quote:

---

Radiocarbon dating has never been a reliable source of dating information. Quite a few years ago, scientists tested a live clam for its age. It tested as over 300,000 years old!! Therefore you can ditch radiocarbon.

---

This is a rare case where the method did fail, but in virtually all other tests, it has shown itself to be extremely accurate.

For more accurate information about the subject, the following page should serve to dispell any creationist nonsense regarding radio-carbon dating: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/radiodte.htm

quote:

---

Fossil layers are also very interesting. I have heard that the fossil records are determined by the index fossils. How old are those? Any scientist who beleives in evolution will tell you it's determined by the soil it's in. How old is the soil? Well, that's determined by the index fossil. What we have here is circular reasoning, and not evidence.

---

quote:

---

The decaying magnetic field limits earth’s age to less than billions.

---

More surprisingly, such measurements show occasions when the earth's magnetic field has dropped to virtually nothing, and re-emerges with the magnetic poles reversed--the magnetic north pole is now the south pole and vice versa. Some 171 such magnetic reversals have been found, extending back over 76 million years. (By determining the strength and polarity of the magnetic signature of particular rocks, and by comparing the resulting patterns to sea-floor patterns, the rock can be roughly dated, a method known as "paleomagnetism"). Between 1953 and 1958, such a magnetic polarity reversal was also observed directly, in the sun. During this time, the sun's magnetic dipole field decreased in strength, dropped to almost nothing for a period of several years, and re-emerged with reversed polarity.

There is thus no justification whatever for Barnes and Humphreys to attempt to extrapolate their magnetic measurements for the last 150 years or so back to the moment of creation. It is apparent that the earth's magnetic field is not "decaying", and that it routinely fluctuates and even occasionally reverses itself completely. The only explanation that the creationists can invoke to deal with these fluctuations and reversals is to turn to their religious sources, and opine that these reversals were a result of the actions of God in bringing about Noah's Flood. The creationist "magnetic field decay" hypothesis is simply not capable of giving us any scientific estimate of the earth's age.

quote:

---

The volume of lava on earth divided by its rate of efflux gives a number of only a few million years, not billions. I believe that during the Flood, while "the fountains of the deep were broken up," most of the earth’s lava was deposited rapidly.

---

Morris and Parker [1982] list an age of 500 million years based on the "influx of magma from mantle to form crust." This calculation, which appears in Morris [1974], is based on the volume (0.2 cubic km/yr) of lava erupted by Paricutin Volcano in Mexico during the 1940s. Morris [1974] notes that intrusive rocks are much more common than lava flows: "...so that it seems reasonable to assume that at least 10 cubic kilometers of new igneous rocks are formed each year by flows from the earth's mantle.

The total volume of the earth's crust is about 5 x 10^9 cubic kilometers. Thus, the entire crust could have been formed by volcanic activity at present rates in only 500 million years, which would only take us back into the Cambrian period. ... The uniformitarian model once again leads to a serious problem and contradiction. [Morris, 1974, p.157]

But the "uniformitarian model" of which Morris [1974] is so critical is a product of Morris [1974], not science. He has pulled the value of 10 km3/yr from thin air, assumed that this fictitious rate has been constant over time, and neglected erosion, sedimentation, crustal recycling, and the fact that the injection of magma into the crust is a highly nonuniform process about which little is known. Morris' (92)calculation is worthless. (Dalrymple, 1984, p.111)

quote:

---

Dividing the amount of various minerals in the ocean by their influx rate indicates only a few thousand years of accumulation.

---

The table that one sees in a couple of Henry Morris' books was copied from a chapter by Goldberg (1965) that appears in Riley and Skirrow (1965).

Goldberg's [1965] Table I is a list of the abundances and residence times of the elements in sea water; it is these residence times that Morris [1974, 1977] and Morris and Parker [1982] give as indicated ages of the Earth. The residence time of an element, however is the average time that any small amount of an element remains in seawater before it is removed, not, as stated by Morris [1974], the time "to accumulate in ocean from river inflow," and has nothing to do with the ages of either the Earth or the ocean. Morris [1974, 1974a, 1977] and Morris and Parker [1982] have totally misrepresented the data listed in Goldberg's [1965] table. (Dalrymple, 1984, 116)

Dalrymple concludes with:
"The influx of chemicals to the ocean is an invalid and worthless method of determining the age of the Earth. Morris [1974, 1977] and Morris and Parker [1982] have misrepresented fundamental geochemical data and ignored virtually everything that is known about the geochemistry of seawater."
(Dalrymple, 1984, p.116)

It's all in a day's work for your typical creationist author! They are quite good at ignoring unfavorable facts. Never mind that the elements are in approximate equilibrium with the ocean; never mind that residence times are not the times for elements to accumulate from river inflow. Never mind that plankton concentrates these elements sometimes a thousand fold or more in their skeletons, and, when they die, they remove these elements from the sea waters (Glenn Morton). Press that banner high and march on! And that's exactly what a new generation of creationists are doing with this intellectually dishonest argument.

quote:

---

The amount of Helium 4 in the atmosphere, divided by the formation rate on earth, gives only 175,000 years. (God may have created the earth with some helium which would reduce the age more.)

---

Helium-4 is the product of radioactive alpha decay whereas Helium-3 is primordial. The rates of their "production" are simply the rates of their escape from within the earth to the atmosphere.

The whole argument hinges on Helium-4 remaining in the atmosphere. A fair amount of helium is lost from the earth's atmosphere by simply being heated up in the elevated temperature of the exosphere (Dalrymple, 1984, p.112).

The exosphere is the outermost layer of our atmosphere, beginning after the ionosphere at about 300 miles above the earth. When a lightweight helium atom is heated up, especially Helium-3 which is even lighter than Helium-4, it can easily pick up enough speed to escape Earth's gravity altogether and head off into outer space. Heating gas is a little like swatting rubber balls with a paddle; the lighter balls travel a lot faster after being swatted. In this manner about half of the Helium-3 produced is lost to outer space. The amount of the heavier Helium-4 lost by this method appears to be far short of the amount produced. Hence, the point of Morris' argument which is based on calculations by Cook. However, there are other mechanisms of helium escape which Morris and Cook have overlooked. Creationist Larry Vardiman (ICR Impact series, No.143, May 1985) at least recognizes some of these factors. However, he has not fully addressed the matter, let alone proven that the earth is young.

The most probable mechanism for helium loss is photoionization of helium by the polar wind and its escape along open lines of the Earth's magnetic field. Banks and Holzer [1969] have shown that the polar wind can account for an escape of 2 to 4 x 10^6 ions/cm^2 sec of Helium-4, which is nearly identical to the estimated production flux of (2.5 +-1.5) x 10^6 atoms/cm^2 sec. Calculations for Helium-3 lead to similar results, i.e., a rate virtually identical to the production flux. Another possible escape mechanism is direct interaction of the solar wind with the upper atmosphere during the short periods of lower magnetic-field intensity while the field is reversing. Sheldon and Kern [1972] estimated that 20 geomagnetic-field reversals over the past 3.5 million years would have assured a balance between helium production and loss.(Dalrymple, 1984, p.112)

Dr. Dalrymple goes on to explain that even though our understanding of the helium balance in the atmosphere is incomplete, the situation being very complicated because of various hard-to-calculate factors, we do know one thing. "...it is clear that helium can and does escape from the atmosphere in amounts sufficient to balance production." (1984, p.113)

Thus, the helium balance calculations provided by creationist Melvin Cook (which are used by Henry Morris) cannot provide a reliable minimum estimate of the earth's age. Their argument is a fatal oversimplification of a complex problem.

Another version of the helium argument for a young earth is based on the estimated production of Helium-4 by radioactive decay. The creationist then asks why so little of that amount is found in the atmosphere. The answer to that one is that the same escape mechanisms listed above apply once the helium-4 works its way out of the rock and into the atmosphere. The rock traps it for a time and slows its release.

quote:

---

The erosion rate of the continents is such that they would erode to sea level in less than 14,000,000 years, destroying all old fossils.

