[_ Old Earth _] The fallacy of evolution

[Quid]

So you believe Noah reached into Go'd eye and pulled out some grace?

I mean, that's what you'd have to believe if you take the bible literally anyway.

 

[Solo]

So you believe Noah reached into Go'd eye and pulled out some grace?

I mean, that's what you'd have to believe if you take the bible literally anyway.

The literal portions of the Bible are easy to pick out from the allegorical statements. :o

 

[Loren Michael]

So you believe Noah reached into Go'd eye and pulled out some grace?

I mean, that's what you'd have to believe if you take the bible literally anyway.

The literal portions of the Bible are easy to pick out from the allegorical statements. :o

i agree. one would assume that the literal portions would not throw reality as we know it out a window.

 

[noblej6]

Hi solo,

So let's deal with just one of these issues. How about the atoll that was mentioned that would be 250000 years old. What do you have to say there. What about that new island that is being created in the Hawaian chain? Where was the bug for the bird flu in Jesus' day?

Who was this homo erectus? Pick any one you want.

We need more than just a man made denial that the bible doesn't allow for evolution. I showed you possibilities where evolution can fit with scripture. All we have is your personal assurance that God meant 24 hours...that won't negate millions of weeks worldwide of scientific study. Are all scientists in some world wide sinful lying scheme to ruin Christianity?

Answer just this question.....if Jesus didn't create evolution, where did it come from because it is out there as sure as Jesus walked on water.

Justme

 

[Solo]

Hi solo,

So let's deal with just one of these issues. How about the atoll that was mentioned that would be 250000 years old. What do you have to say there. What about that new island that is being created in the Hawaian chain? Where was the bug for the bird flu in Jesus' day?

Who was this homo erectus? Pick any one you want.

We need more than just a man made denial that the bible doesn't allow for evolution. I showed you possibilities where evolution can fit with scripture. All we have is your personal assurance that God meant 24 hours...that won't negate millions of weeks worldwide of scientific study. Are all scientists in some world wide sinful lying scheme to ruin Christianity?

Answer just this question.....if Jesus didn't create evolution, where did it come from because it is out there as sure as Jesus walked on water.

Justme

I'd say that your understanding of the observation in the physical realm are flawed by a worldly influence. The earth is not an old earth as evolutionists require. micro-evolution within each created kind is not a problem. macro-evolution creating kinds from different kinds as man evolved from a single cell is a lie. Created man was a man just as a man is today. If you want to believe in a lie, suit yourself. I will be quite confident that your position will be burnt up as wood, hay, and stubble at the end.

 

[noblej6]

HI solo,

Take a look at a post I sent to Heidi in that other thrad.

However, here you never dealt with a single issue, how cum?

You say man is the same from day one!!!!!!!! Tell us what those skeletal remains of the Neanderthals are all about. Let's see something.

noble6

 

[Solo]

HI solo,

Take a look at a post I sent to Heidi in that other thrad.

However, here you never dealt with a single issue, how cum?

You say man is the same from day one!!!!!!!! Tell us what those skeletal remains of the Neanderthals are all about. Let's see something.

noble6

You can believe what you want to. I'll believe the Word of God.

History of modern man unravels as German scholar is exposed as fraud

Flamboyant anthropologist falsified dating of key discoveries

Luke Harding in Berlin
Saturday February 19, 2005
The Guardian


It appeared to be one of archaeology's most sensational finds. The skull fragment discovered in a peat bog near Hamburg was more than 36,000 years old - and was the vital missing link between modern humans and Neanderthals.
This, at least, is what Professor Reiner Protsch von Zieten - a distinguished, cigar-smoking German anthropologist - told his scientific colleagues, to global acclaim, after being invited to date the extremely rare skull.

However, the professor's 30-year-old academic career has now ended in disgrace after the revelation that he systematically falsified the dates on this and numerous other "stone age" relics.

Yesterday his university in Frankfurt announced the professor had been forced to retire because of numerous "falsehoods and manipulations". According to experts, his deceptions may mean an entire tranche of the history of man's development will have to be rewritten.

"Anthropology is going to have to completely revise its picture of modern man between 40,000 and 10,000 years ago," said Thomas Terberger, the archaeologist who discovered the hoax. "Prof Protsch's work appeared to prove that anatomically modern humans and Neanderthals had co-existed, and perhaps even had children together. This now appears to be rubbish."

