It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Evidence for and against the Bible

page: 6
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 04:04 PM
calm down dear

i am not a Christian, but it just gets boring ...

"the bible is true..." ..." it isnt"..." yes it is ".... "no it isnt"...." yes it is"... my god is better than yours"..." not hes not ..."

and on and on and on

why doesnt anyone get picky over the Koran ??? that even demands that gay people are put to death... very clearly ... why?

Amuk... you have a punching "avatar", but you dont need to punch at me

posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 04:14 PM

Originally posted by BaastetNoir
calm down dear

why doesnt anyone get picky over the Koran ??? that even demands that gay people are put to death... very clearly ... why?

Amuk... you have a punching "avatar", but you dont need to punch at me

First Amuk is trying to bring and keep a point, second the Koran is not the bible, I myself have a beautiful copy of if given to my husband when he was in the middle east. And I also has a copy of the death sea scrolls.

And I will go on defense of Amuk, (I have nothing against you mind me) but he is not "punching" anybody Yet

Now taking that in perspective can we get back to the subject?

posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 06:26 PM

Originally posted by BaastetNoir
calm down dear

I wasn't mad just in a hurry, my higher power (wife) called me

i am not a Christian, but it just gets boring ...

then feel free not to read or post on this thread.

why doesn't anyone get picky over the Koran ??? that even demands that gay people are put to death... very clearly ... why?

There are several threads on the accuracy of the Koran. I would imagine there are many more Christian ones than Muslim one because there are more Christians on this Board than Muslims.

My question was and still is

What kind of scientific or historical evidence is there for or against the Bible.

posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 08:04 PM
oh boy .... ppl around here are getting more and more touchy by the day ... yet they complain about the so called Christian when they react EXACTLY the same way ..." touch my belief and the love goes out the window ..."... VALIUM people ...VALIUM !!!!

posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 08:26 PM
First and foremost in the realm of incredible is the walls of Jericho. In Joshua 6 the Israelites marched around the walls of Jericho 7 days causing them to crumble to the ground. Or so it was assumed. In the 1950s, Jericho was unearthed by British archaeologist Kathleen Kenyon and her team. This discovery threw the Bible under serious scrutiny because there were no walls discovered, not even rubble. However, in 1997, Italian archaeologists at the southern end of Jericho discovered that the wall had not been blasted apart, but had actually sunk into the ground. God was going to protect Rahab, and her house was near the wall. Were the walls to be blasted, she very well could have been killed.

Another interesting note about Jericho was the grain that was left behind. The whole city was burned to the ground, completely sacked. However, archaeologists discovered many clay pots containing grain. In 1400 B.C., grain was very valuable as both food and a barterable good. Yet, after the city was sacked, it appeared as though nothing was looted. This would be totally inexplicable were it not for Joshua 6:17, where Joshua commanded the Israelites that the city and all that is in it were to be dedicated to the Lord. Looks like everyone but Achan had obeyed.

This is just one example of the remarkable pr oven via secular methods. There are countless others. I can say with confidence that there is nothing in the Bible that has been contradicted by archaeology. There have been times when people thought they had something, like the walls of Jericho. The Hittite empire is another example. In the late 1800s, the Bible was "pr oven" wrong in its account of the Hittite empire's size because the Hittite empire didn't ever exist. That was the case up to 1906, when the Hittite capitol city was discovered.

posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 10:12 PM
Great to here from you Jake, maybe you and Marge can help me keep it on topic.

Here is a site I found supporting a lot of what the Bible says

Against the Bible

I was a little surprised to find that I could find little if anything, Archeology speaking, AGAINST the Biblical version but I am sure some of our more Rabid Bible haters out there will know where to find it, if not I will have to concede that point to the Bible.

