[_ Old Earth _] Would you feel better...

[reznwerks]

Would you feel better about evolution if it could be proved we didn't originate in Africa? This article challeges the widely held belief that man originated in Africa by bringing forth evidence of man as old as 2.15 million years old in Asia.
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2005- ... 884681.htm

 

[unred typo]

Would you feel better about evolution if it could be proved we didn't originate in Africa? This article challeges the widely held belief that man originated in Africa by bringing forth evidence of man as old as 2.15 million years old in Asia.

Yes, if you’re a racist, we have a beginning for you and a very willing ally in the godless Communist country of China. Let’s not forget that some people are prejudiced against people of oriental descent as well. Keep looking for those beginnings in Europe. Just because the Neanderthal hoax by the German professor was exposed, don’t give up. There is an ancient man for the white Caucasian! I can feel it in my bones!

Hope from the article:

They are also of great significance to research on Paleolithic era in China and East Asia, and theories regarding multiple origins of mankind," said Liu. Enditem

They read the Bible. Cool. Shem, Ham, and Japheth’s families split at the tower of Babel. Now get out there and find some old bones. Any fragment will do, even a tooth. We can date it to whatever we need. We have the technology and the power and the glory, amen. No one dares challenge the mighty TOE. Kiss it, will you? :

 

[reznwerks]

racist

Would you feel better about evolution if it could be proved we didn't originate in Africa? This article challeges the widely held belief that man originated in Africa by bringing forth evidence of man as old as 2.15 million years old in Asia.

Yes, if you’re a racist, we have a beginning for you and a very willing ally in the godless Communist country of China. Let’s not forget that some people are prejudiced against people of oriental descent as well. Keep looking for those beginnings in Europe. Just because the Neanderthal hoax by the German professor was exposed, don’t give up. There is an ancient man for the white Caucasian! I can feel it in my bones!
I think you misread what I wrote. If anything it's fundamental Christians that resent the idea of being decended or related to the ape and it is the ape that is so readily associated with people of color.

Hope from the article:[quote:ae3a9]They are also of great significance to research on Paleolithic era in China and East Asia, and theories regarding multiple origins of mankind," said Liu. Enditem

They read the Bible. Cool. Shem, Ham, and Japheth’s families split at the tower of Babel.
Multiple origins of man does not help the biblical creation story in any sense. Splitting from certain biblical families is just that , a split not a creation.

Now get out there and find some old bones. Any fragment will do, even a tooth. We can date it to whatever we need. We have the technology and the power and the glory, amen. No one dares challenge the mighty TOE. Kiss it, will you? :
If you have something stronger than conviction we would all like to see it.

[/quote:ae3a9]

 

[unred typo]

Reznwerks wrote:

I think you misread what I wrote. If anything it's fundamental Christians that resent the idea of being decended or related to the ape and it is the ape that is so readily associated with people of color.

Black people should not be associated with apes any more than white people be associated with pink hairless breeds of cats and dogs. It’s ridiculous and racist.


Reznwerks wrote:

Multiple origins of man does not help the biblical creation story in any sense. Splitting from certain biblical families is just that , a split not a creation.

When families split at the tower of Babel, they separated physically from each other. The isolation of the genes caused the specialization of physical features such as skin tone, nose shape, hair qualities, etc. which we perceive as different races. Actually, we are all cousins and all related to the same ancestor; Noah.



Reznwerks wrote:

If you have something stronger than conviction we would all like to see it.

I came by my faith the old fashioned way through much soul searching, struggle and agony of spirit and mind. I’m not easily convinced, nor am I readily swayed from my convictions. I would be happy to serve that up to you on a platter but that’s not how it works. Everyone must be at peace with what they believe. Only you know whether you believe something because you want it to be true or whether you have refused to believe something even if it is proven to you. If you don’t have that internal integrity, it doesn’t matter what you hold to for evidence. You have embraced a lie. Blessed are those who having not seen, believe. For the rest of us, they make shovels and web search engines and these silly boards.

 

[Barbarian]

It is regrettable that "believing" has, for some Christians, become belief in the Seventh-Day Adventist doctrine of YE creationism.

It is not, and never has been a doctrine of Christian faith.

 

[unred typo]

I am not nor have I ever been a Seventh Day Adventist. I get my views by reading the Bible and Jasher.

 

[reznwerks]

post

Reznwerks wrote:

I think you misread what I wrote. If anything it's fundamental Christians that resent the idea of being decended or related to the ape and it is the ape that is so readily associated with people of color.

Black people should not be associated with apes any more than white people be associated with pink hairless breeds of cats and dogs. It’s ridiculous and racist.
Well whoopie for you , you're not a racist. Many evangelicals[especially) and fundamentalists are. Do you think the Klan is composed of Catholics?


Reznwerks wrote:[quote:337bd]Multiple origins of man does not help the biblical creation story in any sense. Splitting from certain biblical families is just that , a split not a creation.

When families split at the tower of Babel, they separated physically from each other. The isolation of the genes caused the specialization of physical features such as skin tone, nose shape, hair qualities, etc. which we perceive as different races. Actually, we are all cousins and all related to the same ancestor; Noah.
Were not talking about families spitting apart we are talking about mulitiple events creating man in different areas. Being physically separate from each other will not cause genes to change. The story of Noah is a fairtale that explains something you don't understand. I can say that when it thunders it means God got another strike at the bowling alley. You can't prove otherwise and it explains why we have that loud noise in the sky.



Reznwerks wrote:

If you have something stronger than conviction we would all like to see it.

I came by my faith the old fashioned way through much soul searching, struggle and agony of spirit and mind.
I have no doubt you did. However you came to your convictions without one shred of logical evidence.

