God Recreated the Earth 6,000 Years Ago!

[outhouse]

Please at least make arguments from the Bible

Im sorry but we want credible scientific sources, not from worthless apologetic websites

 

[outhouse]

Hows does creation mythology stack up to these newly found facts un human lineage????

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world...-african-cave/ar-AAe8sRT?li=AAa0dzB&ocid=iehp


New Species in Human Lineage Is Found in a South African Cave


Homo naledi.


1,550 fossil elements documenting the discovery constituted the largest sample for any hominin species in a single African site, and one of the largest anywhere in the world.


“With almost every bone in the body represented multiple times, Homo naledi is already practically the best-known fossil member of our lineage,”


Some of its primitive anatomy, like a brain no larger than an average orange, Dr. Berger said, indicated that the species evolved near or at the root of the Homo genus, meaning it must be in excess of 2.5 million to 2.8 million years old

 

[Milton Platt]

All,

Not only have you hijacked the thread utterly, but a number of you now are making some arguments against all metaphysics and spiritual entities. What is your justification for proselytizing atheism at ReligiousForums.com?

PS. Yes, I read through the canards and arguments made against the scriptures here. Please at least make arguments from the Bible if you insist on doing so, rather than what you read on atheist websites that the Bible "says".

Thanks!

Religious forums.com has a variety of groups, and not all of them are restricted to a only those who believe in the supernatural. I also find your statement amusing after having various religious folks try and tell me atheism is a religion.

Using arguments from the bible already presupposes there is a god, otherwise the bible would be just another book. Once you establish that the god exists then you can argue that he inspired the book.

 

[Wu Wei]

All,

Not only have you hijacked the thread utterly, but a number of you now are making some arguments against all metaphysics and spiritual entities. What is your justification for proselytizing atheism at ReligiousForums.com?

PS. Yes, I read through the canards and arguments made against the scriptures here. Please at least make arguments from the Bible if you insist on doing so, rather than what you read on atheist websites that the Bible "says".

Thanks!

so in a Science and religion section you want to restrict it to religion only...interesting....so I am guessing that you cannot defend your position otherwise then, I mean without restricting sources for backing up arguments against your postion

 

[outhouse]

....so I am guessing that you cannot defend your position

He has been at a loss from day one, only being rhetoric to the table.

He knows most of society, education and all knowledge are against him.

 

[David M]

Source: Dr. N. Geisler, "I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist".

So you don't have any evidence of these 10 1st century historians then?

Here is a clue, there is Josephus Flavius, Thallus and Phlagon (but no works exist for those 2, only later citations).

 

[jonathan180iq]

Did you want me to respond? I see only rhetoric here in your post. To prove empiricism while only using empirical data as the standard for proving everything is a circular argument.

If I can't use empirical data, then aren't my rhetorical questions a valid form of debate?

I mean, if we are going to follow your rules of not relying on empirical data to determine accuracy, then what's wrong with rhetoric?

 

[BilliardsBall]

NOT credible in any way! he is apologetic biased, not a scientist or historian. Worthless in debate of age of the earth

I see. Since you read the book, perhaps you'd like to also comment.

 

[BilliardsBall]

So you don't have any evidence of these 10 1st century historians then?

Here is a clue, there is Josephus Flavius, Thallus and Phlagon (but no works exist for those 2, only later citations).

And Pliny the Younger and Suetonius and etc. We have five now. I can't do your work for you if you're too lazy to look at ancient history, too.

 

[BilliardsBall]

If I can't use empirical data, then aren't my rhetorical questions a valid form of debate?

I mean, if we are going to follow your rules of not relying on empirical data to determine accuracy, then what's wrong with rhetoric?

I beg your pardon. I've never called to question the empirical data you've so ably presented, only your interpretation of the data. Again, if you would talk to me rather than demonize my position, we could come to some agreements and each learn from the other.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Religious forums.com has a variety of groups, and not all of them are restricted to a only those who believe in the supernatural. I also find your statement amusing after having various religious folks try and tell me atheism is a religion.

Using arguments from the bible already presupposes there is a god, otherwise the bible would be just another book. Once you establish that the god exists then you can argue that he inspired the book.

Atheism isn't a religion, but it is based on blind faith.

And we can verify the Bible via sources outside the Bible.

And we can verify the existence of God outside the Bible.

 

[BilliardsBall]

so in a Science and religion section you want to restrict it to religion only...interesting....so I am guessing that you cannot defend your position otherwise then, I mean without restricting sources for backing up arguments against your postion

Have you actually read my posts? I'm using science and also calling people to not proselytize atheism on a religious forum.

 

[Wu Wei]

Have you actually read my posts? I'm using science and also calling people to not proselytize atheism on a religious forum.

Have you read mine? Where did I ever proselytize atheism?

