"God" is not a reasonable response to any question requiring evidence

[Phred]

I do not see any ruins anywhere. How big was UR? How big was Jericho? How big was Babylon? If what they are saying is true, then those cities should have had a million people in them. Today we have cities with 30 million people.

Today we have the ability to get water into a city through pipes. Back then water still had to be carried into each home from the water source. If it was a well the city would be small with many wells. If it was a river then it could be bigger but still wouldn't be very big as people still had to get food too. Eventually the nearby lands would be hunted out. There could be no cities with millions of people in them. Especially with no refrigeration.

People had to live spread out as they lived off the land.

 

[Jazer]

Can the Bible be true? No. Humanity did not start from just one couple. That has been proven.

The Bible is a history of the Hebrew People not all of humanity.
If anyone should be able to grasp that concept it should be you.

 

[Jazer]

And yet, Jericho isn't the oldest city in the world.

What is the oldest city in the world?

 

[Phred]

They have a mutation and that creates a marker. So we know that anyone with that mutation decended from what is now called the Cohan Gene or Marker. Right now they assume that Adam had this same mutation. Something new could be published at any time.

Not "they"... you. You assume this. Adam is a fictional character that you imbue with real qualities. There's no evidence to suggest Adam even existed much less had that mutation.

Would you rather talk about the mythology of monkey and have a discussion about their written language and their ability to farm and herd animals to feed themselves. Perhaps you would like to show me the genetic mutation that makes man different from all the other apes. Evolution fails to answer questions and they fail to get the job done. Creationism can do what Science can not do. Answer questions and solve problems not just treat symptoms.

Monkeys don't farm. Monkeys don't herd animals. Humans do. But Monkeys feed themselves just fine without having to herd or farm. Have you noticed?

One genetic mutation that makes men different from other primates is we have 46 chromosomes and chimpanzees and bonobos have 48. One of ours fused. Evolution predicted this and it was found and proven to have happened. But... you're right about one thing. Creationism can do something science can't do. It can make claims without any evidence.

Evolution is mythology. They Bible is truth. We go from Darwinism, to Neo Darwinism, to Post Neo Darwinism. The Bible just keeps right on being consistent and true.

Evolution is a fact and a theory. It is supported by evidence. The Bible is a fairy tale that simply isn't true. It wasn't true before, it isn't true now and it won't be true in the future. But it is consistent.

 

[Phred]

I always love threads like this that never prove any thing except there are different opinions, but our atheist friends are right about one thing so let's give them credit where credit is due, after all beyond this point they have no clue.

Can't wait. Go on...

They are correct when they state there is no rational reason to believe in god.

This is true. An honest person here, go on...

They are also correct there is no physical proof beyond a shadow of doubt, bravo!

There is no physical proof. Indeed. But I feel something looming.

It does seem totally ridiculous to believe in some thing you can not see! Such wisdom! They are absolutely correct so far! No arguments on any of those points from me!

And...?

Yet amazingly any one who defies logic and rationality and takes that leap of faith and accepts God suddenly experiences things beyond words! Suddenly we see all the proof we need all around us! We are convinced there is a GOD and suddenly we can't get enough of God!

God is chocolate?

Now as crazy as this may seem, it is not limited to a small portion of the population, or level of education, or geographic region or even a portion of history. It has always been as long as we have recorded history to this very date! How can such a illogical, irrational, completely absurd belief based on no proofs whatsoever survive for so long and effect so many people from so many walks of life?!

Because human beings are wired for this belief. We survived in the jungle because we believed in things we couldn't see. Those that ran from things they couldn't see didn't get eaten by them. Whether they were there or not. We have amazing pattern recognition engines in our brains. It's why we see the Virgin Mary in rust spots on water towers. We used to see the outline of leopards in leaves. Again, whether it was there or not. Those that ran lived. And so the illogical, irrational, completely absurd abilities became hardwired into us. We see intent behind action whether it's there or not. We see the rain fall and we look for the reason it falls. The wind must have a mind behind it. The tree falls, there must be a reason. And that's how gods were invented. They are the reason.

