Creationism, taken to its logical extreme, negates the existence of Jesus Christ.

It's two fold in that we all go through something we have never experienced before and it's when our faith is either confirmed or falsified . a reply to: kauskau

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum

originally posted by: john666

All this studies are false because the scientists involved assume from the beginning that evolution is fact.

Hmm, wonder why that would be...

So as to geographic distribution, the fossil record etc......was that god seeing if faith can override reality/ common sense? He only likes gullible followers? Or was it the devil?

But is not a fact, but only a very stupid theory.
It has never been observed that species change from one into another, because it never happened like that.
All the species were created in an instant.

It says so in that well known peer reviewed science journal "the bible"?

i'm sorry but the bible is THE most "peer reviewed" book in history, dude.

even you have "reviewed" it.

a reply to: john666

He by whom ALL things were created is no myth.

Knowing HIM is THE crucial reality, honor, priority.

Given that, it's impossible, for me, to give the notions you proffer . . . any affirmation at all.

originally posted by: john666

THE MOST IMPORTANT EVENT OF HUMAN HISTORY, IS THE CREATION OF MANKIND!

While I disagree with most everything you mentioned...I feel obliged to refute this assertation...

The most important event in human history is not the creation of mankind....It could not ever be a past event...nor a future event...(IMHO)
The single most important event in human history...IS NOW....it has been and will always be...NOW....

(Think about your own life....What matters more? How it came about...or what you do with it? Think about your headstone after you're long and gone...What will matter most? The first date? The second? Or maybe the little tiny line inbetween....?) It's not when you were born or when you died...It's what you do with your life brother...That's what matters most.)

A2D

The Christ mythos was not developed by aliens.

it was developed out of Alexandria, After Alexander the great created the largest university collective during that time period which was 300 BC

en.wikipedia.org...



It's not just a theory its recorded fact that Rome had heavy involvment in Alexandria, it is the birth place of the Dead sea scrolls.
en.wikipedia.org...
Which are the most cryptic passages in the Old Testament, that was only found within the turn of the last centry. Found some time in a cave in the Dead seas around world war 2 WWll (1945)-(1956)


en.wikipedia.org...
Semitic people-

Maps of semetic people




Its almost certain with a very high probability.
That Christanity was developed out of Alexandria, As it was the first city to be conquered by a horde christian and roman mobs.

Therefore, 0 AD is the reference point for when Christianity was formed and created, The fall of the Library of Alexandria

When was the Library of Alexandria burned down?

Possible occasions for the partial or complete destruction of the Library of Alexandria include a fire set by Julius Caesar in 48 BC, an attack by Aurelian in the 270s AD, the decree of Coptic Pope Theophilus in 391 AD, and the decree of the second caliph Omar ibn Al-khattāb in 640 AD.

Julius Caesar likely was the cause and effect of Christanity.

By claiming the Jewish and arabic messiah has already been born, preached, and has been cruified by the Empire.
The cross is a symbol of that Crucifition. A trumph over the heavenly host.
They took all the scrolls and tablets as well made copies, brought them back to rome.
Where they developed the myths.

The cross is an Icon of fear, It was banner which pesecuted the semetic and arabic people. * Your god is dead and has risen!You have all sinned and the blood of your fallen messiah will make it clean, all you must do is neil. and praise the roman empire! we will now conquer all we want and wish in the name of the Dead Lord! *

Drink the blood of Christ, And be healthy.
Some extremely negative actions.

Christianity is the only organized religion that uses a torture device for it's international icon.
Do people even realize this?
Sure the cross is a geometic shape but... ah nvm. It's a symbol for Death, plain and symbol.
So i guess Christians worship the god of Death, Which is somewhat accurate lol.

The general mythos for all northern aferican and middle eastern religions is that there is a Death/life god that both takes and gives life.

Anyways, You want to know what I( me, this human believes what humans were created for?
Humans were created as a sub-species of a species that colonizes intergalatically.
Much of our myths from all around the world mention human transformation into superbeings.
Basically, These intergalatic travellers cannot haul living organisms such as humans through deep space because of the hazards of radiation, gamma rays, and detatchment from the Earth and suns electromagetic waves which effect our brain and heart beat.