---

...it is generally regarded by geologists that the rates of erosion at present are relatively high because of the topography of the continents. The continental land masses are believed to be much more rugged and mountainous than is usually the case, and mountainous topography speeds up rates of erosion. Thus at the present time we ought fully to expect that more sediment is being added to the oceans than is being removed. Paleogeography indicates that very often in the past the opposite was the case.(Young, 1988, p.131)

quote:

---

Topsoil formation rates indicate only a few thousand years of formation.

---

quote:

---

Niagara Falls’ erosion rate (four to five feet per year) indicates an age of less than 10,000 years. Don’t forget Noah’s Flood could have eroded half of the seven-mile-long Niagara River gorge in a few hours as the flood waters raced through the soft sediments.)

---

quote:

---

The rock encasing oil deposits could not withstand the pressure for more than a few thousand years.

---

Some idea of the extremely slow speed of fluid motion to be expected can be gained by considering the movement of ground water at shallow depths in dense clays, classed as "impermeable." Under a moderate hydraulic gradient and a reasonable value of permeability for clay, we come up with flow speeds of ground water on the order of 2 to 3 million years per kilometer [3.2 to 4.8 million years per mile]. Yet the permeability of source shales of petroleum is rated at only one-thousandth as great as for clays tested in the surface environment (Wszolek and Burlingame, 1987, p. 573). (Strahler, 1987, p.237)

Thus, the primary migration of oil from its place of origin will take far longer than the mere 6000 years or so creationists allow for the age of the earth. Creationists have tried to dance around that figure by quoting special cases of secondary migration or by simple smoke screen tactics, but the problem remains (Strahler, 1987, pp.237-238).

quote:

---

The size of the Mississippi River delta, divided by the rate mud is being deposited, gives an age of less than 30,000 years. (The Flood in Noah’s day could have washed out 80% of the mud there in a few hours or days, so 4400 years is a reasonable age for the delta.)

---

It is stretching the long arm of coincidence much too far, to suggest that there just happened to be a vast hole in the ocean bed seven miles deep near the mouth of the Mississippi, and that the Flood just happened to fill that hole with sediment, while leaving nearby areas of the Atlantic unfilled; and that similar coincidences just happened to occur around the mouths of all the world's great rivers.(Hayward, 1985, p.84)

It sounds like miracle-time for scientific creationists, but wait! Dr. Hovind will probably assure you that, when the waters were draining off the continents at the end of the flood, all that sediment was whisked down the Mississippi River and deposited in mere hours or days. Unfortunately, there's a fatal bug in that scenario.

It takes time for the earth to sink under a load of sediment. Suppose you went down to the Gulf of Mexico one fine day, say just off the Texas coast, and dumped a pile of sediment there 7 miles high! I haven't the foggiest idea how long that mountain of sediment would sit there before sinking down to sea level, but I can assure you that it would not happen in hours or even days. That heap would probably still be there after thousands of years.

A super-charged Mississippi River isn't even going to build mountains to begin with. The onrushing sediment-loaded water would just be pushed further into the gulf. You would get a "delta" vastly more spread out than the one we have -- and nowhere near 7 miles thick. Think about it.

quote:

---

The slowing spin of the earth limits its age to less than the "billions of years" called for by the theory of evolution.

---

Let's do the calculation for 370 million years ago:

((0.005 sec/yr) x (370 million yr))/Year = (1,850,000 sec)/Year
((0.005 sec/yr) x (370 million yr))/Year = (21.4 days)/Year

Thus, at 370 million years ago, the earth had 21.4 extra days per year. The total days then per year were: (365.25 + 21.4)days/Year = 386.65 days/Year

(8766 hrs/Year)/(386.65 days/Year) = 22.7 hrs/day

If you do the same calculations for 4.6 billion years ago, you'll get the 14 hrs/day given by Drs. Thwaites and Awbrey. Thus, there is no problem here for mainstream science. Indeed, the present rate may be too high:

"...the correct present rate of slowing of the earth's rotation is excessively high, because the present rate of spin is in a resonance mode with the back-and-forth motion of the oceans' waters in the ocean basins. In past ages when the rotation rate was faster, the resonance was much less or nonexistent, resulting in a much more gradual slowing of the rotation rate. The most recent calculations indicate that the earth could be 4 to 5 billion years old and not have been spinning excessively fast or requiring the moon to be any closer to the earth than 225,000 kilometers (140,000 miles)."(Sonleitner, 1991, file=MOVIE2.WP)

A study of rugose corals from the Devonian (370 million years ago), initiated by John W. Wells of Cornell University in 1963, indicated that the year then had 400 days of about 22 hours each. For a discussion of coral clocks see Dott & Batten (1976, pp.248-249). Subsequent work with corals of Paleozoic, Mesozoic, and modern origin have produced highly revealing, if approximate, results.

Determinations of the same kind were made for algal deposits (stromatolites) of the Upper Cambrian (-510 m.y.) (Pannella et al., 1968). Plots of the collected data for the entire time span from Recent back through the Paleozoic Era showed a nonuniform increase in days per month going back in time, and from this it is inferred that tidal friction has not been uniform in that period.(Strahler, 1987, p.147)

Studies of the chambered nautilus, for a time, was also proposed as a geologic clock by Kahn and Pompea. However, that effort ran into problems and creationists still use it to try to discredit the coral clocks. Each case, of course, has to be judged on its own merits. The coral clocks are good enough to destroy the young-earth claims.

From the present slowing down of the earth's spin we get a day of 22.7 hours 370 million years ago; 370 million years ago is the approximate radiometric date of those rugose corals. And, a study of the rugose corals confirms that the day then was about 22 hours long. In this example we have a remarkable agreement between two diverse dating methods.

It spells "Old Earth."

quote:

---

A relatively small amount of sediment is now on the ocean floor, indicating only a few thousand years of accumulation. This embarrassing fact is one of the reasons why the continental drift theory is vehemently defended by those who worship evolution.

---

ross549, would you care to play again?

------------------
"Jane!! Stop this crazy thing!!" ~ George Jetson

All I've got to say is that if you don't believe the Earth is 4.55 billion years old, you need a good spankin'.

------------------
There is no spoon.

------------------
The spork does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.

------------------
Ditch Intel, GO with Winner

First we have an attention getting headline that ties it into the Noah flood.

Shortly thereafter we have the expedition leader admit that they started with a conclusion (that the biblical Noah flood is a real historical event), then went looking for evidence that might support it:"What we wanted to do is prove to ourselves that it was the biblical flood," Ballard said in an interview this week. Typical creationist "science"; Start with the conclusion.

The rest of the article gives us the evidence that it probably is NOT the biblical Noah flood!

quote:

---

...a theory advanced by Columbia University geologists William Ryan and Walter Pitman that the Black Sea was created when melting glaciers raised the sea level until the sea breached a natural dam at what is now the Bosporus, the strait that separates the Mediterranean Sea from the Black Sea.
An apocalyptic deluge followed, inundating the freshwater lake below the dam, submerging thousands of square miles of dry land, flipping the ecosystem from fresh water to salt practically overnight, and probably killing thousands of people and billions of land and sea creatures, according to Ryan and Pitman."

---

Then we get:

quote:

---

Ryan and Pitman also suggested that the flood may have triggered massive migrations to destinations as diverse as Egypt, western Europe and central Asia

---

quote:

---

"All modern critical Bible scholars regard the tale of Noah as legendary,” said Hershel Shanks, editor of the Biblical Archaeology Review.

---

quote:

---

Shanks pointed out that biblical scholars date the writing of the Book of Genesis, from which the story of Noah is taken, at sometime between 2,900 and 2,400 years ago, and a similar event is described in the Mesopotamian Gilgamesh legend, written about 3,600 years ago.

---

From a scientific standpoint I found the article to be very interesting, but if there was any intent for it to somehow "prove" the historical biblical Noah flood as a fact, it failed miserably.

quote:

---

The mussel in question had acquired much of it's carbon from the limestone of it's surrounding water and sediment which caused an artificially older date.

---

How then can you tell the date of anything? Perhaps a shell in my soil would have "aquired much of it's carbon from the limestone" in my area. The point is radiocarbon dating is not worth the hassle of making excuses for its false results.

Therefore, we have survival of the fittest, right?

