Evidence for an ancient earth

[shunyadragon]

Besides the fact that you are misrepresenting relativity here, you mentioned one theory and then Newtonian physical laws--inductive observations of absolutes like gravity. What an astonishing refutation of my position!

You are the one misrepresenting science. If you disagree with me concerning the Theory of Relativity, please provide references.

Waiting . . .

 

[Polymath257]

You are a polymath but not poly-respectful to others. You couldn't just talk about the arc of science, you had to say something untrue in my case:



I used the hypothesis method on the Bible before becoming a believer, a practice I continue now. I test the scriptures and the Bible also says that God invites people to test His claims!

"Guesses" are strictly the province of skeptics along with naturedidit.

Well, then, by all means show us your data and the methods you used to test your hypotheses! What predictions were made that were objectively verified? How precise were the predictions? What tests did you do to see if your assumptions were false?

 

[gnostic]

Some of your posts above, I'm unsure whether they are your ideas or you got them online, but they are easily answered. For example the Bethlehem massacre was of all male children in tiny Bethlehem under age two--it might have been 10 children only. Josephus recorded many scandals but do you feel he recorded ALL the scandals?

You kidding me, BilliardsBall?

You are the one who is talking about testimonies of eyewitnesses from the gospels. But what I saying that there were no eyewitnesses in gospels; all we do have from the gospels are hearsays.

The gospel of Luke barely say anything about Herod, and certainly nothing about the massacre or Joseph fleeing to Egypt with his family.

So the gospel cannot verify what the gospel of Matthew.

Similarly, the Matthew gospel cannot verify anything regarding to the census, or them giving birth in manger or stable, and certainly nothing about the host of angels witnessed by shepherds.

So each gospel cannot verify the other in certain details.

The only link between the two different versions that they have in common are:

1. Jesus' birth took place in Bethlehem,
2. And that Herod was still alive at that time.

For there to be eyewitnesses to either versions, they had to be alive when the 2 gospels were written between 70 and 85 CE.

I very much doubt the author of Matthew could get the Magi to tell him what happened, or Herod who was dead by 4 BCE. Joseph seemed to be dead for some time before Jesus began his ministry in Galilee, so I highly doubted that he could tell his version to the author of Matthew's.

And I doubt that the author to the gospel of Luke could find the shepherds to tell him (author) about the host of angels.

Both versions sound "fabricated", "invented" and definitely "exaggerated".

And don't forget that Josephus clearly stated that Saturninus (9 -7/6 BCE) or Varus (7/6 - 4 BCE) had served in Syria around the time of Jesus' birth, not Quirinius (6 - 12 CE), which was 10 years after Herod's death.

And, the census took place in Judaea in 6 CE, when Augustus banished Archelaus, Herod's son, and officially turned Judaea into a Roman province.

So Josephus' Antiquities conflicted with the gospel of Luke of when Quirinius' governorship and census took place.

I like how you completely ignore where the non-NT source (Josephus) contradicts the gospels about the details of Jesus' birth, and you would only focus, where Josephus say that "...who was called Christ..."

I was questioning about Jesus being a real "historical" person; I was questioning the gospels being reliable sources. The gospels clearly fabricated details about Jesus' birth, which cannot be verified, and where outside sources conflict with the gospels.

You have no eyewitnesses' accounts to anything regarding to Herod and Jesus, just hearsays.

 

[gnostic]

Incomplete citation of Josephus. Josephus said. 'Jesus was called the Christ,' and NOT Jesus was Christ. Josephus was reporting second hand information concerning Jesus and his life. There is nothing the writings by Josephus that indicated he was a believer.

Also the writings of Josephus were written 93-94 AD, and Josephus was not a witness to the life of Jesus.

Not only that, what Josephus wrote was more about James, Jesus' brother, than Jesus himself.

 

[metis]

I grasp that skeptics embrace something that cannot be embraced since it has no personality or love--a mindless, mechanistic CREATION.

Humans are of a social species that heavily relies on mutual cooperation, and a manifestation of that cooperation is love.

Secondly, a "skeptic" tends to not embrace that which has no objective evidence for it, and the belief in a deity or deities simply lacks any such evidence.

And notice that you always attribute things to "God" and not "Gods", which begs the question as to exactly how would it be possible for one to somehow know that there's only one?

