tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post1384062937100721715..comments2024-03-19T01:46:23.275-04:00Comments on Debunking Atheists: Silly Atheistic Elitist LogicD. A. N. http://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.comBlogger92125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-82603474410777245122008-12-30T15:57:00.000-05:002008-12-30T15:57:00.000-05:00Reynold, I think you make a very fine argument. :)...Reynold, I think you make a very fine argument. :)Debunkey Monkeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15355896606457674317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-37717322469656943522008-12-29T21:39:00.000-05:002008-12-29T21:39:00.000-05:00You never got the point of her humour, did you? I ...<I>You never got the point of her humour, did you? I don't think that she was actually intending anything other than agreement with what I said; but you're so eager to make that claim of "silly athiestic elitist logic" fit that you're grabbing at straws.</I><BR/>Whoops. Forgot to correct that last statement in my last post.<BR/><BR/>She was just commenting on my verbiage, not my accuracy.Reynoldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07316048340050664487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-48537924125082722042008-12-29T19:44:00.000-05:002008-12-29T19:44:00.000-05:00Kaitlyn ,I was just remarking on the length of his...Kaitlyn ,<BR/><BR/><I>I was just remarking on the length of his comment.</I><BR/><BR/>I see that now. I appologize for the rant then. Umm, belay my last.<BR/><BR/>more later then...D. A. N. https://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-10137422948073056932008-12-29T18:52:00.000-05:002008-12-29T18:52:00.000-05:00Ok, besides my splitting up my posts in the future...Ok, besides my splitting up my posts in the future, I'll put a notice up saying that <BR/><BR/>1) My comments that Dan quoted are in <B>bold</B><BR/><BR/>2) Dan's comments that I'm replying to are in <I>italics</I>.<BR/><BR/>I tend to quote <B>all</B> that I'm replying to so one can keep track of the conversation: I didn't think that it made it harder to read, due to it's length.<BR/><BR/>Sorry about that.Reynoldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07316048340050664487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-86573535709350583882008-12-29T18:48:00.000-05:002008-12-29T18:48:00.000-05:00Dan +†+ said... Kaitlyn,I bow before Reynold's gre...<B>Dan +†+ said... <BR/><BR/>Kaitlyn,<BR/><BR/>I bow before Reynold's great wall of text. O_O</B> <BR/><BR/><I>I resolve to the fact that you have indeed picked a side between truth or a lie,</I><BR/>Actually, all it sounded to me was that she thought that I wrote too much. Maybe I should split my posts up?<BR/><BR/>Sorry, Kaitlyn. Hopefully upon reading my post you can still get my point? <BR/><BR/><I>though it was hastily done. Lets both hope, for your sake, you have made the right choice. It will be only a matter of a short time before we all find out which one is defending truth and the other defends the lies.</I><BR/>That's right Dan, if you don't have the evidence to back you up, try <B>threats</B>! <BR/><BR/>Yup, that's logic right there.<BR/><BR/><I>The Bible describes Hell as unquenchable fire,(Mark 9:43) outer darkness,(Matthew 22:13) a furnace of fire and a place where people wail and gnash their teeth,(Matthew 13:42) and a lake of fire.(Revelation 20:15) where the worm does not die and the fire is not quenched,(Mark 9:48) and where people are in agony in flames.(Luke 16:24)<BR/><BR/>Perhaps the most terrifying passage in the Bible describing hell says that men will "drink the wine of the wrath of God, which is mixed in full strength in the cup of His anger; and he will be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; and they have no rest day and night." (Revelation 14:10-11)<BR/><BR/>According to the Bible if you have made the wrong choice then you will burn in agonizing pain for eternity.</I><BR/>Yep, if all else fails, try threats. Pascal's Wager, anyone? Perhaps the Islamic religion is the "true" faith and we're <B>all</B> screwed.<BR/><BR/><I>Are you absolutely sure you have truth on your side? Are you 100% confident that Reynold is speaking truth?</I><BR/>Now you're making it sound like she's worshipping me? Go to her blog: "Happy <B>Atheist</B> Scientist". She wasn't a believer in your god in the first place.<BR/><BR/><I>For your sake Kaitlyn, I hope all of this is just a story instead of warnings to mankind. What great length for such a hoax to exist, do you agree?</I><BR/>No more so than the hoax that would have to be established for any other religion, like, say: Islam. <BR/><BR/>The only difference is that xianity was accepted by Constatine, the Emporer of the roman empire who enforced it in Europe. After a few centuries, people got acclimated to, and accepted the religion, and imported it elsewhere. <BR/><BR/>That's not due to a "hoax" right there, that's due to enforcement.<BR/><BR/><I>I believe Reynold showed his illogical thinking and I would like you to just consider it. He posed this question and I knew he would back himself into a corner as it played out.</I><BR/>Oh please, show her how I've "backed myself into a corner" then, genius.<BR/><BR/>I'm not the one who's continually getting caught in errors on his own blog here due to the lack reading <A HREF="http://debunkingatheists.blogspot.com/2008/12/psychological-questionnaire.html?showComment=1230096360000#c8951418142064164321" REL="nofollow">his own bible</A>. I like how you dodge that in the next post though; all women are punished because of what <B>eve</B> did.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>It started by Reynold asking me: If this was just all a conspiracy theory (Age of the earth being millions of years) don't you think someone would have blown the cover by now?<BR/><BR/>I said yes for the question about science deceiving us and he said: Don't you realize the tremendous amount of inter-specialty cooperation that would be needed to make sure the results stayed within the range they wanted? I said yes again and it led him to make this claim:<BR/><BR/>He claimed "This would be hundreds of thousand of scientists in MANY fields over a period of 150 years. Good luck"<BR/><BR/>Now, one could say the very same thing about the Bible, except the figures are much greater.</I><BR/>Actually, you've missed something. The bible for ~2000 years has remained relatively stable. Science is <B>always adding, revising, and interacting with the other disciplines of science</B>. <BR/><BR/>So the conspiracy among scientists to keep evolution going would have to be larger. Something else; evolution was not the original belief of the people who went out into the field; those people had to drop YECism in order to accomodate what they say in the actual field. <BR/><BR/>As more physical evidence came in, YECism became less and less likely.