Perhaps it isn't, but obviously some like to keep it going. I also don't see why it couldn't be true I mean after all, there are stories out there that borrow from other stories can't the same be said of a book of fables/morals? :-)
The word <b>nice</b> has enjoyed over 20 different meanings, some of which are diametrically opposed, in the last 500 years.
People frequently quote a 2000 year old anthology, which (if true) was spoken in variety of local dialects, then written in a variety of greek and Aramaic dialects, then translated through Aramaic, Hewbrew, Greek, Latin, French, Old English, Norman English, Modern English and revised at the request of several different kings.
These people then quote text from this <b>as the literal or even vaguely accurate representation of the word of God</b>?
Even if the original text was word for word unequivocally a perfect record of events and dialogue, there isn't any remote possibility that the current contents of the bible are even close to the original.
People who believe in the bible literally - guess what, you've been owned by reality.
We can't even guess what Jane Austen meant by the phrase:
"Thank you for the nice, long letter you wrote me" less than <b>300 years ago</b>. Yet people persist in supporting their arguments with quotes from the bible...
Faith is one thing. Willful retardedness is something entirely different. Quoting from the bible undermines your argument.
Discuss. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Please, that's as bad as the creationists who claim evolution is a lie because there's no evidence.
QuaunautThe longest seven days in history...Join Date: 2003-03-21Member: 14759Members, Constellation, Reinforced - Shadow
One fatal flaw in your argument, Grendel.
If the Bible is true(which I believe it is), that'd mean its God's word. You know, the guy that created all of us? Can end the planet whenever he wants? Turn us all into puffcakes if he feels? Yet you are idiotic enough to think he couldn't simply make sure the translators did their job right?
QuaunautThe longest seven days in history...Join Date: 2003-03-21Member: 14759Members, Constellation, Reinforced - Shadow
edited April 2005
<!--QuoteBegin-theclam+Apr 2 2005, 08:47 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theclam @ Apr 2 2005, 08:47 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-DarkATi+Apr 2 2005, 10:35 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DarkATi @ Apr 2 2005, 10:35 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> What if the Bible were true? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> The universe would cease to exist, of course. There are too many contradictions in the Bible for any system of logic to work. Real logical paradoxes would be present, so 1 could equal 0, so physics wouldn't work, and everything would fall apart. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Oh yeah, I'd love to dispel this myth: Name one.
Seriously.
I've asked many people this question, and thus far, not one could come up with one that me, a mere beginner in Bible knowledge, didn't know how to correct their way of thinking over what it says- many times it seems like a contradiction because of pure cynacism in ones mind.
...so, care to show?
Edit: Note, if you talk of contradictions between the Old and New Testament, that is equally invalid: 90% of the religion's ideals and laws changed from before and after Christ.
QuaunautThe longest seven days in history...Join Date: 2003-03-21Member: 14759Members, Constellation, Reinforced - Shadow
<!--QuoteBegin-theclam+Apr 1 2005, 12:03 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theclam @ Apr 1 2005, 12:03 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-KungFuDiscoMonkey+Apr 1 2005, 01:55 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (KungFuDiscoMonkey @ Apr 1 2005, 01:55 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I should point out that evolution is a theory, not fact. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't want to digress, but I can't leave this point unanswered.
Evolution is both a fact and a theory. It is a fact that evolution occurs. There is too much evidence for it not to be true, unless you have some contrived belief that God created all the fossils and made DNA so similiar between every life form. Even so, you have to deal with speciation that has occured during recorded human history.
Evolution is also a theory. The Theory of Evolution is an explanation of how evolution occurs. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Another add: DNA so similar between so many animals? We as humans have no relation to anything but mammals- within mammals, we only even begin to "relate" DNA wise to monkeys. Even then, it is a mere 5% match- thats like saying that the boat came from the Horse and buggy- sure, they come from the general same conscripts of human existence, but that by no means states that they are related.
As to Evolution itself: The only things within Evolution that have been proven thus far is natural selection, and what I personally call 'evolution lite'- aka, the modifying of body molecules to protect against diseases- of which, only one part of our body resists these things, being the white blood cells.
As to other theries of evolution, such as the fossil records: Thus far they have not once found a single link between the current(or supposedly last) skeleton and that before it.
I'm sure that humans probably had much more bent vertabrae and more hair- which is evolution on a small basis. Its been proven that even the human body will grow hair to compensate for the need of heat in cold times- thats why you can feel more hair on your arm in winter than now.
Thus far, the different Theories of evolution have only been proved in a few of them- the ones that are obvious, that were even told before the 'theory' of evolution came around.
QuaunautThe longest seven days in history...Join Date: 2003-03-21Member: 14759Members, Constellation, Reinforced - Shadow
As to much of Cyndane's argument(which ironically also counters many sayings of those against the creationist theory):
Now don't get me wrong- this isn't proven. But at the same time, the entire idea of religion is based off of faith. This faith is that God himself is an absolute truth, able to manipulate the laws of physics and time to his will, and even at times the laws of life themselves.
If he had the power to create the world, with all of it's intracacies and perfections, don't you think he'd have the power to put enough doubt in the world to make it so those seeking the truth seek him <b>personally</b> instead of just "seeking the truth", which will turn up fruitless regardless.
In the end, niether side is, or can be, proven: Thus, this argument is wholly pointless. Because while you guys can bring up as many scientific reasons as you like, at the same time, the same answer can be used against it: "Couldn't God have made it that way? He <i>does</i> have the power."
This isn't to say I'm right, its merely saying this has gotten to the realm of pointlessness.
Qua, just to make sure you don't shoot yourself in the foot with bad data:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->our nuclear DNA is 98% to 99% identical to that of chimpanzees<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
All religious debates/discussions are pointless. Because as you said no matter what proven facts the scientific side will present the religious side can and will just claim that God is all powerful and "Moves in mysterious ways" etc. However the general point in discussions such as these is to refute and counter one sides evidence and arguements with your own. In a case such as this one can not use the bible to prove that the bible is true. You need empirical and independent evidence.
Also if this doubt is there so people seek out God instead of just the truth. Isn't God supposed to be the universal truth? So surely the evidence that scientists etc discover would lead them to God. But instead they tend to disprove or at least contradict the accounts that God provided in the Bible. Does this mean that God is intending to mislead us?
I'd like to take this little bit of a morning that I have and point out something that I was thinking about last night.