Nowdays we know better. Rain falls because of the buildup of moisture in clouds. But your belief in gods still holds fast because you "feel" it. Only we can simulate that feeling with magnetic fields. Your god is nothing more than the human brain seeking to put a reason behind a feeling.

That my friends is some thing we as believers totally understand, but our atheist friends may never grasp. Amazing no?! They have no idea what we have or see!

Except I know exactly what you feel. What you have. What you see. You have to dismiss me of course, I can't know or I wouldn't be able to be an atheist. Yet, here I am. I know... I know it's good and feels wonderful. I also know that like a drug, it's false.

So I could choose the feeling. Or I can choose the truth of reality.

It's just too easy to toss my problems over the fence because of an invisible being who "has a plan" for me. Sure, I can accept that. I can lose myself in belief. The bills that don't get paid, the people that are sick, the turmoil, the pain... all because in the end it's what's best for me. Someone superior to me knows better and has it all planned out so that I will be a better person when I die and move on from this life. And by gosh, I'll never be given a burden greater than I can bear. He knows.

Is that about right? Except for one thing. There's no god there. I can bear any burden because I have to. I don't have a choice. It's not magic, it's living. We're all a lot stronger than we think. Life is a series of choices and we make them, not guided by some great mind but guided by our own brains. We are responsible and we are to blame when things go wrong. But we're also to praise when they go right. Not some deity. You want to live a fulfilling life? Do the things that Jesus recommends. Not to get into heaven, but because they're the right thing to do.

Lastly, look around. Don't do it as some happy-ass freak but do it as a caring human being. Look around. If there's an all-powerful being out there who loves us and cares for us... are you really going to tell me his number one priority is hiding so that we can find him and worship him as the price for getting into heaven? He wants us to deny our senses and intellect and have FAITH? Seriously? This is what you do when you can to anything?

Nuts.

 

[Phred]

You picked a good one. Can we replicate it? No. So far no scientist has come up with a fairly logical explanation of how a small planet managed to get into orbit around the earth.

That's not true. The impact theory fits exactly. And the computer model works.

Why are there many theories?

Because over time we've added more facts to consider. At first it was just a
moon. How did any planet get a moon? We didn't know. Was it part of the earth? Was it captured by the earth's gravity? Then we went there and found it was composed of material just like earth. So we abandoned the capture idea and moved toward the impact concept.

Because there is not ONE that fits all the facts well. Why did we stop going there? Because it gave us no answers. The moon turned out to be another huge scientific enigma. Even samples of the surface gave us "not Earth" ratio's of minerals, yet "kind of" like earth.

And lets not forget there ARE no other moons like it around any other planets. Its size and orbit are unique. And this ONE moon, in it's unique orbit, unique size, just happens to be orbiting this ONE planet with life. It also is responsible for keeping life going and (it's said) responsible for life ever starting.

Well now, that's one boatload of assumptions. There are indeed no other moons like it around any other planets of earth's size. That's three. Venus, Earth and Mars. Venus doesn't have a moon. Mars has two, but they're smaller. Has our moon contributed to life on Earth? Has the impact of a six-mile asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs contributed to the rise of mammals? Does that mean God threw that rock at the Earth? Really, is this where you're going?

Without the moon humans might not have metal yet.

Um... no.

There are 1000's of factors that complicate the idea that the man is a natural result of rock baking in the sun.

And yet, here we are.

The moon is one of the best.

Still no evidence that a deity even exists much less placed the moon there.

 

[Phred]

Nothing faulty about the assumption, it is based on rock solid science that there were not enough generations for mutations to have taken place. You can ignore the geneologys in the Bible if you want to live in error. But they are real historical people. All we can do is feel sorry for you if you do not see real living people.

Really? So Moses was a "real historical" prince of Egypt but they forgot to mention him. It's always the other guys that are in error. Never the Bible.

 

[Phred]

I'll be glad to look over your data on that. Few people doubt the historical context of the scriptures, even if they deny any supernatural events.