The scandal only came to light when Prof Protsch was caught trying to sell his department's entire chimpanzee skull collection to the United States.

An inquiry later established that he had also passed off fake fossils as real ones and had plagiarised other scientists' work.

His discovery appeared to show that Neanderthals had spread much further north than was previously known.

But his university inquiry was told that a crucial Hamburg skull fragment, which was believed to have come from the world's oldest German, a Neanderthal known as Hahnhöfersand Man, was actually a mere 7,500 years old, according to Oxford University's radiocarbon dating unit. The unit established that other skulls had been wrongly dated too.

Another of the professor's sensational finds, "Binshof-Speyer" woman, lived in 1,300 BC and not 21,300 years ago, as he had claimed, while "Paderborn-Sande man" (dated at 27,400 BC) only died a couple of hundred years ago, in 1750.

"It's deeply embarrassing. Of course the university feels very bad about this," Professor Ulrich Brandt, who led the investigation into Prof Protsch's activities, said yesterday. "Prof Protsch refused to meet us. But we had 10 sittings with 12 witnesses.

"Their stories about him were increasingly bizarre. After a while it was hard to take it seriously. You had to laugh. It was just unbelievable. At the end of the day what he did was incredible."

During their investigation, the university discovered that Prof Protsch, 65, a flamboyant figure with a fondness for gold watches, Porsches and Cuban cigars, was unable to work his own carbon-dating machine.

Instead, after returning from Germany to America, where he did his doctorate, and taking up a professorship, he had simply made things up.

In one case he had claimed that a 50 million-year-old "half-ape" called Adapis had been found in Switzerland, an archaeological sensation. In reality, the ape had been dug up in France, where several other examples had already been found.

Prof Terberger said that he grew suspicious about the professor's work in 2001 after sending off the skull fragment to Oxford for tests.

Further tests revealed that all of the skulls dated by Prof Protsch were in reality far younger than he had claimed, prompting Prof Terberger and a British colleague, Martin Street, to write a scientific paper last year.

At the same time, German police began investigating the professor for fraud, following allegations that he had tried to sell the university's 278 chimpanzee skulls for $70,000 to a US dealer.

Why, though, had he done it?

"If you find a skull that's more than 30,000 years old it's a sensation. If you find three of them people notice you. It's good for your career," Prof Terberger said. "At the end of the day it was about ambition."

Other details of the professor's life also appeared to crumble under scrutiny. Before he disappeared from the university's campus last year, Prof Protsch told his students he had examined Hitler's and Eva Braun's bones.

He also boasted of having flats in New York, Florida and California, where, he claimed, he hung out with Arnold Schwarzenegger and Steffi Graf. Even the professor's aristocratic title, "von Zieten", appears to be bogus.

Far from being the descendant of a dashing general in the hussars, the professor was the son of a Nazi MP, Wilhelm Protsch, Der Spiegel magazine revealed last October.

The university is investigating how thousands of documents lodged in the anthropology department relating to the Nazis' gruesome scientific experiments in the 1930s were mysteriously shredded, allegedly under the professor's instructions.

They also discovered that some of the 12,000 skeletons stored in the department's "bone cellar" were missing their heads, apparently sold to friends of the professor in the US and sympathetic dentists.

Yesterday the university admitted that it should have discovered the professor's fabrications far earlier. But it pointed out that, like all public servants in Germany, the high-profile anthropologist was virtually impossible to sack, and had also proved difficult to pin down.

"He was perfect at being evasive," Prof Brandt said yesterday. "He would switch from saying 'it isn't really clear' to giving diffuse statements.

"I'm not a psychologist so I can't say why he did it. But my guess is that when he came back from the States 30 years ago he realised he wasn't up to the job of being a professor. So he started inventing things. It rapidly became a habit.'

Yesterday the professor, who lives in Mainz with his wife Angelina, didn't respond to emails from the Guardian asking him to comment on the affair. But in earlier remarks to Der Spiegel he insisted that he was the victim of an "intrigue".

"All the disputed fossils are my personal property," he told the magazine.

Missing links and planted stone age finds

Piltdown Man
The most infamous of all scientific frauds was unearthed in 1912 in a Sussex gravel pit. With its huge human-like braincase and ape-like jaw, the Piltdown Man "fossil" was named Eoanthropus dawsoni after Charles Dawson, the solicitor and amateur archaeologist who discovered it. For 40 years Piltdown Man was heralded as the missing link between humans and their primate ancestors. But in 1953 scientists concluded it was a forgery. Radiocarbon dating showed the human skull was just 600 years old, while the jawbone was that of an orang-utan. The entire package of fossil fragments found at Piltdown - which included a prehistoric cricket bat - had been planted.