<BR/><BR/>Remember the book <B>The Creationists</B> by Ronald Numbers or the site I gave earlier by xian geology worker <A HREF="http://home.entouch.net/dmd/dmd.htm#pers2" REL="nofollow">Glenn Morton</A> where several YECers had to ditch that belief after being out in the field.<BR/><BR/><I>This would be billions of people in ALL fields over a period of 4000 years. Good luck</I><BR/>Actually, I'm only including the various preachers and teachers. Not the laymen. Just as in science, I'm not including the laymen.<BR/><BR/>Uh? "ALL fields"? Which fields are those? Unlike in science where you've got different fields like astronomy, geology, anthropology, genetics, etc. There is really only been one field in xian theology for most of it's existence: various branches of Christian theology.<BR/><BR/>Even in more modern times with the rise of science and the modern creationist movement, those are people who, regardless of what "field" they go into, they have to sign an <B>oath</B> where they promise to never change their mind about the veracity of the bible's account. (See the ICR or AIG sites for that)<BR/><BR/>No real scientist does that; it'd be impossible to do science then.<BR/><BR/><I>Are you claiming this many people can be fooled? If so could it be possible that you are also being fooled about scientists claims of millions of years? If not, are you then claiming your superior reasoning skills over those billions of people that have education's over thousands of disciplines of study?</I><BR/>Not superior reasoning skills, just access to more knowledge than they did. Remember, evolution theory and the old earth are comparitively new ideas in the history of the world.<BR/><BR/>As I said before: it's only the accumulation of more knowledge that led to people abandoning the YEC views. <BR/><BR/>Again, read Ronald Number's book <B>The Creationists</B> or check out Glen Morton's site, linked to above.<BR/><BR/>Now, the creationist movement has only a few followers who have to selectively ignore or distort the evidence to make their views seem more plausible.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>Unfortunately for you, The Bible is truth and trusting in some dude instead of God just broke the 2nd Commandment and the punishment for transgressing that Law is death.</I><BR/>Sigh...she's not trusting ME, she said I had a point, that's all. Besides, I give links and books for further reading. <BR/><BR/>It's not like I'm just spinning all this out of my own head, you know.<BR/><BR/><I>The second death to be more accurate. I hope God changes His mind about you and He softens that hard heart of yours.</I><BR/>And if he doesn't, then really, <B>whose fault is it then</B>?<BR/><BR/>Well, since you prize "logic" so much, Dan, let's see you explain that. <BR/><BR/>And of course, again with the threats. By the way, that's <B>another</B> difference between religon and science, and also between religion and atheism. No threats.<BR/><BR/><BR/><B>I bow before Reynold's great wall of text. O_O</B><BR/><I>You chose some illogical dude, over God Himself?</I><BR/>Uh, "illogical dude"? No, that's your friend, "rock star" Sye TenB or as we like to call him "circular Sye", who keeps chasing his "presuppositional logic" around in circles by putting his conclusion that "god" exists inside his premise that he uses to "prove" that "god" exists.<BR/><BR/>Then there's your own statement about "God changes His mind about you and He softens that hard heart of yours". <BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><I>That is just sad. You will see God's wrath for that claim unless you realize the plain truth that we call the Bible.</I><BR/>Yeah, <A HREF="" REL="nofollow">contradictions</A>, <A HREF="http://www.messiahtruth.com/prophets.html" REL="nofollow">failed prophecies</A> and all.<BR/><BR/>(Have a look around the site in that that second link, especially the <B>Knowing Your Orchard</B> and <B>Judaism's Answer</B> sections.)<BR/><BR/><I>And so there you go proof of Silly Atheistic Elitist Logic</I><BR/>You never got the point of her humour, did you? I don't think that she was actually intending anything other than agreement with what I said; but you're so eager to make that claim of "silly athiestic elitist logic" fit that you're grabbing at straws.Reynoldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07316048340050664487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-35612883772213761312008-12-29T18:30:00.000-05:002008-12-29T18:30:00.000-05:00Dan, I wasn't agreeing with Reynold. I was just re...Dan, I wasn't agreeing with Reynold. I was just remarking on the length of his comment. It's like a great wall of text. I had a hard time following what he was trying to say, but it was interesting to look at none the less.Debunkey Monkeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15355896606457674317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-1556213424052182402008-12-29T14:59:00.000-05:002008-12-29T14:59:00.000-05:00Kaitlyn,I bow before Reynold's great wall of text....Kaitlyn,<BR/><BR/><I>I bow before Reynold's great wall of text. O_O </I><BR/><BR/>I resolve to the fact that you have indeed picked a side between truth or a lie, though it was hastily done. Lets both hope, for your sake, you have made the right choice. It will be only a matter of a short time before we all find out which one is defending truth and the other defends the lies.<BR/><BR/>The Bible describes Hell as unquenchable fire,(Mark 9:43) outer darkness,(Matthew 22:13) a furnace of fire and a place where people wail and gnash their teeth,(Matthew 13:42) and a lake of fire.(Revelation 20:15) where the worm does not die and the fire is not quenched,(Mark 9:48) and where people are in agony in flames.(Luke 16:24)<BR/><BR/>Perhaps the most terrifying passage in the Bible describing hell says that men will "drink the wine of the wrath of God, which is mixed in full strength in the cup of His anger; and he will be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; and they have no rest day and night." (Revelation 14:10-11)<BR/><BR/>According to the Bible if you have made the wrong choice then you will burn in agonizing pain for eternity. Are you absolutely sure you have truth on your side? Are you 100% confident that Reynold is speaking truth?<BR/><BR/>For your sake Kaitlyn, I hope all of this is just a story instead of warnings to mankind. What great length for such a hoax to exist, do you agree?<BR/><BR/>I believe Reynold showed his illogical thinking and I would like you to just consider it. He posed this question and I knew he would back himself into a corner as it played out.<BR/><BR/>It started by Reynold asking me: <I>If this was just all a conspiracy theory</I> (Age of the earth being millions of years) <I>don't you think someone would have blown the cover by now?</I><BR/><BR/>I said yes for the question about science deceiving us and he said: <I>Don't you realize the tremendous amount of inter-specialty cooperation that would be needed to make sure the results stayed within the range they wanted?