Faith VS Science & Athiests

reply to post by Annunak1


1. Is courage — strength of character — desirable? Then must man be reared in an environment which necessitates grappling with hardships and reacting to disappointments.

2. Is altruism — service of one’s fellows — desirable? Then must life experience provide for encountering situations of social inequality.

3. Is hope — the grandeur of trust — desirable? Then human existence must constantly be confronted with insecurities and recurrent uncertainties.

4. Is faith — the supreme assertion of human thought — desirable? Then must the mind of man find itself in that troublesome predicament where it ever knows less than it can believe.

5. Is the love of truth and the willingness to go wherever it leads, desirable? Then must man grow up in a world where error is present and falsehood always possible.

6. Is idealism — the approaching concept of the divine — desirable? Then must man struggle in an environment of relative goodness and beauty, surroundings stimulative of the irrepressible reach for better things.

7. Is loyalty — devotion to highest duty — desirable? Then must man carry on amid the possibilities of betrayal and desertion. The valor of devotion to duty consists in the implied danger of default.

8. Is unselfishness — the spirit of self-forgetfulness — desirable? Then must mortal man live face to face with the incessant clamoring of an inescapable self for recognition and honor. Man could not dynamically choose the divine life if there were no self-life to forsake. Man could never lay saving hold on righteousness if there were no potential evil to exalt and differentiate the good by contrast.

9. Is pleasure — the satisfaction of happiness — desirable? Then must man live in a world where the alternative of pain and the likelihood of suffering are ever-present experiential possibilities.

reply to post by Krazysh0t


This theory is getting so old and annoying, the wiki page itself counters your statement.

During intense fires, the organism survived underground, with its root system sending up new stems in the aftermath of each wildfire. If its postulated age is correct, the climate into which Pando was born was markedly different from that of today, and it may be as many as 10,000 years since Pando's last successful flowering.

So basically like most trees, if you cut down the trunk it can still survive by its roots and just regrow a new trunk.

LMFAO

had to edit this in cause i haven't ever read up on Old Tjikko this is straight from the wiki also

The age of the tree was determined by carbon dating of the root system under the tree, not by dendrochronology, or counting tree rings. The trunk itself is estimated to be only a few hundred years old,

So basically your whole entire argument is thrown out the window.

bigcountry08
reply to post by Krazysh0t

 

This theory is getting so old and annoying, the wiki page itself counters your statement.

During intense fires, the organism survived underground, with its root system sending up new stems in the aftermath of each wildfire. If its postulated age is correct, the climate into which Pando was born was markedly different from that of today, and it may be as many as 10,000 years since Pando's last successful flowering.

So basically like most trees, if you cut down the trunk it can still survive by its roots and just regrow a new trunk.

How is that countered? Even without a trunk, it is still alive, which it very well wouldn't be if a giant body of water from a global flood was sitting on top of it, suffocating and drowning it. Also, it isn't a theory. It is a real organism with a real root system that was dated back 9550 years ago. You can go visit it yourself. That is called fact. I'm not sure what your point about the climate Pando was born being different is supposed to mean. How does that prove that it can survive underneath a giant body of water? Which again would be the result of a global flood.

Apparently you missed the ENTIRE point of showing the age of these two organisms. The point is to show two plants (this is key since plants don't move from place to place) that took root and grew before the alleged global flood took place as well as show that since they are still alive today, they obviously lived through the time period that this alleged event took place. Since these are two land based plants, being buried under tons of water, even if only a root system, the plants would assuredly die out. Therefore, at no point could these plants possibly be submerged underneath water for any length of time. Therefore a global flood could not have taken place. Proof by contradiction. QED. Please don't try to detract with red herrings about the tree like that it was only a root system at one point, but address the points I am making.

reply to post by UB2120


Very wise post. You've given voice to something I've had difficulty articulating. And for that, I thank you.

reply to post by Krazysh0t


Really your a botanist and you know for a fact how these trees would react to being covered by water for a period of only 150 days??? How is it that the plants in Michigan can withstand 4 months of being frozen and covered by snow and still live after all that, how about plants in Russia or Alaska where there covered with snow for up to almost 8 months. Plants are way hardier then you think.