See, it is you who are relying on assumptions minus evidence-- not "skeptics". I don't make any such assumption as you can read for yourself in my faith statement at the bottom of this page.

 

[gnostic]

Science cannot weight love or justice.

Why would physical science weigh in love or justice?

I've never said they did.

Certainly not physical science, earth science or life science (biology).

Love is about human interaction and relationship, not something that you can really quantify or measure.

As to justice, which falls under the realm of law, and law relate more to humanities and social science than any physical science.

Why would you even mix science with love and justice?

Would you confuse constructing a house with composing music and song writing?

You are trying to justify two or more unrelated things, which is not only dishonest comparisons, but inane that you would even confuse love with science or law with science.

I don't confuse science with art, or science with music, or history with myth and superstition, or literature with astronomy.

These sort of comparisons are not suitable, nor realistic.

I love my parents and family and my friends, and that's about social relationships and interactions, not science.

Will you stop making absurd assumptions and claims?

 

[gnostic]

I grasp that skeptics embrace something that cannot be embraced since it has no personality or love--a mindless, mechanistic CREATION.

Sorry, but are you a skeptic too?

You reject science of the natural world in favour of embracing a entity called "God" or "Creator", that's invisible and mythological.

I think it is understandable that some are sceptical about god, demons and angels, heaven and hell, afterlife and miracles, because these are all based on belief of superstition and wild imagination of the supernatural, which are all unrealistic.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Well, then, by all means show us your data and the methods you used to test your hypotheses! What predictions were made that were objectively verified? How precise were the predictions? What tests did you do to see if your assumptions were false?

I'm curious about your assumptions about me--since you keep getting me and my mindset wrong.

Which tests do you think I did? What were my results?

Where did I pull test questions and hypotheses from?

Which tests have you done?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Humans are of a social species that heavily relies on mutual cooperation, and a manifestation of that cooperation is love.

Secondly, a "skeptic" tends to not embrace that which has no objective evidence for it, and the belief in a deity or deities simply lacks any such evidence.

And notice that you always attribute things to "God" and not "Gods", which begs the question as to exactly how would it be possible for one to somehow know that there's only one?

See, it is you who are relying on assumptions minus evidence-- not "skeptics". I don't make any such assumption as you can read for yourself in my faith statement at the bottom of this page.

I know of the one God via the evidence I have that the scriptures are truth.

 

[shunyadragon]

I'm curious about your assumptions about me--since you keep getting me and my mindset wrong.

Which tests do you think I did? What were my results?

Where did I pull test questions and hypotheses from?

You basically have failed to support your arguments with any reliable references. We do not know where you get your information from. Your fog index is too high.

You are the one that needs to clarify your mindset.

Which tests have you done?

The overwhelming scientific research over more than 150 years are the tests that support the science of evolution. You have offered nothing to support your assertions.

Still waiting for you to respond to my questions to back up your assertions.

 

[shunyadragon]

I know of the one God via the evidence I have that the scriptures are truth.

Your reference to 'evidence' 'Begs the Question,' and is too circular to be meaningful to support an argument

This is an assertion of belief without evidence. You need to address the the question of an ancient earth and the science of evolution with references, which you have failed to do.

You appear to be basing your argument on presuppositional apologetics

From: Presuppositional apologetics - Wikipedia

"Presuppositionalists compare their presupposition against other ultimate standards such as reason, empirical experience, and subjective feeling, claiming presupposition in this context is:

a belief that takes precedence over another and therefore serves as a criterion for another. An ultimate presupposition is a belief over which no other takes precedence. For a Christian, the content of Scripture must serve as his ultimate presupposition… This doctrine is merely the outworking of the lordship of God in the area of human thought. It merely applies the doctrine of scriptural infallibility to the realm of knowing.[3]

Critics of presuppositional apologetics claim that it is logically invalid because it begs the question of the truth of Christianity and the non-truth of other worldviews."

 

[gnostic]

Secondly, a "skeptic" tends to not embrace that which has no objective evidence for it, and the belief in a deity or deities simply lacks any such evidence.

Yes. Skepticism don't accept any claim, especially that of the supernatural, without considering that they (claims) might not be true.

Th fact, there are absence of direct evidences to any deity, is a good reason to be skeptical of their existence.