I’m not easily convinced, nor am I readily swayed from my convictions. I would be happy to serve that up to you on a platter but that’s not how it works.
On the contrary you are easily swayed because you believe without evidence. If you were so sure you should be able to offer concrete evidence to convince all the atheists, skeptics etc that come here that they are wrong. You see we have looked at the evidence and found it wanting not the other way around.

Everyone must be at peace with what they believe.
Many people believe in things that are not true. They believe them to be true but they are not. Political ideology is an example. Communists for the most part beleive their system is best , capitolist believe theirs is best. It is what has been taught. Religions are the same.Believing doesn't make something true, evidence does or in some cases a lack of evidence does.

Only you know whether you believe something because you want it to be true or whether you have refused to believe something even if it is proven to you.

I accept the evidence as it is presented by those that are considered reliable in their field. I know full well that their is not a conspiracy because scientists are a very competitive lot and are trying to always outdo the other. If one scientist or evolutionist was trying to pull a fast one , his peers would be on his tail checking every letter, crossing every t and dotting every i. Christianity itself admits the frailty of its position when it says the "faith is the evidence of things not seen" and its preoccupation with belief and getting others to believe. If it had any evidence it would not need to preoccupy itself with believing without evidence.

If you don’t have that internal integrity, it doesn’t matter what you hold to for evidence. You have embraced a lie.
Internal integrity means looking at the evidence no matter where it leads. Can you honestly say you have hard evidence for what you believe? If so you again contradict what you bible says.

Blessed are those who having not seen, believe.
WHY?

For the rest of us, they make shovels and web search engines and these silly boards.
These silly boards are getting the truth out.

[/quote:337bd]

 

[Featherbop]

It is regrettable that "believing" has, for some Christians, become belief in the Seventh-Day Adventist doctrine of YE creationism.

If you suggesting that many christians equate beleif in God with beleif in YECism, then you've lost much credibility with me.
If not, then never mind.

Secondly, YECism is not only a SDA doctrine. Unless you are suggesting that most christians and churches are really SDAs or are not really christians....Which I wouldn't be suprised if you did make such an outrageous claim.

It is not, and never has been a doctrine of Christian faith.

You are either misinformed or lying. Which is it?

 

[unred typo]

Reznwerks wrote:

Well whoopie for you , you're not a racist. Many evangelicals[especially) and fundamentalists are. Do you think the Klan is composed of Catholics?

I’m not a fundy evangelical or catholic either. I don’t attend any church actually right now. I’m just hanging out with you fine folk and trying not to have too much fun.



Reznwerks wrote:

Were not talking about families spitting apart we are talking about mulitiple events creating man in different areas. Being physically separate from each other will not cause genes to change. The story of Noah is a fairtale that explains something you don't understand. I can say that when it thunders it means God got another strike at the bowling alley. You can't prove otherwise and it explains why we have that loud noise in the sky.

Wow, seriously? You think man evolved separately in different areas of the planet from what? Whatever. My fairy tale story of Noah is a documented eye witness account that’s a whole lot more respected than any joke your evolutionary friends have dreamed up. God doesn’t bowl, but His voice has been heard by human ears and said to resemble thunder. Some day you will hear it with your own ears. Should be exciting…wear protective underwear.


Reznwerks wrote:

On the contrary you are easily swayed because you believe without evidence. If you were so sure you should be able to offer concrete evidence to convince all the atheists, skeptics etc that come here that they are wrong. You see we have looked at the evidence and found it wanting not the other way aroun Many people believe in things that are not true. They believe them to be true but they are not. Political ideology is an example. Communists for the most part beleive their system is best , capitolist believe theirs is best. It is what has been taught. Religions are the same.Believing doesn't make something true, evidence does or in some cases a lack of evidence does. Internal integrity means looking at the evidence no matter where it leads. Can you honestly say you have hard evidence for what you believe? If so you again contradict what you bible says.

I don’t expect to convince anyone against their will. A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still. God leaves you the shadow of a doubt so you can choose without being forced to believe that which you don’t want to believe.



Reznwerks wrote:

(“Blessed are those who having not seen, believe“.)
WHY?

That is a quote from Jesus Christ. I guess they get double desserts. You may never know.



Reznwerks wrote:

These silly boards are getting the truth out.

Sure and a whole lot more misinformation.


Reznwerks wrote:

I accept the evidence as it is presented by those that are considered reliable in their field. I know full well that their is not a conspiracy because scientists are a very competitive lot and are trying to always outdo the other. If one scientist or evolutionist was trying to pull a fast one , his peers would be on his tail checking every letter, crossing every t and dotting every i. Christianity itself admits the frailty of its position when it says the "faith is the evidence of things not seen" and its preoccupation with belief and getting others to believe. If it had any evidence it would not need to preoccupy itself with believing without evidence.

The scientific peer review system has completely failed us more than once twice. Fraud and unscrupulous practices are thriving in the fertile soil of greed and ambition in practically every major human endeavor. The field of science is not teeming with chaste virgins of purest intentions even if their lab coats are white.

The faith of Christianity is the evidence not visible to the eye. The faith itself is the very evidence that can’t be explained nor exported to another. That is not to say that evidence is not available.

 

[reznwerks]

k

Reznwerks wrote:

Well whoopie for you , you're not a racist. Many evangelicals[especially) and fundamentalists are. Do you think the Klan is composed of Catholics?

I’m not a fundy evangelical or catholic either. I don’t attend any church actually right now. I’m just hanging out with you fine folk and trying not to have too much fun.
I never said you were racist. I said that most people who dislike the idea of evolution are fundamentalists and evangelicals who commonly link the idea of evolution with apes and those of color who live on the same continent.



Reznwerks wrote:[quote:c20c6]Were not talking about families spitting apart we are talking about mulitiple events creating man in different areas. Being physically separate from each other will not cause genes to change. The story of Noah is a fairtale that explains something you don't understand. I can say that when it thunders it means God got another strike at the bowling alley. You can't prove otherwise and it explains why we have that loud noise in the sky.

