Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Many bullae have been recovered by archaeologists which confirm the existence of ancient Israelite kings and their courts.
Archaeologists do find many things which do confirm aspects of Biblical stories and characters.
Certainly agreed. But in some cases the biblical authors were writting about the current (to them) world. In other instances, they were writting about (to them) recent history. And in yet some other instances, they copied Toric stories.
I could write about Civil War era Atlanta, or even Colonial era New York, doesn't mean I was there, or that I'm correct.
However, each and every myth related to Jehovah and/or Christ have been disproven. There are no valid non-biblical sources for Christ or his miracles, rather strange considering the trade route nexus nature of the Middle East, the near fanatical record keeping of the Romans and the love of the Greeks to write about everything and anything.
Great Flood? Disproven. Not enough water on the planet, no marine fossils on mountains (except the Rockies which were once seabed), no global wide thick layer of intermixed plant, animal, bird, and fish fossils in the earth's strata, no way to fit some ten million birds and animals on a boat, et cetera ad nauseum.
Evolution thoroughly disproves the idea of an actual Adam and Eve. All factual, hard evidence proves that we evolved from a common ancestor with the other primate, called "proto-humans".
Certainly agreed. But in some cases the biblical authors were writting about the current (to them) world. In other instances, they were writting about (to them) recent history. And in yet some other instances, they copied Toric stories.
I could write about Civil War era Atlanta, or even Colonial era New York, doesn't mean I was there, or that I'm correct.
However, each and every myth related to Jehovah and/or Christ have been disproven. There are no valid non-biblical sources for Christ or his miracles, rather strange considering the trade route nexus nature of the Middle East, the near fanatical record keeping of the Romans and the love of the Greeks to write about everything and anything.
Great Flood? Disproven. Not enough water on the planet, no marine fossils on mountains (except the Rockies which were once seabed), no global wide thick layer of intermixed plant, animal, bird, and fish fossils in the earth's strata, no way to fit some ten million birds and animals on a boat, et cetera ad nauseum.
Evolution thoroughly disproves the idea of an actual Adam and Eve. All factual, hard evidence proves that we evolved from a common ancestor with the other primate, called "proto-humans".
Need I go on?
All that you have disproven is bad interpretations of the Bible. I have one website on Noah's flood showing that it is a scientifically accurate depiction of a flood in lower Sumer. Home ‎(noahsfloodsite)‎
I have another website showing that Adam and Eve in the Garden was an accurate depiction of the first farmer. Home ‎(gardenofeden)‎
Does that prove the miracles? no. Miracles, being events that do not follow scientific laws, and thus not repeatable, tend to be unprovable. That does not prove that they didn't happen.
Give me a break....Anyone can find a website that claims almost anything..
From your first link.. It is true that plate techtonics have pulled enough water into the mantle that if it escaped all at once, the surface of the ocean would be 1.5 miles above Mt Everest.
What a ridiculous nonsensical lie that is.
From your second link.... Rule number one alone destroys any integrity of this site.
There are several rules we need to make.
1. Each and every word of the Bible is true and can be used as clues.
2. All the clues in the Biblical story of the Garden of Eden must fit the interpretation
3. Any interpretations must use the interpretations used elsewhere in the Bible, as far as possible. (Not modern usages)
4. Science can be used to inform the statements in the Bible. For example a geological map can be used to find four rivers.
5. Science can't be used to force a bad interpretation of the Bible, but when two interpretations are equally valid, science can be used to choose between them.
6. Whenever possible, the simplest interpretation is chosen
All that you have disproven is bad interpretations of the Bible. I have one website on Noah's flood showing that it is a scientifically accurate depiction of a flood in lower Sumer. Home ‎(noahsfloodsite)‎
I have another website showing that Adam and Eve in the Garden was an accurate depiction of the first farmer. Home ‎(gardenofeden)‎
Does that prove the miracles? no. Miracles, being events that do not follow scientific laws, and thus not repeatable, tend to be unprovable. That does not prove that they didn't happen.
We were not discussing biblical apologists excuses, thank you, which have as little basis as the myths themselves. Whether taking the bible literally, or twisting and hammering false logic and pseudosciences in an attempt to substantiate the bible, it is still disproven.
In the lack of any hard scientifically gathered evidence, a myth is indeed disproven.
Windows Defender tells me your links may be hazardous to my computer, BTW.
You still avoid answering my question....Where is the huge spike that would be present in the sea level records in the bible account of the flood were true?
Could you be a little more detailed? What are you looking for here?
And that is an admission of your exact problem. You choose what you want to believe and then look for those that support you, disregarding any evidence contrary to your wishes.
You embrace bad science and nutjob theories as being the only possible truth and blind yourself to any other conclusions.
If you can comprehend this, do you begin to see why so many have a problem with you and your "evidence"?
When we have ancient art that depicts dinosaurs, I'm am then compelled to consider that man's theories of millions of years is wrong. I do not imbrace bad science, I embrace evidence that science refuses to consider. And this is only because it does not agree with their bad science.
Could you be a little more detailed? What are you looking for here?
How about the truth? I know that this is a foreign concept to you, to be resisted at all costs, but it is what most people live with on a daily basis.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
