveries are being made "against Christians." The Bible is actually pretty clear in it's mention of dinosaurs and what could be described as a dragon. The relevant passages Job 40:15-24 (which mentions the Behemoth), Job chapter 41, Psalm 104:25,26 and Isaiah 27:1 (which mention the Leviathan), and Revelations 12:3-4 (which mentions the dragon). Although this is only a partial listing to get the point across.

A little history: In the early 1800's, Mary Ann Mantell discovered a bone that looked like it could be a part of a larger reptile. Since that discovery, there have been numerous others, and accordingly, names where created for these creatures. The current name of the brachiosaurus(named in 1903) is most similar to that of the Behemoth, and the kronosaurus is most similar to that of the Leviathan. The bible describes the attributes of the Behemoth as...
It “eats grass like an ox.”
It “moves his tail like a cedar.” (In Hebrew, this literally reads, “he lets hang his tail like a cedar.”)
Its “bones are like beams of bronze,
His ribs like bars of iron.”
“He is the first of the ways of God.”
“He lies under the lotus trees,
In a covert of reeds and marsh.”
Note: The translation of "He is the first of the ways of God" in Hebrew means he was the biggest animal created. Coincidentally, the brachiosaurus is the largest(complete) dinosaur ever discovered.

If you would like to read further on the issue, check out these two sites... (or just do a google search for dinosaurs in the bible, you'll get plenty of hits)
http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/dinos.shtml
http://www.christiancourier.com/archives/dinosaurs.htm

Also, Mat 24:36 and surrounding passages state that no one knows when Jesus will return, only God. I believe with the 1000 year comment, you're getting confused with the second coming of Christ and his reign lasting 1,000 years. So the Messiah is not late, as it were.

Cheers,
Brian

[Crackerus Dadderus]

Empire, but if you read all of what the bible says, you would read that jesus should have already come back. Read the words as they were spoken, to the people there, not to be written for all generations to come. I'm pretty sure everyone in j's day have tasted death and he hasn't come back yet.

Do you actually believe man and dinosaur walked the earth at the same time? Ancient civilizations have tales of all kinds of crazy creatures, and if you want to, you could probably attribute its descriptions to something man has found. With the numerous dinosaurs there were, don't you think someone would have passed on about at least half of the predators? Surely they would've attributed all the senseless death they brought as the wrath of god.

[Little Earth Stamper]

Of course, the Christians did burn all the American books they could find, with the result that about fifty survived from all of central America. Before the Conquest, there would've been at least fifty books in any good sized city.

They also managed to destroy all knowledge of the mayan writing system, and any knowledge of previous central american writing systems. Now, the creation of writing is one of mankind's greatest achievements, and rarely happened. Most writing systems are derived from earlier systems.

So Christians managed to almost completely destroy the literary tradition of an entire continent. Yay for them.

[calpurnpiso]

They also burned the daughter library at Alexandria....of course they were the first book burners and intellectual conservative drags...AHH..the loved the Dark Ages...:)

[GodlessHeathen]

That was what I said in my first post. (In a nut shell.) In the 1950's dinosaurs were discovered (I do believe, if that date is wrong tell me.) and no one else new that they existed. And recently didn't they find a dragon? (once again, correct me if I'm wrong.) Every day discoveries are being made agaisnt christians. And Jesus, what happened to coming back in a 1,000 years? I don't like a mosiha that's late.
I'm not quite sure how you can say that these discoveries are being made "against Christians." The Bible is actually pretty clear in it's mention of dinosaurs and what could be described as a dragon. The relevant passages Job 40:15-24 (which mentions the Behemoth), Job chapter 41, Psalm 104:25,26 and Isaiah 27:1 (which mention the Leviathan), and Revelations 12:3-4 (which mentions the dragon). Although this is only a partial listing to get the point across.

A little history: In the early 1800's, Mary Ann Mantell discovered a bone that looked like it could be a part of a larger reptile. Since that discovery, there have been numerous others, and accordingly, names where created for these creatures. The current name of the brachiosaurus(named in 1903) is most similar to that of the Behemoth, and the kronosaurus is most similar to that of the Leviathan. The bible describes the attributes of the Behemoth as...
It “eats grass like an ox.”
It “moves his tail like a cedar.” (In Hebrew, this literally reads, “he lets hang his tail like a cedar.”)
Its “bones are like beams of bronze,
His ribs like bars of iron.”
“He is the first of the ways of God.”
“He lies under the lotus trees,
In a covert of reeds and marsh.”
Note: The translation of "He is the first of the ways of God" in Hebrew means he was the biggest animal created. Coincidentally, the brachiosaurus is the largest(complete) dinosaur ever discovered.

If you would like to read further on the issue, check out these two sites... (or just do a google search for dinosaurs in the bible, you'll get plenty of hits)
http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/dinos.shtml
http://www.christiancourier.com/archives/dinosaurs.htm
Then why have we not found any dinosaur bones that are even close to that age? All of the remains of dinosaurs that have been found are much older than any of the bible's writings.

[Empire]

Empire, but if you read all of what the bible says, you would read that jesus should have already come back. Read the words as they were spoken, to the people there, not to be written for all generations to come. I'm pretty sure everyone in j's day have tasted death and he hasn't come back yet.

Do you actually believe man and dinosaur walked the earth at the same time? Ancient civilizations have tales of all kinds of crazy creatures, and if you want to, you could probably attribute its descriptions to something man has found. With the numerous dinosaurs there were, don't you think someone would have passed on about at least half of the predators? Surely they would've attributed all the senseless death they brought as the wrath of god.
Cracker, I admit that I don’t know the bible inside and out yet, actually far from it. So if you could please direct me to the passage(s) you are referring to when you state “if you read all of what the bible says, you would read that Jesus should have already come back,” I’d appreciate it.

And “Yes”, I “actually” believe that man and dinosaurs walked the earth at the same time. In addition to the bible mentioning it, (as I’m not fond of strictly using the bible to support my beliefs when dealing with skeptics or non-believers), there is a growing amount of support from archeological digs. Most notably “dinosaur footprints, and the footprints of man, are found in the same strata, in the very same formation, in some cases only 18 inches apart, at a geological dig in Glen Rose, Texas, called the Paluxy River Bed.” http://hope-of-israel.org/dinosaur.htm

At first I thought you saying, “With the numerous dinosaurs there were, don't you think someone would have passed on about at least half of the predators?” meant you where questioning whether there are written accounts of these predators, but now I’m not so sure what you mean. If you did mean that, well there are numerous examples of pictographs, cave paintings, and stories that talk about dinosaurs and other such creatures. One example is the pictographs of the pterodactyl (or as I pronounce it, Terradacto), which the Fremont Indians in Utah drew, which were found about 200 years ago, before the first pterodactyl fossils had been discovered. But if you were questioning something else, then let me know. I think it’s the phrase “would have passed on about” that’s confusing me. Since I’m not certain what you meant by the first part, I may be off on my reply to your second part. But you said that “surely they would’ve attributed all the senseless death they (the creatures) brought as the wrath of God." Well it’s not my place to speculate what they’d think, but if you compare what they thought to what current day people may think, then you’d also have to assume that tribes in Africa who are cut off from the outside world blame the death of family members from poisonous snakes or lions on God. Maybe it’s just me, but that doesn’t seem like the case.

Godless Heathen, in regards to your question of “why have we not found any dinosaur bones that are even close to that age”, well, before I answer that question, I urge you to do some research on the topic. (Sorry for copping out, but it’s 3:30 in the morning and I’m getting tired. However, it will probably be a lot more productive anyway if you just read up on it then get back to me if you still have questions which you couldn’t find the answers to.)

In addition to the site I linked above, check out the following sites for discrepancies and explanations for the various dating techniques that have been used to estimate the age of the bones found. I realize that the sites I’m mentioning are creation science sites, but you try and find pro-evolution sites that can explain what I’m defending :rolleyes:. All you can really do is read all the material for both sides and come to your own conclusions. Good luck, hope you find the answers you're looking for :)

http://www.worldbydesign.org/research/c14dating/datingdinosaurs.html
http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/dinos.shtml

and here’s a Q&A about dinosaurs.

http://answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dinosaurs.asp

Cheers,
Brian

[calpurnpiso]

Actually even today, "dinosaurs" and man co-exist. Ahhh...I love the way the 'dinosaurs" in my back yards sing.