Besides floods happen all around the world every year, are those regions desolate and without any plants due to the water killing them all? No actually one of the first things usually to spring back the fastest are the plants because of the high water content and all of the nutrients the floods have washed in.

The theory that I was referring to was yours on how the flood couldn't have happened because these trees exisit, i never said that i didn't believe in these trees. But none of this will matter because you will just bury your feet in deeper to your theory even though all the facts are against you, because you just cant let go of your "beliefs".

bigcountry08
reply to post by Krazysh0t

 

Really your a botanist and you know for a fact how these trees would react to being covered by water for a period of only 150 days??? How is it that the plants in Michigan can withstand 4 months of being frozen and covered by snow and still live after all that, how about plants in Russia or Alaska where there covered with snow for up to almost 8 months. Plants are way hardier then you think.

Snow is lighter and less dense than water. Not to mention, there is no such thing as a snowbase that covers up an ENTIRE tree all the way to the top most branches. The trees that survive winter aren't completely covered in snow. Sunlight has trouble penetrating into deep water, which the water level would have to be in order to cover the whole Earth. Also plants such as the ones you are describing go into a yearly hibernation where most of their nutrient producing cycles and systems are shutdown or slowed down significantly so that they can survive for extended periods of time under snow or in frozen ground. The reason these plants are able to do this is because winter is a yearly event that comes and goes at the same time each year. A global flood is a one time event that a plant would have no way of preparing itself to survive for. COMPLETELY different situation.

How Do Trees Survive The Cold?

Ice is a problem because, as you may have noticed, ice is pointy. When water freezes normally it “expands” because its molecules reorient themselves into geometric shapes as they freeze. When the water inside a tree (either within the cells or between the cells) freezes, all of a sudden there are hundreds of tiny ice crystals, all taking up more space than they used to and just ready to rip through cell walls and gut them.

So how do trees prevent this? They acclimate! Even the hardiest trees aren’t frost-ready all year round. The tree that can survive the coldest arctic winter might still be killed off or damaged by a cold snap in July. Growth and heavy photosynthesis aren’t terribly compatible with being ready for a freeze (which is why frosts in the spring are especially deadly).

Most of the same hormones that trigger dormancy are responsible for cold acclimation. Based on a combination of slowly lowering temperatures and shortening photoperiod (shorter days as we head towards winter), a chemical chain reaction occurs that tells the plant that it’s time to stop growing, hunker down, and get ready for a big chill.

Besides floods happen all around the world every year, are those regions desolate and without any plants due to the water killing them all? No actually one of the first things usually to spring back the fastest are the plants because of the high water content and all of the nutrients the floods have washed in.

Yes local floods do happen, and they kill the plant life that is there. The plants that grow afterwards is usually new plant life enriched by the nutrients that have been washed into the soil. You are also trying to compare a small scale flood (where the water level isn't really that deep and usually doesn't last that long) to a GIANT flood that would literally cover the earth.

When a local flood happens, if a tree is there, the flood may just cover its root system. The tree's leaves and branches still remain above water, if it was just a root system it would die. Now for comparison, Mount Ararat (the mountain that the ark supposedly landed on) is 16,854 ft tall. That is over 3 miles and isn't even the tallest mountain in the world, that means that at least 3 miles of water covered the Earth from today's sea level. In other words, THIS flood would cover the ENTIRE tree, not just the root system. Do you HONESTLY think that is comparable to a local flood or some snow sitting on the ground for a few months?

The theory that I was referring to was yours on how the flood couldn't have happened because these trees exisit, i never said that i didn't believe in these trees. But none of this will matter because you will just bury your feet in deeper to your theory even though all the facts are against you, because you just cant let go of your "beliefs".