And there being no evidences of supernatural events, such as miracles (e.g. talking serpent or donkey, raining manna, Jesus' miraculous birth, healing sickness and diseases, raising the dead, walking on water, etc), or of supernatural entities (e.g. spirits, ghosts, demons, fairies, werewolf, vampires, hybrid monsters like chimera, Minotaur, etc), are another good reason to be skeptical about the supernatural.

Why do creationists think we should take everything the bible says at face value?

 

[gnostic]

I know of the one God via the evidence I have that the scriptures are truth.

Then by all means, present your "evidence".

All you have shown us, your personal belief and faith, and you often resort to circular reasoning.

The scriptures are highly unreliable when it come to history, and even more so when it come to describing natural events or phenomena.

e.g. Job 38 to 41, where God bragged to Job that "I did these things, can you", only demonstrate the level of uneducated stupidity in the matter of divine will and actions, if treated or interpreted those passages as literals.

 

[gnostic]

I'm curious about your assumptions about me--since you keep getting me and my mindset wrong.

Which tests do you think I did? What were my results?

Where did I pull test questions and hypotheses from?

Which tests have you done?

You are the who made claim that you have tested the bible being true:

I used the hypothesis method on the Bible before becoming a believer, a practice I continue now. I test the scriptures and the Bible also says that God invites people to test His claims!

"Guesses" are strictly the province of skeptics along with naturedidit.

And yet when polymath ask you to justify these claims you have made with something more than your rationality, you evade his requests and questions.

That's exactly the dishonest tactics you have employed so frequently in the debate forums. You are as unscrupulous and dodgy as an used-car salesman.

 

[metis]

I know of the one God via the evidence I have that the scriptures are truth.

And exactly how can you tell that the scriptures you accept are right on all counts? There simply is no logical way that most of what's found in the scriptures can be verified, including whether there's one or more than one deity.

 

[BilliardsBall]

You basically have failed to support your arguments with any reliable references. We do not know where you get your information from. Your fog index is too high.

You are the one that needs to clarify your mindset.



The overwhelming scientific research over more than 150 years are the tests that support the science of evolution. You have offered nothing to support your assertions.

Still waiting for you to respond to my questions to back up your assertions.

Polymath and I were talking about proof of the Bible, not evolution/creation, in this message which you hijacked.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Your reference to 'evidence' 'Begs the Question,' and is too circular to be meaningful to support an argument

This is an assertion of belief without evidence. You need to address the the question of an ancient earth and the science of evolution with references, which you have failed to do.

You appear to be basing your argument on presuppositional apologetics

From: Presuppositional apologetics - Wikipedia

"Presuppositionalists compare their presupposition against other ultimate standards such as reason, empirical experience, and subjective feeling, claiming presupposition in this context is:

a belief that takes precedence over another and therefore serves as a criterion for another. An ultimate presupposition is a belief over which no other takes precedence. For a Christian, the content of Scripture must serve as his ultimate presupposition… This doctrine is merely the outworking of the lordship of God in the area of human thought. It merely applies the doctrine of scriptural infallibility to the realm of knowing.[3]

Critics of presuppositional apologetics claim that it is logically invalid because it begs the question of the truth of Christianity and the non-truth of other worldviews."

I was talking to Metis. For someone who claims spirituality . . .

 

[BilliardsBall]

Then by all means, present your "evidence".

All you have shown us, your personal belief and faith, and you often resort to circular reasoning.

The scriptures are highly unreliable when it come to history, and even more so when it come to describing natural events or phenomena.

e.g. Job 38 to 41, where God bragged to Job that "I did these things, can you", only demonstrate the level of uneducated stupidity in the matter of divine will and actions, if treated or interpreted those passages as literals.

Which one of those things did Job do? Did Job, for example, calculate the circumference of the Earth? I don't understand your objection.

 

[BilliardsBall]

You are the who made claim that you have tested the bible being true:



And yet when polymath ask you to justify these claims you have made with something more than your rationality, you evade his requests and questions.

That's exactly the dishonest tactics you have employed so frequently in the debate forums. You are as unscrupulous and dodgy as an used-car salesman.

Why are you being rude to me? What is your agenda here? I thought you were an open-minded researcher, but it seems you hope to disprove the Bible. Why?

 

[BilliardsBall]

And exactly how can you tell that the scriptures you accept are right on all counts? There simply is no logical way that most of what's found in the scriptures can be verified, including whether there's one or more than one deity.

I accept all the scriptures, not "ones I accept".

There is excellent evidence to trust Jesus and take Him at His Word.