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.
There really is a problem with reading comprehension in these threads isn't there?
Go back to post #49 and follow the links and check the sources cited at the bottom.
None of those are from religious, ID, YEC, or creationist sources.
NOT ONE.
When the underlying premise is RELIGION, ie Intelligent Design, doesn't matter WHERE the source of information comes from, it's STILL religion pushing an agenda especially when one uses unrelated information in an attempt to substantiate.
I suppose one person called Moses could have written the Torah....
If he had multiple personality disorder and lived for hundreds of years, kept changing his style, used ancient Hebrew then Hebrew from hundreds of years later, couldn't make up his mind about the name he used for God (Elohim, El Shaddai, YHVH) and then somehow referred to himself after he was already dead.
Have you EVER cracked a scholarly book using textural criticism of Biblical texts?
The total lack of any factual evidence on biblical myths and fables, coupled with the vague and ambiguous quotes of scripture to support whatever the argument of the day is, leads competent, rational thinkers to some inescapable conclusions.
I recently asked some posters over on the Christian sub-forum, if they could possibly defend their ideas based on their own interpretations, their own synopsis, their own thinking, on biblical teachings and subjects.
In other words, could they defend their ancient ideas without endlessly quoting scripture? You know; in their own words, through their own interpretation? Individually?
Know what they said?
"Nope" they said. "Can't do it, and it's not necessary." And furthermore, they don't want to do it that way! (PS: They'd lose, and they know it)
So.. there you have it. WE approach a debate with ideas, presented from several different perspectives, as varied as our highly individual personalities. In return, we get ambiguous, amorphous, vague and indecipherable biblical scripture. And shouted denials and untruths and insults about scientists.
Not too convincing, now is it? Hardly a good structure for an argument...
Hence, my thread title. Hard to argue it, eh?
Pretty easy to argue with actually.
For starters, the only reason we can prove Julius Caesar existed, was that we accept any documents or artifacts on faith. It is possible that the existence was fabricates. I say very unlikely, but I cannot prove his existence was not a fabrication. I basically take it on faith that the historical stuff is fact.
Genesis mentions a Pangea - that's pretty much obvious from looking at the continents. Exept that the author of Genesis lacked the technology to see a bird's eye view of earth and observe the matching outlines of the continents.
Technically - therefore factually - Genesis does not say the earth was created in 7 days or 7 episodes of time. The word "was" in the first verses of King James translation had no Hebrew or Aramaic word to be translated from. It's the word "became". The other "was" is properly supplied in italics showing the translators added it.
In short, what this means, is that the earth was already created in the past (could have been millions of years) and "BECAME" without form and void.
Scientifically, this is pretty accurate, where the earth existed, was severely disrupted, and eventually a new form of man and different animals came to be. So Genesis chapter one for the more part does not contradict science unless someone has a severe deficiency of scriptural research skills.
One possible conflict I see though between Genesis and some science theories, is when the continents split. On the other hand, scientists were not there and can be wrong about their theories.
You do know the truth it is in you and you know it because you are in the truth and those who are not in the truth they do not know it because they are blind to it and to you see why because our father he is like that to blind folks to his truth if he wants to do that according to his want to do it. SO THEN TO KNOW THE TRUTH REQUIRES TO BE IN THE SPIRIT OF GOD AS HE SEES IT TO HIS ADVANTAGE ACCORDING TO HIS WANT TO TAKE3 ADVANTAGE OF A PERSON AND AT HIS WILL AND BECAUSE HE LOVES TO BEND WILLS TO HIS AND BECAUISE HE IS LIKE THAT AND HE WILL DI HIS WILL HOW EVER GHE SO CHOOSES TO RFOR TO DO IT.
For starters, the only reason we can prove Julius Caesar existed, was that we accept any documents or artifacts on faith. It is possible that the existence was fabricates. I say very unlikely, but I cannot prove his existence was not a fabrication. I basically take it on faith that the historical stuff is fact.
Genesis mentions a Pangea - that's pretty much obvious from looking at the continents. Exept that the author of Genesis lacked the technology to see a bird's eye view of earth and observe the matching outlines of the continents.
Technically - therefore factually - Genesis does not say the earth was created in 7 days or 7 episodes of time. The word "was" in the first verses of King James translation had no Hebrew or Aramaic word to be translated from. It's the word "became". The other "was" is properly supplied in italics showing the translators added it.
In short, what this means, is that the earth was already created in the past (could have been millions of years) and "BECAME" without form and void.
Scientifically, this is pretty accurate, where the earth existed, was severely disrupted, and eventually a new form of man and different animals came to be. So Genesis chapter one for the more part does not contradict science unless someone has a severe deficiency of scriptural research skills.
One possible conflict I see though between Genesis and some science theories, is when the continents split. On the other hand, scientists were not there and can be wrong about their theories.
The usual strawmen I see, an attempt to substantiate your Christ by claiming a certain lack of evidence for other historical figures.
Well, doesn't work. Those actual historical figures are not the center of a world wide religion, nor of the murder, violence, hatred, bigotry, and the attempted systematic eradication of ancient cultures and religion (you know, the competition).
BTW, Julius Ceaser does indeed have more than enough archival evidences, from several sources including his enemies. Next time try Socrates.
Also, Genisis only mentions a Pangea when Biblical Apologists get involved. Genisis 1:9 only mentions gathering water and eartth in one palce. MUCH too generalized to consider one massive continent. 10:25 merely makes a rather vague mention of a divided earth, which, if I don't miss my guess at the time period Peleg was alleged to have lived, simply means war. The rest of any such mentions in Genisis are jsut as vague, and can certainly be attributed to quite mundane situations.
And science does indeed severally cripple Genisis, until, once again, the Biblical Apologists get involved and makes stuff up.
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.
(PS: They'd lose, and they know it)
Hardly a good structure for an argument... 