Wow, seriously? You think man evolved separately in different areas of the planet from what?
I have no idea. If you go back and read the article ,it suggested that man have originated in Asia first or Asia also. You really need to concentrate when you read.

Whatever. My fairy tale story of Noah is a documented eye witness account that’s a whole lot more respected than any joke your evolutionary friends have dreamed up. God doesn’t bowl, but His voice has been heard by human ears and said to resemble thunder. Some day you will hear it with your own ears. Should be exciting…wear protective underwear.
There are no eyewitnessess to Noah outside of the bible.There is no evidence for a worldwide flood outside of the bible except for the stories of Gilgamesh from which the stories originated. Why would God reiterate the story of Noah again?


Reznwerks wrote:

On the contrary you are easily swayed because you believe without evidence. If you were so sure you should be able to offer concrete evidence to convince all the atheists, skeptics etc that come here that they are wrong. You see we have looked at the evidence and found it wanting not the other way aroun Many people believe in things that are not true. They believe them to be true but they are not. Political ideology is an example. Communists for the most part beleive their system is best , capitolist believe theirs is best. It is what has been taught. Religions are the same.Believing doesn't make something true, evidence does or in some cases a lack of evidence does. Internal integrity means looking at the evidence no matter where it leads. Can you honestly say you have hard evidence for what you believe? If so you again contradict what you bible says.

I don’t expect to convince anyone against their will. A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still. God leaves you the shadow of a doubt so you can choose without being forced to believe that which you don’t want to believe.
Theres that issue again "belief". Why is it so important? Did you ever ask yourself why?



Reznwerks wrote:

(“Blessed are those who having not seen, believe“.)
WHY?

That is a quote from Jesus Christ. I guess they get double desserts. You may never know.
Aren't you doing what you claim you don't do and that is forcing or trying to force others to believe what the consious mind knows to be false and unlikely?Do you really think that God or the supernatural will alter the natural laws and change what was or is going to happen to suit your pleading or wants?



Reznwerks wrote:

These silly boards are getting the truth out.

Sure and a whole lot more misinformation.
Your "misinformation" can easily be confirmed at the library.If you don't accept that then your world is really, really confined.


Reznwerks wrote:

I accept the evidence as it is presented by those that are considered reliable in their field. I know full well that their is not a conspiracy because scientists are a very competitive lot and are trying to always outdo the other. If one scientist or evolutionist was trying to pull a fast one , his peers would be on his tail checking every letter, crossing every t and dotting every i. Christianity itself admits the frailty of its position when it says the "faith is the evidence of things not seen" and its preoccupation with belief and getting others to believe. If it had any evidence it would not need to preoccupy itself with believing without evidence.

The scientific peer review system has completely failed us more than once twice. Fraud and unscrupulous practices are thriving in the fertile soil of greed and ambition in practically every major human endeavor. The field of science is not teeming with chaste virgins of purest intentions even if their lab coats are white.
On the contrary the peer system has come to the rescue more than once. When science finds an error it corrects and moves on. You see science come up with an idea then makes a hypthesis, tests that hypothesis and documents the conclusion. Religion you see has the answer and are trying desparately to confirm it. When they don't find what they need or find something that contradicts what the answer is they keep looking. This is not scientific nor honest.

The faith of Christianity is the evidence not visible to the eye. The faith itself is the very evidence that can’t be explained nor exported to another. That is not to say that evidence is not available.
You finally admit it.[/quote:c20c6]

 

[unred typo]

Reznwerks wrote:

There are no eyewitnessess to Noah outside of the bible.There is no evidence for a worldwide flood outside of the bible except for the stories of Gilgamesh from which the stories originated. Why would God reiterate the story of Noah again?

The various flood legends are corruptions of the actual account in Genesis and Jasher. Jasher and Genesis are separate written histories that witness to the same major events of the world, especially as they related to the nation of Israel. After the tower of Babel, families of man took their knowledge with them to their corner of the globe. Apparently only the Jews were faithful to remember and keep the most detailed and credible report.

Reznwerks wrote:

Theres that issue again "belief". Why is it so important? Did you ever ask yourself why?

Because we were not there to witness the actual happenings, we must rely on the written and spoken remembrances of those who were or who knew them. I have no knowledge of the war conditions of Valley Forge but for the written records. The further something is from it’s occurrence, the less writings we can expect to find about it. I’m quite happy with the two Jewish histories of the flood. They basically agree and make sense when you examine the flood layers of sediments around the world. Especially when you have the additional floods in Jasher with a period of at least a hundred years separation. Many ‘giants in the land’ must have been exterminated with the sudden overflowing of the River Gihon. If they lived close to water in the lowlands, they would suffer the most casualties. It is entirely possible some populations went extinct then and during the recorded famines afterward.

Reznwerks wrote:

Aren't you doing what you claim you don't do and that is forcing or trying to force others to believe what the consious mind knows to be false and unlikely?Do you really think that God or the supernatural will alter the natural laws and change what was or is going to happen to suit your pleading or wants?

LOL. I said I didn’t expect to change any minds against their will, not that I wouldn’t try. If God were to try to force you to see the truth, you would probably be more than convinced no matter what you may have wanted to believe. He might do such a thing in answer to special pleading by a persistent dedicated praying parent but that is not a usual occurrence.

Reznwerks wrote:

Your "misinformation" can easily be confirmed at the library.If you don't accept that then your world is really, really confined.

My world of knowledge extends to the height of God’s throne and is only limited by my ability to accept the truth and reject my cherished errors, whatever they may be. I have noticed over the years that He pries them from my clutching fingers very slowly so I don’t lose all my faith while giving up an idea that belongs in the trash.

