Originally posted by Shai-Hulud
Oh please. At least try to understand. I do suggest you follow a basic chemistry course.
I hope you at least got a laugh out of that angry alligator
It's even worse than others? No significant differences as far as I can tell, but please, enlighten me.
I already explained this in the last post pretty much.
You mean some of the places mentioned in it actually exist? Troy was discovered based on the Ilias. Does that mean Zeus is real?
Many places, among other many things. It's interesting to see what's been dug up, and how stories that came from different areas actually support each other.
I'm not sure if Zeus is real or not, If Zeus is real then he is one of the fallen angels, I am taking into consideration here that the bible mentions the sons of God coming down to earth and taking women as their wifes, and giving birth to giants.
Frankly, there are places for people who hear voices.
I knew you were going to say that! no need to worry though he didn't order me to go kill or anything like that lol!
Would you care to give us a little actual evidence in stead of your opinion?
If I need actual evidence, then why doesn't science need the same? I thought I made it fairly clear where I derived my evidence from.
Unfortunately sometimes they don't know what they're talking about. What would you say if I tried to debate the bible with you and I said that it was written by the current pope, that Jesus lived 50 years ago, and wanted total war on Russia?
I'm only trying to point out possibilities between the Bible and science, I admit I don't know everything about science. Even you have admitted that science does have evidence about everything it claims, so I don't think that makes us much different, other than the sources we are seeking answers from. I think the two can come to agree on certain points though. I don't think it's a matter of having to know everything.
You're not making a theological claim. You're making a scientific claim. That requiers scientific evidence, not just scripture. I hope you understand that.
Absolute 100% certaintly, proof, is impossible in science. I doubt that you're familiar with the philosophy of science, I'm not going to try to explain it here. Anyway, these dating methods have been verified with other dating methods, and have been found to be accurate. I suggest you read a little about the current theories on the formation of the solar system.
See right there, neither one of us has 100% proof to back up our claims, but you want me to give you 100% proof about the Bible.
I wasn't saying that the earth sits still. I'm saying that there are enourmous problems with creating the earth before the sun. Even ignoring the shockwaves produced by a sun appearing out of nothing, the earth would not have an orbit. It would simply fall into the sun. So god would have to give it a push. Don't you agree that it makes more sense to get the sun first, and then the earth. Then you don't have to bother about any of these problems.
no you just tried to claim that the Bible claimed it did.
And what if the sun was created, and then set into the sky? Is there still a problem with that?
Are you trying to propose creationism as a scientific alternative to the current cosmological/evolutionary/abiogenesis theories? If you are I'd expect something more that just 'explaining away the evidence'.
Shai-Hulud
I'm only trying to shed some light on the possibility that we could have been created. Doesn't science itself simply explain away evidence that we are unable to see with our eyes?
Upvote
0