Bible Facts Debunked by Science [Archive]

View Full Version : Bible Facts Debunked by Science

Pages : [1] 2

Soundbear

06-21-2008, 09:33 AM

The complete list is as follows:

dancingqueen

06-21-2008, 12:59 PM

one of the major laws of science: Matter cannot be created or destroyed... there are more, like I don't belive it is posssible to turn a human being into salt, or for a woman to become pregnant while still being a virgin, or for a man to die and come back to life... Barry, there are hundreds of things that science defies in the Bible, you just have to accept it.

xXx Duffy xXx

06-21-2008, 01:12 PM

haha ... I was hoping to see somethin creative ... and all I see was a blank post :P ... NICE!

Myself ... Im an Athiest. Im the kinda guy you have to SHOW something to prove that it's there. Hell .. if science can prove that AIR is real ... and we cant see it , ( ditto with the ozone layer ) ... then why not produce a supposed "being" made up of invisible matter aswel?

ProfessorZed

06-21-2008, 01:14 PM

But really, what does it matter? Do things have to be literally factual to be true?

dancingqueen

06-21-2008, 01:17 PM

not at all. I just think this is an interesting thread created by someone saying this:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Barry Morris</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> And once some people's minds are made up, evidence to the contrary means nothing.</div></div>

xXx Duffy xXx

06-21-2008, 01:19 PM

Dont have to be, no. However, I'm a hands on kinda guy. I like to be able to hold something, see something, feel something, or be PROVEN something before I beleive in it.

What is the definition of a wive's tale?

"An old wives' tale or old wives' saws is a proverb, much like an urban legend, which is generally passed down by old wives to a younger generation. Such 'tales' usually consist of superstition, folklore or unverified claims with exaggerated and/or untrue details"

Only time the tales are proven wrong is when they're PROVEN ...

Iunno .. I just have a hard time wrapping my head around something you cant see, smell, touch, or hold. Never been one for that kinda thing

Soundbear

06-21-2008, 10:19 PM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dancingqueen</div><div class="ubbcode-body">one of the major laws of science: Matter cannot be created or destroyed... there are more, like I don't belive it is posssible to turn a human being into salt, or for a woman to become pregnant while still being a virgin, or for a man to die and come back to life... Barry, there are hundreds of things that science defies in the Bible, you just have to accept it.
</div></div>

1: "Matter cannot be created or destroyed." Has this been proven?? Nope, it actually hasn't. Plus the definition of God is that he is OUTSIDE this universe, and therefore OVER all matter.

2: "Pillar of salt" If God can manipulate matter, why not?? It certainly makes easy....

3: "Virgin becomes pregnant" merely the manipulation of a few genes.

4: "Man to die and come back to life" This is interesting, in being one of the most proven facts of ancient history. I'll ask you only one thing about it. Why would 11 of the 12 apostles die martyrs deaths testifying that Jesus rose from the dead WHEN THEY WOULD HAVE KNOWN IT WAS A LIE?? People will die for a cause, but I challenge you to find some who will die for a cause whose very foundation they KNOW to be untrue.

1 Corinthians 15:17-19
17 And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins!
18 Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished.
19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable.

Paul recognized this.

GenX

06-21-2008, 11:35 PM

Barry, your heart and mind is in the right place...

xXx Duffy xXx

06-22-2008, 12:28 AM

Tell me how they proved that jesus died and came back to life. Back in biblical times, people drank wine more often than water. Chances are they were having a "gathering" and partaking of the "sacred wine" and all of a sudden, someone who LOOKED like him walks by. OMG Dude! He's alive again.

Virgin becomes pregnant .... yeah .. because they had artificial insemination back in Jerusalem. Man ,.. werent we feelin stupid when we realized we'd forgot about this for a few hundred years.

Common man ... gimme a hard one!

BlueSky

06-22-2008, 07:36 AM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: R W G R</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Barry, your heart and mind is in the right place... </div></div>

A wonderful admission!

Is this a new era?

BlueSky

06-22-2008, 07:37 AM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Tormented Soul</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Man ,.. werent we geelin stupid when we realized we'd forggoted about this...

</div></div>

not a good idea to post when blithered. /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/shocked.gif

KDawg

06-22-2008, 08:01 AM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dancingqueen</div><div class="ubbcode-body">one of the major laws of science: Matter cannot be created or destroyed... </div></div>

Whichever side of the argument you're on -- Big bang theory or Creationism -- that law of science only applies after the fact in both cases.

Soundbear

06-22-2008, 08:48 AM

Soundbear

06-22-2008, 08:52 AM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Tormented Soul</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Tell me how they proved that jesus died and came back to life. Back in biblical times, people drank wine more often than water. Chances are they were having a "gathering" and partaking of the "sacred wine" and all of a sudden, someone who LOOKED like him walks by. OMG Dude! He's alive again.

Virgin becomes pregnant .... yeah .. because they had artificial insemination back in Jerusalem. Man ,.. werent we geelin stupid when we realized we'd forggoted about this for a few hundred years.

Common man ... gimme a hard one!
</div></div>

Did you read what I posted?? Read it again. This was way more than "someone who LOOKED like him walks by". People believed to the point of DYING for that belief. People who would have known better.

As to the virgin becomes pregnant. That's exactly what the Jes believed. Mary was impregnated by Joseph or even a Roman soldier. More later.

Nihilistic Heathen

06-22-2008, 09:22 PM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">1: "Matter cannot be created or destroyed." Has this been proven?? Nope, it actually hasn't. Plus the definition of God is that he is OUTSIDE this universe, and therefore OVER all matter.

2: "Pillar of salt" If God can manipulate matter, why not?? It certainly makes easy....

3: "Virgin becomes pregnant" merely the manipulation of a few genes.

4: "Man to die and come back to life" This is interesting, in being one of the most proven facts of ancient history. I'll ask you only one thing about it. Why would 11 of the 12 apostles die martyrs deaths testifying that Jesus rose from the dead WHEN THEY WOULD HAVE KNOWN IT WAS A LIE?? People will die for a cause, but I challenge you to find some who will die for a cause whose very foundation they KNOW to be untrue.
</div></div>

Science deals with natural phenomenon not the supernatural. Adding god to the equation doesn't prove it's scientifically possible.

So are you going to add those to your list?

Soundbear

06-22-2008, 10:13 PM

Nope. Bible facts debunked by science does not include the effect of the supernatural. How could it??

Curious thought. take any living thing. kill it. Bring it back to life. Can science do that?? No, not even with the simplest of amoeba.

xXx Duffy xXx

06-22-2008, 11:49 PM

nothing can die and come back to life. Even in CPR .. the brain's not dead, so they can be brought back. If everything's dead ... you're done

Soundbear

06-23-2008, 08:16 AM

Then where did Christianity come from??? How do you explain a mistaken belief by people who KNEW better??

Soundbear

06-23-2008, 08:20 AM

What I had in mind with this thread was a challenge to find bible facts now corrected by science where the supernatural was NOT involved. Obviously, with anything outside the realm of the natural, anything goes. That doesn't count.

The proof of the resurrection of Jesus has little to do with science and more to do with the rules of evidence.

dancingqueen

06-23-2008, 09:53 AM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> What I had in mind with this thread was a challenge to find bible facts now corrected by science where the supernatural was NOT involved. Obviously, with anything outside the realm of the natural, anything goes. That doesn't count</div></div>

Barry, everything about the Bible is supernatural, that's like me saying prove to me purple is a colour with the exception of using words that are colors because that doesn't count.

the very fact of supernatural activity is debunked by science.

BlueSky

06-23-2008, 11:17 AM

"Barry, everything about the Bible is supernatural"

No. Not everything.

dancingqueen

06-23-2008, 12:33 PM

okay, I would sat a good 80% of it is /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Retsevets

06-23-2008, 12:35 PM

Do rabbits chew cud?

Can you name a four legged animal that flies?

Is Pi exactly 3?

There are a ton of science errors in the bible, but its not a science book so its to be expected.

Later

Steve

BlueSky

06-23-2008, 12:46 PM

Rabbits eat their poop.
Squirrels 'fly'.

Where is Pi mentioned in the Bible?

xXx Duffy xXx

06-23-2008, 01:00 PM

ok you know he's just going to try to say it's not legit because they dont "fly" ... they "glide"

isn't that right retsevets?

dancingqueen

06-23-2008, 01:01 PM

squirrels do not fly, they glide. very different things. pooh is not cud, also two very diferent things

dancingqueen

06-23-2008, 01:02 PM

/ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/lol.gif

xXx Duffy xXx

06-23-2008, 01:17 PM

Damn .... someone told me to chew their cud ... I ATE POOH!!!! Dammit /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/frown.gif

Soundbear

06-23-2008, 01:31 PM

80 percent supernatural?? I don't think so.

Retsevets, long time no hear, How ya been??

"There are a ton of science errors in the bible, but its not a science book so its to be expected."

No. it's not a science book. BUT I still don't see any errors.

dancingqueen

06-23-2008, 01:58 PM

Barry, it is a book about how an allmighty being created the world, and the life and times of a carpenter's son who created miracles. (who also came back from the dead apparently) this stuff all defies the very logic of science, therefore is debunked by science. That's fine and should not shatter ones fait, science and faith are two completely different animals one is proven, the other is belived in making a co relation of the two is just silly

yes, my sentence structure sucks /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

BlueSky

06-23-2008, 02:05 PM

Your sentence structure, spelling AND logic sucks.

dancingqueen

06-23-2008, 02:08 PM

and your ability to actually back anything you say sucks /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

BlueSky

06-23-2008, 02:33 PM

Spelling: should not shatter ones fait,
logic: this stuff all defies the very logic of science, therefore is debunked by science. (fallacy)

That's fine and should not shatter ones fait, science and faith are two completely different animals one is proven, the other is belived (fallacy) & (spelling) in making a co relation of the two is just silly (fallacy)

And, yer takin this too serious..

You're right.

I suck.

dancingqueen

06-23-2008, 02:45 PM

k, I get my spelling (You never pointed out any grammar /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/frown.gif ) but the fallacies I don't get, could you be so kind as to point me in the right direction? /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif
I'm really not taking any of this to terribly serious, I don't mind that you live your life according to other people's belief system made thousans of years ago /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

BlueSky

06-23-2008, 03:11 PM

"you live your life according to other people's belief system made thousans of years ago \:\)"

So do you. Your ideas are as old as dirt. Seriously.

I won't get into the logical part, but you might want to do some reading on the topic of science and the supernatural.

dancingqueen

06-23-2008, 04:26 PM

ideas and beliefs... also two different things /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

KDawg

06-23-2008, 07:53 PM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: retsevets</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Do rabbits chew cud?

Can you name a four legged animal that flies?

Is Pi exactly 3?

There are a ton of science errors in the bible, but its not a science book so its to be expected.

Later

Steve</div></div>

Interesting questions.....so?

Soundbear

06-23-2008, 10:47 PM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dancingqueen</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Barry, it is a book about how an allmighty being created the world, and the life and times of a carpenter's son who created miracles. (who also came back from the dead apparently) this stuff all defies the very logic of science, therefore is debunked by science. That's fine and should not shatter ones fait, science and faith are two completely different animals one is proven, the other is belived in making a co relation of the two is just silly

yes, my sentence structure sucks /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif </div></div>

Never mind the sentence structure. Do we all speak perfect english when we TALK?

DQ, I don't see something beyond the explanation of science as being debunked by science.

Almighty God created the universe (go big or go home /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif ).

Science generally concedes the the universe had a beginning, but does not debunk God.

Science cannot reproduce miracles, but that does not mean science debunks miracles. (As I pointed out elsewhere science cannot reproduce life, that does not mean science debunks life).

The scientific method is the RE-CREATION of something. You can boil water and it will boil at 212 F or 100 C everytime. That is the scientic method in action. You CANNOT re-create a historical event. Other types of proof come into play, but that's NOT what this thread is about.

dancingqueen

06-23-2008, 11:05 PM

so of course science cannot debunk the Bible, The Bible cannot be re-created. some may argue that one cannot re-create what did not happen it would be like me saying science has not debunked the english pizza fish (just some food for thought on the idea of your thread, not a personal opinion)

Soundbear

06-24-2008, 09:04 AM

The bible is a history book. It also mentions various aspects of nature. If those things are correct, then to me, it gives good evidence that the other things (supernatural) are correct.

Nihilistic Heathen

06-24-2008, 09:13 AM

Barry, you're a dolt, the scientific method is not the recreation of something. Although, I will give you an A for making up the rules as you go along to give yourself the upper hand in your argument. LOL

Soundbear

06-24-2008, 09:42 AM

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

"Scientific method refers to the body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[1] A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.[2]

Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methodologies of knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses. These steps must be repeatable in order to dependably predict any future results. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many hypotheses together in a coherent structure. This in turn may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context.

Among other facets shared by the various fields of inquiry is the conviction that the process be objective to reduce a biased interpretation of the results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, thereby allowing other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established."

Note the following key words:

measurable

experimentation

observation

testing

design experimental studies

reproduce

If you have other information, I'd be glad to see it.

Nihilistic Heathen

06-24-2008, 10:04 AM

This...

"The scientific method is the RE-CREATION of something."

is a far cry from this....

"Scientific method refers to the body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[1] A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.[2]"

This is what I was referring to when I stated you are making up the rules as you go along...

