If truth is absoluute then why are therre so many different religions?

[LoAmmi]

In fact, there are footprints (Texas, for one place) that have both Dino footprints and man's in the same rock strata. That is totally and completely impossible IF Dinos died out 75 Million years ago and mankind appeared on earth for the first time a mere 200,000 years ago. How did a human footprint appear 75 million years ago in rock strata when man didn't appear on earth for another 74,800,000 years? Evolution lies, that's how. Also, how did men chisel/etch exact images of Dinos (Stegosaurus, for one, found in S.E. Asia) on stones/temples when Dinos had been dead for nearly 75 million years? And, these images were 'etched' long before modern times so there is no way they knew what they were drawing. The 'science' of evolution proves evolution didn't occur.

http://www.paleo.cc/paluxy/mantrack.htm

http://www.paleo.cc/paluxy/stegosaur-claim.htm

With 100% more science than the claims of creationists.

 

[LoAmmi]

True but if there is a God then he would make sure that what he told/revealed to his servants was the truth. The only errors I have found in the Bible are men failing to accurately quote the OT or something as that. For example Paul, Corinthians, speaks of a war in the OT. What Paul says, 23,000 men fail, was incorrect. The number was 24,000 according to the OT. These kinds of mistakes/errors have no effect on the message or meaning of the Bible. He simply got his figures wrong- as all humans do from time to time. But when it comes to the meaning or the message of the Bible there are no mistakes, contradictions or errors when viewed in context.

Matthew, Mark, and Luke have Jesus die on the first day of Passover. John has him die on the day prior to the first day of Passover. Seems like a big, glaring error to me since the day of death is a pretty important aspect to Christianity and you'd assume they'd want to get it right.

 

[Rocmonkey]

Who is this they because I can't think of a credible scientist that would say life was "created" in a place where lift already existed.

Once scientists discovered what 'life' is made up of- amino acids and a couple other ingredients- 'they' decided that 'they' could reproduce life. So they tried... and failed. And 'they' were in a sterile lab with no nasty ingredients to contaminate the product. Then they electrified the ingredients of life and Viola...nothing happened. No life. Every attempt since the first, and including the first, have been dismal failures. Mankind, they, can't create life and we know how to and we have sterile labs to boot. If life evolved by simple happenstance or spontaneously why could 'they' not reproduce (science) life? Bcuz life didn't evolve, it was created. Life is both a body and a spirit. And the spirit only comes from God.

 

[LoAmmi]

Once scientists discovered what 'life' is made up of- amino acids and a couple other ingredients- 'they' decided that 'they' could reproduce life. So they tried... and failed. And 'they' were in a sterile lab with no nasty ingredients to contaminate the product. Then they electrified the ingredients of life and Viola...nothing happened. No life. Every attempt since the first, and including the first, have been dismal failures. Mankind, they, can't create life and we know how to and we have sterile labs to boot. If life evolved by simple happenstance or spontaneously why could 'they' not reproduce (science) life? Bcuz life didn't evolve, it was created. Life is both a body and a spirit. And the spirit only comes from God.

You're talking about the experiment that was determining if amino acids could join together on their own with no outside interference which was specifically setup not to create life? That one? Well, yes, the experiment designed not to create life didn't create life. And creationists keep ignoring that fact pretending that they were trying to create life. Why? Who knows.

I guess your entire belief system falls about if we ever do create life in a lab though, wouldn't it? I wouldn't build my faith on a house of cards.

 

[Rocmonkey]

Matthew, Mark, and Luke have Jesus die on the first day of Passover. John has him die on the day prior to the first day of Passover. Seems like a big, glaring error to me since the day of death is a pretty important aspect to Christianity and you'd assume they'd want to get it right.

Right. There are many such instances in the Gospels. But we know that if 4 different people see the same car wreck- at different angles or viewpoints, they all describe it 'a bit' differently. Luke and Acts say there were 2 angels at the tomb of Jesus and the other gospels say only 1. But neither affect the message or the meaning of the gospels. These examples have been used by nons for, possibly, generations. 'They' would attack the Bible if all of the gospels were exactly the same. They'd say something like 'Well, it is clear they all copied from each other'. Or, 'This proves the Bible isn't inspired bcuz no two people see everything identically'.

