Fossil Challenge for Evolutionists

[Subduction Zone]

I NEVER said "I JUST KNOW IT".
I've said more than once that my faith is based on reason.

I don't know where you're getting your information from....but I'm not debating this with you.
John's gospel, for instance, shows no evidence of Jerusalem being destroyed in 70 AD which means it would have had to be written earlier.

It was customary to use names of teachers at that time,,,for instance, you're correct in stating that Mathew was not written by Mathew but by a pupil or follower of his.

The bible is not a history book, which is what many think. It's the story of a man. One can accept it or not.

No, the Bible is a collection of allegory, legend and myths, with a smattering of history. It gets quite a few historical claims wrong.

 

[Kylie]

I'm not here to educate you.

No, but if you make a claim you should be prepared to back it up.

 

[GodsGrace101]

If all it takes for someone to exist is the fact there are tales written about them, then yes.


I think you missed my point. The fact religions exist, in no way is evidence for their claims. In fact, I'm willing to bet you feel the same way about every other non-Christian religion as I do.


Sounds good.

DID King Arthur exist?
No one knows for sure.

Jesus existed and is still being spoken of, as we are doing, 2,000 years later. Who else do you discuss on a regular basis from that long ago?
Just because we discuss Him doesn't mean He existed?
OK. You have the last word.

I didn't miss your point.
Don't assume anything about me. I've been telling you that God is a BIG God...I guess you don't know what that means regarding other religions; even non-Christian.

God was here long before Christianity was.
You must know Romans 1:19-20

Au Revoir

 

[GodsGrace101]

I don't know where you are getting your ideas from. Modern scholars put John at 90 CE at the earliest:

Gospel of John - Wikipedia
The above is a more secular source, but this Christian source has the same dates:

When was the Gospel of John written?

And sorry for the lack of a copy and paste of quotes. Using my tablet and I am not as practiced on it as on my PC.


As to who wrote Matthew, we do not really know.

I don't like to learn from the internet.
It matters not, in the final analysis, WHO wrote the N.T.... or WHEN, what matters is if it's true or not.
I like Acts 5:29-36

Hasta Luego

 

[GodsGrace101]

No, but if you make a claim you should be prepared to back it up.

Hi K,
What claim did I make that I didn't back up?

 

[GodsGrace101]

No, but if you make a claim you should be prepared to back it up.

P.S.
WHY do 2 + 2 = 4 ?
Who determined that it would?
Does it always work out that way?
That means it must be a law...
Who made that law?
Did it come about by chance?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't like to learn from the internet.
It matters not, in the final analysis, WHO wrote the N.T.... or WHEN, what matters is if it's true or not.
I like Acts 5:29-36

Hasta Luego

Oh my, you do realize that that is not an eyewitness statement, don't you? The author of Acts is repeating something that he heard. What can't be found are statements by any that saw Jesus resurrected making the claim themselves. The author of Acts may have been Luke, but any site that says it is Luke are overstating what is known. I would be wary of any of them.

And the plain fact is that the tales of the resurrection probably are not true. All that Christians have for that are poorly formed arguments.

 

[Subduction Zone]

P.S.
WHY do 2 + 2 = 4 ?
Who determined that it would?
Does it always work out that way?
That means it must be a law...
Who made that law?
Did it come about by chance?

You do not seem to realize that the burden of proof directly relies upon a claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If you have a friend that you trust and he told you that he bought a dog you would probably take him at his word. No strong evidence would be required. If he claimed that his new dog sang The New Carioca and drove a care you would be correct to demand strong evidence:

 

[GodsGrace101]

Oh my, you do realize that that is not an eyewitness statement, don't you? The author of Acts is repeating something that he heard. What can't be found are statements by any that saw Jesus resurrected making the claim themselves. The author of Acts may have been Luke, but any site that says it is Luke are overstating what is known. I would be wary of any of them.

And the plain fact is that the tales of the resurrection probably are not true. All that Christians have for that are poorly formed arguments.

Did I say Gamaliel was an eyewitness?
At least give me some credit for understanding what I read...besides the fact that I've been studying the bible for about 35 years.

 

[GodsGrace101]

You do not seem to realize that the burden of proof directly relies upon a claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If you have a friend that you trust and he told you that he bought a dog you would probably take him at his word. No strong evidence would be required. If he claimed that his new dog sang The New Carioca and drove a care you would be correct to demand strong evidence:

Use the intelligence you have...
How can God be proven?
He's not a scientific experiment.
Everyone knows God cannot be proven scientifically.
You musta missed that class...

 

[Subduction Zone]

Did I say Gamaliel was an eyewitness?
At least give me some credit for understanding what I read...besides the fact that I've been studying the bible for about 35 years.

The problem with most Christian "studying" of the Bible is that it is not proper studying. Did you text it in any meaningful way at all?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Use the intelligence you have...
How can God be proven?
He's not a scientific experiment.
Everyone knows God cannot be proven scientifically.
You musta missed that class...

Then you are staying my that you have an irrational belief. And you misunderstand what has been said about gods. Some versions of God are testable. It is the general concept of God that is not testable. Do you understand the difference?

 

[GodsGrace101]

The problem with most Christian "studying" of the Bible is that it is not proper studying. Did you text it in any meaningful way at all?

What is studied is the culture of the time,
What a particular verse could mean using hemeneutics,
and how it would apply to us today.
Then there are the difference concepts one should be familiar with - by texting I think you must mean exegeting (not sure). If so, yes, that's done all the time.