The theory of evolution also helped Hitler before the beginning of World War II. Hitler considered himself superior to the blacks. He felt that he was the fittest of humans (him and the lucky ones that were similar to him in hair and eye color), and therefore he could get rid of the blacks, jews, and others without being wrong. To me that sounds like racism to me, but it was based on evolution.

Your misguided ideas regarding evolution show a lack of comprehension on the matter. Those responses I posted to your ramblings of creationists are a very small portion of the many, many scientific evidences of our world, universe and existence that make evolution so overwhelmingly conclusive. There is so much that backs up evolution, the huge post I made above is merely a scratch on the surface.

Hitler, in actuality, was a very devout Christian who thought the Jews deserved to be exterminated for killing Jesus, among other things. He regularly attended church and for quite a while the church backed him as though he were on a holy crusade. The swastika is a cross, on the move like a wheel.

Can you tell us why you believe the bible in the way you do? Have you studied at all the roots of the bible? Have you looked into the meaning of the ancient texts at all? Do you do any research yourself, or do you just take the word of your favorite conservative preacher and trust that he knows more than anyone else?

Here's a little fact for you to chew on: Out of all the Christian leaders in the world, the number that believe and espouse the literal version of the biblical creation are in the minority. Even the Pope himself believes evolution is the method used by God! Bible scholars around the globe agree, with the exception of a handful of over-zealous fundamentalist preachers associated with the ICR.

You obviously ganked all those assertions of your post straight from the ICR site without investigating a single one yourself. Blind faith alone is blinding in every way. Go ahead and trust in God, but you have put your faith in men who say they know more than anyone else about the bible, it's meaning, God's reasons and more. You have blindly adopted their opinions as your own without doing any of the research yourself.

God said, "Seek and ye shall find." Not, "Blindly follow the pharisee."

------------------
"Jane!! Stop this crazy thing!!" ~ George Jetson

It is our challenge to find out for ourselves what the truth is. Part of that challenge and that responsibility is to do so without discarding sound reasoning in the process, I believe.

The existence of God (theme of the thread ) is not predicated on whether or not creationists or evolutionists are correct. If creationists are wrong, does that mean God does not exist? Of course not. If evolutionists are right, does that mean God does not exist? Of course not.

The problem, it seems to me, is how we tackle the problem. If we try to use the bible in it's present manifestation as a literal textbook on science, health, geology, physics, etc we MUST discard sound reasoning and observation of the world around us. We must ignore factual data because it does not coincide with the literal interpretation presented in the bible.

If we are going to do that, we have still another problem. We can not get all the diverse interpretations of the bible made by all the various denominations of Christianity to co-exist with each other! How can we mere men conclusively decide that one, of all the denominations of Christianity, is the single correct and unerring version and interpretation? Certainly, each faction will fight vehemently for their own cause, and the stalemate results only in that we ALL lose ANY hope for the TRUTH.

If there is a God who created all that we see and smell and touch; If there is a God who created us with the intelligence we have shown to possess for logical reasoning and thinking and deduction; I do not believe that same God would set up the world in such a way that the physical properties He has put in place are arbitrary or without merit.

Isotopes have half-life properties that can be measured. Carbon-dating is not wrong. EVEN if it contradicts ONE of those factions (the literal creationists) vehemently fighting for THEIR truth to be the singularly correct one, that doesn't make it wrong.

I'm an atheist. What does that mean? It means I don't believe in God. It means I don't believe there is a God. Does it mean I am AGAINST God? Certainly not! How can I be against someone I do not even believe exists?!

What I am against is the suppression of ideas, the suppression of evidence, the suppression of free thought, the suppression of advancement as a species toward the TRUTH, whatEVER it may be.

The Bible itself claims to be the inerrant word of God. Inerrant is defined as having no errors. The Bible was wriiten by many men under the influence of the Holy Spirit. It was also written over a period of approx. 4000 years. Yet, there has never been a contradiction found in it. Interesting? I think so.

The clam used was simply a test by a creationist to determine if carbon dating actually worked, which it doesn't. You can put any excuse on that test that you want, but it won't change my mind. I heard about that test a long while back; it was the first one that came to mind.

I did get my earthdate info from anther site . . . it wasn't ICR's. I didn't even know they had a site. I guess I'll have to check it out.

I did take a peek at the radiocarbon page. However, when I looked at the title of the page, I didn't bother to read it. Why? I knew that there was a slant towords evolution in it and that it would not be objective. Oh, well. I suppose it would have put me to sleep anyway.

quote:

---

The Bible itself claims to be the inerrant word of God. Inerrant is defined as having no errors. The Bible was wriiten by many men under the influence of the Holy Spirit. It was also written over a period of approx. 4000 years. Yet, there has never been a contradiction found in it. Interesting? I think so.

---

I assume you know who Paul is? Saint, disciple, founder of the Christian church, wrote some of the new testament, told the world how God wants things done and what Jesus said and did, and was the first pope? Yeah, that guy. Did you know that he admits that he lied about it? I quote, "For if the truth of God hath more abounded by my lie unto his glory, why yet am I also adjudged a sinner?" Does that sound like there's no errors?

How about this: In Matthew 1 verse 16, it states that Jacob begat Joseph, husband of Mary, mother of Jesus. Do you have any explanation as to why Luke states, in verse 3.23 that Jesus is the son of Joseph, who was the son of Heli? Who is Joseph's father, Jacob or Heli? Two verses later, Matthew states Mary was with child, of the holy ghost. So who is Jesus' grandfather? Heli? Jacob? Or the Ghost's father? If it's the ghost, how is Jesus at all descended from David per the Bible? In that case David's lineage stops at Joseph.

In Luke 1 verse 30-31, an Angel told Mary she would have a son and the child shall be called Jesus. Matthew translated Isaiah 7.14 as "Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel." So what's the name? Emmanuel? or Jesus? Emmanuel hyphen Jesus? Who's right, Isaiah or the Angel?

The proper translation of Isaiah 7.14, "Behold, a woman is with child..." Yet, Matthew translates it thus: "Behold, a virgin shall be with child..." Did Matthew deliberately twist the words of the prophet Isaiah in order to make it clear that this is a divine conception?

Matthew states that Herod slew all the children two and under, in Bethlehem. Why is there no independent record of this mass slaughter? Why didn't Mark, Luke and John report this mass slaughter, and the flight to Egypt? Didn't they know about it? Or didn't they think it was interesting enough to mention, the slaughter of all the children in an entire city? Matthew wrote it in order to fulfil another prophesy from Jeremiah 31.15, so that he could bolster up more evidence: "In Rama, there was a voice heard, lamentation, weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not." 2.18 Where is Rama? And was anyone in Bethlehem weeping?

Matthew states that the devil, "taketh Jesus up to an exceedingly high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world." Tell me, from which mountain can one see "all the kingdoms of the world"??

Matthew, a Hebrew tax collector, learned to write in Greek? Why aren't there any gospels written in Hebrew?

Matthew said that Jesus said, "Till heaven and earth pass, not one word, nor one letter shall pass from the law, till all is fulfilled." So the law of the Old Testament is still in effect such as shellfish are an unclean abomination (Lev 11.10-11); women are the spoils of a captured city (Deut 20.14) and that death is the proper penalty for those who work on the Sabbath (Deut 5.21)?

Matthew 5, 1-10 Basically, Jesus says that the meek, the poor in spirit, those who hunger for righteousness, the merciful, the pure in heart, and the peacemakers, all go to heaven. Why didn't he mention anything about having to believe in him, or be baptized, or be born again? Did Jesus forget about this?

Didn't Jesus also say "there shall be some standing here, which shall not taste death, till they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom"? 16.28 And, "the present generation will live to see it all"? 24.34. I assume that generation all died out some 2000 years ago. Did Jesus come back and we missed it?

After the last supper, and the betrayal by Judas, Matthew states that Judas hanged himself, yes? 27.5 Yet, in Acts 1.18, it is stated that Judas flung himself forward on the ground, and burst open. Which is correct? And why don't you see the apparent discrepancy?

Matthew says the inscription on the cross was "This is Jesus, king of the Jews." 27.37. Mark only mentions it said, "King of the Jews." Luke says it said, "This is the King of the Jews", and John says it said, "Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews." Who is correct? Which book is correct, and which three are in error?

