human life began in Africa, is this not what the bible tells us?

[AV1611VET]

However, I can link to something I said you said, which you did say;

That's right.

India began pushing into Asia.

But not from 250 million years out.

If I own a fork lift that moves at 1 mph, and it has been carrying a pallet for 3 miles, my fork lift has been moving for how long?

That question can't be answered, as you don't know where the fort lift started its journey.

If it started 2 miles away from the pallet, the fork lift has been moving for 5 hours; but if it started its journey with the pallet already on it, it has only been moving 3 hours.

I fail to understand, in the example of India, why the assumption is that India started its journey far enough away from the Asian continent that it took 250 million years to get where it is now.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why New Jersey? Pitch pines grow from Maine to Ohio to Kentucky to Georgia.

Because the New Jersey pine barrens caught my attention.

If I'm wrong, I'm wrong.

But whether Noah lived in Maine, Kentucky, Georgia, or New Jersey, my point is still just as effective:

It would show the Flood was global.

 

[Aldebaran]

I'm not the one who said that it would fly in the face of the Bible.

I didn't know that was even the question. Why change the subject?

Yet another lie. You just can't help yourself, can you? Here's some advice, when you're at the bottom of a hole, stop digging.

Where's your proof of this? I don't see you providing a shred of evidence. All you do is keep asking me for evidence. It must be nice simply deflecting all my questions with questions of your own. So much for accountability.

 

[AV1611VET]

I looked. All I can see is that you don't understand taxonomy or analogies.

SkyWriting got the point (see Post #4).

What's your excuse?

 

[AV1611VET]

Why? What would prevent some people from staying where they were?

Noah did stay where he was [born].

 

[Queller]

Noah would have been born and raised in [what is now] New Jersey.

The human population would not have all congregated around in the Middle East after God told them to replenish the earth.

Again (since you seem to have missed the point despite having quoted it)

"Just because Noah didn't leave the Middle East doesn't mean no one did."

You seem to be thinking that Noah hung around in the Middle East for some reason.

You seem to think that once God told Adam and Eve to go forth and multiply, no one could ever stay in the same place as their ancestors.

 

[Queller]

That's right.

India began pushing into Asia.

But not from 250 million years out.

If I own a fork lift that moves at 1 mph, and it has been carrying a pallet for 3 miles, my fork lift has been moving for how long?

That question can't be answered, as you don't know where the fort lift started its journey.

If it started 2 miles away from the pallet, the fork lift has been moving for 5 hours; but if it started its journey with the pallet already on it, it has only been moving 3 hours.

I fail to understand, in the example of India, why the assumption is that India started its journey far enough away from the Asian continent that it took 250 million years to get where it is now.

Because Pangaea. You remember Pangaea don't you? You talked about it like you accepted its existence until just a couple of days ago.

Seriously though, unlike your fork lift analogy, we know where India started, how fast it's moving, and where it is now. That is enough information to determine the average length of time it has been moving.

 

[RealityCheck01]

See here my friends another massive slice of evidence for the validity of the bible.

Wrong ihavefoundgod951.
If Pontius Pilate exists then him being in the New Testament is evidence that the people who wrote the New Testament thought that a prefect called Pontius Pilate existed !
That they assign actions with no evidence for them to Pontius Pilate does not make those actions exist.

 

[Queller]

I didn't know that was even the question. Why change the subject?

You brought it up, not me.

Where's your proof of this?

Are you seriously so stupid that you want me to prove a negative? Do you not understand burden of proof?

I don't see you providing a shred of evidence.

Because I'm not the one making the positive claim, you are. If you claim I have put down Christianity, the burden of proof is on you to back up that claim, not on me to disprove it.

All you do is keep asking me for evidence.

Yes, I will continue to do so until you either provide said evidence or apologize for lying about me.

It must be nice simply deflecting all my questions with questions of your own.

I believe I've answered ever question you've asked me yet you still fail to provide evidence that I have ever put down Christianity.

So much for accountability.

Yes, you have none. No integrity either.

 

[Queller]

SkyWriting got the point (see Post #4).

ShyWriting is also wrong in post #4. (see post #6)

What's your excuse?

I don't have an excuse for you not understanding taxonomy or analogies.

 

[Queller]

Noah did stay where he was [born].

Yes, he did. In the Middle East.

 

[RealityCheck01]

My evidence, the tomb of Zechariah, the stone of Pontius, the temple, the scripture, Roman scripture, Jewish scripture

That evidence lies because
* the tomb of Zechariah is not a tomb (it is a monument!)
* the stone of Pontius may not even mention Pontius Pilate (the start of the name is conjectural).
* the stone of Pontius may mention a different Pontius Pilate since it has this person as a prefect but Tacitus has a Pontius Pilate who is a procurator.
* the temple exists - so what
* scripture is not evidence. Scripture is what evidence needs to support.
* What "Roman scripture"?
* Jewish scripture supports Judaism, not Christianity.