But you have to balance that with basically no impartial evidence FOR it in Geology. Unless you can give me something I believe on that then I have to give that point to "not the Bible"

So far I would say its about even

I would Love to hear from more on the subject

posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 10:36 PM

Originally posted by Amuk
But you have to balance that with basically no impartial evidence FOR it in Geology. Unless you can give me something I believe on that then I have to give that point to "not the Bible"

I am trying to figure out what you are trying to say... what evidance do you need to prove the fact of the ruins of jericho?

posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 10:56 PM
Geologically speaking, I'm torn as I am with the evolution debate. The Hebrew word "yom", which is used in Genesis to describe the creation of the Heavens and Earth means both day and age, and is used interchangably throughout Genesis. Given this, creation can still work with our current views of evolution and geologic age. However, it is important to note that there are several holes in both of these theories.

Unfortunately, most of the scientific community has set up a black out on discussing these holes. As I'm sure you're going to find out, my inteligence for addressing these points will be questioned, but the points will not. The evolutionary theory leans heavily on the Geologic age theory. Without an Earth that is billions of years old, you can't have evolution.

Dang, and I just noticed it's 11 and I have to work tomorrow.

So instead of going into some of the geologic evidence supporting the 7 day model of creationism, I'll tip my hand to those of you who are going to argue against it and give you one of my sources before I use it. There is a lot of interesting stuff out there. I have only found one website that addressed these issues without a
type of reaction, but rather a scientific one, and that I just found tonight. I'm definately going to have to go through it, as well. See y'all tomorrow!

Soon to be source 1

posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 11:11 PM

Originally posted by Jehosephat

Originally posted by Amuk
But you have to balance that with basically no impartial evidence FOR it in Geology. Unless you can give me something I believe on that then I have to give that point to "not the Bible"

I am trying to figure out what you are trying to say... what evidence do you need to prove the fact of the ruins of Jericho?

No no

I am pretty much conceding the Archeology part to agreeing with the Bible in most part unless someone comes up with evidence otherwise. From my research, which admittedly wasn't much most that I found agree with the Bible except for a few places like the cities not being found in the right time for part (I Weill have to look it up) but in the most part agreeing.

But as Marge pointed out a lot of the earlier stories could be easily copies of other peoples stories and the Geological evidence (great flood, 6000 year old universe, etc) aren't really accepted by any impartial scientist.

So unless some one wants to tear apart JJ evidence or Marges or the Geological evidence we have 1 for and 1 against with Marges being inconclusive. Although she makes some good points, I cant concede the point to her without more. Eds was pretty much ruled out because you cant prove the Bible by saying God said so and most of the other posters just gave opinion.

Still wanting to here from more before we tally the score

[edit on 22-2-2005 by Amuk]

posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 11:36 PM

Originally posted by Amuk
Eds was pretty much ruled out because you cant prove the Bible by saying God said so and most of the other posters just gave opinion.
Still wanting to here from more before we tally the score

I tried to explain that math should tell you the odds are to large for there not to be a God.

Follow this for more:

How Did the Universe Begin? The Math

Ok here are some links you will find interesting I am sure,


Given the short 14C half-life of 5730 years, organic materials purportedly older than 250,000 years, corresponding to 43.6 half-lives, should contain absolutely no detectable 14C. (One gram of modern carbon contains about 6 x 1010 14C atoms, and 43.6 half-lives should reduce that number by a factor of 7.3 x 10-14.) An astonishing discovery made over the past twenty years is that, almost without exception, when tested by highly sensitive accelerator mass spectrometer (AMS) methods, organic samples from every portion of the Phanerozoic record show detectable amounts of 14C! 14C/C ratios from all but the youngest Phanerozoic samples appear to be clustered in the range 0.1-0.5 pmc (percent modern carbon), regardless of geological ‘age.’ A straightforward conclusion that can be drawn from these observations is that all but the very youngest Phanerozoic organic material was buried contemporaneously much less than 250,000 years ago. This is consistent with the Biblical account of a global Flood that destroyed most of the air-breathing life on the planet in a single brief cataclysm only a few thousand years ago.


Calculations of equilibrium temperatures under a water vapor canopy which minimizes the greenhouse effect show that if the solar constant was less than 25% of today’s value the surface temperature would be livable. In fact, for a solar constant approaching 1% of today’s value it appears that a dense water vapor canopy would be necessary to avoid the entire atmosphere, including the oxygen and nitrogen, from precipitating to the surface as snow. If appropriate conditions can be demonstrated which justify the assumption of a much lower solar constant than typically studied, these calculations could revive consideration of an early earth covered by a water vapor canopy.