Jesus said, "Just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale, so shall the son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." 12.40. If Jesus was crucified Friday, and was up and running on Sunday morning, where is the third night?

(By the way, does anyone really believe Jonah spent three days in a closed container of fish vomit and survived?)

Matthew says that after the resurrection Jesus first met the remaining eleven disciples in a mountain, near Galilee. 28.16. Mark says Jesus appeared to two, who told the others. Luke has Jesus first appearing to all eleven in Jerusalem. John has Jesus appearing to 10 of the disciples in Jerusalem, as Thomas was missing. Which of the four has the story correct? And which 3 are in error?

Let's try something else... ummm... How about this:
Arpachshad's son was Shelah - Gen 11:12
Arpachshad's grandson was Shelah - Luke 3:35-36

God promises Abraham the land of Canaan to live in - Gen 17:8
God did not allow Abraham to live in the promised land - Acts 7:5, Heb 11:8,9,13

Jacob's offspring in Egypt totaled 70 - Gen 46:26-27, Ex 1:5
Jacob's offspring in Egypt totaled 75 - Acts 7:14
Jacob was buried in a cave in Machpelah's field that was bought from Ephron the Hittite - Gen 50:13
Jacob was buried in a tomb at Shechem bought from the sons of Hamor - Acts 7:15-16

The Hebrews dwelt in Egypt for 430 years - Ex 12:40
The Hebrews dwelt in Egypt for 400 years - Acts 7:6

Hey, guess what? I've got pages and pages and pages of this stuff. The bible has no errors?? Please!! The bible has no contradictions?? Please!!

Maybe, just MAYBE you should study this stuff yourself INSTEAD of taking your favorite fundamentalist preacher's bullshit word for it that:

quote:

---

The Bible itself claims to be the inerrant word of God. Inerrant is defined as having no errors. The Bible was wriiten by many men under the influence of the Holy Spirit. It was also written over a period of approx. 4000 years. Yet, there has never been a contradiction found in it. Interesting? I think so.

---

quote:

---

The clam used was simply a test by a creationist to determine if carbon dating actually worked, which it doesn't.

---

quote:

---

I did get my earthdate info from anther site . . . it wasn't ICR's. I didn't even know they had a site. I guess I'll have to check it out.

---

quote:

---

I did take a peek at the radiocarbon page. However, when I looked at the title of the page, I didn't bother to read it. Why? I knew that there was a slant towords evolution in it and that it would not be objective. Oh, well. I suppose it would have put me to sleep anyway.

---

quote:

---

I feel sorry for you, Buckster. Satan has obviously blinded you from the truth, and now your are pursuing fiction with more vigor than I have sometimes. I pray that God will reveal his truth to you in a powerful way that you may come to the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior.

---

------------------
"Jane!! Stop this crazy thing!!" ~ George Jetson

------------------
The spork does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.

Man... the knowledge level of Buckster and others around here continues to amaze me all the time... clearly higher than ANYWHERE i've ever seen before... this is where i can learn plenty just by reading...

------------------
God does not Play Dice with the Universe - Einstein
The Stygian Abyss

quote:

---

I assume you know who Paul is? Saint, disciple, founder of the Christian church, wrote some of the new testament, told the world how God wants things done and what Jesus said and did, and was the first pope? Yeah, that guy. Did you know that he admits that he lied about it? I quote, "For if the truth of God hath more abounded by my lie unto his glory, why yet am I also adjudged a sinner?" Does that sound like there's no errors?

---

Buckster, if you raed this passage a little further, you find that Paul is talking about those who are liars. The end of verse states, "their condemnation is deserved." Have you ever actually read this passage, or did you get this off of some "Christian-killer" website?

quote:

---

How about this: In Matthew 1 verse 16, it states that Jacob begat Joseph, husband of Mary, mother of Jesus. Do you have any explanation as to why Luke states, in verse 3.23 that Jesus is the son of Joseph, who was the son of Heli? Who is Joseph's father, Jacob or Heli? Two verses later, Matthew states Mary was with child, of the holy ghost. So who is Jesus' grandfather? Heli? Jacob? Or the Ghost's father? If it's the ghost, how is Jesus at all descended from David per the Bible? In that case David's lineage stops at Joseph.

---

Jesus was the Son of God. But, because He was on earth as a child, Joeseph was considered His earthly father.

[qutoe]In Luke 1 verse 30-31, an Angel told Mary she would have a son and the child shall be called Jesus. Matthew translated Isaiah 7.14 as "Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel." So what's the name? Emmanuel? or Jesus? Emmanuel hyphen Jesus? Who's right, Isaiah or the Angel?[/quote]

They both are. Emmanuel means "Christ with us."

quote:

---

The proper translation of Isaiah 7.14, "Behold, a woman is with child..." Yet, Matthew translates it thus: "Behold, a virgin shall be with child..." Did Matthew deliberately twist the words of the prophet Isaiah in order to make it clear that this is a divine conception?

---

Can't a woman also be a virgin? I guess that is forbidden in this world. I apologize.

quote:

---

Matthew states that Herod slew all the children two and under, in Bethlehem. Why is there no independent record of this mass slaughter? Why didn't Mark, Luke and John report this mass slaughter, and the flight to Egypt? Didn't they know about it? Or didn't they think it was interesting enough to mention, the slaughter of all the children in an entire city? Matthew wrote it in order to fulfil another prophesy from Jeremiah 31.15, so that he could bolster up more evidence: "In Rama, there was a voice heard, lamentation, weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not." 2.18 Where is Rama? And was anyone in Bethlehem weeping?

---

I imagine the mothers of the children were weeping. I think that I would too, if my child was being killed just because he is too young. What you don't understand, Buckster, is that the four Gospels were written with four different audiences in mind. Matthew was written to the Jews to prove that Jesus was the coming Messiah.
John was written for the rest of the world. The other two I don't remember off the top of my head.

quote:

---

Matthew states that the devil, "taketh Jesus up to an exceedingly high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world." Tell me, from which mountain can one see "all the kingdoms of the world"??

---

There are other instances in the Gospels that can be only explained in the Spiritual realm. Jesus also revealed Himself in all his glory to the Disciples. Besides, Matthew wasn't there. This was revealed to him by God, so that he could show the Jews that Jesus was sinless.

[Rom 3:4] By no means! Let God be true though every man be false, as it is written, "That thou mayest be justified in thy words, and prevail when thou art judged."

[Rom 3:5] But if our wickedness serves to show the justice of God, what shall we say? That God is unjust to inflict wrath on us? (I speak in a human way.)

[Rom 3:6] By no means! For then how could God judge the world?

[Rom 3:7] But if through my falsehood God's truthfulness abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner?

[Rom 3:8] And why not do evil that good may come?--as some people slanderously charge us with saying. Their condemnation is just.

[Rom 3:9] What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all; for I have already charged that all men, both Jews and Greeks, are under the power of sin,

[Rom 3:10] as it is written: "None is righteous, no, not one;

He goes on like this for a while explaining that no one is righteous anyway, NOT even they that MUST do everythiong in their power to convert the non-believers. Then we get to this:

[Rom 3:27] Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On the principle of works? No, but on the principle of faith.

Hey, no problem! We can get away with this because it's for the common good, we're just as infallable as anyone else and we will be forgiven for it in the end!

Let's go to 1st Corinthians for another look at his practices:

[1Cor 9:20] To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews; to those under the law I became as one under the law--though not being myself under the law--that I might win those under the law.

[1Cor 9:21] To those outside the law I became as one outside the law--not being without law toward God but under the law of Christ--that I might win those outside the law.

[1Cor 9:22] To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.

[1Cor 9:23] I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.

Here he tells us that he doesn't have a problem being a chameleon. He portrays himself however he wants, says whatever his audience wants to hear - all for the sake of promoting his cause.

quote:

---

Jesus was the Son of God. But, because He was on earth as a child, Joeseph was considered His earthly father.

---

quote:

---

They both are. Emmanuel means "Christ with us."

---

quote:

---

Can't a woman also be a virgin? I guess that is forbidden in this world. I apologize.

---

quote:

---

Matthew was written to the Jews to prove that Jesus was the coming Messiah.
John was written for the rest of the world. The other two I don't remember off the top of my head.

