God or Big Bang/Evolution: Where do we Come From?

[Fox_Rox]

Here ten missing links for all the creationists.

 

[Crimson King]

You say, "What about all the apes and such?"


We may look like we originated with apes but our DNA structures are pretty much different with only small similarities. We have yet to discover an ape-man type being very similar to humans.

And we have yet to find another human capable of dying by crucifixion and raise from the dead, but to you, that is evidently true.

 

[snex]

crimson king gives too much credit to creationists. human DNA and chimp DNA are 95% the same. exactly the same. even down to the useless bits of junk in between genes. even the transposons, the inserted retroviruses, the pseudogenes. only a 5% difference throughout the entire genome. and most of those differences are single amino acids which dont change the function of the protein whatsoever.

not only that, but as fox_rox noted there are *plenty* of "ape-men" in the fossil record. creationists just ignore them.

 

[awesomestnerd]

Sorry, my mistake guys, I didn't explain why the Sun doesn't count. Here is the info on that from ChristianAnswers.net:

Is Energy the Key?
To create any kind of upward, complex organization in a closed system requires outside energy and outside information. Evolutionists maintain that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does not prevent Evolution on Earth, since this planet receives outside energy from the Sun. Thus, they suggest that the Sun's energy helped create the life of our beautiful planet. However, is the simple addition of energy all that is needed to accomplish this great feat?

Compare a living plant with a dead one. Can the simple addition of energy make a completely dead plant live?

A dead plant contains the same basic structures as a living plant. It once used the Sun's energy to temporarily increase its order and grow and produce stems, leaves, roots, and flowers - all beginning from a single seed.

If there is actually a powerful Evolutionary force at work in the universe, and if the open system of Earth makes all the difference, why does the Sun's energy not make a truly dead plant become alive again (assuming a sufficient supply of water, light, and the like)?

What actually happens when a dead plant receives energy from the Sun? The internal organization in the plant decreases; it tends to decay and break apart into its simplest components. The heat of the Sun only speeds the disorganization process.

You were born perfect, now I don't mean perfect like muscly body and everything is the "normal" conditions. I mean perfect as in you haven't sinned. I doubt that anybody has come out of their mother and shouted the f word.

In response to Crimson King: Of course we use science to prove you wrong, but of course you just deny it. Jesus is the son of God so therefore can perform miracles. Raising from the dead is nothing short of a miracle. Creationists have their essential beliefs about God, and take those views and put them to use when they find scientific evidence. Those views more than always agree with the evidence.

 

[snex]

Sorry, my mistake guys, I didn't explain why the Sun doesn't count. Here is the info on that from ChristianAnswers.net:

"doesnt count?" "christiananswers.net?" do you realize how far your credibility just dropped? actually it was very little since you had little to begin with. this is a science debate, not a theology debate. christiananswers.net is just as qualified as you are to answer questions of science, and that is not at all.

Is Energy the Key?
To create any kind of upward, complex organization in a closed system requires outside energy and outside information. Evolutionists maintain that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does not prevent Evolution on Earth, since this planet receives outside energy from the Sun. Thus, they suggest that the Sun's energy helped create the life of our beautiful planet. However, is the simple addition of energy all that is needed to accomplish this great feat?

lets ignore the fact that "upward, complex organization in a closed system" and "outside information" are vacuous terms that have no rigorous scientific definitions for a moment and examine the claim at heart. the claim is that systems cannot become more complex without *directed* energy, ie energy that is intended to place the system in its complex state. does this hold up to experiment? not at all. thousands of complex systems self-organize through undirected energy, much of it from the sun. an excellent example is earth's weather system. weather is extremely complex and organized, yet nobody claims that it requires directed energy. an example closer to the nature of this debate is the formation of amino acids and polypeptides. amino acids are more complex than their constituent parts, and polypeptides are formed from amino acids. both form naturally under ultraviolet light from the sun. not only have we been able to demonstrate the formation of these things under lab conditions which mimic the early conditions of earth, but modern day meteroites contain stores of amino acids, presumably formed in space or during the descent to earth.

does this prove that evolution can happen? no, but it does prove that your claim of organization requiring directed energy is false. you will need something much better if you want to prove anything.

You were born perfect, now I don't mean perfect like muscly body and everything is the "normal" conditions. I mean perfect as in you haven't sinned. I doubt that anybody has come out of their mother and shouted the f word.

who gets to define what "sin" is? it doesnt seem that god is speaking for himself, only humans that need to speak for him. why are there 10,000 different christian sects all disagreeing on what actions are sins and what arent? isnt gods word clear?

In response to Crimson King: Of course we use science to prove you wrong, but of course you just deny it. Jesus is the son of God so therefore can perform miracles. Raising from the dead is nothing short of a miracle. Creationists have their essential beliefs about God, and take those views and put them to use when they find scientific evidence. Those views more than always agree with the evidence.

you didnt use science. you used circular logic. you started with the premise that jesus could break the laws of physics, then assumed that since jesus is the son of god, he could obviously do this, and therefore its plausible that it happened. this is complete and utter nonsense. i could use the same argument for hercules performing the 12 labors because he was the son of zeus.

by the way, youre now the laughing stock of the atheist community. enjoy

 

[EnigmaticCam]

Sorry I haven't gotten around to posting this, as I've been quite busy.

Here is my first of evidences supporting creation and the existence of a God. Some key things to note before I begin:

(1). I am here only for a constructive and respectful debate. Some of you have made it quite clear you are not mature enough to follow through with this. Let me explain what this means: no insulting. I don't care if you post a complete refute to this; if it is accompanied by some type of insult, it will be completely ignored. Please show some respect, as we are all intelligent human beings

(2). This is not the entire foundation for why I, or anybody, believes in God. I don't expect you to provide the entire basis of evolution in one single post, so don't expect me to do the same for my beliefs.

(3) I don't have all the time in the world, so please bear with me. If you post a good response, I will address it, but please give me time.

And now to the meat of the post...

I think one of the strongest evidences towards the existence of God is Biblical prophecy. No human can predict the future, at least not to the same degree of detail as the references below. I will provide two (of thousands) references of prophecies where historical events were recorded from 30 to 200 years in advance.

First Prophecy

Isaiah 44:24,27,28; 45:1-4: "Jehovah...the One saying to the watery deep, 'Be evaporated; and all your rivers I shall dry up'; the One saying of Cyrus, 'He is my shepherd, and all that I delight in he will completely carry out'; even in my saying of Jerusalem, 'She will be rebuilt,' and of the temple, 'You will have your foundation laid.' This is what Jehovah has said to his anointed one, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have taken hold of, to subdue before him nations, so that I may ungird even the hips of kings; to open before him the two-leaved doors, so that even the gates will not be shut: 'Before you I myself shall go, and the swells of land I shall straighten out. The copper doors I shall break in pieces, and the iron bars I shall cut down...For the sake of my servant Jacob and of Israel my chosen one, I even proceeded to call you by your name.'" (Writing by Isaiah was completed by about 732 B.C.E)

Fulfillment: Cyrus had not been born when the prophecy was written. The Jews were not taken into exile to Babylon until 617-607 B.C.E, and Jerusalem and its temple were not destroyed until 607 B.C.E. In detail the prophecy was fulfilled starting in 539 B.C.E. Cyrus diverted the waters of the Euphrates River into an artificial lake, the river gates of Babylon were carelessly left open during feasting in the city, and Babylon fell to the Medes and Persians under Cyrus. Thereafter, Cyrus liberated the Jewish exiles and sent them back to Jerusalem with instructions to rebuild Jehovah's temple there. This prophecy not only explained the very means Cyrus overtook Babylon, but it mentioned the name of the man himself to do it.