 

[GodsGrace101]

Then you are staying my that you have an irrational belief. And you misunderstand what has been said about gods. Some versions of God are testable. It is the general concept of God that is not testable. Do you understand the difference?

No SZ,,,I don't understand the difference.
What do you mean SOME VERSIONS of god are testable?
You have versions of God?
There is only one God.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No SZ,,,I don't understand the difference.
What do you mean SOME VERSIONS of god are testable?
You have versions of God?
There is only one God.

There are countless versions of God. There are thousands of different sects of Christianity alone, all of them are different versions of God. Now if on has a God that made a Flat Earth that God is testable. If the Earth is proven not to be flat then that God does not exist. Many theists have a problem understanding this concept because they have the mistaken belief that their version is the correct version. All of those other versions are "not God". I suppose this might be called a category error by theists.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What is studied is the culture of the time,
What a particular verse could mean using hemeneutics,
and how it would apply to us today.
Then there are the difference concepts one should be familiar with - by texting I think you must mean exegeting (not sure). If so, yes, that's done all the time.

Sorry, I was using my tablet with its wonderful "autowrong" feature. That was supposed to be "test" not text. At times the autowrong changes a correct word and puts in an incorrect one for no fathomable reason.

How would you test your version of God to see if he was the "right version" or not? For a test to be proper there has to be a possibility of negation. For example you seem to believe in a creationist God of some sort. In that case evolution would disprove that "God" but not all gods.

 

[GodsGrace101]

There are countless versions of God. There are thousands of different sects of Christianity alone, all of them are different versions of God. Now if on has a God that made a Flat Earth that God is testable. If the Earth is proven not to be flat then that God does not exist. Many theists have a problem understanding this concept because they have the mistaken belief that their version is the correct version. All of those other versions are "not God". I suppose this might be called a category error by theists.

The bible says many things that are true...
I told you that I can believe God is real because He's real TO ME. I've been "told" things that are true in MY life.

The bible says there was a first man and a first woman before anyone was interested in knowing where we come from...so does this make "my" God real?

I don't think you're expressing yourself properly,,,if you are, then you're saying there's proof for God?
The only proof we have for God is the affect He has on persons and the effects He causes in both persons and nature. And, of course, our own personal experiences.

 

[GodsGrace101]

Sorry, I was using my tablet with its wonderful "autowrong" feature. That was supposed to be "test" not text. At times the autowrong changes a correct word and puts in an incorrect one for no fathomable reason.

How would you test your version of God to see if he was the "right version" or not? For a test to be proper there has to be a possibility of negation. For example you seem to believe in a creationist God of some sort. In that case evolution would disprove that "God" but not all gods.

Nothing would disprove God to me SZ.
Do you think I woke up yesterday and found out about evolution?

God is God. I have no need to test God. Satan wanted Jesus to test God when Jesus was in the desert at the very beginning of His ministry after He was baptized by John the Baptist in the Jordan River near Jerusalem.

Mathew 4:6-7
6and [satan] said to Him, “If You are the Son of God, throw Yourself down; for it is written,
‘HE WILL COMMAND HIS ANGELS CONCERNING YOU’;
and
‘ON their HANDS THEY WILL BEAR YOU UP,
SO THAT YOU WILL NOT STRIKE YOUR FOOT AGAINST A STONE.’”

7Jesus said to him, “On the other hand, it is written, ‘YOU SHALL NOT PUT THE LORD YOUR GOD TO THE TEST.’”

The best proof for God is in His Son Jesus.
The best proof for Jesus is in the resurrection...
but it can't be scientifically proven...
It can only be proven with our spirit...that part of us that connects with God, our maker.

And as to autowrong...
Yeah. My brother says computers are an imperfect technology. Boy, was he right!

BTW, Your phone/tablet/computer are also affected by the sin nature.

Christianity makes so much sense!

 

[Subduction Zone]

The bible says many things that are true...
I told you that I can believe God is real because He's real TO ME. I've been "told" things that are true in MY life.

The bible says there was a first man and a first woman before anyone was interested in knowing where we come from...so does this make "my" God real?

I don't think you're expressing yourself properly,,,if you are, then you're saying there's proof for God?
The only proof we have for God is the affect He has on persons and the effects He causes in both persons and nature. And, of course, our own personal experiences.

Yes, the Bible says many things that are true. It also says many things that are not true.

And if you interpret that part of the Bible literally since there is very clear evidence that is wrong that tells us that your "God" does not exist. This does not mean that the Christian God does not exist, but your version of God appears to be as real as the Flat Earth version of God.

And no, one can disprove some ideas, but not necessarily prove others. This is a logical error think that disproving A proves B. To prove B one must do so based upon B's merits, not upon A's flaws.

 

[GodsGrace101]

Yes, the Bible says many things that are true. It also says many things that are not true.

And if you interpret that part of the Bible literally since there is very clear evidence that is wrong that tells us that your "God" does not exist. This does not mean that the Christian God does not exist, but your version of God appears to be as real as the Flat Earth version of God.

And no, one can disprove some ideas, but not necessarily prove others. This is a logical error think that disproving A proves B. To prove B one must do so based upon B's merits, not upon A's flaws.

Must go do some cooking for Easter.
I'm not here to convince you SZ....
Che sara', sara'...

I do wish you WOULD come to know God,,,but it's not up to me.