</I> I said yes again and it led him to make this claim:<BR/><BR/>He claimed <I>"This would be hundreds of thousand of scientists in MANY fields over a period of 150 years. Good luck"</I><BR/><BR/>Now, one could say the very same thing about the Bible, except the figures are much greater.<BR/><BR/><B>This would be billions of people in ALL fields over a period of 4000 years. Good luck</B><BR/><BR/>Are you claiming this many people can be fooled? If so could it be possible that you are also being fooled about scientists claims of millions of years? If not, are you then claiming your superior reasoning skills over those billions of people that have education's over thousands of disciplines of study?<BR/><BR/>Unfortunately for you, The Bible is truth and trusting in some dude instead of God just broke the 2nd Commandment and the punishment for transgressing that Law is death. The second death to be more accurate. I hope God changes His mind about you and He softens that hard hearth of yours. <BR/><BR/><I>I bow before Reynold's great wall of text. O_O </I> You chose some illogical dude, over God Himself? That is just sad. You will see God's wrath for that claim unless you realize the plain truth that we call the Bible.<BR/><BR/>And so there you go proof of <A HREF="http://debunkingatheists.blogspot.com/2008/12/silly-atheistic-elitist-logic.html" REL="nofollow">Silly Atheistic Elitist Logic</A>D. A. N. https://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-46423027829974411862008-12-26T14:13:00.000-05:002008-12-26T14:13:00.000-05:00I bow before Reynold's great wall of text. O_OI bow before Reynold's great wall of text. O_ODebunkey Monkeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15355896606457674317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-47514553208309699482008-12-26T12:26:00.000-05:002008-12-26T12:26:00.000-05:00Dan +†+ said... Reynold,Just look at the hundred o...<B>Dan +†+ said... <BR/><BR/>Reynold,<BR/><BR/>Just look at the hundred of xian denominations out there. It doesn't sound like the bible authors did a very good job of making all the [B]ible's messages clear.</B><BR/><BR/><I>It wasn't meant to be easy and clear.</I><BR/>Kind of defeats the purpose of having the book and having missionaries spread it all around the world if it's not clear, doesn't it?<BR/><BR/><I>If someone wants to follow man or even themselves, then you will have false religions and denominations. (Proverbs 3:5-6, John 14:26, 1 John 2:27)</I><BR/>And of course, "god" helps make it easier for them to do that, thus defeating the purpose of having a book that's supposed to draw or convince people of <B>him</B>.<BR/><BR/><I>God picks leaders for his flock, not followers.</I><BR/>I thought he picked both? Meh<BR/><BR/><B>Keep in mind that if court cases ran by that "Ken Ham"'s 'Where you there' rule, then the justice system would fall apart, because things like forensics and DNA and other physical evidence would all be ignored because there wasn't an eyewitness to actually see the crime happening.</B><BR/><I>Dude!? Forensic and DNA evidence is an eyewitness to the scene of the crime.</I><BR/>Not any more an "eyewitness" than are fossils, or light from stars millions of light years away. All are physcial remnants of things that happened a long time ago.<BR/><BR/>You've missed the kind of eyewitness Ken Ham is talking about when he says "How do you know? Where you there?".<BR/><BR/><I>Are you claiming DNA evidence to the age of the earth? Remember apples and oranges. Please tell me you are not comparing DNA to Radiometric dating.</I><BR/>One is biological, one relies on physics. So what? If one knows what one is doing, they are both realiable. <BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://toarchive.org/origins/feedback/aug05.html" REL="nofollow">Something to note about radiometric dating</A> - (just do a page search for "Isochron dating" there):<BR/><I>An overwhelming majority of isotopic age measurements yield values consistent with the mainstream age and history of the Earth. The only sensible explanation that we currently have for that fact is: dating methods work most of the time. Explaining away a large body of consistent data as being due to all results being inaccurate is an untenable position. (If the results are wildly inaccurate, why are they consistent?) For that reason, a leap from "unable to 'guarantee' a single result devoid of context" to "can happily ignore all results" is unjustifiable. <BR/><BR/>To one who calls himself a scientist, figuring out how and why a dating method sometimes fails is an interesting pursuit. It is part of the process of understanding the limitations of the dating technique. It leads to rules for when the methods shouldn't be applied, and to independent tests that help assess the likelihood of getting a valid result.</I><BR/><BR/>Remember, at one point, both were untested and uncertain. Besides, radiometric dating <A HREF="http://toarchive.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html" REL="nofollow">is not the only way</A> to tell the age of the earth.<BR/><BR/><BR/><B>Besides, how do you know "[C]hrist" rose from the dead? Were you there?</B> <BR/><I>Yes.</I><BR/>So, you <B>were</B> there then? How'd you live so long?<BR/><BR/><I>We have believable eye witnesses to the events in the Bible.</I>Ah, so you <B>weren't there</B> after all. The available scholarship dates those stories as being written decades after the supposed events. Couple that with stories like the supposed "500 witnesses" to the resurrection, none of whom bother to make any statements themselves (there's only ONE verse that mentions that there were 500 witnesses), and the fact that no Roman or other records at the time record any of the "saints" that were supposed to have arisen at the same time "christ" was supposed to, and the case looks more shaky than you'd lead us to believe.<BR/><BR/><B>How do you know the bible is the "word of god"? Were you there to see him dictate it, or something?</B> <BR/><I>Yes, I trust the men claiming the events that happened in the Bible.</I><BR/>But, you weren't there, were you? Yes, it's annoying, but that's what Ham enourages kids to say to teachers, so I'm not sorry about it.<BR/><BR/><I>God said Jesus is the Word in flesh (John 1:1,14) and I believe that all the events are truth based on all the ample evidence throughout mankind's history.</I><BR/>Even failed messianic prophecies like on <A HREF="http://www.messiahtruth.com/response.html#false" REL="nofollow">here</A>? It also goes on to talk about the gospel writers themselves, etc.<BR/><BR/><BR/><B>How do you explain that different people's interpretation of the evidence winds up corroborating other people's interpretation of other physical evidence? Did they all correspond with each other or something?</B><BR/><I>Yes they indeed did, it's called the common paradigm. They are all familiar with Darwinian Evolution, without billions of years the data would not hold together. It is a necessary primer to the story.