dad'd "Box"

[Electric Sceptic]

Should we take the bible's word about Thomas or yours? Yours is only as good as someone saying Jesus didn't rise from the dead with no support. They absolutely can and will and have been combined

What are you talking about? The 'combining' issue that this has come from was about combining the scientific and biblical creation accounts. Nothing to do with Thomas.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

Here's 100 to get you started, fulfilled bible prophesies. http://www.100prophecies.org/

Do a google for Nostradamus. He's got lots of fulfilled prophecies, too. So has Mother Shipley, and Edgar Cayce...at least, according to their devotees.

How about billions of changed lives

Every religion has that (perhaps not billions, but changed lives).

and the fastest growing religion in the entire world from it?

Actually, Islam is the fastest growing religion in the entire world.

How about a fairly detailed account of the creation?

There are any number of detailed accounts of creation from old myths.

One that, when combined with the merge and physical science, agrees to a tee on it as well?

The 'merge' is something that you believe exists but cannot in any way evidence. In short, it's something you need to make the creation account even begin to make sense. Physical science disagrees wildly with the biblical creation account.

 

[dad]

What are you talking about? The 'combining' issue that this has come from was about combining the scientific and biblical creation accounts. Nothing to do with Thomas.

Combining physical and spiritual was what I was talking about. And this is also why we can combine science with the bible, and get a better picture. (Not PO in the past speculation, I mean science). For example, the fossil record, and the bible account, it makes sense if we look at it from the following standpoint.
God did not make men and beast all over the planet at once. He made them in the garden, and area, perhaps a sea there named Eden. ( It says He planted the garden east of Eden-what does that mean? If it were a sea, it could make sense? I don't know). Anyhow, out in the world in general, that was not ready for man and beast yet, (if it was why did He need to plant a garden for us?) -He put some creatures to help get it ready. Trilobites, and whatnot. This is why we see cambrian life as some of the first in the fossil record. Man sinned, and things began to die. Lifespans were still large, so it took a while for mammals and men, and perhaps dinos to get spread out-and actually die, so they could become fossils. Well, it's a big topic, I'll have to leave that there.
Anyhow science is our friend, as well as the bible, and believers need not fear either, only the POers need fear a spiritual aspect, as it wipes out their fables totally.

 

[dad]

Actually, Islam is the fastest growing religion in the entire world

I guess it is debatable.
"Christianity is overlooked as the fastest-growing faith in the world because most surveys look at the traditional Protestant denominations and the Roman Catholic Church while ignoring Christian believers who have no part of either. "
"He says there are 707 million "switched-on disciples" who fit into this new category and that this "church" is exploding in growth.


"The growing core of Christianity crosses theological lines and includes 707 million born-again people who are increasing by 8 percent a year," he says. So fast is this group growing that, under current trends, according to Rutz, the entire world will be composed of such believers by the year 2032. "
"By tomorrow, there will be 175,000 more Christians than there are today," he writes. "


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44033
!!!

 

[Electric Sceptic]

Combining physical and spiritual was what I was talking about.

No, you weren't. You were specifically talking about combining the scientific and creationist views of creation:

"We can look at physical evidence like the fossil record as well. Combining the two, we see that we can come up with some idea of how things gat started."

And this is also why we can combine science with the bible, and get a better picture.

No, we can't, nor have you demonstrated we can.

(Not PO in the past speculation, I mean science).

All science is 'PO'.

For example, the fossil record, and the bible account, it makes sense if we look at it from the following standpoint.
God did not make men and beast all over the planet at once. He made them in the garden, and area, perhaps a sea there named Eden. ( It says He planted the garden east of Eden-what does that mean? If it were a sea, it could make sense? I don't know). Anyhow, out in the world in general, that was not ready for man and beast yet, (if it was why did He need to plant a garden for us?) -He put some creatures to help get it ready. Trilobites, and whatnot. This is why we see cambrian life as some of the first in the fossil record. Man sinned, and things began to die. Lifespans were still large, so it took a while for mammals and men, and perhaps dinos to get spread out-and actually die, so they could become fossils. Well, it's a big topic, I'll have to leave that there.

Yeah, that makes perfect sense...if you're prepared to throw out all the bits of science you don't like and twist Genesis into something you do like.

Anyhow science is our friend, as well as the bible, and believers need not fear either, only the POers need fear a spiritual aspect, as it wipes out their fables totally.

"Science is our friend"...this is the same science you described as "a total flop"?

As for the spiritual aspect, you STILL haven't come up with any way to test it, despite repeated claims that it's testable.

 

[dad]

The 'merge' is something that you believe exists but cannot in any way evidence. In short, it's something you need to make the creation account even begin to make sense.