References: The Encyclopedia Americana (1956), Vol. III, p. 9; Light From the Ancient Past (Princeton, 1959), Jack Finegan, pp. 227-229; "All Scripture is Inspired by God and Beneficial" (New York, 1983), pp. 282, 284, 295

Second Prophecy

Luke 19:41-44; 21:20, 21: "He [Jesus Christ] viewed the city [Jerusalem] and wept over it, saying: ...'The days will come upon you when your enemies will build around you a fortification with pointed stakes and will encircle you and distress you from every side, and they will dash you and your children within you to the ground, and they will not lave a stone upon a stone in you, because you did not discern the time of your being inspected.'" Two days later, he counseled his disciples: "When you see Jerusalem surrounded by encamped armies, then know that the desolating of her has drawn near. Then let those in Judea begin fleeing to the mountains, and let those in the midst of her withdraw." (Prophecy spoken by Jesus Christ in 33 C.E.)

Fulfillment: Jerusalem revolted against Rome, and in 66 C.E. the Roman army under Cestius Gallus attacked the city. But, as Jewish historian Josephus reports, the Roman commander "suddenly called off his man, abandoned hope through he had suffered no reverse, and flying in the face of all reason retired from the City." (Josephus, the Jewish War, Penguin Classics, 1969, p. 167) This provided opportunity for Christians to flee from the city, which they did, moving to Pella, beyond the Jordan, according to Eusebius Pamphilus in his Ecclesiastical History. (Translated by C. F. Cruse, London 1894, p. 75) Then around Passover time of the year 70 C.E. General Titus besieged the city, and encircling fence 4.5 miles (7.2 km) long was erected in just three days, and after five months Jerusalem fell. "Jerusalem itself was systematically destroyed and the Temple left in ruins. Archaeological work shows us today just how effective was the destruction of Jewish buildings all over the land." To this day, it is still not completely unclear why the Roman commander abandoned the siege in 66 C.E. Regardless, the circumstances were anything but normal, and obviously could not have been 'calculated'.

References: The Bible and Archaeology (Grand Rapids, Mich.; 1962), J. A. Thompson, p. 299.

 

[snex]

first of all, biblical prophecy is not evidence for creation. even if the bible did have accurate prophecies, that would not prove the accounts of genesis true. its quite possible that among a book of true prophecy, a false book written by men snuck in. in light of *scientific* evidence, this is much more likely, even if the prophecies are true.

however, unfortunately for christians, even these prophecies are worthless. the first prophecy was not in fact written before cyrus, but was written by what is known as "deutero-isaiah." in other words, the first part of the book of isaiah was written by a different author and at a different time then the second part. see here for more information about deutero-isaiah.

the second prophecy is not reliable at all, given the gospel of luke was written after the destruction of the temple. luke could have easily snuck in this little gem to make it seem like jesus said those words in 33AD; its not like anybody could challenge him on this assertion.

when examining prophecy, we must ask what is the most likely explanation. natural or supernatural? supernatural explanations are unexaminable by science and cannot be falsified. if a natural explanation exists, it is much more likely than a supernatural one.

 

[EnigmaticCam]

first of all, biblical prophecy is not evidence for creation. even if the bible did have accurate prophecies, that would not prove the accounts of genesis true. its quite possible that among a book of true prophecy, a false book written by men snuck in. in light of *scientific* evidence, this is much more likely, even if the prophecies are true.

Hence, my acknowledgment that these evidences aren't complete and utter proof. They are merely something to consider. I don't expect you or anyone else to suddently convert just because of these few things. I am merely trying to point out that, at least in my case, it's not "blind faith."

however, unfortunately for christians, even these prophecies are worthless. the first prophecy was not in fact written before cyrus, but was written by what is known as "deutero-isaiah." in other words, the first part of the book of isaiah was written by a different author and at a different time then the second part. see here for more information about deutero-isaiah.

I'm sorry, but this holds no weight for two reasons:

(1): The source you quote does not hold a position to either case. Wikipedia merely mentions that there is an existing strong debate on the authenticity of the book of Isaiah, providing reasonings for both sides of the issue. In other words, I could use the exact same source to counter yours.

(2): You're out of sources

the second prophecy is not reliable at all, given the gospel of luke was written after the destruction of the temple. luke could have easily snuck in this little gem to make it seem like jesus said those words in 33AD; its not like anybody could challenge him on this assertion.

References? I provided mine. Where are yours?

when examining prophecy, we must ask what is the most likely explanation. natural or supernatural? supernatural explanations are unexaminable by science and cannot be falsified. if a natural explanation exists, it is much more likely than a supernatural one.

And what about the case where only a supernatural explanation exists? Again, I'm not saying this is direct proof. It is merely evidence, one of many. But I don't think yours is a good explanation.

 

[snex]

however, unfortunately for christians, even these prophecies are worthless. the first prophecy was not in fact written before cyrus, but was written by what is known as "deutero-isaiah." in other words, the first part of the book of isaiah was written by a different author and at a different time then the second part. see here for more information about deutero-isaiah.

I'm sorry, but this holds no weight for two reasons:

(1): The source you quote does not hold a position to either case. Wikipedia merely mentions that there is an existing strong debate on the authenticity of the book of Isaiah, providing reasonings for both sides of the issue. In other words, I could use the exact same source to counter yours.

(2): You're out of sources

i posted the wikipedia link so people could research it on their own. it isnt my fault if you dont want to research your own holy book. had you read the wiki article closely, youd notice how it says that "most" scholars accept the deutro-isaiah theory. the only hold-outs are the fundy scholars who base everything on the idea that the bible is inerrant. they start out with their conclusions already pre-made.

if you want to learn about deutero-isaiah, go to the library or search amazon.com

the second prophecy is not reliable at all, given the gospel of luke was written after the destruction of the temple. luke could have easily snuck in this little gem to make it seem like jesus said those words in 33AD; its not like anybody could challenge him on this assertion.

References? I provided mine. Where are yours?

are you disputing the fact that luke wrote after 70AD? because youd be the first. there may be some debate over deutero-isaiah, but in this case there is none. and if luke wrote after 70AD, then it is much more likely that he attributed this statement to jesus to make it a prophecy than it is for a man to be able to predict the future.

And what about the case where only a supernatural explanation exists? Again, I'm not saying this is direct proof. It is merely evidence, one of many. But I don't think yours is a good explanation.

if there is such a thing as a case where only a supernatural explanation exists (so far, none have ever been discovered, and your examples certainly dont qualify), then science is powerless to speak on it. science operates under the assumption that the universe operates under discoverable and predictable princples. the action of a supernatural being violates these assumptions, so in the eyes of science, all supernatural explanations are exactly equal. how would you be able to differentiate between them? you wouldnt. how could you tell the difference between a god giving a prophecy and satan giving a prophecy? both could be equally accurate. without the ability to test hypotheses, supernaturalism is worthless in the domain of science.

 

[Yahweh]

however, unfortunately for christians, even these prophecies are worthless. the first prophecy was not in fact written before cyrus, but was written by what is known as "deutero-isaiah." in other words, the first part of the book of isaiah was written by a different author and at a different time then the second part. see here for more information about deutero-isaiah.

This is false. The book of Isaiah was written by one person. Anyone who does any little bit of research knows this. Since you like to just tell people to read books I will give you this link: Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties
Read page 263-267 or, if you are really lazy, I will type out the whole article for you.

are you disputing the fact that luke wrote after 70AD? because youd be the first. there may be some debate over deutero-isaiah, but in this case there is none. and if luke wrote after 70AD, then it is much more likely that he attributed this statement to jesus to make it a prophecy than it is for a man to be able to predict the future.