<a href='http://www.tektonics.org/' target='_blank'>This website</a> had some very interesting arguements on the whole Kirshna Vs Yeshua cruxifiction concept. They kept referencing pictures, yet they never once showed any of them, I'd also like to point out that when you do a google search for the images they were referencing nothing shows up even a google search for the book doesn't list any other places to find the book.
Personally I think it is in poor taste to list references and not actually show how you got your sources, especially if you are attempting to prove something false. I will admit however, they are the very definition of a christian apologetic website. The negative denomonation that is.
<!--QuoteBegin-Gwahir+Apr 3 2005, 01:24 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Gwahir @ Apr 3 2005, 01:24 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> one: tell me where they've successfully disproven such things. two: it has been mathematically proven that provability has no relationship to truth. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> In terms of a literal interpretation of the Bible (Which is what this thread seems to be about):
Creation Theory <a href='http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c002.html' target='_blank'>http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c002.html</a>
Noah's Ark See earlier in the thread.
Generally, huge world changing events described in the bible (Such as those above) should have left significant evidence available to geologists etc. While it's possible for other events in the bible (dealing with people and groups of people) to be true. These events are not reflected in the geological studies of the Earth and as such suggest that these events did not happen or at least not on the scale described. Of course it all depends on whether or not you chose to believe the evidance.
Provabilty may have no relation to the truth, but generally people tend to believe things they have stronger evidence for. So to convince people of your argument you need to at least provide an equal amount of evidance to the opposing argument. It's how reasoned debates, discussions and the justice system works. But of course as has been said, scientific evidence vs religious faith is an arguement that neither side will win. But it's generally an interesting and educational read.
The beginning of Genesis is rather vague and it's obvious that it didn't happen in 6 days especially since the concept of a light/dark day/night cycle was established in one of the "days." They are obviously phases, not actual days. Make further extrapolations.
I only brought that forward because you were relating truth and proof. And you then completely remove truth from the discussion, I'll assume the point is noted and you won't attempt to combine them again.
<!--QuoteBegin-Gwahir+Apr 3 2005, 02:35 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Gwahir @ Apr 3 2005, 02:35 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The beginning of Genesis is rather vague and it's obvious that it didn't happen in 6 days especially since the concept of a light/dark day/night cycle was established in one of the "days." They are obviously phases, not actual days. Make further extrapolations.
I only brought that forward because you were relating truth and proof. And you then completely remove truth from the discussion, I'll assume the point is noted and you won't attempt to combine them again. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Proof is: That which confirms or A fact or circumstance that gives logical support to arguement.
Confirm: To establish as true or genuine
So in certain contexts proof can refer to truth and as you correctly pointed out the context that I was using was equating proof with truth. Scientific truth is different from religious truth though, as shown by this topic.
In terms of the six days, I assume you read the whole article I linked. As it says it depends on your interpretation of science as to the interpretation of day. However it seems to make it clear that the original Hebrew referred a 24 hour day. Assuming God is all powerful I'm sure he was aware of the passage of time, even without a Sun and day/night cycle and when he communicated this to Moses (After he created the sun and the Earth, so knowing exactly what a solar day was) he made this clear.
QuaunautThe longest seven days in history...Join Date: 2003-03-21Member: 14759Members, Constellation, Reinforced - Shadow
<!--QuoteBegin-Emsee+Apr 3 2005, 07:29 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Emsee @ Apr 3 2005, 07:29 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Gwahir+Apr 3 2005, 02:35 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Gwahir @ Apr 3 2005, 02:35 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The beginning of Genesis is rather vague and it's obvious that it didn't happen in 6 days especially since the concept of a light/dark day/night cycle was established in one of the "days." They are obviously phases, not actual days. Make further extrapolations.
I only brought that forward because you were relating truth and proof. And you then completely remove truth from the discussion, I'll assume the point is noted and you won't attempt to combine them again. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Proof is: That which confirms or A fact or circumstance that gives logical support to arguement.
Confirm: To establish as true or genuine
So in certain contexts proof can refer to truth and as you correctly pointed out the context that I was using was equating proof with truth. Scientific truth is different from religious truth though, as shown by this topic.
In terms of the six days, I assume you read the whole article I linked. As it says it depends on your interpretation of science as to the interpretation of day. However it seems to make it clear that the original Hebrew referred a 24 hour day. Assuming God is all powerful I'm sure he was aware of the passage of time, even without a Sun and day/night cycle and when he communicated this to Moses (After he created the sun and the Earth, so knowing exactly what a solar day was) he made this clear.
- Professor James Barr, professor of Hebrew at Oxford University. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> At the same time though, your own theory disproves one of your own: That of the earth's split.
Its a very valid thing to maybe believe that the only reason the earth's only continent split was from "The Flood". So essentially, flooding the entire earth could be flooding every single land mass- of which there is plenty of proof to that, its just that its on a much larger scale. In fact, I've been told that there is a massive, massive amount of evidence that "The Flood" not only happened, but happened the way it said it did, as to have all man and animal come out of one place in the world. Its been shown many, many times that we all seem to come from somewhere in the Northern Middle East, maybe even Southern Europe.
Also Emsee, I'd like to have you read the book "A Case for Christ". Hell, everyone here should read that- it already goes through many of the arguments were in here and shows many places where they can easily be found true- and note that it was written after the man became Christian, because of the book's evidence.
Quan, I have read it and it just re-affirmed my point that christian apologics are the worst I've ever seen.
Even if the flood did occur as the bible says it did, that kind of water doesn't just vanish overnight, even if the entire polar icecaps were to melt as of right now that would not flood the entire earth. Not to mention how many hundreds of years it would have taken to see land again.
No, I am sorry but that is quite obviously a fable.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+Apr 2 2005, 11:25 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ Apr 2 2005, 11:25 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I'd like to point out how all defenders of the bible simply bipassed the whole meteor thing. GG for facts.
Secondly, I am not even going to bother legionaired, you have deemed yourself not even open minded enough to look at links I post and I have only seen one link from you and it was a ministry site, if that isn't biased I don't know what is.
Also, you stated relgioustolerance was biased, really? Here is THEIR mission statement.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> This is a large religious web site which promotes religious freedom, tolerance and diversity as positive cultural values. It contains over 2,800 essays and menus. But it is very different from almost all other religious sites:
We do not promote our own religious beliefs. We can't because we are a multi-faith group. We try to explain the full range of religious belief in North America, from Asatru to Zoroastrianism, including Christianity, Hinduism, Wicca etc.