Just because one disagrees with you it does not make them an atheist nor does it mean that they are attempt to convert you to an atheist. Just because one believes the accepted scientific data on a topic does not make them an atheist. You see I'm using science too, just not biblical science since I believe, as far as the age of the earth goes, it is incredibly wrong and none of the science I am basing this on is an unfounded rumor or story. It is backed up by copious research and data.

 

[viole]

Atheism isn't a religion, but it is based on blind faith.

Yes, like not believing in the flying spaghetti monster, blue fairies, astrology, or the not numerable infinity of things that could exist but have no evidence of doing so.

And we can verify the Bible via sources outside the Bible.

With the possible exception of Adam and Eve, global floods, people living three days inside a big fish, etc.

And we can verify the existence of God outside the Bible.

Sure. Where?

Ciao

- viole

 

[David M]

And Pliny the Younger and Suetonius and etc. We have five now. I can't do your work for you if you're too lazy to look at ancient history, too.

Neither Suetonius or Pliny wrote anything like "There are a bunch of Jews following Jesus, whom they say resurrected." which was your contention, and in any case Pliny's writings about Christians are 2nd Century, not first.

So you are still stuck (at best) with a single first century historian and 2 more whose own works have not survived.

 

[jonathan180iq]

I beg your pardon. I've never called to question the empirical data you've so ably presented, only your interpretation of the data. Again, if you would talk to me rather than demonize my position, we could come to some agreements and each learn from the other.

I am talking to you - I'm asking you to support your contestation with something of substance. I'm asking you to answer questions, rhetorical as they may be, which challenge conclusions within your contestation. I'm asking you to validate some of the claims that you've made which directly contradict mainstream science. I'm asking you to participate in this conversation in the same manner that I would ask anyone else making extraordinary claims.

Challenging you and your conclusions is not "demonizing your position". If you don't have those answers or think that maybe the answers that you could give would not stand up in a rational debate, then that should say a lot about your conclusions and maybe cause you to rethink a few things.

**You should also note here that just because I am an atheist does not mean that anything I've put forward in this conversation is purely an atheistic argument. Don't confuse the two. I could just as well be a Christian apologist who simply values science and knowledge over literal interpretations of scripture - the arguments I'm making wouldn't change.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Have you read mine? Where did I ever proselytize atheism?

Just because one disagrees with you it does not make them an atheist nor does it mean that they are attempt to convert you to an atheist. Just because one believes the accepted scientific data on a topic does not make them an atheist. You see I'm using science too, just not biblical science since I believe, as far as the age of the earth goes, it is incredibly wrong and none of the science I am basing this on is an unfounded rumor or story. It is backed up by copious research and data.

So you yourself are a theist? I was formally making general notes to the group. It seems certain some of this group are avowed atheists as they make outrageous claims and special pleadings like "no religious scientist is a true scientist." I'm embarrassed to tell people, "atheists like to assault theists at the ReligiousForums site".

 

[BilliardsBall]

Yes, like not believing in the flying spaghetti monster, blue fairies, astrology, or the not numerable infinity of things that could exist but have no evidence of doing so.



With the possible exception of Adam and Eve, global floods, people living three days inside a big fish, etc.



Sure. Where?

Ciao

- viole

Gosh, all the posts I've seen that TFSM exists were made by atheists. Are you sure? I'll make you a deal, since you seem open-minded. Prove TFSM doesn't exist and I'll prove that God does exist.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Neither Suetonius or Pliny wrote anything like "There are a bunch of Jews following Jesus, whom they say resurrected." which was your contention, and in any case Pliny's writings about Christians are 2nd Century, not first.

So you are still stuck (at best) with a single first century historian and 2 more whose own works have not survived.

I gave the work cited. I suppose I could be bothered to type up the notes from the book for you since you are such an "open minded" person in spiritual matters. I'll suffice it to say for now that you have no sources from the period denying the scriptures. Even the apocrypha demonstrate that people had assertions about Jesus, not against Him.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I am talking to you - I'm asking you to support your contestation with something of substance. I'm asking you to answer questions, rhetorical as they may be, which challenge conclusions within your contestation. I'm asking you to validate some of the claims that you've made which directly contradict mainstream science. I'm asking you to participate in this conversation in the same manner that I would ask anyone else making extraordinary claims.

Challenging you and your conclusions is not "demonizing your position". If you don't have those answers or think that maybe the answers that you could give would not stand up in a rational debate, then that should say a lot about your conclusions and maybe cause you to rethink a few things.

**You should also note here that just because I am an atheist does not mean that anything I've put forward in this conversation is purely an atheistic argument. Don't confuse the two. I could just as well be a Christian apologist who simply values science and knowledge over literal interpretations of scripture - the arguments I'm making wouldn't change.

I see. Which is it, are you an atheist or an unusual Christian apologist. If a Christian, recall that the world will know we are Jesus's disciples as we exhibit love toward one another.

PS. Challenging me is fine. Using rhetoricals and ad homs without citations and facts is demonizing a position.