Science PROVES the BIBLE is True

[Born Again2004]

Am I supposed to be impressed by some, out of the air, claimed probabilty? Do you care to show how it was derived or am I supposed to believe it to be true because "you said so"?

You are so arrogant!
Research Peter Stoner...blame his mathematical work, not me....of course I am sure you won't do the research or believe if you do!....it is all foolish to those who are perishing!

 

[bhsmte]

I doubt it, but go ahead and show me your evidence. I do not question the ability of harry potter to teach witchcraft. I am sure that Rowling's books are effective at getting the job done. That is why she is a Billionaire. I am sure we could find wicca child around here somewhere if you want a discussion on how accurate Rawling is in teaching paganism and witchcraft.

The books name accurate historical places, so the books must be true.

 

[bhsmte]

Okay. Now let me see if I get you straight here, the so called "scientific" evidence you claim support the Bible is only personal opinions (about science) which happens to agree with your opinion on the matter. Is that correct understood?

It would appear you have summarized correctly.

According the poster in question, he claims to know 'true science'.

 

[bhsmte]

You are so arrogant!
Research Peter Stoner...blame his mathematical work, not me....of course I am sure you won't do the research or believe if you do!....it is all foolish to those who are perishing!

You claim to judge who is perishing?

 

[In situ]

I doubt it, but go ahead and show me your evidence.

The evidence is the function of your right and left side of the brain, you need to imagine Harry Potter to be true, then it becomes true, and that is so because I said so. I can of course also post some flashy pictures to further enhance the truth of what I said, but I pass this time.

Does that maker any sense to you? I don't think so, in the same manner does your "scientific" evidence that you claim proves the Bible any sense to anyone else here. Now, it is your turn to explain how inept our primate brains are which can not grasp your higher way of thinking. Or.... maybe present some actual scientific evidence instead of lot of nonsense - if you have any that is...

 

[In situ]

According the poster in question, he claims to know 'true science'.

*cough*

 

[In situ]

You are so arrogant!

I guess being skeptic about claims made and not taking them for face valuer is being arrogont in your vocabulary.

Research Peter Stoner...blame his mathematical work, not me....of course I am sure you won't do the research or believe if you do!....it is all foolish to those who are perishing!

Translation; I believe Peter Stoner because he said it to be so....

It never stroke you that the number sound absurd (you basically saying it is almost absolutely certain Jesus is the son of God) and therefor worth checking out how he derived it? Don't you agree?

Now, would you care to give me the reference to the specific work of Peter Stoner you referred to?

 

[Herman Hedning]

It has been proven that the chance of Jesus being who he said he was is 10 to the power of 17...that is 1000,000,000,000,000,000 : 1

That is a big number. So I guess you think Jesus being who he's claimed to be is impossible then? Good, we agree.

 

[Born Again2004]

That is a big number. So I guess you think Jesus being who he's claimed to be is impossible then? Good, we agree.

Nice try....that is 1000 quadrillion ( he is real) to 1 chance he is not real!!!!

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Nice try....that is 1000 quadrillion ( he is real) to 1 chance he is not real!!!!

That's not how those sorts of numbers work. Also, just because someone says that sort of number, without any sort of real mathematics behind it, does not make it legitimate.
There is a very large probability that there was a man called Jesus in antiquity, that he was a skilled orator and a theologian of sorts, but it is incredibly unlikely that he was the son of God.

 

[Astrophile]

For the last 100 years most of the evidence for the Bible has been archaeology to substantiate the Historical accuracy of the Bible. So there is an overwelming abundance of historical evidence for the Bible.

What is there archeological evidence for? Is there evidence for the Exodus from Egypt, the conquest of Israel by Joshua, the rule of the Judges, or the empire of David and Solomon? According to The Bible Unearthed (published 2001), by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman, there is little or no archeological evidence for any of these. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_Unearthed.

For that matter, is there archaeological evidence for St. Paul's journeys in Asia Minor and Greece, or for the churches that he founded there? I should be interested in learning about this evidence?

 

[Astrophile]

Now, would you care to give me the reference to the specific work of Peter Stoner you referred to?

I can save Born Again 2004 the trouble: his source is Science Speaks, chapter 3, http://sciencespeaks.dstoner.net/Christ_of_Prophecy.html.

 

[Born Again2004]

That's not how those sorts of numbers work. Also, just because someone says that sort of number, without any sort of real mathematics behind it, does not make it legitimate.
There is a very large probability that there was a man called Jesus in antiquity, that he was a skilled orator and a theologian of sorts, but it is incredibly unlikely that he was the son of God.

Who are you to say it is not real mathematics.....a probability expert and some of the worlds most powerful computers is accurate to me.....I thought you were a Christian...why would you need scientific proof....Christ in you should be enough!

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Who are you to say it is not real mathematics.....a probability expert and some of the worlds most powerful computers is accurate to me.....I thought you were a Christian...why would you need scientific proof....Christ in you should be enough!

Don't have to be a Christian to be a deist. Just saying.
And perhaps you can give actual evidence that this estimate was done a real probability expert. And you're claim about it being done with 'the world's most powerful computers' is a bunk from the start, because there is literally zero chance that they would be used on something like this.

 

[Born Again2004]

Don't have to be a Christian to be a deist. Just saying.
And perhaps you can give actual evidence that this estimate was done a real probability expert. And you're claim about it being done with 'the world's most powerful computers' is a bunk from the start, because there is literally zero chance that they would be used on something like this.

Weak nonsensical reply! Sorry your a Deist...without Christ in yo, you have no chance, including belief...just saying!

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Weak nonsensical reply! Sorry your a Deist...without Christ in yo, you have no chance, including belief...just saying!

... my reply was weak? MY reply was weak?
You've done nothing to actually talk about science in this thread. All you have done is preach and, in an incredibly roundabout way, say that you are above everyone else, just because you're a Christian.

 

[joshua 1 9]

What is there archeological evidence for? Is there evidence for the Exodus from Egypt

Yes there is. But what is most important is evidence that Judea and Israel were living in Egypt at the time the Bible says they were living there. These are all pratts that I have refuted many many times.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Yes there is. But what is most important is evidence that Judea and Israel were living in Egypt at the time the Bible says they were living there. These are all pratts that I have refuted many many times.

Can you show us this evidence? As in, actually give us a link to where this evidence is, I mean, not just you repeatedly saying "Just read the Bible."

 

[joshua 1 9]

According to The Bible Unearthed

If you want to know the truth then you should read:

http://www.pbs.org/walkingthebible/

 

[joshua 1 9]

Can you show us this evidence?

No, I do not have the time to do that. I have done that many times for other people, read some of my old posts.