"You CANNOT re-create a historical event. Other types of proof come into play, but that's NOT what this thread is about."

As for recreating historic events. It is possible, there are historical parks all over the world where historical events are recreated. The problem is your points are so vague when someone points out your fallacies you rewrite the rules to give yourself the upper hand.

bluekrissyspikes

06-24-2008, 01:12 PM

the bible is written by men back in a time where men thought they knew it all. there is no evidence, outside of the bible, to show that the things written inside the bible are truthful, or that it was originally written as anything more then a work of fiction which has spiraled out of control and become a religion.

BlueSky

06-24-2008, 02:06 PM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bluekrissyspikes</div><div class="ubbcode-body">the bible is written by men back in a time where men thought they knew it all. there is no evidence, outside of the bible, to show that the things written inside the bible are truthful, or that it was originally written as anything more then a work of fiction which has spiraled out of control and become a religion. </div></div>

Bluekrissyspike.. mind if I call you BKS?

Your above statement is obviously a reflection of what you believe.

In the land of logic, it is called a vague generalization.

Come up with something to interact with. Are all statements in the Bible untrue?

So you know for certain that the Bible was written 'by men who thought they knew it all'? How do you arrive at this conclusion?

dancingqueen

06-24-2008, 02:57 PM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Barry Morris</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The bible is a history book. It also mentions various aspects of nature. If those things are correct, then to me, it gives good evidence that the other things (supernatural) are correct. </div></div>
I just want to touch on this Barry...
I play A game called World of Warcraft. In this game there are various aspects of nature as well. Are you saying this game gives good evidence that people walk around killing goblins or ride flying griffons slaying dragons and casting spells??
I know I would need alot more to tell me something is true than simply aspects of a writting to co-inside with nature.

Bluekrissyspikes, I tend to agree with Bluesky. I may have simmilar beliefs as you but would be interested in knowing how you came to belive these, if you don't mind sharing.

I think parts of the Bible to be untrue simply because there are many things done that I just cannot see a loving God do, no matter how strict, on the other hand there are many things done in the Bible that I can see and belive a loving God would have done.

KDawg

06-24-2008, 09:31 PM

dancingqueen

06-24-2008, 10:38 PM

sorry, I think you lost me on what you are commenting on

KDawg

06-25-2008, 07:18 AM

You said:

"I think parts of the Bible to be untrue simply because there are many things done that I just cannot see a loving God do, no matter how strict..."

You reject parts of the Bible because you don't understand how a loving God would do the things He did --- it doesn't make sense to you, therefore it can't be true.

In my scenario, your child is thinking what a meanie you are for preventing her from getting her ball when she wants it. It doesn't make sense to her that at that moment, when you pulled her from the street, you were protecting her.

You know what's good for your daughter, and God knows what's good for us, whether we can see it or not.

BlueSky

06-25-2008, 07:24 AM

Is that how you explain the murder of innocents and such?

KDawg

06-25-2008, 07:29 AM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bluesky</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Is that how you explain the murder of innocents and such? </div></div>

OK, now you lost me.

BlueSky

06-25-2008, 07:33 AM

IS that how you deal with the problem of evil? God saying, "This is good for you?" How do you explain the fact that if God is good and all powerful, he doesn't seem to intervene in natural disasters or unnatural ones like the holocaust?

KDawg

06-25-2008, 07:40 AM

Us and our world are in the state we're in because of sin.

It's not God's fault that the junkie in Montreal killed a woman while trying to rob her -- it's the junkie's fault.

dancingqueen

06-25-2008, 08:28 AM

but why didn't Go just stop the junkie from being a junkie? as society we have advanced (aged if you will) when my daughter ran off to fetch the ball I belive it is importaint for her to understand why, even at 2, 2 1/2 years old. The "why" is much more importaint, and I know of many parents that would agree with me. As the saying goes, give a man a fish, he eats for a day, teach a man how to fish and he can eat forever. So, I think your theory would be incorrect if we are talking about the all knowing God who would want us to understand and love him.

Soundbear

06-25-2008, 08:40 AM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Nihilistic Heathen</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This...

"The scientific method is the RE-CREATION of something."

is a far cry from this....

"Scientific method refers to the body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[1] A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.[2]"

This is what I was referring to when I stated you are making up the rules as you go along...

"You CANNOT re-create a historical event. Other types of proof come into play, but that's NOT what this thread is about."

As for recreating historic events. It is possible, there are historical parks all over the world where historical events are recreated. The problem is your points are so vague when someone points out your fallacies you rewrite the rules to give yourself the upper hand. </div></div>

I apologize for using the word re-creation".. I didn't mean that in the God sense, just in the sense of an experiment, a re-doing of an action to test the results.

It is NOT possible to re-create a historical event, any more than a movie or a play re-creates such an event. The effects on the actors is minimal, totally unlike real life. The effect of a play on history is zero.

Soundbear

06-25-2008, 09:11 AM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bluekrissyspikes</div><div class="ubbcode-body">the bible is written by men back in a time where men thought they knew it all. there is no evidence, outside of the bible, to show that the things written inside the bible are truthful, or that it was originally written as anything more then a work of fiction which has spiraled out of control and become a religion. </div></div>

Archeology has consistently proved out bible history. Even events and nations long thought to be mere myth were eventually found.

Most of the key players in the bible were very minor people in secular history, but Pontius Pilate's name was found on a tablet not that long ago.

Soundbear

06-25-2008, 09:21 AM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dancingqueen</div><div class="ubbcode-body">...I think parts of the Bible to be untrue simply because there are many things done that I just cannot see a loving God do, no matter how strict, on the other hand there are many things done in the Bible that I can see and belive a loving God would have done. </div></div>

You may have seen my answer to this elsewhere. God wanted his people, Israel, to be kept pure from the effects of the beliefs of the people around them. That is why He told the Jews to completely get rid of those people, down to the last man, woman, child and dog. Just like a mother will do ANYTHING to protect her child, so will God protect His people.

You might research some of the practices of the ancient people around the Jews. Canabalism and child sacrifice are only some of the horrible things done.

Soundbear

06-25-2008, 09:21 AM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bluesky</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Is that how you explain the murder of innocents and such? </div></div>

See above.

Soundbear

06-25-2008, 09:35 AM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bluesky</div><div class="ubbcode-body">IS that how you deal with the problem of evil? God saying, "This is good for you?" How do you explain the fact that if God is good and all powerful, he doesn't seem to intervene in natural disasters or unnatural ones like the holocaust?
</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dancingqueen</div><div class="ubbcode-body">but why didn't Go just stop the junkie from being a junkie? as society we have advanced (aged if you will) when my daughter ran off to fetch the ball I belive it is importaint for her to understand why, even at 2, 2 1/2 years old. The "why" is much more importaint, and I know of many parents that would agree with me. As the saying goes, give a man a fish, he eats for a day, teach a man how to fish and he can eat forever. So, I think your theory would be incorrect if we are talking about the all knowing God who would want us to understand and love him. </div></div>

Basic question in my mind is, "Why should God do things our way?"

God gave man free will. Man, not be able to see the consequences of his actions, and being self-centred and greedy, will NOT help his human brothers like he should.

Example, natural disasters. Do they happen, and kill people?? Yes. How many people are killed in Florida as compared to Bangladesh, in the same type of storm? Why?? The rich countries COULD help those people. But they don't.

The holocaust is even simpler. Man's sin.

If God took AWAY our free will, these things would not happen.

Which way do you want it? Free will to screw up?? Or robots all marching to the same beat.

I think a lot of people want the free will to do whatever they want, and God fixing their mistakes. That's not going to happen.

Soundbear

06-25-2008, 09:36 AM

Sorry about all the posts. Was at a funeral yesterday.

BlueSky

06-25-2008, 10:23 AM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Barry Morris</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bluesky</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Is that how you explain the murder of innocents and such? </div></div>

See above. </div></div>

Ah, with a flick of the wrist, he solves the most vexing problems that theologians and philosophers have struggled with since Day 1.

Good job.
/ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/purpbanana.gif

Soundbear

06-25-2008, 11:44 AM

Ouch.

Hey, that's my answer, for me.

I just think that, ultimately, God is is control. He's going to take care of me and mine. And like Job (?) said, "Though He slay me, yet will I serve Him."

dancingqueen

06-25-2008, 12:19 PM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Barry Morris</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Basic question in my mind is, "Why should God do things our way?"</div></div>

not nessesaraly "our" way, but a way his children would understand, does he not want us to follow his word true to our hearts? to be true to a man's (or woman's) heart one must understand it first, otherwise it is just lip service no?

Soundbear

06-25-2008, 02:29 PM

Tell ya what, DQ.

Ask Him. I'm not kidding here, ask Him. Read your bible, look up the problem areas and PRAY for His guidance, sincerely.

You'll get it.

dancingqueen

06-25-2008, 02:45 PM

oh, I have. many times when I was doubting my faith Barry. I have gone from a Christion to a non-practising to born again to aithiest to agnostic throughout my life. I have seen, and read things that troubled me and have prayed for his guidance. So, If God loves me and wants me to be with him in heaven, why does he allow me to slip through his fingers? I use the word allow because if God is how you and many other claim he is (that is all loving and seeing) he could have stoped it from happening

Soundbear

06-26-2008, 08:53 AM

He could stop it. But he gave you free will. I assume you want to keep it. When you're ready to give it up, He'll be there.

dancingqueen

06-26-2008, 01:31 PM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Barry Morris</div><div class="ubbcode-body">He could stop it. But he gave you free will. I assume you want to keep it. When you're ready to give it up, He'll be there. </div></div>

so he wants me to give up my free will???
why did he give it to me in the first place???
sounds like some highschool mind game to me

Soundbear

06-26-2008, 05:18 PM

That's the human way to look at it.

We were made in His image. He gave us free will. And the only thing we have of eternal value is ourselves. When we give ourselves, we give up our free will.

BlueSky

06-26-2008, 06:06 PM

Actually, DQ, it's the other way around.
Currently, you are not free.
You are a slave to your desires as are all members of the human race.

Jesus came to set you free.

He said, "If the Son shall set you free, you will be free indeed."

Christianity rightly understood and experienced turns everything upside down.

Soundbear

06-26-2008, 06:27 PM

Good point Bluesky.

John 8:36 If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.

Onlygodknowswhy

06-27-2008, 10:17 AM

Evolution vs. Creationism.....Have to go with evolution....

The Ark - 2 of every animal, spending aprox. 365 days on a boat...putting them where they belong...all on a boat that was appoximatly 450ft long 75 feet wide.....all the animals of prey and the food chain, not bothering each other....sailors hundreds of years ago suffering from scurvy from a month or 2 on the ocean....There is proof their were floods in that time and stories from many sources, but not a world wide flood.

I always thought these were stories to inspire, but never believed it actually happened...

Soundbear

06-27-2008, 12:59 PM

A god who could gather up all those animals could surely keep them from bothering each other.

Evolution vs. Creationism..... Why on earth would I go with man's constantly changing theories, all of which are designed not to prove anything, but to remove the need for God???

Soundbear

06-27-2008, 01:01 PM

There isn't yet ONE single bible statement in this thread that has been disproved by science. The only contenders are the supernatural ones, and they are NOT what I was speaking about.

dancingqueen

06-27-2008, 01:56 PM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Barry Morris</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That's the human way to look at it.

We were made in His image. He gave us free will. And the only thing we have of eternal value is ourselves. When we give ourselves, we give up our free will. </div></div>

how can I look at it any other way???
how can god excpect me to look at it any other way?
last I checked... I was human, he made me human

dancingqueen

06-27-2008, 02:00 PM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bluesky</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Actually, DQ, it's the other way around.
Currently, you are not free.
You are a slave to your desires as are all members of the human race.

Jesus came to set you free.
</div></div>

I thought I would look up the word "free" to see if maybe I misunderstood it's meaning:
Free (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/free)

and it would seem to me to be able to do my desires, or to be a "slave" to them is exactly what free is.
I would be interested in knowing what you think to be free is, cause so far, I like mine better /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

dancingqueen

06-27-2008, 02:04 PM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Barry Morris</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There isn't yet ONE single bible statement in this thread that has been disproved by science. The only contenders are the supernatural ones, and they are NOT what I was speaking about. </div></div>

well Barry, if you say "bible statements debunked by science" and claim none are made... well, sorry, but all the statements in the Bibl are up for game. someone called your bluff, and then you retract the statement. and reword it. what aspects of the Bible are you refering to? I elive it is possible the names of people mentioned in the Bible could have existed or some of the events could have happened. But the idea of all this supernatural is where the belifes stagger. Don't make a challenge, then change it when people meet your challenge and claim no one can do it.

dancingqueen

06-27-2008, 02:07 PM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: TheOneTheOnly</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Evolution vs. Creationism.....Have to go with evolution....

The Ark - 2 of every animal, spending aprox. 365 days on a boat...putting them where they belong...all on a boat that was appoximatly 450ft long 75 feet wide.....all the animals of prey and the food chain, not bothering each other....sailors hundreds of years ago suffering from scurvy from a month or 2 on the ocean....There is proof their were floods in that time and stories from many sources, but not a world wide flood.