The devil's archaeologist
Japanese archaeologist Shinichi Fujimura was so prolific at uncovering prehistoric artefacts he earned the nickname "God's hands". At site after site, Fujimura discovered stoneware and relics that pushed back the limits of Japan's known history. The researcher and his stone age finds drew international attention and rewrote text books. In November 2000 the spell was broken when a newspaper printed pictures of Fujimura digging holes and burying objects that he later dug up and announced as major finds. "I was tempted by the devil. I don't know how I can apologise for what I did," he said.

Piltdown Turkey
The supposed fossil of Archaeoraptor, which was to become known as the "Piltdown turkey", came to light in 1999 when National Geographic magazine published an account of its discovery. It seemed to show another missing link - this time between birds and dinosaurs. Archaeoraptor appeared to be the remains of a large feathered bird with the tail of a dinosaur. The fossil was smuggled out of China and sold to a private collector in the US for £51,000. Experts were suspicious and closer examination showed the specimen to be a "composite" - two fossils stuck together with strong glue.
David Adam

Retrieved from http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/ ... 04,00.html

 

[noblej6]

Hi solo,

So this is your 'proof' that science is completely wrong and all information should be ignored I take it.

I read to here:

and was the vital missing link between modern humans and Neanderthals.

Without looking it up I don't think the line from Neanderthals carried on to sapien. If that is the case your professor or somebody was a bit mixed up.

I think it best that you slip down to the Smithsonian Institute and observe some research. Here's a link to look at some older skulls.

http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/erec.html

As far as you examples of false witnesses as far as human origins goes, I know there have been many frauds. I can illustrate the sins of a number of liars in the Christian theatre too.

The examples I gave of Hawaii are not that difficult to consider, let's hear your comments. OR look at that skull in the link and explain to me where that slanted skull disappeared to and when.

noble6

 

[Solo]

Hi solo,

So this is your 'proof' that science is completely wrong and all information should be ignored I take it.

I read to here:

and was the vital missing link between modern humans and Neanderthals.

Without looking it up I don't think the line from Neanderthals carried on to sapien. If that is the case your professor or somebody was a bit mixed up.

I think it best that you slip down to the Smithsonian Institute and observe some research. Here's a link to look at some older skulls.

http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/erec.html

As far as you examples of false witnesses as far as human origins goes, I know there have been many frauds. I can illustrate the sins of a number of liars in the Christian theatre too.

The examples I gave of Hawaii are not that difficult to consider, let's hear your comments. OR look at that skull in the link and explain to me where that slanted skull disappeared to and when.

noble6

The best you have is man's subjective worldly view of creation. The best I have is the literal word of God.

As I have said in a former post, you believe man's subjective worldly scientific worldview, and I will believe the Word of God. The reason that I believe God over man is because God never lies. He doesn't have to to sell anything.

 

[Guest]

The best you have is man's subjective worldly view of creation. The best I have is the literal word of God.

As I have said in a former post, you believe man's subjective worldly scientific worldview, and I will believe the Word of God. The reason that I believe God over man is because God never lies. He doesn't have to to sell anything.

If God never lies and he says the world is 6,000 years old then why did he make the world appear older? There are mountains of objective evidence that shows the world is older than 6,000 years.

If God says in the bible that he created man without the aid of evolution why did he leave layers (this includes fossils, ring species, taxonomy and retroviruses) of objective evidence? Why did he make it so we can see evolution (generational changes in allele frequency within populations) taking place?

Could it be that God was lying when he says he doesn't lie?

 

[Solo]

The best you have is man's subjective worldly view of creation. The best I have is the literal word of God.

As I have said in a former post, you believe man's subjective worldly scientific worldview, and I will believe the Word of God. The reason that I believe God over man is because God never lies. He doesn't have to to sell anything.

If God never lies and he says the world is 6,000 years old then why did he make the world appear older? There are mountains of objective evidence that shows the world is older than 6,000 years.

If God says in the bible that he created man without the aid of evolution why did he leave layers (this includes fossils, ring species, taxonomy and retroviruses) of objective evidence? Why did he make it so we can see evolution (generational changes in allele frequency within populations) taking place?

Could it be that God was lying when he says he doesn't lie?

