"Embedded Age" Requires Fake Fossils

[Nic Samojluk]

There was no Adam and Eve. There was no Flood or Noah's Ark. The opinion of ignorant people is all but meaningless.

I suppose you will next deny the existence of Jesus Christ, the man whose life forced historians and all people to date their birth as AD. Watch this video and tell me your reaction is!

 

[crjmurray]

I suppose you will next deny the existence of Jesus Christ, the man whose life forced historians and all people to date their birth as AD. Watch this video and tell me your reaction is!

And I suppose you'll deny the existence of Woden! The man whose life forced countless calendar companies to name the middle day of the work week Wednesday!!!!!

 

[Nic Samojluk]

Since Jesus used poetic language all of the time, and he never said Adam and Eve are real his references to them is no different than saying that someone is as old as the hills.

How about his references to Noah, Sodom and Gomorrah, and Moses? Does the context allow for a mythical explanation?

 

[Nic Samojluk]

Has it ever occurred to you that you may be seeing less?

My eyesight is failing, but my mind is expanding every time I read your comments!

 

[Mr Strawberry]

My eyesight is failing, but my mind is expanding every time I read your comments!

That would be a no then.

 

[Nic Samojluk]

And I suppose you'll deny the existence of Woden!

Did you watch the video from beginning to the end? Ho do you dare to compare an ant to an elephant?

 

[AV1611VET]

Did Walt Disney play a big part in your life when you were growing up?

No.

I couldn't stomach The Wonderful World of Disney.

 

[crjmurray]

Did you watch the video from beginning to the end? Ho do you dare to compare an ant to an elephant?

I don't watch videos.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

I don't watch videos.

I watched half of it before giving up - you didn't miss much.

 

[Nic Samojluk]

That would be a no then.

When I was a teenager I could see without glasses. So you are right—my eyesight is failing, but my mind's eye is improving every time I read your comments. They force me to decide whether to abandon my worldview and embrace yours and my faith grows an inch or two.

If you want to entice me to join you, start by building a sure foundation for your evolutionary edifice. So far, you cannot tell me how life started, while I can. You cannot tell me what came first: the egg or the chicken. I can: the chicken.

You cannot see the intricate design in nature; I can. You claim that apes are my true ancestors; I know that this can’t be true.

You cannot predict how this world will end! I can, and I know that my prediction is credible because it rests on a prophetical prognosis that was written centuries before the birth of Jesus Christ and so far it has not failed. Read Daniel 2.

You believe that Jesus was a man—no more than that. I know that he was killed and his tomb was never found. He is alive, and he is my friend who guides my life. Why should I embrace your religion?

 

[Nic Samojluk]

I watched half of it before giving up - you didn't miss much.

Dr. John Ortberg was in my church yesterday, and he preached this sermon twice. I listened to him two times, and when I got home I searched the Internet, found his sermon, and watched it again. Evidently, my spiritual appetite is much different from yours.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I suppose you will next deny the existence of Jesus Christ, the man whose life forced historians and all people to date their birth as AD. Watch this video and tell me your reaction is!

Argumentum ad populum. Yawn.

 

[Doveaman]

Bear in mind that the Red shift theory is being reconsidered and alternative explanations are being studied. Experts need time to make the proper adjustments.

Fair enough.

Galaxy Redshifts Reconsidered

“By referring to cosmological redshifts as Doppler shifts, we are insisting that our Newtonian intuition about motion still applies without significant change to the cosmological arena. A result of this thinking is that quasars now being detected at redshifts of Z = 4.0 would have to be interpreted as traveling a speeds of more than V = Z x c or 4 times the speed of light. This is, of course, quite absurd, because we all know that no physical object may travel faster than the speed of light.

We also know that empty space cannot stretch or expand, so all they did was exchange one absurdity for another. They then had to create a new absurdity called dark-energy in order to make sense of the absurdities they already created, and the absurdities just keep piling on.