I always thought these were stories to inspire, but never believed it actually happened...</div></div>

so, because you don't belive in the Bible, you therefore must take the belife that we where created from one celled organisims? by some bang that cannot be fully defined? That is no more dificult to belive.
there are a wealth of other possibilities in creationisim.

dancingqueen

06-27-2008, 02:08 PM

sorry for all the posts /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif had to get myself caught up /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

BlueSky

06-27-2008, 04:06 PM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dancingqueen</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bluesky</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Actually, DQ, it's the other way around.
Currently, you are not free.
You are a slave to your desires as are all members of the human race.

Jesus came to set you free.
</div></div>

I thought I would look up the word "free" to see if maybe I misunderstood it's meaning:
Free (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/free)

and it would seem to me to be able to do my desires, or to be a "slave" to them is exactly what free is.
I would be interested in knowing what you think to be free is, cause so far, I like mine better /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif </div></div>

Sure. I understand that.
Freedom (or happiness) can be a six pack of beer.
Or a night of mad passionate enjoyment of bodily sensations.

Been there, done that.
After while, one begins to wonder about the purpose..

True Freedom, I believe, begins when the purpose questions in my life begin to find answers.

After so many nights of being 'free' to drink (screw, smoke, party... fill in your own particular brand of enjoyment) my brains out, I had to ask the purpose question. Why? And the louder that question sounded, the emptier my 'freedom became.. and then it became bondage, dull, boring, numbing. Because life served no purpose if I defined what freedom was for me.

Soundbear

06-27-2008, 05:01 PM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dancingqueen</div><div class="ubbcode-body">...well Barry, if you say "bible statements debunked by science" and claim none are made... well, sorry, but all the statements in the Bibl are up for game. someone called your bluff, and then you retract the statement. and reword it. what aspects of the Bible are you refering to? I elive it is possible the names of people mentioned in the Bible could have existed or some of the events could have happened. But the idea of all this supernatural is where the belifes stagger. Don't make a challenge, then change it when people meet your challenge and claim no one can do it. </div></div>

I retracted? I re-worded?? I originally said in the thread title "bible facts debunked by science", NOT bible statements debunked by science.

Bible statement. One of the classics was the Hittite people. For centuries no one believed in the biblical accounts of them. Then lo, and behold, the SCIENCE of archeology "found" them.

Jesus rose from the dead. This is a bible fact. It is not de-bunked by science because science cannot definitively say that it cannot happen. We believe it to be a supernatural event, and therefore actually beyond the realm of science.

Just for fun, here's a verse I've always found fascinating:

Job 26:7 He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.

The second part is perfectly clear to us, but certainly NOT understood in the time the book of Job was written. And the first part?? You can't tell with the naked eye, but the north pole points out of the galaxy.

The bible deals with the supernatural, which is beyond the purview of science. But when dealing with natural phenomenon, it's accurate.

BlueSky

06-27-2008, 09:53 PM

Speaking of science, I encourage everyone to see Expelled.

dancingqueen

06-28-2008, 01:31 AM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bluesky</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dancingqueen</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bluesky</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Actually, DQ, it's the other way around.
Currently, you are not free.
You are a slave to your desires as are all members of the human race.

Jesus came to set you free.
</div></div>

I thought I would look up the word "free" to see if maybe I misunderstood it's meaning:
Free (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/free)

and it would seem to me to be able to do my desires, or to be a "slave" to them is exactly what free is.
I would be interested in knowing what you think to be free is, cause so far, I like mine better /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif </div></div>

Sure. I understand that.
Freedom (or happiness) can be a six pack of beer.
Or a night of mad passionate enjoyment of bodily sensations.

Been there, done that.
After while, one begins to wonder about the purpose..

True Freedom, I believe, begins when the purpose questions in my life begin to find answers.

After so many nights of being 'free' to drink (screw, smoke, party... fill in your own particular brand of enjoyment) my brains out, I had to ask the purpose question. Why? And the louder that question sounded, the emptier my 'freedom became.. and then it became bondage, dull, boring, numbing. Because life served no purpose if I defined what freedom was for me. </div></div>

so, through finding yourself you found that by living your life for someone else was more fulfilling?
It's just my perseption from being outside and looking in I can certanly see why doing all those things can seem empty, because that is doing nothing for your fellow man. To me, personaly I find that more fulfilling /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

dancingqueen

06-28-2008, 01:35 AM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Barry Morris</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I retracted? I re-worded?? I originally said in the thread title "bible facts debunked by science", NOT bible statements debunked by science. </div></div>
something the Bible says happen is something the Bible is claiming as a fact, therefore is a Bible fact.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Barry Morris</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Jesus rose from the dead. This is a bible fact. It is not de-bunked by science because science cannot definitively say that it cannot happen. We believe it to be a supernatural event, and therefore actually beyond the realm of science.</div></div>

but it is not possible for a persons Heart and brain to stop working, then to come back to life. Not with the level of medical knowlege of those days. That is debunked IMO

xXx Duffy xXx

06-28-2008, 03:55 AM

comatose patients aren't dead. The brain still works. If the brain dies ... there's no going back. If someone were in fact to DIE .... they are gone. There is no coming back fromt he dead. There is no resurrection. It's not possible. Science, yes science, has proven this. Unless back in biblical times, there was a treatment for death we decided to forget about ...

Soundbear

06-28-2008, 10:23 AM

Soundbear

06-28-2008, 10:24 AM

To save time, I suggest you read this web page.

http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html

An excerpt:

"Here are some of the facts relevant to the resurrection: Jesus of Nazareth, a Jewish prophet who claimed to be the Christ prophesied in the Jewish Scriptures, was arrested, was judged a political criminal, and was crucified. Three days after His death and burial, some women who went to His tomb found the body gone. In subsequent weeks, His disciples claimed that God had raised Him from the dead and that He appeared to them various times before ascending into heaven.

KDawg

06-28-2008, 10:53 AM

Soundbear

06-28-2008, 11:41 AM

And that's not scientific evidence, it's another kind altogether.

dancingqueen

06-28-2008, 01:24 PM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Barry Morris</div><div class="ubbcode-body">To save time, I suggest you read this web page.

http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html

An excerpt:

"Here are some of the facts relevant to the resurrection: Jesus of Nazareth, a Jewish prophet who claimed to be the Christ prophesied in the Jewish Scriptures, was arrested, was judged a political criminal, and was crucified. Three days after His death and burial, some women who went to His tomb found the body gone. In subsequent weeks, His disciples claimed that God had raised Him from the dead and that He appeared to them various times before ascending into heaven. </div></div>

wow... some things you take for a literal meaning, while others you do not... tell me, how do you know when phrases are to be taken literaly and when they should be taken as more symbolic meaning?

dancingqueen

06-28-2008, 01:26 PM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: KDawg</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dancingqueen</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Barry Morris</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
[quote=Barry Morris]Jesus rose from the dead. This is a bible fact. It is not de-bunked by science because science cannot definitively say that it cannot happen. We believe it to be a supernatural event, and therefore actually beyond the realm of science.</div></div>

but it is not possible for a persons Heart and brain to stop working, then to come back to life. Not with the level of medical knowlege of those days. That is debunked IMO</div></div>

The "science" (keeping with the thread title) part of Jesus' resurrection is that there were eye witnesses --- many many people saw Him after He died on the cross 3 days prior.

You may be dumbfounded by the fact that He was alive, but people SAW Him. </div></div>

The Bible said he dies, the Bible said he came back to life. That is not possible. It doesn't matter how you word it those are the facts simplified /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

BlueSky

06-28-2008, 03:56 PM

The resurrection is the centerpiece of Christianity. Without it Christianity is merely an empty and elaborate religion.

But if it is true, it overthrows everything.

This is clearly a question of faith.

Soundbear

06-28-2008, 04:12 PM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dancingqueen</div><div class="ubbcode-body">...The Bible said he dies, the Bible said he came back to life. That is not possible. It doesn't matter how you word it those are the facts simplified /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif </div></div>

dancingqueen, do you have any direct comment about the information in the website I gave??

CharliBean

06-30-2008, 12:09 AM

So.... I don't even know ow to reply to more than half of these posts, LOL! I thought i was going to come on here and see an interesting article based on scientific discovery.. instead i've found alot of opinions, very few of which i agree with.... my question to al you sooneters is this... WHO CARES!?!! LOL

...if you believe, wonderful! already you've got something worth sticking around for! If not, stick around anyhoo just to see what pans out.

Whether or not Jesus rose, or Mary was a virgin really doesn't matter... honestly people, IMO we only get one shot at this, lets all just agree to make it the best run we can!

as far as "God" is concerned... Well, my opinions are for the most part to be reserved for another thread... i will however give you this...

the Big Bang theory has been tested and proven to create matter... this does not prove that the big bang created the universe, i will give you that, but its good enough for me!

I try to use logic when dealing with "religion"... Logically speaking, the bible is a very old story book. think about this... families turned on their daughters, neighbours, best friends during the times of witchcraft and witch hunting, most likely over a crop of rye which collected a toxic fungus know as "ryegot" proven to bring on halucinations (much like LSD... actually contains many of the same chemicals). without science, witchcrft was a logical explaination to the people of the time for the ailments facing the communities.

same goes for the bible... today, however, with todays scientific capabilities, and our knowledge in general, the majority of the bible can be chalked up to an amusing tale.

And as far as the deciples dying for their belief in Jesus' rising counting as "proof".... GET A GRIP! honestly, that proves nothing, beyond the fact that they were loyal... I'm a huge leafs fan, and despite the fact that they havent won a cup in 41 seasons, i wholeheartedly believe EVERY YEAR that we will in fact triumph.... Doesn't make it so. Believe me. I'm still waiting on that beautiful dream to come true.

Please remember, this is all simply my opinion, and all to be taken lightly since i really dot care either way whether or not you agree with me. Not to be rude, but my belief structure is based on my own logic, research and personal preferences.

/ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

Soundbear

06-30-2008, 09:37 AM

"the Big Bang theory has been tested and proven to create matter"

Link please

"families turned on their daughters, neighbours, best friends during the times of witchcraft and witch hunting, most likely over a crop of rye which collected a toxic fungus know as "ryegot" proven to bring on halucinations (much like LSD... actually contains many of the same chemicals). without science, witchcrft was a logical explaination to the people of the time for the ailments facing the communities.
same goes for the bible... today, however, with todays scientific capabilities, and our knowledge in general, the majority of the bible can be chalked up to an amusing tale."

This is pretty clear proof you haven't actually read the book.

"And as far as the deciples dying for their belief in Jesus' rising counting as "proof".... GET A GRIP! honestly, that proves nothing, beyond the fact that they were loyal..."

As I've pointed out many times, with NO response, many people are "loyal" to a cause, but NOT when they are in a clear position to KNOW the truth. And 11 of the 12 WERE KILLED staying true to what they had witnessed.

Thanks for your input.

CharliBean

06-30-2008, 10:30 AM

ahem.... well i'm LOYAL to the leafs, as i've stated, despite the fact that they have failed to produce a stanley cup in over 40 years.

I have read the bible. It fascinated me. that was all. At no point in time did i believe a single wor of it, and i believe the first time i was probably only 9 or ten reading my cousins kids bible. I have re-read it several times since then, and it has simply become more and more rediculous over time to me. I'm sorry, but a two thousand year old story about a guy waking up from the dead is not proof for me. And whether the deciples believed in it wholeheartedly or not, still not enough proof. I'm still a little scared of the dark, but i know theres nothing in my closet!

You want a link to CERN's Big Bang research?
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/generalscience/physicists_bigbang_000209_wg.html

There you go.

By the way, i love the selection of quotes you chose. Interesting how you completely ignored the final one. Barry, I'm more than happy to post links to back up my theories simply for the purpose of educating others as to my beliefs. I do not, however, feel the need to defend myself or my beliefs to you. You are absolutely right n assumin that what i say is not the golden truth. i am the first one to admit I absolutely do not know if there really is a God or not, or where we go when we die. I am not, however, about to spend the rest of my life sitting here dwelling on it and worrying about it.

... In the words of a true agnostic, "ILL FIND OUT WHEN I GET THERE!" /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

Nothing that i said in my previous post was intended to offend anyone, it is simply my opinion. My apologies if you found any of it to be rude.

Soundbear

06-30-2008, 10:51 AM

I no way did I think anything you said was rude.

You still didn't get my point about the disciples. Oh well, you're not the first.

Which "final" quote did I ignore??

CharliBean

06-30-2008, 01:19 PM

Barry there is no way to prove or disprove your poit abouot the disciples.... as far as im concerned the whole thing was a crock of bull, and after jesus died the roman soldiers killed the disciples simply to make an example of them. I believe it was the "believers" who followed after jesus died who said they stood proud and tall and never renounced their belief in jesus risen, because it was good for the story. Kind gives it a hopeful air. really, if it had ended "and jesus died, and everyone went on with their lives" do you really think christianity would have succeeded? Doubtful.

good story telling. That is all.

IMO

Soundbear

06-30-2008, 01:32 PM

Charlibean, it is obvious from that post that you don't know the bible story, don't know about supporting historical documents, don't know the writings of historians who confirm the stories even from a position of disagreement with Christianity, and in fact don't WANT to know.

Thanks, it's been an education!!! /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

dancingqueen

06-30-2008, 03:37 PM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As I've pointed out many times, with NO response, many people are "loyal" to a cause, but NOT when they are in a clear position to KNOW the truth. And 11 of the 12 WERE KILLED staying true to what they had witnessed.</div></div>

well, people like to claim they commited crimes for which they will receive a death penalty for. They like the attention, they feel like they made a mark in their life... With that being said, is it hard to belive this is a new phenomonim?