If the geologic processes of the Genesis Flood were as catastrophic as Biblical and scientific evidence suggests, the oceans would have been strongly heated by the release of magma from the mantle and the conversion of geologic work to heat. During and following the Flood, tremendous quantities of heat and water vapor would have been released into the atmosphere from the oceans. Local weather and global climate would have been dramatically altered for many years.
Kerry Emanuel of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology suggests that hurricanes would intensify beyond normally observed intensities today if they existed over unusually warm water for extended periods of time. He calls these hurricanes, which could have horizontal winds exceeding 300 mph, hypercanes. They can be simulated in numerical mesoscale meteorology models when the sea-surface temperature is increased to temperatures warmer than about 30oC.
This paper will explore the rate of development and intensity to which such hurricanes can reach when sea-surface temperatures are warmer than typically observed today. The amplification of Florence, a weak hurricane which formed in the Gulf of Mexico and moved northward toward New Orleans in 1988, is simulated by artificially setting the sea-surface temperature over a large area of the Gulf to 45oC, about 15oC warmer than the warmest waters in the tropics. The simulated hypercane immediately formed deep convection, dramatically increased its rate of rotation, quadrupled its vertical and horizontal winds, and increased its precipitation rate by a factor of about ten over that of the actual hurricane.
It will be shown that warmer sea-surface temperatures likely during and following the Genesis Flood for many years would have produced hypercanes with great destructive power which could have continued the devastation over continental areas. Extreme precipitation events on the tropical continents for several hundred years after the Flood may have eroded large areas of unconsolidated sediments. In mid-latitude, polar, and high mountainous regions hypercanes probably would have contributed significantly to the accumulation of snow and ice during the “ice age”.
It is recommended that simulations of hypercanes over the open ocean and for cooler sea-surface temperatures be conducted and the size to which they grow be identified. It is further recommended that the impact of heavy precipitation, winds, and storm surges be studied on the erosion of unconsolidated land masses near continental boundaries. Also, the contribution of hypercanes to the formation of ice sheets and glaciers during the ice age should be explored.


I discuss the possibility of variation of coupling constants and particle masses within modern physics. Quantum mechanical calculations are presented giving the decay constant for alpha decay and its variation with depth of the nuclear potential well. Finally, a concrete, numerical approach is given for the possible variation of the Fermi constant over the history of the earth.


Mt Ngauruhoe in the Taupo Volcanic Zone of New Zealand erupted andesite lava flows in 1949 and 1954, and avalanche deposits in 1975. Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd and Pb-Pb radioisotopic analyses of samples of these andesites, as anticipated, did not yield any “age” information, although the Pb isotopic data are strongly linear. When compared with recent andesite flows from the related adjacent Ruapehu volcano, the Sr-Nd-Pb radioisotopic systems plotted on correlation diagrams provide information about the depleted mantle source for the parental basalt magmas and the source of the crustal contamination that produced the andesite lavas from them. The variations in both the depleted mantle Nd “model ages” and the Pb isotopes also suggest radioisotopic heterogeneity in the mantle wedge 80 km below the volcano where partial melting has occurred, contaminated by mixing with trench sediments scraped off the interface with the subducting slab. Thus the radioisotopic ratios in these recent Ngauruhoe andesite flows were inherited, and reflect the origin and history of the mantle and crustal sources from which the magma was generated. By implication, the radioisotopic ratios in ancient lavas throughout the geologic record are likely fundamental to their geochemistry, characteristic of their origin and history rather than necessarily providing valid conventional “ages”.