</I><BR/>So, even when the theory was <B>first proposed</B> all those god-hating scientists got together, worked it out and kept it going for so long? It's not a "common paradigm" you're proposing, it's a massive "conspiracy theory". When the theory first came along, most people did not want to believe it, but after observations and testing were done, they wound up accepting it. <BR/><BR/><B>If you want to talk about radiometric dating, you could go to this guy's site. A [C]hristian who works with radiometric dating.</B><BR/><I>Are you claiming Christians can't be wrong?</I><BR/>No, but he would not have any "atheistic bias" or "god-hating" motive for accepting the old earth dates, other then the evidence itself. He'd not likely be in on the "conspriacy" that you described above.<BR/><BR/>I know YEC's like Safarti et al say stuff like that. Besides, if you admit that a xian can be wrong, then I can just go and dismiss Woodmorappe and his book "The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods" just as you've dismissed Roger C. Weins. <BR/><BR/><I>Besides the various isotope dating methods rely upon several assumptions. They are:<BR/><BR/>1. Known amounts of daughter isotope (usually zero) at start.<BR/>2. No gain or loss of parent or daughter isotopes by any means other than radioactive decay (closed system).<BR/>3. A constant decay rate.<BR/><BR/>These assumptions causes real problems as to its validity.</I><BR/>You should actually try reading his site, as well as <A HREF="http://toarchive.org/indexcc/list.html#CD" REL="nofollow">some more about radiometric dating</A>.<BR/><BR/><I>Several examples of discordant dates when multiple methods are tried on the same rock, many anecdotes of dating techniques giving obviously wrong data (including some where rock formed after 1900 was dated as being over 3 million years), such as at Mt. Ngauruhoeand and Mt. St. Helens.</I><BR/>Again, do some deeper reading other than YEC material.<BR/><A HREF="http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/mt_st_helens_dacite_kh.htm" REL="nofollow">Mt. St. Helens</A>, or just do a search on that website for "Helens". As for <A HREF="http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/snelling_doublethink_henke.htm" REL="nofollow">Ngauruhoe</A>, and <A HREF="http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/CMI_walker_thesis2.htm" REL="nofollow">again</A>, as well as the link I posted <A HREF="http://toarchive.org/indexcc/list.html#CD" REL="nofollow">earlier</A>.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><I>In my search, I came across a book that would be worth checking out called The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods</I><BR/>Oh yeah, John Woodmorappe. and his <I>Mythology Of Modern Dating Methods</I> book. I heard of that book years ago. He's been "<A HREF="http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/henke_on_woody.htm" REL="nofollow">slam debunked</A>" many times before.<BR/><BR/><BR/><B>If this was just all a conspiracy theory don't you think someone would have blown the cover by now?</B><BR/><I>Psst, they have read the book above.</I><BR/>Psst, his book has been slam debunked by now, and Woodmorappe was never a part of the scientific community. His name is nowhere. That's not even his real name. <BR/><BR/><B>Don't you realize the tremendous amount of inter-specialty cooperation that would be needed to make sure the results stayed within the range they wanted?</B><BR/><I>Yes, I do.</I><BR/>No you don't, because otherwise you should realize just how impossible it is to keep such a wide ranging conspiracy going for so long. Look at how Watergate fell apart. This would beat the "Illuminati" in sheer magnitude. How would they coordinate? How could that coordination be kept secret? How could they prevent anyone <B>from inside</B> from exposing <B>how they do the conspiracy</B>?<BR/><BR/>This would be <B>hundreds of thousand of scientists in MANY fields over a period of 150 years</B>. Good luck<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>But that is my point just because there is a discussion among Christians on Biblical [interpretation] does not mean one is saved and the other is not.</I><BR/><B>True, but it does imply that your holy book is not as "perfect" as you say it is.</B><BR/><I>That is hilarious. Well I believe you commit adultery because of the way your eyebrows raise up. Does that make it true? What does interpretation of men have anything to do with truth or perfection of the Bible?</I><BR/>Easy. If it was as "perfect" as you all claim it is, then it should also be perfectly <B>clear</B>, should it not? Doesn't your own bible say that your god is not the author of confusion?T<BR/><BR/>he multude of xian denominations is typical of a man-made system, not a flawless "god"-made system. <BR/><BR/><I>The Bible is perfect for it's purpose, to save the lost. Interpretations of said Book is irrelevant, rejection or acceptance is also irrelevant. The message of Salvation is absolutely clear.</I><BR/>No it isn't. Some xians still argue about "faith" and "works". Some xians believe in predestination and others believe in free will when it comes to salvation. <BR/><BR/>And again, if you people claim that the book is <B>inerrant</B> and perfect, than it has to actually <B>be</B> inerrent. And not just on the "important stuff".<BR/><BR/><I>On the things that are not clear (irrelevant matters) we pigeonhole things, it's our nature. But the truth remains consistent.<BR/><BR/>If you are not accepting the Bible because its vagueness of certain issues, like our friend Kaitlyn, then you are missing the entire Book's purpose and that is to save you from sure death.</I><BR/>The vagueness is just one piece of evidence that it's not a perfect book. At least not one written by a being who's not supposed to be the "author of confusion".<BR/><BR/><I>Irrelevant semantics should be put aside for such an important thing.<BR/><BR/>Some people, like the Calvinists, believe that god, not man, is responsible for pulling people towards him.<BR/><BR/>Pfft, again, what does that have to do with anything important?</I><BR/>Uh, Salvation, maybe? If one believes that god is responsible, than praying the "sinners prayer" and meaning it will not help you in the least unless "god" chooses to accept you. <BR/><BR/><I>These are advanced understandings. You have yet to get to even the beginnings of the purpose and teachings. You still need milk (salvation) before you eat the meat of the Bible (Supralapsarianism). One is relevant and the other is not.</I><BR/>Wrong. Again, if you xians keep claiming that the book is "inerrant" and perfect, than that means that it has to be perfect in every detail, not just in the "important parts".<BR/><BR/><B>If you're fuzzy about many details, how can you tell whether your view of god is accurate in the first place?</B> <BR/><I>Again again, I am extremely clear as to the important things, Salvation for example. God will reveal the important issues to us as He has. The rest is like I said, merely semantics. We can work the details out later (butterfly stokes) but for now you need to know the basics (floating and tredding water), Milk vs. Meet (1 Corinthians 3:2, Hebrews 5:11-13)</I><BR/>This semantic dodging of yours is dealt with above.