All the facts AREN'T against me. You just seem to believe that a tree could somehow live with miles of water on top of it. Light may be detected as far as 1,000 meters down in the ocean, but there is rarely any significant light beyond 200 meters..

Sunlight entering the water may travel about 1,000 meters (3,280 feet) into the ocean under the right conditions, but there is rarely any significant light beyond 200 meters (656 feet).

You can call that digging my feet in if you want, but I call that providing evidence and factual information that refutes your argument. 656 feet, that is pretty much where light stops being able to reach through water. Can you explain how light is supposed to reach a submerged tree that is buried underneath miles of water? Especially if it was just a root system at the time.

Here's a nice little calculator that you can calculate water pressure at depth:
Pressure at depth

At 1 mile under water, the pressure is equivalent to 160.653 atmospheres. At 3 miles, the pressure is 479.959. For comparison, standing on the surface of the Earth is only 1 atmosphere. So you care to explain how the tree is going to survive not being crushed into wood pulp with all this water on top of it as well?

But in any case, why are we having this debate in the first place? It's not like I didn't provide even MORE evidence that has nothing to do with the age of some trees that also throughly debunks the global flood story. Here's some engineering calculations on why the ark itself would fall apart when on the water: Noah's Ark is too big to float

Woodcarver

ServantOfTheLamb

Krazysh0t
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb

 

It says that the world was completely flooded and that a man parted a sea with a staff, both are claims that contradict science because the geological record contradicts the first account and the second one violates the laws of physics. We can play this game all day too. But miracles aside, there is also no archaeological record of millions of people crossing the desert, leaving Egypt.

Well I would say the geological record has evidence for both sides of the flood, quick example are the numerous polystrata forest surrounding the world. To view a Miracle of an Omnipresent God as a Scientific contradiction Science would have to show that God is not real. So now what evidence do you have against a creator of the universe? I won't ask for proof because that would be an impossible task.

no one can prove that unicorns dont exist. Should we believe in the chance that they are real?

The point being, first off. You cannot prove a negative. (Have you really never heard his before?) you cannot prove that something like a unicorn, doesn't exist. What would that evidence look like? Please stop saying things like. "You cant prove that god doesn't exist". Because it goes without saying. There are lots of things that we cannot prove exists. Especially things that dont exist.

Do you really think you have stumbled on some lost secret that nobody has ever thought of before?

That somehow physical evidence is a hindrance to knowledge?

Do you think that you have figured something out about religion or spirituality, that no one has thought of?

Do you think that you have figured something out that no scientist could devise an experiment to test?

Do you think that science itself couldn't fathom an answer to some question that you just seem to know the answer to?

If you really want to make an impact on the entire world, think of a physical experiment to prove your claims once and for all. No scientist will be able to refute your physical evidence of supernatural forces.

edit on 10-4-2014 by Woodcarver because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-4-2014 by Woodcarver because: (no reason given)

Friend, Did you not notice that I said proving God was impossible. However, it is not impossible to give evidences supporting your belief that He is not there, or vice versa. I asked for the latter.

At what point in time did I say physical evidence was a hindrance to our knowledge, or even imply as such? I stand behind God and Science not God or Science.

Actually at what point in time did I say any of those things?

The impact of the existence of Supernatural Forces has already been made. The Universe had a beginning, and we have discovered that the laws of physics came into creation AFTER the first planck time. This means that the singularity that caused the Big Bang whether it be God or random chance was by definition supernatural. Why? It created the natural forces.

Krazysh0t

ServantOfTheLamb

Krazysh0t
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb

 

Oh please. I started reading your link and the first thing it does to call its statements facts is source the bible. In fact that is the ONLY thing it sources. How can you determine the validity of the bible by using the bible as your only source?