So to travel from galaxy to galaxy and to colonize into a species which cannot reproduce anyways. The orginal species is in another galaxy or several galaxies, But the ones that travel here are all transformed (transmutated consiousness)
So they must create a replica of their precurser species ( the flesh and blood versions of themselves) on each planet in each galaxy they colonize. Because their species is mainly energy evolution by programming highly dense particles with electronic fragments of their consiousness and dna. They do not have organs to reproduce, so creating new precurser species for each planet in each galaxy they chose.

That means the other humans in other galaxies are somewhat different/adapted to the planet and merged with the animals /flora/fauna.

But we humans are special, Earth has carbon based lifeforms, Which changes frequently allowing rapid evolution.
Not all atom molecules are the same, So carbon found here may not be the same found planet to planet. Making each planet and solar system/galaxy truely unique.

Anyways, There is already a homonid species here, Neanderthals/bigfoot/sasquatch/yeti what ever you wanna call them. Ape men around the planet have been here much longer than us. We humans are an invasive species, Just as my theory says. We were created here to populate, and to advance in science and moralty. So that later portions of us will be taken to join the Armada command units.

Select humans will be chosen with extreme morality and clear headed traits in mind. Those who panic under intense fear or act irrationally under a possible situation of duress. You will fail the tests. For each human must be a scientists and a warrior at the same time. Rational thinking well acting through proper morality. Such as the myths out of Egypt associated with the halls of truth, where men either become gods or are consumed one Osiris/horus returns to the throne. The gates of the underworld will be opened, and all may be tested but those that are tested and fail are destroyed. At least that's how the Egyptian mythos plays it out, There are many others. Christianity is based mostly off the traits of egypt well at the same time Laughing at semetic people in the new testament. Many jews and muslims believe their messiah has not come yet, still. And do not accept Jesus because of the Caesar empire and the mass slaughters that followed in the roman empire that spilled out to england and the eventually the crusades.

double post

originally posted by: john666
a reply to: ManFromEurope

www.trueorigin.org...

www.creationresearch.org...

www.increasinglearning.com...

Uhmm.. Did you just post some links contradicting Creationists? Because..

The uniformitarian stratigraphic column encapsulates the modern geologic interpretation of the earth’s crust. Unfortunately, that interpretation includes the rejection of the Christian worldview in favor of Naturalism—a worldview that replaces a reality founded on God’s Creation and governance of the universe with an impersonal, uncaring mechanism. It also substitutes Christianity’s confidence in a truth granted by God’s revelation with an unstable positivism that succeeds only when it pilfers Christian doctrine. Finally, it sterilizes a meaningful and rich history, substituting a timeframe designed to dismiss the immanent presence of the Creator, and fills its endless ages with pseudo-scientific “just-so” stories. When we consider the vast chasm that lies between Naturalism and Christianity, we do not see how creationists can escape the necessity of razing that worldview until no two stones are left standing, and then rebuilding natural history and its derivative stratigraphy from the ground up.

originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: john666

He by whom ALL things were created is no myth.

Knowing HIM is THE crucial reality, honor, priority.

Given that, it's impossible, for me, to give the notions you proffer . . . any affirmation at all.

Allah?
Yehowa?
Buddha?
Zeus?
Odin?
Shall we dig deeper, maybe Babylonian time scales? I am sure, there were a lot more gods, with even more interesting themes, motives and rituals!

originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: john666

He by whom ALL things were created is no myth.

Knowing HIM is THE crucial reality, honor, priority.

Given that, it's impossible, for me, to give the notions you proffer . . . any affirmation at all.

Is there a story about ANY OF THE GODS that is no myth?

Knowing mythological figure... you could apply that to characters from Lord of the Ring and still have the same feeling, can't ya?

originally posted by: john666
I believe in Young Earth, and I also think that majority of people on this subforum do so as well

I am sure that the exact opposite is true. If there was a poll taken you'd find very few, if any, posters believe in a 'young earth' theory.