Reznwerks wrote:

On the contrary the peer system has come to the rescue more than once. When science finds an error it corrects and moves on. You see science come up with an idea then makes a hypthesis, tests that hypothesis and documents the conclusion. Religion you see has the answer and are trying desparately to confirm it. When they don't find what they need or find something that contradicts what the answer is they keep looking. This is not scientific nor honest.

You’re right about one thing. Religion starts with the truth and interprets the evidence to conform to what is written in the historical account. The biggest problem comes when Bible believers rush to conform to the present scientific view, when actually they have been given scientific misinformation in the guise of genuine facts. The scientific community itself has admitted that the peer system has failed and needs desperately to be set in order before more fraud and inaccuracies embarrass the entire field.

Unred previously: “The faith of Christianity is the evidence not visible to the eye. The faith itself is the very evidence that can’t be explained nor exported to another. That is not to say that evidence is not available.â€Â
Reznwerks wrote:

You finally admit it.

Admit what? That faith is invisible? That faith can’t be exported to unbelievers? That those facts about faith do not mean that the evidence is unavailable? What did I admit finally?

 

[reznwerks]

legends

Reznwerks wrote:

There are no eyewitnessess to Noah outside of the bible.There is no evidence for a worldwide flood outside of the bible except for the stories of Gilgamesh from which the stories originated. Why would God reiterate the story of Noah again?

The various flood legends are corruptions of the actual account in Genesis and Jasher. Jasher and Genesis are separate written histories that witness to the same major events of the world, especially as they related to the nation of Israel.
Sorry but the various flood stories are not corruptions since they PREDATE the bible. If anything the story of Noah is a corruption.

After the tower of Babel, families of man took their knowledge with them to their corner of the globe. Apparently only the Jews were faithful to remember and keep the most detailed and credible report.
You weren't there but do you see how you have to improvise and assume what happened to make sense of what you believe?

Reznwerks wrote:[quote:2ac6e] Theres that issue again "belief". Why is it so important? Did you ever ask yourself why?

Because we were not there to witness the actual happenings, we must rely on the written and spoken remembrances of those who were or who knew them.
Then in all fairness we must look at the reliability of the messenger. We don't have any info on him , his reliability , his honesty, etc etc etc. So in order to confirm we need to look at hard evidence to help confirm the story but alas it is missing. Not only is it missing but an event of this magnitude would surly leave some signs. It hasn't.

I have no knowledge of the war conditions of Valley Forge but for the written records.
However the records are varied and many. Secondly we know who wrote these records and their reliability for honesty. More important all the records record the same thing. That is how history is validated. You need several reliable independent sources. Outside of the bible many stories are not confirmable and some are so fantastic it is odd that none exist if true.

The further something is from it’s occurrence, the less writings we can expect to find about it.
Your making excuses again. This goes back to bending backward to make your beliefs real.

I’m quite happy with the two Jewish histories of the flood. They basically agree and make sense when you examine the flood layers of sediments around the world.
What part of the sediment evidence don't you understand? The sediment does not support a flood . I can't be more plain than that and the evidence can't be more plain than that. It never happened.

Especially when you have the additional floods in Jasher with a period of at least a hundred years separation. Many ‘giants in the land’ must have been exterminated with the sudden overflowing of the River Gihon. If they lived close to water in the lowlands, they would suffer the most casualties. It is entirely possible some populations went extinct then and during the recorded famines afterward.
You used the term "must have" "if" "entiriely possible" in one paragraph in order for you to make sense of the flood story.

Reznwerks wrote:

Aren't you doing what you claim you don't do and that is forcing or trying to force others to believe what the consious mind knows to be false and unlikely?Do you really think that God or the supernatural will alter the natural laws and change what was or is going to happen to suit your pleading or wants?

LOL. I said I didn’t expect to change any minds against their will, not that I wouldn’t try.
Showing reliable , factual, even believable evidence is not "forcing" a change in anyones mind. In fact if it can be shown that I am wrong I will do an about face as will others that share my views. As I said we have come to our conclusions based on the evidence not in spite of it .

If God were to try to force you to see the truth, you would probably be more than convinced no matter what you may have wanted to believe. He might do such a thing in answer to special pleading by a persistent dedicated praying parent but that is not a usual occurrence.

God should'nt have to force me to see the truth. I think God has more important things to do if he exists than to hide the evidence of a flood he initiated.

Reznwerks wrote:

Your "misinformation" can easily be confirmed at the library.If you don't accept that then your world is really, really confined.

My world of knowledge extends to the height of God’s throne and is only limited by my ability to accept the truth and reject my cherished errors, whatever they may be. I have noticed over the years that He pries them from my clutching fingers very slowly so I don’t lose all my faith while giving up an idea that belongs in the trash.
When I was a child I acted and spoke like a child....

Reznwerks wrote:

On the contrary the peer system has come to the rescue more than once. When science finds an error it corrects and moves on. You see science come up with an idea then makes a hypthesis, tests that hypothesis and documents the conclusion. Religion you see has the answer and are trying desparately to confirm it. When they don't find what they need or find something that contradicts what the answer is they keep looking. This is not scientific nor honest.

You’re right about one thing. Religion starts with the truth and interprets the evidence to conform to what is written in the historical account. The biggest problem comes when Bible believers rush to conform to the present scientific view, when actually they have been given scientific misinformation in the guise of genuine facts. The scientific community itself has admitted that the peer system has failed and needs desperately to be set in order before more fraud and inaccuracies embarrass the entire field.
Sorry but the peer system is alive and well in the scientific community and it works quite well.

Unred previously: “The faith of Christianity is the evidence not visible to the eye. The faith itself is the very evidence that can’t be explained nor exported to another. That is not to say that evidence is not available.â€Â

It should be readily available if it is true.
Reznwerks wrote:

You finally admit it.