---

On to the High mountain:

quote:

---

There are other instances in the Gospels that can be only explained in the Spiritual realm. Jesus also revealed Himself in all his glory to the Disciples. Besides, Matthew wasn't there. This was revealed to him by God, so that he could show the Jews that Jesus was sinless.

---

You make another good point: Matthew wasn't there. Now tell me where Matthew cites his source for the story, cause I missed it. You say, "This was revealed to him by God, so that he could show the Jews that Jesus was sinless." Please tell me the verse number of this admission by Matthew, or where you got the information from. Or are you re-writing the book of Matthew?

quote:

---

I will work on some more of these later.

---

quote:

---

The point is radiocarbon dating is not worth the hassle of making excuses for its false results.

---

You're about to get in deep, my friend.

While I don't always agree with Buckster's approach with the occasional insult, Ross, he HAS done research and applied brain power. I enjoy the byplay in these debates as long as they're civil. While you may claim that you have not seen specific information posted in a specific site, how can you make allegations that Buckster is getting his information from

quote:

---

some "Christian-killer" website?

---

Come on. Yes, it was insulting, being told that you've brought a bowl of Jello to a gunfight, but what you're doing by not giving people credit for using the brains God gave them is incredibly shortsighted and is what starts the degeneration from a debate into a pissing contest.

Do your homework. Pay attention to someone else's point of view. Go talk to a rabbi or an astrophysicist... I am in no way stating that I don't want to see what you have to say, and I'm also not going to agree with you in most cases,anyway. Based on what I've seen so far, you're regurgitating something you've been told or read somewhere that fits perfectly into your perception of the way things should be. Not that thats not how we ALL operate, but you should be able to reason and extrapolate based on new information.

Now, my comments may be viewed as an attack on your faith, on your religion, both of which I don't agree with, but that shouldn't bother either of us. What I am addressing is the refusal to believe that there might just be another explanation, and that doesn't just apply to you, Ross.

Now, lets get back to reasoning!

Well, guys, thanks to a monumental #@$%-up on our end, we're gonna have to terminate the project. As soon as is feasible, we will begin the dismantling of the asteroid belt, pulverize the planet and use the debris to fill a cosmic pothole we've discovered near Eridani IV.

And all thanks to Tudore!

quote:

---

Let's go to 1st Corinthians for another look at his practices:

[1Cor 9:20] To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews; to those under the law I became as one under the law--though not being myself under the law--that I might win those under the law.

[1Cor 9:21] To those outside the law I became as one outside the law--not being without law toward God but under the law of Christ--that I might win those outside the law.

[1Cor 9:22] To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.

[1Cor 9:23] I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.

Here he tells us that he doesn't have a problem being a chameleon. He portrays himself however he wants, says whatever his audience wants to hear - all for the sake of promoting his cause.

---

Paul was not trying to "promote his cause." He was trying to won souls for Jesus Christ. Paul was not origianally Paul, he was Saul. The Bible states this very clearly. When he was confronted by God, he emerged a changed man. He realized his sin (persecution of the Jews), and he wanted to make it right by showing the Jews the way to the Messiah. His "mission" was "to testify the gospel of the grace of God." It was not to "promote his cause." If you are running for congress, and you want the people to listen to you, are you going to speak Spanish and wear a huge sombrero? I don't think so. The old saying says: "When in Rome, do as the Romans do." This is not necessarily to "promote your cause," this not being devious. This is just being like the people so they will accept you and listen. Then you can be far more effective in communicating your message.

Jews were very strict in their customs. They were so strict that, if Paul did not take on their customs, they probably wouldn't listen to him at all. The Bible also states that Paul took the Nazerite vow. Basically that means he gave haimself totally to the work of God, just as Jewish preists did. This was a message to the Jews that he was serious.

quote:

---

It was very important for Matthew and Luke to establish the lineage back to David in order to fulfill the prophesy. Have they done so? Did Joseph's sperm introduce David's DNA as a part of Jesus' heritage or not? Simple question. I have a step-father named Howard, but that does not make his ancestors part of my lineage, does it? And, to the point, Who is Joseph's father? Is there any contradiction on this matter between Matthew and Luke? Well?

---

Mary was in the lineage of David. She was married to Joeseph at the time of birth. (Matthew 1:16)

quote:

---

Jesus means "the Lord Saves" too. What of it? I didn't ask what they mean. I asked who had the correct name, the angel? or Isaiah? Did they call him Emmanuel or not?

---

I say again, they both are. Jesus had many names. Teacher, Emmanuel, Jesus Christ, Christ . . . the list goes on.

quote:

---

You're dodging the point. Matthew is quoting Issaiah's prophesy in order to establish that Jesus' birth has fulfilled said prophesy. Why did Matthew, who knew Hebrew, the language Issaiah wrote the prophesy in, change Issaiah's words when quoting him? And, to the point, how can you not see there is a serious conflict of words and interest in this? Because of this statement, Mary became a virgin mother, when none was ever prophesised at all!

---

Yes, it was: Isaiah 7:14-Therefore the LORD himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Imannuel.

quote:

---

Even IF this is a true statement, isn't the story of Herod slaughter important to the establishment of Jesus' true identity? More to the point, why is there NO record of this mass slaughter anywhere else, in OR out of the bible. You do realize that the bible is not the only written word from that time period, right? Yet such an abominable act was recorded nowhere but Matthew. Guess what? Bible scholars agree he made it up, just like he did the virgin bit.

---

The prophesy of the slaughter of the children was probably not as important to the reast of the world as it was to the Jews, who happened to be very legalistic.

quote:

---

First, can we take the bible literally or not? Why say Jesus was taken to a high mountain to see all the world if it's not true? Why not just say that the Devil showed Jesus all the kingdoms of the Earth and leave it at that? Only in the spritual realm, huh? If it was only a spiritual experience, then why was Jesus so burnt out from hunger? That sounds pretty physical to me, not spiritual.
You make another good point: Matthew wasn't there. Now tell me where Matthew cites his source for the story, cause I missed it. You say, "This was revealed to him by God, so that he could show the Jews that Jesus was sinless." Please tell me the verse number of this admission by Matthew, or where you got the information from. Or are you re-writing the book of Matthew?

---

Timothy wrote: All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

quote:

---

You haven't successfully navigated through these yet! C'mon... Can't you just admit that there ARE indeed statements in the bible that conflict with each other?

---

Proverbs 30:5-Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in Him.

Romans 10:17-So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of GOD.

Hebrews 4:12-For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, peircing even to the dividing asunder of the soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow,and is a discernerof the thoughts and the intents of the heart.

Yes, yes... It's ok now... ::pats Ross on head:: The bad man has gone away. He won't bother you again... Everything's fine... You'll see... Heaven is still right where it was... Don't you worry... I've checked under the bed for you and in the closet too - all the monsters are gone now... Go back to sleep...

[whisper - Ross is dreaming, I mean sleeping...]
To the rest of the audience, The passage of Isaiah reads in Hebrew as follows:

"Hinneh ha-almah harah ve-yeldeth ben vekarath shem-o immanuel."

In Hebrew, "ha-almah" means a young woman. The same word is translated in Exodus 21. 20 as a maid, and also in Proverbs 30.19. "Bethulah," a word that appears nowhere in the above quotation, is the Hebrew for "virgin," and is translated as such in Gen. 24.16, Lev. 21.3, 21.14, Deut. 22.19,. 22.23, 2 Samual 13.2, Isaiah 23.12, 37.22, 47.1, Jer. 14.7, Lam. 1.15, Joel 1.8, and Amos 5.2.

"Harah" is the past tense for "conceived." As in English, the past tense in Hebrew denotes completed action. Bernard Anderson, Understanding the Old Testament, page 311 (1975).

The above passage is honestly translated in the New English Bible:

"A young woman is with child, and will bear a son, and will call him Immanuel."

The book of Isaiah was written some 750 years before the alleged birth of Jesus Christ.

Isaiah 7.14 did not refer to some uncertain virgin who would bear a child three-quarters of a millenium later. The whole idea that the virgin birth of Christ was predicted by Isaiah is a lie.

