Is Bible history fact or fiction?

[Erasmus00]

Then you disagree with Webster's, not just me. religion - A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion. - http://www.dictionary.com

 

Perhaps you are unaware the word comes from latin, meaning supernatural constraint. At the root, the word deals with God or the supernatural. In fact, the common usage of the word deals with God or the supernatural.

 

I also notice that you don't reply to any of the scientific evidence I have posted dealing with evolution. Why is that? If there is no evidence supporting evolution, you must have some reasoning for discarding the evidence I have been showing you.

-Will

[Skippy]

SCIENTISTS, ever heard of them? Possibly not from the rest of your reply. That the largest percent of the most highly regarded of them are not Theists shows as the most evident causality (yes NOW I am bringing causality into it) is their greater level of knowledge of the physical existence we live in.

Scientists, those people who see a problem/question and try to repeat experiments to prove/disprove them. NOT people who create fiction to fill in gaps of their understanding.

 

Only to those ignorant of what makes a religion a religion. THose wishing to invent a minimalizing marginalizing of something they can not attack with facts and reason.

In case you missed it, Webster's defines religion as - "A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion." Your posts alone would qualify evolutionas a religion.

[eMTee]

Quote by Boerseun "IF* Noah's Ark was found on Mt. Ararat, I'll be amazed, frankly. Then, I'd want to go and measure the thing to see in what small space you can fit a breeding pair of all land animals."

 

the animals in the Ark most likely where young, and not these mamoth animals.

[Freethinker]

Oh why do I bother? They ignore reality when it is pushed in front of them and continue to lie about it anyway.

And Jesus died a Jew. The Jews are God's choosen people.

Chosen for what? According to the buybull they are not going to heaven. They chosen for eternal damnation!

 

And according to the bile, it's Jesus died an Atheist. After all it says he rejected his father, GOD, while on the cross.

The Holy Bible!

 

Whether you like it or not, it is a historical document.

Like I said, provide ONE valid contemporary eyewitness report to confirm the biblical stories of Jesus the Christ, or the slaughter of the innocents, or.. Nah, let's stick with just one, Jesus.

I'm still waiting for this proof that macro evolution exists.

Drosophila melanogaster (Rice 1985, Rice and Salt 1988 and Rice and Salt 1990)

[infamous]

 

And according to the bile, it's Jesus died an Atheist. After all it says he rejected his father, GOD, while on the cross.

 

)

 

Actually Christ's words are "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me". I think this would mean that it was God that was rejecting Christ, not the other way around.

[Freethinker]

Please read the links in my previous response to you. Proof of macroevolution. You aren't still waiting, I have already posted a link.

 

Where do you get your roughly 50% of scientists? I'm a grad student at a large research school, and not one of the scientists I work with disbelieve evolution. I realize that this is only anecdotal, so if you have a source for this, post it. For now, it seems highly unlikely.

-Will

Don't you get it? The only thing Creationists have are ignorance and misrepresentation. When facts are set in front of them, they outright ignore them and ask again. They make outright lies and when asked for support, ignore the request.

 

His comment about 50% of the Scientists rejecting Evolution shows just how far they will go with lies. And how little they know about TRUTH. He is probably clueless about "Project Steve". (the "list of Steves"). When Creationists, especially the outright liars at ICR, started making such claims about Scientists rejecting Evolution, in honor of Stephen Jay Gould a list was started of scientists that accept Evolution and were named Steve (in some form, including Stephanie, Stephen, ...). It was voluntary. There are now over 500 names on the list. More Scientists named Steve that accept Evolution than the entire list of so called Scientists that claim Creationism, by multiples.

[Freethinker]

Wow, it hasn't been this active around here since Freet. last visited. Freet. does know how to stir things up does't he. Freet., your the man. And I'm still praying for your conversion.

Well thanks for everything but the prayers. Seems like I brought this up before. Perhaps on moderator forums? When some Christer members were not happy with me. And certain mothers here felt I was not giving the poor Christers enough space. You know, I kept asking for proofs and they kept pretending I didn't and ignored the requests (and it still hasn't changed).

 

However I will make sure to include your name when next I bow to the great lord of the night, his demonic self, Satan. And ask that he take you and your family for eternity. Might as well return the favor eh?

[Freethinker]

people who create fiction to fill in gaps of their understanding.

Ah yes, Ministers and Priests.

[eMTee]

There are a lot of stupid questions in history, that end up being not so stupid.

 

If you were to find an old boat on Mt. Ararat, how would you prove it was the ark? How would you prove it wasn't yet another hoax? If an ark were found, large enough to hold two of every animal and it passed certain scientific credibility checks, it would go a long way toward affirming the myth of the flood, though only perhaps a local flood and not a worldwide one.

-Will

How would you prove it was the ark? good question..a boat up on the top of one of the tallest mountains in the world..and random other evidence guessing.