Because the Bible is not one book. It is a collection of books and letters. It was written by people who lived, and many parts claim to be eye witness accounts. You see people like to forget that the Bible is a collection of sources from antiquity. The link provides the argument for both sides. It was not bias. I posted it so you could form an educated opinion rather than just dismissing the information.

So? I understand it is more than one book, but literally EVERY single account described in the bible is described years if not centuries or millenniums after the fact. [SNIPPED]

The Truth is, we don't know how early they were written. We don't have any of the autographs. But we do have thousands and thousands copies of copies. Your argument could be used for absolutely every ancient document. All writings can only claim to be eye witnesses or claim that a situation played out a certain way. If we look at things that way then we would never know anything about History.

Even Skeptical Historians will say that Jesus was real and that he was crucified and that his tomb was found empty on the third day . They will also tell you that there was a massive increase in the belief in Christianity around this time.

As for Herod, the Biblical account is completely consistent with Herod's personality. Although Josephus doesn't record the massacre of innocents he does record many of his crimes he commits out of paranoia that someone would take his throne. Whenever Josephus mentions something about Christianity, He always mentions it as though it was widespread common knowledge. If Matthew had already written about that atrocity and it was already widespread knowledge there would have been no reason for Josephus to mention it.

It is true; Josephus does not record the slaughter of the innocents in Bethlehem. He does, however, record a number of ruthless murders by Herod in order to keep his throne secure. Herod was crowned “King of the Jews” by the Roman Senate in 40 BC in Rome. He was, however, a king without a kingdom. Upon his return to the Land of Israel, he was given a Roman army and was eventually able to capture Jerusalem. The first order of business was to eliminate his Hasmonean predecessors. Mattathias Antigonus was executed with the help of Mark Antony and Herod killed 45 leading men of Antigonus’ party in 37 BC (Antiquities 15:5-10; LCL 8:5-7). He had the elderly John Hyrcanus II strangled over an alleged plot to overthrow Herod in 30 BC (Antiquities 15:173-178; LCL 8:83-85). Herod continued to purge the Hasmonean family. He eliminated his brother-in-law, Aristobulus, who was at the time an 18 year old High Priest. [SNIPPED]

Here are were you can see that the Biblical account is totally on par with the personality of Herod.

AngryCymraeg

ServantOfTheLamb
Well I would say the geological record has evidence for both sides of the flood, quick example are the numerous polystrata forest surrounding the world. To view a Miracle of an Omnipresent God as a Scientific contradiction Science would have to show that God is not real. So now what evidence do you have against a creator of the universe? I won't ask for proof because that would be an impossible task.

No, such forests are merely proof that the shoreline has changed due to various ice ages. Furthermore the flood myth has no explanation for why kangaroos and other marsupials are only found around Australia. Did Noah drop them off there?

Many sedimentary layers can be traced over hundreds of thousands of square miles. On the other hand, river deltas, which are the most significant example of sedimentation we see today, are only a tiny fraction of that area. Liquefaction during a global flood accounts for the vast lateral expanses of layers. Current processes and eons of time do not. Some thick and extensive sedimentary layers have remarkable purity. The St. Peter sandstone, spanning about 500,000 square miles in the central United States, is composed of almost pure quartz, similar to the sand on a white beach. It is hard to imagine how any process, other than global liquefaction, could achieve this degree of purity over such a wide area. [SNIPPED]

www.cs.unc.edu...

Science is too dependent on how the human body and our Brains perceive the world and not what the world really is or could be..
If a blind person asked a Scientist for empirical evidence that colors exist would there be anyway of proving that to him ? Saying Definitively God exists or God does not exist would be utterly foolish and ignorant . There are 20+ known dimensions out there , we humans just live in 4 dimensions(if time is included) . The sheer fact that there are dozens of other unexplored and unknown dimensions and the sheer variety that these dimensions put together could come out with is incomprehensible for the human mind .. So how is it in anyway logical for any sane human being to come to any definitive conclusion about God

In the end, Science is dependent on how the human body looks at the world , how limited science really is in the end by the human body itself, not on what the world really is ....