Before anyone considers in reading the babble and accepting its compilations of puerile idiocies as if they were fact, PLEASE, read the Egyptian BOOK of the DEAD first, a book written in stone, and thousands of years OLDER. Unlike the babble who has been translated so many times loosing a lot of the meaning intended, the ORIGINAL book of the dead still can be seen in the Tomb of King Unas. There one can find IDENTICAL gods and miracles as those in the Babble.!

This only confirms the Babble is the Greatest LIE ever told that only fools, the ignorant, children, the mentally retarded and those suffering from mental illness can accept as historical or true....:)

[Philboid Studge]

Hi Empire! Welcome to the forum.

Can you imagine a movement today claiming that a soldier in World War Two rose physically from the dead, but when you asked for proof all they offered you were a mere handful of anonymous religious tracts written in the 1980's? Would it be even remotely reasonable to believe such a thing on so feeble a proof? Well--no.
Would certainly give me pause...

[Tenspace]

And “Yes”, I “actually” believe that man and dinosaurs walked the earth at the same time. In addition to the bible mentioning it, (as I’m not fond of strictly using the bible to support my beliefs when dealing with skeptics or non-believers), there is a growing amount of support from archeological digs. Most notably “dinosaur footprints, and the footprints of man, are found in the same strata, in the very same formation, in some cases only 18 inches apart, at a geological dig in Glen Rose, Texas, called the Paluxy River Bed.” http://hope-of-israel.org/dinosaur.htm
Empire, you need to review current information before making your decisions. Those footprints have been discredited for so long that most creationists no longer claim them as evidence:

Although genuine dinosaur tracks are abundant in Texas, claims of human tracks have not withstood close scientific scrutiny, and in recent years have been largely abandoned even by most creationists. Alleged Paluxy "man tracks" involve a variety of spurious phenomena, including erosional features, metatarsal dinosaur tracks, indistinct markings of unknown origin, and a few loose carvings. (talkorigins.org)

At first I thought you saying, “With the numerous dinosaurs there were, don't you think someone would have passed on about at least half of the predators?” meant you where questioning whether there are written accounts of these predators, but now I’m not so sure what you mean. If you did mean that, well there are numerous examples of pictographs, cave paintings, and stories that talk about dinosaurs and other such creatures. One example is the pictographs of the pterodactyl (or as I pronounce it, Terradacto), which the Fremont Indians in Utah drew, which were found about 200 years ago, before the first pterodactyl fossils had been discovered.
Wow. There were hundreds, if not thousands of dinosaurs walking the earth just a few hundred years ago according to your belief. Once again, we are relying on our modern brain's pattern-matching abilities and our own translations of what ancient peoples were thinking. I've just spent an hour looking at the "archaeological" evidence that man and dino lived at the same time. Turtle carvings that are "believed" to be ankylosaurs, chinese dragons associated with pleiosaurs, and of course, an old ochre painting on a rock by the Fremont Indians that is believed to be a pterosaur, not the mythical Firebird of their ancient culture.

Empire, it takes more than a few cave paintings and sculptures to disprove the history of the earth. I admit that some of the are dead ringers for dinosaurs (I have yet to verify the authenticity of those, however my curiosity is piqued). This belief of yours would require us to rewrite not just history, but the actual physical laws we have learned over time. You're talking about throwing away millions of man-hours by thousands of people. You are challenging disciplines from plate tectonics to cosmology. Even the everyday technical items you use, like TV, radio, and your computer, have theoretical foundations which overlap with these discoveries you challenge.

Godless Heathen, in regards to your question of “why have we not found any dinosaur bones that are even close to that age”, well, before I answer that question, I urge you to do some research on the topic. (Sorry for copping out, but it’s 3:30 in the morning and I’m getting tired. However, it will probably be a lot more productive anyway if you just read up on it then get back to me if you still have questions which you couldn’t find the answers to.)

In addition to the site I linked above, check out the following sites for discrepancies and explanations for the various dating techniques that have been used to estimate the age of the bones found. I realize that the sites I’m mentioning are creation science sites, but you try and find pro-evolution sites that can explain what I’m defending :rolleyes:. All you can really do is read all the material for both sides and come to your own conclusions. Good luck, hope you find the answers you're looking for :)

http://www.worldbydesign.org/research/c14dating/datingdinosaurs.html
http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/dinos.shtml

and here’s a Q&A about dinosaurs.

http://answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dinosaurs.asp

Cheers,
Brian
You do realize that those links by their very nature require the debunking of mainstream science. In other words, if you go to a Christian or Intelligent Design website to learn about dinosaurs without going to real scientific information, you're limiting yourself. The very information being presented through a Christian worldview as false is being used daily in the laboratory by scientists. They go on with actual work regardless of what Christian revisionists think of them.

At this point I would like to begin a rational debate. Please let as many specific instances of debunked evidence for the mainstream scientific position. I will gladly dissect each one, and provide you with my references. Also, I'm pretty open-minded, so if you can throw something at me that knocks my socks off, I'll be thrilled. :)

Tenspace

[Tenspace]

Actually even today, "dinosaurs" and man co-exist. Ahhh...I love the way the 'dinosaurs" in my back yards sing.
Classic, Cal. Fucking classic! :D

[bluster]

I can´t believe how ignorant and arrogant, you guys are!!!

You´ve got to be living on the moon (and not the best part of it) not to be aware of the dinosaur presence in our midst. I can´t believe that you forgot about Barney!!!! :D :o :P :rolleyes:

Actually even today, "dinosaurs" and man co-exist. Ahhh...I love the way the 'dinosaurs" in my back yards sing.
Classic, Cal. Fucking classic! :D

[calpurnpiso]

Hmmmm...Barney is the DEVIL according to this revelation. The christ-psychotics ough to be afraid, very afraid the end of times is rapidly approaching. The Calpurnopisan Church of the True Savior is accepting now Last Will and Testaments of the faithful to guarantee a place in heaven at their revealed departure from this evil, satanic domain of Satan, planet earth:

http://members.aol.com/TrueHumor/barney.htm

We at the CCTS ( Calpurnopisan Church of the True Savior) guarantee an awesome ethereal grace lot in Heaven at Death. The heavenly lots start at US$100,000. Satisfaction guaranteed. Disatisfied souls could appear to their relatives and a prompt refund will be given. We need proof of course of the departed claim, for we know our heavenly domains are the best in the Christian Heaven.....:)

[bluster]

He is also gay, so what? He is still a dinosaur :)


Hmmmm...Barney is the DEVIL according to many Christ-psychotics check this out:

http://members.aol.com/TrueHumor/barney.htm

:)

[Little Earth Stamper]

I've always thought it was weirdly arrogant to decide that foreign cultures don't have a clue as to what they were talking about.

Somehow, stories of dragons and feathered serpents are true, more or less, but their entire religious context is wrong, because... satan I guess.

When Aboriginal Mexicans describe god as a feathered serpent, that's ignorant.

When Christians describe him as a person, that's because it's true.

Von Danikan(sp?) pulled this same kind of crap with his "Chariots of the Gods".

[GodlessHeathen]

Godless Heathen, in regards to your question of “why have we not found any dinosaur bones that are even close to that age”, well, before I answer that question, I urge you to do some research on the topic. (Sorry for copping out, but it’s 3:30 in the morning and I’m getting tired. However, it will probably be a lot more productive anyway if you just read up on it then get back to me if you still have questions which you couldn’t find the answers to.)

In addition to the site I linked above, check out the following sites for discrepancies and explanations for the various dating techniques that have been used to estimate the age of the bones found. I realize that the sites I’m mentioning are creation science sites, but you try and find pro-evolution sites that can explain what I’m defending :rolleyes:. All you can really do is read all the material for both sides and come to your own conclusions. Good luck, hope you find the answers you're looking for :)
First of all, it doesn't work that way - you've made an assertion that dinosaurs walked the earth at the same time as humans. I asked for evidence of that assertion. All you are able to provide are creation "science" websites. I'm afraid I have better things to do than do some theist's homework for him. You see, I don't have questions and I'm not looking for answers when it comes to this - I know what science has told me - that dinosaurs were extinct long before we ever showed our faces. I asked that question in order to get you to back up your assertion.