You are only using the Words of man to believe that the world is more than 6000 years old. Your dating methods are inferior to the needs to capture all that occured at creation. Science has only within the last 150 years been able to understand genetics, and still does not understand electricity other than to describe its characteristics. God has all knowledge and understanding necessary to guide us into the truth that we require to move onto eternity.

You can believe the writings of man, and I will believe the inspired Word of God.

Man was created man 6000 years ago and has reproduced multiplying the earth with man ever since.

If you want to believe that Man originated from a single-celled organism within a special environment that required a Godzillion years to get to the point we are at today, fine. That takes much more faith than it takes to believe God's Word. Good luck.

 

[Guest]

You are only using the Words of man to believe that the world is more than 6000 years old. Your dating methods are inferior to the needs to capture all that occured at creation. Science has only within the last 150 years been able to understand genetics, and still does not understand electricity other than to describe its characteristics. God has all knowledge and understanding necessary to guide us into the truth that we require to move onto eternity.

You can believe the writings of man, and I will believe the inspired Word of God.

Man was created man 6000 years ago and has reproduced multiplying the earth with man ever since.

If you want to believe that Man originated from a single-celled organism within a special environment that required a Godzillion years to get to the point we are at today, fine. That takes much more faith than it takes to believe God's Word. Good luck.

No I am using evidence. Supposing there is a God, either he left the evidence to make world look older than it is or he did not literally create the world in six days 6,000 years ago.

Either the mountains formed over millions years or God made it look that way.

Either the continents took millions of years to drift apart or God made it look that way.

Either we can see starlight that has taken billons of years to reach our world or God made it look that way.

Either fossils, ring species, taxonomy and retroviruses are evidence of evolution or God made it look that way.

Scientists might not fully understand electricity or gravity, but that just means there is more to explore.

You can have faith and believe words from a book that has been at least manipulated by men. I prefer to believe what the evidence shows.

 

[Solo]

You are only using the Words of man to believe that the world is more than 6000 years old. Your dating methods are inferior to the needs to capture all that occured at creation. Science has only within the last 150 years been able to understand genetics, and still does not understand electricity other than to describe its characteristics. God has all knowledge and understanding necessary to guide us into the truth that we require to move onto eternity.

You can believe the writings of man, and I will believe the inspired Word of God.

Man was created man 6000 years ago and has reproduced multiplying the earth with man ever since.

If you want to believe that Man originated from a single-celled organism within a special environment that required a Godzillion years to get to the point we are at today, fine. That takes much more faith than it takes to believe God's Word. Good luck.

No I am using evidence. Supposing there is a God, either he left the evidence to make world look older than it is or he did not literally create the world in six days 6,000 years ago.

Either the mountains formed over millions years or God made it look that way.

Either the continents took millions of years to drift apart or God made it look that way.

Either we can see starlight that has taken billons of years to reach our world or God made it look that way.

Either fossils, ring species, taxonomy and retroviruses are evidence of evolution or God made it look that way.

Scientists might not fully understand electricity or gravity, but that just means there is more to explore.

You can have faith and believe words from a book that has been at least manipulated by men. I prefer to believe what the evidence shows.

To you the earth looks older than 6000 years because science is limited to physical knowledge. When you find me an eyewitness that was here when the heavens and earth were created we'll talk; until then I will believe the creator's Word. He doesn't lie about things like that.

 

[Guest]

To you the earth looks older than 6000 years because science is limited to physical knowledge. When you find me an eyewitness that was here when the heavens and earth were created we'll talk; until then I will believe the creator's Word. He doesn't lie about things like that.

First, considering eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable I prefer to observe physical evidence. Second it would go against all logic for there to be any human eyewitnesses to human creation. So the eyewitnesses would have to be supernatural, but first there would need to be evidence of the supernatural. If there was evidence of the supernatural, then the eyewitnesses and there accounts would need to be looked over to make sure they are credible.

If keeping an open mind and following the evidence is limited as opposed to only believing what the creator's Word supposedly says, then so be it.

How do you know God doesn't lie? Maybe he is a jokester God and just gets a kick out of fooling people.

 

[Solo]

To you the earth looks older than 6000 years because science is limited to physical knowledge. When you find me an eyewitness that was here when the heavens and earth were created we'll talk; until then I will believe the creator's Word. He doesn't lie about things like that.