I do not think it was written that late, but I am not sure exactly the date. The book of Luke was written by the Luke who followed around Paul. Luke went around asking people who were witnesses to what Jesus did and compiled it all together. It is sort of a CSI sort of thing. The comparison for today would be if an event occurred, though you did not witness it, you went around interviewing witnesses to discover the truth. One thing must be noted that Luke was a doctor and a very learned individual. If you read the original greek he uses medical terms and "big words," so to say, in writting the book. If you respond to this, and desire it, i will be more then happy to further elaborate. I know this is sort of scratching the surface.

human DNA and chimp DNA are 95% the same.

And we share 25% with a bannana. So what is the point? Is my grandfather a bannana just because we share the shame DNA?

"doesnt count?" "christiananswers.net?" do you realize how far your credibility just dropped? actually it was very little since you had little to begin with. this is a science debate, not a theology debate. christiananswers.net is just as qualified as you are to answer questions of science, and that is not at all.

What makes you so qualified? Because you say so? Do not disqualify anybody just because they get their research from certain places.

 

[Semmeh]

And we have yet to find another human capable of dying by crucifixion and raise from the dead, but to you, that is evidently true.

Understand that Jesus on earth was very much God as He was man according to Christian faith.

Luke traveled with Paul for many years, and Luke was even with him while Paul was in prison in Rome. Paul died in Rome as a martyr about 67.AD. It is very possible that Luke wrote his Gospel before that time.

For more on Paul, click here

For more on Luke's Gospel, click here

 

[EnigmaticCam]

i posted the wikipedia link so people could research it on their own. it isnt my fault if you dont want to research your own holy book. had you read the wiki article closely, youd notice how it says that "most" scholars accept the deutro-isaiah theory. the only hold-outs are the fundy scholars who base everything on the idea that the bible is inerrant. they start out with their conclusions already pre-made.

if you want to learn about deutero-isaiah, go to the library or search amazon.com

If I wanted to do research on my own, I would have a long time ago. In fact, I've already done my research, and that's why I'm here now. I don't understand the point of pointing out the "possibility" of the refute that you describe, as we are here to debate these very issues. If you don't want to take the time to support your arguments with real references as I have, then points like this just won't hold any weight.

I think it's only fair, as I put the time and effort of doing my research before I made my arguments.

And FYI, the point that "most" scholars accept the deutro-isaiah theory is an appeal to popularity fallacy.

are you disputing the fact that luke wrote after 70AD? because youd be the first. there may be some debate over deutero-isaiah, but in this case there is none. and if luke wrote after 70AD, then it is much more likely that he attributed this statement to jesus to make it a prophecy than it is for a man to be able to predict the future.

The burdon of proof still rests on you to provide me some references.

if there is such a thing as a case where only a supernatural explanation exists (so far, none have ever been discovered, and your examples certainly dont qualify), then science is powerless to speak on it. science operates under the assumption that the universe operates under discoverable and predictable princples. the action of a supernatural being violates these assumptions, so in the eyes of science, all supernatural explanations are exactly equal. how would you be able to differentiate between them? you wouldnt. how could you tell the difference between a god giving a prophecy and satan giving a prophecy? both could be equally accurate. without the ability to test hypotheses, supernaturalism is worthless in the domain of science.

You realize the circular logic here, right? You acknowledge that the existence of a creator violates everything about science, yet you disregard the existence of a creator because science wouldn't agree with it, or I should say, it wouldn't agree with the principles of science. If a supreme being cannot be proven scientifically, then obviously science isn't the answer. And if science isn't the answer, and if God really does exist and he wants us to know about him, don't you think there is an answer out there waiting for someone who truly wants to know?

You're forgetting that, as the creator of the universe, God obviously would not exist within the universe, and thus does not have to uphold its laws. For example, if I write a computer program, operating within the program I am bound by the laws I wrote. But outside, as the programmer, I am free to fiddle with the rules of the program as I want. "Sure this code I wrote here has no button associated with it. Within the program, there is no way to execute it. But outside the program, I am free to run it as much as I wish." ---> "Sure, the laws of time prevent us from looking forward or backward. We cannot predict the future within the laws of the universe. But outside this universe, I can read time like a book and see everything."

 

[snex]

however, unfortunately for christians, even these prophecies are worthless. the first prophecy was not in fact written before cyrus, but was written by what is known as "deutero-isaiah." in other words, the first part of the book of isaiah was written by a different author and at a different time then the second part. see here for more information about deutero-isaiah.

This is false. The book of Isaiah was written by one person. Anyone who does any little bit of research knows this. Since you like to just tell people to read books I will give you this link: Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties
Read page 263-267 or, if you are really lazy, I will type out the whole article for you.

"a little bit of research" eh? so i suppose that the majority of scholars who do this for their living havent done "a little bit of research?"

are you disputing the fact that luke wrote after 70AD? because youd be the first. there may be some debate over deutero-isaiah, but in this case there is none. and if luke wrote after 70AD, then it is much more likely that he attributed this statement to jesus to make it a prophecy than it is for a man to be able to predict the future.

I do not think it was written that late, but I am not sure exactly the date. The book of Luke was written by the Luke who followed around Paul. Luke went around asking people who were witnesses to what Jesus did and compiled it all together. It is sort of a CSI sort of thing. The comparison for today would be if an event occurred, though you did not witness it, you went around interviewing witnesses to discover the truth. One thing must be noted that Luke was a doctor and a very learned individual. If you read the original greek he uses medical terms and "big words," so to say, in writting the book. If you respond to this, and desire it, i will be more then happy to further elaborate. I know this is sort of scratching the surface.

it does not matter what you think. it matters what the evidence shows. just because luke claims to have investigated does not mean he did. if he investigated like he says, why is his knowledge of palestinian geography so terrible? why does he quote directly from mark without attribution? why does he quote from other sources in the same way? what are his sources when he isnt quoting directly? why does his gospel conflict with the others? if luke is so throrough, why does he leave out the trip to egypt to avoid king herods wrath?

human DNA and chimp DNA are 95% the same.

And we share 25% with a bannana. So what is the point? Is my grandfather a bannana just because we share the shame DNA?

the point, if you knew anything about biology whatsoever, is not that we share similarities with chimps, and indeed all other life, but that we share unnecessary similarities with all other life. if god wanted us to know we were created, why did he make life in such a manner as to make it form a natural nested hierarchy?

"doesnt count?" "christiananswers.net?" do you realize how far your credibility just dropped? actually it was very little since you had little to begin with. this is a science debate, not a theology debate. christiananswers.net is just as qualified as you are to answer questions of science, and that is not at all.

What makes you so qualified? Because you say so? Do not disqualify anybody just because they get their research from certain places.

i didnt say i was, but when i want SCIENCE answers, i ask a scientist, not a theologian.

i posted the wikipedia link so people could research it on their own. it isnt my fault if you dont want to research your own holy book. had you read the wiki article closely, youd notice how it says that "most" scholars accept the deutro-isaiah theory. the only hold-outs are the fundy scholars who base everything on the idea that the bible is inerrant. they start out with their conclusions already pre-made.

if you want to learn about deutero-isaiah, go to the library or search amazon.com

If I wanted to do research on my own, I would have a long time ago. In fact, I've already done my research, and that's why I'm here now. I don't understand the point of pointing out the "possibility" of the refute that you describe, as we are here to debate these very issues. If you don't want to take the time to support your arguments with real references as I have, then points like this just won't hold any weight.