We try to describe all viewpoints on controversial religious topics objectively and fairly. We cover everything from abortion access to equal rights and protections for homosexuals and bisexuals, including same-sex marriage, and dozens of other "hot" topics. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Other then encyclopedias they are the most unbiased site I have found, for EITHER side.
In addition, you want to know what it would take for me to say something wasn't a spinoff, very simply put, find a document, that predates the Egyptian/Hindu writtings that says Yeshua(Jesus) came to earth. Then I shall concede. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> My question was: Is it possible for a ficticious story to preceed a historical one, and they both have exactly the same principles, ideas, or events happening?
We're accused of not reading your 'facts' but I still think many are mixing up fact with theory. Most of the Geologic 'facts' that you have refrenced are more accurately interpreted as what Geologist THINK what MAY HAVE HAPPEND.
I need to find some time so I can write up better posts to debate some of these inaccuracies I see but alas school is keeping me busy and I should probably get back to some homework while I still have some weekend left to work.
Edit: Not worth making another post just for this link and I'm sure most people are going to immediately brush it off as being biased but for those with a more open mind, here is a link that has refrences to many articles on the flood.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Many creationist scientists think that mountains such as the Himalayas were probably built by catastrophic movement of the earth’s continental plates during and after the Flood (see Q&A: Plate Tectonics). Measurements indicate that the Himalayas are still rising). The rate of rise now measured is just the remnant of the processes that occurred much faster in the past.
Mountain building occurred as a part of the geologic processes that deepened the oceans to take the waters off the land towards the end of the Flood. Some mountains could have existed before the Flood, but none like the current Himalayas, Alps, or Andes in height. In any case, there is only enough water on all the earth to cover mountains about 3 kilometres (2 miles) high, if all the ocean basins were raised. So, if the waters were not 9 kilometres deep, but much less, the question is no longer an issue.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sigh. What does it matter? Is exact knowledge of history a requirement to get into Heaven now? Is Peter proctoring a quiz at the Heavenly Gates as we speak? I doubt it. Likewise, I really doubt God cares whether or not we ever know the "truth", if there is such a thing. If we're going to argue about religion, can we at least stick to things that relate to how we live our lives in the present, rather than what theoretically or theologically happened however many hundreds, thousands, millions, or billions of years ago?
According to basic theological studies leginaired most legends actually come from exaggerated facts. Not the other way around.
It is possible that a large flood spawned the whole "god smited humanity" story, but obviously there are more natural causes for this to have occurred.
A very prime example is thunder. Ancient greeks thought it was Zeus with his thunderbolts, and of course lightning is the after effect. Now we know thunder is simply the after effect of the air super heating from the electrical discharge of cloud to cloud or cloud to ground.
Is it really so hard to believe that some other natural event occurred, scarring humanities memories so badly that it was deemed an "act of god".
*edit*
Kudos KFDM, that site is partially unbiased. It took me a while to read it which is why I was so long in responding it does have some interesting articles, but then some of them are so far-fetched.. but the same can be said for any religious site that is trying to promote itself. I think I shall add it to my already large list of sites that are partially unbiased and I shall shift through the articles to find the good ones. Then I shall use them to link to. Thank you.
*edit 2* I just can't stop laughing at this one. I'm sorry if that offends anyone but I have to share this lovely story on how the bible and dinosaurs relate. (Keep in mind there is not a single scientific fact in the entire article.) <a href='http://answersingenesis.org/docs/2.asp' target='_blank'>Dinosaurs and the Bible.</a>
Sigh. That article was truly painful to read. But, just as it would never convince the scientific, the scientific will never convince the religious. The only reason I have a problem with that article is that it paints evolutionists as being "dogmatic" and "believers", while completely ignoring how it justifies every statement with a passage from the Bible. That's just sad, and it makes all Christians look like frickin morons. <!--emo&::marine::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/marine.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='marine.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+Apr 3 2005, 04:15 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ Apr 3 2005, 04:15 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> *edit 2* I just can't stop laughing at this one. I'm sorry if that offends anyone but I have to share this lovely story on how the bible and dinosaurs relate. (Keep in mind there is not a single scientific fact in the entire article.) <a href='http://answersingenesis.org/docs/2.asp' target='_blank'>Dinosaurs and the Bible.</a> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Wow...how can someone actually sit down and write garbage like that...I refuse to believe the person who wrote that actually believed it, is it possible for someone that stupid to even be able to spell yet alone write an article?
I take pity upon any misguided fools who might read that and take it to heart...
I scanned through the article and didn't think it to be as absurd as y'all seemed to but by now I'm sure we recognize that we have fairly different worldviews. Not sure if this would be off topic or not but I found this particular article to be intresting since there has been a few mentions of 'millions' of years in here.
You don't see how incredibly bad this article is? Here are some gems:
Leading off by accusing science of not backing itself up: <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The story we have all heard from movies, television, newspapers, and most magazines and textbooks is that dinosaurs lived millions of year ago. According to evolutionists, the dinosaurs ‘ruled the Earth’ for 140 million years, dying out about 65 million years ago. However, scientists do not dig up anything labeled with those ages. They only uncover dead dinosaurs (i.e., their bones), and their bones do not have labels attached telling how old they are. The idea of millions of years of evolution is just the evolutionists’ story about the past. No scientist was there to see the dinosaurs live through this supposed dinosaur age. In fact, there is no proof whatsoever that the world and its fossil layers are millions of years old. No scientist observed dinosaurs die. Scientists only find the bones in the here and now, and because many of them are evolutionists, they try to fit the story of the dinosaurs into their view.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is so bad creationists don't even believe it anymore: <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Although the Bible does not tell us exactly how long ago it was that God made the world and its creatures, we can make a good estimate of the date of creation by reading through the Bible and noting some interesting passages:
- God made everything in six days. He did this, by the way, to set a pattern for mankind, which has become our seven day week (as described in Exodus 20:11). God worked for six days and rested for one, as a model for us. Furthermore, Bible scholars will tell you that the Hebrew word for day used in Genesis 1, can only mean an ordinary day in this context.
- We are told God created the first man and woman—Adam and Eve—on Day Six. Many facts about when their children and their children’s children were born are given in Genesis. These genealogies are recorded throughout the Old Testament, up until the time of Christ. They certainly were not chronologies lasting millions of years.