As the writer of the Gospel according to Matthew knew enough Hebrew to correctly translate the meaning of "Immanuel," it follows that his mistranslation was a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts. He lied to us, and he knew it. It is that plain and simple.

The historical context of the passage in Isaiah is that of an assurance by Isaiah to King Ahaz that within a short time his enemies, Aram and Isreal, would lose to him in battle. It has nothing at all to do with a saviour who would die to redeem anyone's sins.

In Isaiah 8, Isaiah tells us he personally made sure this prophecy was fulfilled:

And I went unto the prophetess, and she conceived, and bare a son. . . Isaiah 8.3 (King James Version).

Interestingly, it was King Ahaz who lost the battle. Aram and Isreal destroyed his armies in a complete defeat. 2 Chronicles 28.5 The passage of Isaiah, rather than a prediction of the virgin birth of Jesus, is just another unfulfilled prophecy in the Old Testament.

This is an important forgery for Christianity--for without it, it is a "wild" religion, springing up from nothing.

Jerome, who originally translated the Bible from Hebrew into Latin, knew of the error and insisted on perpetuating it rather than correcting it. He wrote:

"For at the present day, now that the whole world has embraced the faith, the Jews argue that when Isaiah says, 'behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son,' the Hebrew word denotes a young woman, and not a virgin; that is to say, the word is 'almah', and not 'bethulah.' Jerome, The Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Mary, vol. 6, page 336.

Thus, another church father is indicted by his own admissions. Along with Matthew and Jerome are dragged the writers of the King James Version, who perpetuated the error for hundreds of years. Along with them go the authors of the current Revised Edition, which has repeated the error with a note in the margin that not one in a thousand will see, and which falsely suggests that the original Hebrew is somehow equivocal.

The rest of Ross' claims are similarly child-like in their simplicity for an answer. If anyone really wants me to, I will get into them. Personally, I think it's a waste of time to debate with someone who doesn't have the tools to carry on the discussion.
[/whisper - Ross is dreaming, I mean sleeping...]

------------------
"Jane!! Stop this crazy thing!!" ~ George Jetson

That said, I do believe there are beings in the universe that are on a much higher level than we are, but I do not believe they created our universe or us, nor do I believe they hold any interest in our good/evil battle.

Also, I have stated in other threads that If God Himself, physically manifested himself to me (and better yet, the rest of the world) and told me that He DIDN'T use evolution as a tool, I'd believe Him.

If supernatural things started happening that totally defied the laws of nature, I would have reason to doubt that we are secure in our ideas of how things work. (Like if gravity decided to stop working for an hour, or the sun actually stood still indicating the Earth had stopped turning, or all the first born children in any nation suddenly died for no apparent reason, etc.)

If creation "scientists" could come up with a plausible basis for their version of how we came to be, that satisfactorily explains AT LEAST as much as evolution, WITHOUT invoking supernatural deities, I would certainly consider the evidence. I would not dismiss it out of hand.

I'd like to expand a bit on my last post, and clear up a few things...

Using a version of the bible called "The Bible in Basic English" we read:

quote:

---

[Mat 1:21] And she will give birth to a son; and you will give him the name Jesus; for he will give his people salvation from their sins.
[Mat 1:22] Now all this took place so that the word of the Lord by the prophet might come true,
[Mat 1:23] See, the virgin will be with child, and will give birth to a son, and they will give him the name Immanuel, that is, God with us.

---

quote:

---

[Isa 7:14] For this cause the Lord himself will give you a sign; a young woman is now with child, and she will give birth to a son, and she will give him the name Immanuel.

---

However, it should be noted that although Matthew was written in Greek, the supposed writer was Mathew, a Hebrew tax collector. Now the job of a tax collector in those days is not one that would be bestowed on someone with a great deal of learning and there is no indication that Matthew was proficient in both languages. Bible scholars agree that Matthew would have written the text in his native tongue - Hebrew. So, why was it written in Greek?

Bible scholars agree that the gospels attributed to their names were not written by the disciples themselves, but were written long afterward as Christianity took hold and became popular, in the 2nd century. More about that in a minute...

So, is it possible that the person who actually wrote Matthew simply did not understand Hebrew well enough to make the translation accurately? There are problems with this hypothesis. First, the writer does a pretty good job of tranlating the rest of the passage. Second, our bible-thumping friends would have us believe that all the writings of the bible are divinely influenced and error-free. The only other possibility then, is that the writer intentionaly mis-quoted Isaiah.

If that is true, the next logical question is, why?

It is important to understand that at the time Matthew and the other gospels were written, Christianity was a growingly popular religion. There are actually some 200 gospels, epistles and other books concerning the life of Jesus the Christ. Of these, only 27 are accepted by the church. The other 173 have been declared by the church itself to be "pious frauds."

One Christian writer, professor of Theology at the University of Birmingham, dismisses these hundreds of forged writings with these words: "(they are merely) another genre of literature, devised for reading by the faithful during their leisure time, and corresponding in some ways to the novels of a later era." J.G. Davies, The Early Christian Church, p.83 (1965).

While these apocryphal writings have all the fictional qualities of a modern novel, they are certainly not another genre of literature. As a matter of fact, there is no way to distinguish them from the accepted Gospels. The apocryphal Book of James narrates the miraculous birth and infancy of the Virgin Mary. The apocryphal Gospel According To Thomas contains accounts of Jesus' life up till the age of twelve. These apocryphal writings fit alongside the accepted writings.

The origin of these fraudulent documents was none other than the church. Gibbon tells us: "Orthodox theologians were tempted, by the assurance of impunity, to compose fictions, which must be stigmatized with the epithets of fraud and forgery. They ascribed their own polemical works to the most venerable names of Christian antiquity." E. Gibbon, History of Christianity, p. 598 (1883)

These apocryphal (i.e., fraudulent) writings are almost exclusively written in the names of apostles or disciples of Jesus the Christ. The professor of Early Christian History at the Divinity School, University of Chicago, admits that: "...they arose during the 2nd century, when popular piety seems to have been rather freely expressed." R. Grant, New Testament Apocrypha, in the article, "Biblical Literature," in Encyclopedia Brittanica, vol. 2, p. 973 (1977).

Some examples of these "pious frauds" are the Gospels written in Jesus Christ's own hand; the personal correspondence of Jesus Christ; letters written by the Virgin Mary; Pilates official report to the Emperor of the trial and crucifixion of Jesus; the offician documents of the Roman Senate about Jesus; official documents about church law written by the apostles; 50 other gospels, more epistles, acts of the apostles, and other writings. The writer of the Gospel of Luke tells us there were many other accounts of the life of Jesus circulating about when he wrote his. Luke 1.1.

How exactly did the church separate the documents which were supposedly divinely inspired, from the "pious frauds"? How did the church distinguish the Apocalypse of Peter from the Apocalypse of John? How were the Acts of John, of Paul, of Peter, of Phillip, of Thaddeus, of Thomas (all declared forgeries by the early church) distinguished from the Acts of the Apostles?

They took a vote! What was popular, became divinely inspired. What was unpopular, was admitted to be a forgery. These 173 writings show the early church was nothing more than a forgery mill. Many of these fraudulent documents can be found in Wilhelm Schneemelcher (ed.)., New Testament Apocrypha.

To top it off, a papal decree declaring about 50 works to be apocryphal is itself an admitted forgery. Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 1, p. 615.

There are parts of the canonical New Testament books which were never part of the oldest manuscripts. These parts are not found in the oldest papyrus codices, and were instead the insertions of later transcribers. Some of these inserted passages are: Mark 1.1 The words, "Son of God."; Mark 16:9-20, concerning the appearances of Christ after the resurrection; Luke 22:43, 44, about the bloody sweat of Jesus; John 7:53 to 8:11, about the woman taken in adultery. The Revelation of John was itself rejected by the early church as a forgery. See R. Grant, above.

The canonical gospels are further discredited by the historical evidence of alterations made at the order of Emperor Anastasius in 506 A.D., That evidence has been reported by Victor, of Tunis in Africa: "Messala V.C. Consule, Constantinopili, jubente Anastasio Imperatore, sancta evangelia, tanquam ab idiotis evangelistis composita, reprehenduntur et emendantur." Translation: "The Illustrious Messala, by the command of the Emperor Anastasius, the Holy Gospels, as having been written by idiot evangelists, are hereby censured and corrected." Quoted by Rev. R. Taylor, The Diegesis, p.118 (1894).