CharliBean

06-30-2008, 03:59 PM

Barry, clearly you are looking to be right, under any costs... i thought perhaps there would be a discussion...

where are you links? what hitorical documents? specifically what passages in the bible?

see, im just giving yu my opinion nd regardless of what you do manage to spit out here you wll not change my opinions or beliefs, i was just trying to give you an insight on mine. So congrats, you win. I just don't really care.

It has indeed been an education. /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

GenX

06-30-2008, 04:59 PM

Yup.

Soundbear

06-30-2008, 07:04 PM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CharliBean</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Barry, clearly you are looking to be right, under any costs... i thought perhaps there would be a discussion...

where are you links? what hitorical documents? specifically what passages in the bible?

see, im just giving yu my opinion nd regardless of what you do manage to spit out here you wll not change my opinions or beliefs, i was just trying to give you an insight on mine. So congrats, you win. I just don't really care.

It has indeed been an education. /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

</div></div>

Are you really interested in the links?? Be honest. Since I'm here to learn, I'm interested in the proof of what you say.

Soundbear

06-30-2008, 07:12 PM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CharliBean</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
You want a link to CERN's Big Bang research?
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/generalscience/physicists_bigbang_000209_wg.html

</div></div>

There's a certain irony to this. For centuries scientists thought the universe was without beginning or end, eternal. The bible of course, said it had a beginning.

Then came along the Big Bang theory. Bingo, the universe had a beginning.

But the bible already said that!!! /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

dancingqueen

06-30-2008, 08:58 PM

Soundbear

06-30-2008, 11:51 PM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CharliBean</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Barry, clearly you are looking to be right, under any costs... i thought perhaps there would be a discussion...

where are you links? what hitorical documents? specifically what passages in the bible?

see, im just giving yu my opinion nd regardless of what you do manage to spit out here you wll not change my opinions or beliefs, i was just trying to give you an insight on mine. So congrats, you win. I just don't really care.

It has indeed been an education. /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

</div></div>

http://www.sonic.net/sentinel/naij3.html

"Roman historians, Jewish historians, the finding of the Gnostic materials at Nag Hammadi and now the finding of Caiaphas' burial cave, establishes an historic fact that Jesus lived and died in a time and a place described in the New Testament."

Soundbear

06-30-2008, 11:57 PM

These are interesting, though I think some of them stretch a bit to make a point:

http://www.inplainsite.org/html/scientific_facts_in_the_bible.html

Jeremiah 33:22 (written 2500 years ago): "As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, neither the sand of the sea measured."

The Bible claimed that there are billions of stars ("host of heaven" is the biblical term for the stars). When it made this statement, no one knew how vast the numbers of stars were as only about 1,100 were observable. Now we know that there are billions of stars, and that they cannot be numbered.

(The Bible asserts that the stars are innumerable (Gen 15:5, Gen 17:7, Heb 11:12). This does not necessarily mean that we are incapable of mathematically expressing their number. It means that no human has the ability to count them individually so as to achieve their sum. It is claimed that there are 100 billion stars in our galaxy alone. If stars were counted around the clock at one star per second, then it would take over 3000 years just to count these. Add to this the fact that there are as many as 100 billion galaxies. However, there were many scholars prior to Galileo who believed that the stars could be counted, and several attempts were made to do so. Many of these counts arrived at around 1000 stars. Examples of Scientific Accuracy in the Bible By David Pyles)

Job 26:7 (written 3500 years ago): "He stretches out the north over the empty place, and hangs the earth upon nothing."

The Bible claimed that the earth freely floated in space. Science then thought that the earth sat on a large animal. We now know that the earth has a free float in space.

(The first scientist having this understanding would appear to be Copernicus around 1500. Examples of Scientific Accuracy in the Bible By David Pyles)

Hebrews 11:3 (written 2000 years ago): "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."

The Bible claims that all creation is made of invisible material. Science then was ignorant of the subject. We now know that the entire creation is made of invisible elements called "atoms."

Leviticus 17:11 (written 3000 years ago): "For the life of the flesh is in the blood."

The Scriptures declare that blood is the source of life. Up until 120 years ago, sick people were "bled", and many died because of the practice. We now know that blood is the source of life. If you lose your blood, you will lose your life.

Leviticus 15:13 (written 3000 years ago): "And when he that has an issue is cleansed of his issue; then he shall number to himself seven days for his cleansing, and wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in running water, and shall be clean."

The Bible said that when dealing with disease, hands should be washed under running water. Up until 100 years ago doctors washed their hands in a basin of still water, resulting in the death of multitudes. We now know that doctors must wash their hands under running water. The Encyclopedia Britannica documents that in 1845, a young doctor in Vienna named Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis was horrified at the terrible death rate of women who were dying after giving birth in hospitals. As many as 30% of those giving birth died. The Doctor noted that doctors would examine the bodies of those who had died, then, without washing their hands, go straight to the next wards and examine expectant mothers. This was their normal practice, because the presence of microscopic diseases was unknown. Doctor Semmelweis insisted that doctors wash their hands before examinations, and the death rate immediately dropped down to 2%.

Job 38:35 (written 3,500 years ago. God Himself speaking): "Can you send lightnings, that they may go and say unto you, Here we are?"

The Bible here is saying a scientifically ludicrous statement -- that light can be sent, and then manifest itself in speech. But did you know that radio waves move at the speed of light? This is why you can have instantaneous wireless communication with someone on the other side of the earth. Science didn' t discover this until 1864 when "the British scientist James Clerk Maxwell suggested that electricity and light waves were two forms of the same thing" (Modern Century Illustrated Encyclopedia, Vol. 12).

Isaiah 40:22 (written 2800 years ago): "It is he that sits upon the circle of the earth."

The Bible informs us here that the earth is round. At a time when science believed that the earth was flat, it was the Scriptures that inspired Christopher Columbus to sail around the world. He wrote: "It was the Lord who put it into my mind. I could feel His hand upon me . . . there is no question the inspiration was from the Holy Spirit because He comforted me with rays of marvelous illumination from the Holy Scriptures . . ." (From his diary, in reference to his discovery of "the New World").

(Other statements in the Bible also indicate that God revealed this truth long ago. For example, David said that God has removed our transgression from us as far as the east is from the west (Ps 103:12). On a spherical surface, east and west are infinitely separated in the sense that one can travel indefinitely in either direction without ever attaining the other. However, Solomon described the wind as blowing in circuits, first towards the south and then turning toward the north. North and south are not infinitely separated as east and west, because a southward traveler on a spherical surface will be heading north after crossing the south pole. Examples of Scientific Accuracy in the Bible By David Pyles )

Job 38:19 (written 3500 years ago). "Where is the way where light dwells?"

Modern man has only just discovered that light (electromagnetic radiation) has a "way," involving motion traveling at 186,000 miles per second.

Genesis 1:1,3 (written 3,450 years ago): "In the beginning God created the Heaven and the earth . . . And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."

Science expresses the universe in five terms: time, space, matter, power and motion. "In the beginning (time) God created (power) the Heaven (space) and the earth (matter) . . . And the Spirit of God moved (motion) upon the face of the waters."

Psalm 8:8: "And the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passes through the paths of the seas."

What does the Bible mean by "paths" of the seas? The sea is just a huge mass of water, how then could it have "paths?" Man discovered the existence of ocean currents in the 1850's, but the Bible declared the science of oceanography 2,800 years ago. Matthew Maury (1806- 1873) is considered to be the father of oceanography. He was bedridden during a serious illness and asked his son to read a portion of the Bible to him. While listening, he noticed the expression "paths of the sea." Upon his recovery, Maury took God at His word and went looking for these paths. His book on oceanography is still considered a basic text on the subject and is still used in universities.

Job 38:16 speaks of springs in the sea. It is now known that there are indeed such springs on the ocean floor.

The earliest literature indicating an understanding of hydrological cycle was apparently around the third or fourth century BC. However, the essential details of this cycle were all revealed in the Bible well before this time. This may be seen from the following texts:

The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits. All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again. - Eccl 1:6,7

For he maketh small the drops of water: they pour down rain according to the vapour thereof: which the clouds do drop and distil upon man abundantly. - Job 36:27,28

It is he that buildeth his stories in the heaven, and hath founded his troop in the earth; he that calleth for the waters of the sea, and poureth them out upon the face of the earth: The LORD is his name. - Amos 9:6 (Examples of Scientific Accuracy in the Bible By David Pyles)

Ecclesiastes 1:6 The wind goes toward the south, And turns around to the north; The wind whirls about continually, And comes again on its circuit.

The Bible describes the circulation of the atmosphere.

The Bible includes some principles of fluid dynamics.

Job 28:25 To establish a weight for the wind, And apportion the waters by measure.

The fact that air has weight was proven scientifically only about 300 years ago. The relative weights of air and water are needed for the efficient functioning of the world’s hydrologic cycle, which in turn sustains life on the earth.

Jonah 2:6 (written 2,800 years ago): "I went down to the bottoms of the mountains; the earth with her bars was about me for ever: yet have you brought up my life from corruption, O LORD my God."

When Jonah was in the depths of the ocean, he spoke of going down to the "bottoms of the mountains." Only in recent years has man discovered that there are mountains on the ocean floor. The greatest ocean depth has been sounded in the Challenger Deep of the Mariana's Trench, a distance of 35,798 feet below sea level. Mount Everest is 29,035 feet high.

(Genesis 10:25 speaks of one Peleg whose name means division. The text then explains that he was so named because in his days the earth was divided. It is now commonly believed that all continents of the earth were once combined into a single continent called Pangaea. This belief is based upon the fact that present continents appear somewhat as pieces out of a puzzle. There are also other evidences, including several geological similarities on matching continental edges. {Examples of Scientific Accuracy in the Bible By David Pyles})

Amos 9:6 (written 2,800 years ago): "He . . . calls for the waters of the sea, and pours them out upon the face of the earth; the Lord is His name."

The Mississippi River dumps over six million gallons of water per second into the Gulf of Mexico. Where does all that water go? That's just one of thousands of rivers. The answer lies in the hydrologic cycle, something that was not fully accepted until the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, 2500 years after the Bible said that God takes the waters of the sea, and pours them upon the face of the earth.

Job 38:12, 14, (written 3500 years ago) God Himself says: "Have you commanded the morning since your days; and caused the dayspring to know his place; that it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it? It [the earth] is turned as clay to the seal; and they stand as a garment."

Modern science has come to understand that the earth's rotation on its axis is responsible for the sun's rising and setting. The picture here is of a vessel of clay being turned or rotated upon the potter's wheel -- an accurate analogy of the earth's rotation.

Psalm 19:4-6: "In them has He set a tabernacle for the sun, which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoices as a strong man to run a race. His [the sun's] going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof."

Bible critics have scoffed at these verses, saying that they teach that the sun revolves around the earth. Science told them that the sun was stationary. Then they discovered that the sun is in fact moving through space at approximately 600,000 miles per hour. It is traveling through the heavens and has a "circuit" just as the Bible says. It is estimated that its circuit is so large, it would take 200 million years to complete one orbit.

Job 38:22 (written 3,500 years ago). God says: "Have you entered into the treasures of the snow?"

It wasn't until the advent of the microscope that man discovered that each and every single snowflake is uniquely a symmetrical "treasure."

Genesis 2:1 (after creation): "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them."

The Hebrew word used here is the past definite tense for the verb "finished," indicating an action completed in the past, never again to occur. The creation was "finished" -- once and for all. That is what the First Law of Thermodynamics says. It states that neither matter nor energy can be either created or destroyed. There is no "creation" ongoing today. It is "finished" exactly as the Bible states.

Hebrews 1:10,11 (written 2000 years ago): ". . . And, You, Lord, in the beginning have laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of your hands: They shall perish; but you remain; and they all shall wax old as does a garment."

The Bible tells us that the earth is wearing out. This is what the Second Law of Thermodynamics states. This wasn't discovered by science until comparatively recently.

Genesis 17:12: "And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed."

Why was circumcision to be carried out on the eighth day? Medical science has discovered that the eighth day is the only day in the entire life of the newborn that the blood clotting element prothrombin is above 100%.

Genesis 3:15: "And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; it shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel."

This verse reveals that a female possesses the "seed of life." This was not the common knowledge until a few centuries ago. It was widely believed that the male only possessed the "seed of life" and that the woman was nothing more than a glorified incubator.

Isaiah 40:12 (written 2,800 years ago): "Who has measured the waters in the hollow of His hand . . ."

We are told that God has measured the waters and set a proper amount of water on the earth. Modern science has proved that the quantity of water on earth is just enough for our needs. If the sea became three meters deeper, the water would absorb all the carbon dioxide and nitrogen, and no creature could live any longer.

Job 26:7 (written 3500 years ago): "He stretches out the north over the empty place . . ."

Less than 200 years ago, through the advent of massive telescopes, science learned about the great empty space in the north.

Isaiah 40:22 (written 2,800 years ago): "It is He that . . . stretches out the heavens as a curtain, and spreads them out as a tent to dwell in."

Scientists are beginning to understand that the universe is expanding, or stretching out. At least seven times in Scripture we are clearly told that God stretches out the heavens like a curtain.

The Dinosaur (There is reasonable evidence that the scriptures speak of dinosaurs. As should be expected, this evidence comes from Genesis, the book of origins, and from the book of Job, generally believed to be the oldest book in the Bible.