As you add up all of the dates, and accepting that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, came to Earth almost 2000 years ago, we come to the conclusion that the creation of the Earth and animals (including the dinosaurs) occurred only thousands of years ago (perhaps only 6000!), not millions of years. Thus, if the Bible is right (and it is!), dinosaurs must have lived within the past thousands of years.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Here's something to make Apos' blood boil: <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Evolutionists claim that dinosaurs evolved over millions of years. They imagine that one kind of animal slowly changed over long periods of time to become a different kind of animal. For instance, they believe that amphibians changed into reptiles (including dinosaurs) by this gradual process. This would mean, of course, that there would have been millions of creatures during that time that would be ‘in between,’ as amphibians evolved into reptiles. Evidence of these ‘transitional forms,’ as they are called, should be abundant. However, many fossil experts admit that not one unquestionable transitional form between any group of creatures and another has been found anywhere. If dinosaurs evolved from amphibians, there should be, for example, fossil evidence of animals that are part dinosaur and part something else. However, there is no proof of this anywhere. In fact, if you go into any museum you will see fossils of dinosaurs that are 100% dinosaur, not something in between. There are no 25%, 50%, 75%, or even 99% dinosaurs—they are all 100% dinosaur<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
For good measure, state beliefs as facts; it makes them look scientific: <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Well, what happened to all the land animals that did not go on the Ark? Very simply, they drowned. Many would have been covered with tons of mud as the rampaging water covered the land (Genesis 7:11-12,19). Because of this quick burial, many of the animals would have been preserved as fossils. If this happened, you would expect to find evidence of billions of dead things buried in rock layers (formed from this mud) all over the Earth. This is exactly what you do find.
By the way, the Flood of Noah’s day probably occurred just over 4,500 years ago. Creationists believe that this event formed many of the fossil layers around the Earth. (Additional fossil layers were formed by other floods as the Earth settled down after the great Flood.) Thus, the dinosaur fossils which were formed as a result of this Flood were probably formed about 4,500 years ago, not millions of years ago.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hey, let's accuse scientists of dogmatic beliefs, then counter with our own beliefs; irony be damned: <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Evolutionists use their imagination in a big way in answering this question. Because of their belief that dinosaurs ‘ruled’ the world for millions of years, and then disappeared millions of years before man allegedly evolved, they have had to come up with all sorts of guesses to explain this ‘mysterious’ disappearance.
When reading evolutionist literature, you will be astonished at the range of ideas concerning their supposed extinction. The following is just a small list of theories:
Dinosaurs starved to death; they died from overeating; they were poisoned; they became blind from cataracts and could not reproduce; mammals ate their eggs. Other causes include-volcanic dust, poisonous gases, comets, sunspots, meteorites, mass suicide, constipation, parasites, shrinking brain (and greater stupidity), slipped discs, changes in the composition of air, etc.
It is obvious that evolutionists don’t know what happened and are grasping at straws. In a recent evolutionary book on dinosaurs, ‘A New Look At the Dinosaurs,’ the author made the statement:
‘Now comes the important question. What caused all these extinctions at one particular point in time, approximately 65 million years ago? Dozens of reasons have been suggested, some serious and sensible, others quite crazy, and yet others merely as a joke. Every year people come up with new theories on this thorny problem. The trouble is that if we are to find just one reason to account for them all, it would have to explain the death, all at the same time, of animals living on land and of animals living in the sea; but, in both cases, of only some of those animals, for many of the land dwellers and many of the sea-dwellers went on living quite happily into the following period. Alas, no such one explanation exists’ (Alan Charig, p. 150).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The granddaddy: <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Creationists, of course, would not be surprised if someone found a living dinosaur. However, evolutionists would then have to explain why they made dogmatic statements that man and dinosaur never lived at the same time. I suspect they would say something to the effect that this dinosaur somehow survived because it was trapped in a remote area that has not changed for millions of years. You see, no matter what is found, or how embarrassing it is to evolutionists’ ideas, they will always be able to concoct an ‘answer’ because evolution is a belief. It is not science—it is not fact!<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+Apr 3 2005, 04:15 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ Apr 3 2005, 04:15 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> According to basic theological studies leginaired most legends actually come from exaggerated facts. Not the other way around. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You dodged the question. Again.
Is it, or is it not, possible for a fictional story to be invented long before a true story greatly resembling the false one, even almost identical?
If it is possible, then you have one hell of a case to prove that the earlyer writers of the Gospels, not to mention Jesus himself, were influenced directly by the earlyer Egyptian religion.
If it you say it is NOT possible... well...
What would you say, if I told you that there exists two stories. They both involve male humans. They both have last names that start with the letter A, have D in the middle, and end in N, so they even sound the same. Both are written of as US citizens, both are said to have gone places only few, if any, men have gone before. Both were watched by people all over the world as they did this. They would both leave for their journy from Florida, and they would both end up in the Pacific Ocean afterwards.
You would, as you have done in the past, HAVE to conclude that the latter story was a copy of the original, would you not? That is the ENTIRE basis for your logic before, that you say that Christianity and the Egyptian religion are 'zomg similar!' and thus, Christianity must be a copy off of the Egyptian thinking. If you are to be consistant, you simply must contend that in the above example, the second story is obviously a copy off the first one; unless, of course you want to contradict yourself where you find yourself compromised, but then we'll just see how wrong you really were in the first place...
I'm waiting. Yes or No? Copy of a story, or fact resembling fiction?
Legionnaired, yes it is possible, however in a world as physically small as the ancient world, do you really think that a myth of the largest civilization of the time wouldn't have been passed down throughout the region would have been lost completely? Even if the source was lost, there's no way that the authors of the Bible would never have heard such a story. Stories were one of the primary ways of keeping track of history; they didn't just disappear when the Egyptian civilization crumbled.
Now, as for the actual point itself: no she wouldn't have to conclude that the latter story was a copy of the original. The most important thing you have to realize is that in fields such as this, where we are trying to decipher how exactly things happened in the past, that there are very few absolutes. Everything is a theory. The difference between your situation and the proposed situation is that, in your situation, there would be a concrete informational link between the time the event happened and the point in time somewhere in the future that people are looking back on the event and analyzing it. This is because (hopefully) there was no major collapse of civilization and the like, as well as the much more reliable information storage of computers. The facts would be indisputable.
A better comparison would be that, after these two men made their journey, the entire world collapsed into famine, destruction, war, a near-apocalypse. Only fragments of the story survived, possibly a burned newspaper clipping, or even word-of-mouth passed down for some reason of the two men. In this case, it would be a logical conclusion for any researcher of the future to propose the theory that the story of the two men were in fact only the story of one man. It's a valid theory, backed up by the evidence, and it would remain unchallenged scientifically until new evidence presented itself.