The Somerset Dam layered mafic intrusion in southeast Queensland, Australia, has been conventionally dated as Late Triassic by the apparently successful application of radioisotopic dating techniques. Mineralogical, geochemical and isotopic evidence indicates that all of this gabbro intrusion’s cyclic units were derived coevally from the same parental basaltic magma, with an initial homogeneous isotopic mixture ideal for yielding concordant isochron ages. However, newly obtained K-Ar, Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd and Pb-Pb radioisotopic data from 15 whole-rock samples (representing all gabbro macrolayers in four of the intrusion’s cyclic units) yield discordant isochron “ages”, although the excellent-fitting 15-point K-Ar isochron suggests the resultant 174±8 Ma “age” (Middle Jurassic) should be regarded as the revised conventional age of the layered intrusion. Nevertheless, it is concluded that these discordances between the radioisotope systems are likely due to changes in their decay rates in the past, with the longer half-life beta-emitter 87Rb being accelerated more and thus yielding an older “age”. Furthermore, the Sr, Nd and Pb isotopes indicate the parental basaltic magma was derived from a depleted mantle source, while the large spread of Nd TDM “ages” suggests accelerated radioisotopic decay rates during the partial melting and magma ascent. It is concluded that the Somerset Dam layered mafic intrusion has inherited the radioisotopic signature of its mantle source, and so the conventional radioisotopic dating techniques do not provide its true age.


Two decades ago, Robert Gentry and his colleagues at Oak Ridge National Laboratory reported surprisingly high amounts of nuclear-decay-generated helium in tiny radioactive zircons recovered from Precambrian crystalline rock, the Jemez Granodiorite on the west flank of the volcanic Valles Caldera near Los Alamos, New Mexico [9]. Up to 58% of the helium (that radioactivity would have generated during the alleged 1.5 billion year age of the granodiorite) was still in the zircons. Yet the zircons were so small that they should not have retained the helium for even a tiny fraction of that time. The high helium retention levels suggested to us and many other creationists that the helium simply had not had enough time to diffuse out of the zircons, and that recent accelerated nuclear decay had produced over a billion years worth of helium within only the last few thousand years, during Creation and/or the Flood. Such acceleration would reduce the radioisotopic time scale from megayears down to months.
However, until a few years ago nobody had done the experimental and theoretical studies necessary to confirm this conclusion quantitatively. There was only one (ambiguously reported) measurement of helium diffusion through zircon [18]. There were no measurements of helium diffusion through biotite, the black mica surrounding the zircons. In 2000 the RATE project [14] began experiments to measure the diffusion rates of helium in zircon and biotite specifically from the Jemez Granodiorite. The data, reported here, are consistent with data for a mica related to biotite [17], with recently reported data for zircon [19] and with a reasonable interpretation of the earlier zircon data [18]. We show that these data limit the age of these rocks to between 4,000 and 14,000 years. These results support our hypothesis of accelerated nuclear decay and represent strong scientific evidence for the young world of Scripture.


The origin and significance of radiohalos, particularly the 218Po, 214Po and 210Po radiohalos, have been debated for almost a century, perhaps largely because their geological distribution has been poorly understood. In this study samples from three granitic plutons were scanned under microscopes for radiohalos as part of a larger project to investigate the geological occurrence and global distribution of all types of radiohalos. These three granitic plutons were all demonstrated to have formed during the Flood, but all contained 210Po, 214Po and 238U radiohalos, usually with 210Po >> 214Po and 238U; 218Po radiohalos were rare, and 232Th radiohalos were abundant in one granitic pluton. Thus neither the Po radiohalos nor the granitic rocks could have been formed by fiat creation. Instead, a model is proposed in which hydrothermal fluids separated 222Rn and the Po isotopes from their parent 238U in zircons and transported them very short distances along cleavage planes in the host, and adjacent, biotites until the 222Rn decayed and the Po isotopes were chemically concentrated into radiocenters, there to subsequently produce the Po radiohalos. Furthermore, the very short half-lives of these isotopes require this transport process to be rapid (within days), and the observed fully-formed 238U and 232Th radiohalos imply at least 100 million years worth (at today’s rates) of accelerated radioactive decay has occurred. Other implications include: accelerated heat flow during the Flood that helped catastrophically drive global tectonic and geological processes, including metamorphism and magma genesis; and rapid convective hydrothermal fluid flows that rapidly formed and cooled regional metamorphic complexes, rapidly cooled granitic and other plutons, and rapidly formed many metallic ore deposits.