I am therefore convinced, that the myth of Jesus Christ was telepathically implanted in the minds of the people, some time in the past,

I know for a fact that Jesus is a real person. Many of us have had actual encounters with the divine and/or have had near death experiences. I will trust my personal experience more than your theory of telepathically implanted thoughts.

originally posted by: john666

originally posted by: scojak

originally posted by: john666
All this studies are false because the scientists involved assume from the beginning that evolution is fact.
But is not a fact, but only a very stupid theory.
It has never been observed that species change from one into another, because it never happened like that.
All the species were created in an instant.

Evolution is not when one species changes into another. It's when life forms change out of necessity to adapt to their environment. Survival of the fittest. Evolution is a proven concept and only the ignorant continue to ignore it.

Evolution states that at one time in the past, a living being creates through the means of reproduction, another living being that is genetically incompatible with the parent.
Something like that has never been proven.

No it doesn't. Show me the scientific article that says that. Otherwise you are just blowing smoke.

I myself am not a Christian. I don't believe in any of the biblical dogmas, but still I have to recognize that creationist biologists and geologists, are much more logical in their scientific conclusions, then their evolutionist counterparts.

Then what evidence are you using to develop your opinions? Did you just make them up and determine that they are correct or something?

Still they are not without flaws. And their biggest flaw is that they cling to the Bible, which is nothing more than a book of lies.This book is what is limiting them, just like evolutionist books, that you have read, is what is limiting you, and those like you.

Ok...

im not saying evolution isn't possible.

I am also not deny that creation isin't possible either.

Both are viable. Take a look at your smartphone. Who made that? Did the smart phone evolve from a single celled chip to a complex programable multi-tool with sensors and gps.

Not trying to be rude, but humans created it.
Likewise, can humans create other organisms? How about organisms from scratch?
Oh wait we can.

Venter Creates First Synthetic Self-Replicating Bacteria from Scratch

Craig Venter wants to program life the way we program computers, and today he announced a momentous win: the first synthetic self-replicating bacterium. The J. Craig Venter Institute (JCVI) used the four types of chemicals that make up DNA, and complex assembly methods utilizing yeast cells, to ‘program’ the 1.08 million base pairs that make up the genome for the bacteria cell. As described in the journal Science, the result was a synthetic copy of the Mycoplasma mycoides, dubbed M. mycoides JCVI-syn1.0, that can grow and divide like normal. The little “1.0″ highlights the vast potential of Venter’s project, as JCVI will be able to update and improve their synthetic organism base pair by base pair, gene by gene. Computers can now program sustainable synthetic life – welcome to the future.

So if this man can create a bacteria, What's stopping an advanced species coming here and creating us by synthisizing dna from the already present inhabitants and recorded dna codes/adpted altered to the planetary climate and host target species of the planet to be colonized.

The strange new craft of making life from scratch

I am not going to respond to everything that was said, but you people are completely missing the point.

Sometime in the past, humanity was created.
It would be logical for humanity to count the years of it's existence here on Earth, from the moment of it's creation.

Now you may say that we do not know, the moment of humanity's creation, and that therefore we can not make the reference point of our history the moment of humanity's creation, simply because we do not know it.
And that would be a correct answer.
BUT, considering that we do not know it, it would be logical for us to WANT TO KNOW IT, in a similar way as an orphan child wants to know when it was born, and who were it's parents.

But the great majority of humans, DOES NOT CARE AT ALL, about that particular question, and therefore we can say that humanity as a whole IS INDIFFERENT, to the question of it's origin.

I do not think that this indifference is natural, but a result of MIND CONTROL.

Also, I want to say something about the question of truthfulness of historical sources, on which many of you dogmatically cling, like Christians cling on their Bible.
Any historical source(written), IS A DOCUMENT, and any document CAN BE FORGED!
In another words, if you want to test, the truthfulness of a historical document, you can do it only in two ways.

First way, is Eyewitness testimony of a LIVING WITNESSES!
That is the best way.