On the other hand i pose a simple question , Western societies often keep saying evolution is proof that God does not exist.... IS it now ?... A species comes up with a problem or a challenge , Over a period of millions of years the species evolves the ability to overcome those challenges through evolution . Problem was posed and a solution was given by Nature herself . Sure its not perfect sometimes , but i believe the fact that entire species can evolve itself into something better over millions of years only proves that there is a conscious design . I refuse to believe that the Human body and the Human Brain which was developed purely out of chance ...

My entire view on the whole subject is simple.. I don't know

ServantOfTheLamb
The Truth is, we don't know how early they were written. We don't have any of the autographs. But we do have thousands and thousands copies of copies. Your argument could be used for absolutely every ancient document. All writings can only claim to be eye witnesses or claim that a situation played out a certain way. If we look at things that way then we would never know anything about History.

Yes this is true, but historians don't just use written records to determine historic events. There are physical artifacts as well. If a Greek story makes a claim about sacking and destroying a city called Troy, without the ruins of that city, the tale remains either just a tale or a wild speculation. Well we discovered Troy and corroborated at the very least, the fact that the city existed and was likely sacked by the Greeks. These are things that are severely lacking from the biblical account. Where is the evidence that millions of Hebrews traveled through the desert leaving Egypt? I can understand if this procession was a small group of people traveling the desert, but this was literally a large city's worth of people crossing the desert, they are bound to leave a good deal of evidence behind.

Even Skeptical Historians will say that Jesus was real and that he was crucified and that his tomb was found empty on the third day . They will also tell you that there was a massive increase in the belief in Christianity around this time.

I never said he wasn't real. It is entirely possible that Jesus was a real person (or an amalgamation of several people one of which has the name Jesus) that did some good things that benefited the people in his region. Then after his death, a cult of personality developed around him. It doesn't take long for these things to happen. There are claims made TODAY about people that are STILL ALIVE and even WITH the internet are DEAD wrong. Why do you think this would be any different 2000 years ago with a much worse information spreading network except word of mouth?

As for Herod, the Biblical account is completely consistent with Herod's personality. Although Josephus doesn't record the massacre of innocents he does record many of his crimes he commits out of paranoia that someone would take his throne. Whenever Josephus mentions something about Christianity, He always mentions it as though it was widespread common knowledge. If Matthew had already written about that atrocity and it was already widespread knowledge there would have been no reason for Josephus to mention it.

(quoted text removed)

Here are were you can see that the Biblical account is totally on par with the personality of Herod.

Ok and? You've established that he would have no problems carrying such an act out, but that still doesn't prove that he actually did it. Stalin was a mass murderer too who was probably capable of mass infanticide, but did he do it? If this were a court of law, all you've done is establish the defendant's character, but you haven't produced the crime that he is even accused of. If I went to the police and accused you of murdering every infant in a certain large area, don't you think you'd want the police to use more than just MY word that what I said was true?

reply to post by Krazysh0t


One of the things your not thinking about is that I'm talking about surviving, and your talking about thriving. Plants don't need light to survive, they need light to prosper and even then that's not always true look at white asparagus, or Belgium endive both grown in conditions completely lacking light. You can take a potato or a onion and throw it into a box for a year then bury it and it will grow.

The pressure thing is a good point I must admit, but I have been looking to see if there have been any studies on the effects of pressure on trees/plants. Right now pressure is all speculation. Because neither you or I have ever taken a tree 3 miles under water and seen what happened. Yes a human May be crushed under those conditions, but we are made out of soft tissue trees are a denser substance.

bigcountry08
reply to post by Krazysh0t

 

One of the things your not thinking about is that I'm talking about surviving, and your talking about thriving. Plants don't need light to survive, they need light to prosper and even then that's not always true look at white asparagus, or Belgium endive both grown in conditions completely lacking light. You can take a potato or a onion and throw it into a box for a year then bury it and it will grow.