First, Gn 1:21 speaks of God creating whales on the fifth day of creation. The Hebrew word translated here as whales is generally translated dragons. It is translated as monsters once, whale(s) twice, serpent(s) thrice, and dragon(s) 21 times.

Second, Job's statements concerning the behemoth (Job 40:15-24) might be referring to dinosaurs. Its tail is compared to a cedar tree. Its strength, and apparently its bulk, is in its loins. It is said to be the chief of the ways of God, and is described as having the ability to drink up a river. No modern animal meets this description in all points.

Third, Job's description of the leviathin (Job 41) very much resembles a dinosaur. Some would dismiss this description as fictitious because the leviathin is described as breathing fire; however, some creation scientists believe this could have happened. The creature would merely need glands to produce a chemical which would combust when exposed to air. The bombardier beetle does in fact have this ability. The fact that nearly every major culture of the world has traditions about such dragons lends yet further credibility to the possibility of their existence in the past. Examples of Scientific Accuracy in the Bible By David Pyles)

Why did the dinosaur disappear? This is something that has modern science mystified, but the Bible may have the answer (written 3500 years ago. God Himself is speaking):

"Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eats grass as an ox. Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly. He moves his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together. His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron. He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him. Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play. He lies under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens. The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about. Behold, he drinks up a river, and hastens not: he trusts that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth. He takes it with his eyes: his nose pierces through snares. (Job 40:15-24).

This was the Largest of all creatures He made.
It was plant-eating (herbivorous).
It had its strength in its hips.
Its tail was like a large tree (a cedar).
It had very strong bones.
Its habitat was among the trees.
Drank massive amounts of water.
His nose pierced through snares.

Then Scripture says, " . . . He that made him can make his sword approach to him." In other words, God caused this, the largest of all the creatures He had made, to become extinct.

Hans

07-01-2008, 11:46 PM

I know one : it's impossible to live as long as Noah (950 years). No human can live that long.

Soundbear

07-02-2008, 10:33 AM

Would science 100 years ago say that no one could live as long as 120 years?? Yet people have now. Science has not "debunked" this because science knows that it does not know HOW long people might live under ideal circumstances.

Maybe we were meant to live that long.

Trivia. If you add up the numbers, I believe you'll find that Methuselah (969 years) died in the same year as the flood.

Maybe he never learned how to swim!! /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Hans

07-02-2008, 12:34 PM

Define "ideal circumstances"

RuMoR

07-02-2008, 01:04 PM

Ideal Circumstances = No pollution.. Not to mention, they didn't eat meat before the flood. Also the world had a dome of water around it before the flood.
***
Genesis 1:6
Then God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.”

Genesis 1:7
Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so.
***

The only question that leaves me wondering is about the Tree of Life. How many movies have been made about a tree or something that gave eternal life?

Has anyone ever wondered why after the flood, no one has lived past 175 years old? But before it, most lived well into their 900's? I can't imagine living to be 900+ years old..

On a side note, there have been discoveries that archaeologists have discovered to prove stories in the bible, such as Noah's Arc for instance. The bible also says that proof will be given. Not exactly sure how it's worded or where in the bible that is written (Tried to look for it, but I forget where that one is)

Google "biblical archaeological finds" and look for yourself as to what all the different finds have been.

"I'll believe it when I see it" That phrase right there makes no sense. If this is how you think.. There's a book you should read. "I'll see it when I believe it" by Dr. Wayne Dyer

Hans

07-02-2008, 01:15 PM

What does a dome of water have to do with ideal circumstances for human life span?

BlueSky

07-02-2008, 01:28 PM

"archaeologists have discovered to prove stories in the bible, such as Noah's Arc for instance."

Be careful with your claims.. it doesn't help the cause when things turn out to be untrue..

Soundbear

07-02-2008, 03:45 PM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Hans</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Define "ideal circumstances" </div></div>

Circumstances that let a human live to 900 years!! /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

I couldn't resist.

There does some to be some indication in the bible that the earth had better living conditions than now.

Did you ever note that, in scripture, peoples lifespans did not suddenly get much lower, but seem to taper off gradually. I note that Moses lived to a vigorous 120 years. He didn't even start his work till he was 80.

Soundbear

07-02-2008, 03:47 PM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bluesky</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"archaeologists have discovered to prove stories in the bible, such as Noah's Arc for instance."

Be careful with your claims.. it doesn't help the cause when things turn out to be untrue..
</div></div>

That is a weird problem. To my knowledge, there has never been an expedition to REALLY look into the possibility. Always some political problem.

BlueSky

07-02-2008, 04:13 PM

There have been several expeditions. And plenty of claims. But no cigar. Try googling..

Soundbear

07-02-2008, 05:13 PM

Googling is fun. There's a site that claims it's been found, and that there's a tourist centre built beside it!!

Too many people don't WANT to know. And too many charlatans are in on the act.

KDawg

07-02-2008, 06:58 PM

GenX

07-02-2008, 08:30 PM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There does some to be some indication in the bible that the earth had better living conditions than now. </div></div>

What????????????

GenX

07-02-2008, 08:30 PM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So what Barry says about our years tapering off makes sense -- the farther from that perfect Adam & Eve moment we get, the shorter our lifespans. </div></div>

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>WHAT???????????????????????????????????</span>

Where is the biblical evidence for any of this????

Soundbear

07-02-2008, 10:13 PM

If anybody else is interested in this, I'll look it up.

Hans

07-03-2008, 06:11 AM

Onlygodknowswhy

07-03-2008, 07:07 AM

and wasnt noah a few hundred yrs old lol

Onlygodknowswhy

07-03-2008, 07:10 AM

Circumstances that let a human live to 900 years!!

Now we know 900 is defiantly not true /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

Back then our ancestors were scared of their own shadows and died of old age at 24

GenX

07-03-2008, 09:19 AM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Barry Morris</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If anybody else is interested in this, I'll look it up. </div></div>

Well, looks like they are interested.

We await the info! /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Soundbear

07-03-2008, 11:23 AM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Hans</div><div class="ubbcode-body">..Barry : What's the age of the oldest humanoid remains ever found? </div></div>

I don't know actually. Several hundred thousand years, anyway.

Soundbear

07-03-2008, 11:24 AM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: TheOneTheOnly</div><div class="ubbcode-body">and wasnt noah a few hundred yrs old lol </div></div>

700 years or so.

Soundbear

07-03-2008, 11:26 AM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: TheOneTheOnly</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Circumstances that let a human live to 900 years!!

Now we know 900 is defiantly not true /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

Back then our ancestors were scared of their own shadows and died of old age at 24 </div></div>

If you check, you'll find that people who were well fed and healthy often lived to the same age as we do today. It was the poor that died early.

Hans

07-03-2008, 11:36 AM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Barry Morris</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Hans</div><div class="ubbcode-body">..Barry : What's the age of the oldest humanoid remains ever found? </div></div>

I don't know actually. Several hundred thousand years, anyway. </div></div>

Is that before or after Noah's time?

Soundbear

07-03-2008, 11:44 AM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Hans</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Barry Morris</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Hans</div><div class="ubbcode-body">..Barry : What's the age of the oldest humanoid remains ever found? </div></div>

I don't know actually. Several hundred thousand years, anyway. </div></div>

Is that before or after Noah's time? </div></div>

Could be before.

Hans

07-03-2008, 12:29 PM

So it could be under optimal conditions?

BlueSky

07-03-2008, 01:18 PM

I object, your honor.. Hans is leading the witness!

Soundbear

07-03-2008, 02:19 PM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Hans</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So it could be under optimal conditions? </div></div>

I don't get what you mean.

Hans

07-03-2008, 02:34 PM

Let me rephrase the question : Was it under ideal circumstances at that point in time?

dancingqueen

07-03-2008, 02:36 PM

What does the Bible say about Dinosaurs? I thought it mentioned them somewhere?

BlueSky

07-03-2008, 02:37 PM

You mean the Leviathan?

dancingqueen

07-03-2008, 02:41 PM

where does the Bible describe this?
(I just borrowed a NLT version of the Bible and am still familiarizing myself with it)

Soundbear

07-03-2008, 03:02 PM

Questions posed:

"What does a dome of water have to do with ideal circumstances for human life span? "

"What's the age of the oldest humanoid remains ever found? "

"Was it under ideal circumstances at that point in time? "

This site has some interesting stuff. I had read about the "dome of water" thing before, but never had seen any reasoning for it:

http://www.geocities.com/johnh_vanbc/bible/preflood.html

Now this guys has some hard dates for the creation of the earth, which I don't hold to dogmattically. But some of the other stuff is interesting.

For example, "Considering that, at present, there is only enough water vapour in the atmosphere to cover the earth in a couple inches of rain, there must have been a source for the 40 days of rain mentioned in Genesis 7 and 8 to cause the flood."

"...fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened." (Genesis 7:11)

Other interestingideas come from this "dome of water" idea, including a source for the flood watter, a reduction in harmful radiation (possibly extending life) and a high atmospheric pressure, also extending life.

Please read all of the site.

Re oldest humanoids. I don't think dates are that sure.

BlueSky

07-03-2008, 03:34 PM

DQ, if you go to biblegateway.com you can search the bible with any terms you wish. Choose the KJV and search for leviathan.

Hans

07-03-2008, 04:27 PM

Barry, that side makes no sense :

"The reason I mention the likely existence of this water-vapour barrier over the earth before the flood is that it is an important factor throughout the whole study of the pre-flood earth. It explains many things which, otherwise, would be hard to believe living on the earth today."

"Before the flood, as mentioned before, much of the water was contained in the firmament of water vapour above the earth, and inside the earth."

"The firmament would have filtered out most harmful radiation coming from the sun providing much better living conditions here on earth."

"The firmament would also have caused a greater atmospheric pressure on earth since all the gasses in the atmosphere today would have been compressed below the canopy. Before the flood, the atmosphere contained 30% oxygen as opposed to 20% today. Pockets of air found in amber in the fossil record prove that this was the case."

Let me say this to the above "statements" :

- water-vapour is a gas, and is currently present in our atmosphere.

- water can not be contained inside the earth, as magma would evaporate it.

- water does not filter out any harmful radiation from the sun. The earths magnetic field does. On top of that, water causes an increased intensity of sun rays. One of the reasons you should never water plants in sunlight : the water acts like a magnifying glass and burns the leaves.

- Compressing the atmosphere does not increase the oxygen content. It just causes increased pressure.

- water would be pulled down by earths gravity field, and would not be able to "hang" in the air to form a dome.

Soundbear

07-03-2008, 04:54 PM

Your comments:

".water-vapour is a gas, and is currently present in our atmosphere."

The site mentions that, "at present, there is only enough water vapour in the atmosphere to cover the earth in a couple inches of rain,.." There may have been MUCH more in the past.

- water can not be contained inside the earth, as magma would evaporate it.

The magma starts 10 to 20 miles down. Lots of room for water.

- water does not filter out any harmful radiation from the sun. The earths magnetic field does. On top of that, water causes an increased intensity of sun rays. One of the reasons you should never water plants in sunlight : the water acts like a magnifying glass and burns the leaves.

Water does indeed stop radiation. In fact, it is an excellent choice. It just depends how much there is. Your example of the leaves is merely surface tension creating a lense effect.

- Compressing the atmosphere does not increase the oxygen content. It just causes increased pressure.

We don't know that, We DO know that the atmosphere was different in the past, and the site mentions high oxygen content found in fossils.

- water would be pulled down by earths gravity field, and would not be able to "hang" in the air to form a dome.

Clouds hang in the air and they don't fill but a small portion of the atmosphere. If they existed from 1000 feet on up to the edge of space, there might be enough water.

Hans

07-03-2008, 05:12 PM

If there was much more in the past, where did it go then? It just disappeared?

Are you suggesting water was contained inside earth above the magma level? If so, where are the holes in the earths crust to support that theory?

Explain to me how water stops radiation?

Yes, we do know that compressing the atmosphere does not increase the oxygen content. Or are you suggesting a can of compressed air contains a higher level of oxygen then the atmosphere?

Barry, we know the amount of space between earth and out moon. Are you suggesting it was all filled with water? (To the edge of space?)

Hans

07-03-2008, 05:16 PM

Barry, with regards to your oxygen levels, might I suggest you look up something called "the oxygen theory" ? It explains scientifically what happened.

Hans

07-03-2008, 05:17 PM

http://www.trufax.org/general/oxygen.html

Some good reading material for you Barry.

Soundbear

07-03-2008, 05:22 PM

Hans, water is used in atomic reactors to stop radiation.

As to where the water went, maybe there was less ocean?? The bible doesn't mention mountains before Noah, so one might assume some upheavals to create more high and low spots, some of which now contain water. Lots of it.

No we don't know about the compressed atmosphere. It does account for a higher concentration of oxygen in the fossil record.

Your mention of the moon makes me wonder what you know about space. The moon is about 250,000 miles away. The edge of space is considered to be 50 miles up. Clouds can exceed 75,000 feet in height today.

How thick can clouds get? Venus' clouds go up to 30 miles up. I suspect that, in a similar way, the theory is plausible. Our atmosphere may have been quite different in Noah's time.

Soundbear

07-03-2008, 05:41 PM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Hans</div><div class="ubbcode-body">http://www.trufax.org/general/oxygen.html

Some good reading material for you Barry. </div></div>

Very interesting.