 

[RealityCheck01]

How about the martyrs who wrote about it, then went to their deaths refusing to claim it was a lie?

It shows that people with religious beliefs can hold on to them to the death which really needs a , AV1611VET!

 

[AV1611VET]

It shows that people with religious beliefs can hold on to them to the death which really needs a , AV1611VET!

Again, I'm talking about the writers, not the readers.

 

[RealityCheck01]

But the point is for what evolution says in that those wolves came from a different shaped animals ...

More exactly, stevevw: Evolution says that wolves came from wolf-shaped animals, cats came from cat-shaped animals, but that the common ancestor of wolves and cats was not like a wolf or cat.

It can also be the natural variations that occur within the species

It is an essential part of evolution that there be natural variability in a population. We see that, e.g. human children are not identical to their parents.

We use the variability in fossils to label them - this is called taxonomy not evolution.
This is a ongoing project - as more fossils become available different groupings become available. However as time goes on and more evidence is gathered the groupings becomemore set.

You were making up stuff about "...Neanderthals and others like Homo erectus show more robust features this maybe due to conditions they lived under, ie diseases, lack of sunlight and living much longer.", stevevw.
Diseases have identifiable (and identified!) effects on Homo and their fossils.
There is no evidence of any "living much longer" - if anything it is the reverse. We have seen that advances in technology and thus diet increase life span.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Again, I'm talking about the writers, not the readers.

Again, I know you are talking about the writers not the readers. The writers had religious beliefs. The writers died for those religious beliefs. That means that the writers had religious beliefs that they would die for !
You really do not want to go the route of "every belief that a writer dies for is true though", AV1611VET, since that leads to the interesting question of whether every Christian heresy that that author died for is actually true. What about non-Christian writers who died for their beliefs? What about political writers who died for their beliefs?

 

[AV1611VET]

Again, I know you are talking about the writers not the readers. The writers had religious beliefs. The writers died for those religious beliefs. That means that the writers had religious beliefs that they would die for !

And some of them, like Matthew & Peter died claiming they were eyewitnesses.

Now if they weren't really eyewitnesses, they would not have died for claiming it.

You really do not want to go the route of "every belief that a writer dies for is true though", AV1611VET, since that leads to the interesting question of whether every Christian heresy that that author died for is actually true. What about non-Christian writers who died for their beliefs? What about political writers who died for their beliefs?

You must have missed this:

So when people die for something they believe to be true, it automatically makes that thing true?

No, sir.

What it automatically does, is confirm that the person who was martyred, was martyred for what he believed to be true.

Which, of course, is just what we would expect with the writers of God's word: that we would expect them to believe what they wrote.

Say there are three people: Bob, Joe, and Matt.

A plane flies overhead.

Bob, who has very poor eyesight & poor hearing, claims it was an eagle; and is martyred for his claim.

Joe, who wants to start a sensation, claims it was a UFO; and is shot stealing a car.

Matt claims a plane flew overhead; and is martyred for his claim.

That's how I see history.

Bob was martyred for believing something that turned out wasn't true.
Joe, corresponding to Joseph Smith, wrote the Book of Mormon knowing it was a lie, and died later for some crime.
Matt, corresponding to Matthew in the Bible, died for writing the Truth.

 

[Aldebaran]

You brought it up, not me.

Are you seriously so stupid that you want me to prove a negative? Do you not understand burden of proof?

Because I'm not the one making the positive claim, you are. If you claim I have put down Christianity, the burden of proof is on you to back up that claim, not on me to disprove it.

Yes, I will continue to do so until you either provide said evidence or apologize for lying about me.

I believe I've answered ever question you've asked me yet you still fail to provide evidence that I have ever put down Christianity.

Yes, you have none. No integrity either.

I've told you repeatedly that what you do is put down Christian beliefs and those who hold them. Want examples? Here's some quotes of yours:

"The God is a deceiver because the evidence He left behind in His creation shows that it happened 66 million years ago."

"Then God is a deceiver because the evidence He left behind says that from the start of the breakup until now was around 200 million years."

"Then God is a deceiver because he shows us images of things in that light that never happened."

I'm glad you support Christians by saying implying we are deceived, and I'm glad you support Christianity by saying God is a deceiver. Not a "put-down" in your humble opinion, Queller? I also enjoy watching you support atheists when they come on here and oppose Christian views. It's even more entertaining watching you deny it all, repeatedly.

Let's see what more you have.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Where the King James Bible differs from the Hebrew, the Hebrew is wrong.

Well, derpy derp derp. Derp derp. Da derp.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[AV1611VET]

I also enjoy watching you support atheists when they come on here and oppose Christian views.

Always reminds me of this passage:

Luke 23:12 And the same day Pilate and Herod were made friends together: for before they were at enmity between themselves.