I think it's only fair, as I put the time and effort of doing my research before I made my arguments.

And FYI, the point that "most" scholars accept the deutro-isaiah theory is an appeal to popularity fallacy.

if you wanted to debate here, youd do research on your own. this is not a journal of history, its a video game forum. people arent going to copy-paste entire history books just to disprove your claims. i gave a response and listed a way to learn more about it. if people choose not to do so, it is their own ignorance that is at fault. and it is not an appeal to popularity to point out that there is a majority or consensus among experts in a particular field. it means that the experts have weighed the evidence and made their expert conclusions. sure they can be wrong, but merely calling "fallacy" wont make it so. you need to show WHY.

are you disputing the fact that luke wrote after 70AD? because youd be the first. there may be some debate over deutero-isaiah, but in this case there is none. and if luke wrote after 70AD, then it is much more likely that he attributed this statement to jesus to make it a prophecy than it is for a man to be able to predict the future.

The burdon of proof still rests on you to provide me some references.

pick a peer reviewed history journal that has discussed it at random. check them all, in fact. nobody seriously disputes the claim that luke was written post-70AD.

if there is such a thing as a case where only a supernatural explanation exists (so far, none have ever been discovered, and your examples certainly dont qualify), then science is powerless to speak on it. science operates under the assumption that the universe operates under discoverable and predictable princples. the action of a supernatural being violates these assumptions, so in the eyes of science, all supernatural explanations are exactly equal. how would you be able to differentiate between them? you wouldnt. how could you tell the difference between a god giving a prophecy and satan giving a prophecy? both could be equally accurate. without the ability to test hypotheses, supernaturalism is worthless in the domain of science.

You realize the circular logic here, right? You acknowledge that the existence of a creator violates everything about science, yet you disregard the existence of a creator because science wouldn't agree with it, or I should say, it wouldn't agree with the principles of science. If a supreme being cannot be proven scientifically, then obviously science isn't the answer. And if science isn't the answer, and if God really does exist and he wants us to know about him, don't you think there is an answer out there waiting for someone who truly wants to know?

its not circular at all. the existence of a creator doesnt violate science, the claim that this creator is somehow beyond nature does. and i disregard the existence of a creator for other reasons, least of which is that his existence is unncessary.

if god exists, and god wants us to know that he exists, then science is the only way to find him, because science is the only method of gaining knowledge that is progressive. there is simply no other way to gain knowledge about the external world. if science turns up no gods, then either they do not exist or they do not want us to know they exist. if you have some other verifiable way of gaining knowledge about the external world, lets hear it.

You're forgetting that, as the creator of the universe, God obviously would not exist within the universe, and thus does not have to uphold its laws. For example, if I write a computer program, operating within the program I am bound by the laws I wrote. But outside, as the programmer, I am free to fiddle with the rules of the program as I want. "Sure this code I wrote here has no button associated with it. Within the program, there is no way to execute it. But outside the program, I am free to run it as much as I wish." ---> "Sure, the laws of time prevent us from looking forward or backward. We cannot predict the future within the laws of the universe. But outside this universe, I can read time like a book and see everything."

the "computer programmer" god is the only one i can think of that makes sense, but unfortunately for you, he would not fit the profile of the christian god. he would either be a deist god or an experimenter god. he would not have personal concern about our affairs, and he might not even consider us to be sentient beings in the same way he considers himself to be one. after all, we are just bits in his computer.

 

[Semmeh]

he would not have personal concern about our affairs,

I believe a programmer shows concern for what goes on in his program no?

And please, discribe the Christian God in your own words.

it does not matter what you think. it matters what the evidence shows. just because luke claims to have investigated does not mean he did. if he investigated like he says, why is his knowledge of palestinian geography so terrible? why does he quote directly from mark without attribution? why does he quote from other sources in the same way? what are his sources when he isnt quoting directly? why does his gospel conflict with the others? if luke is so throrough, why does he leave out the trip to egypt to avoid king herods wrath?

Luke is a more complete and detailed book than the other Gospel. More evidence on how Luke did research. Why would Luke when writing his Gospel, want to educate us with palestinian geography? His goal was to write his Gospel, to share the good news. His intention was to provide a detailed account for Jesus' life.

Again, for more on Luke's Gospel, click here.

 

[EnigmaticCam]

if you wanted to debate here, youd do research on your own. this is not a journal of history, its a video game forum. people arent going to copy-paste entire history books just to disprove your claims. i gave a response and listed a way to learn more about it. if people choose not to do so, it is their own ignorance that is at fault.

Until you can provide a sound basis as to why Isaiah didn't write most of the book of Isaiah, my point still stands. Like I said, it's only fair because I put a lot of work and time into my post. Certainly a link to a source, especially one that presents facts for both sides of the issues, is not enough to change the weight of the scales.

and it is not an appeal to popularity to point out that there is a majority or consensus among experts in a particular field. it means that the experts have weighed the evidence and made their expert conclusions. sure they can be wrong, but merely calling "fallacy" wont make it so. you need to show WHY.

Cannot this same reasoning have been applied when "most" believe the planet was flat? Or the earth was the center of the universe?

Here's a thought for you: Of ocurse most scholars will try to explain away the book of Isaiah or any other prophetic book because nobody wants to believe the Bible is authentic. As soon as someone accepts that, then suddenly they are held accountable for their actions, and they are responsible for doing something about it. So I'm not surprised that "most" scholars accept that theory, but I'm still waiting for proof

pick a peer reviewed history journal that has discussed it at random. check them all, in fact. nobody seriously disputes the claim that luke was written post-70AD.

Proving that the book of Luke was written after 70 A.D. doesn't change a thing. It is a historical fact that the roman armies surrounded Jerusalem in 66 C.E., and for an unknown reason, just when they were about to lay siege they abandoned it. It is also a historical fact that many Jews left Jerusalem expecting the Romans to return, and four years later they did. So if Jesus was never there to warn the Jews about this event, and if Luke obviously didn't record that, then why did some Jews leave Jerusalem? If it simply was because they had the sense to, then why didn't everyone else go? Something prompted them to leave, in anticipation of something that most in Jerusalem did not anticipate.

if god exists, and god wants us to know that he exists, then science is the only way to find him, because science is the only method of gaining knowledge that is progressive.

The flaw is the same as always. Listen closely: If God exists and created the universe, he does not exist in the universe! The laws of the universe do not apply to him, and thus the laws of science do not. Given this, don't you think, knowing that science can't prove he exists (science can only cancel out all the alternatives), God would have provided some other means? I'm sorry, the circular logic is still there. You admit science couldn't prove he eixsts, yet because of this fact you disregard his existence.

the "computer programmer" god is the only one i can think of that makes sense, but unfortunately for you, he would not fit the profile of the christian god.

This is just a matter of opinion. I see no reason to believe this kind of God can't be a Christian God, and can't be a caring God. Why not?

 

[snex]

Until you can provide a sound basis as to why Isaiah didn't write most of the book of Isaiah, my point still stands. Like I said, it's only fair because I put a lot of work and time into my post. Certainly a link to a source, especially one that presents facts for both sides of the issues, is not enough to change the weight of the scales.

Here's a thought for you: Of ocurse most scholars will try to explain away the book of Isaiah or any other prophetic book because nobody wants to believe the Bible is authentic. As soon as someone accepts that, then suddenly they are held accountable for their actions, and they are responsible for doing something about it. So I'm not surprised that "most" scholars accept that theory, but I'm still waiting for proof.