The pressure thing is a good point I must admit, but I have been looking to see if there have been any studies on the effects of pressure on trees/plants. Right now pressure is all speculation. Because neither you or I have ever taken a tree 3 miles under water and seen what happened. Yes a human May be crushed under those conditions, but we are made out of soft tissue trees are a denser substance.

Micro-Evolution also shows that Species become more specialized over time. So it would imply that older plants are much more versatile in dealing with changes in the environment.

reply to post by Krazysh0t


" Where is the evidence that millions of Hebrews traveled through the desert leaving Egypt? I can understand if this procession was a small group of people traveling the desert, but this was literally a large city's worth of people crossing the desert, they are bound to leave a good deal of evidence behind. "

Well lets not forget that it was a large portion of slaves with close to no belongings and that it was thousands of years ago. It is one of the few claims not backed up by archaeological evidence yet.




"Ok and? You've established that he would have no problems carrying such an act out, but that still doesn't prove that he actually did it. Stalin was a mass murderer too who was probably capable of mass infanticide, but did he do it? If this were a court of law, all you've done is establish the defendant's character, but you haven't produced the crime that he is even accused of. If I went to the police and accused you of murdering every infant in a certain large area, don't you think you'd want the police to use more than just MY word that what I said was true?"

The certain books of the Bible are evidence that he did such a thing. Give me proof that Caesar crossed the Rubicon. You have documents that claim he did but give me proof.

bigcountry08
reply to post by Krazysh0t

 

One of the things your not thinking about is that I'm talking about surviving, and your talking about thriving. Plants don't need light to survive, they need light to prosper and even then that's not always true look at white asparagus, or Belgium endive both grown in conditions completely lacking light. You can take a potato or a onion and throw it into a box for a year then bury it and it will grow.

No I am talking about surviving too. If you put the drowned the entire Earth in 3 miles of water, NOTHING that is alive today would be able to survive. Even the sea life in the ocean would die out because it would drastically change the life and pressure levels of the areas that they live in.

And again, keep in mind, we are submerging the ENTIRE plant underneath water for an extended length of time, Plants need oxygen to live just like we do, how is this plant going to obtain said oxygen while underneath water?

The pressure thing is a good point I must admit, but I have been looking to see if there have been any studies on the effects of pressure on trees/plants. Right now pressure is all speculation. Because neither you or I have ever taken a tree 3 miles under water and seen what happened. Yes a human May be crushed under those conditions, but we are made out of soft tissue trees are a denser substance.

You don't need to take a tree 3 miles underneath water to see what would happen to it at that depth, all you need to do is put the tree into a pressure chamber that simulates 380 atmospheres of pressure and see what happens. Or, even simpler, we could do the math.

Wood Strengths

AfterInfinity
reply to post by UB2120

 

Very wise post. You've given voice to something I've had difficulty articulating. And for that, I thank you.

Thank you!

Check out The Urantia Book (www.urantia.org...) for more of this wisdom.

ServantOfTheLamb
reply to post by Krazysh0t

 

" Where is the evidence that millions of Hebrews traveled through the desert leaving Egypt? I can understand if this procession was a small group of people traveling the desert, but this was literally a large city's worth of people crossing the desert, they are bound to leave a good deal of evidence behind. "

Well lets not forget that it was a large portion of slaves with close to no belongings and that it was thousands of years ago. It is one of the few claims not backed up by archaeological evidence yet.