It doesn't matter what Christians say bcuz some non will dissect it and come up with an excuse. For example, when the Bible speaks of a 200 million-man army (Revelations)- for generations the nons said 'that can never happen! And such as 'that huge number proves the Bible isn't true'. But once enough people were born so that an army of that number could be mustered all of the nons rhetoric vanished. Disappeared w/o fanfare or apology. This is how the nons are. I can give a number of such instances. Also, in case someone is interested, India and China 'each' can muster a 200 million-man army. Again, the Bible is proven true and the anti-Bible folks wrong.
By the way, when the prophecy was given (of the 200 million-man army) scientists tell us there was only about 50 million people on earth. So compare the extreme of that prophecy with today. If that were said today it would be a 7 BILLION-man army. That shows how bizarre and outrageous that 'prophecy' was even then. But it came true in at least 3 ways- China, India and the Western world- maybe 4 if one considers Islam. The only way that could come true is if there is a God who truly knows the future. And, since it has come true- and in only one book on earth- well, there ya go.

 

[jacknife]

Science is defined by scientists as- The rigorous observation and interpretation of evidence that results ultimately in the ability to predict phenomena.

Where is the proof (evidence) that evolution is true- from a purely scientific point of view? I've never seen a single shred and I have looked hard and read a lot. What phenomena have they predicted from observation and interpretation of the evidence? Sure, we know Dinos lived. But the Bible says man and Dinos lived together (Job).

In fact, there are footprints (Texas, for one place) that have both Dino footprints and man's in the same rock strata. That is totally and completely impossible IF Dinos died out 75 Million years ago and mankind appeared on earth for the first time a mere 200,000 years ago. How did a human footprint appear 75 million years ago in rock strata when man didn't appear on earth for another 74,800,000 years? Evolution lies, that's how. Also, how did men chisel/etch exact images of Dinos (Stegosaurus, for one, found in S.E. Asia) on stones/temples when Dinos had been dead for nearly 75 million years? And, these images were 'etched' long before modern times so there is no way they knew what they were drawing. The 'science' of evolution proves evolution didn't occur.

Evolution predicted that life would fall into a nested Hierarchy and by examining the fossil record we can see they were right on the money. In fact I have heard no other explanation as to why the fossil record would show this trend there are many other pieces of evidence to be sure men spend their whole lives studying the phenomenon of evolution.

 

[LoAmmi]

Right. There are many such instances in the Gospels. But we know that if 4 different people see the same car wreck- at different angles or viewpoints, they all describe it 'a bit' differently. Luke and Acts say there were 2 angels at the tomb of Jesus and the other gospels say only 1. But neither affect the message or the meaning of the gospels. These examples have been used by nons for, possibly, generations. 'They' would attack the Bible if all of the gospels were exactly the same. They'd say something like 'Well, it is clear they all copied from each other'. Or, 'This proves the Bible isn't inspired bcuz no two people see everything identically'.

If four people see a car accident and three of them claim it was on Christmas and the forth claims it was on Christmas Eve and they are all devout Christians who would certainly know when their very important holiday was, would you think that a bit strange? I'm not even talking about how many angels are there or whatever. I'm talking about the date of death being different.

You're the one who's saying the Bible has to be 100% true. Well... by your standard it can't be in this instance. These are two contradictory facts that cannot both be true. This isn't a minor issue that can be explained away easily.

 

[Rocmonkey]

You're talking about the experiment that was determining if amino acids could join together on their own with no outside interference which was specifically setup not to create life? That one? Well, yes, the experiment designed not to create life didn't create life. And creationists keep ignoring that fact pretending that they were trying to create life. Why? Who knows.

I guess your entire belief system falls about if we ever do create life in a lab though, wouldn't it? I wouldn't build my faith on a house of cards.

Whoa! Really? they might be saying that now but there was never a time when scientists intentionally wasted money to prove something 'couldn't' be done. That is not how science works. The idea was to see if they could create life. Do you really believe they tried to prove evolution couldn't happen? Evolutionists get money for trying to show what did happen, not what didn't- that is often a result of their intentions. So why would any scientist waste precious resources to prove what everyone already knew? They'd never get another penny if they did that. Sorry, but I don't believe that for a second. We know scientists will fudge their 'truth'. Remember the two from Utah and their perpetual motion? No one could reproduce their results and they were discredited and embarrassed.