Eerdman's Bible Dictionary says "From a literary standpoint, the book can be divided into two major sections, Isa. 1-39 and 40-66, on the basis of content and, concomitantly, theological concerns. Indeed, the majority of critical scholars accept the view suggested as early as Abraham ibn Ezra (twelfth century A. D.) that only the first portion can be ascribed to the eighth-century B. C. prophet Isaiah, a contemporary of Amos, Hosea, and Micah. The second section is attributed to an unknown prophet, commonly designated Second or Deutero-Isaiah, living among the Jews in Babylon toward the end of the Exile (ca. 550-538). Many scholars further identify chs. 56-66 as the work of a Third or Trito-Isaiah, addressed to the restoration community perhaps in the period immediately preceding Ezra and Nehemiah. More extreme critics posit even more "Isaiahs."

notice how it makes no reference to the fear of being held accountable for actions, but rather appeals to the text itself. emotional arguments might fly among theists, but they dont among scientists.

Cannot this same reasoning have been applied when "most" believe the planet was flat? Or the earth was the center of the universe?

these beliefs were religious, not scientific. science is what disproved them.

Proving that the book of Luke was written after 70 A.D. doesn't change a thing. It is a historical fact that the roman armies surrounded Jerusalem in 66 C.E., and for an unknown reason, just when they were about to lay siege they abandoned it. It is also a historical fact that many Jews left Jerusalem expecting the Romans to return, and four years later they did. So if Jesus was never there to warn the Jews about this event, and if Luke obviously didn't record that, then why did some Jews leave Jerusalem? If it simply was because they had the sense to, then why didn't everyone else go? Something prompted them to leave, in anticipation of something that most in Jerusalem did not anticipate.

it changes everything. it means luke knew what happened and could have attributed jesus to saying it would happen. this is far more likely than a man having the ability to predict the future.

The flaw is the same as always. Listen closely: If God exists and created the universe, he does not exist in the universe! The laws of the universe do not apply to him, and thus the laws of science do not. Given this, don't you think, knowing that science can't prove he exists (science can only cancel out all the alternatives), God would have provided some other means? I'm sorry, the circular logic is still there. You admit science couldn't prove he eixsts, yet because of this fact you disregard his existence.

its irrelevant whether or not god exists inside or outside of the universe. if he exists, he is a part of the natural world, and should be examinable by science. if god purposely created the universe in such a way as to make him undiscoverable by science, then he should not be surprised when people fail to believe in him. as i said, science is the only way to gain knowledge about the external world. if you have another way that can be verified to work, lets hear it.

This is just a matter of opinion. I see no reason to believe this kind of God can't be a Christian God, and can't be a caring God. Why not?

if "god" is merely the programmer that coded the simulation in which we exist, then there is no afterlife. once our portions of code stop running, they cease existing. we could only continue existing if the programmer deliberately moved our code to somewhere else, and what would the point of doing this be? he would not regard us as sentient, he certainly wouldnt give us rules that we *had* to follow, and then punish us when our deterministic pieces of code failed to follow them. how utterly silly. the christian god is a reflection of the primitive peoples that invented him.

I believe a programmer shows concern for what goes on in his program no?

And please, discribe the Christian God in your own words.

"you" are not his program. the entire universe is. you occupy such a small portion of that universe that it would be unlikely for him to even notice your existence. if anything, we should assume that a programmer god has a fetish for black holes.

christian god: omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent creator of the universe as described in the bible.

Luke is a more complete and detailed book than the other Gospel. More evidence on how Luke did research. Why would Luke when writing his Gospel, want to educate us with palestinian geography? His goal was to write his Gospel, to share the good news. His intention was to provide a detailed account for Jesus' life.

if luke is more complete and detailed than any other gospel, why do they contain stories about jesus that luke does not? why doesnt luke mention fleeing to egypt? why doesnt he mention the wedding at cana? why would luke not know such simple geography as the location and/or existence of towns jesus lived around and in? dont you think a "complete and detailed" scholar would at least consult a map to see whether or not "nazareth" even existed?

 

[TheKeyboardist]

You assume that they were translated properly. There is proof in mistranslation in the Bible.

During the early part of the tenth century (916 A.D.), there was a group of Jews called the Massoretes. These Jews were meticulous in their copying. The texts they had were all in capital letters, and there was no punctuation or paragraphs. The Massoretes would copy Isaiah, for example, and when they were through, they would total up the number of letters. Then they would find the middle letter of the book. If it was not the same, they made a new copy. All of the present copies of the Hebrew text which come from this period are in remarkable agreement. Comparisons of the Massoretic text with earlier Latin and Greek versions have also revealed careful copying and little deviation during the thousand years from 100 B.C. to 900 A.D. But until this century, there was scant material written in Hebrew from antiquity which could be compared to the Masoretic texts of the tenth century A.D.

I dont have very much time so i will offer my evidence authenticating the Bible starting with what i said above.

One tidbit is that no archaeological evedience has been found contradicting the Bible.

"For Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming...any attempt to reject its basic historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd."
~Sherwin-White, a respected classical historian at Oxford

Not for other religions. For example, archaeological evedence has condmned the book of mormon.

In addition, many non-christians, atheists mention Jesus.

Flavius Josephus, a first century Jewish historian wrote of Jesus and the Christians:

"so he [Ananus, son of Ananus the high priest] assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before him the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others (or some of his companions) and when he had formed an accusation against them, he delivered them to be stoned."

Cornelius Tacitus wrote about Jesus and the first century Christians in his Annals (a history of the Roman empire):

"Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus."

Scholars have made statements such as, "no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus ." The latest version of Encyclopedia Britannica says in its discussion of the multiple extra-biblical witnesses:

"These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds by several authors at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries."

Also, take a look at this quote by C. J. Sharp:

"If a fragment of stone were found in Italy, another in Asia Minor, another in Greece, another in Egypt, and on and on until sixty-six fragments had been found, and if when put together they fitted perfectly together, making a perfect statue of Venus de Milo, there is not an artist or scientist but would arrive immediately at the conclusion that there was originally a sculptor who conceived and carved the statue. The very lines and perfections would probably determine which of the great ancient artists carved the statue. Not only the unity of the Scriptures, but their lines of perfection, suggest One far above any human as the real author. That could be no one but God ."

Also, there are lists of prophecies fufilled in the Bible, even though they were written long before they were actually done. If interested, i can provide alot of them although i must say that it is quite alot to read.

"Then they will deliver you to tribulation, and will kill you, and you will be hated by all nations on account of My name." (Matthew 24:9)

A prediction in the Bible fufilled many times over in our past and up until now.

"They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god... Accordingly, I judged it all the more necessary to find out what the truth was by torturing two female slaves who were called deaconesses. But I discovered nothing else but depraved, excessive superstition.... Meanwhile, in the case of those who were denounced to me as Christians, I have observed the following procedure: I interrogated these as to whether they were Christians; those who confessed I interrogated a second and a third time, threatening them with punishment; those who persisted I ordered executed. For I had no doubt that, whatever the nature of their creed, stubbornness and inflexible obstinacy surely deserve to be punished."(22)

Pliny readily admits that they "were denounced to me as Christians" ("they will deliver you to tribulation") and executed ("and will kill you") just for "the nature of their creed" ("on account of My name."). This is a chilling fulfillment of prophecy, which testifies that early Christians knew the truth of the gospel and were willing to die for it.

What's this?! You admitted that you didn't take the whole truth?!

Are you blind? I just said i WANTED to quote verbatim. That means i took EVERYTHING. Try to read more carefully.