It is similar to creating a new lie in order to cover up a former lie.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Fair enough.
We also know that empty space cannot stretch or expand, so all they did was exchange one absurdity for another. They then had to create a new absurdity called dark-energy in order to make sense of the absurdities they already created, and the absurdities just keep piling on.

It is similar to creating a new lie in order to cover up a former lie.

What "they" have done is accommodate the evidence. Until you have a better accommodation of the evidence that stands up to mathematical and observational consistency with the evidence, the current understanding will stand.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I know that, but I found no prohibition against using standard dictionary definitions in this thread. If you don’t like the way I talk, please ignore my comments from now on! And post the following warning: “Only trained scientists allowed to post comments!

Go ahead, but don't blame me if I continue to point out your error.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I suppose you will next deny the existence of Jesus Christ, the man whose life forced historians and all people to date their birth as AD. Watch this video and tell me your reaction is!

Actually many doubt the existence of "Jesus Christ". You gave him a title that many historians and scholars will disagree with. There probably was a Jesus, though there are more and more serious historians that are beginning to doubt even this claim.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How about his references to Noah, Sodom and Gomorrah, and Moses? Does the context allow for a mythical explanation?

Mere poetic language at best. We know there was no Noah's Ark, that story was refuted even before the theory of evolution came along. Archaeologists will tell you that there was no Exodus as described in the Bible. That puts a huge burden of proof on you if you want to claim that Moses was real.

 

[JasonClark]

How about his references to Noah, Sodom and Gomorrah, and Moses? Does the context allow for a mythical explanation?

Assuming there was such a person as Jesus Christ.
Every word in the N/T supposedly said by Jesus Christ was written many many years after he died by someone who had heard the stories from someone else,
to say Jesus said this or that can only be at best hearsay and at worse simply made up, who knows what Jesus said or didn't say? no one,
Jesus did not write a word of the N/T so what he thought or didn't think about the O/T is anyone's guess.

Historians know for a fact that the story about "let him who is without sin cast the first stone" was added to the bible around 1000 AD.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

When I was a teenager I could see without glasses. So you are right—my eyesight is failing, but my mind's eye is improving every time I read your comments. They force me to decide whether to abandon my worldview and embrace yours and my faith grows an inch or two.

So you are saying that actually instead of trying to see more, when your views are challenged in the slightest way you just become more entrenched.

If you want to entice me to join you, start by building a sure foundation for your evolutionary edifice. So far, you cannot tell me how life started, while I can. You cannot tell me what came first: the egg or the chicken. I can: the chicken.

Maybe your confusion of evolution with abiogenesis is your fault and not ours? You know, learning is a wonderful thing and no one is stopping you from doing it except you and your 'entrenched' mentality.

You cannot see the intricate design in nature;

I guarantee you that when I look at the natural world I am seeing more than you are.

I can.

No, you are mistaking a sense of awe and wonder for something it isn't.

You claim that apes are my true ancestors; I know that this can’t be true.

How? Evidence please.

By the way, have you never looked at yourself naked in a full length mirror? That's an ape standing there looking back at you.

You cannot predict how this world will end!

Earth you mean? Well, we have a pretty good idea what will happen when the sun burns all its hydrogen.

I can, and I know that my prediction is credible because it rests on a prophetical prognosis that was written centuries before the birth of Jesus Christ and so far it has not failed. Read Daniel 2.

You expect me to take that seriously?

You believe that Jesus was a man—no more than that. I know that he was killed and his tomb was never found. He is alive, and he is my friend who guides my life. Why should I embrace your religion?

I don't have a religion, and you don't have an invisible, supernatural friend.

 

[florida2]

I know that, but I found no prohibition against using standard dictionary definitions in this thread. If you don’t like the way I talk, please ignore my comments from now on! And post the following warning: “Only trained scientists allowed to post comments!

SubductionZone has a very valid point. When there is a specific scientific definition for a word and that used is used in a scientific discussion, it would be unreasonable not to use the scientific definition even if it varies from the everyday definition. The word 'theory' is a very good case in point which has a very different scientific meaning to everyday language and dictionary definitions.

You are free to take part in any discussion you like but it makes sense to use the correct terminology.