Some of the passages in the New Testament seem to show that Jesus was never regarded as anything but a mythical person. In Luke 9.29, Jesus glows white while praying. In Luke 24.3, Jesus vanishes into thin air. In Mark 9.3, Jesus' clothes become "a dazzling white, with a whiteness no bleacher could equal." (New English Bible). Jesus is about as realistic as a laundry detergent commercial.

The famous church father Augustine never failed to subordinate reason to faith. He followed that maxim when he wrote: "I would never believe the Gospels to be true, unless the authority of the Catholic Church restrained me." Augustine, De Genesis..

There are still more forgeries. Of fifteen letters allededly written by Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch in 69 A.D., eight are generally rejected by Christian scholars as forgeries, having no authority at all. Giles, Christian and Hebrew Records, vol. 2, p.99 (1877). See also Cyril R. Richardson, The Christianity of Ignatius of Antioch, preface (1967). Richardson only accepts seven as authentic.

Computer analysis of literary style shows that only the four larger of Paul had a common author. All the others are forgeries of unknown authorship. This study, called "statistical stylometry," involves computer analysis of how how many times a certain pronoun is used by a Greek author, the percentage of times it is used in the genitive form, and the number of words in sentences. For example, the occurrences of "de" (but) between the occurrences of "kai" (and) are compared as they appear in different Epistles. Results indicate that the chances of all fourteen Epistles being of a common authorship are highly unlikely, and are instead authored by different writers.

Statistical stylometry does show a common authorship for such Greek authors as Plato, Hippocrates, and a good selection of others.

This technique is considered reliable enough to be admissible in courts of law to prove the authenticity of such documents as confessions. A. Morton, Literary Detection: How to Prove the Authorship and Fraud in Literature and Documents (1979)

It is for these reasons that I do not believe the bible is whatever the bible claims itself to be, just because the bible says so. That is circular reasoning. The quotes Ross provides from the bible to prove that the bible is unerring and true,

quote:

---

Proverbs 30:5-Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in Him.

Romans 10:17-So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of GOD.

Hebrews 4:12-For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, peircing even to the dividing asunder of the soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow,and is a discernerof the thoughts and the intents of the heart.

---

For a really funny story that involves circular logic like Ross's quotes, please go to http://www.sonic.net/~jhuger/kisshank.htm This is one of the funniest things I've ever read, and it shows the absolutly ridiculous nature of his arguement.

------------------
"Jane!! Stop this crazy thing!!" ~ George Jetson

------------------
"Jane!! Stop this crazy thing!!" ~ George Jetson

I see errors.

I see inconsistencies.

I see contradictions.

I see evidence that the gospels were written 200 years after they are supposed to have been written.

I see evidence of editing throughout.

I see evidence of puposefully misleading text.

I see circular reasoning.

I see many of it's followers defend it when there is nothing to defend.

I see the Jewish faith pointed out mis-translations of the original Torah, only to be ignored. (These people KNOW Hebrew - They wrote it!!)

I see more than 2000 different splinter groups of "Christians" (known as sects or denominations) all reading the same reference who cannot agree with each other on what it says or means.

I see many of it's followers try to debunk scientific observation in their attempt to make the world fit the text instead of the other way round. (You can't fit a spherical Earth into a cubical Bible!)

I see stories that by any stretch of my imagination are unbelievable, like talking donkeys, talking snakes, glowing people, Noah's boat, 6 literal days of creation, people who live nearly a thousand years, a world-wide flood at the same time in history that the pyramids were being built, and more and more and more.

And it's ALL true because IT says it's true!

Sorry, I'm just not buying it. If The Hobbit series said it was a true story, I wouldn't believe that either, would you? Then why do so many believe this collection of stories from ancient people without corroboration?

And that's my whole thing... where's the corroboration? Where are the other sources that any of this ever happened the way that the Bible says it did. I'm talking about the fantastic stuff that I mentioned above, not whether or not there's really a place calledc Egypt and it's in the Bible so the rest of it must be true too. There are lots of fictional stories that use real places and even people in them to help the story. Why is it that the Bible can't be doing this same thing?

There's no historical evidence external to the Bible that a guy was crucified and got up three days later and was walking around. No historical evidence that there was a world wide flood. No historical evidence external to the Bible that dead saints got up and walked around when Jesus was crucified. No historical evidence external to the Bible that Jesus even existed that was written IN HIS LIFETIME! No historical evidence external to the Bible that ANY of it is true.

I've seen the evidence that fundamental Christians have tried to present. I've looked at it, compared it, turned it over and inside out. None of it stands up. NONE of it. (See the first post WAY up at the top of this page)

The existence of God is the theme of the thread. If the ONLY evidence is the Bible, then I, personally have not seen ANY conclusive evidence that God exists.

Does that mean He doesn't? NO!!
Does that mean He does? NO!!

It means I haven't seen it. I would like to. Please show me. Do not bother to use the Bible to do it though.

quote:

---

My apologies... I didn't notice you were using a white cane with a red tip as a book marker.
Yes, yes... It's ok now... ::pats Ross on head:: The bad man has gone away. He won't bother you again... Everything's fine... You'll see... Heaven is still right where it was... Don't you worry... I've checked under the bed for you and in the closet too - all the monsters are gone now... Go back to sleep...

---

I guess I shouldn't bother debating you; about the only thing you want to do is try to be condescending and insulting. Your mind is so closed to what you know to be the truth that will refuse to believe it.

I will quote it again:

Romans 10:17-So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of GOD.

It is all about faith. There has never been real evidence of evolution, but scientists (who claim to have an open mind) try to make whatever "evidence" they find fit what they want to be the truth. They are not openminded as they claim to be.

My evidence for that statement is Buckster. Here is a person (a guy, I'd guess) who claims to have an open mind. And yet when I try to introduce an idea (even one he has researched), he will try to cut me down with "you poor little kid" remarks. That is not having an open mind. That is having an agenda.

Sorry, Buckster. I will not be able to continue these debates because I don't have the time nor energy to counteract what Satan has done to your mind for however long.

Take a bow, Buckster. You have won. *applause*

------------------
The spork does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.

"There is none so blind as he who will not see." Case in point, our dear friend Ross, who does not read the evidence, let alone analyse it to form an independant opinion about it.

quote:

---

when I looked at the title of the page, I didn't bother to read it. Why? I knew that there was a slant towords evolution in it...

---

quote:

---

There has never been real evidence of evolution, but scientists (who claim to have an open mind) try to make whatever "evidence" they find fit what they want to be the truth.

---

He'll be ok... Just don't let him play with any weapons for a while...

I'm back! (Spending most of my time at a banned forum)

See i got me some reading to do, but most of it to be honest looks like zealot bull. zealot bull from an atheist zealot who thinks that by nature, atheism is a higher calling so therefore his word is scripture (isn't it ironic??)

Oh, about that worldwide flood thing- yes, there was a worldwide flood. That much is scientifically clear. Believe what you want- but the evidence *is* overwhelming on that one. I've met many athiestic evolutionary scientists who agree- there WAS a worldwide flood. They just don't think God had anything to do with it.

quote:

---

You didn't go to the page about radio-carbon dating, did you? Too bad. Very informative stuff there. Let's put it this way: Out of the tens of thousands of artifacts, rocks, fossils, sediment, etc that have been radio-carbon dated, creationists point to one clam and say the whole method is inaccurate. That's pathetic, though predictable.

---

None the less, it was still an example- and evidence that the assumption that historically nature is consistant is wrong.

Do we know the history of the various fossils we've used carbon dating on? Do we know that the level of radiation causing the carbon-14 isotope to occur has always been consistant? No, we don't- to assume that it has is to be taking the evidence and making it fit the conclusion we want it to fit for the purpose of dealing with the fear that their is a higher power that we have to answer to.

Things change. Shit happens. Don't you think passing through the tail of a comet, or a huge mereotite hitting the earth, or whatever wouldn't cause a disruption?

This one's been pretty interesting. Have a good read, and I know we'll be hearing back from you.