They wondered the desert for FORTY years. That's long enough to have a second generation of children, born wondering in the desert. MILLIONS of people and you are saying they barely had any possessions (which I'm willing to agree would be true). How did they feed, clothe, shelter, and provide water for ALL of these people for forty years? But hey, supplies are one thing. There is worn out clothes, dead pack animals, burials, footprints. The bible says the Ten Commandments were given at Mount Sinai, so we know they were at the least THERE for some period of time. Where is the evidence at the base of the mountain of close to a city sized encampment full of people staying there? After all this is where they had melted down all their gold (wait didn't you just get done telling me that they were slaves with no possessions? Where did this gold come from to begin with? These people's priorities were such that they wanted to just carry gold around with them instead of things like clothes and food?) and made that golden calf that later became the ark of the covenant. So they had to of been there long enough to produce the statue and subsequent container for the commandments. Therefore we have a ready location to search for evidence of this large group of people crossing the desert. Yet no evidence has surfaced.

"Ok and? You've established that he would have no problems carrying such an act out, but that still doesn't prove that he actually did it. Stalin was a mass murderer too who was probably capable of mass infanticide, but did he do it? If this were a court of law, all you've done is establish the defendant's character, but you haven't produced the crime that he is even accused of. If I went to the police and accused you of murdering every infant in a certain large area, don't you think you'd want the police to use more than just MY word that what I said was true?"

The certain books of the Bible are evidence that he did such a thing. Give me proof that Caesar crossed the Rubicon. You have documents that claim he did but give me proof.

I'm not as versed with this particular Christian analogy that is employed, so I will let this website debunk you:

The Rubicon Analogy

From the article and pertaining to our current discussion:

3. What Counts as Physical Evidence? Holding correctly interprets my wording when he infers I did not claim we had any actual physical depictions of an army crossing a Rubicon (or inscriptions saying "I, Caesar, crossed the Rubicon"). That is not what I mean by physical evidence. Though such things would surely count (if they dated from the life of Caesar), they are not the only things we could have. This is true for the Resurrection, too. It is not necessary to have an inscription stating "Jesus rose from this grave" or a coin depicting this. Though such things would indeed constitute better evidence than we actually have, so would other kinds of physical evidence.

[SNIPPED]

Woodcarver

rupertg
The devil is nothing more than a scapegoat.

Maybe that's where the image of the baphomet comes from.

the image of baphomet was rendered by alphonse levi.

Baphomet is a pagan god of wisdom and fertility. Baphoment's image was reused as Satan's mascot as part of a smear campaign.

The Bible's description of the "flood" is pure legend and as such
got no basis in fact whatsoever.
The "flood" referred to is actually huge floods that occurred on
many shores facing the Atlantic ocean, and was caused by what
took place as explained here by the spiritual world:



".......
The second empire that perished was a large island in the Atlantic Ocean, the so-called Atlantis. In the remote past this island was connected with the southern part of North America, but through volcanic activity it became separated from the mainland.

The island was shaped somewhat like a diagonally elongated, inverted “S” (the upper curve at the right and the lower at the left). Its northernmost point extended to about latitude 40 degrees North, longitude 34 degrees West. The island extended south to about latitude 25.50 degrees North, and west to longitude 47 degrees West, latitude 27.50 degrees North, and eastward to about longitude 28 degrees West. An imaginary line from the town of Plymouth in England to the center of the island of Trinidad would cut through the length of the island and touch its easternmost and southernmost points. Thus, the larger half of the sunken island would lie west of this line. The position given is only approximate, since major or minor upheaval and subsidence in the ocean floor constantly changes the island’s coastline. Investigations that might be undertaken would show it within the area indicated.

The area of the island was five-sixths that of the Iberian peninsula. The Azores, located north north-east and east of the island, were uninhabited at that time, but they had been connected with it much further in the past.

Some minor island groups were to be found between the Azores and the Iberian peninsula; there were also some small islands south-west and south-east of the Atlantic island, but all have disappeared by now.

This island empire went under about 12,000 B.C. by sinking of the ocean floor in conjunction with violent volcanic eruptions.

Earthquakes and volcanic activity ravaged the entire island for about ten months until the final terrible catastrophe completely destroyed and obliterated this rich and cultured land within a few hours. The final eruption created a deluge, the effect of which reached far and wide. The memory of this flood lingers still in the ancient legends of many peoples.

