You have not provided any relevant information. You provided a link to the fundamentalist Christian equivalent of a PBS video, "Unlocking the Mystery of Life", but that's not a scientific reference, and I doubt you'd be satisfied if I in turn pointed you to a PBS video on evolution.
There is a difference between you and I, if you point me at a PBS, National Geographic or Discovery Channel special on evolution I will be familiar with their works and know their short comings. I have studied both sides of the issue. The video "Unlocking the Mystery of Life" is a scientific summary of the discoveries these scientists have made, they have also backed up their work with scientific publications.
Do you have any idea how hard it is to get scientific work on cosmology or our origins published if your work does not conclude with some sort of statement supporting evolution? This is considered heresy to science itself, it is like the inquisition of Science to speak against the holy grail of "Neo-Darwinian" evolution. If you are truly interested in the truth, I encourage you to examine both sides of the argument.
There are literally hundreds if not thousands of scientists from diverse backgrounds coming to the same conclusions, and you only need to start doing a little digging to find out about the grass-roots movement taking place. Do you think the Discovery Institute and Institute for Creation Research where started because a few scientists had a screw loose? These brave scientists are stepping forward, having their good name smeared and in some cases risking their careers because they have discovered something in the scientific record that is not being told by rehashing the same old tired theory over and over and over again with no results.
I was once like you, I thought science had put a nail in the coffin of the Biblical Record then I started learning a little here and there and all of a sudden a mountain of scientific evidence appeared in support of the Bible. I am amazed at how often the truth is bent to ensure the Bible does not get credit for being correct; for example, is the universe expanding? We all know it is right, prove it, you cannot, all you can prove is there has been an expansion. You don't know if the redshifts are from a previous expansion or the universe is expanding.
So text books teach Hubble's Law as:
r=v/H
Unfortunately this is not what Hubble discovered, this is what he discovered:
r=z/h
Notice there is no velocity in the equation.
I my be stupid and dumb like people say I am, though one thing I am not is a blind follower, I scrutinize everything I learn because that is exactly what my Physics professors and the Bible taught me:
11 Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.
Acts 17:11
Have you ever thought about the consequences of an expanding universe that is actually expanding at the speed the redshifts are indicating? Have you ever explored the scientific explanations for the problems that arise if the universe is actually expanding at near light speed, the fact that you must break the law's of physics to achieve this objective.
Can you explain why, if you take a sample of lava from the bottom of the Grand Canyon which contains all the major isotopes for radioisotope dating the different isotope dates disagree by 1.5 billion years, which one is correct? Have you ever wondered why the lava in the Grand Canyon contains Helium in amounts that should have only taken 6,000 years to leach out of the rocks? Why are we finding skin on T-Rex, Mt St Helens creating what is called the little Grand Canyon in a few days not billions of years?
Scientists have a lot of explaining to do and while they are doing it I whish they would keep their personal belief system out of the class room, that includes "Neo-Darwinian" evolution.
On the contrary, I've asked for references to scientific works, but all you've provided are references to non-technical work.
How convenient; in other words, there is no need to investigate the information I provided because it conflicts with your pre-determined outcome of what you believe science should prove in the future.
The scientific basis for that work seems hard to discern, to the point where I question its existence.
Doesn't this statement contradict your previous statement? If you refuse to investigate how can you possibly have an opinion about something you have never studied?
You appear to have a strong faith in things that are at odds with the evidence in the world around us, and your explanation for this discrepancy is a supernatural one, based on faith.
What evidence, unproven scientific theories that throw away data in order to prove there is a possibility they might be right without actually proving their theory?
The debate over Haikouella casts Western scientists in the unlikely role of defending themselves against charges of ideological blindness from scientists in communist China. Chinese officials argue that the theory of evolution is so politically charged in the West that researchers are reluctant to admit shortcomings for fear of giving comfort to those who believe in a biblical creation.
"Evolution is facing an extremely harsh challenge," declared the Communist Party's Guang Ming Daily last December in describing the fossils in southern China. "In the beginning, Darwinian evolution was a scientific theory.... In fact, evolution eventually changed into a religion."
Here are some more links that talk about data "Neo-Darwinian" believers don't want to discuss:
You can write me off as some kind of crackpot; though, the mounting evidence keeps rolling in. Why is there an abundance of C14 in everything from diamonds, coal and dinosaur fossils? The list gets very large very quickly, though as I have been saying all along:
There is a principle which is a bar against all information,which is proof
against all argument, and which cannot fail to keep man in everlasting
ignorance.