The second way is not as reliable, but still useful.
The second way of verifying a historical document, is the testimony of posterity, of those that allegedly were a part of the events, that are being written about, in a given historical document.
In another words..., grandfather tells his grandson that he was there at Pearl Harbor, doing "this and that".
But this second type of testimony is useful only, in the time span of couple of generations.
The proof that I am right, is the fact, THAT NOBODY OF YOU, knows any intimate details of any of your ancestors, that lived before 400 years, or more in the past.
Some of you may know the names, of your ancestors that lived before 400 years or more(and those of you who do know that are a tiny, tiny minority), but even you do not know any of their "secrets".
In fact, you know NOTHING ABOUT THEM, expect their names(if even that).

What that means, is that you can not trust any historical document that claims that it describes events that are older then let's say, 400 years.
I know that for most of you, that is too radical, but the reason why that is so, is because you are brainwashed.

For the most part, "the events", that are being described in "historical books", are completely fictional.
But those of you who like historical books, are probably never going to admit that to yourself, because if you would do that you would be admitting that you wasted thousands of hours, READING FICTION, THAT YOU HAVE MISTAKEN FOR REALITY!
Your brainwashing(mind control), isn't going to allow you that, of course, and that is the reason why most of you, are going to write to me "that I haven't read the sources", even though before I came to my "radical viewpoint of history", I read more historical books, than majority of you will ever read.
In a certain sense, reading these books was a waste of time for me, but maybe it was a necessary step, without which I would not have been able to realize, just to what tremendous degree HISTORY IS FAKE!

I broke free of "history brainwashing", but most of you are unable to do that.

a reply to: john666

But you're claiming that our entire past is one giant forgery. Well, unfortunately for this fascinating theory we have archaeology, anthropology, history, etc, which show that your theory is 100% wrong.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: john666

But you're claiming that our entire past is one giant forgery. Well, unfortunately for this fascinating theory we have archaeology, anthropology, history, etc, which show that your theory is 100% wrong.

You falsely claimed that the damage done to the Sphinx was not done by water.
That means that as far archaeology is concerned, you have no idea what you are talking about.

originally posted by: john666

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: john666

But you're claiming that our entire past is one giant forgery. Well, unfortunately for this fascinating theory we have archaeology, anthropology, history, etc, which show that your theory is 100% wrong.

You falsely claimed that the damage done to the Sphinx was not done by water.
That means that as far archaeology is concerned, you have no idea what you are talking about.

The alleged water damage to the Sphinx is a highly contentious issue. The upper part of the statue has been damaged by the wind - that part is uncontested, as wind erosion is highly distinctive - the horizontal bands that can be seen quite clearly. Water erosion is vertical. It has been argued that the Sphinx now is an altered version of an older statue that predates the Pyramids and which was built 5,000 years ago, when the climate in the Giza Plateau was slightly wetter. This is, as I said, a contentious theory.
I seem to have a rather better grasp of archaeology than you do by the way.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: john666

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: john666

But you're claiming that our entire past is one giant forgery. Well, unfortunately for this fascinating theory we have archaeology, anthropology, history, etc, which show that your theory is 100% wrong.

You falsely claimed that the damage done to the Sphinx was not done by water.
That means that as far archaeology is concerned, you have no idea what you are talking about.

The alleged water damage to the Sphinx is a highly contentious issue. The upper part of the statue has been damaged by the wind - that part is uncontested, as wind erosion is highly distinctive - the horizontal bands that can be seen quite clearly. Water erosion is vertical. It has been argued that the Sphinx now is an altered version of an older statue that predates the Pyramids and which was built 5,000 years ago, when the climate in the Giza Plateau was slightly wetter. This is, as I said, a contentious theory.
I seem to have a rather better grasp of archaeology than you do by the way.

By the way, you do not.
But who knows, maybe I am subjective, and you indeed may have a much better grasp of archaeology than I do.
And that is why I would like to ask you a question about the Sphinx.
What do you think, what force caused the damage to the lower part of the statue?

upload.wikimedia.org...

originally posted by: john666

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: john666

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: john666

But you're claiming that our entire past is one giant forgery. Well, unfortunately for this fascinating theory we have archaeology, anthropology, history, etc, which show that your theory is 100% wrong.

You falsely claimed that the damage done to the Sphinx was not done by water.
That means that as far archaeology is concerned, you have no idea what you are talking about.