I'm sorry. Nobody believes that people lived to be hundreds of years old, that rainbows didn't exist until after a global flood (which never happened) and on and on. The "historical" content of the Bible consists of the mention of some real places at real times with the occasional ruler thrown in for fun. Herod for example, is real. Other than that your statement is false.

 

[AV1611VET]

What is the oldest city in the world?

Damascus?

 

[Phred]

What is the oldest city in the world?

There are several cities older than 3,000 BCE. Byblos, Sidan, Gaziantep, Damascus, Athens, Argos, Mytilene is at least 7,000 years older, Pula... need I go on?

 

[AV1611VET]

What is the oldest city in the world?

There are several cities older than 3,000 BCE. Byblos, Sidan, Gaziantep, Damascus, Athens, Argos, Mytilene is at least 7,000 years older, Pula... need I go on?

Yes, please go on -- if you want to.

Go on and answer the question as Jazer asked it.

You'll have to hang up the Arab phone first, though.

 

[Phred]

Damascus?

That's one... nicely done.

 

[Phred]

Yes, please go on -- if you want to.

Go on and answer the question as Jazer asked it.

You'll have to hang up the Arab phone first, though.

Not all of those were Arab.

However, to answer the question one needs to define, "city". Byblos is likely the oldest. It became a city in 5,000 BCE. Jericho was just a settlement then. Damascus didn't become a "city" until 3,000 BCE.

Damascus is the oldest city with uninterrupted habitation.

There is a "city" that was found sunken off the coast of Gujarat. The city dates back to 7,500 BC. There is no name for this city and if it were to be classified as a "city" it would be the oldest. Work is still progressing.

 

[No Time]

That's one... nicely done.

Of course we know virtually nothing about China, they might have towns even older than that.

By the way, the Bible tries to tackles the problem of languages but it mentions nothing of why people from all over the world should look so different from each other.

 

[Jazer]

Really? So Moses was a "real historical" prince of Egypt but they forgot to mention him. It's always the other guys that are in error. Never the Bible.

Right now it is you that is in error. First of all they have excavated the whole city that the Hebrews lived in Egypt. How could you have missed that? That pretty well destroys your credibility. Perhaps you do not know what your talking about. That is doing all I can to give you the benefit of the doubt when in reality your most likely aware that you are bearing false witness for whatever your twisted purpose is. I suppose in your defense no one expects a clown to tell the truth, so perhaps you are just trying to live up to your persona. But if that is the case you have failed because there is nothing funny about people who bear false witness. I makes me want to cry not laugh.

 

[Jazer]

Of course we know virtually nothing about China,

China knows about China, we have to go by what they say. Archaeology is a fairly recent discovery there so the field is wide open for discovery. They are very advanced in geology though. Of course there is billions and billions of dollars to be made from geology. Where archaeology cost the government money. So of course it is easy to see where they would be quicker to pay for a geology student then a archaeology student.

 

[AV1611VET]

Not all of those were Arab.

However, to answer the question one needs to define, "city". Byblos is likely the oldest. It became a city in 5,000 BCE. Jericho was just a settlement then. Damascus didn't become a "city" until 3,000 BCE.

Damascus is the oldest city with uninterrupted habitation.

There is a "city" that was found sunken off the coast of Gujarat. The city dates back to 7,500 BC. There is no name for this city and if it were to be classified as a "city" it would be the oldest. Work is still progressing.

Science at its best, eh?

I'm glad they don't scratch themselves to death over our medicine like that.

Oh, wait... nevermind.

 

[AV1611VET]

Of course we know virtually nothing about China, they might have towns even older than that.

Yup -- keep looking.

By the way, the Bible tries to tackles the problem of languages but it mentions nothing of why people from all over the world should look so different from each other.

I think the Bible is more interested in how your heart looks, than how your face looks.

 

[British Bulldog]

I think the Bible is more interested in how your heart looks, than how your face looks.

The bible is a book, not a person.

 

[Split Rock]

Yup -- keep looking.

I think the Bible is more interested in how your heart looks, than how your face looks.

The bible is a book, not a person.

Well, for AVET and most other creationists here, the bible is pretty much their god.