[calpurnpiso]

I've always thought it was weirdly arrogant to decide that foreign cultures don't have a clue as to what they were talking about.

Somehow, stories of dragons and feathered serpents are true, more or less, but their entire religious context is wrong, because... satan I guess.

When Aboriginal Mexicans describe god as a feathered serpent, that's ignorant.

When Christians describe him as a person, that's because it's true.

Von Danikan(sp?) pulled this same kind of crap with his "Chariots of the Gods".
It seems now that many of the unusual monsters described in ancient religious texts are nothing more than prehistoric fossils of dinosaurs found by these ancient people. Alas, if they encounter a skeleton, they'll imediately "know" the beast exist and may be roaming the forest nearby!....The Phoenix, one eye giants, centaurs, basilisk, chimeras, etc is thought to have their bases on dinosaur fossils.....:)

[Empire]

Actually even today, "dinosaurs" and man co-exist. Ahhh...I love the way the 'dinosaurs" in my back yards sing.

Before anyone considers in reading the babble and accepting its compilations of puerile idiocies as if they were fact, PLEASE, read the Egyptian BOOK of the DEAD first, a book written in stone, and thousands of years OLDER. Unlike the babble who has been translated so many times loosing a lot of the meaning intended, the ORIGINAL book of the dead still can be seen in the Tomb of King Unas. There one can find IDENTICAL gods and miracles as those in the Babble.!

This only confirms the Babble is the Greatest LIE ever told that only fools, the ignorant, children, the mentally retarded and those suffering from mental illness can accept as historical or true....:)
Well I can see I’m going to have a lot of fun debating with you folks.

First, in regards to Cal’s comments, hmm, well aside from the unnecessary name-calling (you heathen bastard :D), there is something to be said about the Egyptian Book of the Dead. Although I’m not sure that it is in your favor. The spells known as the “Book of the Dead first appeared 1650- and 1580 BC. Other historians, like Marie Parsons, contend that the earliest accounts of the Book of the Dead on record date to the mid 15th century BC. Genesis is believed to have been written around 1445 BC or before, so I don’t see much discrepancy there. Also, although I have not read the Egyptian Book of the Dead in whole, it seems largely devoted to the talk of the God of the dead, Osiris, and the God of the living (sun god), Ra. Although that is interesting, I don’t believe the Book of the Dead carries the weight that the bible does. The bible can be known to be true through scientific proof, prophetic truth, proof of textual evidence, proof of historians, etc. Although I’m not for certain, I don’t see the Book of the Dead having that kind of support to back it up. But please try and prove me wrong, as I hope you will :). As for your assumption that the bible has been translated so many times losing a lot of the meaning, well, if you look at the King James Version, it is most closely related to the Greek text. Also, the number of manuscripts, the church's history with the Byzantine text, and God's interest in preserving His Word, are all good reasons to believe that the meaning intended has not been lost. One more thing, as I’ve not fully read the Book of the Dead, what are the identical gods and miracles that you speak of that are in both the Book of the Dead and the Bible?

Thanks for the welcome Philboid, glad to be here :).

Well, Tenspace, now for my attempted rebuttal. I admit that I didn’t really research the Paluxy thing before I posted it on here. That evidence, or lack there of, really has nothing to do with why I believe dinosaurs and man walked together. I figured that my main reasoning behind that belief, the Bible, wouldn’t hold up to you, so I just did a quick little search and a bunch of sites where talking about. It’s kind of a shame that some creationists don’t have the balls to remove evidence from their site when it turns up to be proven shoddy at best. Next time I won’t post something in haste in an effort to get to bed at a reasonable hour, before researching all the current evidence behind it.

I think you got my views a tad mixed up. It’s more then just a few hundred years ago when the dinosaurs where walking the earth with man. It’s more in the realm of a few thousand years ago.

Yes, it does take more then “a few cave paintings and sculptures to disprove the history of the earth”, luckily for me, there is much more then that. I’m not sure where to even begin with the wealth of evidence in favor of a young earth. There are models explaining the mechanism of catastrophic plate tectonics, enabled by runaway subduction of negatively buoyant ocean lithosphere into the Earth’s mantle, which accounts for the main tectonic changes associated with the Flood. There are viable models and theories against almost all, if not all of the evidence scientists use to “prove” the earth is billions of years old. (Just spend a few hours reading some of the countless creation science websites. I have a book back at my parents place that explains a lot of things from the ice age, to principles to do with cosmology which are coherent with a young earth. Unfortunately I forget the name, but it's a good read, and I'll try and get that to you soon)... So what if what I’m talking about requires us to throw away millions of man-hours by thousands of people? Just because millions of people believe something is right, doesn’t mean it is. I believe Hitler said it best, “The bigger the lie, the more people will believe it.” This is certainly true of evolution. The world is so biased in regards to the theory of evolution. But that’s all it really is, is a theory. And when I watch crappy shows like friends, and Ross says, “Evolution is not a theory, it’s scientific fact”, I can’t help but cringe. Most people don’t look at the evidence on both sides of the equation and come to their own conclusion. If you open yourself to the evidence for Creationism, you find an equally viable explanation for our coming into existence and the history of the earth. (Well atleast I have) In fact at times, you will find that the creationist side makes more sense and comes together in a perfect picture. Whereas the evolution side has many discrepancies, including the lack of a missing link, fallacious methods used for dating fossils, etc. Sometimes finding the truth means going against the mainstream, and this is certainly true in my disbelief of macroevolution. I’ve debated the age of the earth against hundreds of astronomy students, and have only gone without a reasonable explanation for a certain phenomenon only once or twice, usually because a working theory has yet to be proposed by a creation scientist. However, if you want to debate the age of the earth, game on :). (Although first I’d like to read the current evidence for the evolution perspective, as I’ve been out of the loop on this topic for a few years now)

Edit: I really wish I'd done my homework on creationism before starting this, instead of just assuming what I read a few years ago in various creation science books was true. Makes me look ignorant, oh well, guess that's fitting, because I was in regards to creation science.

Quick question, could you give examples of how “the everyday technical terms I use like TV, radio, and my computer, have theoretical foundations which overlap with the discoveries I challenge?”

I’m in the process of trying to find real scientific evidence for dinosaurs being really old, the kind that you speak of, and I’m not having much luck. I just looked up “scientific support of dinosaurs”, and oddly enough, most of the hits where creation pages with a lot of evidence in support of a young earth. (That’s your cue to point me to the “real scientific information.” :)) The main weight of the evolution argument lies in trying to prove something about the past from theories in the present, which is impossible. You can’t prove the past through speculations about it. There are so many problems that interfere with radioactive dating, one of which is that the world was a different place a few thousand years ago, and catastrophic events such as “the flood” happened (as evidenced in the bible, and over 200 other sources), which could definitely mess with the accuracy of scientific dating techniques, as well as the geological columns, etc. This is just speculation, but I think the main problem with many of the scientists in the laboratories these days, is that they’re basing all of their assumptions on a theory that has yet to been proven, i.e., evolution. So it becomes a circular argument. It’s kind of funny that the most believed lie of all time, is all based on Charles Darwin and some observations he made when visiting the Galapagos islands. (I’m guessing that statement will spark some backlash at me on this forum :P)

Edit: While i'm at it, scrap this section to.

Hate to cop out and not provide specific instances of debunked evidence for the mainstream scientific position, but I’ll have to save that for another time. It’s almost 5 and I’ve yet to eat lunch. Take care of yourself.

Cheers,
Brian

[Philboid Studge]

So it becomes a circular argument. It’s kind of funny that the most believed lie of all time, is all based on Charles Darwin and some observations he made when visiting the Galapagos islands.
I think we should first agree as to what constitutes 'the most believed lie of all time.' Any nominations?