First, considering eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable I prefer to observe physical evidence. Second it would go against all logic for there to be any human eyewitnesses to human creation. So the eyewitnesses would have to be supernatural, but first there would need to be evidence of the supernatural. If there was evidence of the supernatural, then the eyewitnesses and there accounts would need to be looked over to make sure they are credible.

If keeping an open mind and following the evidence is limited as opposed to only believing what the creator's Word supposedly says, then so be it.

How do you know God doesn't lie? Maybe he is a jokester God and just gets a kick out of fooling people.

You are exactly right. The only eye witness that we have is God himself and he is above the natural realm in which we scientifically observe with our finite abilities. Until God himself saved me from the condemnation that is upon all mankind, and created in me a spiritual new creature with him in residence, I was unable to see the truth of his creation apart from the science of the natural. Now that I have him residing within me, teaching me all things, I am able to recognize the truth about his creation.

God tells us in his Word that he doesn't lie, and I see no need for him to do so; however fallible man has many reasons to lie and is only trustworthy as his hypothesis, theories, and thought correspond to the Word of God.

Believe it or not, it is your choice.

 

[Guest]

You are exactly right. The only eye witness that we have is God himself and he is above the natural realm in which we scientifically observe with our finite abilities. Until God himself saved me from the condemnation that is upon all mankind, and created in me a spiritual new creature with him in residence, I was unable to see the truth of his creation apart from the science of the natural. Now that I have him residing within me, teaching me all things, I am able to recognize the truth about his creation.

God tells us in his Word that he doesn't lie, and I see no need for him to do so; however fallible man has many reasons to lie and is only trustworthy as his hypothesis, theories, and thought correspond to the Word of God.

Believe it or not, it is your choice.

Without any tangible evidence that God exists why should I believe what the Bible says over any other religious text or any other epic such as Homer's works?

Man is fallible, but that doesn't mean I should ignore basic facts like the there are stars that are billions of years away. Science has a system of checks and balances to guard against man's fallibility and correct things when it is wrong. Science is open ended to allow for changes.

It is fallible man that has translated and interpreted the bible, so now we have many different versions of the Word of God. It is fallible man that has removed parts from the bible, as they did at the Counsel of Nicea. It is fallible man that morphed Christian beliefs and traditions with those of other religions and cultures. It is fallible man that told and retold the Word, leaving years of opportunities for people to change and reshape the word. The Word of God has been manipulated through the years by those in power for their greed, power and other desires.

It is fallible man that expects people to not use the brains they say God gave people and ignore clear evidence and instead put faith in an unobservable God.

If there is a God and once told Moses or whoever the Word, I believe the true Word was lost along ago.

And if God is so vain and petty that he would send people to hell over what they believe or not begging--I mean praying enough or any other victimless acts I would prefer to spend eternity in hell than in heaven with a cruel Big Brother-like dictator like that. Not to mention all of the cruelty that is depicted in the Bible; spending eternity in heaven with a God that will kill every one on earth would be hell for me.

 

[Solo]

You are exactly right. The only eye witness that we have is God himself and he is above the natural realm in which we scientifically observe with our finite abilities. Until God himself saved me from the condemnation that is upon all mankind, and created in me a spiritual new creature with him in residence, I was unable to see the truth of his creation apart from the science of the natural. Now that I have him residing within me, teaching me all things, I am able to recognize the truth about his creation.

God tells us in his Word that he doesn't lie, and I see no need for him to do so; however fallible man has many reasons to lie and is only trustworthy as his hypothesis, theories, and thought correspond to the Word of God.

Believe it or not, it is your choice.

Without any tangible evidence that God exists why should I believe what the Bible says over any other religious text or any other epic such as Homer's works?

Man is fallible, but that doesn't mean I should ignore basic facts like the there are stars that are billions of years away. Science has a system of checks and balances to guard against man's fallibility and correct things when it is wrong. Science is open ended to allow for changes.

It is fallible man that has translated and interpreted the bible, so now we have many different versions of the Word of God. It is fallible man that has removed parts from the bible, as they did at the Counsel of Nicea. It is fallible man that morphed Christian beliefs and traditions with those of other religions and cultures. It is fallible man that told and retold the Word, leaving years of opportunities for people to change and reshape the word. The Word of God has been manipulated through the years by those in power for their greed, power and other desires.

It is fallible man that expects people to not use the brains they say God gave people and ignore clear evidence and instead put faith in an unobservable God.

If there is a God and once told Moses or whoever the Word, I believe the true Word was lost along ago.

