Archaeologists claimed to have found the bones of John the Baptist

this is why i have too log in,, when i want too do other stuff,,,

OMG ITS TRUE!
chata-gory,,

Meanwhile: The pathos of Napoleon's penis
By Judith Pascoe
Published: Thursday, May 17, 2007
IOWA CITY — The owner of Napoleon's penis died last Thursday in Englewood, New Jersey. John K. Lattimer, who'd been a Columbia University professor and a collector of military (and some macabre) relics, also possessed Lincoln's blood-stained collar and Hermann Göring's cyanide ampoule. But the penis, which supposedly had been severed by a priest who administered last rites to Napoleon and overstepped clerical boundaries, stood out (sorry) from the professor's collection of medieval armor, Civil War rifles and Hitler drawings.


please do face palm,, pleeeaase,,,

Originally posted by Jordan River

Originally posted by HumanCondition

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
reply to post by HumanCondition

 

Maybe, MAYBE NOT.

I have no problem believing he is real if there is evidence to say so.
But there isn't.
And you know this.
And until you can present evidence he is just as real as a Cinderella.

Plenty of evidence on JTB. You can also say that majority of ancient civilizations didnt exist either. So to you, your great great great great grandfather didn't exist to me, where is the proof that he exist? because you are a testimony of living flesh? Nah, that does not change my point of view at all, because you have 200 year old Birth certifcate too? well, i dont know, maybe your great G pa was a myth

Where is the evidence?? The bible???? Cause that does not count.

My grandfather did exist, there is no arguing about that. Where a problem would come in is if I said my grandfather was the king of Spain and didn't have any evidence to back that up. This is what you are doing. There is plenty of evidence that people were around back there but nothing to say that specific people like John the Baptist existed. Simply finding a skeleton does nothing.

Use reason not emotion.

reply to post by HumanCondition


where is the evidance that you exist, you coudl be a bot?
i'm not going on this ty raid cause it is silly. But apparently the ppl in the NT did not exist at all, so what about the Tanakh? You know better than us and your point of view is always right


The problem is, a lot of people do not want the NT to be true. Not discussing the mystical portion. I am discussing a more historical event

Daily Mail article..so..well ok then.

Do have one question, well maybe a couple.

1. Why suddenly can science be trusted, when it relates to anything with with a biblical connection ?

2. Why when it relates to something that doesn't, especially if it may show the book to be flat wrong, is it suspect ?

Jus' asking.

Originally posted by HumanCondition

Originally posted by Jordan River

Originally posted by HumanCondition

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
reply to post by HumanCondition

 

Maybe, MAYBE NOT.

I have no problem believing he is real if there is evidence to say so.
But there isn't.
And you know this.
And until you can present evidence he is just as real as a Cinderella.

Plenty of evidence on JTB. You can also say that majority of ancient civilizations didnt exist either. So to you, your great great great great grandfather didn't exist to me, where is the proof that he exist? because you are a testimony of living flesh? Nah, that does not change my point of view at all, because you have 200 year old Birth certifcate too? well, i dont know, maybe your great G pa was a myth

Where is the evidence?? The bible???? Cause that does not count.

My grandfather did exist, there is no arguing about that. Where a problem would come in is if I said my grandfather was the king of Spain and didn't have any evidence to back that up. This is what you are doing. There is plenty of evidence that people were around back there but nothing to say that specific people like John the Baptist existed. Simply finding a skeleton does nothing.

Use reason not emotion.

how do i know your grandfather even existed? There's a lot of people existing within the last 100 years, how do I know that you even had a grandfather?

Originally posted by Noncompatible
Daily Mail article..so..well ok then.

Do have one question, well maybe a couple.

1. Why suddenly can science be trusted, when it relates to anything with with a biblical connection ?

2. Why when it relates to something that doesn't, especially if it may show the book to be flat wrong, is it suspect ?

Jus' asking.

so you're saying we shouldn't trust science? Yea let's go back to the old days of superstition

reply to post by someguy0083


Way to go, missed the point by a country mile.

Read again and you will see I infer the exact opposite.

Originally posted by Noncompatible
reply to post by someguy0083

 

Way to go, missed the point by a country mile.

Read again and you will see I infer the exact opposite.

Ah an anti-science. Ok never mind. Let's completely ignore science

reply to post by someguy0083


You still do not see it?

It is a comment on the honesty of the religious. Only trusting science when they believe it is reinforcing their mythology. Dismissing it when it may do the exact opposite.

Hopefully that is now clarified.

(though having to dissect my own post does kind of lessen it)

How can anyone be taken in by these cloak and dogger stories...even my religious partner thinks this is rubbish.

Originally posted by Noncompatible
Daily Mail article..so..well ok then.

Do have one question, well maybe a couple.

1. Why suddenly can science be trusted, when it relates to anything with with a biblical connection ?

2. Why when it relates to something that doesn't, especially if it may show the book to be flat wrong, is it suspect ?

Jus' asking.

Seriously? Excepting supernatural portions of the Bible, the entire point of biblical archeology is to assume there is some historical narrative taking place in natural history about these figures. The point is to piece together the evidence and examine where it leads us.

Dismissing the entire Bible based on supernatural portions of it is silly. That's a matter of expediency and not science.

Originally posted by imherejusttoread

Originally posted by Noncompatible
Daily Mail article..so..well ok then.

Do have one question, well maybe a couple.

1. Why suddenly can science be trusted, when it relates to anything with with a biblical connection ?

2. Why when it relates to something that doesn't, especially if it may show the book to be flat wrong, is it suspect ?

Jus' asking.

Seriously? Excepting supernatural portions of the Bible, the entire point of biblical archeology is to assume there is some historical narrative taking place in natural history about these figures. The point is to piece together the evidence and examine where it leads us.

Dismissing the entire Bible based on supernatural portions of it is silly. That's a matter of expediency and not science.

And we have a second taker. Nothing personal but did IQs drop suddenly?

This has nothing to do with the Bible itself, it is a jab at its supporters, most especially the most fervent ones who deny any science that contradicts their viewpoints but will 180 and accept it without question if it appears to support the aforementioned viewpoints.

Originally posted by Noncompatible
And we have a second taker. Nothing personal but did IQs drop suddenly?

This has nothing to do with the Bible itself, it is a jab at its supporters, most especially the most fervent ones who deny any science that contradicts their viewpoints but will 180 and accept it without question if it appears to support the aforementioned viewpoints.

Firstly, the insults aren't necessary. Secondly, you're not being very clear to begin with.

My answer to your question is probably A. they are opportunists, or B. they believe that the science or assumptions of the investigation were incorrect in the first place.

Originally posted by someguy0083

Originally posted by HumanCondition

Originally posted by Jordan River

Originally posted by HumanCondition

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
reply to post by HumanCondition

 

Maybe, MAYBE NOT.

I have no problem believing he is real if there is evidence to say so.
But there isn't.
And you know this.
And until you can present evidence he is just as real as a Cinderella.

Plenty of evidence on JTB. You can also say that majority of ancient civilizations didnt exist either. So to you, your great great great great grandfather didn't exist to me, where is the proof that he exist? because you are a testimony of living flesh? Nah, that does not change my point of view at all, because you have 200 year old Birth certifcate too? well, i dont know, maybe your great G pa was a myth

Where is the evidence?? The bible???? Cause that does not count.

My grandfather did exist, there is no arguing about that. Where a problem would come in is if I said my grandfather was the king of Spain and didn't have any evidence to back that up. This is what you are doing. There is plenty of evidence that people were around back there but nothing to say that specific people like John the Baptist existed. Simply finding a skeleton does nothing.

Use reason not emotion.

how do i know your grandfather even existed? There's a lot of people existing within the last 100 years, how do I know that you even had a grandfather?

I understand that is just an example but it is a really bad one that makes no sense, much like the entire argument I guess.
If I had no grandfather I would not exist

Originally posted by imherejusttoread

Originally posted by Noncompatible
And we have a second taker. Nothing personal but did IQs drop suddenly?

This has nothing to do with the Bible itself, it is a jab at its supporters, most especially the most fervent ones who deny any science that contradicts their viewpoints but will 180 and accept it without question if it appears to support the aforementioned viewpoints.

Firstly, the insults aren't necessary. Secondly, you're not being very clear to begin with.

My answer to your question is probably A. they are opportunists, or B. they believe that the science or assumptions of the investigation were incorrect in the first place.

Not an insult, an observation.
It doesn't require advanced reading skills to read the initial questions. It does however require reading, NOT interpreting what you THINK I'm saying.

Indeed, so extrapolate from there and wonder why there is any discussion required on the matter, because either:

a. The scientific method is sound and the tools at our (humankind) disposal are worthy. Which leaves all religious matters as faith with little to no scientific evidence
b. They are not in which case, any conclusion reached in this case simply boils down to faith.

Conclusion: The existence of anything without tangible falsifiable evidence is no more than a hopeful belief.

Originally posted by Noncompatible
reply to post by someguy0083

 

You still do not see it?

It is a comment on the honesty of the religious. Only trusting science when they believe it is reinforcing their mythology. Dismissing it when it may do the exact opposite.

Hopefully that is now clarified.

(though having to dissect my own post does kind of lessen it)

You mean like when a Jesuit priest developed the Big Bang Theory? : www.atheistnexus.org...

Or when "Nicolaus Copernicus dedicated his most famous work, On the Revolution of the Celestial Orbs, in which he gave an excellent account of heliocentricity, to Pope Paul III."? : www.catholic.com...

Or what about when Dr. Isaac Newton was devoting more written work to his studies of the Bible, in which he believed (though not a Catholic), than Science (though thoroughly prolific in both).? : books.google.com...=onepage&q&f=false

Or what about devout Protestant Christian Dr. Henry F. Schaefer who is basically a Chemistry genius? : www.ccc.uga.edu... (check out his book on religion and science, btw)

I could keep going, but I'll pre-close at this: Louis Pasteur proved, through his work built on that of other scientists (also largely Catholic, and many Protestants), that the concept of abiogenesis, i.e. spontaneous generation, is false. Life cannot create itself from nothing. It has to have a creator, or a Creator as it were. Even if evolution were true, the origin of life cannot be explained by science.

Not even by a long country mile.

To sing us out, the amazing Dr. Robert Jastrow:


"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."

Originally posted by Augustine62

Originally posted by Noncompatible
reply to post by someguy0083

 

You still do not see it?

It is a comment on the honesty of the religious. Only trusting science when they believe it is reinforcing their mythology. Dismissing it when it may do the exact opposite.

Hopefully that is now clarified.

(though having to dissect my own post does kind of lessen it)

You mean like when a Jesuit priest developed the Big Bang Theory? : www.atheistnexus.org...

Or when "Nicolaus Copernicus dedicated his most famous work, On the Revolution of the Celestial Orbs, in which he gave an excellent account of heliocentricity, to Pope Paul III."? : www.catholic.com...

Or what about when Dr. Isaac Newton was devoting more written work to his studies of the Bible, in which he believed (though not a Catholic), than Science (though thoroughly prolific in both).? : books.google.com...=onepage&q&f=false

Or what about devout Protestant Christian Dr. Henry F. Schaefer who is basically a Chemistry genius? : www.ccc.uga.edu... (check out his book on religion and science, btw)

I could keep going, but I'll pre-close at this: Louis Pasteur proved, through his work built on that of other scientists (also largely Catholic, and many Protestants), that the concept of abiogenesis, i.e. spontaneous generation, is false. Life cannot create itself from nothing. It has to have a creator, or a Creator as it were. Even if evolution were true, the origin of life cannot be explained by science.
Not even by a long country mile.

To sing us out, the amazing Dr. Robert Jastrow:


"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."

You were doing so well., right up to the highlighted (by me) part.

Right there you you took my hypothesis one step closer to a working theory.

Thanks for your (predictable) cooperation.

Originally posted by Noncompatible

Originally posted by Augustine62

Originally posted by Noncompatible
reply to post by someguy0083

 

You still do not see it?

It is a comment on the honesty of the religious. Only trusting science when they believe it is reinforcing their mythology. Dismissing it when it may do the exact opposite.

Hopefully that is now clarified.

(though having to dissect my own post does kind of lessen it)

You mean like when a Jesuit priest developed the Big Bang Theory? : www.atheistnexus.org...

Or when "Nicolaus Copernicus dedicated his most famous work, On the Revolution of the Celestial Orbs, in which he gave an excellent account of heliocentricity, to Pope Paul III."? : www.catholic.com...

Or what about when Dr. Isaac Newton was devoting more written work to his studies of the Bible, in which he believed (though not a Catholic), than Science (though thoroughly prolific in both).? : books.google.com...=onepage&q&f=false

Or what about devout Protestant Christian Dr. Henry F. Schaefer who is basically a Chemistry genius? : www.ccc.uga.edu... (check out his book on religion and science, btw)

I could keep going, but I'll pre-close at this: Louis Pasteur proved, through his work built on that of other scientists (also largely Catholic, and many Protestants), that the concept of abiogenesis, i.e. spontaneous generation, is false. Life cannot create itself from nothing. It has to have a creator, or a Creator as it were. Even if evolution were true, the origin of life cannot be explained by science.
Not even by a long country mile.

To sing us out, the amazing Dr. Robert Jastrow:


"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."

You were doing so well., right up to the highlighted (by me) part.

Right there you you took my hypothesis one step closer to a working theory.

Thanks for your (predictable) cooperation.

You mean to say that science can prove the origin of all life? Really? How unscientific of you.

This is completely likely.

I mean, there is far more historical evidence of John the Baptist's existence than Jesus Christ himself.

Originally posted by Augustine62

Originally posted by Noncompatible

Originally posted by Augustine62

Originally posted by Noncompatible
reply to post by someguy0083

 

You still do not see it?

It is a comment on the honesty of the religious. Only trusting science when they believe it is reinforcing their mythology. Dismissing it when it may do the exact opposite.

Hopefully that is now clarified.

(though having to dissect my own post does kind of lessen it)

You mean like when a Jesuit priest developed the Big Bang Theory? : www.atheistnexus.org...

Or when "Nicolaus Copernicus dedicated his most famous work, On the Revolution of the Celestial Orbs, in which he gave an excellent account of heliocentricity, to Pope Paul III."? : www.catholic.com...

Or what about when Dr. Isaac Newton was devoting more written work to his studies of the Bible, in which he believed (though not a Catholic), than Science (though thoroughly prolific in both).? : books.google.com...=onepage&q&f=false

Or what about devout Protestant Christian Dr. Henry F. Schaefer who is basically a Chemistry genius? : www.ccc.uga.edu... (check out his book on religion and science, btw)

I could keep going, but I'll pre-close at this: Louis Pasteur proved, through his work built on that of other scientists (also largely Catholic, and many Protestants), that the concept of abiogenesis, i.e. spontaneous generation, is false. Life cannot create itself from nothing. It has to have a creator, or a Creator as it were. Even if evolution were true, the origin of life cannot be explained by science.
Not even by a long country mile.

To sing us out, the amazing Dr. Robert Jastrow:


"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."

You were doing so well., right up to the highlighted (by me) part.

Right there you you took my hypothesis one step closer to a working theory.

Thanks for your (predictable) cooperation.

You mean to say that science can prove the origin of all life? Really? How unscientific of you.

It can, obviously not at present but science can given the right progresses are made.