De-nominations? :/

[Empire]

That was what I said in my first post. (In a nut shell.) In the 1950's dinosaurs were discovered (I do believe, if that date is wrong tell me.) and no one else new that they existed. And recently didn't they find a dragon? (once again, correct me if I'm wrong.) Every day discoveries are being made agaisnt christians. And Jesus, what happened to coming back in a 1,000 years? I don't like a mosiha that's late.
First of all, it doesn't work that way - you've made an assertion that dinosaurs walked the earth at the same time as humans. I asked for evidence of that assertion. All you are able to provide are creation "science" websites. I'm afraid I have better things to do than do some theist's homework for him. You see, I don't have questions and I'm not looking for answers when it comes to this - I know what science has told me - that dinosaurs were extinct long before we ever showed our faces. I asked that question in order to get you to back up your assertion.
Godless Heathen, I was simply wondering why KingExamin thought that the discovery of dinosaurs somehow goes against Christians. Then I gave evidence for why I did not believe the evidence went against Christians. I didn’t feel it was necessary to go into the evidence that supposes dinosaur bones aren’t millions of years ago. This is because whether that’s true or not, had nothing to do with the discovery of dinosaurs being "against" Christians. So you wanting me to back up my assertion was unnecessary, because my assertions in response to KingExamin where already successfully stated. Also, you would not be doing my homework for me, you asked the question, but before I just start listing the evidence, I asked you to research it yourself. The question you posed was, “why have we not found any dinosaur bones that are even close to that age?”, before even looking to see if that is actually the case. As it turns out, your question is flawed to begin with, so I did not bother answering it. Besides, apparently you don’t want an answer, because you’re just content with knowing only half the story.

Cheers,
Brian

[GodlessHeathen]

First of all Empire, you need to understand that your creation "science" websites are not going to hold a lot of water with most of us here, so you may want to think hard before you submit as evidence anything you read on any of those sites.

Second, I asked the question “why have we not found any dinosaur bones that are even close to that age?” rhetorically. As I mentioned above, we have not found any dinosaur bones that would suggest that they existed at the same time humans did.

Third, Besides, apparently you don’t want an answer, because you’re just content with knowing only half the story.
That's rich, coming from a YEC.

[ocmpoma]

"I’m in the process of trying to find real scientific evidence for dinosaurs being really old, the kind that you speak of, and I’m not having much luck. I just looked up “scientific support of dinosaurs”, and oddly enough, most of the hits where creation pages with a lot of evidence in support of a young earth."
That should not only not surprise you, but tip you off. I'd say something about quantity vs. quality, but I think it'd be a lost cause.

Here are a few places where you could start (my search was for: paleontology age earth). If you search online for 'scientific', odds are you won't find anything even remotely scientific.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/FAQ/faq.html
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/age.htm
http://www.geo.arizona.edu/Antevs/ecol438/lect06.html

I'm curious as to how, if one "...can’t prove the past through speculations about it[,]" you know that "the world was a different place a few thousand years ago[.]" I'd also like to know how a flood, no matter how 'catastrophic' would alter the properties of radioactive isotopes.

It is unfortunate that you have been so misled. Your posts indicate that you have accepted the common misconceptions that many "I-don't-believe-in-Evil-ution-ists" have been fed, such as Darwin's theory (which is "only a theory" - like relativity, right?) was formulated during a brief jaunt to some South Pacific Isles; that evolutionary theory and geology are somehow connected, that scientists are seemingly part of a vast, worldwide conspiracy (it's the Illuminati!) bent on convincing us all that we descended from monkeys (obviously so the monkeys can take over eventually). If you have the time or oppurtunity, I strongly recommend some science courses at a university, as they (and the professors) should be much more helpful in clearing up your misconceptions.

[calpurnpiso]

Empire wrote:

"Although that is interesting, I don’t believe the Book of the Dead carries the weight that the bible does. The bible can be known to be true through scientific proof, prophetic truth, proof of textual evidence, proof of historians, etc. Although I’m not for certain, I don’t see the Book of the Dead having that kind of support to back it up. "

Laughable. Obviously you do not bother to do research or talk to true scholars and archaeologists. Remember, there are hundreds of babbles with hundreds of interpretations which gave raise to hundreds of Christian sects! I suggest you read the Vulgate and other texts of the period. Also study Latin and Greek so you understand it better. Obviously you do not know the Book of the Dead are a compilation religious texts writen in the walls of the pyramids and in the Coffins, so unlike the babble, which there are MANY. There is only ONE Book of the Dead!!. It definitively carry more weight. Many do not realize the Egyptian religion lasted over 3000 years!! Alas, much more than Christianity will ever would last!....This delusional anachronistic way of thinking will become extinct in the next few decades.

"The bible can be known to be true through scientific proof, prophetic truth, proof of textual evidence, proof of historians, etc. "

Really? How about this "scientific" truth:

"From matthew 27: 52-54
"And the graves were opened' and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
And came out of the graves after his resurrection and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.
now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the son of god"

Hmmm...and the earth is a square and the center of the universe eh?..People think with their hearts and not the brain eh?. SHOW ME, one single direct reference in the Babble that says the BRAIN is the organ to think with? Those retards hadn't the slightest idea what the brain was for!! Alas, they have only became aware of its purpose the past 500 years!

..and you view this compendium of puerile delusions as something that TRULY provide us with "scientific proof, prophetic truth, proof of textual evidence, proof of historians'..?

I can take ANY religious texts ( and all of them claim to provide us with the samething) i,e Septuagint, Gnostic gospels, Essenes texts, Upanishad, Runic texts, Qu'ran, boof of Mormon also Jules Verne. Besides Roman and greek mythologies.

Remember the babble is NOT unique in the fairy tales-as-true department. I can take you to ANY mental institution and many of the inmates will also claim that their DELUSIONS are a reflection of the truth! Their truth and it is! since their brain under the attack of a pathogen that disotrts their sense of reality. Sigmund Freud clearly explained this in his studies of the human mind. Didn't you know that the Mind is PRODUCED by the brain via chemical reactions and electromagnetism?

Remember my observations are backed by scientific evidence and aposteriori claims. Don't forget that Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Would you like to take this test and show me I'm wrong and Jesus truly exists acts upon matter and is not only a delusion in the mind of people under a neurological anomaly?..and remember the "thou shall not tempt the lord thy god", doesn't work in this test for you're not Jesus and it would only show a cope out. Here it is good luck! ( parachutes are not allowed):

"JESUS EXISTENCE TEST- Drastic #1

Go to a top of a twenty story building bring a Babble start praying and quoting praying and still quoting and praying to the "Lord and Saviour" so he would assist you and save you when you jump from the top floor. Pray that "Saviour Jesus" make someone place matresses below, or make some truck driver carrying soft stuff, park his truck full of sponge rubber below to soften the landing. This should be very easy for this "saviour" Jesus since he has the ability to get into people's minds.

Well, you will find out, the Jesus Myth will NOT show up, as he also failed to show up when those pious 9-11 pilots believers in a more effective god, Allah, where heading to their targets. 3 out of 4 is not bad for a god!. Prayers to any myths, including the tooth fairy, are never answered ( except for Allah, hmm coincidence?). Since he failed to answer your prayers finding yourself splatered on the pavement below, it is only logical to see that you've been duped by the false delusions of the Abrajamic fairy tales... ergo..one can safely conclude that Jesus is plainly a mental aberration caused by a neurological disorder that exists ONLY on brains that are infected with a type of schizophrenic disorder or temporal lobe epylepsy which I refer to as Christ-psychosis.

Sadly Jesus is a real as the Tooth Fairy, Sauroman or Allah. This is the truth!..and besides, not matter how much one would praise his "name" he will be UNABLE to save us for he doesn't exist. So WHY believe in a delusion to be REAL? Is this healthy? A biological fact seems to indicate that we are nothing more than mutated primates that created gods and demons with our brains. ( remember that there is only ONE gene that sepparate us from chimpancees). Accepting delusions to be real is a form of schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder. Facts are facts and illusions accepted as facts is for nuts.....:)

[Little Earth Stamper]

... that evolutionary theory and geology are somehow connected, that scientists are seemingly part of a vast, worldwide conspiracy (it's the Illuminati!) bent on convincing us all that we descended from monkeys (obviously so the monkeys can take over eventually). ...
Of course we're related to monkeys; every religious text (Such as the Popul Vuh and the Leyanda de los Sols, to name two) in central america tells us that monkeys were precursers to humans. Prototypes, if you will.

I don't get why these heathens keep wandering in here and telling us it's not true. No respect for religion.

[Empire]

First of all Empire, you need to understand that your creation "science" websites are not going to hold a lot of water with most of us here, so you may want to think hard before you submit as evidence anything you read on any of those sites.

Second, I asked the question “why have we not found any dinosaur bones that are even close to that age?” rhetorically. As I mentioned above, we have not found any dinosaur bones that would suggest that they existed at the same time humans did.

Third, Besides, apparently you don’t want an answer, because you’re just content with knowing only half the story.
That's rich, coming from a YEC.
Yah I suppose when you say the creation websites won’t hold much weight among you guys, the same goes for the pro-evolution websites. I guess that’s the thing with difference of opinion. It’s hard to be perfectly objective in such a situation. But I urge you not to discredit creation science simply because it’s not mainstream. We would be without so many discoveries and theories if people just continued to follow the mainstream ideas and didn’t attempt to discover alternative explanations and answers. I realize I’ve got my work cut out for myself as this is an atheist forum after all, but if you can be open to the ideas and theories I present, I will do the same for the opposing viewpoint.

There is a wealth of evidence supporting the coexistence of man and dinosaur. Some of it was mentioned above with regards to cave paintings, rock carvings, and historical references. However your questions where in regards to dates of bones, and lack of evidence of dinosaur bones suggesting coexistence with man. Firstly, there have been bones found that are close to the age of man. In fact, there is no conclusive evidence that the bones dated in the millions of years old region are really that old. Most fossil dating is done by nearby lava flows and other igneous or metamorphic rock. The rocks have been assumed to have lost all their daughter products, and have been “set” at the time of the dinosaur or other fossil formation. Also, Radiocarbon dating, which is the most widely talked about method for dating dinosaur bones at millions of years old, is only accurate up until about 50,000 years. (http://www.worldbydesign.org/research/c14dating/datingdinosaurs.html) Most of the dating methods for dinosaur bones are based on the assumption that the earth was in the past as it is today. That assumption simply can’t be made accurately because there is evidence of catastrophic events that would have a severe impact on the accuracy of dating methods. One example is the flood, which as I mentioned in a previous post, has been documented by numerous sources in addition to the Bibles mention of it.

There are also good reasons why we have not found any concrete evidence in regards to dinosaur bones that would suggest that dinosaurs existed at the same time humans did. The main reason is that it’s rare to find fossils of dinosaurs, and even more rare to find fossils of humans. The process of fossilization is very complicated and doesn't occur often. For the most part carcasses are eroded away or scavenged by birds, insects, and other animals. (http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1973)

As for your next comment, well I don’t have any comment, other then that I once accepted evolution as fact, till I actually looked at the facts, and a creationist account made more sense. There’s something about spontaneous generation of life and our evolution from a singularity in space with no potentiality, becoming an actuality, that doesn’t sit well with me, or any scientific explanations of those phenomena I’ve encountered.

[calpurnpiso]

Empire wrote:

" The spells known as the “Book of the Dead first appeared 1650- and 1580 BC. "

WRONG!!....You better get educated and LAND if you want to discuss this with me. I can bury you with tons of FACTS......This site will provide you with the time line:

from: http://www.nmhschool.org/tthornton/mehistorydatabase/period_3500bce_to_587_bce.htm

" 2375- 2345 Reign of the Fifth Dynasty king Unas in Egypt. His pyramid at Saqqara was the first to bear the funerary reliefs and inscriptions known as the "Pyramid Texts." These inscriptions consist of 759 spells or incantations and contain the earliest conceptual beliefs of an afterlife on record. (see also Coffin Texts and Book of the Dead)"

Have you noticed " the earliest conceptual beliefs of an afterlife on record "

All religious beliefs systems DERIVE from the Egyptian ones, and the Abrahamic ones seemed to have started with Akhenaten's ONE god the SUN belief..which took momentum at the reign of Ramses II by one of his son's ( he sired over 100 sons, buried in the massive tomb KV-5) believe, by recent discoveries to have been Moses..:)

Have you noticed the God of moses BURNS everything?...Burning bush, writing his ten commandments with his finger of fire etc etc.....The SOLAR disc does the samething....specially today in Arizona..!:)

[Empire]

Wow, this thread is pretty active. By the time I finish one post, there's already a couple more I have to respond to. Any other Christians out there waiting to jump in, feel free :) I have the answers to your comments and questions, but I'd also like to have time to eat Lunch, it's coming around 6:30 now. And Cal, i'm much looking forward to engaging you in some good natured debates, you seem like quite the character :)

Cheers,
Brian

[GodlessHeathen]

Yah I suppose when you say the creation websites won’t hold much weight among you guys, the same goes for the pro-evolution websites. I guess that’s the thing with difference of opinion. It’s hard to be perfectly objective in such a situation.
First of all, define "pro-evolution website". As OC said above, you seem to have bought completely into the YEC attitude that science's main objective is the destruction of religion. Therefore, any real objective evidence any of us would present, you would simply dismiss as "pro-evolution".

Second, there is no difference of opinion here. We have the truth, and you have been sold a bill of goods, and you don't even believe it. Science IS objective. When you get some education and some perspective, come back and we'll talk.

But I urge you not to discredit creation science simply because it’s not mainstream. We would be without so many discoveries and theories if people just continued to follow the mainstream ideas and didn’t attempt to discover alternative explanations and answers.
I don't discredit creation science because it's not mainstream. I discredit creation science because it's junk science. Creation science starts out knowing what it wants to prove, then guides the research to prove that point. It is a bastardization of the scientific method, and it deserves no serious consideration.

[ocmpoma]

Empire -

You posted a couple of links in your last post (#68).

The first was about radiocarbon dating, and the 'problems' with it. Notice how your linked page lists no sources at all, doesn't even mention the publication in which 'Professor Whitelaw' of VPI made his radiocarbon findings? That's a big alarm right there. After doing a simple search for him, I found the same wording regarding his 'findings' on at least five creationist sites. That's another alarm - and ties in with quantity vs. quality. A lot of creationist sites are basically just prettified cut-and-paste jobs. One page I did find about the good professor is one of those Darwinist Conspiracy Sites - but since I looked at your links, I hope you'll look at mine:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-c14.html

Your second source at least has a citations list... Two things that stuck out for me about the whole "dinos and humans together" were the fact that, instead of coming up with concrete examples of dinosaur and human fossils in the same strata, it discusses why the two types haven't been found together (by the way, it doesn't seem like a very YEC site to me), and the 'concrete' examples of a hammer and some tracks in coal. I found this snippet on the folks who found the hammer, Helfinstine and Roth, here (http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/wise.htm):
For instance, Helfinstine and Roth (1994) have published a 109 page booklet on these tracks and artifacts. H&R are at best amateur geologists (R cites his credentials as four extension course in geology; H cites none at all), and at worst they have the bias of being past presidents of the Twin-Cities Creation Science Association. They continue the claim of human footprints as well as the existence of a "human finger" of ante-deluvian man with photos looking remarkably like a geologic concretion. They also illustrate a "pre-flood" hammer embedded in iron oxide in a setting looking like a typical bog iron deposit, a process which is still going on today and could easily surround a 19th century hammer. Interestingly, their list of acknowledgments does not include ICR's John Morris who wrote a book on the tracks nor Glen Kuban with his thorough scientific studies on the site.
As for the coal tracks, I couldn't find anything at all about Ingalls (except for the same text repeated over and over), but if you honestly think that these (http://www.bennerwc.com/ancientman/02_kentucky.html) are human footprints, I think you need to take a walk on a beach.

[Tenspace]

I figured that my main reasoning behind that belief, the Bible, wouldn’t hold up to you, so I just did a quick little search and a bunch of sites where talking about. It’s kind of a shame that some creationists don’t have the balls to remove evidence from their site when it turns up to be proven shoddy at best. Next time I won’t post something in haste in an effort to get to bed at a reasonable hour, before researching all the current evidence behind it.
Not a problem. People throw around truisms all the time. Here you learn to defend them. :)

I think you got my views a tad mixed up. It’s more then just a few hundred years ago when the dinosaurs where walking the earth with man. It’s more in the realm of a few thousand years ago.
Okay, I've been to a bunch of websites, reading up on the Fremont Indians. Most papers list their art as being produced between 500AD and 1250AD. That's not really "thousands" in a generic sense.

Of Albrecht's Southwest petroglyph paintings, the most intriguing may be those depicting anthropomorphic carvings made by the Fremont Indians who lived in Utah from about 500 to 1300 A.D. (Chicago Tribune, Nov 17, 1996)

In addition, the Pueblo and Anasazi indian cultures were quite prolific creators of pictographs and petroglyphs. Here is a good shot of the image we're discussing:

http://ravingatheist.com/forum/img/uploads/black_dragon.jpg

I'm sorry, I just don't see enough to rule out anything non-pterodactyl-like (but that's just my opinion - I've never been to the site). Another research article mentioned that archaeologists were able to agree on the shape of the crest of the head, and that it more represents the mythological Firebird of the same peoples' belief system and seen in other carvings and paintings of the era.

Yes, it does take more then “a few cave paintings and sculptures to disprove the history of the earth”, luckily for me, there is much more then that. I’m not sure where to even begin with the wealth of evidence in favor of a young earth. There are models explaining the mechanism of catastrophic plate tectonics, enabled by runaway subduction of negatively buoyant ocean lithosphere into the Earth’s mantle, which accounts for the main tectonic changes associated with the Flood.
Yet these models bear no predictive evidence as you have with traditional scientific theories. I call them Recursive Hypotheses, because they apply their proof to something that is already known, offering only an alternative explanation. The RH has no predictive ability. Natural processes described by mainstream geology and other fields provide adequate descriptions, and most importantly, solutions to problems encountered in related fields.

There are viable models and theories against almost all, if not all of the evidence scientists use to “prove” the earth is billions of years old.
And here is where we differ on a fundamental level. Science, of which I am an avid student, does not attempt to fit any preconceived worldview. Science says the earth is billions of years old because established and accepted techniques from dozens of different fields all point to the same conclusion. You, on the other hand, must pass everything you accept as truth through a worldview which restricts you to the mindset of the ancients, who knew less about technology than virtually everyone alive since.

(Just spend a few hours reading some of the countless creation science websites. I have a book back at my parents place that explains a lot of things from the ice age, to principles to do with cosmology which are coherent with a young earth. Unfortunately I forget the name, but it's a good read, and I'll try and get that to you soon)
I have spent hours at creation science websites. Like the Paluxy example, these websites are full of misinformation.

... So what if what I’m talking about requires us to throw away millions of man-hours by thousands of people? Just because millions of people believe something is right, doesn’t mean it is.
Ah, you are turning around what I said. I did not say that millions of people believed in it. I said that millions of man-hours were spent understanding Nature. If you wish to discard the fruits of these labors, I suggest you discard those things in your life which were brought about by humanity's understanding of natural sciences. We could start with soaps and medicines; give those up. Next, never go to a museum again, anywhere in the world, unless it's Dr. Dino's Creation Museum or the like. While you're at it, you might want to discard any biological and genetic discoveries, since they are founded in our understanding of natural science and the Earth being 4.5 billion years old, and all. That means that everything from penicillin to gene therapy are off limits to you.

I believe Hitler said it best, “The bigger the lie, the more people will believe it.” This is certainly true of evolution. The world is so biased in regards to the theory of evolution. But that’s all it really is, is a theory.
You're a bit new here to be pulling the Hitler Argument out. I suggest you argue from moderate stances and avoid the extremes. Makes you look like you're out of ammo already. :)

Okay, if you are as open-minded as you appear, it's time to sit down and open your head and listen, because you are repeating the same tired false statements echoed by every anti-evolutionist out there. Let's start with a basic explanation. (Other readers, please accept my oversimplification; I'm trying to avoid writing two dozen paragraphs :)) Science is a body of knowledge described by theories. There are theories for evolution, electromagnetism, plate tectonics, quantum physics, gravity, archaeology, primate distribution, fungal classifications, etc. A scientific theory represents an attempt to understand natural phenomena. It is detailed, and often mathematical (yes, even in evolution). The body of knowledge supporting the theory is the result of mankind's noblest attempts to gain knowledge, and encompasses thousands of players over hundreds of years, with names like Watt, and Newton, and Einstein, and Darwin, and Lamarck, and Turing, and Faraday, and Leakey. Everything your position stands for, specifically that of Young Earth Creationism is a slap in the face to the triumphs of mankind (both good and bad, I guess). You are attacking the core principles of all sciences with your belief in biblical science.

And when I watch crappy shows like friends, and Ross says, “Evolution is not a theory, it’s scientific fact”, I can’t help but cringe.
WTF? :) I guess you should pick up a good book on evolution and turn off the TV. (By the way, he's right. Evolution is as factual as Relativity. Biology would crumble without it, considering it forms the foundation of everything from taxonomy to genetics).

Most people don’t look at the evidence on both sides of the equation and come to their own conclusion. If you open yourself to the evidence for Creationism, you find an equally viable explanation for our coming into existence and the history of the earth.
I looked at Creationism analytically, and it came away empty. It has not made one prediction. There are no Creationism R&D Labs. I've yet to see a product hit the street proclaiming, "Designed By Creationism!"

(Well atleast I have)
Well, I hope we can open your eyes.

In fact at times, you will find that the creationist side makes more sense and comes together in a perfect picture. Whereas the evolution side has many discrepancies, including the lack of a missing link, fallacious methods used for dating fossils, etc.
Whew! We've got quite a long way to go with you, Brian. Imagine if someone who knew everything about you came here and posted only those mistakes you've made and attempted to pass it off as an example of your overall character. That's what you're doing to evolution with your statement. It can be debunked, but this is already becoming an overly long post. :)

Sometimes finding the truth means going against the mainstream, and this is certainly true in my disbelief of macroevolution. I’ve debated the age of the earth against hundreds of astronomy students, and have only gone without a reasonable explanation for a certain phenomenon only once or twice, usually because a working theory has yet to be proposed by a creation scientist. However, if you want to debate the age of the earth, game on :). (Although first I’d like to read the current evidence for the evolution perspective, as I’ve been out of the loop on this topic for a few years now)
Blah blah blah Relativity blah blah blah Math blah blah blah Distance blah blah blah Speed of Light blah blah blah Mass and its affect on spacetime blah blah blah Spectroscopy blah blah blah Redshift / Doppler Effect blah blah blah Type IA Supernova blah blah blah Standard candle blah blah blah. Sorry, it was easier than making sentences to bring up a few words you can search the internet for. Start with http://wikipedia.org - good, unbiased information. :D

Quick question, could you give examples of how “the everyday technical terms I use like TV, radio, and my computer, have theoretical foundations which overlap with the discoveries I challenge?”

Quick answer. Biological theories are rooted in the same mathematics as physical theories. To deny the validity of one is to question the validity of the other. Do you really think we learned about genetics without Darwinian evolution as a guiding light? We can take code segments - DNA - from flies, sequences that describe the fundamental body plan of the organism, and insert them in mice DNA at the same location, and guess what? The mouse grows normally. You may see this as Intelligent Design (code conservation), yet this technology was developed through a thorough understanding of evolution.

Newton gave us Classical Mechanics, Einsteing discovered Relative Mechanics, Bohr (et al) freaked us out with Quantum Mechanics, and Darwin is everyone's fool for describing Evolutionary Mechanics. I don't get it.

I’m in the process of trying to find real scientific evidence for dinosaurs being really old, the kind that you speak of, and I’m not having much luck. I just looked up “scientific support of dinosaurs”, and oddly enough, most of the hits where creation pages with a lot of evidence in support of a young earth. (That’s your cue to point me to the “real scientific information.” :)) The main weight of the evolution argument lies in trying to prove something about the past from theories in the present, which is impossible. You can’t prove the past through speculations about it. There are so many problems that interfere with radioactive dating, one of which is that the world was a different place a few thousand years ago, and catastrophic events such as “the flood” happened (as evidenced in the bible, and over 200 other sources), which could definitely mess with the accuracy of scientific dating techniques, as well as the geological columns, etc. This is just speculation, but I think the main problem with many of the scientists in the laboratories these days, is that they’re basing all of their assumptions on a theory that has yet to been proven, i.e., evolution. So it becomes a circular argument. It’s kind of funny that the most believed lie of all time, is all based on Charles Darwin and some observations he made when visiting the Galapagos islands. (I’m guessing that statement will spark some backlash at me on this forum :P)
http://talkorigins.org - answers all of your questions. As for your final statment regarding all of evolution being based on Darwin's observations at the Galopagos islands is very naive. Again you dismiss the collective knowledge of everyone who contributed to our current understanding of nature.

Hate to cop out and not provide specific instances of debunked evidence for the mainstream scientific position, but I’ll have to save that for another time. It’s almost 5 and I’ve yet to eat lunch. Take care of yourself.
Read up on what's been discussed here first. There are hundreds of posts on this topic.

Tenspace

[Tenspace]

(took all damn night, and I copped out at the end, but hey, at least I spent time on it.)

:D:D:D

[Tenspace]

So it becomes a circular argument. It’s kind of funny that the most believed lie of all time, is all based on Charles Darwin and some observations he made when visiting the Galapagos islands.
I think we should first agree as to what constitutes 'the most believed lie of all time.' Any nominations?

De-nominations? :/
I nominate, "Of course I'm a virgin."

:D

[ocmpoma]

"Of course I'll respect you in the morning."

[Tenspace]

Wow, this thread is pretty active. By the time I finish one post, there's already a couple more I have to respond to. Any other Christians out there waiting to jump in, feel free :) I have the answers to your comments and questions, but I'd also like to have time to eat Lunch, it's coming around 6:30 now. And Cal, i'm much looking forward to engaging you in some good natured debates, you seem like quite the character :)

Cheers,
Brian
LOL! They did, and we converted them! (just kidding, of course)

You'll find the consistent theists here are not quite as enthusiastic about a literal interpretation of Genesis as you are. Right guys? ;)

Ten

[Crackerus Dadderus]

Even though there are many points I could go into Empire I will stick with just one. You still didn't explain how a flood would change the dating methods used by scientists. Being submerged in water is not going to change the results of the tests - assuming they were covered by water.

Since you are so quick to point out about the flood that hundreds of people wrote about, why didn't every ancient civilization write about a flood? If everyone ended up coming from Noah - shouldn't everyone have it? Have you given thought to the idea that floods happen everywhere and that might be why it's so common?

(Sorry - hit two points)

[Empire]

First of all, define "pro-evolution website". As OC said above, you seem to have bought completely into the YEC attitude that science's main objective is the destruction of religion. Therefore, any real objective evidence any of us would present, you would simply dismiss as "pro-evolution".

Second, there is no difference of opinion here. We have the truth, and you have been sold a bill of goods, and you don't even believe it. Science IS objective. When you get some education and some perspective, come back and we'll talk.

I don't discredit creation science because it's not mainstream. I discredit creation science because it's junk science. Creation science starts out knowing what it wants to prove, then guides the research to prove that point. It is a bastardization of the scientific method, and it deserves no serious consideration.
Just a quick post in response to Godless Heathen… There’s no need to be hostile towards me and say things like “get some education and some perspective, then we’ll talk.” This is a learning experience for me; I don’t profess to know all the answers. In fact, the reason I joined this site was to motivate myself to research topics in regards to God and the evidence for belief in the bible. I’m certainly getting challenged at every corner, which is good, because then I can learn the err of my ways and reformulate my beliefs about certain issues. I’ve graduated with Deans Honors in Philosophy, and have only recently decided to come back to my belief in Christ and research the theories and facts out there. Honestly, I like being challenged, and have information presented to me that may cause me to doubt certain beliefs. That just helps me to look harder for viable explanations for such information.

As for what I meant by pro-evolution websites, well I meant websites that support the theory of evolution. Most scientists and scientific websites support the theory of evolution. The reason you don’t consider them pro-evolution, is because you are an evolutionist, and simply accept them as the truth. I on the other hand, obviously have a difference of belief, and therefore see them as in favor of the opposing viewpoint, which they are. Incase you’re curious what ultimately leads me to disbelieve the majority of evidence for evolution and accept alternative viewpoints, well, the notion of spontaneous generation of life and our evolution from some cosmic singularity that came out of nothingness just doesn’t make sense to me. (I seem to recall typing that a few posts ago, oh well)

Science is objective, but scientists are not always objective. This works for both creationists and evolutionists. Peoples beliefs sometimes influence the conclusion the evidence leads them to, it’s unfortunate, but it happens.

Creation science is no more junk science then science in support of evolution. With the scientific method first you 1) State the question, 2 )Form a hypothesis 3)Do experiments 4) Interpret data and draw conclusions 5) Revise theory (go back to step 2). The one critical step that both sciences are missing is 3, Do experiments. Neither party can observe the past, and without the ability to do experiments, both parties are left to propose a model and look to nature for consistencies. Another reason that people label creation science as “pseudo-science” is its inability to be proved false. I accept that, but the theory of evolution cannot be falsified either. Specific evolutionary hypotheses and models can be tested and falsified, but can you think of a discovery that would discredit the whole notion of macroevolution?

[Crackerus Dadderus]

Incase you’re curious what ultimately leads me to disbelieve the majority of evidence for evolution and accept alternative viewpoints, well, the notion of spontaneous generation of life and our evolution from some cosmic singularity that came out of nothingness just doesn’t make sense to me. (I seem to recall typing that a few posts ago, oh well)

Creation science is no more junk science then science in support of evolution. With the scientific method first you 1) State the question, 2 )Form a hypothesis 3)Do experiments 4) Interpret data and draw conclusions 5) Revise theory (go back to step 2).
So it makes sense to you that some supernatural being brought about all life?

And creation science doesn't follow that model. There is never an opportunity to revise step 2 due to religious convictions.

[Empire]

Well then Tenspace, you're proving to be an admirable foe :). Looks like I've got a lot of reading to do. I kind of knew that already before I started posting on here, I just wanted to get steered in the right direction and see how well the information I regurgitated 3 years ago in my astronomy class debate, stood up. Sidenote: After a few years of ambiguity because of my love of partying and the pursuit of tang, 2 days ago I thought long and hard (perhaps not the best choice of words after just talking about tang. eheh) about my beliefs, and once again became a Christian. Thanks guys for helping me see the err in my ways. J/k!!! :P However, a few of you have given me a lot to think about and research. Thanks (I mean that sincerely. What i do with my life is very important to me, and I want to make sure I'm making the right decision) Until I post again, take care :)

Cheers,
Brian

[Tenspace]

Here's an example of a company making money from Darwin's theory of Evolution:

Applied Molecular Evolution, Inc. (http://www.business.com/directory/pharmaceuticals_and_biotechnology/biotechnology/gene_therapy/applied_molecular_evolution,_inc/) - Their name says it all.

Here's some text from a research paper from Glaxo-Wellcome regarding the process of drug discovery:
Abstract: Many early discoveries in the pharmaceutical industry were through serendipity.
Later, targets were mainly identified in animals and systematically exploited through the
identification of potent and selective molecules. A disease association was normally obtained
through the clinical testing of candidate molecules in patients. The technological advances in
the last few years offer the possibility of knowing more about the disease, and this is driving
the industry toward a disease-based approach where understanding the disease becomes central
to the process. This is now possible thanks to the recent explosion in molecular and cellular
biology, together with the application of genetics and genomics. New screening technologies
have also revolutionized the identification of chemical leads. Now, high-throughput
screening allows a wide chemical diversity to be applied in order to obtain tractable leads,
which can then be optimized by the medicinal chemist. It is envisaged that these trends of
continuously searching for process improvement will continue, being driven by the need to
find medicines that add value in treating unmet medical need.

Those technologies - disease theory, genetics, genomics - require a deep understanding of evolutionary mechanics. You can't tell me that a huge pharmaceutical company would be successful trying to develop drugs based upon creationist theories, can you?

Brian, look under the hood at what really goes on with regard to genetics and evolution. Matt Ridley's, "Genome" is a good start. I have to agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky who said, "Except in the light of Evolution, nothing in Biology makes sense."

Tenspace

[Tenspace]

Sidenote: After a few years of ambiguity because of my love of partying and the pursuit of tang, 2 days ago I thought long and hard (perhaps not the best choice of words after just talking about tang. eheh) about my beliefs, and once again became a Christian.
Oh jeez, you'll fit right in. I hope you read some of the threads here. Tang is a popular subject (among a few of us, anyway). :)

Ten

[GodlessHeathen]

First of all, define "pro-evolution website". As OC said above, you seem to have bought completely into the YEC attitude that science's main objective is the destruction of religion. Therefore, any real objective evidence any of us would present, you would simply dismiss as "pro-evolution".