 

another hoax? good point..but how could you prove that it would be a prop?

I know evidence of it's Authenticity must be found also..?...sorry for anu misspelling.

 

A local, flood? how local? it is mentioned to have landed somwhere at the top.

[Skippy]

Perhaps you are unaware the word comes from latin, meaning supernatural constraint. At the root, the word deals with God or the supernatural. In fact, the common usage of the word deals with God or the supernatural.

I agree, most OFTEN, use of the term "religion" refers to matters between God (or gods) and man... but the concept of a cause pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion makes the only difference WHAT (or Who) your devotion is aimed at.

 

I also notice that you don't reply to any of the scientific evidence I have posted dealing with evolution. Why is that? If there is no evidence supporting evolution, you must have some reasoning for discarding the evidence I have been showing you. -Will

Do words mean nothing to you? The highlighted words below are not accidental, they are put in the text by the "scientists" in order to keep some amount of credibility, because they know that adding more concrete verbiage would nullify their credentials as "scientists."

 

From your "scientific" evidence":

From http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html

--"Punctuated equilibrium theory proposes..."

--"Phyletic gradualism suggests..."

--"Species selection and species sorting theories claim..."

--"...macroevolution is thought to be..."

--"..synthesists claim...can be extrapolated to between species changes..."

--"...although some (eg, Gould 1989) think that the genomes..."

From http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

--"However, direct lineages are not required; they could not be verified even if found. What a transitional fossil is, in keeping with what the theory of evolution predicts..."

[Freethinker]

Quote by Boerseun "IF* Noah's Ark was found on Mt. Ararat, I'll be amazed, frankly. Then, I'd want to go and measure the thing to see in what small space you can fit a breeding pair of all land animals."

 

the animals in the Ark most likely where young, and not these mamoth animals.

OK, let's skip land animals for a while. If the flood was fresh water (since it rained in order to accomplish it) and since salt water creatures die in fresh water, how big would the ark need to be just to hold a couple of each salt water creature? Not to mention the water itself with enough of it to contain enough oxygen. As a clue, an aquarium requires one gallon for each inch of fish based on providing a continual external source of oxygen.

[eMTee]

Before I heard of the discovery of the path out of Egypt, I took it and considered it the truth...and that goes with the rest.

 

So I do with Noah's Ark and the flood, though they "don't have" any proof of being true..I will take the Bible as the truth.

 

My question is that if the Bible can be proven with historical events, then would the "religion" it teaches as well?

[Skippy]

OK, let's skip land animals for a while. If the flood was fresh water (since it rained in order to accomplish it) and since salt water creatures die in fresh water, how big would the ark need to be just to hold a couple of each salt water creature? Not to mention the water itself with enough of it to contain enough oxygen. As a clue, an aquarium requires one gallon for each inch of fish based on providing a continual external source of oxygen.

Salmon live both in fresh and salt water. I'm no ichthyologist, but I'd bet there are others which do the same, and there are any number of fish which thrive in brackish (lower salinity) water.

[Freethinker]

Actually Christ's words are "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me". I think this would mean that it was God that was rejecting Christ, not the other way around.

Oh? does the bible indicate that it was GOD that said it?

 

Ops! No it doesn't!

 

The bible sets it up as it's Jesus saying it. (And until somone here actually provides ANY proof to support the existence of the biblical Jesus, instead of continuing to ignore the request, I need to keep using the disclaimers) It is a rebuke of GOD.

 

As always the best you can try is

I think this would mean...

because you can not say "it SAYS".

 

Funny though, that is how I often start mine, with "it ACTUALLY SAYS".

 

So NO, it does NOT SAY that god said ANYTHING. No matter what you "think this would mean".

[Biochemist]

Don't you get it? The only thing Creationists have are ignorance and misrepresentation. ..

Well, the Creationists here certainly have something you don't: civility. Are you under the misguided impression that it is pleasant to read your diatribes? Are you under the impression that broadcasting your arrogance elevates your appearance of intellect?

 

I am just going to block you. I suggest others do the same.

[Dago]

"According to the poll of professional scientists, over one-fifth—20.6 percent—completely reject evolution. Less than half of the scientists—48.3 percent—believe that it is even possible for man to have evolved from lower forms without supernatural intervention."—Paul A. Bartz, Letting God Create Your Day, Vol. 1, No. 3 (1990), p. 62.

 

Again......you resort to calling me a liar to win a debate?

[Freethinker]

Before I heard of the discovery of the path out of Egypt, I took it and considered it the truth...and that goes with the rest.

 

So I do with Noah's Ark and the flood, though they "don't have" any proof of being true..I will take the Bible as the truth.

Everyone has to decide what their life is worth. I consider my life to valuable to be aligned with things that lack any validity, "have proof" to support them.

 

Want a penny for your thoughts? It's more value than you provide for them.