Why Protestant and Jewish Families Rule the Earth

[Gangerolf]

my family is protestant and we don't own anything
damn joos

[Sava]

Originally posted by Philosophiser


Comparing the Christian faith to a pink unicorn on the moon is a totally false analogy. A pink unicorn not only has no proof for being on the moon, but it couldn't survive according to the normal principles of animal respiration.

But this is a magical pink unicorn.



PROVE ME WRONG!!

[Philosophiser]

Originally posted by Sava


But this is a magical pink unicorn.



PROVE ME WRONG!!

You are being totally foolish. Christianity has alot of evidence- prophecy, history, miracles, and ability to survive despite all opposition.

Voltaire said he believed Chrisitanity would be dead in 100 years. Yet, 100 years later they were using his publishing house to print Bibles!

Sure... whats your explanation for Jesus. Were the apostles lying? Did they hide a dead body, and then go to the ends of the earth and get martyred for a total lie just because they felt like it?

Its not a matter of proof. Its a matter of seeing that the evidence is REASONABLE and then believing. Its more reasonable than the drudgery of Islam, and certainly more reasonable than your hopeless atheism.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Philosophiser

Its not a matter of proof. Its a matter of seeing that the evidence is REASONABLE and then believing. Its more reasonable than the drudgery of Islam, and certainly more reasonable than your hopeless atheism.

What evidence is there that the Bible is true?

lets look at this...

Genesis: Adam and Eve...

hmmm did all of humanity descend from two naked white people just 10,000 years ago (or whatever it is)...

ALL THE EVIDENCE SAYS THE WORLD IS OVER 4.5 BILLION YEARS OLD

Noah's Ark... hmmm did all animal life on Earth get put onto a boat for a flood?

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF A MASS EXTINCTION BY FLOOD WITHIN THE LAST FEW THOUSAND YEARS

Jesus... Is there any evidence of the supernatural events? Any direct evidence of his existence? The accounts of his existence were written decades after he was alleged to exist.

You talk of what is "reasonable" to believe. However, you don't seem to be using reason at all.

[Philosophiser]

Originally posted by Sava




What evidence is there that the Bible is true?

lets look at this...

Genesis: Adam and Eve...

hmmm did all of humanity descend from two naked white people just 10,000 years ago (or whatever it is)...

ALL THE EVIDENCE SAYS THE WORLD IS OVER 4.5 BILLION YEARS OLD

Noah's Ark... hmmm did all animal life on Earth get put onto a boat for a flood?

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF A MASS EXTINCTION BY FLOOD WITHIN THE LAST FEW THOUSAND YEARS

Jesus... Is there any evidence of the supernatural events? Any direct evidence of his existence? The accounts of his existence were written decades after he was alleged to exist.

You talk of what is "reasonable" to believe. However, you don't seem to be using reason at all.

There is no clear evidence that the earth is billions of years old, and there is no clear evidence that there wasn't a Great Flood. If you think you have clear evidence please provide it.

For the record- radiocarbon dating and radio isotope dating have been proven highly unreliable in experiments where the experimenters already know the age of the rocks. For example at a recent Mt. St. Helens experiment on radiometric dating the rock was measured to be millions of years old, when the measure should have said a few days old.

Secondly, your assumption of uniformity of time is a belief, not a proven fact.

Thirdly, if the Bible is right there have been massive paradigm shifts in the whole nature of the universe that could give it the appearance of age in various ways. For example the transition between the kind of environment described in the Garden of Eden, and the kind of environment described after the fall of man- is so dramatically different that the physical processes it may have involved are probably very significant. Same with preflood and postflood ages.

Fourthly, the fossil evidence has no transitional forms between species, something you think they would have found a ton of in the last 100 years of research. We're talking basic things, like half wings, half feathers, half feet, etc....

Fifthly, irreducible complexity and intelligent design, as documented by BEHE and others, clearly negate much of Darwinian myth.

OK go to it big shot- prove that the Bible is a myth. I'm still waiting. You haven't answered my question about Jerusalem or my question about your explanation for what motivated the apostles to be tortured and to get martyred if they knew they were liars.

[Kuciwalker]

For the record- radiocarbon dating and radio isotope dating have been proven highly unreliable in experiments where the experimenters already know the age of the rocks. For example at a recent Mt. St. Helens experiment on radiometric dating the rock was measured to be millions of years old, when the measure should have said a few days old.