The point is, whether or not you agree with Cyndane's ideas, you can in no way pigeon-hole her into renouncing the theory using that example.
<!--QuoteBegin-Legionnaired+Apr 3 2005, 08:56 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legionnaired @ Apr 3 2005, 08:56 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+Apr 3 2005, 04:15 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ Apr 3 2005, 04:15 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> According to basic theological studies leginaired most legends actually come from exaggerated facts. Not the other way around. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You dodged the question. Again.
Is it, or is it not, possible for a fictional story to be invented long before a true story greatly resembling the false one, even almost identical? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually I didn't, I pointed out how I was taught. That is the answer you wanted.
In addition, attempting to use such a how did sky put it "pigeon-holed" question in a very... lack of mature nature to pressure one in to conceeding was rather silly.
When you do decide to go on to college, I would reccommend taking a basic theological course that covers all religions, that way you will have some appreciation for where I am coming from and perhaps a bit more understand will emerge from that.
Also, do not try to say I don't know where you are coming from, I grew up in a very strict lutheran family, which later decided catholism was better. I'm not sure how my mother picked that.. but that is neither here nor now.
How about instead you actually go out and find a document stating that your religion pre-dates all of these other ones by written record. (Keep in mind written record does pre-date all religions by around 7-8 thousand years, yes even egyptian) Oh, wait, you can't do that. I apologize legionaired, if I seem a bit sarcastic, but this is growing annoying.
All you are doing is using circular logic in a horrible attempt at proving your case correct. How about using facts instead. That is all I have asked for and I have yet to see even one fact from you, or any of your sources.
I have seen vague references to books that I can't find even using leet google hax. I have also called barnes & noble, who actually do have a quite large bookstore here in SF, and they don't even know what book your source was talking about. (Specifically the one that has all these so-called drawings from the hindu scripts, I have yet to see a single hindu script that has drawings in their religious text. The hinu people in all of my experience, have always been a very literate group they have almost never had to rely upon pictures to get their point across. Probably the easiest of the religions, other then buddism/janism to get across is besides the point.)
You find me those facts, then we can discuss this further. Untill then, stop with the circular logic and actually attempt to refute by using facts.
Also a note to sky, kudos for disassembling something forty mintues earlier so I didn't have to waste my time on it. I award you the offical accolade of tolerance.
Comments
Excuse me.
<i>Grendel wipes a tear from his eye.</i>
The word <b>nice</b> has enjoyed over 20 different meanings, some of which are diametrically opposed, in the last 500 years.
People frequently quote a 2000 year old anthology, which (if true) was spoken in variety of local dialects, then written in a variety of greek and Aramaic dialects, then translated through Aramaic, Hewbrew, Greek, Latin, French, Old English, Norman English, Modern English and revised at the request of several different kings.
These people then quote text from this <b>as the literal or even vaguely accurate representation of the word of God</b>?
Even if the original text was word for word unequivocally a perfect record of events and dialogue, there isn't any remote possibility that the current contents of the bible are even close to the original.
People who believe in the bible literally - guess what, you've been owned by reality.
We can't even guess what Jane Austen meant by the phrase:
"Thank you for the nice, long letter you wrote me" less than <b>300 years ago</b>. Yet people persist in supporting their arguments with quotes from the bible...
Faith is one thing. Willful retardedness is something entirely different. Quoting from the bible undermines your argument.
Discuss. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Please, that's as bad as the creationists who claim evolution is a lie because there's no evidence.
Sometimes people amaze me with their ignorance.
If the Bible is true(which I believe it is), that'd mean its God's word. You know, the guy that created all of us? Can end the planet whenever he wants? Turn us all into puffcakes if he feels? Yet you are idiotic enough to think he couldn't simply make sure the translators did their job right?
The universe would cease to exist, of course. There are too many contradictions in the Bible for any system of logic to work. Real logical paradoxes would be present, so 1 could equal 0, so physics wouldn't work, and everything would fall apart. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh yeah, I'd love to dispel this myth: Name one.
Seriously.
I've asked many people this question, and thus far, not one could come up with one that me, a mere beginner in Bible knowledge, didn't know how to correct their way of thinking over what it says- many times it seems like a contradiction because of pure cynacism in ones mind.
...so, care to show?
Edit: Note, if you talk of contradictions between the Old and New Testament, that is equally invalid: 90% of the religion's ideals and laws changed from before and after Christ.
I don't want to digress, but I can't leave this point unanswered.
Evolution is both a fact and a theory. It is a fact that evolution occurs. There is too much evidence for it not to be true, unless you have some contrived belief that God created all the fossils and made DNA so similiar between every life form. Even so, you have to deal with speciation that has occured during recorded human history.
Evolution is also a theory. The Theory of Evolution is an explanation of how evolution occurs. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Another add: DNA so similar between so many animals? We as humans have no relation to anything but mammals- within mammals, we only even begin to "relate" DNA wise to monkeys. Even then, it is a mere 5% match- thats like saying that the boat came from the Horse and buggy- sure, they come from the general same conscripts of human existence, but that by no means states that they are related.
As to Evolution itself: The only things within Evolution that have been proven thus far is natural selection, and what I personally call 'evolution lite'- aka, the modifying of body molecules to protect against diseases- of which, only one part of our body resists these things, being the white blood cells.
As to other theries of evolution, such as the fossil records: Thus far they have not once found a single link between the current(or supposedly last) skeleton and that before it.
I'm sure that humans probably had much more bent vertabrae and more hair- which is evolution on a small basis. Its been proven that even the human body will grow hair to compensate for the need of heat in cold times- thats why you can feel more hair on your arm in winter than now.
Thus far, the different Theories of evolution have only been proved in a few of them- the ones that are obvious, that were even told before the 'theory' of evolution came around.
Now don't get me wrong- this isn't proven. But at the same time, the entire idea of religion is based off of faith. This faith is that God himself is an absolute truth, able to manipulate the laws of physics and time to his will, and even at times the laws of life themselves.
If he had the power to create the world, with all of it's intracacies and perfections, don't you think he'd have the power to put enough doubt in the world to make it so those seeking the truth seek him <b>personally</b> instead of just "seeking the truth", which will turn up fruitless regardless.
In the end, niether side is, or can be, proven: Thus, this argument is wholly pointless. Because while you guys can bring up as many scientific reasons as you like, at the same time, the same answer can be used against it: "Couldn't God have made it that way? He <i>does</i> have the power."