Zealot?? Hehehehe... Zealotster !! LOL!! I like it! Nice ring to it! Welcome back!!

WORLDWIDE flood, not just a local catastrophy...

quote:

---

the evidence *is* overwhelming

---

quote:

---

I've met many athiestic evolutionary scientists who agree

---

quote:

---

Do we know that the level of radiation causing the carbon-14 isotope to occur has always been consistant?

---

quote:

---

Don't you think passing through the tail of a comet, or a huge mereotite hitting the earth, or whatever wouldn't cause a disruption?

---

Man, it's good to have you back!

This is what i believe based on experience. I am my own religion, my own country with its temporary boarders and allies and enemy's. This way sound twisted but its who i am. I read your articles and im flabergasted at the knowledge you posess about the Bible. You clearly did you homework, other didn't, and couldn't proberly defend themselves. My entire family is Catholic, my mothers side is Lutherian, but me and my sister are both part Atheist. To Atheistism for those who dont know is:

According to American Heritiage Dictionary it means, Disbelief in or denial of the existance of God or gods. The doctrine that there is no God or gods. Godlessnesss' immorality.

I disagree with immorality. Most of my firends (guys in particular), are atheist, and having a discussion about this topic with them is somewhat entertaining.

How i define myself is that I believe in a Higher POWER, but not necessarily GOD. Whats really funny is that you can tell people who are strong in their faith by they defend themselves. If they used the term "Blinded" (in regards to you) it usually means that they are insecure about their faith or that they are just going with the crowd. I remember one of previous posts that said

"Just because a thousdand people believe it, does not make it true". That so true about religion.

I once had a friend in Virtual Schooling that said, how can it be wrong if the whole world believes it. Again a follower of the crowd. I say find the truth yourself and whatever conclusion you come to, don't let others influence you.

Well i guess that i have rambled on enough about this, im waiting for the attack, please dont judge me for what i believe, because i dont judge U!

Yawn...time for bed

chris

------------------
"I'd rather be hated for who i am, then loved for who i am not."

"To be able to cry when crying is necessary is to be strong inside yourself as well as outside yourself"

quote:

---

I remember one of previous posts that said

"Just because a thousdand people believe it, does not make it true". That so true about religion.

---

Has anyone ever had a discussion about whether hair is alive or dead? That's a classic example of the truth not being what the majority believe. Hair is clinically dead, not alive, whatever. But most people belive it is alive.

I know this is really irrelevant, I just thought of it when I read that quote.

blah blah blah, I have to go home now.

Keep debating. I'm reading, even if I'm not commenting.

Tudore

Human Hair (i animal too), is just dead protien...

ROFL...that was funny...

chris

------------------
"I'd rather be hated for who i am, then loved for who i am not."

"To be able to cry when crying is necessary is to be strong inside yourself as well as outside yourself"

quote:

---

Is there any evidence that half life times for isotopes has ever changed over the millenia?

---

No, I don't believe the half life of a substances decay ever has been demonstrated to change. However- that's not where the assumption lies. The assumption lies in the percentage of carbon 14 that was available to the living organisms when they were alive.

Let's look at the half life of X.

1, 0.5, 0.25. 0.125, 0.00625, 0.03125, 0.015625

If I went on- the difference between the next two numbers becomes signifigantly smaller.

My sig was the one about the truth not changing based on who believes it. It's kinda been edited now, though hehe

Oh, and Buckster?

Here's another UBB for you to check out. They always have some great religious debates going on: http://www.straightdope.com/
------------------
The spork does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.

[This message has been edited by The Flymaster (edited 12-06-1999).]

Carbon exists in the atmosphere in the form of carbon dioxide, a gas. It can either be present as stable carbon 12 or unstable carbon 14. Carbon 14 is formed from carbon 12 in the atmosphere by the action of cosmic rays. A steady state results in which the rate of decomposition of carbon 14 is matched by the rate of formation of new C-14 by cosmic rays. The result is that carbon 14 is present as a constant percentage of the total carbon in the atmosphere, although it does change slightly depending upon the amount of cosmic radiation reaching the atmosphere. However, a correction can be made on the basis of carbon 14 readings on items whose age is known from archeological records.

Trees and plants that get their carbon from the carbon dioxide of the atmosphere will, while they are living have a percentage of carbon 14 equal to that in the atmosphere. The same is true of animals that eat plant material. When these organisms die, they no longer ingest C-14 (directly or indirectly) from an atmospheric source. Carbon 14 decays at a particular rate and is not replaced. Thus, measuring the degree to which the carbon 14 level is less than that in the atmosphere provides a measure of time since death.

Mollusks, unlike plants et al., get the carbon for their shells from ancient carbonate and not the atmosphere. Ancient carbon is already depleted in C-14. Therefore mollusk shells are inappropriate for carbon dating because they do not, even when alive, have C-14 at the level present in the atmosphere. The level of C-14 in mollusk shells reflects their source of carbonate.

Creationists assume, usually on the basis of a "flood" argument, that there have been large changes in the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere during the past several thousand years. There probably have been small fluctuations, leading to an uncertainty of plus or minus ten percent, confirmed by dating objects of a known age. However, the evidence does not support the creationist claim of large changes in the amount of carbon dioxide.

The creationist argument that the ratio of C-14 to C-12 is not constant is actually based on the assumption of a young earth with an age of -10,000 years, and sudden changes in the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere caused by the assumed catastrophic events of the Genesis flood.

Of course, that pre-supposes that the flood actually occurred. Resedit thinks it did and I think it did not. No doubt it will become a centerpiece of our conversation here pretty rapidly. For, without that predetermination, the carbon 14 arguement falls apart from the creationist's standpoint.

If something is measured at 100,000 years, but it's actually only 90,000 years old, that still is nowhere in the ballpark of the creationist's maximum of 6000 years, no? And we usually see the claims stated something like, "Scientists have confirmed the xenophobe at between 90,000 and 110,000 years old."

It should also be noted that estimating the ages of rocks using radiometric dating is an entirely separate technique from the radiocarbon (C-14) method for dating organic remains. Radiometric dating of rocks is based on the decay of long lived isotopes of Potassium, Thorium, and Uranium. Radiocarbon dating is based on the decay of the short lived C-14 isotope and is irrelevant to determining the age of the Earth.

------------------
"Jane!! Stop this crazy thing!!" ~ George Jetson

------------------
Shikata gai na!

quote:

---

Of course, that pre-supposes that the flood actually occurred. Resedit thinks it did and I think it did not.

---

If the flood did not occur, then why is it that most civilizations have a "worldwide flood" legend of some sort with one family riding in a boat and saving mankind?

Further, there's not enough water on the planet to provide for all land masses to have been engulfed simultaneously.

One more thing: The boat. Simply put, it can't be real. The largest wooden boats successfully constructed in written history were built in the late 1800's and are about 300 feet long.

Unfortunately, they need steel reinforcement to hold them together, and even with that reinforcement, could not ride the great oceans without breaking apart. They were smaller than the biblical description of the Noah boat, reported to be about 450 feet long.

Meanwhile, Noah's boat's dimensions have trouble fitting all the animals aboard, which is where we get the "kinds" notion of creationists. A notion, by the way that still has not been clearly defined by them.

By the way, since you're back, what is Joseph's father's name?

And, something new for you to chew on:

Did Noah take just 2 of each animal per Genesis 6:19-20: "And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female. Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee to keep them alive." (please don't skip over the word "every")

Or was it per Genesis 7:2: "Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female; and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female."

(By the way, if it's 7, the boat just got a LOT more crowded!)

If you get bored with that, you can play with this awhile:
Gen 6:4 refers to a race called the Nephilim. Later in Gen 7:11-24 there is the account of the Flood in which "every living thing" was killed (7:23) except Noah and his family: however, in Num 13:33 the Nephilim still exist. Were they stowaways?

Oh yeah, one more thing I'm dying to know! Did Noah make a pit stop in Australia to drop off the kangaroos, or did he have Fed-Ex deliver them after he and the other critters came to rest at the first land they found in the mountains on Ararat?

------------------
"Jane!! Stop this crazy thing!!" ~ George Jetson

------------------
The spork does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.

------------------
"Jane!! Stop this crazy thing!!" ~ George Jetson