 

[snex]

During the early part of the tenth century (916 A.D.), there was a group of Jews called the Massoretes. These Jews were meticulous in their copying. The texts they had were all in capital letters, and there was no punctuation or paragraphs. The Massoretes would copy Isaiah, for example, and when they were through, they would total up the number of letters. Then they would find the middle letter of the book. If it was not the same, they made a new copy. All of the present copies of the Hebrew text which come from this period are in remarkable agreement. Comparisons of the Massoretic text with earlier Latin and Greek versions have also revealed careful copying and little deviation during the thousand years from 100 B.C. to 900 A.D. But until this century, there was scant material written in Hebrew from antiquity which could be compared to the Masoretic texts of the tenth century A.D.

it is true that the old testament copying fidelity is rather excellent. but this proves nothing. it only shows that the modern versions match with old versions, not that the old versions actually spoke truth.

and, in fact, there are a few copying errors that managed to creep in anyway. 2Kings 8:26 conflicts with 2Chronicles 22:2 as to the age of Ahaziah when he began to reign. both verses use the *exact same* text in hebrew, except for the age. this is most certainly a copying error.

One tidbit is that no archaeological evedience has been found contradicting the Bible.

absolutely false. an interesting fact to note is that nazareth, the supposed home city of jesus, did not exist until the 3rd or 4th century AD. beneath the current site of nazareth are tombs dated to the time of jesus, and jews were forbidden to make cities near tombs. if nazareth existed, it was not at its current location, and absolutely no evidence for a city of nazareth has ever been uncovered.

Flavius Josephus, a first century Jewish historian wrote of Jesus and the Christians:

"so he [Ananus, son of Ananus the high priest] assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before him the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others (or some of his companions) and when he had formed an accusation against them, he delivered them to be stoned."

i dealt with the supposed secular mentionings of jesus in the thread about "jesus: man or myth." josephus was no contemporary of jesus and was only writing based on heresay. there is another part of josephus that supposedly mentions jesus, but it is an obvious fraud. this part seems genuine, but the insertion of "brother of jesus, who was called christ" may be a later interpolation. even if this was not the case, anybody who was a follower of the early christian church might have been called "brother of christ." the passage does not indicate physical relationship, and the bible never mentions jesus having a brother.

Cornelius Tacitus wrote about Jesus and the first century Christians in his Annals (a history of the Roman empire):

"Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus."

this again, is heresay. tacitus was not a contemporary of jesus. another interesting thing to note about tacitus is that he refers to pilate as the procurator, when he was in fact a prefect.

Scholars have made statements such as, "no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus ."

how quaint, the anonymous appeal to authority. it doesnt change the fact that serious scholars DO this all the time. perhaps you should take your head out of the apologetics publishings and read the actual journals.

The latest version of Encyclopedia Britannica says in its discussion of the multiple extra-biblical witnesses:

"These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds by several authors at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries."

why would they doubt the historicity of jesus? nobody doubted the historicity of hercules either. people were a superstitious lot back then, and if the encyclopedia britannica thinks that the grounds are inadequate, why doesnt it present some real evidence, instead of historians working on heresay 40 years after the fact?

"If a fragment of stone were found in Italy, another in Asia Minor, another in Greece, another in Egypt, and on and on until sixty-six fragments had been found, and if when put together they fitted perfectly together, making a perfect statue of Venus de Milo, there is not an artist or scientist but would arrive immediately at the conclusion that there was originally a sculptor who conceived and carved the statue. The very lines and perfections would probably determine which of the great ancient artists carved the statue. Not only the unity of the Scriptures, but their lines of perfection, suggest One far above any human as the real author. That could be no one but God ."

Also, there are lists of prophecies fufilled in the Bible, even though they were written long before they were actually done. If interested, i can provide alot of them although i must say that it is quite alot to read.

nonsense. inerrantists force-fit the prophecies to events, when in fact the events dont coincide at all.

"Then they will deliver you to tribulation, and will kill you, and you will be hated by all nations on account of My name." (Matthew 24:9)

you call this a prophecy? what a joke. ANY religion in the ancient world can make this prophecy and it will be true. it isnt divine inspiration, its knowing that ancients didnt take kindly to new gods.

when are we gonna get some real evidence here? even if jesus existed, even if the bible contains legit prophecies, SO WHAT? it doesnt negate the overwhelming evidence for the big bang and evolution. all your braying and willful ignorance wont make the evidence disappear.

 

[Dark_Lite]

Believe it or not, you were perfect when you were born. You were obviously healthy if you are posting here today, you hadn't sinned, and were making choices and using your free will, though they were small choices. Unfortunately, later in your life you made some bad choices and now you are a sinner, but remember, God MADE you perfect.

Humans are born with original sin. This does not refer to health as someone else has already stated.

One of the most basic laws in the universe is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This states that as time goes by, entropy in an environment will increase. Evolution argues differently against a law that is accepted EVERYWHERE BY EVERYONE. Evolution says that we started out simple, and over time became more complex.

Firstly, evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It is my understanding that entropy only applies in closed systems and the Earth in space is definitely not a closed system.

That just isn't possible: UNLESS there is a giant outside source of energy supplying the Earth with huge amounts of energy. If there were such a source, scientists would certainly know about it.

Best. quote. ever. That's certainly a new one I've seen in the line of creationist weird claims.

 

[snex]

Firstly, evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

actually, its the second law of thermodynamics that drives evolution at its most basic level. there are certain molecules that replicate themselves because they obey the 2LoT, and also because of the 2LoT, these molecules replicate imperfectly. this ends up in a positive feedback loop due to natural selection, which leads evolution to produce the life we see today.

 

[Dark_Lite]

actually, its the second law of thermodynamics that drives evolution at its most basic level. there are certain molecules that replicate themselves because they obey the 2LoT, and also because of the 2LoT, these molecules replicate imperfectly. this ends up in a positive feedback loop due to natural selection, which leads evolution to produce the life we see today.

I've never heard that one either. I suppose when you bring it down to the molecular level it does make sense. Mutations happen because of errors in the copying process. After that natural selection takes over. However, on a large-scale "general" level, the second law doesn't really apply the way creationists think it does (like everything else they try and use...).

 

[snex]

true, the "everything is decaying" is just a strawman of the 2LoT, and if it were true, we couldnt form from the single cells within our mothers' wombs.

 

[Master Fox]

true, the "everything is decaying" is just a strawman of the 2LoT, and if it were true, we couldnt form from the single cells within our mothers' wombs.

Evidence that macro-organisms can form from micro-organisms...the developement of a fetus! I forgot much of the stages of the growth of the fetus but here it goes from what I can remember to be accurate. First, the fertle egg. Next, the fetus starts to resemble the a lizard. Few things in between and it begins to resemble a pig. After, it resembles and ape. Next...a female baby. Yes! All males were once female in the womb. If the genetic code shows the fetus to be a male (possessing an X and Y chromosomes), the female fetus will become male (fetuses with 2 X chromosomes and no Y chromosomes skip this step in birth). Next, the Fetus becomes a Baby Human and develop further and are eventually born in 3 more months I think. My source for this is what I learned in Biology class in 2002 - 2003. So, this is only proof that a single celled organism can become an animal, plant, etc. Thanks for reminding me snex!