This isn't to say I'm right, its merely saying this has gotten to the realm of pointlessness.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->our nuclear DNA is 98% to 99% identical to that of chimpanzees<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Source: <a href='http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/RootWeb/which_of_our_genes_make_us_human.htm' target='_blank'>here</a>
bit old and before the completion of the human genome project, not sure how valid this article is anymore.
But I've heard that primate DNA is much more similar than 5% and is at least in the 80s.
However the general point in discussions such as these is to refute and counter one sides evidence and arguements with your own. In a case such as this one can not use the bible to prove that the bible is true. You need empirical and independent evidence.
Also if this doubt is there so people seek out God instead of just the truth. Isn't God supposed to be the universal truth? So surely the evidence that scientists etc discover would lead them to God. But instead they tend to disprove or at least contradict the accounts that God provided in the Bible. Does this mean that God is intending to mislead us?
two: it has been mathematically proven that provability has no relationship to truth.
<a href='http://www.tektonics.org/' target='_blank'>This website</a> had some very interesting arguements on the whole Kirshna Vs Yeshua cruxifiction concept. They kept referencing pictures, yet they never once showed any of them, I'd also like to point out that when you do a google search for the images they were referencing nothing shows up even a google search for the book doesn't list any other places to find the book.
Personally I think it is in poor taste to list references and not actually show how you got your sources, especially if you are attempting to prove something false. I will admit however, they are the very definition of a christian apologetic website. The negative denomonation that is.
two: it has been mathematically proven that provability has no relationship to truth. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
In terms of a literal interpretation of the Bible (Which is what this thread seems to be about):
Creation Theory
<a href='http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c002.html' target='_blank'>http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c002.html</a>
Noah's Ark
See earlier in the thread.
Generally, huge world changing events described in the bible (Such as those above) should have left significant evidence available to geologists etc. While it's possible for other events in the bible (dealing with people and groups of people) to be true. These events are not reflected in the geological studies of the Earth and as such suggest that these events did not happen or at least not on the scale described.
Of course it all depends on whether or not you chose to believe the evidance.
Provabilty may have no relation to the truth, but generally people tend to believe things they have stronger evidence for. So to convince people of your argument you need to at least provide an equal amount of evidance to the opposing argument. It's how reasoned debates, discussions and the justice system works.
But of course as has been said, scientific evidence vs religious faith is an arguement that neither side will win. But it's generally an interesting and educational read.
I only brought that forward because you were relating truth and proof. And you then completely remove truth from the discussion, I'll assume the point is noted and you won't attempt to combine them again.
I only brought that forward because you were relating truth and proof. And you then completely remove truth from the discussion, I'll assume the point is noted and you won't attempt to combine them again. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Proof is:
That which confirms
or
A fact or circumstance that gives logical support to arguement.
Confirm:
To establish as true or genuine
So in certain contexts proof can refer to truth and as you correctly pointed out the context that I was using was equating proof with truth. Scientific truth is different from religious truth though, as shown by this topic.
In terms of the six days, I assume you read the whole article I linked. As it says it depends on your interpretation of science as to the interpretation of day. However it seems to make it clear that the original Hebrew referred a 24 hour day. Assuming God is all powerful I'm sure he was aware of the passage of time, even without a Sun and day/night cycle and when he communicated this to Moses (After he created the sun and the Earth, so knowing exactly what a solar day was) he made this clear.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Probably, so far as l know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Gen. 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that
(a) Creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience
(b) The figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story © Noah's flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark.
- Professor James Barr, professor of Hebrew at Oxford University.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I only brought that forward because you were relating truth and proof. And you then completely remove truth from the discussion, I'll assume the point is noted and you won't attempt to combine them again. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Proof is:
That which confirms
or
A fact or circumstance that gives logical support to arguement.
Confirm:
To establish as true or genuine
So in certain contexts proof can refer to truth and as you correctly pointed out the context that I was using was equating proof with truth. Scientific truth is different from religious truth though, as shown by this topic.
In terms of the six days, I assume you read the whole article I linked. As it says it depends on your interpretation of science as to the interpretation of day. However it seems to make it clear that the original Hebrew referred a 24 hour day. Assuming God is all powerful I'm sure he was aware of the passage of time, even without a Sun and day/night cycle and when he communicated this to Moses (After he created the sun and the Earth, so knowing exactly what a solar day was) he made this clear.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Probably, so far as l know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Gen. 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that
(a) Creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience
(b) The figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story © Noah's flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark.
- Professor James Barr, professor of Hebrew at Oxford University.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
At the same time though, your own theory disproves one of your own: That of the earth's split.
Its a very valid thing to maybe believe that the only reason the earth's only continent split was from "The Flood". So essentially, flooding the entire earth could be flooding every single land mass- of which there is plenty of proof to that, its just that its on a much larger scale. In fact, I've been told that there is a massive, massive amount of evidence that "The Flood" not only happened, but happened the way it said it did, as to have all man and animal come out of one place in the world. Its been shown many, many times that we all seem to come from somewhere in the Northern Middle East, maybe even Southern Europe.
Also Emsee, I'd like to have you read the book "A Case for Christ". Hell, everyone here should read that- it already goes through many of the arguments were in here and shows many places where they can easily be found true- and note that it was written after the man became Christian, because of the book's evidence.
Even if the flood did occur as the bible says it did, that kind of water doesn't just vanish overnight, even if the entire polar icecaps were to melt as of right now that would not flood the entire earth. Not to mention how many hundreds of years it would have taken to see land again.
No, I am sorry but that is quite obviously a fable.
Secondly, I am not even going to bother legionaired, you have deemed yourself not even open minded enough to look at links I post and I have only seen one link from you and it was a ministry site, if that isn't biased I don't know what is.
Also, you stated relgioustolerance was biased, really? Here is THEIR mission statement.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
This is a large religious web site which promotes religious freedom, tolerance and diversity as positive cultural values. It contains over 2,800 essays and menus. But it is very different from almost all other religious sites:
We do not promote our own religious beliefs. We can't because we are a multi-faith group. We try to explain the full range of religious belief in North America, from Asatru to Zoroastrianism, including Christianity, Hinduism, Wicca etc.
We try to describe all viewpoints on controversial religious topics objectively and fairly. We cover everything from abortion access to equal rights and protections for homosexuals and bisexuals, including same-sex marriage, and dozens of other "hot" topics.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Other then encyclopedias they are the most unbiased site I have found, for EITHER side.