RADIOISOTOPES AND THE AGE OF THE EARTH - Vardiman, Austin, Baumgardner, Chaffin, DeYoung, Humphreys, Snelling

The five-point Rb-Sr whole-rock isochron age of 1.07 Ga for the diabase sill at Bass Rapids, Grand Canyon, has been regarded for 20 years as an excellent example of the application of conventional radioisotopic dating. Initial thorough isotopic mixing within the sill is ideal for yielding concordant whole-rock isochron and mineral isochron ages. However, our new K-Ar, Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd and Pb-Pb radioisotope data from eleven whole-rock samples (eight diabase, three granophyre) and six mineral phases separated from one of the whole-rock diabase samples yield discordant whole-rock and mineral isochron “ages.” These isochron “ages” range from 841.5±164 Ma (whole-rock K-Ar) to 1375±170 Ma (mineral Sm-Nd). Although significant discordance exists between the K-Ar, Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd, and Pb-Pb radioisotope methods, each method appears to yield concordant “ages” internally between whole rocks and minerals. Internal concordance is best illustrated by the Rb-Sr whole rock and mineral isochron “ages” of 1055±46 Ma and 1059±48 Ma, respectively. It is therefore argued that only changing radioisotope decay rates in the past could account for these discordant isochron “ages” for the same geologic event. Furthermore, these data are consistent with alpha decay having been accelerated more than beta decay, and with the longer the present half-life the greater being the acceleration factor.


The wealth of new data, mostly from the ocean bottom, that precipitated the acceptance of plate tectonics during the 1960’s simultaneously also opened the door for the first time in more than 200 years to a technically credible defense of the Genesis Flood. From the mid-1700’s through the days of Hutton, Lyell, and Darwin to the 1960’s, it overwhelmed the human mind to imagine a mechanism that could possibly deliver, in a single brief event, the magnitude and complexity of geological change evident in the continental rock record above the point where fossils first appear. However, with the new awareness that the Earth’s interior could participate in the process and that the stiff layer of rock some 50 miles thick beneath the oceans could be recycled into the Earth, the stage was set for a breakthrough in regard to the mechanism for the Flood cataclysm. The crucial final piece of the puzzle has come from laboratory experiments that have carefully measured the way in which silicate minerals deform under conditions of high temperature and high stress. These experiments reveal silicate material can weaken dramatically, by factors of a billion or more, at mantle temperatures and for stress conditions that can exist in the mantles of planets the size of the Earth. The scenario in which all the Earth’s ocean lithosphere is rapidly recycled into the mantle via a runaway process, enabled by this stress-weakening behavior, is now known as catastrophic plate tectonics [4]. Evidence in the geological record is compelling that such a cataclysmic episode indeed has occurred in the Earth’s recent past. A reasonable inference is that this event corresponds to the Flood described in the Bible and other ancient sources. I report new computational results from 2D and 3D simulations of this catastrophic plate tectonics process. In particular, I describe how fundamental advances in computational techniques now make it possible to advance the numerical solution successfully through the most extreme phase of the runaway regime.

As as I said about Newton, the smartest man to # between two legs imho,

Newton's Approach to Science: Honoring Scripture


Isaac Newton is recognized today by almost all scientists to have been one of the greatest, if not the greatest, scientist who ever lived. His breadth of knowledge, his ability to analyze and synthesize the physical world, his development and use of the calculus, his formulation of the three laws of motion, and the expression of the law of gravitation have been unequaled by any other scientist before or since.

Yet, it is not widely known that Newton was also a Christian and a Bible scholar. He studied the Bible diligently and wrote commentaries on portions of scripture, such as his monograph on the book of Daniel. He clearly believed that God is the Creator and sustainer of our universe. Misunderstanding the source of Newton's creativity, some critics have suggested that Newton would have been more productive if he had not wasted so much time studying and writing about the Bible.