That principle is condemnation before investigation.
--Edmund Spencer
I have provided you with a starting point to discover the true scientific argumants against "Neo-Darwinian" evolution, yet you refuse to expolre the possibilities.
Having your mind made up and closed to the possibility that your religious faith in "Neo-Darwinian" evolution is fact I leave you with Edmund Spencer's statement.
There is a principle which is a bar against all information,which is proof against all argument, and which cannot fail to keep man in everlasting ignorance. That principle is condemnation before investigation. --Edmund Spencer
Kenyon came to realize that if all this guidance was needed for such little results reached in the lab, that there must have been an intelligent designer.
But that's not a logical or scientific leap, that's a leap of faith.
It is logical and scientific, if you understand the science behind the statement.
Many other possibilities exist, and many of them are much more likely.
Please provide scientific references to back up your assertion.
It's rather ridiculous, in fact, to try a few things in a lab over a timescale that's essentially zero in comparison to geological time, and then conclude that because in that fleeting instant of time, you couldn't duplicate some very foreign conditions that you actually have little direct knowledge of, there must be a magical universe-wide ghost who did it.
Kenyon has backed up his assertions with scientific data and experimentation; if you believe his competency as a scientist is in question please provide proof with references.
Since you brought up the subject "geological time", you probably will not be happy to know that scientist are challenging radioisotope dating methods; in other words, "Neo-Darwinian" evolution my not have had the billions of years required to pull off random evolution.
Could you please expand on your personal revelations concerning:
"very foreign conditions that you actually have little direct knowledge of"
Do you have "special scientific knowledge" that has not been revealed? Please provide your scientific data/experimentation and sources.
The fact is, nothing you can ever do is going to give scientific evidence of an intelligent designer, short of that designer revealing itself in ways that can be scientifically studied, repeatably. You have to accept that your belief in such a designer is faith (in any case, I thought She wanted it that way?) and give up on the idea that any gap in scientific knowledge can be twisted to help bolster your faith, or to convince other equally weak-minded people to join you in your faith.
It turns out God does reveal Himself thru His Word; though, that is probably not a discussion that is appropriate for this forum.
I would prefer to stay on subject and discuss the scientific merits of irreducible complex systems verses the faith based "Neo Darwinian" evolution theory.
There is a principle which is a bar against all information,which is proof against all argument, and which cannot fail to keep man in everlasting ignorance. That principle is condemnation before investigation. --Edmund Spencer
Kenyon is regarded as being the first person to write a major book on the origin of life in modern times. (Note by the author: This book was written in 1969) He coauthored the book Biochemical Predestination along with Gary Steinman. In the book they commented on the disparity between conditions created in laboratories and those that probable existed in the ancient geological setting. Kenyon was an evolutionist at the time. Kenyon came to realize that if all this guidance was needed for such little results reached in the lab, that there must have been an intelligent designer.
I find it interesting that the very scientists that wrote the text books to support Darwin's evolution are now the authors of ID, unfortunately their students didn't keep up with their later works.
God bless you and keep you, LovedByGod
There is a principle which is a bar against all information,which is proof against all argument, and which cannot fail to keep man in everlasting ignorance. That principle is condemnation before investigation. --Edmund Spencer
Yeah, I use to believe all that BS until I actually spent some time going thru the (non) proofs. It is very interesting how much of this stuff is based on "faith based" assumptions that makes the rest of the "facts" fall in line.
Bottom line, we wouldn't be having these discussions if it was truly factual because the people that are raising the issues are the top scientists in the fields.
If you would spend more time doing your home work instead of working on your forum debating skills you would know how absurd Darwinian Evolutionary Theory is.
Darwin Evolution is faith based, fortunately there are more and more biologists coming out of the closet and discussing the major problems with Darwin's theory.
There are horror stories from PhD candidates in biology who ask too many questions about the flaws in Darwinian Evolution and being threatened with expulsion.
The biology community is split far more than the academic community and people on this sit would want you to believe.
Darwin Evolution theory != Science, it is only faith. I don't knock your faith so how about leaving mine alone.
Funny, my son asked his anthropology professor for proof of Darwinian Evolution and the professor said we don't have the proof yet; though, we are close. My son's response, then you believes in Darwinian Evolution by faith? The professor conceded, yes it is by faith.
"You misunderstand. I don't understand what YOU mean by the three words "Adam and Eve.""