Well, thank you, for insinuating it begins to make sense! But who could deny Jesus had a merged body? All one could do is deny the bible itself, but not His ressurection details in it.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

Well, thank you, for insinuating it begins to make sense!

I didn't.

But who could deny Jesus had a merged body?

Me. Actually, anyone who even thinks about the issue. By definition, his body was physical.

All one could do is deny the bible itself, but not His ressurection details in it.

Nonsense. One could easily accept most of the bible, even the Jesus myth, while denying the resurrection.

 

[nvxplorer]

I can't see the message for me in this reply. I suspect it is some evoisticly based idea of where dolphins came from, that you'd like to enter in to the whale thread? I'm not shaking in my boots. If not, then, go ahead and dazzle us with the secret code here.

No dazzling brilliance necessary, dad. Its quite basic.

Going on your presumption of God, we have a vast creation in front of us. Many, many creatures. All creations of God. We could assume God loves all his creatures equally, which if I were a theist would be the obvious choice. Or we could assume God favors some and is displeased with others. A simple examination shows mankind to be hateful, destructive and dangerous. One could say mankind is the devil's work. God would not create such flawed, evil beings.

Whales, on the other hand, live in harmony with God's creation, not in opposition to it. They are beautiful, intelligent, and the largest creatures to ever inhabit the earth. It's easy to see that whales may indeed be God's chosen creatures. It's entirely reasonable to assume God created whales in his image.

Of course, you're so hung up on feelings of superiority, control and conquest, I would never expect you to open your mind to this and other possibilities.

 

[dad]

I didn't.
Me. Actually, anyone who even thinks about the issue. By definition, his body was physical. Nonsense. One could easily accept most of the bible, even the Jesus myth, while denying the resurrection.

His ressurected body could not have been only physical.Mr 16:12 After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country. (He could take any form, and appear and disapear at will, no physical man can do this)
Mr 16:14 Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen. (popped in at supper time, just appeared, which a physical body can't do)
Jn 21:4 Jesus stood on the shore: but the disciples knew not that it was Jesus.. (able to disquise Himself, like angels)
As soon then as they were come to land, they saw a fire of coals there, and fish laid thereon, and bread. 10 Jesus saith unto them, Bring of the fish which ye have now caught. 11 Simon Peter went up, and drew the net to land full of great fishes, an hundred and fifty and three: and for all there were so many, yet was not the net broken. 12 Jesus saith unto them, Come and dine. (physical enough to eat)
luke 24: 30 And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them. 31 And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight" (Vanished into thin air, not physical, I'm afraid)
luke 24: 39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. 40 And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet. 41 And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat? 42 And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb. 43 And he took it, and did eat before them.
luke 24: 51 And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven (now how does a body do that?)
So, we see He had both spiritual and physical properties now, in His merged, everlasting ressurected body!

 

[dad]

No dazzling brilliance necessary, dad. Its quite basic.

Going on your presumption of God, we have a vast creation in front of us. Many, many creatures. All creations of God. We could assume God loves all his creatures equally, which if I were a theist would be the obvious choice. Or we could assume God favors some and is displeased with others. A simple examination shows mankind to be hateful, destructive and dangerous. One could say mankind is the devil's work. God would not create such flawed, evil beings.

Whales, on the other hand, live in harmony with God's creation, not in opposition to it. They are beautiful, intelligent, and the largest creatures to ever inhabit the earth. It's easy to see that whales may indeed be God's chosen creatures. It's entirely reasonable to assume God created whales in his image.

Of course, you're so hung up on feelings of superiority, control and conquest, I would never expect you to open your mind to this and other possibilities.

Oh, goodness, is that all!. Well, orcas are fine and all, but not a whale I would like to swim with in the wild. I hear when they stsrt feasting on a grey whale, they rip out the tongue first, a delicacy I guess. I like whales, and pretty well all creatures in His creation. Including human babies! I have met some types who are 'save the whales, kill the babies' ! Some, who think we are beasts have even said that it is ok to kill many men, in order to save bears, and other things, because we are just another beast! I heard one guy on the radio say just this. Then there are those who would spike a tree, so the logger gets injured or killed, etc. All this is inspired by the enemy of our souls, who would kill every man if he could, and was allowed by God!
It is not reasonable to say, however that whales are created in His image, unless you reject the bible. We are tops, we are it! We are special, and put over all creatures. We are in the image of God, and have free will. We are destined to live forever, and, if believers, rule this world for ever and ever with Him.

 

[nvxplorer]

Thanks for proving my point, dad.

 

[dad]

Thanks for proving my point, dad.

You are most welcome. Your point that believers think men are special is an easy one to prove.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

You are most welcome. Your point that believers think men are special is an easy one to prove.

Sadly, it's one of the very few points you've managed to prove in this thread...