In addition, you want to know what it would take for me to say something wasn't a spinoff, very simply put, find a document, that predates the Egyptian/Hindu writtings that says Yeshua(Jesus) came to earth. Then I shall concede. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
My question was: Is it possible for a ficticious story to preceed a historical one, and they both have exactly the same principles, ideas, or events happening?
Just answer me instead of dodging the question.
I need to find some time so I can write up better posts to debate some of these inaccuracies I see but alas school is keeping me busy and I should probably get back to some homework while I still have some weekend left to work.
Edit: Not worth making another post just for this link and I'm sure most people are going to immediately brush it off as being biased but for those with a more open mind, here is a link that has refrences to many articles on the flood.
<a href='http://answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/noah.asp' target='_blank'>http://answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/noah.asp</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Many creationist scientists think that mountains such as the Himalayas were probably built by catastrophic movement of the earth’s continental plates during and after the Flood (see Q&A: Plate Tectonics). Measurements indicate that the Himalayas are still rising). The rate of rise now measured is just the remnant of the processes that occurred much faster in the past.
Mountain building occurred as a part of the geologic processes that deepened the oceans to take the waters off the land towards the end of the Flood. Some mountains could have existed before the Flood, but none like the current Himalayas, Alps, or Andes in height. In any case, there is only enough water on all the earth to cover mountains about 3 kilometres (2 miles) high, if all the ocean basins were raised. So, if the waters were not 9 kilometres deep, but much less, the question is no longer an issue.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It is possible that a large flood spawned the whole "god smited humanity" story, but obviously there are more natural causes for this to have occurred.
A very prime example is thunder. Ancient greeks thought it was Zeus with his thunderbolts, and of course lightning is the after effect. Now we know thunder is simply the after effect of the air super heating from the electrical discharge of cloud to cloud or cloud to ground.
Is it really so hard to believe that some other natural event occurred, scarring humanities memories so badly that it was deemed an "act of god".
*edit*
Kudos KFDM, that site is partially unbiased. It took me a while to read it which is why I was so long in responding it does have some interesting articles, but then some of them are so far-fetched.. but the same can be said for any religious site that is trying to promote itself. I think I shall add it to my already large list of sites that are partially unbiased and I shall shift through the articles to find the good ones. Then I shall use them to link to. Thank you.
*edit 2* I just can't stop laughing at this one. I'm sorry if that offends anyone but I have to share this lovely story on how the bible and dinosaurs relate.
(Keep in mind there is not a single scientific fact in the entire article.)
<a href='http://answersingenesis.org/docs/2.asp' target='_blank'>Dinosaurs and the Bible.</a>
(Keep in mind there is not a single scientific fact in the entire article.)
<a href='http://answersingenesis.org/docs/2.asp' target='_blank'>Dinosaurs and the Bible.</a> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wow...how can someone actually sit down and write garbage like that...I refuse to believe the person who wrote that actually believed it, is it possible for someone that stupid to even be able to spell yet alone write an article?
I take pity upon any misguided fools who might read that and take it to heart...
<a href='http://answersingenesis.org/docs2002/carbon_dating.asp' target='_blank'>http://answersingenesis.org/docs2002/carbon_dating.asp</a>
Leading off by accusing science of not backing itself up:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The story we have all heard from movies, television, newspapers, and most magazines and textbooks is that dinosaurs lived millions of year ago. According to evolutionists, the dinosaurs ‘ruled the Earth’ for 140 million years, dying out about 65 million years ago. However, scientists do not dig up anything labeled with those ages. They only uncover dead dinosaurs (i.e., their bones), and their bones do not have labels attached telling how old they are. The idea of millions of years of evolution is just the evolutionists’ story about the past. No scientist was there to see the dinosaurs live through this supposed dinosaur age. In fact, there is no proof whatsoever that the world and its fossil layers are millions of years old. No scientist observed dinosaurs die. Scientists only find the bones in the here and now, and because many of them are evolutionists, they try to fit the story of the dinosaurs into their view.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is so bad creationists don't even believe it anymore:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Although the Bible does not tell us exactly how long ago it was that God made the world and its creatures, we can make a good estimate of the date of creation by reading through the Bible and noting some interesting passages:
- God made everything in six days. He did this, by the way, to set a pattern for mankind, which has become our seven day week (as described in Exodus 20:11). God worked for six days and rested for one, as a model for us. Furthermore, Bible scholars will tell you that the Hebrew word for day used in Genesis 1, can only mean an ordinary day in this context.
- We are told God created the first man and woman—Adam and Eve—on Day Six. Many facts about when their children and their children’s children were born are given in Genesis. These genealogies are recorded throughout the Old Testament, up until the time of Christ. They certainly were not chronologies lasting millions of years.
As you add up all of the dates, and accepting that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, came to Earth almost 2000 years ago, we come to the conclusion that the creation of the Earth and animals (including the dinosaurs) occurred only thousands of years ago (perhaps only 6000!), not millions of years. Thus, if the Bible is right (and it is!), dinosaurs must have lived within the past thousands of years.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Here's something to make Apos' blood boil:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Evolutionists claim that dinosaurs evolved over millions of years. They imagine that one kind of animal slowly changed over long periods of time to become a different kind of animal. For instance, they believe that amphibians changed into reptiles (including dinosaurs) by this gradual process. This would mean, of course, that there would have been millions of creatures during that time that would be ‘in between,’ as amphibians evolved into reptiles. Evidence of these ‘transitional forms,’ as they are called, should be abundant. However, many fossil experts admit that not one unquestionable transitional form between any group of creatures and another has been found anywhere. If dinosaurs evolved from amphibians, there should be, for example, fossil evidence of animals that are part dinosaur and part something else. However, there is no proof of this anywhere. In fact, if you go into any museum you will see fossils of dinosaurs that are 100% dinosaur, not something in between. There are no 25%, 50%, 75%, or even 99% dinosaurs—they are all 100% dinosaur<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
For good measure, state beliefs as facts; it makes them look scientific:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Well, what happened to all the land animals that did not go on the Ark? Very simply, they drowned. Many would have been covered with tons of mud as the rampaging water covered the land (Genesis 7:11-12,19). Because of this quick burial, many of the animals would have been preserved as fossils. If this happened, you would expect to find evidence of billions of dead things buried in rock layers (formed from this mud) all over the Earth. This is exactly what you do find.