Admit what? That faith is invisible? That faith can’t be exported to unbelievers? That those facts about faith do not mean that the evidence is unavailable? What did I admit finally?
You admit that faith is all you have for your convictions. It can't be more simple than that. You believe because you have no evidence.

[/quote:2ac6e]

 

[unred typo]

Reznwerks wrote:

Sorry but the various flood stories are not corruptions since they PREDATE the bible. If anything the story of Noah is a corruption.

Figures don’t lie but liars figure.


Reznwerks wrote:

You weren't there but do you see how you have to improvise and assume what happened to make sense of what you believe?

LOL. Evolution doesn’t have enough human remains to fill a closet but they have enough books on the subject to fill a library. You’d think we knew more about early man than we know about Michael Jackson. You’ve got archeologists telling us what kind of cereal they ate for breakfast.


Reznwerks wrote:

Then in all fairness we must look at the reliability of the messenger. We don't have any info on him , his reliability , his honesty, etc etc etc. So in order to confirm we need to look at hard evidence to help confirm the story but alas it is missing. Not only is it missing but an event of this magnitude would surly leave some signs. It hasn't.

It has. Your friends have buried it in their hypothetical scenarios and given evidence another spin and fudged the dates. Wake up and smell the radiocarbon. Has your evidence been washed and thoroughly prepared for dating or has it been contaminated by too much time out of the dirt?


Reznwerks wrote:

Outside of the bible many stories are not confirmable and some are so fantastic it is odd that none exist if true.

It’s odd that you think it’s odd. If the people watching the events believed them, they were believers, so you don’t count their testimony. If the people who saw the events refused to accept them for evidence that Jesus was the Son of God, what makes you think they would want to propagate the story? They killed the messenger. What will they do with the message? You make no sense. Saul was a Pharisee who killed Christians. He met the risen Christ and became Paul, a Christian who was killed for his faith in Christ. What does that tell you?

Reznwerks wrote:

You used the term "must have" "if" "entiriely possible" in one paragraph in order for you to make sense of the flood story.

That’s because I’m being intellectually honest. If I were an Evolutionist, I would be stating my ‘facts’ as if I were an eyewitness to the events.

Reznwerks wrote:

Showing reliable , factual, even believable evidence is not "forcing" a change in anyones mind. In fact if it can be shown that I am wrong I will do an about face as will others that share my views. As I said we have come to our conclusions based on the evidence not in spite of it .

Sure, we all do. You just happened to get some really biased, one sided opinions of the evidence and took them as gospel. I got my views of Evolution by reading Evolutionary sites, too. Their own evidence speaks against them.

Reznwerks wrote:

God should'nt have to force me to see the truth. I think God has more important things to do if he exists than to hide the evidence of a flood he initiated.

And he shouldn’t have to endure your insulting, arrogant insinuations and accusations but he does. The evidence for a flood is there. You’re ignoring it. 2 Peter 3:5,6 In the last days there shall come scoffers, walking after their own lusts, saying, Where is the promise of his coming, for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they are willingly ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: whereby the world that then was, perished:.

Reznwerks wrote:

When I was a child I acted and spoke like a child....

I’m sure you did. I put away childish things and you will to, if you ever grow up. But today is a gorgeous day and you’re not… I’ll finish this and any others later in the gloom of night. :

 

[reznwerks]

more?

Reznwerks wrote:

Sorry but the various flood stories are not corruptions since they PREDATE the bible. If anything the story of Noah is a corruption.

Figures don’t lie but liars figure.
I'm just pointing out the reality of dates.


Reznwerks wrote:[quote:f610c] You weren't there but do you see how you have to improvise and assume what happened to make sense of what you believe?

LOL. Evolution doesn’t have enough human remains to fill a closet but they have enough books on the subject to fill a library. You’d think we knew more about early man than we know about Michael Jackson. You’ve got archeologists telling us what kind of cereal they ate for breakfast.
I think you have been in a closet for a long time but unfortunaely not the one with all the bones. You have assumptions that are not accurate. After all it only takes one bit of bone and that is a lot more evidence than faith.


Reznwerks wrote:

Then in all fairness we must look at the reliability of the messenger. We don't have any info on him , his reliability , his honesty, etc etc etc. So in order to confirm we need to look at hard evidence to help confirm the story but alas it is missing. Not only is it missing but an event of this magnitude would surly leave some signs. It hasn't.

It has. Your friends have buried it in their hypothetical scenarios and given evidence another spin and fudged the dates. Wake up and smell the radiocarbon. Has your evidence been washed and thoroughly prepared for dating or has it been contaminated by too much time out of the dirt?
Sorry but for you to be right,do you realize how many people have to be wrong? Do you realize how many people you are claiming to be involved in this coverup? Sorry but this many people can't be expected to keep a secret for this long.


Reznwerks wrote:

Outside of the bible many stories are not confirmable and some are so fantastic it is odd that none exist if true.

It’s odd that you think it’s odd. If the people watching the events believed them, they were believers, so you don’t count their testimony.
Who saw them? Secondly people believe all sorts of lies and mistruths. They even die for them.(Look at 911) That doesn't make them real.

If the people who saw the events refused to accept them for evidence that Jesus was the Son of God, what makes you think they would want to propagate the story?
Why would they deny the events if they were true? Be serious. Who in their right mind would deny the power of God if the events were true. The sad fact of this is that all those fantastic stories the bible tells about are not recorded by anyone outside of the bible.