<BR/><BR/><I>If we find concrete evidence to remove all reasonable doubt I would be willing to reconsider my understanding of it. Can you say the same?</I><BR/><B>Yes. At least I don't have to adhere to any oaths, unlike the ICR, AIG or other YEC group out there.</B><BR/><I>At least most of the people in those organizations are going to Heaven.</I><BR/>You've just missed the point. They've already made up their minds and that's that. They've already decided that the facts are irrelevent as they've taken an oath before they even go out to research. Remember your statement that started this little topic: <B>If we find concrete evidence to remove all reasonable doubt I would be willing to reconsider my understanding of it. Can you say the same?</B> I answered yes, and gave examples that showed that your YEC friends do not.<BR/><BR/>Now, you switch topics and start talking about "heaven".<BR/><BR/><I>They are working on the meat of the Bible, you Sir, have yet to drink the milk and you are still unsaved. You will end up in hell and I just don't want that...do you?</I><BR/>Hell has to exist first. You Sir, have yet to drink the milk of science and you are still ignorant. <BR/><BR/>In other words, preaching means nothing to someone who does not believe you.<BR/><BR/><I>Be afraid, be very afraid.</I><BR/><B>Of what?</B> <BR/><BR/><I>I am confident you know of what, and as confident as I am about the truth of Jesus Christ.</I><BR/>I'm not afraid of some guy who died almost two thousand years before I was born.Reynoldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07316048340050664487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-43704707354114769852008-12-24T19:50:00.000-05:002008-12-24T19:50:00.000-05:00"Read it like a history book or an anthropological..."Read it like a history book or an anthropological study, and you will see that the events can be extra biblically corroborated. "<BR/><BR/>So if I read the bible as a history book or anthropological study, it will prove the claims of the Bible extra-biblically?Debunkey Monkeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15355896606457674317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-30968502898655447822008-12-24T19:01:00.000-05:002008-12-24T19:01:00.000-05:00Kaitlyn,But saying the Bible proves God exists is ...Kaitlyn,<BR/><BR/><I>But saying the Bible proves God exists is like saying the Greek myths prove the existence of Zeus and Hercules. </I><BR/><BR/>That just isn't true at all, for one reason the <A HREF="http://debunkingatheists.blogspot.com/2008/08/logic-says-bible-is-supernatural_15.html" REL="nofollow">Bible is supernatural</A>.<BR/><BR/><I>But what can I do to verify the claims of the Bible extra-biblically? </I><BR/><BR/>What would be acceptable for you to believe?<BR/><BR/>Read it like a history book or an anthropological study, and you will see that the events can be extra biblically corroborated. Beyond that you can get a glimpse of what God is like and how he raises His children. There are so many passages in the Bible that, when you read them, you'll see that no 'man' would present a religion this way. There are so many complexities and depths that cut across time and culture.<BR/><BR/>Although we have better technology and ways of life than people that lived 2000 years ago, they were still as human as we are today. Their intelligence level was the same as today. I believe in God because he first loved me, not because he divinely inspired people to write the Bible. I will also add, believe can exist with faith alone. It does not require proofs or facts.<BR/><BR/>Do the right thing Kaitlyn, trust Him.D. A. N. https://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-65101166669581369522008-12-24T18:40:00.000-05:002008-12-24T18:40:00.000-05:00"Again, have you even read the Bible?"Yeah. But sa..."Again, have you even read the Bible?"<BR/><BR/>Yeah. But saying the Bible proves God exists is like saying the Greek myths prove the existence of Zeus and Hercules. <BR/><BR/>I would like to be able to falsify these claims on my own. Certainly that's understandable, right?<BR/><BR/>Clearly the Bible is evidence for God, I won't disagree with you there. But what can I do to verify the claims of the Bible extra-biblically?Debunkey Monkeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15355896606457674317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-18538860992793264772008-12-24T18:31:00.000-05:002008-12-24T18:31:00.000-05:00Kaitlyn,I have no problem accepting that the Bible...Kaitlyn,<BR/><BR/><I>I have no problem accepting that the Bible is a historical document,</I><BR/><BR/>Thats fair<BR/><BR/><I>but how can we verify that Jesus is the son of God </I><BR/><BR/>Through the ample evidence<BR/><BR/><I>or that even God exists through some testable means?</I><BR/><BR/>Have you even read the Bible?<BR/><BR/><I>I just don't see why it's necessary to take the Bible literally? </I><BR/><BR/>Who said you had too? I don't read the Bible literally either, no one should. There are obvious parables and hyperboles so we should in fact read the Bible, plainly.<BR/><BR/><I>Does it somehow diminish the moral teachings of Jesus?</I><BR/><BR/>Only if you misread and misunderstand the message of the Bible. (Salvation)<BR/><BR/>Again, have you even read the Bible?D. A. N. https://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-49311732655917311762008-12-24T18:10:00.000-05:002008-12-24T18:10:00.000-05:00Reynold,Just look at the hundred of xian denominat...Reynold,<BR/><BR/><I>Just look at the hundred of xian denominations out there. It doesn't sound like the bible authors did a very good job of making all the [B]ible's messages clear.</I><BR/><BR/>It wasn't meant to be easy and clear. If someone wants to follow man or even themselves, then you will have false religions and denominations. (Proverbs 3:5-6, John 14:26, 1 John 2:27)<BR/><BR/>God picks leaders for his flock, not followers.<BR/><BR/><I>Keep in mind that if court cases ran by that "Ken Ham"'s 'Where you there' rule, then the justice system would fall apart, because things like forensics and DNA and other physical evidence would all be ignored because there wasn't an eyewitness to actually see the crime happening.</I><BR/><BR/>Dude!? Forensic and DNA evidence <B>is</B> an eyewitness to the scene of the crime. Are you claiming DNA evidence to the age of the earth? Remember apples and oranges. Please tell me you are not comparing DNA to Radiometric dating.<BR/><BR/><I>Besides, how do you know "[C]hrist" rose from the dead? Were you there? </I><BR/><BR/>Yes. We have believable eye witnesses to the events in the Bible.<BR/><BR/><I>How do you know the bible is the "word of god"? Were you there to see him dictate it, or something?</I> Yes, I trust the men claiming the events that happened in the Bible. God said Jesus is the Word in flesh (John 1:1,14) and I believe that all the events are truth based on all the ample evidence throughout mankind's history.<BR/><BR/>Get the point?