I'm going to channel shawn hear and tell you: if you doubt radiocarbon dating, go step in a nuclear reactor. You'll be fine.

[Philosophiser]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

For the record- radiocarbon dating and radio isotope dating have been proven highly unreliable in experiments where the experimenters already know the age of the rocks. For example at a recent Mt. St. Helens experiment on radiometric dating the rock was measured to be millions of years old, when the measure should have said a few days old.

I'm going to channel shawn hear and tell you: if you doubt radiocarbon dating, go step in a nuclear reactor. You'll be fine.

I'm asking for proof that radiocarbon dating is a reliable method. Thats not proof. All you are doing is declaring that radioactivity is a reality. Big deal.

[Kuciwalker]

Radiocarbon dating may not be reliable to a certain level of precision, but it is certainly precise within +/- 1 billion years.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Philosophiser


There is no clear evidence that the earth is billions of years old,

Uhhmmm yes there is.

Perhaps you've heard of radiometric dating methods?

SCIENCE

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

Visit that site and educate yourself, because it appears as if you didn't pay attention in junior high school science class.

[Philosophiser]

Originally posted by Sava

Uhhmmm yes there is.

Perhaps you've heard of radiometric dating methods?

SCIENCE

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

Visit that site and educate yourself, because it appears as if you didn't pay attention in junior high school science class.

No we're not playing that game. Anybody can go and paste HTML links to websites. I have whole HTML links that DISPROVE the reliability of radiocarbon dating. You think you are so reasonable, then I want you, in your own words, to prove how you know for a fact that radiocarbon dating is a reliable method, and that all the properites of the universe have remained uniform enough for you to know that it is. But, just to counter your HTML link, here are mine:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/carbon_dating.asp

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=353

[Kuciwalker]

ARGUMENT FROM MULTIPLICITY (III) (recursive internet edition)
(1) There exists a web page ( http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm )
(2) That page has hundreds of purported proofs of the existence of God.
(3) They can't all be wrong.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Philosophiser


I have whole HTML links that DISPROVE the reliability of radiocarbon dating.

And they would be wrong.

radiometric dating is a proven scientific method of dating material... there is no dispute (from credible people) as to it's effectiveness or reliability...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating

http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/section/dating_absolutedating.asp

Here is a history of the Earth from the Smithsonian. It's in Flash format. Simple moving pictures and such. No heavy reading or difficult words.

http://www.mnh.si.edu/earth/main_frames.html

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Philosophiser
I have whole HTML links that DISPROVE the reliability of radiocarbon dating.

Ho hum. Do you have any "whole HTML links" that aren't leading to Christian apologist websites? Surely if there are so many flaws with the dating procedure, there must be at least one scientist not affiliated with a Christian organization that says so. Right?

[Philosophiser]

Originally posted by Sava

And they would be wrong.

radiometric dating is a proven scientific method of dating material... there is no dispute as to it's effectiveness or reliability...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating

http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/section/dating_absolutedating.asp

Here is a history of the Earth from the Smithsonian. It's in Flash format. Simple moving pictures and such. No reading or difficult words.

http://www.mnh.si.edu/earth/main_frames.html

OK everyone can see for the record that you have done nothing but evade. You have not faced up to the responsibility of showing clearly why I am wrong. You simply declare, like an authoritative dogmatist- that "I am wrong". One would think if your position were more formidable you would easily and simply prove your position in your own words, instead of evade all of my questions and pronounce authoritatively that "there is no disagreement" when in fact there is significant disagreement. I'm too busy to deal with this kind of evasive nonsense.

[Philosophiser]

Originally posted by Cyclotron


Ho hum. Do you have any "whole HTML links" that aren't leading to Christian apologist websites? Surely if there are so many flaws with the dating procedure, there must be at least one scientist not affiliated with a Christian organization that says so. Right?

Thats like saying that in 100BC there were hardly any who disagreed with ancient Roman paganism, and surely if it were wrong you'd have found more people who disagreed with it.

The fact of the matter is that the modern scientific associations create a facade of fact, when in actuality they are doing nothing more than touting an atheist explanation of the data, an atheistic religious explanation. It's not a proven explanation. If you don't ascribe to the line of material evolution the scientific community applies social pressure to ostracise you, because they are for the most part very atheistic and desirous of defending their anti Christian beliefs as much as possible. Therefore they will tout their science as fact when it is in fact nothing but religion.