I recall some one stating that God exists in another dimension...I recall it was EnigmaticCam. Well...which dimension. The First? The Second? The Third? The Fifth? (I didn't mention the fourth because that's the one we exist in). Lets see...he couldn't exist in the first dimension because nothing can exist in the first dimension...there's no space. Technically, the first dimension doesn't exist. The second dimension?...again...not enough room but in the second dimension, things that are flat can exist but only on an X,Y infinite plain. Creation is possible in the second dimension I have to admit because everything is made out of light and there's no matter. Humans create stuff in the 2nd dimention all the time. Some examples are 2D video games, webpages, word documents, TV, etc. The 2nd dimension was created by Humans with the invention of the Television unless an alien race beat us to it. The Third dimension? Possibly but unlikely. Beings in the fourth dimension control what goes on in the 3rd dimension. Creation is possible in the 3rd dimension due to the fact that everything is made of light and there's no matter and does posses an X,Y,Z plane...meaning, unlimited space. Humans create stuff in the 3rd dimension all the time and these very forums are based on a creation in the 3rd dimension called Super Smash Bros. Melee. The invention of the Computer is was created the 3rd dimension. The Fourth Dimension? According to you, EnigmaticCam, God doesn't exist in the fourth dimension. since matter is what forms everything, creation is only possible with light. Matter can't be created nor destroyed. We live in the fourth dimension but it's the dimension we know the least about. Science is what finds out more and more of the fourth dimension. Religion only fills in holes but there's no proof that it is correct and most religion filled holes have been replaced by scientific fact and scientific theories (samething as scientific fact). The 4th dimension does have an X,Y,Z plain, leaving unlimited space and as far as we know, the universe could also go on in the infinity of space (no limit in matter). If we do live in a limited universe, there is a limite to maximum number of matter and minimum number of matter (the same number by the way for matter can't be created nor destroyed). As for the fifth dimension...the only thing that exists in the fifth Dimension is Time. If humans or any other beings can somehow get into the fifth dimension, that being can travel in time. The fifth dimension only exists as basically and unproven idea for there is no way of testing it but it is in our imaginations. Just to say...in the plains of dimensions, there's only these 5. And everything within a specific dimension must follow the laws of the dimension...nothing, not even a God, can disregard these rules, no matter what anyone states. If there were a God, he would exist in the fourth dimension but not as its creator or the universe's creator. It is possible that he always existed or he was born within the universe
A lot of people think of dimensions as alternative worlds in the same plain with is true in a sense but not in the way people think. Dimension is what i explained above.

Well...that's all I have time to post unfortunately...

 

[awesomestnerd]

Everything is decaying to a level ( the disorder and chaos is increasing and over a certain of period of time it will decay), but as long as we put energy into it, it is less. Obviously your body is putting energy into keeping you alive and thats why you are alive right now.

 

[snex]

and obviously genes mutate and ones that confer higher reproductive success will spread, while those with lower reproductive success will die out. this process is fueled by the same energy your body uses to grow and keep you alive and reproduce, ie from your food, oxygen, water, and the sun (directly for plants, indirectly for you).

 

[EnigmaticCam]

Eerdman's Bible Dictionary says...

Funny, even when you provide a reference, it doesn't prove anything. It's just a quote of some other guy saying the exact same thing, but providing no reason as to why. Nevertheless, here are some reasons as to why Isaiah is the true writer of the book:

(1). Writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures credited both the material designated chapters 1 to 39 and chapters 40 to 66 to "Isaiah the prophet." They never intimated that there were two persons. Compare Matthew 3:3 and 4:14-16 with Isaiah 40:3 and 9:1,2; also John 12:38-41 with Isaih 53:1 and 6:1, 10. Jesus Christ himself, when he read from the "scroll of the prophet Isaiah" at the synagogue in Nazareth, was reading from Isaiah 61:1, 2.

(2) The Dead Sea Scroll of Isaiah contains evidence that the copyist who penned it knew nothing of any supposed division in the prophecy at the close of chapter 39. He began the 40th chapter on the last line of the column of writing that contains chapter 39.

(3) The entire book of Isaiah has been passed down through the centuries as a single work, not as two or more. The continuity from chapter 39 to chapter 40 is evidence in what is recorded at Isaiah 39:6,7, which is an obvious transisition to what follows.

(4) Ascribing the writing of Isaiah to another writer in Cyrus' time would still not solve the 'problem' because this porition of the book also foretold in detail events in the earthly life and ministry of the Messiah, Jesus Christ - things even father in the future.

these beliefs were religious, not scientific. science is what disproved them.

I really don't think it matters. The point is, the 'popular' belief is not always the correct one.

it changes everything. it means luke knew what happened and could have attributed jesus to saying it would happen. this is far more likely than a man having the ability to predict the future.

Please go back and reread my post, as you completely missed the point.

its irrelevant whether or not god exists inside or outside of the universe. if he exists, he is a part of the natural world, and should be examinable by science.

You can't seem to fathom the point that if God exits outside of the universe, he is not part of it. Oh well, I can't make it much more clear.

if "god" is merely the programmer that coded the simulation in which we exist, then there is no afterlife. once our portions of code stop running, they cease existing. we could only continue existing if the programmer deliberately moved our code to somewhere else, and what would the point of doing this be? he would not regard us as sentient, he certainly wouldnt give us rules that we *had* to follow, and then punish us when our deterministic pieces of code failed to follow them. how utterly silly. the christian god is a reflection of the primitive peoples that invented him.

You've taken the illustration completely out of context. The point was simply to paint a picture as to how God might operate external to the universe.

I recall some one stating that God exists in another dimension...I recall it was EnigmaticCam. Well...which dimension. The First? The Second? The Third? The Fifth?

You and snex seem to fall victim to the same lack of insight. (1) I didn't say God exists in another dimenion; I said he exists outside of the universe, and (2) any and all dimensions, first, second, twenty-third, etc., are all natural parts of the universe, so God would not exist in any of these either.

 

[snex]

Funny, even when you provide a reference, it doesn't prove anything. It's just a quote of some other guy saying the exact same thing, but providing no reason as to why. Nevertheless, here are some reasons as to why Isaiah is the true writer of the book:

maybe you should learn to actually pick up the book and read ITS references then, eh? the whole point of listing a reference is so you can go read for yourself. not so i can plagiarize large portions of text.

(1). Writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures credited both the material designated chapters 1 to 39 and chapters 40 to 66 to "Isaiah the prophet." They never intimated that there were two persons. Compare Matthew 3:3 and 4:14-16 with Isaiah 40:3 and 9:1,2; also John 12:38-41 with Isaih 53:1 and 6:1, 10. Jesus Christ himself, when he read from the "scroll of the prophet Isaiah" at the synagogue in Nazareth, was reading from Isaiah 61:1, 2.

irrelevant. the gospel writers were not text analyzers and did not live either during isaiah's time or deutero-isaiah's time.

(2) The Dead Sea Scroll of Isaiah contains evidence that the copyist who penned it knew nothing of any supposed division in the prophecy at the close of chapter 39. He began the 40th chapter on the last line of the column of writing that contains chapter 39.

irrelevant. the entire point of deutero-isaiah was to make it seem like prophecies were fulfilled, and so the copyist would have fallen for the trick. the copyist was not a text analyzer and did not live either during isaiah's time or deutero-isaiah's time.

(3) The entire book of Isaiah has been passed down through the centuries as a single work, not as two or more. The continuity from chapter 39 to chapter 40 is evidence in what is recorded at Isaiah 39:6,7, which is an obvious transisition to what follows.

irrelevant. the entire point of deutero-isaiah was to make it seem like prophecies were fulfilled.