<BR/><BR/><I>How do you explain that different people's interpretation of the evidence winds up corroborating other people's interpretation of other physical evidence?<B> Did they all correspond with each other or something?</B></I><BR/><BR/>Yes they indeed did, it's called the common paradigm. They are all familiar with Darwinian Evolution, without billions of years the data would not hold together. It is a necessary primer to the story. <BR/><BR/><I>If you want to talk about radiometric dating, you could go to this guy's site. A [C]hristian who works with radiometric dating.</I><BR/><BR/>Are you claiming Christians can't be wrong? Besides the various isotope dating methods rely upon several assumptions. They are:<BR/><BR/> 1. Known amounts of daughter isotope (usually zero) at start.<BR/> 2. No gain or loss of parent or daughter isotopes by any means other than radioactive decay (closed system).<BR/> 3. A constant decay rate.<BR/><BR/>These assumptions causes real <A HREF="http://creationwiki.org/Radiometric_dating_problems" REL="nofollow">problems</A> as to its validity.<BR/><BR/>Several examples of discordant dates when multiple methods are tried on the same rock, many anecdotes of dating techniques giving obviously wrong data (including some where rock formed after 1900 was dated as being over 3 million years), such as at <A HREF="http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_as_r01/" REL="nofollow">Mt. Ngauruhoeand</A> and <A HREF="http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_sa_r01/" REL="nofollow">Mt. St. Helens.</A><BR/><BR/>In my search, I came across a book that would be worth checking out called <A HREF="http://www.rae.org/dating.htm" REL="nofollow">The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods</A><BR/><BR/><I> If this was just all a conspiracy theory don't you think someone would have blown the cover by now?</I><BR/><BR/>Psst, they have read the book above.<BR/><BR/><I>Don't you realize the tremendous amount of inter-specialty cooperation that would be needed to make sure the results stayed within the range they wanted?</I><BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=A47A4128C7F90B4C" REL="nofollow">Yes</A>, I do.<BR/><BR/><I>But that is my point just because there is a discussion among Christians on Biblical [interpretation] does not mean one is saved and the other is not.</I><BR/><B>True, but it does imply that your holy book is not as "perfect" as you say it is.</B><BR/><BR/>That is hilarious. Well I believe you commit adultery because of the way your eyebrows raise up. Does that make it true? What does interpretation of men have anything to do with truth or perfection of the Bible? The Bible is perfect for it's purpose, to save the lost. Interpretations of said Book is irrelevant, rejection or acceptance is also irrelevant. The message of Salvation is absolutely clear. On the things that are not clear (irrelevant matters) we pigeonhole things, it's our nature. But the truth remains consistent.<BR/><BR/>If you are not accepting the Bible because its vagueness of certain issues, like our friend Kaitlyn, then you are missing the entire <A HREF="http://debunkingatheists.blogspot.com/2008/07/have-you-put-jesus-on-like-parachute.html" REL="nofollow">Book's purpose</A> and that is to save you from sure death. Irrelevant semantics should be put aside for such an important thing.<BR/><BR/><I> Some people, like the Calvinists, believe that god, not man, is responsible for pulling people towards him.</I><BR/><BR/>Pfft, again, what does that have to do with anything important? These are advanced understandings. You have yet to get to even the beginnings of the purpose and teachings. You still need milk (salvation) before you eat the meat of the Bible (Supralapsarianism). One is relevant and the other is not.<BR/><BR/><I>If you're fuzzy about many details, how can you tell whether your view of god is accurate in the first place? </I><BR/><BR/>Again again, I am extremely clear as to the important things, Salvation for example. God will reveal the important issues to us as He has. The rest is like I said, merely semantics. We can work the details out later (butterfly stokes) but for now you need to know the basics (floating and tredding water), Milk vs. Meet <B>(<A HREF="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%203:2,%20Hebrews%205:11-13&version=9" REL="nofollow">1 Corinthians 3:2, Hebrews 5:11-13</A>)</B><BR/><BR/><I>If we find concrete evidence to remove all reasonable doubt I would be willing to reconsider my understanding of it. Can you say the same?</I><BR/><B>Yes. At least I don't have to adhere to any oaths, unlike the ICR, AIG or other YEC group out there.</B><BR/><BR/>At least most of the people in those organizations are going to Heaven. They are working on the meat of the Bible, you Sir, have yet to drink the milk and you are still unsaved. You will end up in hell and I just don't want that...do you?<BR/><BR/><I>Be afraid, be very afraid.</I><BR/><B>Of what? </B><BR/><BR/>I am confident you know of what, and as confident as I am about the truth of Jesus Christ.D. A. N. https://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-29066551563154086122008-12-24T16:45:00.000-05:002008-12-24T16:45:00.000-05:00To be honest, I've met atheist Christian (mostly C...To be honest, I've met atheist Christian (mostly Catholic) priests. They don't believe a word of the Bible is literal and it was written over a thousand years before modern science. So any claims about the age of the Earth, origin of life, etc... need to be taken from a scientific rather than a biblical standpoint. <BR/><BR/>A small but growing percentage of Christian leaders are rejecting the Bible's literacy in every respect, including the miracles of Jesus. I guess they view Christianity as more of a spiritual movement than anything else. <BR/><BR/>I just don't see why it's necessary to take the Bible literally? Does it somehow diminish the moral teachings of Jesus?Debunkey Monkeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15355896606457674317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-11656476074524202052008-12-24T16:34:00.000-05:002008-12-24T16:34:00.000-05:00Okay, I have had time to digest Dan's response, an...Okay, I have had time to digest Dan's response, and I guess my only question would be how do we falsify the *important* claims about the Bible extra-biblically?<BR/><BR/>I have no problem accepting that the Bible is a historical document, but how can we verify that Jesus is the son of God or that even God exists through some testable means? <BR/><BR/>I'm willing to convert if that's the only testable means, but I'm still not prepared to make any major life changes without verification, you know?Debunkey Monkeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15355896606457674317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-66329891361329112732008-12-24T02:37:00.000-05:002008-12-24T02:37:00.000-05:00Dan +†+ said... Reynold,I can't say for Kaitlyn, b...