 

[zilch]

Here's 100 to get you started, fulfilled bible prophesies. http://www.100prophecies.org/
Now can you give me 50 good ones from the Iliad? How about billions of changed lives, and the fastest growing religion in the entire world from it? The bible has these under it's belt as well. How about a fairly detailed account of the creation? Can the Iliad at least come up with that? One that, when combined with the merge, and physical science, agrees to a tee on it as well?

Some people claim Nostradamus correctly, but that does not make it true. Most of these prophecies like horoscopes are written in general terms so they can be matched up with anything to make it seem true. Otherwise there is no evidence that the biblical prophecies are any truer than the Nostradamus prophecies.

Not to mention that about 20 of the most recent so called prophecies are essentially the same one just repeated.

Why are the prophecies only about people in one part of the world? If these are prophecies from God, shouldn't there be prophecies about people in South America or Europe?

The bible tells stories, as does the Iliad without credible evidence neither should be taken literally.

 

[dad]

Sadly, it's one of the very few points you've managed to prove in this thread...

One of the few you admit to, or are able to admit to, perhaps. Besides, it's not my thread, but just someone's who wanted to explore the limitations of the box more. (or try to make fun of it, or whatever)
Since it was admitted that science is based on the physical only, this is the limits, physical only. Proof out of the mouths of it's own adherants.
In addition to that, it is admitted that no proof the spiritual does not exist can exist.
Also, it is admitted that science cannot detect proof of something that it cannot detect, the spiritual.
The spiritual is well known, however, by most of the people on earth! In whatever form they may understand.
So we covered a lot here.

 

[dad]

Some people claim Nostradamus correctly, but that does not make it true. Most of these prophecies like horoscopes are written in general terms so they can be matched up with anything to make it seem true. Otherwise there is no evidence that the biblical prophecies are any truer than the Nostradamus prophecies.

Not to mention that about 20 of the most recent so called prophecies are essentially the same one just repeated.

Why are the prophecies only about people in one part of the world? If these are prophecies from God, shouldn't there be prophecies about people in South America or Europe?

The bible tells stories, as does the Iliad without credible evidence neither should be taken literally.

There is evidence the biblical ones are truest (100%) of all. Nations even named, predicted before they rose to power. Pretty well all major world powers as a matter of fact. The birth town and years till the messiah appeared, hundreds of years before, etc. Yes, they center on the middle east to a large extent. Including the endtime ones, naming countries invading Israel from the north. And so so so so much more.
Nostrodamus may have been bang on with some things as are many others, but not 100% of the time. Even prophets not of God may have had some success, like Edgar Cayce. He was one guy that first got me interested in the spiritual. I could see there was something to it.

 

[zilch]

Since it was admitted that science is based on the physical only, this is the limits, physical only. Proof out of the mouths of it's own adherants.
In addition to that, it is admitted that no proof the spiritual does not exist can exist.

That is like saying science cannot detect proof that leprachuns don't exist so they exist.

 

[dad]

That is like saying science cannot detect proof that leprachuns don't exist so they exist.

Not really. Do billions believe in them? No. Do they appear in the bible, like creation? No. They are like granny, a story with no evidence. Actually, at least they have people who claim they saw them, more than granny can claim!
But if they did exist, they would be supernatural. Further proof that the belief in the supernatural is near universal. Thank you.

 

[zilch]

There is evidence the biblical ones are truest (100%) of all. Nations even named, predicted before they rose to power. Pretty well all major world powers as a matter of fact. The birth town and years till the messiah appeared, hundreds of years before, etc. Yes, they center on the middle east to a large extent. Including the endtime ones, naming countries invading Israel from the north. And so so so so much more.
Nostrodamus may have been bang on with some things as are many others, but not 100% of the time. Even prophets not of God may have had some success, like Edgar Cayce. He was one guy that first got me interested in the spiritual. I could see there was something to it.

If any appear true it is because people probably have named nations and manipulated events to make the prophecies appear true such as naming countries in a way to make the prophecies be true. Plus some of those prophecies may have been written or changed after the fact or the prophesized events may not have been written accurately, as they were changed to fit the prophecies.

Prophecies like horoscopes can be manipulated to seem like they are true.

 

[zilch]

Not really. Do billions believe in them? No. Do they appear in the bible, like creation? No. They are like granny, a story with no evidence. Actually, at least they have people who claim they saw them, more than granny can claim!
But if they did exist, they would be supernatural. Further proof that the belief in the supernatural is near universal. Thank you.

Do billions believe in something other than Christianity? Do kangaroos or pandas appear in the bible? Just because something is not in the bible does not mean it can't be true. Evolution along with other positions in science has evidence, something you have failed to provide for any of your delusions.

If there are people that claim to have seen leprechauns then that is further evidence that eyewitnesses cannot always be trusted.