There is more then enough evidence to prove God exists.

[Nada]

Crucified on a stake is just a Jehovah's Witness theory.
They forget there was a horizontal crosspiece beam (patibulum) lashed to the stake to form the cross..

Even the Catholic bible confirms it was not a cross.

Douay-Rheims Bible Deuteronomy 21:23
His body shall not remain upon the tree, but shall be buried the same day: for he is accursed of God that hangeth on a tree: and thou shalt not defile thy land, which the Lord thy God shall give thee in possession.

Even the KJV does too.Same passage
His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged is accursed of God) that thy land be not defiled, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.


Also in Galatians 3:13
Douay-Rheims Bible
Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written: Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:


Same passage.King James Bible
Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

So as you can clearly see it was not a cross.

 

[Shad]

You may not have noticed, but this is not part of the land of academia. You will find all sorts of low life pond scum here, or, as Sonofason rightly says, dust. If I were you I would steer clear of all these poorly educated menial posters and find posters of your own ilk to post to. You will only feel disappointed with us, or maybe, we make you feel academically superior. Since you are still here conversing with ignorant thicko's, I must assume the latter is true.

My "ilk" hold higher standards, standards which increases our knowledge and is responsible for the modern world we live in. I am in great company. So if you are not using academic standards such as evidence, as per your title, and logical arguments what is the point of the thread? You should put a disclaimer in the OP.

"Presented evidence is completely subjective and not held to any academic. logical nor scientific standard. Evidence may include, but is not restricted to; magic, visions, soothsaying and chicken entrails. Evidence is defined on a personal basis only. Users are advised those using the objective standards of science, academia and/or logic are frowned upon and considered as those "spoiling the fun"."

I reject your reality and substitute it with my own - Dr Who.

 

[Shuttlecraft]

Originally Posted by Shuttlecraft
Crucified on a stake is just a Jehovah's Witness theory.
They forget there was a horizontal crosspiece beam (patibulum) lashed to the stake to form the cross..

Even the Catholic bible confirms it was not a cross...

In places it says it was a tree, and in other places it says it was a cross.
But does it say it was a stake?

 

[Sapiens]

In places it says it was a tree, and in other places it says it was a cross.
But does it say it was a stake?

The Vampire Diaries?

 

[Sonofason]

I couldn't agree more. My gripe is that he tried to deceive you with mis-information. That is dishonest and an attempt to win the point on lies. I saw that article a why'll back. It was presented to me in exactly the same way, by an atheist. I might be wrong, but I believe that non-life no longer exists and the process to produce it is very complex and time consuming, but I might be wrong.

I agree with you. I believe he intentionally tried to deceive me. Perhaps he expected me to do what he did. But I'm not satisfied with the content of titles.

 

[Sonofason]

A direct link to the organization which developed the synthetic life

JCVI:*First Self-Replicating, Synthetic Bacterial Cell Constructed by J. Craig Venter Institute Researchers

The time for that was yesterday. But no doubt, I'll check it out. Surely, it will contain nothing convincing with regard to "creating life".

 

[Sonofason]

I don't think most Christians find that offensive considering many of them sport the symbol on articles of clothing, jewelry, bumper stickers, ect. I always found that odd, it's like wearing an electric chair around your neck because one of your family members was executed.

Regardless though, abbreviations and acronyms happen online. No need to take offense.

It's offensive to me, all Christians, and it is offensive to God. The fact that you spend the time to type out all other words in your sentences, and this one word in particular, the one which has the word Christ in it, you degrade. It is offensive. And it is intended to be offensive. And you know it.

 

[Sonofason]

Dust can also be clay with no DNA, can be sand with no DNA. This is because dust is a generalized term. Your generalization is the "texas sharpshooter fallacy" and post hoc rationalization.

"The basic biologically active structure of DNA (or RNA) requires metal ions to exist. Without metal ions there would be no duplex and no sequence specific recognition using the bases or by proteins."
Untitled

I bet you could find some of these crucial building blocks of the DNA molecular structure in the form of dust.

 

[Sonofason]

First,JW's do not believe in crucifixion.You said,"Crucified on a stake is just a Jehovah's Witness theory." This is totally incorrect.

Jesus was killed on a stake or pole.How is it a theory if the holy scriptures confirms this?

Galatians 3:13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole."

This is actually a quote from Deuteronomy 21:23 you must not leave the body hanging on the pole overnight. Be sure to bury it that same day, because anyone who is hung on a pole is under God's curse. You must not desecrate the land the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance.