<B>Dan +†+ said... <BR/><BR/>Reynold,<BR/><BR/>I can't say for Kaitlyn, but as for me, all it means when people [interpret] the bible differently is that the authors of the bible didn't write it in such a way that is was specific enough. Too much is left open to interpretation.</B><BR/><I>So a 2000-4000 year old book, still very relevant and alive even to this day, was done in a way to hinder interpretation, not considering the billions of Christians throughout these years? Right!?</I><BR/>Just look at the hundred of xian denominations out there. It doesn't sound like the bible authors did a very good job of making all the bible's messages clear.<BR/><BR/><B>I myself used to be a xian until I started to think out of the box more.</B><BR/><I>Thanks for proving yet another one of my points/posts.</I><BR/>"Yet another"? Which other ones did I "prove" for you? Besides, doubt is the beginning of wisdom, as opposed to just blindly accepting anything. Which is what it sounds like you're advocating. So much for the bible verse about "let us reason together".<BR/><BR/>Did you think that I accepted evolution based on me wanting to reject "christ" or something? It's only one nail in a large coffin.<BR/><BR/><B>Are you assuming what is the "truth" right off the bat without examining all the available evidence?</B><BR/><I>You new at this? Are you assuming what is the "truth" right off the bat without examining all the available evidence about me? Stinks of hypocrisy in here.</I><BR/>That's why I was <B>asking</B> as opposed to just <B>saying</B> that's what you were doing!<BR/><BR/><BR/><B>Given the multiple lines of physical evidence that corroborate the old age of the earth it's safe to say that it's old age is pretty well established.</B><BR/><I>Really? Were you there? What was it like?</I><BR/>Keep in mind that if court cases ran by that "Ken Ham"'s 'Where you there' rule, then the justice system would fall apart, because things like forensics and DNA and other physical evidence would all be ignored because there wasn't an eyewitness to actually see the crime happening.<BR/><BR/>Besides, how do you know "christ" rose from the dead? Were you there? How do you know the bible is the "word of god"? Were you there to see him dictate it, or something?<BR/><BR/>Get the point?<BR/><BR/><I>Keep in mind that interpretation of evidence is not the same as evidence. Do you want to discuss carbon dating?</I><BR/>Oh? How do you explain that different people's interpretation of the evidence winds up corroborating other people's interpretation of other physical evidence? Did they all correspond with each other or something?<BR/><BR/>If you want to talk about radiometric dating, you could go to <A HREF="http://www.asa3.org/ASA/RESOURCES/WIENS.html" REL="nofollow">this guy's site</A>. A christian who works with radiometric dating.<BR/><BR/><I>It's the multiple lines of disciplines from geology, astronomy, cheer leading for the current paradigm. Funds would dry up otherwise.</I><BR/>Right, the conspiracy theory of science. What did you think they all did <B>before</B> the current paradigm then? This isn't about funds. If this was just all a conspiracy theory don't you think someone would have blown the cover by now? Don't you think that the <B>publically available</B> scientific articles would have tripped them up by now? Don't you realize the tremendous amount of inter-specialty cooperation that would be needed to make sure the results stayed within the range they wanted?<BR/><BR/>I could just as easily turn that back on you by saying that "funding" is what keeps the televangeists and preachers, etc. going, and that's why they're all agreeing to not stray from their bibles (Korans, etc).<BR/><BR/><BR/><B>For more examples, see here. Note that the author of the site is a xian like yourself, Dan, just not a YEC.</B> <BR/><I>"Appeal to" fallacies galore! Look just because I think that we live on a young earth doesn't mean all Christians believe that.</I><BR/>You're not getting it: I pointed him out because xian a lot of the time keep implying that it's my atheistic presuppositons that were making me believe in an old earth.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>But that is my point just because there is a discussion among Christians on Biblical iterpretation does not mean one is saved and the other is not.</I><BR/>True, but it <B>does</B> imply that your holy book is not as "perfect" as you say it is. Also, it kind of depends on which parts of the bible are up for grabs. Some people, like the Calvinists, believe that god, not man, is responsible for pulling people towards him.<BR/><BR/><I>We are fuzzy about many details. As for me I am trusting God because mankind let me down entierely.</I><BR/>If you're fuzzy about many details, how can you tell whether your view of god is accurate in the first place? <BR/><BR/><B>It seems to me that you're basing your belief on the earth's age based not on physical evidence but rather on what you want to be true.</B><BR/><I>I would be willing to consider that a fair claim. If we find concrete evidence to remove all resonable doubt I would be willing to reconsider my understanding of it. Can you say the same?</I><BR/>Yes. At least I don't have to adhere to any oaths, unlike the ICR, AIG or other YEC group out there.<BR/><BR/><I>Keep in mind that my YEC belief does not effect my Salvation but your Atheism sure does. Be afraid, be very afraid.</I><BR/>Of what?Reynoldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07316048340050664487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-32178546004737966672008-12-24T01:57:00.000-05:002008-12-24T01:57:00.000-05:00Amen Dan,I've got nothing nice to say about Rick W...Amen Dan,<BR/>I've got nothing nice to say about Rick Warren, but isn't it ironic to hear the outry from the sodomites concerning Warren's comparison of gay marriage and polygamy and incest?<BR/><BR/>Should the Muslims be offended?<BR/><BR/>There's a lot of talk about the "intolerance, bigotry and homophobia" of the Church, but the intolerance, bigotry and Christophobia of Sodom is appalling.<BR/><BR/>I was not going to post this on my blog but come to think of it, this video is not off topic on my blog after all.Dani' Elhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08371944082656315654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-38865159645666837152008-12-24T01:30:00.000-05:002008-12-24T01:30:00.000-05:00Dani'El Sure is amazing as to the pure subjectiven...Dani'El <BR/><BR/>Sure is amazing as to the pure subjectiveness of man's justification without the authority of God's Word. That man was pissed. If Prop 8 was turned down that would be the very next thing on the ballot. <BR/><BR/>Brigham Young said "Now if any of you will deny the plurality of wives, and continue to do so, I promise that you will be damned." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 3, p. 266). Also, "The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 11, page 269).D. A. N. https://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-47402153091852139922008-12-24T01:10:00.000-05:002008-12-24T01:10:00.000-05:00Dan,I know this is way off topic, but I saw this s...Dan,<BR/>I know this is way off topic, but I saw this shocking video on JihadWatch.