The alleged water damage to the Sphinx is a highly contentious issue. The upper part of the statue has been damaged by the wind - that part is uncontested, as wind erosion is highly distinctive - the horizontal bands that can be seen quite clearly. Water erosion is vertical. It has been argued that the Sphinx now is an altered version of an older statue that predates the Pyramids and which was built 5,000 years ago, when the climate in the Giza Plateau was slightly wetter. This is, as I said, a contentious theory.
I seem to have a rather better grasp of archaeology than you do by the way.

By the way, you do not.
But who knows, maybe I am subjective, and you indeed may have a much better grasp of archaeology than I do.
And that is why I would like to ask you a question about the Sphinx.
What do you think, what force caused the damage to the lower part of the statue?

upload.wikimedia.org...

I can re-post my earlier post if you like. It can be argued that the lower part of the Sphinx suffered from water erosion because it was built hundreds of years earlier than some people think. But this is a highly contentious theory. The upper part of the Sphinx has still suffered from wind erosion however. That fact is uncontested.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: john666

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: john666

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: john666

But you're claiming that our entire past is one giant forgery. Well, unfortunately for this fascinating theory we have archaeology, anthropology, history, etc, which show that your theory is 100% wrong.

You falsely claimed that the damage done to the Sphinx was not done by water.
That means that as far archaeology is concerned, you have no idea what you are talking about.

The alleged water damage to the Sphinx is a highly contentious issue. The upper part of the statue has been damaged by the wind - that part is uncontested, as wind erosion is highly distinctive - the horizontal bands that can be seen quite clearly. Water erosion is vertical. It has been argued that the Sphinx now is an altered version of an older statue that predates the Pyramids and which was built 5,000 years ago, when the climate in the Giza Plateau was slightly wetter. This is, as I said, a contentious theory.
I seem to have a rather better grasp of archaeology than you do by the way.

By the way, you do not.
But who knows, maybe I am subjective, and you indeed may have a much better grasp of archaeology than I do.
And that is why I would like to ask you a question about the Sphinx.
What do you think, what force caused the damage to the lower part of the statue?

upload.wikimedia.org...

I can re-post my earlier post if you like. It can be argued that the lower part of the Sphinx suffered from water erosion because it was built hundreds of years earlier than some people think. But this is a highly contentious theory. The upper part of the Sphinx has still suffered from wind erosion however. That fact is uncontested.

Do you remember why the two of us began to debate about the Sphinx?

originally posted by: john666

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: john666

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: john666

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: john666

But you're claiming that our entire past is one giant forgery. Well, unfortunately for this fascinating theory we have archaeology, anthropology, history, etc, which show that your theory is 100% wrong.

You falsely claimed that the damage done to the Sphinx was not done by water.
That means that as far archaeology is concerned, you have no idea what you are talking about.

The alleged water damage to the Sphinx is a highly contentious issue. The upper part of the statue has been damaged by the wind - that part is uncontested, as wind erosion is highly distinctive - the horizontal bands that can be seen quite clearly. Water erosion is vertical. It has been argued that the Sphinx now is an altered version of an older statue that predates the Pyramids and which was built 5,000 years ago, when the climate in the Giza Plateau was slightly wetter. This is, as I said, a contentious theory.
I seem to have a rather better grasp of archaeology than you do by the way.

By the way, you do not.
But who knows, maybe I am subjective, and you indeed may have a much better grasp of archaeology than I do.
And that is why I would like to ask you a question about the Sphinx.
What do you think, what force caused the damage to the lower part of the statue?

upload.wikimedia.org...

I can re-post my earlier post if you like. It can be argued that the lower part of the Sphinx suffered from water erosion because it was built hundreds of years earlier than some people think. But this is a highly contentious theory. The upper part of the Sphinx has still suffered from wind erosion however. That fact is uncontested.

Do you remember why the two of us began to debate about the Sphinx?

Erm, yes. You tried to claim that it isn't thousands of years old, based on erosion to the Statue of Liberty. I pointed out that it rains a lot in New York and that therefore your point was a moot one. You then brought up the alleged water erosion to the rear of the Sphinx. I then pointed out the wind erosion to the upper part and that there is a theory that the Sphinx is a lot older than has been claimed. All of the above tends to point to the Sphinx being older than you said.