They killed the messenger. What will they do with the message? You make no sense. Saul was a Pharisee who killed Christians. He met the risen Christ and became Paul, a Christian who was killed for his faith in Christ. What does that tell you?
Be serious. Why would they kill the messenger if he was really from God. How could anyone in their right mind think they could get away with anything if they really thought God was involved. You know how people love to hang with the important and powerful. What better way and what more powerful motive than to embrace what they saw and have everlasting life. Come on already , think. Christianity is the best game in town if it were true. Walk the straight and narrow , profess to believe and live forever. It's a piece of cake. As for Paul as I said many times he never met Jesus in the flesh. All we have is a claim by Paul and two conflicting stories in the bible about the so called vision. Paul contradicts Jesus on many issues and you want to give this guy the time of day?

Reznwerks wrote:

You used the term "must have" "if" "entiriely possible" in one paragraph in order for you to make sense of the flood story.

That’s because I’m being intellectually honest. If I were an Evolutionist, I would be stating my ‘facts’ as if I were an eyewitness to the events.
Then being intellectually honest confirms what I said and that is you have no hard evidence.

Reznwerks wrote:

Showing reliable , factual, even believable evidence is not "forcing" a change in anyones mind. In fact if it can be shown that I am wrong I will do an about face as will others that share my views. As I said we have come to our conclusions based on the evidence not in spite of it .

Sure, we all do. You just happened to get some really biased, one sided opinions of the evidence and took them as gospel. I got my views of Evolution by reading Evolutionary sites, too. Their own evidence speaks against them.
No again. I look at the hard evidence from people that study it and are knowledgeable in the disipline of evolution and accept it rather than believe a book that can't be backed up with physical evidence written by people with first names only and no credentials.

Reznwerks wrote:

God should'nt have to force me to see the truth. I think God has more important things to do if he exists than to hide the evidence of a flood he initiated.

And he shouldn’t have to endure your insulting, arrogant insinuations and accusations but he does. The evidence for a flood is there. You’re ignoring it. 2 Peter 3:5,6 In the last days there shall come scoffers, walking after their own lusts, saying, Where is the promise of his coming, for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they are willingly ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: whereby the world that then was, perished:.
If he bible were true we could probably use it in the manner you suggest but we can't. It is not reliable and the physical evidence does not support a flood. Here is why the flood never happened.
http://ptet.dubar.com/reasons-not-model.html
http://quinnell.us/religion/reasons/jesus.html
http://quinnell.us/religion/reasons/science.html
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/ ... /flood.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropol ... /ssotb.htm


Reznwerks wrote:

When I was a child I acted and spoke like a child....

I’m sure you did. I put away childish things and you will to, if you ever grow up. But today is a gorgeous day and you’re not… I’ll finish this and any others later in the gloom of night. :

I was once like you but I have grown up but you cling to the tales you were told.
[/quote:f610c]

 

[unred typo]

Reznwerks wrote:

Sorry but the peer system is alive and well in the scientific community and it works quite well.

Here are just three separate examples of three different areas of science I found in a quick web surf:

The once "highly competent system of rigorous analysis and observation" doesn’t hold up any more under the numerous publications in the field, said Ingolf Ruge, director of Systems of Communication at the Fraunhofer Institute for Applied Science. Speaking in an official statement on the state of science, Ruge criticized the "neglect of ethics in the scientific community" and said that the sharp referee system of peer review prior to publishing was a "mess."

For the past twenty years, Fujimura had been in the academic and media spotlight for a series of extraordinary discoveries dating from the Early and Middle Paleolithic Periods. In a career that spanned more than two decades, Fujimura’s findings had appeared to push back the earliest human habitation of Japan from 30,000 to 600,000 years ago. The Kamitakamori site in particular had captured worldwide attention, as evidence unearthed by Fujimura seemed to show not only that early humans inhabited the area 600,000 years ago, but that these early humans were more intelligent than their contemporaries elsewhere in the world. In the words of one archaeologist, Fujimura had been in the process of “rewriting the story of human evolution.â€Â
Fujimura initially only admitted to the two cases in which his forgeries had been witnessed. However, re-examination of several other sites where he had worked yielded more planted artifacts, and a review of his previous discoveries revealed surface damage and traces of different types of sediment on the artifacts, suggesting that the artifacts had been transported from a different site. Although many of Fujimura’s artifacts had been examined by specialists and been loaned out for exhibitions, such details had gone largely unnoticed. Even after the first forgeries were exposed, it took time for a consensus to develop among scholars that Fujimura’s other discoveries were suspect. Fujimura’s confession in the fall of 2001 confirmed that his forgery had begun as early as 1980 and involved 42 sites. It is possible that most of the sites with which he was involved in his long career – over 180 in all – were affected by his forgery.
Reactions to the Scandal
The Japanese media avidly reports the latest developments in archaeology, and major discoveries often make national headlines. Fujimura’s findings were therefore widely publicized, and his more important discoveries were incorporated into school textbooks (references to these findings were quickly removed after the forgery was revealed). Books on archaeology and Japanese history came to include descriptions of the Early/Middle Paleolithic Period based on Fujimura’s discoveries, which appeared to overturn the belief that Japan’s earliest inhabitants migrated approximately 30,000 years ago from what is now Korea.
News of the scandal quickly spread around the world. The New York Times poked fun at the archaeology-related merchandizing efforts of towns near Fujimura’s sites, which had tried to bolster their flagging economies by selling “Early Man†brand sake, sweet buns, and noodle soup, and holding an “Early Man Marathonâ€Â. The same article criticized Japan’s “giddy archaeology boom†which took place “without peer review, and even without a scientific dating of the artifacts,†and quoted Fujimura’s bizarre explanation that “the devil made me do it.â€Â1 Newsweek described Fujimura’s downfall under the headline “Japan loses a million years of human prehistory,†and pointed to a dissent-stifling “cordiality†in Japanese academic circles.2 In January 2001, the British journal Science ran a strongly-worded article titled “Japanese Fraud Highlights Media-Driven Research Ethic,†which stated that:
[The Fujimura scandal] exposes a sloppy side of Japanese archaeology in which press conferences take precedence over publication, few scientists bother to study artifacts once they are plucked from the ground, and there is little public debate over the scientific merits of any claim… Scientists say this competition has had a corroding effect on archaeology in Japan. Press conferences are typically held at sites to trumpet the latest findings.