I guess you are right; I have no idea why you keep asking me about Adam and Eve, what does my personal opinion about the Bible have to do with a discussion on science?
You keep accusing me of denying science by adding stuff that I never said, where did I deny the General Theory of Relativity? I love that theory and really enjoy crunching through the calculation, it is a part of physics I find beautiful and refreshing.
Let me explain it using little words, Hubble discovered r = z/h proving that the distance between galaxies is proportional to the redshift of galaxies, wonderful stuff.
Next Hubble decided to multiple "z" by "c", creating velocity from a unit less value, bad math, this is the equation you see for Hubble's Law: r = v/H. What Hubble did was interpret the data saying the universe must be expanding, he didn't have proof, he just assumed and you know what that means (ass u me), he made an ass out of u and me. Sorry bad hummer.
Anyway if you got this far, there is no proof the universe is expanding and with recent (post 1800) findings, the quantized redshifts, Hubble's modified equation is wrong in the sense that quantized redshift violate the mathematics Hubble proposed.
Notice, no one is questioning the Theory of General Relativity, as a matter of fact it makes one wonder what the initial conditions and parameters should be when accounting for the "quantized" redsift.
You keep accusing me of questioning science and I keep trying to tell you I am not questioning science, I am questioning how science is being applied to the given set of scientific data.
For example, Plug into the General Theory of Relativity:
Infinite universe that has no edge and no center and you get one model, the big-bang model.
Finite universe that has an edge and a center and you get the lesser known white-hole model.
Which one is right? So far the most recent "quantized" redshift data is pointing in the direction of the white-hole model.
As far as your critique of me picking and choosing sentences and formulas, I must have over estimated your technical background, because I having spent years studying the subject matter, assumed you also have done the same. With this inference, I assumed we would have the same scientific relationship that you describe:
One thing you have to understand is that scientists talking to other scientists have a huge background of common understanding, which lets them take short cuts in describing their work.
It is obvious from you commentary you need a lot more spoon feeding that I have been supplying.
"I don't understand what you mean when you mention "Adam and Eve" in a scientific context"
My point exactly, you brought it up and teachers and professors bring it up in classes, why?
"I don't understand what you mean by "Hubble's law" as fact but "expanding universe" as theory."
Let me give you an example:
If the change in the wavelength is given by "dy" and the standard wavelength is represented by "y", then the redshift is defined as:
1. z = dy/y
This is based off of measurements and there is no dispute in the scientific community.
If astronomical distance is r and redshift is z, then in mathematical terms Hubble's Law can be written as:
2. r = z/h
where h is a constant of proportionality, this is proven.
Essentially Hubble's Law is a redshift/distance relationship, and as such simply notes that the redshift of galaxies is proportional to their distance. That is the hard core of data that astronomers and cosmologists have to deal with.
However, once they go beyond these data and begin the "interpretation" of the data, the problems seem to begin. Although cautious about the procedure until more data came in, Hubble suggested that z could be multiplied by the speed of light, c, thereby transforming the dimensionless number into a velocity.
Hubble suggested that the redshift, which lengthened the wavelengths of light from distant galaxies, might indicate they are moving away from us also. This is one possible interpretation of the redshift data. As such the basic equation in (1) was interpreted to became:
3. zc = v or re-arranging z = v/c which suggests v/c = dy/y
Then allowed the equation to be rewritten as:
4. r = cz/H = v/H
Then it ended up being rewritten as:
5. z = {[1+(v/c)]/[1-(v^2/c^2)]^-1/2} - 1
In 1995, Malcolm Longair wrote: "Thus, redshift does not really have anything to do with velocities at all in cosmology. The redshift is a...dimensionless number which...tells us the relative distance between galaxies when the light was emitted compared with that distance now. It is a great pity that Hubble multiplied z by c. I hope we will eventually get rid of the c." [Longair, 1995, p.369].
Notice the date, 1995, not 1800
You probably have no clue what I am talking about so I will stop here and we can just say I am a stupid "fundie" who doesn't understand science.
THERE IS ALSO NO SCIENTIFIC PROOF AGAINST ADAM AND EVE.
So there is no need to bring it up in school, PERIOD.
"Also, the fact that there is not yet scientific consensus in a field DOES NOT MEAN that it is not science."
Right, so teach it that way; don't teach it as FACT because that would be a LIE.
Speaking of science, have you seen this site: http://www.asa3.org/ Oh no, Christians that are scientists, it must be 1800.
