Why Protestant and Jewish Families Rule the Earth

[Sava]

Originally posted by Philosophiser


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.

Actually. I'm showing you exactly why you are wrong by supporting my argument with extremely credible sources.

I'm not evading anything. In fact, I am being very direct. It is you who are evading the issue by refusing to acknowledge the truth when being confronted with the facts.

How could I prove my position in my own words? I am not a scientist. I am providing sources to backup my arguments as any effective debater does.

[Philosophiser]

Originally posted by Sava


Actually. I'm showing you exactly why you are wrong by supporting my argument with extremely credible sources.

I'm not evading anything. In fact, I am being very direct. It is you who are evading the issue by refusing to acknowledge the truth when being confronted with the facts.

How could I prove my position in my own words? I am not a scientist. I am providing sources to backup my arguments as any effective debater does.

Yes and I refuted them with my HTML links. If you'd like you can refute the articles I posted. And you are not an effective debater. You ignored my point about Jerusalem and the Apostles. You simply evade and post long articles, and then claim you've proven your point. When you write an argument you actually have to ARGUE, not just paste sources.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Philosophiser
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.

So all non-Christian scientists that study radiocarbon dating, are, in fact, in one monolithic and enormous conspiracy against Christians? Not even one non-Christian source exists that questions the valdity of radiocarbon dating?

[Philosophiser]

Originally posted by Cyclotron


So all non-Christian scientists that study radiocarbon dating, are, in fact, in one monolithic and enormous conspiracy against Christians? Not even one non-Christian source exists that questions the valdity of radiocarbon dating?

Thats correct. About 85% of them are atheists and those who are not tow the line because if they don't they will lose their careers. As far as not one nonChristian source existing, I really don't know as I haven't investigated. From what I've heard there are indeed nonChristians who reject the materialistic evolutionary explanation. These dissenters from the scientific establishment are rare however, because of the expectation of dogmatic conformity with the atheistic principles of the major centres of modern science.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Philosophiser
Thats correct. About 85% of them are atheists and those who are not tow the line because if they don't they will lose their careers.

Don't you think it's the least bit odd that there appears to be not one single non-Christian source that corroborates your claims? It sounds to me like the Christian scientists whose websites you're quoting just have an axe to grind. Don't you think, if it were scientifically true that radiocarbon dating was flawed or false, at least one non-Christian scientist would say something? Anythung? The geologists I know at my college are very sensible people that rely on radiocarbon dating because it works. I somehow can't picture them as a part of this vast scientific conspiracy against Christians.

[Philosophiser]

Originally posted by Cyclotron


Don't you think it's the least bit odd that there appears to be not one single non-Christian source that corroborates your claims? It sounds to me like the Christian scientists whose websites you're quoting just have an axe to grind. Don't you think, if it were scientifically true that radiocarbon dating was flawed or false, at least one non-Christian scientist would say something? Anythung? The geologists I know at my college are very sensible people that rely on radiocarbon dating because it works. I somehow can't picture them as a part of this vast scientific conspiracy against Christians.

No its really not that odd because if you don't have a religious belief system to begin with, or a deistic or atheistic belief system, then its easy to assume the kinds of things that evolution assumes- namely uniformity of time and rates, and a purely naturalistic explanation for all phenomenon. Evolution is exactly the kind of theory you'd expect from the mind of an atheist, and exactly how you'd expect an atheist to try to explain the data he encounters in the field.

[joncha]

Damn those atheists and their sane, rational explanations!

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Philosophiser
No its really not that odd because if you don't have a religious belief system to begin with, or a deistic or atheistic belief system, then its easy to assume the kinds of things that evolution assumes- namely uniformity of time and rates, and a purely naturalistic explanation for all phenomenon. Evolution is exactly the kind of theory you'd expect from the mind of an atheist, and exactly how you'd expect an atheist to try to explain the data he encounters in the field.

Not all scientists are "positive atheists;" they don't try to make their work serve as proof against Christians. Most study science for the sake of science. I would think that most scientists would question radiocarbon dating if there were serious problems, especially since the Christian element has been very busily pointing out what they believe are flaws. Why is it that these scientists, even though the very purpose of their work, their careers, and perhaps their lives is to find truth, would ignore that truth en masse?