A flamboyant anthropology professor, whose work had been cited as evidence Neanderthal man once lived in Northern Europe, has resigned after a German university panel ruled he fabricated data and plagiarized the works of his colleagues.
Reiner Protsch von Zieten, a Frankfurt university panel ruled, lied about the age of human skulls, dating them tens of thousands of years old, even though they were much younger, reports Deutsche Welle. Among their findings was an age of only 3,300 years for the female "Bischof-Speyer" skeleton, found with unusually good teeth in Northern Germany, that Protsch dated to 21,300 years.
Another dating error was identified for a skull found near Paderborn, Germany, that Protsch dated at 27,400 years old. It was believed to be the oldest human remain found in the region until the Oxford investigations indicated it belonged to an elderly man who died in 1750.
"The commission finds that Prof. Protsch has forged and manipulated scientific facts over the past 30 years," the university said of the widely recognized expert in carbon data in a prepared statement. "Anthropology now has to revise its picture of modern man between 40,000 and 10,000 B.C.," added Thomas Terberger, an archaeologist at the University of Greifswald.
Frankfurt University's president, Rudolf Steinberg, apologized for the university's failure to curb Protsch's misconduct for decades. "A lot of people looked the other way," he said.

Reznwerks wrote:

You admit that faith is all you have for your convictions. It can't be more simple than that. You believe because you have no evidence.
It (evidence) should be readily available if it is true.

It’s available. Some of us are too lazy to look it up and some of us don’t need it to believe and some of us don’t want it to be found and some of us looked it up so long ago, they forgot where they put it. :

 

[reznwerks]

bogus

Reznwerks wrote:

Sorry but the peer system is alive and well in the scientific community and it works quite well.

Here are just three separate examples of three different areas of science I found in a quick web surf:[quote:77b8b]The once "highly competent system of rigorous analysis and observation" doesn’t hold up any more under the numerous publications in the field, said Ingolf Ruge, director of Systems of Communication at the for Applied Science. Speaking in an official statement on the state of science, Ruge criticized the "neglect of ethics in the scientific community" and said that the sharp referee system of peer review prior to publishing was a "mess."

For the past twenty years, Fujimura had been in the academic and media spotlight for a series of extraordinary discoveries dating from the Early and Middle Paleolithic Periods. In a career that spanned more than two decades, Fujimura’s findings had appeared to push back the earliest human habitation of Japan from 30,000 to 600,000 years ago. The Kamitakamori site in particular had captured worldwide attention, as evidence unearthed by Fujimura seemed to show not only that early humans inhabited the area 600,000 years ago, but that these early humans were more intelligent than their contemporaries elsewhere in the world. In the words of one archaeologist, Fujimura had been in the process of “rewriting the story of human evolution.â€Â
Fujimura initially only admitted to the two cases in which his forgeries had been witnessed. However, re-examination of several other sites where he had worked yielded more planted artifacts, and a review of his previous discoveries revealed surface damage and traces of different types of sediment on the artifacts, suggesting that the artifacts had been transported from a different site. Although many of Fujimura’s artifacts had been examined by specialists and been loaned out for exhibitions, such details had gone largely unnoticed. Even after the first forgeries were exposed, it took time for a consensus to develop among scholars that Fujimura’s other discoveries were suspect. Fujimura’s confession in the fall of 2001 confirmed that his forgery had begun as early as 1980 and involved 42 sites. It is possible that most of the sites with which he was involved in his long career – over 180 in all – were affected by his forgery.
Reactions to the Scandal
The Japanese media avidly reports the latest developments in archaeology, and major discoveries often make national headlines. Fujimura’s findings were therefore widely publicized, and his more important discoveries were incorporated into school textbooks (references to these findings were quickly removed after the forgery was revealed). Books on archaeology and Japanese history came to include descriptions of the Early/Middle Paleolithic Period based on Fujimura’s discoveries, which appeared to overturn the belief that Japan’s earliest inhabitants migrated approximately 30,000 years ago from what is now Korea.
News of the scandal quickly spread around the world. The New York Times poked fun at the archaeology-related merchandizing efforts of towns near Fujimura’s sites, which had tried to bolster their flagging economies by selling “Early Man†brand sake, sweet buns, and noodle soup, and holding an “Early Man Marathonâ€Â. The same article criticized Japan’s “giddy archaeology boom†which took place “without peer review, and even without a scientific dating of the artifacts,†and quoted Fujimura’s bizarre explanation that “the devil made me do it.â€Â1 Newsweek described Fujimura’s downfall under the headline “Japan loses a million years of human prehistory,†and pointed to a dissent-stifling “cordiality†in Japanese academic circles.2 In January 2001, the British journal Science ran a strongly-worded article titled “Japanese Fraud Highlights Media-Driven Research Ethic,†which stated that:
[The Fujimura scandal] exposes a sloppy side of Japanese archaeology in which press conferences take precedence over publication, few scientists bother to study artifacts once they are plucked from the ground, and there is little public debate over the scientific merits of any claim… Scientists say this competition has had a corroding effect on archaeology in Japan. Press conferences are typically held at sites to trumpet the latest findings.