<BR/>I know the Polygamist Mormons are running scams like this in the US and I met a muslim who works at the corner store who was doing the same here in SF.<BR/>Check it out-<BR/><BR/>http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b14_1215782328Dani' Elhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08371944082656315654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-68913866244981014652008-12-23T23:16:00.000-05:002008-12-23T23:16:00.000-05:00Chum,Or maybe-"Asheville, NC. Birthplace Of Da Bun...Chum,<BR/>Or maybe-<BR/><BR/><B>"Asheville, NC. <BR/><I>Birthplace Of Da Bunk"</I></B><BR/><BR/>Lol! :-)Dani' Elhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08371944082656315654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-2328095462463800072008-12-23T22:22:00.000-05:002008-12-23T22:22:00.000-05:00"Asheville, NC. Home Of Bunk"NiceCalifornia, home ..."Asheville, NC. Home Of Bunk"<BR/><BR/>Nice<BR/><BR/>California, home of the Bunkinators!<BR/><BR/>Dani'El has good etymology game.D. A. N. https://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-41114111915538907252008-12-23T22:15:00.000-05:002008-12-23T22:15:00.000-05:00Reynold,I can't say for Kaitlyn, but as for me, al...Reynold,<BR/><BR/><I>I can't say for Kaitlyn, but as for me, all it means when people [interpret] the bible differently is that the authors of the bible didn't write it in such a way that is was specific enough. Too much is left open to interpretation.</I><BR/><BR/>So a 2000-4000 year old book, still very relevant and alive even to this day, was done in a way to <I>hinder</I> interpretation, not considering the billions of Christians throughout these years? Right!?<BR/><BR/><I>I myself used to be a xian until I started to think out of the box more.</I><BR/><BR/>Thanks for proving <A HREF="http://debunkingatheists.blogspot.com/2008/07/doubt-itself-catalyst-for-atheism.html" REL="nofollow">yet another one</A> of my points/posts.<BR/><BR/><I>Are you assuming what is the "truth" right off the bat without examining all the available evidence?</I><BR/><BR/>You new at this? Are <B>you</B> assuming what is the "truth" right off the bat without examining all the available evidence about me? Stinks of hypocrisy in here.<BR/><BR/><I>Given the multiple lines of physical evidence that corroborate the old age of the earth it's safe to say that it's old age is pretty well established.</I> Really? Were you there? What was it like? Keep in mind that interpretation of evidence is not the same as evidence. Do you want to discuss carbon dating?<BR/><BR/>It's the multiple lines of disciplines from geology, astronomy, cheer leading for the current paradigm. Funds would dry up otherwise.<BR/><BR/><I>For more examples, see here. Note that the author of the site is a xian like yourself, Dan, just not a YEC.</I> "Appeal to" fallacies galore! Look just because I think that we live on a young earth doesn't mean <A HREF="http://debunkingatheists.blogspot.com/2008/06/great-debate.html" REL="nofollow">all Christians</A> believe that. But that is my point just because there is a discussion among Christians on Biblical iterpretation does <B>not</B> mean one is saved and the other is not. We are fuzzy about many details. As for me I am trusting God because mankind let me down entierely.<BR/><BR/><I>It seems to me that you're basing your belief on the earth's age based not on physical evidence but rather on what you want to be true.</I><BR/><BR/>I would be willing to consider that a fair claim. If we find concrete evidence to remove all resonable doubt I would be willing to reconsider my understanding of it. Can you say the same? Keep in mind that my YEC belief does <B>not</B> effect my Salvation but your Atheism sure does. Be afraid, be very afraid.D. A. N. https://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-41901298264895158932008-12-23T22:00:00.000-05:002008-12-23T22:00:00.000-05:00Dani'El,As someone who lives in Buncombe county, N...Dani'El,<BR/><BR/>As someone who lives in Buncombe county, NC, thanks for the history lesson. I'll see about making up some bumper stickers:<BR/><BR/>"Asheville, NC. Home Of Bunk"Unethical Chum Tinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01180200836187629658noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-60872502374382063032008-12-23T20:38:00.000-05:002008-12-23T20:38:00.000-05:00Dan, to KaitlynSo let me get this straight here, y...<B>Dan, to Kaitlyn</B><BR/><I>So let me get this straight here, you are discounting the Bible because of how people are interpreting it, and those same people interpreting the Bible are now interpreting the data, that is "available," to conclude the earth has been around for billions of years?</I><BR/>I can't say for Kaitlyn, but as for me, all it means when people interperet the bible differently is that the authors of the bible didn't write it in such a way that is was specific enough. Too much is left open to interpretation.<BR/><BR/><I>We need to get things grounded because you appear to be flying around reaching for doubts. Apparently your preconceived notions are hindering your ability to reason on this subject.</I><BR/>I could say the same of you...I myself used to be a xian until I started to think out of the box more.<BR/><BR/><I>Are you looking for the beliefs of others or are you seeking truth?</I><BR/>Are you assuming what is the "truth" right off the bat without examining all the available evidence?<BR/><BR/><I>First did science 'prove' that the earth is extremely old or is that a 'possibility' interpreted from man?</I><BR/>Given the multiple lines of physical evidence that corroborate the old age of the earth it's safe to say that it's old age is pretty well established. <BR/><BR/>Unlike "interpetations", this isn't words that people are trying to figure out. It's the multiple lines of evidence from geology, astronomy, etc. Remember in one of my comments on a previous post that in the book <B>The Creationists</B> by Ronald Numbers that many people who had graduated from ICR believing and wanting to believe in a young earth wound up having to ditch that faith once confronted with the physical evidence around them, as opposed to the interpretations of man.<BR/><BR/>For more examples, see <A HREF="http://home.entouch.net/dmd/dmd.htm#pers2" REL="nofollow">here</A>. Note that the author of the site is a xian like yourself, Dan, just not a YEC.<BR/><BR/><I>And if 'possible' then is it also 'possible' that the earth is much younger then what is 'believed'?</I><BR/>Only if the physical evidence were to point to it, but if one actually looks at it, it does not. Again, see the link I posted above. <BR/><BR/><I>Because you are basing a great deal of your salvation on a bunch of maybes here.</I><BR/>It seems to me that you're basing your belief on the earth's age based not on physical evidence but rather on what you want to be true.Reynoldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07316048340050664487noreply@blogger.com