Hans

07-03-2008, 09:50 PM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Barry Morris</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Hans, water is used in atomic reactors to stop radiation.

As to where the water went, maybe there was less ocean?? The bible doesn't mention mountains before Noah, so one might assume some upheavals to create more high and low spots, some of which now contain water. Lots of it.

No we don't know about the compressed atmosphere. It does account for a higher concentration of oxygen in the fossil record.

Your mention of the moon makes me wonder what you know about space. The moon is about 250,000 miles away. The edge of space is considered to be 50 miles up. Clouds can exceed 75,000 feet in height today.

How thick can clouds get? Venus' clouds go up to 30 miles up. I suspect that, in a similar way, the theory is plausible. Our atmosphere may have been quite different in Noah's time. </div></div>

Barry, the water is used for cooling and steam generation...

Anyways, the edge of space is a relative term. Are you talking about the area where our atmosphere ends and space starts, or the edge where space ends?

Hans

07-03-2008, 09:53 PM

Here's a link explaining how a reactor works. As you can see, the water is not used to shield against radiation...

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf32.html

Hans

07-03-2008, 10:03 PM

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

There's no mention of any radiation shielding properties for water Barry. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

Soundbear

07-04-2008, 09:12 AM

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

"Radiation protection, sometimes known as radiological protection, is the science of protecting people and the environment from the harmful effects of ionizing radiation, which includes both particle radiation and high energy electromagnetic radiation."

" A large mass of hydrogen-rich material, eg. water (or concrete, which contains a lot of chemically-bound water),... is commonly used."

I first read about the use of water as a shielding in science fiction stories about space travel. Water would be an efficient protection from sun flares, placed in tanks around a structure. It is easily pumped from place to place. The human body also needs it and creates it, so it is a logical choice for this use.

Soundbear

07-04-2008, 09:15 AM

A picture of radioactive material in water.

http://images.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=ht...l%3Den%26sa%3DN (http://images.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://www.scienceclarified.com/images/uesc_07_img0406.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.scienceclarified.com/Mu-Oi/Nuclear-Power.html&h=425&w=335&sz=16&hl=en&start=52&tbnid=uqGvoBW9ypvLJM:&tbnh=126&tbnw=99&prev=/images%3Fq%3D%252Breactor%2B%252Bnuclear%2B%252Bwa ter%26start%3D40%26gbv%3D2%26ndsp%3D20%26hl%3Den%2 6sa%3DN)

Hans

07-04-2008, 10:53 AM

Energy produced in the reactor is carried away by means of a coolant—a fluid such as water, or liquid sodium, or carbon dioxide gas. The fluid absorbs heat from the reactor and then begins to boil itself or to cause water in a secondary system to boil. Steam produced in either of these ways is then piped into the electrical generating unit, where it turns the blades of a turbine. The turbine, in turn, powers a generator that produces electrical energy.

That's a fuel element in water, not radioactive material.

Honestly Barry, the water is not used as a way to shield/absorb radioactive elements/radiation.

Hans

07-04-2008, 10:58 AM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Barry Morris</div><div class="ubbcode-body">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_protection

"Radiation protection, sometimes known as radiological protection, is the science of protecting people and the environment from the harmful effects of ionizing radiation, which includes both particle radiation and high energy electromagnetic radiation."

" A large mass of hydrogen-rich material, eg. water (or concrete, which contains a lot of chemically-bound water),... is commonly used."

I first read about the use of water as a shielding in science fiction stories about space travel. Water would be an efficient protection from sun flares, placed in tanks around a structure. It is easily pumped from place to place. The human body also needs it and creates it, so it is a logical choice for this use. </div></div>

Barry, you must not have read my link, or your own link. The water in this case is used to slow down fast neutrons. In that perspective, it's called a moderator. It's not used to contain radiation.

From your link :

fast neutrons have first to be slowed down (moderated) to slower speeds, by inelastic collisions with heavy nuclei or by elastic collisions with light ones. A large mass of hydrogen-rich material, eg. water (or concrete, which contains a lot of chemically-bound water), polyethylene, or paraffin wax is commonly used. It can be further combined with boron for more efficient absorption of the thermal neutrons.

Soundbear

07-04-2008, 06:14 PM

Sorry, Hans.

It says a "A large mass of hydrogen-rich material, eg. water " is used.

For what? "Radiation protection."

I'm aware that water is used to tranfer the heat energy of the reactor to turbines, but radiation protection is indeed a function of water in some reactors. That's why the fuel bundle is underwater in the picture.

Hans

07-04-2008, 06:24 PM

Yes, it's used as a moderator to slow down fast neutrons. It has nothing to do with radiation...

Soundbear

07-04-2008, 06:31 PM

http://www.adl.gatech.edu/research/tff/radiation_shield.html
"Water is probably the most effective radiation shield of all"

http://www.sae.org/technical/papers/1999-01-1936
"As part of NASA''s TransHab inflatable habitat program, a Radiation Shield Water Tank (RSWT) is being developed to provide a safe haven from peak solar particle events. The RSWT will provide an 11 ft. (3.35 m) diameter by 7 ft. (2.13 m) tall ""safe haven'''' with a 2.26 in. (0.0574 m) thick wall of water for astronaut residence during peak solar events"

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1060673/posts
"Water is a good shield against radiation, and scientists have been using it as a benchmark for the level of protection they are seeking in new materials, Semmes said. Tests show that reinforced polyethylene "behaves very closely to what water does," he said."

Retsevets

07-04-2008, 06:46 PM

The waste from a nuclear reactor is stored on site in concrete and water. I believe the concrete provides the protection against radiation leakage while the water acts as a coolant remove the heat generated by the radioactive decay. At some point it is transported to permanent storrage away from any water supply, typically burried deep in the earth to avoid contamination. Water alone cannot provide the protection needed to store waste of this type.

I could be wrong it been a while since I read about nuclear fission reactors.

I also assume that though there must be some level of protection provided by the water you also have to remember that typically sites use what is called "Heavy Water" for this process. You can't just collect this from the local lake or the downspout from your eaves trough,this stuff is very hard to come by.

Steve

Soundbear

07-04-2008, 09:43 PM

This whole discussion has just been a rabbit trail, though interesting.

I know they use heavy water. I believe it has the characteristic of not becoming radioactive.

Most of the uses I've been describing do not involve heavy water, which I understand costs about $900 a barrel.

Hans

07-05-2008, 12:41 PM

Barry, you keep giving examples of shielding against Neutron Radiation. Yes, water slows down Neutrons and as such protects against that form of radiation.
Radioactive radiation is not a form of Neutron Radiation, so water will not shield you against it.

Practical radiation protection tends to be a job of juggling the three factors to identify the most cost effective solution.

In some cases, improper shielding can actually make the situation worse, when the radiation interacts with the shielding material and creates secondary radiation that absorbs in the organisms more readily.

Different types of ionizing radiation behave in different ways, so different shielding techniques are used.

* Particle radiation consists of a stream of charged or neutral particles, both charged ions and subatomic elementary particles. This includes solar wind, cosmic radiation, and neutron flux in nuclear reactors.
o Alpha radiation (helium nuclei) is the easiest to shield. Even very energetic alpha particles can be stopped even with a leaf of paper.
o Beta radiation (electrons) is more difficult, but still a relatively thin layer of aluminum can usually do the job. However, in cases where high energy beta particles are emitted (e.g. 32P), the Bremsstrahlung produced by shielding this radiation with the normally used materials is itself dangerous; in such cases, shielding must be accomplished with low density materials, e.g. plastic, wood, water or acrylic glass (Plexiglas, Lucite) [1].
o In case of beta+ radiation (positrons) the gamma radiation from the electron-positron annihilation reaction poses additional concern.
o Neutron radiation is not as readily absorbed as charged particle radiation. Neutrons are absorbed by nuclei of atoms in a nuclear reaction (which often leads to emission of gamma photons, causing additional shielding concerns), but fast neutrons have first to be slowed down (moderated) to slower speeds, by inelastic collisions with heavy nuclei or by elastic collisions with light ones. A large mass of hydrogen-rich material, eg. water (or concrete, which contains a lot of chemically-bound water), polyethylene, or paraffin wax is commonly used. It can be further combined with boron for more efficient absorption of the thermal neutrons.
o Cosmic radiation is not a common concern, as the Earth's atmosphere absorbs it and the magnetosphere acts as a shield, but it poses a problem for satellites and astronauts. While satellite electronics can be radiation hardened, astronauts can't, so they have to be shielded. Because weight is a premium on space technology, methods alternative to absorption are being proposed, such as magnetic shielding using superconductors.[2][3] Aircrews and frequent flyers are also at a slight risk.
* Electromagnetic radiation consists of emissions of electromagnetic waves, the properties of which depend on the wavelength.
o X-ray and gamma radiation are best absorbed by atoms with heavy nuclei; the heavier the nucleus, the better the absorption. In some special applications, depleted uranium is used, but lead is much more common. Barium sulfate is used in some applications too. However, when cost is important, almost any material can be used, but it must be far thicker. Most nuclear reactors use thick concrete shields to create a bioshield with a thin water cooled layer of lead on the inside to protect the porous concrete from the coolant inside.

Soundbear

07-05-2008, 12:48 PM

Hans, since in fact we are talking about solar radiation not affecting humans as much IF there were more water vapour in the atmosphere, and in spite of links that do NOT specify type of radiation water protects against (your link for the above pleae), then I can only assume that you think these guys:

http://www.sae.org/technical/papers/1999-01-1936
"As part of NASA''s TransHab inflatable habitat program, a Radiation Shield Water Tank (RSWT) is being developed to provide a safe haven from peak solar particle events. The RSWT will provide an 11 ft. (3.35 m) diameter by 7 ft. (2.13 m) tall ""safe haven'''' with a 2.26 in. (0.0574 m) thick wall of water for astronaut residence during peak solar events"

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1060673/posts
"Water is a good shield against radiation, and scientists have been using it as a benchmark for the level of protection they are seeking in new materials, Semmes said. Tests show that reinforced polyethylene "behaves very closely to what water does," he said."

...are all idiots!

Hans

07-05-2008, 01:07 PM

I never stated they were idiots. All I said was that there a different types of radiation, and water will not protect you from radioactive radiation and certain other types of radiation.
And now that we are on that subject, water can become polluted with radioactive particles.
Anyways, we can agree to disagree.

Soundbear

07-05-2008, 01:22 PM

Allright, to get back to topic, the contention was that a thicker atmosphere containing a heavy concentration of water vapourand higher oxygen content may have been in existence before Noah's time. This might account for the "water from heaven" cited in Scripture AND a protection from solar radiation which may have allowed longer life.

Hans

07-05-2008, 03:45 PM

Science knows why our life and all other life based on living cells is limited. None of what you stated above can change that scientific fact.

Soundbear

07-05-2008, 04:01 PM

Science cannot prove that man cannot live much, much longer, or that the length of lives recorded in the bible are wrong.

Hans

07-05-2008, 04:02 PM

No, it can not. But it can prove that in order to live longer, our DNA has to be different then what it currently is.

Soundbear

07-05-2008, 04:05 PM

I doubt that too.

What links do you have on that.

Hans

07-05-2008, 04:07 PM

http://www.nyas.org/pdfs/AEEx38_v1067_66.pdf

Hans

07-05-2008, 04:10 PM

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

Soundbear

07-05-2008, 04:21 PM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Hans</div><div class="ubbcode-body">http://www.nyas.org/pdfs/AEEx38_v1067_66.pdf </div></div>

from the article:

The argument developed in this article shows that any effort to exploit murine systems to elucidate human aging or the human
disease process must take into account the vast differences in the metabolic stability of the cells that compose the two species. These differences in metabolic stability derive from the contrasting evolutionary history of the species and the
environmental constraints they have experienced. An understanding of this history, and its signature at the cellular level, robustness of the metabolic network, are thus crucial in elucidating human aging and human disease pathogenesis from mouse models."

I'm pretty sure the evolutionary history of the species and the environmental constraints upon humans BEFORE the time of Noah may have allowed for longer life spans.

This article in no way disallows this possibility.

Hans

07-05-2008, 04:26 PM

I highly doubts the effects allow it to increase lifespan 8 fold. On top of that, there's no evidence in any fossil record, from any period, that would support the theory that humans used to live several hundred years.

Soundbear

07-05-2008, 04:26 PM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Hans</div><div class="ubbcode-body">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telomere </div></div>

" First, it is not even certain whether the relationship between telomeres and aging is causal"

Hmmmm.

This is all very interesting, but you would appear to be implying that humanity has not changed in any way since ancient times, and that the possible higher radiation levels on earth could not affect us.

Hans

07-05-2008, 04:28 PM

Radiation can and does affect us. But we know that the average lifespan of the male and female human species is increasing due to several factors. Going by your theory, it would have to decrease.

Soundbear

07-05-2008, 04:30 PM

Ah but it did, radically. You are comparing present lifespan to the Dark Ages.

Hans

07-05-2008, 04:31 PM

I am comparing average lifespan against 150 years ago. I am merely comparing against known facts.