(4) Ascribing the writing of Isaiah to another writer in Cyrus' time would still not solve the 'problem' because this porition of the book also foretold in detail events in the earthly life and ministry of the Messiah, Jesus Christ - things even father in the future.

false.

now lets see some REAL evidence as to why isaiah is not the work of one author (as opposed to merely opinions of a christian fundamentalist that must hold to inerrancy based on his uninformed opinions):

1. There are striking stylistic variations and differences in vocabulary. Not only does Isaiah 40-55 form a unity of thought and emphasis centered in the restoration from Babylonian captivity, but the style of writing differs from II Isaiah. Isaiah of Jerusalem used brief, emphatic diction so familiar in eighth century prophetic oracles. His vocabulary is limited and his utterances are designed for delivery to specific audiences. Deutero-Isaiah's work is more uniform and lyrical in style, more hymnic in quality, and more extensive in vocabulary.

2. There are differences in historical interest: I Isaiah is concerned with Assyria as the dominant power. The kings with whom he associated are those of the last half of the eighth century, and the setting of his work is this period. In II Isaiah the Babylonian Exile is the background for the proclamation of deliverance, and the prophet is concerned with interpreting the Exilic experience. The dominant nation is Babylon. Interest is focused on a new rising power, Persia, and the monarch Cyrus is named and recognized as a deliverer of the people (Isa. 45:1). Such detailed information could not have been known to Isaiah of Jerusalem, for the Persian nation did not come into existence until after the eighth century.

3. There is a difference in theological content. Isaiah of Jerusalem preached doom, the proximity of punishment, and the remnant concept. Isaiah of Babylon announced that the punishment was past, suffering was over, and deliverance was at hand.

Old Testament Life and Literature, Gerald A. Larue (1968)

now before you start whining, READ the **** reference. im not going to copy-paste the entire book for you.

I really don't think it matters. The point is, the 'popular' belief is not always the correct one.

it does matter. we are talking about the opinions of experts whose sole purpose is to study the phenomena in question vs laypeople who didnt know anything at all in the ancient world. a majority of experts agreeing means a lot.

Please go back and reread my post, as you completely missed the point.

your point is irrelevant. luke was written after the destruction of the temple, so luke knew the destruction of the temple happened. if he wanted to, he could have written that jesus predicted it when in fact no such thing occurred. you need to prove that the prediction was written/spoken before the event in question, otherwise there is no prophecy.

You can't seem to fathom the point that if God exits outside of the universe, he is not part of it. Oh well, I can't make it much more clear.

you cant seem to fathom the point that this is completely IRRELEVENT. anything that exists IN REALITY is studiable by science, except for omnipotent gods WHO DO NOT WANT TO BE FOUND. if god wanted us to find him, science would be the ONLY WAY TO DO SO. until you provide some other way of gaining knowledge that can be verified to work, nothing you say will prove ANYTHING.

You've taken the illustration completely out of context. The point was simply to paint a picture as to how God might operate external to the universe.

then answer the objections.

You and snex seem to fall victim to the same lack of insight. (1) I didn't say God exists in another dimenion; I said he exists outside of the universe, and (2) any and all dimensions, first, second, twenty-third, etc., are all natural parts of the universe, so God would not exist in any of these either.

if you cannot explain what it means to "exist outside of the universe," then the phrase is meaningless. answer the questions.

 

[Sephiroth27]

I just noticed this thread, and I hope that we all know that the Big Bang Theory is incorrect. I'm not making a "direct attack" on the Big Bang Theory, but it's just common sense that it did not happen.

 

[snex]

its "common sense" that if somebody flies off into space at near light speed, when they come back they will see that the earth and everything on it has aged the same amount as they have.

"common sense."

perhaps you would like to list for us the major lines of evidence for the big bang, and then tell us why they arent correct.

 

[Sephiroth27]

First, it's a THEORY. NOT LAW.
It goes against the LAW OF PERPETUAL MOTION
I don't need to say more.

 

[snex]

please give us a definition of "theory," "law," and "law of perpetual motion," and explain how the big bang would violate it. after you do this, please list the main lines of evidence for the big bang and explain why they are incorrect.

 

[Dark_Lite]

First, it's a THEORY. NOT LAW.

Gravity is a theory. Germs causing disease is a theory. The creationist rhetoric of "it's only a theory!" gets tiresome sometimes. The word "theory" has such a different meaning in a scientific context.

It goes against the LAW OF PERPETUAL MOTION
I don't need to say more.

Do you even know what the big bang is?

 

[Sephiroth27]

Yes, I know what the Big Bang Theory is. I wouldn't use the Law of Perpetual Motion to disprove it if I wasn't 100% sure.

 

[blazedaces]

First, it's a THEORY. NOT LAW.
It goes against the LAW OF PERPETUAL MOTION
I don't need to say more.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion_machine

There is no such thing as "The Law of Perpetual Motion." The Big Bang does not violate any of the laws of physics or thermodynamics. Do you even know what the proof is for the big bang?

 

[Dark_Lite]

Yes, I know what the Big Bang Theory is. I wouldn't use the Law of Perpetual Motion to disprove it if I wasn't 100% sure.

Then what is it?

 

[Sephiroth27]

I'm in school. Got to go.

 

[snex]

please answer my questions or stop posting. this is a debate, not a contest over who can make the most undefended assertions.

by the way, i just read your sig. i suggest you apply it to science and then take its advice yourself.

 

[Crimson King]

Ok, because too many people are not following the rules this topic is on it's last leg. Either stop posting one liners or something that isn't relevent, stop posting sigs, (Sephiroth27, your sig is one line too many, cut it or get it locked) or this topic will close.

Your sig is about 8 lines and your post/reply shouldn't be LESS than that. If it is, take off your sig for that post.

 

[Falc]

Darwin

I'm currently writing an essay on Darwinism and the reaction of both scientific and non-scientific parties, comparing the two. I have debated for a long time the side of religion on my beliefs in God. But Darwin and Wallace’s studies of human evolution and moreover, the theories they proposed have changed many views, especially in the 1800’s. The Big Bang theory is the suggestion of a cataclysmic event that moved the earth into a cycle able to sustain life. You have to understand that evolution or ecosystems as they are now would die in the atmosphere at this time. In the Hadian or the Azoic time period about 4.6-3.8 by. ago, the first mass was created; the Earth’s core was created of iron, this created a gravitational pull, (although very minimal) and as the planet built on itself, gases were emitted from the creation and combination of new elements and of course the planet grew in size as it collided with other objects, ie. asteroids, comets, etc. Keep in mind these are still theories, but as are most scientific claims and there we have our argument. The first life came in the Archeozoic era, something like 2.5 by ago, this is where the Big Bang theory comes into play, scientists needed to find an explanation for life, so they set out to find some evidence of an event during this time that sparked life, this is all Precambrian time period for those who know the lingo, those who don’t, just google precam time period and you should be good. So the Big Bang theory aligned with Darwin’s theory of evolution for myself at least ties well together, but at the same time the faith issue is still there, these answers only have a few certainties, but as for faith and the meaning of all this, be it a happy accident of elements or some greater power’s hand working its magic, who can be sure. A couple good books to read, just for the hell of it, and for their theories and their intellectual stimulation would be Angels and Demons by Dan Brown, (same author of Da Vinci Code) and The End of Faith by Sam Harris. Most references go to my cool profs at UBC, (being in University, one comes to despise writing bibliographies.) For more info on the geological time scale/ periods go to http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/Geologictime.html there are tons more professional sites you could find the chart on, but this one has colors, pictures and descriptions, what more could you ask for?

If I have made any mistakes in this reply, please feel free to threaten my life.

Falc

 

[snex]

the big bang theory has nothing at all to do with the earth itself or the formation of life. the big bang theory states that some 13.7 bya the universe was compressed into an extremely small point, and then began expanding.

also, new research suggests that life actually began around 3.5 bya, not 2.5. this is extremely close to the hardening of the earth's crust, and shows that the formation of life may be more common than once thought.