No, my faith wouldn't fail. I believe that day is coming. Freaks of nature have occurred. And freaks of man, I'm sure, are coming if not already here... Montauk Island.

 

[LoAmmi]

Whoa! Really? they might be saying that now but there was never a time when scientists intentionally wasted money to prove something 'couldn't' be done. That is not how science works. The idea was to see if they could create life. Do you really believe they tried to prove evolution couldn't happen? Evolutionists get money for trying to show what did happen, not what didn't- that is often a result of their intentions. So why would any scientist waste precious resources to prove what everyone already knew? They'd never get another penny if they did that. Sorry, but I don't believe that for a second. We know scientists will fudge their 'truth'. Remember the two from Utah and their perpetual motion? No one could reproduce their results and they were discredited and embarrassed.

No, read what I wrote again. They were trying to see if they could get amino acids to bond together on their own by simulating what was believed at the time to be the conditions of the Earth prior to life. That was the goal of it. To see if the acids would bond. That wasn't wasting money to prove something couldn't be done. It was seeing if something COULD be done. Namely bonding the building blocks of life.

So in your last sentence you are saying that science self corrects when people fudge things? Very interesting.

 

[Rocmonkey]

If four people see a car accident and three of them claim it was on Christmas and the forth claims it was on Christmas Eve and they are all devout Christians who would certainly know when their very important holiday was, would you think that a bit strange? I'm not even talking about how many angels are there or whatever. I'm talking about the date of death being different.

Not strange at all- people make mistakes. We all do and often. But we both know that will never happen bcuz the cops, news, etc will report it, take pics, vids, etc. That's a stretch for anyone to believe will ever happen. I know it is just an example but not a good one.

You're the one who's saying the Bible has to be 100% true. Well... by your standard it can't be in this instance. These are two contradictory facts that cannot both be true. This isn't a minor issue that can be explained away easily.

One would think that if that was possible/could occur then by now it would have, right? The Bible is inerrant, infallible authoritative, inspired and complete when God is doing the speaking. Show something God said in that book that is a mistake, in error or wrong.

 

[LoAmmi]

Not strange at all- people make mistakes. We all do and often. But we both know that will never happen bcuz the cops, news, etc will report it, take pics, vids, etc. That's a stretch for anyone to believe will ever happen. I know it is just an example but not a good one.

Is it possible to you that John didn't make a mistake but, instead, shifted the day to theologically tie Jesus to the slaughter of the lambs which would not have been possible in Mark, Matthew, or Luke? John is the only Gospel that equates Jesus to the Passover lamb.

 

[Rocmonkey]

No, read what I wrote again. They were trying to see if they could get amino acids to bond together on their own by simulating what was believed at the time to be the conditions of the Earth prior to life. That was the goal of it. To see if the acids would bond. That wasn't wasting money to prove something couldn't be done. It was seeing if something COULD be done. Namely bonding the building blocks of life.

The first sentence in that post says both- they weren't and they were trying to create life. How were they trying to 'not' create life? That's crazy- and a waste of a lot of money. They were trying to create life but titled it differently bcuz that (creating life) would be morally wrong and illegal- a.k.a. Frankenstein. Dolly raised a lot of questions and concerns and she was only Xeroxed, not created, per se.

So in your last sentence you are saying that science self corrects when people fudge things? Very interesting.

Not science but good scientists. They will correct bad ones, usually.

 

[LoAmmi]

The first sentence in that post says both- they weren't and they were trying to create life.

No it doesn't. If you cannot accurately read what I write, how can you accurately respond to it?

 

[Rocmonkey]

Is it possible to you that John didn't make a mistake but, instead, shifted the day to theologically tie Jesus to the slaughter of the lambs which would not have been possible in Mark, Matthew, or Luke? John is the only Gospel that equates Jesus to the Passover lamb.