Onlygodknowswhy

07-06-2008, 04:25 AM

Where is the proof that people lived hundreds of years, and please dont quote the bible.....nobody is convincing you that science has proved anything wrong in the bible because you are using it as a history book....you are using a book that was writtin 1000s of years ago, translated and rewritten how many times and think that not one bit of information was missed in translation.

the human body hasnt changed much since primitive times or i should say the way our body functions.....our species doesnt live for 200+years...if you want to look at things that people dont think much of.....is why boys and girls of the age of 12 or so have the ability to have children....it is because once upon a time our life span was maybe 30yrs old...and for the species to survive we had to be able to reproduce while we could...as we learned to live, learned medicine, our life span grew, but our bodies didnt change with the length of our life span....but we didnt all of a sudden start living 2-3-4-500 years of age...and then as we learned more about the earth/medicine/science/our own bodies you believe that our life span drastically reduced to what our life span is now??

BlueSky

07-06-2008, 07:25 AM

This is the religious section, bud. People can quote the Bible as much as they like. And of coruse no one is going to be able to proe the cliam.. just like you cannot prove your claims. They are talking plausibility.

Onlygodknowswhy

07-06-2008, 08:37 AM

but this thread is talking about science and religion.....

all i meant was where is the proof of ppl living at those ages without quoting the bible....is there some other documentation......you think there would be if people actually lived that long...but its not plausable for someone to live that long..

Soundbear

07-06-2008, 09:23 AM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: TheOneTheOnly</div><div class="ubbcode-body">...but its not plausable for someone to live that long.. </div></div>

Sez who?? Science CANNOT debunk this bible claim.

Soundbear

07-06-2008, 09:25 AM

This is interesting:

"if you want to look at things that people dont think much of.....is why boys and girls of the age of 12 or so have the ability to have children....it is because once upon a time our life span was maybe 30yrs old...and for the species to survive we had to be able to reproduce while we could"

Actually not true. You will find that women are reaching menarche earlier now. In those times, it began as late as 18, probably because of poor living conditions.

Onlygodknowswhy

07-06-2008, 09:52 AM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Barry Morris</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: TheOneTheOnly</div><div class="ubbcode-body">...but its not plausable for someone to live that long.. </div></div>

Sez who?? Science CANNOT debunk this bible claim. </div></div>

science cant prove because they cant get their hands on the speciman, but ask any scientist if one person can live 600 yrs.....The bible cant prove it either....but what you are saying is its true because the bible says so......

No matter what can be proven you wont take it....lol....because you dont want to believe that maybe, just maybe, that somethings you read in the bible are just stories....but like i said if people were living as long as you say the bible is claming, there would be alot more than just bible stories....and lets face it if you are living 600-700yrs old....when you are 200 you are like 20yrs old......whatever they had must of been the fountain of youth, and us only living maybe 60-80yrs average than mankind is in a major epidemic....losing 520yrs of life shouldnt be taken lightly......

But again, i guess its in what you want to believe......you want to believe everything you read in the good book.....ill never believe that at anytime that man was living for 200+yrs...at most id probably give 150, but the most i can remember hearing someone living was i think 116 or something like that...im not googling up at the moment

GenX

07-06-2008, 02:19 PM

Has Barry provided proof yet that Adam had a gaggle of kids, half of whom were female??

Soundbear

07-06-2008, 03:42 PM

Has RWGR read the bible verses posted before about Adam's chldren? Does he know the usual ratio of male to female births? Has he shown any reason for my statement to be false.

Soundbear

07-06-2008, 03:44 PM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: TheOneTheOnly</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Barry Morris</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: TheOneTheOnly</div><div class="ubbcode-body">...but its not plausable for someone to live that long.. </div></div>

Sez who?? Science CANNOT debunk this bible claim. </div></div>

science cant prove because they cant get their hands on the speciman, but ask any scientist if one person can live 600 yrs.....The bible cant prove it either....but what you are saying is its true because the bible says so......

No matter what can be proven you wont take it....lol....because you dont want to believe that maybe, just maybe, that somethings you read in the bible are just stories....but like i said if people were living as long as you say the bible is claming, there would be alot more than just bible stories....and lets face it if you are living 600-700yrs old....when you are 200 you are like 20yrs old......whatever they had must of been the fountain of youth, and us only living maybe 60-80yrs average than mankind is in a major epidemic....losing 520yrs of life shouldnt be taken lightly......

But again, i guess its in what you want to believe......you want to believe everything you read in the good book.....ill never believe that at anytime that man was living for 200+yrs...at most id probably give 150, but the most i can remember hearing someone living was i think 116 or something like that...im not googling up at the moment </div></div>

".science cant prove because ..."

That was my point. It is often claimed that modern science "proves" various things in the bible are wrong.

It just doesn't.

GenX

07-06-2008, 06:25 PM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Barry Morris</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Has RWGR read the bible verses posted before about Adam's chldren? Does he know the usual ratio of male to female births? Has he shown any reason for my statement to be false. </div></div>

Yeah, there is no proof whatsoever with your claim.

How did you arrive at this theory?

Soundbear

07-06-2008, 08:47 PM

Yawn.

dancingqueen

07-07-2008, 05:09 AM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bluesky</div><div class="ubbcode-body">DQ, if you go to biblegateway.com you can search the bible with any terms you wish. Choose the KJV and search for leviathan.
</div></div>

I got the following from Leviathan:
http://www.gospel.com/search?q=Leviathan&bgsearch=no\
I may have it spelled wrong, but I tried other spellings... is their another name, perhaps? /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif But Science has prooven that "Man" did not exist at the time of Giant Lizards. If you want a link I am sure I can provide it when I am less drunk /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

but I never deny the fact that I could be wrong

Soundbear

07-07-2008, 05:12 AM

Science has DATED fossils and other stuff, but that's not the same as PROVEN man and whatever did NOT co-exist.

BTW, I'm not saying they did.

dancingqueen

07-07-2008, 05:21 AM

dancingqueen

07-07-2008, 05:30 AM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Barry Morris</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Science has DATED fossils and other stuff, but that's not the same as PROVEN man and whatever did NOT co-exist.

BTW, I'm not saying they didn't. </div></div>
Proof was a little less than we excpected in this day and age... but a God that wants us to belive what he says to be truth would make re-assurances to be obvious... no?

I remember back in highschool, fossil dating and through carbon dating that it was not possible for man to exist with the Giant lizards... I will never deny that I could be wrong. but in a challange, I ask that you show me a passage that indicates man living with the giant lizards. and in the mean time I will find evidence that this was not possible.
deal?

dancingqueen

07-07-2008, 05:37 AM

http://www.scienceviews.com/dinosaurs/dinofacts.html
tells me dinosaurs could not have existed with man. after Adam and Eve is it possible that humans disapeared for a while to allow the giant lizzards to take over? if so, what is the chapter and verse(s) I am seriously curious. /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Soundbear

07-07-2008, 10:46 AM

Soundbear

07-07-2008, 10:49 AM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dancingqueen</div><div class="ubbcode-body">http://www.scienceviews.com/dinosaurs/dinofacts.html
tells me dinosaurs could not have existed with man. after Adam and Eve is it possible that humans disapeared for a while to allow the giant lizzards to take over? if so, what is the chapter and verse(s) I am seriously curious. /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif </div></div>

This guy claims there ARE dinos in the bible:

http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/dinos.shtml

This article talks about leviathan:

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

GenX

07-07-2008, 10:52 AM

Copy n paste

Copy n paste

Sometimes we do our case or theory a favor by citing someone other than "this guy" .

Soundbear

07-07-2008, 10:57 AM

As soon as you find that someone, let us know.

dancingqueen

07-08-2008, 12:16 AM

Thanks for the link Barry, I will look those verses up in my Friend's Bible /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif probably in te morning, I'm beat /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

dancingqueen

07-08-2008, 12:17 AM

Hans

07-08-2008, 07:33 AM

There's no fossil proof for human existence during the Dinosaur age.

Soundbear

07-08-2008, 10:22 AM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Hans</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There's no fossil proof for human existence during the Dinosaur age. </div></div>

That's not quite the point of this thread.

Soundbear

07-08-2008, 10:38 AM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dancingqueen</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Barry Morris</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dancingqueen</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Barry Morris</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The bible is a history book. It also mentions various aspects of nature. If those things are correct, then to me, it gives good evidence that the other things (supernatural) are correct. </div></div>

question... if one reading is true, then you excpect the rest to be true? </div></div>

It certainly gives it a better chance, in my opinion. </div></div>

that is an awfully giant assumption
Anne Rice books have aspects of nature in them, but I do not belive vampires roaming around the world is more true because of that. Do you? </div></div>

I said chance, didn't I.

The bottom line with me is not what I can see in the bible, though it certainly confirms it for me.

What I DO believe 100 percent without a doubt is that there is Something out there, Something that controls all I see, and Something I need to submit to.

My faith is not built on my church, or my understanding of the bible or anything I might do or think. It's based on God.

CharliBean

07-08-2008, 11:02 AM

i must tell you, the likelihood of vampires seems more plausible to me than the existence of a biblical god LOL....

JMO

Soundbear

07-08-2008, 11:17 AM

Yeah, but who made the vampires?? /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

CharliBean

07-08-2008, 11:45 AM

i did

MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHA!!!!

i dunno, coulda been a disease of some sort... who knows? im definetly not saying vamps are real, just that they seem more logical to me personally.... unicorns and friggen lawn gnomes, man.

GenX

07-08-2008, 11:56 AM

There is a mindset in general Christianity that to be Christian is to mean you are willingly accepting trials and tribulations in this life that probably would not befall you as a non-Christian. Some refer to it as picking up The Cross; our own cross, but Jesus' cross, also.

In summary, Christianity ain't easy.

If it were, where is the glory? If there was definitive proof there was a God, then what would a person gain by believing and trying to live the Christian life?

Let's say absolute, 100% concrete proof came along that proved the existence of God. Let's say God came down to earth, held a huge press conference on all the major television and radio networks, and told us how it all happened, and what He expects from us: "Do the following things, and you'll get eternal life..."

Where is the glory in following Him after that? We would follow him just to get something for ourselves: eternal life. But as it is now, the great leap of FAITH one takes when taking up the Cross, and believing in God, is done with much less personal motives.

The fact God cannot be defined or explained by science should be celebrated by Christians.

CharliBean

07-08-2008, 12:04 PM

Now it is such a bizarrely impossible coincidence that anything so mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the nonexistence of God. The arguement goes something like this:

" "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."

"But," say Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."

"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't though of that" and promply vanishes in a puff of logic. "

-Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, Douglas Adams

GenX

07-08-2008, 12:19 PM

Cute story.

Not much else.

CharliBean

07-08-2008, 12:54 PM

it was a cute story. and a funny one. Just thought id lighten the religiously oppressive mood with an attempt at a joke. (that was another joke. im a failure.) LOL

... a good book was conversations with god.

Onlygodknowswhy

07-08-2008, 01:19 PM

other funny quotes i thought:

Prayer has no place in public school, just like facts have no place in organized religion - Superintendant Chalmers (The Simpsons incase you dont recognize the name)

(Holds up bible) Have you ever read this thing, technically we arent even suppose to go to the bathroom - Rev. Lovejoy

Onlygodknowswhy

07-08-2008, 01:23 PM

more on the babel fish lol

but that didn't stop Oolon Colluphid making a small fortune when he used it as the central theme of his best- selling book Well That About Wraps It Up For God. "Meanwhile, the poor Babel fish, by effectively removing all barriers to communication between different races and cultures, has caused more and bloodier wars than anything else in the history of creation."

CharliBean

07-08-2008, 01:30 PM

lol ... rev. lovejoy had another one i loved....

"This so called new religion is nothing but a pack of weird rituals and chants designed to take away the money of fools. Let us say the Lord's prayer 40 times, but first let's pass the collection plate."

tehehehe

CharliBean

07-08-2008, 01:38 PM

"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.

CharliBean

07-08-2008, 01:38 PM

I know, i know.... OFF TOPIC

Onlygodknowswhy

07-08-2008, 01:41 PM

haha but funny, just comedy playing with religion...you have to laugh.....like The Book says:

In the beginning the universe was created. This made a lot of people angry and has widely been considered as a bad move.

Soundbear

07-08-2008, 05:10 PM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CharliBean</div><div class="ubbcode-body">i did

MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHA!!!!

i dunno, coulda been a disease of some sort... who knows? im definetly not saying vamps are real, just that they seem more logical to me personally.... unicorns and friggen lawn gnomes, man. </div></div>

Of course, people ARE real. So's the world, so's the universe.

Soundbear

07-08-2008, 05:13 PM

BTW, the "Hitch-Hikers" version of religion, representing the style of modern Brit humour, has nothing to do with the decline in Britain's moral values, eh?? /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

dancingqueen

07-08-2008, 05:19 PM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Barry Morris</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dancingqueen</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Barry Morris</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dancingqueen</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Barry Morris</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The bible is a history book. It also mentions various aspects of nature. If those things are correct, then to me, it gives good evidence that the other things (supernatural) are correct. </div></div>

question... if one reading is true, then you excpect the rest to be true? </div></div>

It certainly gives it a better chance, in my opinion. </div></div>

that is an awfully giant assumption
Anne Rice books have aspects of nature in them, but I do not belive vampires roaming around the world is more true because of that. Do you? </div></div>

I said chance, didn't I.

The bottom line with me is not what I can see in the bible, though it certainly confirms it for me.

What I DO believe 100 percent without a doubt is that there is Something out there, Something that controls all I see, and Something I need to submit to.

My faith is not built on my church, or my understanding of the bible or anything I might do or think. It's based on God. </div></div>

I can agree that there is something that is in control of what we see, but what makes you think it wants us to submit? Is that what God means to you?