A flamboyant anthropology professor, whose work had been cited as evidence Neanderthal man once lived in Northern Europe, has resigned after a German university panel ruled he fabricated data and plagiarized the works of his colleagues.
Reiner Protsch von Zieten, a Frankfurt university panel ruled, lied about the age of human skulls, dating them tens of thousands of years old, even though they were much younger, reports Deutsche Welle. Among their findings was an age of only 3,300 years for the female "Bischof-Speyer" skeleton, found with unusually good teeth in Northern Germany, that Protsch dated to 21,300 years.
Another dating error was identified for a skull found near Paderborn, Germany, that Protsch dated at 27,400 years old. It was believed to be the oldest human remain found in the region until the Oxford investigations indicated it belonged to an elderly man who died in 1750.
"The commission finds that Prof. Protsch has forged and manipulated scientific facts over the past 30 years," the university said of the widely recognized expert in carbon data in a prepared statement. "Anthropology now has to revise its picture of modern man between 40,000 and 10,000 B.C.," added Thomas Terberger, an archaeologist at the University of Greifswald.
Frankfurt University's president, Rudolf Steinberg, apologized for the university's failure to curb Protsch's misconduct for decades. "A lot of people looked the other way," he said.

All that and you still missed the point. It was fellow scientists that made the correction and it is fellow scientists that are sounding the alarm. You really are having a difficult time with this. You have just confirmed my case, thank you very much.




Reznwerks wrote:

You admit that faith is all you have for your convictions. It can't be more simple than that. You believe because you have no evidence.
It (evidence) should be readily available if it is true.

It’s available. Some of us are too lazy to look it up and some of us don’t need it to believe and some of us don’t want it to be found and some of us looked it up so long ago, they forgot where they put it. :
That is why the bible says you must have faith and believe without evidence. You have no hard evidence otherwise it would be readily available.[/quote:77b8b]

 

[unred typo]

Reznwerks wrote:

All that and you still missed the point. It was fellow scientists that made the correction and it is fellow scientists that are sounding the alarm. You really are having a difficult time with this. You have just confirmed my case, thank you very much.

What case is that? The efficiency of the peer system that caught one of their own after a few decades of ignoring the facts? Or another one caught planting ‘evidence’ 180 sites later? Or the one slated for the Nobel prize who had published dozens of well accepted and received papers on phony experiments? Don’t make me dig up the stats. I’ll just have to find additional examples for good measure.


Reznwerks wrote:

That is why the bible says you must have faith and believe without evidence. You have no hard evidence otherwise it would be readily available.

It is. You hate it.

 

[reznwerks]

doesn't

Reznwerks wrote:

All that and you still missed the point. It was fellow scientists that made the correction and it is fellow scientists that are sounding the alarm. You really are having a difficult time with this. You have just confirmed my case, thank you very much.

What case is that? The efficiency of the peer system that caught one of their own after a few decades of ignoring the facts? Or another one caught planting ‘evidence’ 180 sites later? Or the one slated for the Nobel prize who had published dozens of well accepted and received papers on phony experiments? Don’t make me dig up the stats. I’ll just have to find additional examples for good measure.
It doesn't matter , it works. Should I also bring up the bogus "christian archeologists and scientists" that make astounding claims as well? Here try looking at these.
http://home.texoma.net/~linesden/cem/cemindex.htm
http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/wacky_websites.htm
Here is the statement of "faith" that the members for ICR must sign in order to employed by them. Does this sound honest and more importantly does it sound like they are looking for the truth?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/ar ... /faith.asp
This should be an embarrassment to anyone that can still think.
The sites I gave you have links to other sites as well and as I said if you don't accept any facts outside the bible that is your business but it doesn't change the truth.




Reznwerks wrote:[quote:b5f09] That is why the bible says you must have faith and believe without evidence. You have no hard evidence otherwise it would be readily available.

It is. You hate it.
I don't hate what doesn't exist. How could I with a clear
consious deny the truth? I may try to deny it to others but I could not deny it to myself.[/quote:b5f09]

 

[unred typo]

Reznwerks wrote:

This should be an embarrassment to anyone that can still think.
The sites I gave you have links to other sites as well and as I said if you don't accept any facts outside the bible that is your business but it doesn't change the truth.

Denying there are facts outside the Bible that give evidence of it’s authenticity is a very deceptive misinformation practice that one might expect to find employed by unscrupulous leaders in a Communist country. Have you even read the sites I posted?

Reznwerks wrote:

I don't hate what doesn't exist. How could I with a clear
consious deny the truth? I may try to deny it to others but I could not deny it to myself.

That would be silly, wouldn’t it? Unless you lied to yourself because you really didn’t want to believe that God was real. But then again, what possible motive could anyone have for that?

 

[reznwerks]

however

Reznwerks wrote:

This should be an embarrassment to anyone that can still think.
The sites I gave you have links to other sites as well and as I said if you don't accept any facts outside the bible that is your business but it doesn't change the truth.

Denying there are facts outside the Bible that give evidence of it’s authenticity is a very deceptive misinformation practice that one might expect to find employed by unscrupulous leaders in a Communist country. Have you even read the sites I posted?
That is the point. This is not a communist country. You are free to go to your local library and compare what is claimed and decide what is real and what is not. The bottom line is that outside of the bible there is no first hand evidence of the claims made in the bible. What is first hand evidence. Answer : evidence that originated at the time and place of the claim. All evidence is hear say(not heresy). All the stories have occurred before in religions that predate Christianity. More importantly the claims made are fantastic and if anything there should be a wealth of evidence and there is not.

Reznwerks wrote:[quote:3e259]I don't hate what doesn't exist. How could I with a clear
consious deny the truth? I may try to deny it to others but I could not deny it to myself.

That would be silly, wouldn’t it? Unless you lied to yourself because you really didn’t want to believe that God was real. But then again, what possible motive could anyone have for that?
That is exactly correct. How could I or anyone else deny the truth if it were real? Think about it. People like us haven't come to our conclusions out of spite . We have gotten here by comparing and analyzing objectively the evidence and likleyhood of the claims ever happening.

[/quote:3e259]