Polytheism predominated here also, but at that time without human sacrifice. However, animal sacrifice was customary throughout the island. The inhabitants were sun and fire worshippers. Culturally, they had reached to a rather advanced stage; the priests had no small knowledge of astronomy—some were astrologers51 or magi—and knew the planets from the fixed stars and how to calculate eclipses of the sun and the moon with fair accuracy; however, they believed these phenomena were caused by the interference of some evil spirit.

The art of printing made its first primitive appearance on this island, the priests having managed, by a form of hectography, to produce multiple copies of written accounts. A carefully distilled extract of crushed animal and fish bones was used, poured into flat earthenware forms. Closely woven fabrics of plant fibers were used, since neither papyrus nor parchment was known at the time. Impressions were made with a mixture of mainly burnt bone mixed with some adhesive substance. Pictographic text was mostly used, though ideographs were used in some places.

Agriculture, hunting, fishing and some breeding of domestic animals was known. A number of merchants traded with the surrounding islands and the nearest coasts of the main lands. Handmade utensils of clay were widely in use. Basins, bowls and vases were often engraved with ornamental animals and foliage and the grooves inlaid with brilliant colors. Gold, copper and some silver were known and utilized in the fashioning of jewelry and the better utensils and for inlays on carved wooden idols. Many of the idols were hewn in stone or cast in various metallic alloys. Architecture was particularly highly developed. Lyrical poetry was coming into being, especially as religious hymns intoned by the priests to the accompaniment of the beating of cymbal-like copper plates at the sacrificial rites. Death rites were practiced over the entire island.

The island was divided into three realms under a common supreme ruler. In one of the realms succession to rule descended by both the male and the female lines. The supreme ruler also served as high priest .

On this island the eldest of the Youngest was incarnated for the third time, as prince and high priest.

He was much beloved by the people because of his gentle and humane rule. He established a number of religious and ethical laws, but his attempts to abolish polytheism succeeded not. His incarnation on this island left few traces upon the culture of the people, since he died the same year the island disappeared into the sea. But his memory was kept alive through many generations by the descendants who had fled the destruction. He was regarded as a divine emissary.

Some of the islanders who survived the catastrophe fled across the intervening islands to the coast of North Africa and, slowly, through many generations, migrated as nomads eastward to the valley of the Nile, where they settled. Legendary accounts can be found in ancient Egyptian chronicles of a God of Light who for a time assumed human form. These accounts refer to the incarnation of the eldest of the Youngest on the vanished island.

A few of the islanders fled to the Iberian peninsula and were assimilated by the people living there; others reached Central America where they encountered descendants of the Titihuan people (or Mlawayans). After long and bloody conflict they succeeded in seizing and settling territories extending from the peninsula now known as the Yucatan,52 over the Isthmus of Panama52 to the north-western coast of South America. From those first settlements they spread northward to large areas of Mexico and southward and south-westward along the coast to the lands now known as Peru and the upper part of Chile.

Their original culture came under the strong influence of the Titihuans, especially with regard to idolatry and human sacrifice. The people from the island kingdom gradually merged with the Titihuans, their culture degenerated and their descendants, the Nahuacans, Aztecs, Incas, Toltecs and a number of other tribes whose names are only remembered in ancient Indian lore, never reached the high cultural level of the Island people.
......."

Cheers

reply to post by Krazysh0t

If we had an actual papyrus carbon-dated to the first century containing a letter by Pilate or Peter documenting or detailing any of the key facts surrounding the resurrection claim, that would be physical evidence

We do have parts of Matthew that date to First Century AD. This means that Matthew was is circulation those days. The parts we have are Jesus talking about the night He would be betrayed. This is very close in time frame to the Resurrection, which means it is safe to assume that parts mentioning the Resurrection were most likely in circulation during that day and age.