Soundbear

07-08-2008, 05:21 PM

He's infinite. I'm His creation.

The opposite would be to reject all that He is.

"Love the Lord your God."

dancingqueen

07-08-2008, 05:27 PM

I'm not saying to reject him, but why do we feel we need to submit in order to not reject?

Soundbear

07-08-2008, 09:01 PM

Everything in Scripture seems to point to submission to God.

After all, He is the Creator of everything. Without Him, we would not exist.

dancingqueen

07-08-2008, 10:09 PM

so, why give us free will if he just wants us to submit to him?
Why didn't he just make us robots that had no feeling or emotions?
The way you are making God sound, it sounds like he is playing a sick mind game with my eternal soul as a prize...
think about it...
"I want you to submit to me, but I want you to have your own free will. I will provide you with no evidence of my existance. It's a fun game /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif If you win you can have imortality"
That does not describe a loving God to me.

Soundbear

07-08-2008, 11:28 PM

Not no evidence. Nature is a witness. The bible is a witness.

A sick game?? No way, a God who sent His own Son to pay for our sin would not play games with us.

dancingqueen

07-08-2008, 11:59 PM

Barry, I think you are dodging my real concerns...
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dancingqueen</div><div class="ubbcode-body">why give us free will if he just wants us to submit to him?
Why didn't he just make us robots that had no feeling or emotions</div></div>
this is why it seems like a sick mind game, and the immortal soul represents a prize to me. Can you disprove this opinion of the God the Bible projects?

Fast Shadow

07-09-2008, 12:10 AM

may I suggest that you snag a few titles written by DR. James Dobson?

dancingqueen

07-09-2008, 05:09 PM

who is that?

GenX

07-09-2008, 05:40 PM

He's a former Nixon Administration employee who was caught up in all the Watergate mess, spent some time in prison, and was 'born-again' while in prison.

He has many books out, and his "Focus on the Family" radio show can be heard up here on one of the religious radio stations.

dancingqueen

07-09-2008, 06:25 PM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Barry Morris</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dancingqueen</div><div class="ubbcode-body">http://www.scienceviews.com/dinosaurs/dinofacts.html
tells me dinosaurs could not have existed with man. after Adam and Eve is it possible that humans disapeared for a while to allow the giant lizzards to take over? if so, what is the chapter and verse(s) I am seriously curious. /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif </div></div>

This guy claims there ARE dinos in the bible:

http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/dinos.shtml

This article talks about leviathan:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leviathan
</div></div>

now that I have had a chance to read this. Behemoth I could see as being a dinosaur... possibly, though not like any found to this date,
Job 40; 21
It lies under the lotus plants,
hidden by the reeds in the marsh
Lotus plants are pretty small and would only be able to hide something small, also behemoth would have been an omnivore
Job 40; 15
Take a look at Behemoth,
which I made, just as I made you.
It eats grass like an ox.
Then Job 40; 20
The mountains offer it their best food,
where all the wild animals play.
this implies that the Behemoth ate both vegitation, and meat
and the language implyes there is only one. Leading me further to believe it is more likely the mythiological beast know as Behemoth.
Leviathon is not like any dinosaur I have read about or that has been found
Job 41; 18-21
"When it sneezes, it flashes Light!
It's eyes are like the red of dawn.
Lightning leaps from it's mouth;
flames of fire lash out.
Smoke streames from it's nostrils
like steam from a pot heated over burning rushes
It's breath would kindle coals,
for flames shoot from it's mouth.

This sounds more like the mythyological creature a dragon.

Science has provided evidence that dinosaurs once existed, the Bible so far seems to have failed to explain the existance of Dinosaurs.
Even if these where the Dinosaurs, Science has prooven that man id not exist with Dinosaurs, so Job being there at the time would be debunked by science

dancingqueen

07-09-2008, 06:36 PM

This is interesting as well...
In genisis 1;25-28
God made all sorts of wild animals, livestock, and small animals, each able to produce offspring of the same kind. And God saw that it was good.
Then God said Let us make Human beings in our image to be like us. They will reign over the fish in the sea, the birds in the sky, the livestock, all the wild animals on the Earth, and the small animals that scurry along the ground.
So God created human beings in his own image.
In the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.
Then God blessed them and said "Be fruitfull and multiply. Fill the Earth and govern it. Reign over the fish in the sea, the birds in the sky, and all the animals that scurry along the ground"

This tells me Adam and Eve (The first human beings) Reigned over all the animals God created. This would include Dinosaurs

Soundbear

07-09-2008, 07:11 PM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: R W G R</div><div class="ubbcode-body">He's a former Nixon Administration employee who was caught up in all the Watergate mess, spent some time in prison, and was 'born-again' while in prison.

He has many books out, and his "Focus on the Family" radio show can be heard up here on one of the religious radio stations. </div></div>

I hope this is not a research test.

Can any one say "Chuck Colson"??

dancingqueen

07-09-2008, 07:28 PM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: §pe©iª£ ß£enÐ</div><div class="ubbcode-body">may I suggest that you snag a few titles written by DR. James Dobson? </div></div>

I wonder if the answeres he would provide me would satisfy my curiosity, or just leave me with more questions.

dancingqueen

07-09-2008, 07:31 PM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dancingqueen</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This is interesting as well...
In genisis 1;25-28
God made all sorts of wild animals, livestock, and small animals, each able to produce offspring of the same kind. And God saw that it was good.
Then God said Let us make Human beings in our image to be like us. They will reign over the fish in the sea, the birds in the sky, the livestock, all the wild animals on the Earth, and the small animals that scurry along the ground.
So God created human beings in his own image.
In the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.
Then God blessed them and said "Be fruitfull and multiply. Fill the Earth and govern it. Reign over the fish in the sea, the birds in the sky, and all the animals that scurry along the ground"

This tells me Adam and Eve (The first human beings) Reigned over all the animals God created. This would include Dinosaurs </div></div>

I would say science has "debunked" the Bible fact that man was to reign over <u>all </u>of the animals /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

GenX

07-09-2008, 08:41 PM

The Bible is not a science text.

When we accept that, it gets easier.

Soundbear

07-09-2008, 10:45 PM

Soundbear

07-09-2008, 10:46 PM

dancingqueen

07-09-2008, 10:56 PM

sure it is, Dinosaurs where not around when man was according to science, yet according to the Bible they where.

Soundbear

07-09-2008, 11:03 PM

Don't assume I agree with the dinosaur guy. Those creatures in scripture were not necessarily dinos.

And a lack of evidence is NOT proof of the opposite.

dancingqueen

07-10-2008, 01:04 AM

what bout this passage? Dinosaurs are/where considered animals
In genisis 1;25-28
God made all sorts of wild animals, livestock, and small animals, each able to produce offspring of the same kind. And God saw that it was good.
Then God said Let us make Human beings in our image to be like us. They will reign over the fish in the sea, the birds in the sky, the livestock, all the wild animals on the Earth, and the small animals that scurry along the ground.
So God created human beings in his own image.
In the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.
Then God blessed them and said "Be fruitfull and multiply. Fill the Earth and govern it. Reign over the fish in the sea, the birds in the sky, and all the animals that scurry along the ground"

if all the animals where created for Adam and Eve to reign over, this would include the Dinosaurs. but in order to reign over them Adam and Eve would have to have been around at the time of dinosaurs.

BlueSky

07-10-2008, 08:30 AM

There is a theory about a proto-creation.. the idea that before God the Creation account, God had something else going.. and that it got destroyed through the fall. We really do not know anything about the state of things between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2

Soundbear

07-10-2008, 10:28 AM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dancingqueen</div><div class="ubbcode-body">...if all the animals where created for Adam and Eve to reign over, this would include the Dinosaurs. but in order to reign over them Adam and Eve would have to have been around at the time of dinosaurs. </div></div>

Not necessarily. Only if it stated "all the animals that ever existed".

It is NOT a contradiction.

Soundbear

07-10-2008, 10:36 AM

Side note re: contradictions.

Heard it explained this way.

Two guys look at a house, standing on either side. One says It's red. The other says, It's blue. Is there a contradiction? No, not unless either one said the house is ALL blue, or ALL red. Because the house could be blue on one side and red on the other.

It depends on the point of view.

dancingqueen

07-10-2008, 12:42 PM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dancingqueen</div><div class="ubbcode-body">what bout this passage? Dinosaurs are/where considered animals
In genisis 1;25-28
God made all sorts of wild animals, livestock, and small animals, each able to produce offspring of the same kind. And God saw that it was good.
Then God said Let us make Human beings in our image to be like us. They will reign over the fish in the sea, the birds in the sky, the livestock, all the wild animals on the Earth, and the small animals that scurry along the ground.
So God created human beings in his own image.
In the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.
Then God blessed them and said "Be fruitfull and multiply. Fill the Earth and govern it. Reign over the fish in the sea, the birds in the sky, and all the animals that scurry along the ground"

if all the animals where created for Adam and Eve to reign over, this would include the Dinosaurs. but in order to reign over them Adam and Eve would have to have been around at the time of dinosaurs. </div></div>

he specified all the animals, that defines every sigle one of them.

On a side note, I do agree with RWGR. The Bible is not a science document. this discussion really is fruitless. I and others who do not belive in the Bible will interperet things one way, and you and others who belive in the Bible will interperet a different way the circle will go on and on. The reason I disbelive the Bible has nothing to do with it's ability to not be debunked by science. we will never be able to see eye to eye on this subject.

Soundbear

07-10-2008, 01:10 PM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dancingqueen</div><div class="ubbcode-body">...he specified all the animals, that defines every sigle one of them.
</div></div>

If we took this all the way, than Adam would have a problem if one of the animals dropped dead. He couldn't reign over a dead one.

There is a limit to literal reading.

dancingqueen

07-10-2008, 01:15 PM

but he reigned ofer it at a time of it's life. The Dinosaurs science explains it was not possible to have happened at all, because ther was not a time that man and dinosaurs existed at the same time.
In Genisis Man was made pretty much at the begining, where else could the dinosaurs have fit in? man has been on the earth since God created Adam and Eve.

Soundbear

07-10-2008, 01:16 PM

OK OK /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Hans

07-10-2008, 05:04 PM

Soundbear

07-10-2008, 09:11 PM

I did?? Nope. There's no proof that the beasts described in the bible were dinosaurs, IMO.

dancingqueen

07-10-2008, 11:24 PM

did the Bible have to say the words Dinosaurs" in order for you to believe they where there or are dinosaurs considered as "Animals"?

dancingqueen

07-10-2008, 11:26 PM

where in the Bible are dinosaurs included? please don't say Dinosaurs never existed... that would debunk the Bible of what was prooven by scientists... /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

1337

07-12-2008, 03:28 PM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dancingqueen</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dancingqueen</div><div class="ubbcode-body">what bout this passage? Dinosaurs are/where considered animals
In genisis 1;25-28
God made all sorts of wild animals, livestock, and small animals, each able to produce offspring of the same kind. And God saw that it was good.
Then God said Let us make Human beings in our image to be like us. They will reign over the fish in the sea, the birds in the sky, the livestock, all the wild animals on the Earth, and the small animals that scurry along the ground.
So God created human beings in his own image.
In the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.
Then God blessed them and said "Be fruitfull and multiply. Fill the Earth and govern it. Reign over the fish in the sea, the birds in the sky, and all the animals that scurry along the ground"

if all the animals where created for Adam and Eve to reign over, this would include the Dinosaurs. but in order to reign over them Adam and Eve would have to have been around at the time of dinosaurs. </div></div>

he specified all the animals, that defines every sigle one of them.

On a side note, I do agree with RWGR. The Bible is not a science document. this discussion really is fruitless. I and others who do not belive in the Bible will interperet things one way, and you and others who belive in the Bible will interperet a different way the circle will go on and on. The reason I disbelive the Bible has nothing to do with it's ability to not be debunked by science. we will never be able to see eye to eye on this subject.</div></div>

Actually, it says god create all SORTS of. Didn't say ALL. Maybe the dinosaurs were the product of the big bang theory?

Wouldn't it be neat, if God was created from the big bang theory?

Then everyone would be kinda right and just get along?

RWGR is right in saying that you have to stop looking at the bible in a scientific way.

Name 2 major scientists from that time period what university they attended and how they got their degree.

If you were in a time period, such as 'biblical times' and didn't have all the scientific information, and knowledge like we do now, how would you explain everything?

If you have no knowledge, no way of explaining, or exploring the wonders of the earth and universe, how would you tell people the earth was created?

The bible doesn't mention the dinosaurs, because in that time, they didn't know they existed!

Soundbear

07-12-2008, 04:19 PM

"Wouldn't it be neat, if God was created from the big bang theory?"

He wouldn't be God then would He, because Somebody had to light the fuse!!!!

Soundbear

07-12-2008, 04:23 PM

"Name 2 major scientists from that time period what university they attended and how they got their degree."

I can name one, off the top of my head. Aristotle. He knew the earth was a sphere, and estimated its circumference within a few percent.

As to where he got his degree, and what university he came from, he STARTED that level of teaching. There wasn't anywhere else.

BlueSky

07-12-2008, 04:57 PM

Universities didn't exist till the 13th century or so..

Soundbear

07-12-2008, 06:15 PM

At least!!!

(and mostly started by Christians!!! /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif )