If someone is able to write scriptures, bearing in mind very, very few people were able to read or write. Why do you refer to them as simple men.
Story telling in tribes and civilisations happend thousands of years before Jesus is supposed to have popped up. Myth, Legend and extravigant stories of the past deeds of heros and villians have played an impotant part in human history. The stories in the Bible are no different. That is why there are so many similarities between religions and civilisations prior to, and post jesus.
Why can't you see that?
So your faith does not claim to have knowledge of the truth?
You yourself may want to heed Professor Hawking's words. You can never be sure that MY theory will not contradict YOUR theory, and vice versa. However I fully state my claim is theory. You do not.
Then why exactly is your's absolutely right and mine is absolutely wrong?
Who might that be? Point this creator out to me. You cannot even prove your creator's existence. I put my faith in things I can see, touch and comprehend.
The simple fact that we created machines that can do work faster, more precise and more efficiently than us debunks your beliefs that the creation cannot be greater than the creator.
I'm sure you have heard of the X-29 jet. The one that no human can fly because it would require way too many changes and adjustments to keep the wings attached to the plane. Well, it flies because our creations are able to do things that we cannot... basically making our creation greater than us (the creator) when it comes to doing those tasks.
Cars (things we created) can travel faster and farther than us (the creators). Telescopes (things we created) can see farther than us (the creators). Our creations can best us in many different areas.
You see, you make my point EXACTLY. You claim to have truth of facts not in evidence and call it "scientific methodology". I claim to have faith by things "not in evidence", and the truth is found in the words of God in the scriptures. All I defend is my "faith" based on those words....ACTUAL. Yet, man claims these words are not true, a point that is has been unproven for the life of the Holy Scriptures, as it has existed from the very earliest time of man's recorded history. You claim words such as "absolute" in relation to "your" theory, I claim absolute only on the words contained in the scriptures, as presented. The words that are written is what is absolute, and can be proven by opening the Book and verifying such. The truth of that Book is based upon faith. A human trait that can not be proven wrong, only opined as wrong. Thus my faith is as valid as yours. It is you that presents YOUR faith , suedo-science, not real science, as absolute, when even your own ministers of the message do not take that position. RD
The stories of the Bible are vastly different than the myths of the past, because the stories of the Bible are being proven true. Non believers like your self use to say that there never was a real David which was spoken of in the Bible, because that was just a Bible myth. Well guess what? They have now found evidence outside of the Bible that proves that David did live, and he was a great Jewish leader just as the Bible stated he was. Non believers of the Bible also use to say that the Hitties spoken in the Bible never existed either because that was just another Bible myth, well again non believers were proven wrong, more historical evidence proved such a race did exist. Every year more and more evidence is confirming the Biblical account. Unlike the myths or ancient legends, the Bible is being shown yearly to be true. Why can't you see that? And my statements are based on facts.
If you considers Dr. Mollers Book it show extensive evidence of human and hourse bones between the two granit pillars that marked the Red sea crossing site. Also, a great number of Chariot wheels and chariot parts over a vast area.
Cite your source!
God's return is not yet, but the prophecies of the East Gate are true.
and many more that are not
The Bible does speak of a prophecy that was not fulfilled, and the Bible points this out. Yet if you can show any others I would love to see them.
i have a list of unfulfilled prophecies if you wish to see it...
I'm sure you can show me accounts of Eclipses through out history, can you show me one that lasted for 3 hours?
You have yet to show me how it is know how long the eclispe was or the significance of how a 3-hour eclipse proves anything!
The problem with your position is, it is "YOU" that questions religion, not religion that questions you.
considering that religion has been around thousands of years before i was born!
It is not up to religion to "prove" anything, as it is not religion that is inferring slanderous insults based only on personal "OPINION"
yet commands the death of many people!
and presenting the appearance of speaking from a platform of truth while in reality standing only on the soapbox of secular humanism and its bigoted views.
I have yet to meet or hear of a single secularist who is bigoted, yet those who hate gays and blacks and muslims and jews are 99% of the time christian. For a religion based on love there sure is a lot of hate goin' around!
You question the truth of the scriptures and present only opinion based evidence.
you question science and it's experts based only on your oppinion.
You want to take the position that science rebukes the evidence of scriptural truth by pointing to that which is confessed by the scripts themselves as working outside the norms of that which is natural.
The bible makes many physical claims which can be disproven!
The position of religion is as such. If the God that created the universe and everything which is contained therein wishes to speak and perform that which is miraculous, He indeed does have the power to breach the laws which were instituted by His words, with only another word spoken. It would be more than hypocritical to present any other position, would it not?
yes, and superman has the power to stop bullets and reverse time!
Well, using a word like opined is kinda neat, but it's spelled pseudo-science.
With logic like this, it it any wonder that Illegal Aliens are given free tax payer college tuition and terrorist are given tax payer funded lawyers, after they have engaged in open warfare against the US?
Secondly, are you saying that all the evidence needed to prove yourself right is what's written in a book? I'm sure God didn't hand-write any of the bibles in circulation today, nor do I think he wrote the first one.
I am not trying to prove anything in the book that I base my beliefs on. I walk by faith. It is you that claims to have the proof that it is wrong, yet I have seen none produce, other than opinionated dribble.
Man is imperfect, therefore Man's creations are imperfect. The Bible is a creation of Man, which over several translations and much filtering, has fallen to more imperfections. Unless God himself Johnny Hancock'ed every single Bible, then those words cannot be absolute, even by your logic.
You try constantly to make your views immune saying things like "my scriptures are absolute" and "faith cannot be disproven". FAITH does not make anything true and absolute, it only makes it that way to the person. Hinduism is a faith, Islam is a faith, does this mean that things such as reincarnation and the virgins deal cannot be disproven because they are faith, even if they contradict what your faith says?
I bring plenty of evidence to the table. Take a look through the links I have posted, there is plenty of evidence there. You simply won't take the blinders of faith off for even a second to consider that evidence. Your scripture is absolute, your faith cannot be disproven... so that automatically makes your views right and infallible.
I can open any book and verify what's written... that doesn't make it absolute. All you have are words and a book. There's no hard evidence of those events taken place. Again, where's the Garden... the angel wielding the magic sword. No evidence of a global flood... no evidence of being brought back from the dead. Ark of the Covenant? Holy Lance? The Grail? Tree of Knowledge? Talking serpents? Woman created from a rib?
Trying to use faith to fight science is like trying to skydive with a scuba suit. *WE* don't try to discredit religion. However religion tries all day and night to discredit science. Faith in something becomes harder when evidence shows to the contrary.
Here is an article that I run across, posted on another website by "ABRAHAM SMITH", It fits my views to perfection in the evidence that is presented as superior by "P"suedo science and its "cult" of followers, and they question someone else's faith.
Once upon a time billions of years ago, everything that has ever been came from a little ball called the cosmic egg. At that time it was heated to trillions of degrees. It was so hot that not even elements could exist. No one knows where it came from. No one know how long is sat around. For some strange reason it exploded and began to expand. No one knows why.
In that explosion, only two things were created, hydrogen and helium in large quantities. There was no carbon, nitrogen, sulfur, nickel, iron or uranium. These gases expanded equally and evenly throughout space in all directions. The universe was mainly just hydrogen. Somehow from these molecules racing out evenly and at enormous speed, stars created themselves. Then galaxies created themselves. Our solar system creted itself. Life evolved on this planet. And that first speck of micro-organistic life evolved all the way into people. No God is to be included in explaining this universe according to this story, because everything can be explained without him.
We have 30 trillion cells in our bodies of more than 200 kinds. Included in that number is 12 billion brain cells. Since each brain cell is connected to 10,000 other brain cells, we have about 120 trillion connections in the human brain. Regardless of our imperfections, our brain can interpret and process the amount of information form our eyes in a10th of a second, where a Cray Supercomputer would require 100 years to do the same.
According to this evolution creation story we have gone from hydrogen gas to people. We may thus conclude that the definition of hydrogen is an odorless, tasteless, and invisible gas that if given enough time will become people.
Living cells are composed of many interdependent parts. Not one molecule in existence can replicate itself apart from a living cell. Then how did the first living cell come into existence? As the story goes, there was a massive buildup of organic molecules.
No one knows how this happened. If the early atmosphere had free oxygen, the oxygen would have destroyed the organic molecules. If the early atmosphere had no oxygen, then there would have been no ozone layer and the molecules would have been destroyed by radiation. But as long as our faith in this creation story is strong enough, this unsurpassable difficulty will not matter.
Scientists who believe in evolution say that the rocks that allegedly predate life are totally absent of any of the massive amounts of organic products necessary for life to begin. Some of that material would have certainly been trapped in those rocks if in fact the organic products ever existed. But faith in evolution will solve that problem too!
Since no cell could exist without proteins, which are assembled from amino acids, and since no molecule apart from a living cell can replicate itself, we should calculate the probability that one such protein could itself by chance. Ribonuclease is a digestive enzyme and is also one of the smallest proteins with only 124 amino acid links. The probability of this enzyme coming into existence by chance is one in a number that starts with two and is followed by 161 zeros. If one trillion such amino acids chains were formed every second, the number of years needed for the right one to happen once begins with 1 and is followed by 141 zeros; zillions times zillions the alleged age of the universe itself! If you have strong faith in the evolution creation story, you will accept that it must have happened somehow.
If one such protein formed by chance, we need at least 2000 others to have just one working cell. All of these proteins would have to form at the same time and place, and they would have to form inside the safe haven of the immensely complicated cell membrane. No one knows how this could happen.
Evolutionary scientists tell us that they have found microscopic fossils embedded in rocks predating all other lifeforms. Then, all of a sudden, nearly every major group of organisms appeared. This is the famed Cambrian explosion. Where did these animals come from? Our evolution story says that they evolved from animals that existed before them. But the problem is that there are absolutely no fossils predating these animals from which they could have evolved. If microscopic organisms can leave fossils, surely any animal could have as well.
Evolution scientists tell us 100 million years transpired between these invertebrates of Cambrian time and the arrival of fishes. 100 million years of evolution and no has the slightest idea of what invertebrate was ancestral to these fishes. Suddenly they appeared in the fossil record without a trace of what they could have evolved from. But if your faith is strong enough in evolution, this will be no problem for you.
There are other unbridgeable gaps the rest of the way through the fossil record from amoeba to man. But never mind, just use your imagination. So much for the creation story of evolution. RD
To bring an Inner Net link to offer as evidence is just the same as I presenting my faith in scriptures.
No it's not! Information from the internet can be checked an verified for evidence.
There are no contradictions proven, despite the claims there of, as all such secular claims are apparently based upon apparent "inability" to read clear and simple scripts.
not so simply when you have nearly hundreds of sects with different interpretations!
Theory is not "fact" and does not "trump" another opinion, for that is exactly what a theory is, an opinion of speculation.
wrong!
"In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition"
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory#Science
No matter what methodology is used to arrive at that unproven opinion, it in the end is still nothing but "opinion".
Both are unproven not only does science have evidence but the burden of proof lies on religion!
There is nothing offered by the secular world that proves anything in the script is not correct, only more opining.
according to your scriptures bats are birds and the earth was engulfed in flood water, both of which science has proven wrong!
You see the reason Science is always being the subject of anyone questioning its validity is due to the fact, that is the nature of the Beast. As I said real science is offered up with the "knowledge of the truth", what is in question is the political stance taken by the proponents of "P"seudo science and its attempt to pass off material that is only "theory" as fact.
[SIZE="3"]List of Theories[/SIZE]
Quantum Chromodynamics
Existence of Subnuclear particles (quarks)
Unification of the Electromagnetic and Weak Nuclear Force
High Temperature Superconductivity
Superconductivity -- BCS theory
Punctuated Equilibrium
Recombinant DNA
'Jumping' genes
Prion Theory of Disease
Endosymbiont Origin of Eukaryote Organelles
PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction)
Cloud physics theory of precipitation
Theory of the Ventilated Thermocline
Stommel and Arons theory of the Abyssal circulation
Plate Tectonics
Confocal and two-photon microscopy
as you can see theories aren't just speculation, they must withstand the rigors of science to be considered a scientific theory, they must have substancial evidence, your mis-usage of the word "Theory" shows your ignorance on the subject!
"In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition"
Then, anyone that questions the validity of the obvious fact that most of the theory of evolution is based upon "unprovable" speculation, or it would be the "LAW OF EVOLUTION". Yet you present it as superior due to the fact that it was arrived at via more theory stacked upon more theory.
"A scientific law concerns the physical or social world, it therefore must have empirical content and therefore be capable of testing and potentially Analytic statements that are true or false by logic alone are not scientific laws, though may feature as part of scientific theories.
The concept of a scientific law is closely related to the concept of a scientific theory. A scientific law attempts to describe an observation in nature while a scientific theory attempts to explain it."
In other words, Mr. Sagan is stating, that science does not have the truth and this moment and will not have the truth in the near future
I nor any scientists has ever claimed that science has the complete truth.
Thus, by his own admission, we must conclude that Mr. Sagan doesn't believe that anyone has the truth.
...not even religion!
Straw man.
And this explains what? That it is not valid because it was offered up by someone else?
No, it isn't valid because it doesn't accurately represent the views that are being endorsed by science.
To bring an Inner Net link to offer as evidence is just the same as I presenting my faith in scriptures.
There are no contradictions proven, despite the claims there of, as all such secular claims are apparently based upon apparent "inability" to read clear and simple scripts. Theory is not "fact" and does not "trump" another opinion, for that is exactly what a theory is, an opinion of speculation.
No matter what methodology is used to arrive at that unproven opinion, it in the end is still nothing but "opinion". There is nothing offered by the secular world that proves anything in the script is not correct, only more opining. You see the reason Science is always being the subject of anyone questioning its validity is due to the fact, that is the nature of the Beast. As I said real science is offered up with the "knowledge of the truth", what is in question is the political stance taken by the proponents of "P"seudo science and its attempt to pass off material that is only "theory" as fact. Then, anyone that questions the validity of the obvious fact that most of the theory of evolution is based upon "unprovable" speculation, or it would be the "LAW OF EVOLUTION". Yet you present it as superior due to the fact that it was arrived at via more theory stacked upon more theory.
To quote Carl Sagan,"Science is indeed a creation of man, is it offered as infallible proof? Science thrives on errors, cutting them away one by one. False conclusions are drawn all the time, but they are drawn tentatively. Hypothesis are framed so they are capable to be disproved.....Science staggers toward understanding." In other words, Mr. Sagan is stating, that science does not have the truth and this moment and will not have the truth in the near future, but men believe it is getting closer to the truth all the time. And this deserves to go without challenge, when it is presented as facts to disprove someones "FAITH"?
Carl Sagan also states that a scientist has no more trust of science as an authority than he does religion, government or superstitution. Science, he says, teaches a distrust of authority and even a distrust of your own hypothesis. Thus, by his own admission, we must conclude that Mr. Sagan doesn't believe that anyone has the truth.
You mean the "strawman" argument offered by "pseudoscience" not true science,
as in reality that is all it is, an argument based upon the speculations of those that change the "absolute" viable information every few years to fit into the pigeon hole of evolution?
The age of the "universe" has aged quicker than myself over the years. It started out as being calculated as in the 100s of million, into the billions, and now it rests at a little over 13 billion..
As I said true science is the "KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRUTH" and there is not an intelligent man alive that would disagree with "science actual"
But to simply dismiss someones opinion as worthless because it was the hypothesis of another is actually "hypocrisy" at its highest level,
Creationism is a Hypothesis and evolution is a scientific theory backed by hard evidence, that is more than just convincing. The basic concept has been proven. The question is not if evolution took place. What science is working on is how it happened. There is no evidence of any kind that creation took place in 6 days, a few thousand years ago. Learning,Speech,&Attention Defects | Man with learning disabilities, communication disorders, ADHD, becomes author
Evolution is not backed up by science, it is backed up by scientest pretending to use science. The testing of the age of the earth is based on 3 unknowns and at best requires 3 assumptions. That is not science. The lack of transitionals in the fossil record is replaced with evidence that amounts to guess work at best, and that is back up with artistic pictures of what a transitional might look like. And that is not science either. Most of the evidence for human Evolution has already been done away with. There is no Nebraska man, no Java man, no Piltdown man, no Neanderthal man, no Lucy, no orch man. Nothing, and all of this is called science by believers in Evolution. How can they say the basic concept has been proven, when there is no evidence for Evolution in the fossil record? Evolution has become a religion that is based not on evidence found, but on faith in things not seen.
Evolution is not backed up by science, it is backed up by scientest pretending to use science. The testing of the age of the earth is based on 3 unknowns and at best requires 3 assumptions. That is not science. The lack of transitionals in the fossil record is replaced with evidence that amounts to guess work at best, and that is back up with artistic pictures of what a transitional might look like. And that is not science either. Most of the evidence for human Evolution has already been done away with. There is no Nebraska man, no Java man, no Piltdown man, no Neanderthal man, no Lucy, no orch man. Nothing, and all of this is called science by believers in Evolution. How can they say the basic concept has been proven, when there is no evidence for Evolution in the fossil record? Evolution has become a religion that is based not on evidence found, but on faith in things not seen.