It is understandable that non-Christian scientists would advocate a naturalistic, non-Biblical approach to science. But, this same attitude seems to prevail among Christian scientists as well. By and large, professing Christians who are active scientists tend to play down any use of scripture as a basis for their science. They may refer in a general way to design or God being somehow involved behind the scenes, but few attempt to use the Bible as a serious resource in designing or implementing scientific investigations. If the Bible is to be trusted on such spiritual issues as salvation, the church, or prophecy why can it not be trusted on such physical issues as origins, earth history, or the future?

This article will explore some of the current attitudes and implications to using the Bible as a source of information to "do" science. The consequences of Christian scientists restricting themselves to non-Biblical sources of information will be discussed and an appeal made to take the Bible more seriously in formulating research questions and interpreting scientific data. A case will be made that the Bible can be used to develop a worldview of earth history which is superior to a naturalistic worldview. Although, the Bible obviously does not contain a great deal of scientific detail, it does provide a framework which should direct our scientific thinking. After all, if the Bible is God's Word and it reveals Truth, then the closer we get to the Truth in our presuppositions, the faster we will discover the Truth in the details.

[edit on 22-2-2005 by edsinger]

[edit on 23-2-2005 by edsinger]

posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 11:39 PM

Although, the Bible obviously does not contain a great deal of scientific detail, it does provide a framework which should direct our scientific thinking. After all, if the Bible is God's Word and it reveals Truth, then the closer we get to the Truth in our presuppositions, the faster we will discover the Truth in the details.

I couldn't agree more.

posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 11:57 PM

Originally posted by purecanadiantrash

Although, the Bible obviously does not contain a great deal of scientific detail, it does provide a framework which should direct our scientific thinking. After all, if the Bible is God's Word and it reveals Truth, then the closer we get to the Truth in our presuppositions, the faster we will discover the Truth in the details.

I couldn't agree more.


posted on Feb, 23 2005 @ 07:53 AM

Although, the Bible obviously does not contain a great deal of scientific detail, it does provide a framework which should direct our scientific thinking. After all, if the Bible is God's Word and it reveals Truth, then the closer we get to the Truth in our presuppositions, the faster we will discover the Truth in the details.

The Bible actually has a lot more scientific data then people usually give it credit.

Here are a few examples:
Ecclesiastes 1:6
"The wind goes toward the south, and turns around to the north; the wind whirls about continually, and comes again on its circuit."
This statement has two bits of information. If you'll look at the jet stream, it does exactly this, it goes north and south while whirling around the globe continually. Some of you may have noticed another major scientific statement in this one passage. It states that the earth is round. Woah.

Leviticus 17:11
"'For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul.'"

Leviticus was written before 1400BC. Now, there's the face value comment about the blood of a sacrificed clean animal makes atonement for our sins, but it also states the value of blood, which is our body's nourishment pipeline.

1 Corinthians 15:41
"There is one glory of the sun, another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differs from another star in glory."

Paul wrote this before spectral analysis. At the time, every star seemed the same. The visible planets in Roman times were known to be planets, thanks to the Greeks. However, to say that each star was unique (Elsewhere it's stated God knows every star by name, but I can't find it this morning). That's astrophysics, baby!

This next one is wild. It is believed Job is the first book of the Bible written, even before Moses's 5 books:

Job 36:27-29
"For He draws up drops of water,
Which distill as rain from the mist,
Which the clouds drop down
And pour abundantly on man.
Indeed, can anyone understand the spreading of clouds,
The thunder from His canopy?"

This passage just described the hydrologic cycle. At the time, no, no one could understand. Now we can, and we can back up this passage in the Bible with scientific proof.

Genesis 7:11
In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.


Job 38:16
Have you entered the springs of the sea?
Or have you walked in search of the depths?

Fountains of the great deep? That'd be almost as inconceivable as saying there are rivers in the ocean. Yet, there are. These two passages are describing geothermal events. Genesis describes a world wide geothermal event. People have asked where the water went if there was a flood. Well, if something major happened under the earth's crust causing most underground water deposits to vaporize, it would have much the same effect as a volcano, except this time it would be water, not magma. Water expands as it turns to steam, and would have to escape. Then it would come pouring down in the form of rain. As it slowly trickled back into the void left by its absence under the crust, the water level would drop. This could also account for a lot of the fossil record. I've not read and geologic history of the earth where they did not say it was completely covered in water at one time. The question goes to how long ago.

posted on Feb, 23 2005 @ 09:01 AM

All the sources you cite are from one place "THE INSTITUTE FOR CREATION RESEARCH" hardly am impartial research group.

It STARTS with the Idea that the Earth is 6000 years old and ignores the MOUNTAINS of evidence against it while concentrating on an anomaly or two in the evidence that can be made to sound like it backs what they have already decided is the answer.

It would be like me claiming birds cant fly because I have found footprints of them on the ground.

Can you find me ANY serious accredited impartial scientific research that claims the universe is 6000 years old?

[edit on 23-2-2005 by Amuk]

posted on Feb, 23 2005 @ 09:08 AM

Originally posted by junglejake
Geologically speaking, I'm torn as I am with the evolution debate.

Evolution is a thorn in my side also.

To be honest NEITHER story (evolotution/creation) seems to have the answers. The problem with creation though is always who created the creator? Some where down the line you have to have a creator that sprang from nothingness which is the prime arguement AGAINST evolotution.

As of today I LEAN toward evoloution but have an open mind.

posted on Feb, 23 2005 @ 10:02 AM
The problem with the religious zealots is that every time that a site is discovered in the middle east they tried to pin it to the bible accuracy, and at the end not archeologists will do it, from all the ancient sites found from none of them has been given the names of the bible because the archeologist cannot prove it.

What more prof can you get when the real archeologist will not pin the ancient sites to sites of the bible but rather align them with the other civilization cities’ mention in their stories.

We have to understand something very clear, the attitude that the whole bibles must be true leads to the opinion that there can be not factual errors and contradictions. They hold this opinion and ignore or oppose the suggestion that the bible is not perfect, and it’s historical value is interwoven by the accounts of various sources, because it seems that God spoke with more than one writer at the time. They could not get together to put their stories together.

Fundamentalist have taken upon themselves to tell what is real on their own account, and had become very good at questioning back what is questioned to them.

When belief in the literal truth of the bible becomes the foundation of a religion that religion is founded on shaky ground.

It is easier to show how human is the bible that to prove its divine intervention. The bible is a product of history, fiction, and some mix of different cultures and other pagan religions, it has errors, it has some truth, and contradictions.

Religion is forcing his followers to keep believing in superstitions and ignorance of the ancient past.

Religion shut down modern discoveries or tried to turn them around to fit bible veracity, and when they don’t fit they shut them out because they are not in the bible and so not to be trusted.

Fundamentalist tried to sell the bible as the undeniable world of god forgetting in their ignorance that the bible is not the entire or whole word of God but it also has variety and development within for other believes.

When fundamentalist tried to ignore the contradictions in the bible and push their own version of what it means they take away the right of the bible reader to see the bible universal meaning.

posted on Feb, 23 2005 @ 11:28 AM
Maybe it is my interpretation of the question, but I do not see how The Bible has been supported in any way. The most important premise of the book is about God, what he did, how he spoke to and commanded his people. The second was to pass on an historical perspective of the Jews and their stories. To argue that places have been found is proof of The Bible is to suggest the debateis about the entire OT being nothing but a novel based on fictitious names and places. It stands to reason that the majority of places mentioned would have a basis in fact, for why else would they provide fictitious nations in an historical account? To use proof of these places is a frivolous endeavour, much like saying, aha! The Greek Gods did exist because we found Troy or unearthed the Parthenon. Or to take as fact that the Roman Gods existed and let loose on Italy because Pompeii has been discovered. For all intents and purposes to write a history, it is hardly a leap in logic to understand that scribes from the 8th centuries forward would know of these places.

What has to be proven is not the nations in the Bible, but the facts as reported, the stories, the events, the Godly premise. None of that has been.