And if God is so vain and petty that he would send people to hell over what they believe or not begging--I mean praying enough or any other victimless acts I would prefer to spend eternity in hell than in heaven with a cruel Big Brother-like dictator like that. Not to mention all of the cruelty that is depicted in the Bible; spending eternity in heaven with a God that will kill every one on earth would be hell for me.

With a belief that the heavens and the earth just ended up existing all by themselves, a perfect combination of environment and chemical reactions produced life, and this life evolved into all of the lifeforms on earth today takes more faith, than does believing that almighty God exists and is the creator. The only "tangible" evidence that you have concerning these theories is the words written in a book. Graphically enhanced drawings of dinosaurs and man from fossilized skeletal remains do not give adequate information to build an entire hypothesis into the origins of life and the life of man.

If God placed the stars in the sky with the light visable on the earth at creation, the billion light year myth is out the window. That is why an eye witness is necessary to believe the various theories of evolution over creation. Science can only see the creation as it is today, and guess how it came to be.

You are attacking the Word of God as being written by fallible man, but you have totally discounted the spiritual realm in God's ability to keep his Word throughout all the generations. The authors of the Bible were inspired of God to write the words they wrote. The writers of evolution books are not inspired by God; in fact a majority of the evolution writers are atheists and agnostics. The book of Isaiah found with the other dead sea scrolls is all but identical to the book of Isaiah today after 2000 years. Do a study on how the scribes meticulously copied the scriptures so that mistakes were guaranteed to be thwarted. Also do a study of the Greek language and its preciseness in meaning. The Greek language has many more verb conjugations than any other language available. Not only was the Word of God divinely inspired at its authorship, it is interpreted to those who are believers by the Holy Spirit. The spiritual realm is completely ignored by those of the one-sided study of science.

Your belief that the truth of the Word being lost a long time ago shows you lack of understanding of God and his Word. That fallacy can only be corrected through prayer and study of His Word.

The lake of fire where hell, death, satan, satan's angels will be cast was created for satan and his angels. God does not send unbelievers to hell, God provided a way for all men and women to escape this condemnation. Those that end up going to the lake of fire have chosen not to serve God through their unbelief. They would rather live their short physical life on earth with their temporary fleshly pleasures in darkness than to walk to the light of God and be saved as he provided. God is not vain or he would have already wiped out his creation. Man is vain thinking that his own darkness is better than God's light.

Your inability to understand God and his love, is because the enemy has duped you into believing a lie. You are following the path that the enemy has set up to deceive you and others with, and it sounds like you are walking on that path fully decieved by the lies. Seek God's truth and you will understand the love of God instead of the lies of satan.

 

[Wertbag]

You are attacking the Word of God as being written by fallible man, but you have totally discounted the spiritual realm in God's ability to keep his Word throughout all the generations.

Of course the evidence shows that this is not the case. There are many dozens of Bibles, many that have different words added and removed, many that have removed entire paragraphs. It was mentioned that there were as many as 60 thousand words different between versions of the Bible.
Not to mention that Christians have been argueing about the meanings, which books really are divinely inspired and which aren't, and whether the books should be read as literal or allegory for centuries now. If Gods followers can't figure it out...

That is why an eye witness is necessary to believe the various theories of evolution over creation.

There is also no eye witness to large parts of the Bible. Adam didn't write Genesis, Noah didn't write about the flood etc. The stories were passed down from generation to generation, who is to say this epic game of chinese whispers didn't have any strange results?

The authors of the Bible were inspired of God to write the words they wrote.

How do you spot divine inspiration? Does the writing glow? Does Jesus get to proof read? Maybe James was but Paul wasn't, or Moses was for the first chapter but lost the spirit halfway. Basically you cannot know. Christians have debated for centuries as to whether the other books that were rejected might be valid. The only descisions as to what would be included was based on voting by the church, it certainly wasn't obvious to them which were inspired and which weren't.

Do a study on how the scribes meticulously copied the scriptures so that mistakes were guaranteed to be thwarted. Also do a study of the Greek language and its preciseness in meaning.

Basically the stories were passed by word of mouth for centuries, before being written down. The language spoken by Christ was most like aramaic which is long since dead. You combine the different languages into one, then translate through ancient hebrew, latin, greek, french and eventually into english, and hope that nothing has been changed or lost.