By the way, the Flood of Noah’s day probably occurred just over 4,500 years ago. Creationists believe that this event formed many of the fossil layers around the Earth. (Additional fossil layers were formed by other floods as the Earth settled down after the great Flood.) Thus, the dinosaur fossils which were formed as a result of this Flood were probably formed about 4,500 years ago, not millions of years ago.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hey, let's accuse scientists of dogmatic beliefs, then counter with our own beliefs; irony be damned:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Evolutionists use their imagination in a big way in answering this question. Because of their belief that dinosaurs ‘ruled’ the world for millions of years, and then disappeared millions of years before man allegedly evolved, they have had to come up with all sorts of guesses to explain this ‘mysterious’ disappearance.
When reading evolutionist literature, you will be astonished at the range of ideas concerning their supposed extinction. The following is just a small list of theories:
Dinosaurs starved to death; they died from overeating; they were poisoned; they became blind from cataracts and could not reproduce; mammals ate their eggs. Other causes include-volcanic dust, poisonous gases, comets, sunspots, meteorites, mass suicide, constipation, parasites, shrinking brain (and greater stupidity), slipped discs, changes in the composition of air, etc.
It is obvious that evolutionists don’t know what happened and are grasping at straws. In a recent evolutionary book on dinosaurs, ‘A New Look At the Dinosaurs,’ the author made the statement:
‘Now comes the important question. What caused all these extinctions at one particular point in time, approximately 65 million years ago? Dozens of reasons have been suggested, some serious and sensible, others quite crazy, and yet others merely as a joke. Every year people come up with new theories on this thorny problem. The trouble is that if we are to find just one reason to account for them all, it would have to explain the death, all at the same time, of animals living on land and of animals living in the sea; but, in both cases, of only some of those animals, for many of the land dwellers and many of the sea-dwellers went on living quite happily into the following period. Alas, no such one explanation exists’ (Alan Charig, p. 150).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The granddaddy:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Creationists, of course, would not be surprised if someone found a living dinosaur. However, evolutionists would then have to explain why they made dogmatic statements that man and dinosaur never lived at the same time. I suspect they would say something to the effect that this dinosaur somehow survived because it was trapped in a remote area that has not changed for millions of years. You see, no matter what is found, or how embarrassing it is to evolutionists’ ideas, they will always be able to concoct an ‘answer’ because evolution is a belief. It is not science—it is not fact!<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As you can see, endless comedic value.
I haven't laughed this hard since I was a little girl.
You dodged the question. Again.
Is it, or is it not, possible for a fictional story to be invented long before a true story greatly resembling the false one, even almost identical?
If it is possible, then you have one hell of a case to prove that the earlyer writers of the Gospels, not to mention Jesus himself, were influenced directly by the earlyer Egyptian religion.
If it you say it is NOT possible... well...
What would you say, if I told you that there exists two stories. They both involve male humans. They both have last names that start with the letter A, have D in the middle, and end in N, so they even sound the same. Both are written of as US citizens, both are said to have gone places only few, if any, men have gone before. Both were watched by people all over the world as they did this. They would both leave for their journy from Florida, and they would both end up in the Pacific Ocean afterwards.
You would, as you have done in the past, HAVE to conclude that the latter story was a copy of the original, would you not? That is the ENTIRE basis for your logic before, that you say that Christianity and the Egyptian religion are 'zomg similar!' and thus, Christianity must be a copy off of the Egyptian thinking. If you are to be consistant, you simply must contend that in the above example, the second story is obviously a copy off the first one; unless, of course you want to contradict yourself where you find yourself compromised, but then we'll just see how wrong you really were in the first place...
I'm waiting. Yes or No? Copy of a story, or fact resembling fiction?
Now, as for the actual point itself: no she wouldn't have to conclude that the latter story was a copy of the original. The most important thing you have to realize is that in fields such as this, where we are trying to decipher how exactly things happened in the past, that there are very few absolutes. Everything is a theory. The difference between your situation and the proposed situation is that, in your situation, there would be a concrete informational link between the time the event happened and the point in time somewhere in the future that people are looking back on the event and analyzing it. This is because (hopefully) there was no major collapse of civilization and the like, as well as the much more reliable information storage of computers. The facts would be indisputable.
A better comparison would be that, after these two men made their journey, the entire world collapsed into famine, destruction, war, a near-apocalypse. Only fragments of the story survived, possibly a burned newspaper clipping, or even word-of-mouth passed down for some reason of the two men. In this case, it would be a logical conclusion for any researcher of the future to propose the theory that the story of the two men were in fact only the story of one man. It's a valid theory, backed up by the evidence, and it would remain unchallenged scientifically until new evidence presented itself.
The point is, whether or not you agree with Cyndane's ideas, you can in no way pigeon-hole her into renouncing the theory using that example.
You dodged the question. Again.
Is it, or is it not, possible for a fictional story to be invented long before a true story greatly resembling the false one, even almost identical? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually I didn't, I pointed out how I was taught. That is the answer you wanted.
In addition, attempting to use such a how did sky put it "pigeon-holed" question in a very... lack of mature nature to pressure one in to conceeding was rather silly.
When you do decide to go on to college, I would reccommend taking a basic theological course that covers all religions, that way you will have some appreciation for where I am coming from and perhaps a bit more understand will emerge from that.
Also, do not try to say I don't know where you are coming from, I grew up in a very strict lutheran family, which later decided catholism was better. I'm not sure how my mother picked that.. but that is neither here nor now.
How about instead you actually go out and find a document stating that your religion pre-dates all of these other ones by written record. (Keep in mind written record does pre-date all religions by around 7-8 thousand years, yes even egyptian)
Oh, wait, you can't do that.
I apologize legionaired, if I seem a bit sarcastic, but this is growing annoying.
All you are doing is using circular logic in a horrible attempt at proving your case correct. How about using facts instead. That is all I have asked for and I have yet to see even one fact from you, or any of your sources.
I have seen vague references to books that I can't find even using leet google hax. I have also called barnes & noble, who actually do have a quite large bookstore here in SF, and they don't even know what book your source was talking about. (Specifically the one that has all these so-called drawings from the hindu scripts, I have yet to see a single hindu script that has drawings in their religious text. The hinu people in all of my experience, have always been a very literate group they have almost never had to rely upon pictures to get their point across. Probably the easiest of the religions, other then buddism/janism to get across is besides the point.)
You find me those facts, then we can discuss this further. Untill then, stop with the circular logic and actually attempt to refute by using facts.
Also a note to sky, kudos for disassembling something forty mintues earlier so I didn't have to waste my time on it. I award you the offical accolade of tolerance.
*edited for grammar/clarity/spelling*