So for Biblical believers to point to the unearthing of towns and cities as proof is nothing more than a contrite effort to distort the underlying principle of the debate. Unearthing towns will not corroborate the history unless there is physical evidence within that town to support same, or written proof from another source.

To offer a verse describing blood as the life force is also not proof unless one is to believe that the ancients were too stupid to figure out from the slaughter of animals the extent of that liquid within flesh, and therefore its importance.

We have from various tombs of Rameses II text documenting the battle of Qadesh, and the battle at Megiddo, the latter is also attested to in Sumerian stele. That is proof of an event, and what is lacking to support the second most important Biblical claims. And I might add, both of these places are mentioned as being captured by Joshua circa the time of Rameses II.

posted on Feb, 23 2005 @ 11:55 AM
Marg, that was a lot of opinion with no evidence backing it up. Just like we "zealots" aren't using the Bible as the end all be all in this discussion, I don't think you should be able to state your opinion as fact without providing any coroberating evidence.

Amuk, as to your question of an impartial researcher saying the earth is 6000 years old, I doubt one exists. The problem with both these scientific viewpoints is the geologist starts with a conclusion, then backs it up with supporting evidence. Most geologists start with the conclusion that the earth is 4.5 billion years old because that's what they were told in school. Others start with the conclusion the earth is 6000 years old because their faith and God tells them its so. The first geologic time scale was proposed in 1913 by the British geologist Arthur Holmes (1890 - 1965). This was soon after the discovery of radioactivity, and using it, Holmes estimated that the Earth was about 4 billion years old. This was much greater than previously believed. This figure was reached very shortly after radiation's discovery, yet the figure hasn't really changed at all. Estimates still put the earth's age at 3.9 to 4.6 billion years old. Interestingly enough, there is no evidence for this age as the earliest dated rocks and fossils are from 3.8 billion years ago. Source

A lot must have happened in 100 million years to have created life on this planet! It is actually the Archaean Age where the first living things were supposed to have begun to exist on earth. It is interesting that it's assumed that life first appeared at this time, yet no explanation as to the sudden existence of something so complex as a cell is given. If anything, you would have expected life to be silicone based, as it has a more crystalline structure, reproduces its self, and is simpler in nature than a single amino acid. Yet crystals do not evolve, even in the micro sense. Granted, a piece of coal will eventually become a diamond, but under the same conditions it will always become a diamond.

We are told to simply accept spontaneous life with no evidence or reasoning behind it. It took, according to the current model, 1.4 billion years for "simple" multicellular life to develop, and another 2 billion before algae became small crustaceans, but only 100 million years for life to pop up in a hostile, Venus-like environment.

posted on Feb, 23 2005 @ 12:04 PM
SomewhereinBetween, you're ignoring the rest of the Jericho post and the other scientific points. Jericho archaeologists uncovered something inexplicable, yet it coincided with what the Bible said happened. You asked for evidence that what took place in the Bible, not just the locations, actually happened, and I gave you evidence. Just because you find the cave medusa was supposed to live doesn't mean you need to believe she did. If, however, you found the cave, a mirrored shield and many statues of humans along with a half woman half snake skeleton, I'd reconsider.

You address blood being the source of life, and yes, that is something that may be obvious to the observer; as you drain someone's blood, they die. Yet you dismiss Job talking about the hydrologic process thousands of years ago because blood was already known to be the source of life.

As of the Joshua thing, I'll look into it and get back to you. I remember reading something on this, but it was a while ago.

EDIT: For spelling

[edit on 2-23-2005 by junglejake]

posted on Feb, 23 2005 @ 12:19 PM

Originally posted by junglejake
Marg, that was a lot of opinion with no evidence backing it up. Just like we "zealots" aren't using the Bible as the end all be all in this discussion, I don't think you should be able to state your opinion as fact without providing any coroberating evidence.

Sorry, but when your source comes with a page that has a tittle like this

(And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands. Heb 1:10 )

It's just more religious propaganda to prove the bible as the only truth.

Jericho may have been a city but the story in the bible was a myth.

new topics

top topics

<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in