It's also possible that the others 'heard' Jesus was dead then. John saw it happen. Which got it wrong is up for grabs but John stayed with or close to Jesus through the ordeal. The other Apostles/writers were "scattered" or heresy/secondhand info (Luke). Remember that this event- Jesus being arrested, tortured then murdered was very shocking. memories fail on mild issues. This issue was anything but mild. It is possible (since we're speculating. ) that those involved whom Luke questioned had forgotten a lot and were guessing 'to the best of their ability' to remember. We know that happens with shock/traumatic events. The others, I don't know- maybe the same. I know I'd be in tremendous shock if I had been there for that. People are feeble and fallible. I know I am especially at this age- 57. haha

But God wasn't speaking and it doesn't affect/alter the message or the meaning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ/Plan of Salvation.

 

[jacknife]

Actually I'm pretty sure no one has passed laws in regards to creating life and if creating life is morally wrong was god immoral to do so?

 

[LoAmmi]

It's also possible that the others 'heard' Jesus was dead then. John saw it happen. Which got it wrong is up for grabs but John stayed with or close to Jesus through the ordeal. The other Apostles/writers were "scattered" or heresy/secondhand info (Luke). Remember that this event- Jesus being arrested, tortured then murdered was very shocking. memories fail on mild issues. This issue was anything but mild. It is possible (since we're speculating. ) that those involved whom Luke questioned had forgotten a lot and were guessing 'to the best of their ability' to remember. We know that happens with shock/traumatic events. The others, I don't know- maybe the same. I know I'd be in tremendous shock if I had been there for that. People are feeble and fallible. I know I am especially at this age- 57. haha

But God wasn't speaking and it doesn't affect/alter the message or the meaning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ/Plan of Salvation.

So they didn't know if they had eaten the Passover Seder or not the night before? Sorry, but that's not something I could go along with. In fact, the more hoops you need to jump though to explain it, the more implausible it becomes.

 

[Rocmonkey]

No it doesn't. If you cannot accurately read what I write, how can you accurately respond to it?

You said-
1. You're talking about the experiment that was determining if amino acids could join together on their own with no outside interference which was specifically setup not to create life? That one?
2. Well, yes, the experiment designed not to create life didn't create life

1. They set up a lab to see if they could not create life by doing what they believed occurred to create life, right? Really? Think about that.
2. But they still shot electricity in it bcuz that is what evolution supposedly did that started the process of life. That is an attempt to create life, clearly. They can say what they want but if they did that- and they did- then they were trying to create life. What would have happened IF they had created life? Would they have destroyed it? Stopped the test? I doubt it. We know they wouldn't have. But it failed so they said well, we were trying not to create life. Right. Scientists trying not to do what they are trying to do in the lab they set up for that specific purpose. Scientist look for truth and answers, not to prove lies are lies. I'm sorry but I don't buy their excuses (if that is what they said- I haven't read that one).

 

[bhsmte]

I thought this thread was about why there are so many different religions?

 

[LoAmmi]

You said-
1. You're talking about the experiment that was determining if amino acids could join together on their own with no outside interference which was specifically setup not to create life? That one?
2. Well, yes, the experiment designed not to create life didn't create life

1. They set up a lab to see if they could not create life by doing what they believed occurred to create life, right? Really? Think about that.
2. But they still shot electricity in it bcuz that is what evolution supposedly did that started the process of life. That is an attempt to create life, clearly. They can say what they want but if they did that- and they did- then they were trying to create life. What would have happened IF they had created life? Would they have destroyed it? Stopped the test? I doubt it. We know they wouldn't have. But it failed so they said well, we were trying not to create life. Right. Scientists trying not to do what they are trying to do in the lab they set up for that specific purpose. Scientist look for truth and answers, not to prove lies are lies. I'm sorry but I don't buy their excuses (if that is what they said- I haven't read that one).

Your #1 is incorrect. So, premise falls apart. I'm not dealing with it anymore.

 

[Rocmonkey]

Actually I'm pretty sure no one has passed laws in regards to creating life and if creating life is morally wrong was god immoral to do so?

There may not be a law against such things (as Frankensteins, etc) but there ought to be. I have heard of people having babies for parts for an already existing child that has severe issues/diseases. I heard England has passed such a law, even. But why not allow cloning if we/they are doing that? I think this is playing God. The science is quite scary, in fact. if doctors can't fix a person creating one to kill it for its body parts (which Planned Parenthood has been doing illegally for...ever?) is morally wrong and, to me, reprehensible. Maybe someone will create life one day somewhere. Just shows how far science can take us- up and down.