Jesus was never killed on a cross.It was a stake or pole.It is called "stauros" in Koine Greek,which is the original language the NT was written in."Stauros" means an upright stake or pole.

So we can clearly see that it was not a cross at all.Many people over the years have mistranslated and purposely changed this word.Stauros never means two pieces of timber.Another word was used to describe this also.It is "Xylon."

Another thing.If hanging people on a pole or stake is considered a curse,then,that is what people are doing when they wear a cross.They are cursing Jesus all over again.Shaming him.

Is this the truth that will set men free?

 

[Shad]

"The basic biologically active structure of DNA (or RNA) requires metal ions to exist. Without metal ions there would be no duplex and no sequence specific recognition using the bases or by proteins."
Untitled

I bet you could find some of these crucial building blocks of the DNA molecular structure in the form of dust.

Yes you can also find toxic materials including lead. Hence why to use dust is a fallacy. You see similarities but ignore the differences.

 

[Sonofason]

Yes you can also find toxic materials including lead. Hence why to use dust is a fallacy. You see similarities but ignore the differences.

Actually, molecular compounds are a bit more selective than that. A molecule can be stable, or it can have an affinity to lose or gain particular molecular or ionic structures. A molecule may be present in a pile of dust and bond with a particular metallic ion that it has an affinity to form a molecular or ionic bond with. It doesn't just haphazardly pick up anything in the dust pile.

 

[Shad]

True but this further lends support to my argument in which one needs to analysis samples of dust case by case. One sample could have lead and be toxic, another sample may not have lead. Hence again why it is a fallacy. You are isolating similarity but ignoring the differences. Dust is comprised of many elements so is not a specific term. You will not find a scientific definition of dust which list elements found in all forms of dust but it's a generalization. Again to use it as a specific is a fallacy as I posted out before.

 

[Sonofason]

True but this further lends support to my argument in which one needs to analysis samples of dust case by case. One sample could have lead and be toxic, another sample may not have lead. Hence again why it is a fallacy. You are isolating similarity but ignoring the differences. Dust is comprised of many elements so is not a specific term. You will not find a scientific definition of dust which list elements found in all forms of dust but it's a generalization. Again to use it as a specific is a fallacy as I posted out before.

I never said that God created a man specifically from dust. But I can say that everything that is in a man has been and will be again that which is termed dust.

God never said that he swept up a pile of dust, threw it into his magic hat, and out came a man. The Bible says that man was created from dust. You can take a statement like that as being specific or general.

I do not suggest that God could not create a man directly from dust to man, but I see no reason to restrict God, based on what the Bible actually says, to have actually done that. God could have said, I created man from nothing at all. Or He could have appeased you, and given you volumes of biological processes that He employed to create the man that beforehand was nothing but dust.

 

[Shad]

Sun dust, cosmic space dust, dust bunnies behind my couch. Call it whatever unscientific term you wish. It does nothing to help an rational argument.

 

[Sonofason]

Sun dust, cosmic space dust, dust bunnies behind my couch. Call it whatever unscientific term you wish. It does nothing to help an rational argument.

And what is my argument?

 

[Shad]

Take bits of chemicals, whatever they might be, dry them up, and you have dust. Wet them a bit, and you have slime. Add a little sunlight, and you might have warm pond scum. To say life has arisen from pond scum, or from mixtures of chemicals in in a warm pond, or from dust is in my eyes pretty much the same. I bet you yourself would admit that we are star dust. Will you argue? We are dust. We are made from dust. It doesn't matter so much to me that the dust required wetting, or sunlight to miraculously become a life form. The fact is our origin is dust, just like the Bible says.

Forgetful are we not?

 

[Sonofason]

Forgetful are we not?

Oh yes, I'm very forgetful.

But it seems I'm adhering to my argument despite that fact. And it also seems that you have not shown, not at least to me, that I am wrong.

 

[Shad]

If you do not understand fallacious reasoning and what fallacies are perhaps you should enroll a logic 101 class, you can sit next to Serenity and exchange Bible notes.

 

[Sonofason]

If you do not understand fallacious reasoning and what fallacies are perhaps you should enroll a logic 101 class, you can sit next to Serenity and exchange Bible notes.

That's okay, I've already taken logic 101. My logic is flawless.

 

[Shad]

Yes that must be it. Yet I see fallacious arguments used to support your views.