[Sava]

Originally posted by Philosophiser


Yes and I refuted them with my HTML links.

Which have no credibility whatsoever.


You see... this is not actually a debate.

I am presenting facts. You are ignoring them.

You can post all the links you want. You can post links "refuting" the fact that 2+2=4. It still doesn't mean it isn't true.

Your links are not credible. Mine are. That is the difference.

[Philosophiser]

Originally posted by Sava
Which have no credibility whatsoever.


You see... this is not actually a debate.

I am presenting facts. You are ignoring them.

You can post all the links you want. You can post links "refuting" the fact that 2+2=4. It still doesn't mean it isn't true.

Your links are not credible. Mine are. That is the difference.

My articles are from scientists with PHDs, including scientists from top reputable universities. I have no more time for your silliness. If you want to reject God you do so at the peril of your own eternal damnation as well as much hardship in this life. Your belief system makes your life absurd and your life a meaningless despair.

You still have not answered the arguments based on prophecy and historicity. They were totally ignored. Your response to the apostles seeing that Jesus is the Messiah is nonexistent. You know how absurd you'd sound saying you believe the apostles went to the ends of teh earth, endored torments, and sacrificed their comfortable lives for something they knew was a lie. You also have to explain away the "coincidence" of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD, 40 years after the crucifixion of Christ. You still have to explain away all of the biblical prophecies that are fulfilled in Christ's crucifixion and resurrection.

Your belief system is filled with evasions and contradictions.

[Elok]

DISCLAIMER: The Points of View expressed by Philosophiser are, just in case you have forgotten, part of the extreme fringe of "Christian" faith. Similarities between his beliefs and those of myself, the Pope, and other Christians who attend churches with non-padded walls are few and basically coincidental. His beliefs are, as such, not admissible as evidence in a discussion about the Christian faith in general, any more than Mickey Mouse is a good case study of rodents. So don't get all smug and superior. Just a reminder.

[Philosophiser]

Originally posted by Elok
DISCLAIMER: The Points of View expressed by Philosophiser are, just in case you have forgotten, part of the extreme fringe of "Christian" faith. Similarities between his beliefs and those of myself, the Pope, and other Christians who attend churches with non-padded walls are few and basically coincidental. His beliefs are, as such, not admissible as evidence in a discussion about the Christian faith in general, any more than Mickey Mouse is a good case study of rodents. So don't get all smug and superior. Just a reminder.

DISCLAIMER: Elok is an Eastern Orthodox idolater who does not practice Biblical Christianity. Eastern Orthodoxy is apostasy along with its sister, Roman Catholicism. This is evidenced by the fact that he defends atheists over people who profess the name of Christ, but its also evidenced by the fact that he practices a religious faith that contradicts the very Bible it claims to uphold- especially in the areas of salvation and idolatry. For example, the New Testament specifically condemns idolatry. Yet, we see his fellow Eastern Orthodoxites bowing to idols in their false temples. Elok's religion is insanity. This is why God cursed Eastern Orthodoxy with the plague of Communism and the scourge of Atheism.

Some of the pope's top assistants are on record as saying that they doubt the resurrection and do not believe it. The Pope has nothing to do with true Christianity today or in the past.

[Elok]

Well, see, we wanted to be True Christians, but we just couldn't wait over a thousand years for some foreigner to be born, grow up, and read the "obvious" truth in a text that had been around for all of the intervening years. Plus, there was no "Bible" to base any "Biblical Christianity" off of for the first 300 years or so. Iconography, incense and other "idolatry" predate the formation of the New Testament itself, and were used by those who decided to standardize it. Your entire position is based on a revisionism founded in paranoia.

[Bill3000]

Jesus Christ is a communist.

[Philosophiser]

Originally posted by Elok
Well, see, we wanted to be True Christians, but we just couldn't wait over a thousand years for some foreigner to be born, grow up, and read the "obvious" truth in a text that had been around for all of the intervening years. Plus, there was no "Bible" to base any "Biblical Christianity" off of for the first 300 years or so. Iconography, incense and other "idolatry" predate the formation of the New Testament itself, and were used by those who decided to standardize it. Your entire position is based on a revisionism founded in paranoia.

Right thats why we find no evidence of icon veneration in the first 200 years of the patristics, and certainly no evidence of it in scripture- in fact a repudiation and rejection of it!