To an atheist the Bible look exactly like any other holy book. It makes unbelieveable claims with no proof to back it up, and even the events which should be testable (global flood etc) do not show the results we would expect to see in the real world.
People in ancient days were supersititous, uneducated and didn't understand the natural world. They blamed supernatural beings for everything from child birth, to the flu. Can you imagine telling someone 2000 years ago about viruses? "Yeah they are in the air, too small to be seen or felt. Theres no way I can test for them, but trust me its them that make you sick!"... "Right, I'll just stick to the divinely inspired teachings of our priest who says its evil spirits"

 

[Solo]

You are attacking the Word of God as being written by fallible man, but you have totally discounted the spiritual realm in God's ability to keep his Word throughout all the generations.

Of course the evidence shows that this is not the case. There are many dozens of Bibles, many that have different words added and removed, many that have removed entire paragraphs. It was mentioned that there were as many as 60 thousand words different between versions of the Bible.
Not to mention that Christians have been argueing about the meanings, which books really are divinely inspired and which aren't, and whether the books should be read as literal or allegory for centuries now. If Gods followers can't figure it out...

[quote:fc81e]That is why an eye witness is necessary to believe the various theories of evolution over creation.

There is also no eye witness to large parts of the Bible. Adam didn't write Genesis, Noah didn't write about the flood etc. The stories were passed down from generation to generation, who is to say this epic game of chinese whispers didn't have any strange results?

The authors of the Bible were inspired of God to write the words they wrote.

How do you spot divine inspiration? Does the writing glow? Does Jesus get to proof read? Maybe James was but Paul wasn't, or Moses was for the first chapter but lost the spirit halfway. Basically you cannot know. Christians have debated for centuries as to whether the other books that were rejected might be valid. The only descisions as to what would be included was based on voting by the church, it certainly wasn't obvious to them which were inspired and which weren't.

Do a study on how the scribes meticulously copied the scriptures so that mistakes were guaranteed to be thwarted. Also do a study of the Greek language and its preciseness in meaning.

Basically the stories were passed by word of mouth for centuries, before being written down. The language spoken by Christ was most like aramaic which is long since dead. You combine the different languages into one, then translate through ancient hebrew, latin, greek, french and eventually into english, and hope that nothing has been changed or lost.

To an atheist the Bible look exactly like any other holy book. It makes unbelieveable claims with no proof to back it up, and even the events which should be testable (global flood etc) do not show the results we would expect to see in the real world.
People in ancient days were supersititous, uneducated and didn't understand the natural world. They blamed supernatural beings for everything from child birth, to the flu. Can you imagine telling someone 2000 years ago about viruses? "Yeah they are in the air, too small to be seen or felt. Theres no way I can test for them, but trust me its them that make you sick!"... "Right, I'll just stick to the divinely inspired teachings of our priest who says its evil spirits"[/quote:fc81e]

You need to keep believing your favorite mens books and I'll keep believing God's book. When your short physical life is over you will know whether you believed the right book or not.

 

[Guest]

If God placed the stars in the sky with the light visable on the earth at creation, the billion light year myth is out the window. That is why an eye witness is necessary to believe the various theories of evolution over creation. Science can only see the creation as it is today, and guess how it came to be.

So you're saying that God created the stars in such a way to make it look as if they're really billions of light-years away, when they're in fact only 6000-some-odd light years away? He stuck the vast pantheon of stars up in the heaven, and then created 20 billion years worth of photons in the appropriate locations? May I ask why he would create the universe in such a way as to provide evidence contrary to the truth?

You are attacking the Word of God as being written by fallible man, but you have totally discounted the spiritual realm in God's ability to keep his Word throughout all the generations. The authors of the Bible were inspired of God to write the words they wrote. The writers of evolution books are not inspired by God; in fact a majority of the evolution writers are atheists and agnostics. The book of Isaiah found with the other dead sea scrolls is all but identical to the book of Isaiah today after 2000 years. Do a study on how the scribes meticulously copied the scriptures so that mistakes were guaranteed to be thwarted. Also do a study of the Greek language and its preciseness in meaning. The Greek language has many more verb conjugations than any other language available. Not only was the Word of God divinely inspired at its authorship, it is interpreted to those who are believers by the Holy Spirit. The spiritual realm is completely ignored by those of the one-sided study of science.

So you say that every single rewrite of the Bible in every language has been guided by the hand of God? How does that account for disagreements between various translations? Are some of the translations guided by God, and others not? How can you tell which is which?