Second, there is no difference of opinion here. We have the truth, and you have been sold a bill of goods, and you don't even believe it. Science IS objective. When you get some education and some perspective, come back and we'll talk.

I don't discredit creation science because it's not mainstream. I discredit creation science because it's junk science. Creation science starts out knowing what it wants to prove, then guides the research to prove that point. It is a bastardization of the scientific method, and it deserves no serious consideration.
Just a quick post in response to Godless Heathen… There’s no need to be hostile towards me and say things like “get some education and some perspective, then we’ll talk.” This is a learning experience for me; I don’t profess to know all the answers. In fact, the reason I joined this site was to motivate myself to research topics in regards to God and the evidence for belief in the bible. I’m certainly getting challenged at every corner, which is good, because then I can learn the err of my ways and reformulate my beliefs about certain issues. I’ve graduated with Deans Honors in Philosophy, and have only recently decided to come back to my belief in Christ and research the theories and facts out there. Honestly, I like being challenged, and have information presented to me that may cause me to doubt certain beliefs. That just helps me to look harder for viable explanations for such information.
You're right. I'm sorry if I came across as hostile. It's just that I've been through this type of debate before and it tends to be very frustrating to me. Probably more so because I enjoy the study of cosmology and physics more than biology, so my knowledge of evolution is not as complete as it could be.

Again, I apologize for my tone earlier. I would definitely not want to put you off learning more about this.

[Empire]

No worries Godless, apology accepted :) Also, if I came off as less then jovial in my posts to you (specifically the ones in response to the rhetorical question you posed), I as well apologize. I can see how this debate could become very frustrating, especially when someone (i.e. me) hasn't done all the relevant research yet. That's why I've decided to step off a bit and read all the relevant posts on this topic, as well as check out the links some of you have posted before i continue this debate. Once again, no worries, and I'm glad we cleared the air :)

Cheers,
Brian

[calpurnpiso]

Wow, this thread is pretty active. By the time I finish one post, there's already a couple more I have to respond to. Any other Christians out there waiting to jump in, feel free :) I have the answers to your comments and questions, but I'd also like to have time to eat Lunch, it's coming around 6:30 now. And Cal, i'm much looking forward to engaging you in some good natured debates, you seem like quite the character :)

Cheers,
Brian
LOL! They did, and we converted them! (just kidding, of course)

You'll find the consistent theists here are not quite as enthusiastic about a literal interpretation of Genesis as you are. Right guys? ;)

Ten
AHHH.....one must fight Christian delusions with some of our own. Remember, their "kingdom" is not of this world....lol.... Our brains can create better delusions that those of the Christ-psychotics any day! I think the problem rest with the insidious RVirus ( Religious virus) which infects the brain impeding its logic center to function properly eroding reason!...poor delusional bornagainers, I could sell them the slightly inclined old tower my family owns in Pisa. I only want $100,000 EU for it. I have all the documentation, pics and certificate of authenticity....I also have the cup the Saviour used in the last supper, it was buried under the tower and since I am the Grand master of the Illuminati it was given to me in secret....miniscule particles of holy hemoglobin are still there!...perhaps if I recite the holy prayers, the particles will project into a wall, creating his image.....a miracle only the savior can do. This is also gospel truth!! since the blood of jesus saves and re-saves, AHH...and if one needs a transfusion and mentions the holy name of jesus, blood will be miraculously filling the empty containers in the ambulance.

Alas, Jesus appeared to the Mayans after his resurrection, stablishing the holy heart of jesus adoration. Unfortunatelly they misinterpreted the words: blood of Jesus, sin, heart and salvation and they started to remove the hearts of the victims while alive!!..and they dare call jesus Quetchaquatl Oh..the humanity! what bunch of sinners..but of course since they already had accepted Jesus as their lord and saviour back in the year 1, they were all saved and reached heaven after death..later Jesus would appear to the American natives near Elmira New York.....Ahhh...the faithful Moroni , the right hand of Jesus and cousin of Archangel Gabriel appeared to Joe Smith in the early 19th Century telling him about those gold plates with jesus writing on them!.....Ohhh..the humanity...and this is gospel truth since I talked to the spirit of archangel Gabriel and he told me everything last night....

The babble is so true and historical it is incredible!....the revelations in it have dumfounded all of the scientists....as a matter of fact this will prove the babble is the true word of god, and it is the truest of all truth. I'm so convinced, I will not use this holy book as holy toliet paper any more!. I swear on jesus name....

This revelation is a prophecy Ezekiel 37: 17-19 clearly shows I'm using this apple computer talking to atheists !;

" and join them one to another into one stick ( clearly the web); and they shall become one in thine hand. ( clearly using my hand to type). And when the children of thy people shall speak unto thee ( all of the atheists gathered) saying. wilt thou not shew us what thou meanest by these? ( explaining computer lingo!) Say unto them, thuis saith the lord god behold ( look into the screen carefully), i will take the stick of Joseph which is in the hand of Ephraim ( take the control of the internet from PC to mc intosh!..alas the Ephraim says it all) and the tribes of israel his fellows ( jews will control the internet) and will put them with him ( Bill gates) even with the stick of judas ( the atheist web) and make them one stick ( atheist web with apples will take over PCs), and they shall be one in my hand."

This Clearly has predicted the future!!....Amazing...:)

[Empire]

Cal, yah I’m sorry I don’t have the means to talk with true scholars and archeologists, and learn Latin and Greek, and still be able to reply to your post in a reasonable time frame :P Really, there are 100’s of bibles with 100’s of interpretations?!?I think that’s a bit of a overstatement, but I see your point. However, just because there’s only one Book of the Dead, how does that make it more accurate? I’m speculating the only reason there’s only one of them, is because people didn’t deem it important enough to translate into numerous versions and spread across the world. The sole translation of the Book of the Dead, if anything, is a case against it. Also, how does the Egyptian religion lasting a long time cause it to carry more weight then the bible? I still haven’t heard any evidence in support of the Book of the Dead as I have evidence in support of the bible. Please enlighten me if you could, instead of just saying that the Book of the Dead carries more weight, because people utilized it for a long period of time.

Here is one example of the scientific proof in the bible.

Leviticus 17:11
‘For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul.’ This states that blood circulation is the key to physical life a few thousand years before it was “discovered” in 1616, by William Harvey.

Also, I do believe Isaiah 40:22 talks about the “circle of the earth.” So much for the earth being square :P … I don’t know why you insist on a reference in the bible that says the brain is the organ to think with. The Bible does not profess to be an anatomy book, it just happens to have insights into many scientific theories and discoveries. You’re just full of sarcasm aren’t you? hehe

As for your ponderance of “why believe in a delusion to be real?” I think the question you should ask yourself is, “why am I so frightened by the possibility of this “delusion” being real?” You like to label anyone who believes the teachings of the bible as crazy or in some way mentally deficient. However, I have chosen my belief in God based not on faith alone, but on reason. Actually what first lead me to belief in God was my rational thought. More specifically, that science is ill equipped to answer the real big questions in regards to human existence. Science cannot explain where the matter in the universe came from. The only other possibilities are eternal matter (which seems inconclusive with the Big Bang theory), or some sort of intelligent creator. Since I don’t buy into the idea of eternal matter, by deduction, I’m left with an intelligent creator. All this other stuff, as far as following the Bible and accepting a young age for the earth is my pursuit in further developing my initial belief.

As for the dates in regards to the Book of the Dead, although I wont’ be as crass as to say “WRONG!!!”, I think you’re incorrect. You may be getting the Book of the Dead confused with the Coffin and Pyramid Texts. (As I understand it however, the passages in the Pyramid Text later evolved into the Book of the Dead.) But Even in the site you linked to prove me wrong it states, “ca. 1550 - 1070 … From the beginning of this period and extending down to the Greco-Roman period, papyrus rolls bearing copies of The Book of the Coming Out Into the Day (better known as The Egyptian Book of the Dead) started showing up inside wooden mummiform statues buried with the dead in tombs. The Book of the Dead, based on the ideas of judgment and resurrection found in the myths of Osiris, consisted of spells and incantations to usher the dead person safely into the afterlife.” I just found 6 more sites that give the date of the Book of the Dead in the