"We might not know how to cure the common cold yet, but that doesn't mean we can't talk about the germ theory of disease as a scientific fact"
I guess you are saying that it is a fact that there is a theory, not there is a solution and that is a fact, not sure what the point is here?
"or should give equal time to the idea that prayer is an alternative way to cure the sniffles"
As I have stated many times, stuff like this is a personal choice, not sure what that has to do with abiogenesis and the lack of a "missing link"?
"Not everything has to be 100% settled and conclusively proven before it is scientific and taught in science class."
I have no problem with this as long as it is taught accurately; for example, Hubble's Law should be taught as fact and Hubble's assertion that the universe is expanding should be taught as theory and things like the quantized redshifts that do not follow the predicted behavior of an expanding universe should be diosclosed.
Another example would be making sure students know the missing link has not been found in 150 years of searching and there is no proof protocells create complex cells.
"hasn't settled on a particularly clear picture of abiogenesis"
We agree, then get it out of the text books until it is settled; especially, since the general consensus in the scientific community is that it never happened.
I don't know why you keep bringing up Hebrew Scriptures, they are not taught in public school from a Christian perspective and I don't see anyone trying to force it on anyone? One could argue that some teachers go out of their way to say the creation as described in the Bible is not true, this is a faith or lack of faith statement on their part because they cannot back it up scientifically.
I suppose you have a verse in Genesis to "prove" "scientifically" that dogs did not evolve from wolves and other earlier mammals. As opposed to a simple declaration "I think it is bullshit"?
I suppose you have some kind of missing link or scientific proof that protocells evolved into complex cells?
If you take the time to hear what I am saying it is teach the science we know, evolution of viruses, finches.... Blah blah blah, not stuff we don't know and is controversial.
Teachers do not have the right to teach there is no God and there was never an Adam and Eve because of some unproven very controversial theories that are very questionable; further more, what business do schools have teaching anything about Hebrew Scriptures?
You seam to be stuck on my personal faith which is just that my personal faith, please stop talking about God and stick to the subject that there are very controversial aspects of evolution specific to abiogenesis that have no business being taught in school let alone used to teach children there is no God.
Right now it seam to be ok to teach there is no God and there was no Adam and Eve in school and ridicule Christians, the standard should work both ways, if you want to teach your children there is no God or there is a God then do it at home not in the public schools; in other words, don't teach anything about God or Hebrew Scriptures in school.
It is one thing to teach non-controversial biology, microbiology, macro biology and general proven evolution facts in school; though, teaching very controversial origin-of-life and missing link theories that are riddled with errors and problems as fact is totally irresponsible and wrong.
"First off, I was trying to end the conversation about evolution,"
Yet you still post, do you really mean you want the last word?
"I suggest you realize a dialogue on slashdot with a guy calling himself "sickofthissthit" is not the way to exhaustively research the case for evolution."
I suggest you realize that just because I am a Christian and my nick name is "LovedByGod"
doesn't automatically mean I am some kind, of as you would put it, "fundie" that doesn't have a grasp of reality, I am also a Vietnam vet does that make me a warmonger?
My nick name could have very easily been Really Pissed Off Person That Doesn't Like People Lying To Children"; though, I restrained.
So here is the bottom line, I think it is bull shit that our schools teach abiogenesis and evolution of non like species; for example, fish evolving into dogs.
Notice you do not need to mention God here, you don't need to believe in God; your own personal faith is your own personal business.
What I am opposed to is teaching there is no God because there was no Adam because of abiogenesis, prove it before you teach it.
I am fine with separation of church and state the way it is being interpreted by the ACLU these days as long as they include atheism and agnostic in with the other faiths they are attacking.
So as you can see "I am sick of this shit" also, so we agree on something.
To brush me off with broad accusations is totally unfounded and unwarranted; you are making assumptions about my abilities and accuracy to research the subject that is only founded on your personal opinion.
Your assumption that the ability to "evolve" in general is being disputed or questioned by the scientific community is inaccurate, what is in question is the specific assertion that "abiogenesis" is a fact, which it is not, and the assertion that non related species evolve into non related species.
I will spell it out in simple terms so there is no need for speculation:
Abiogenesis, in its most general sense, is the hypothetical generation of life from non-living matter. Today, the term is primarily used in the context of biology and the origin of life.Some confusion exists on this topic, because early concepts of abiogenesis were later proven to be incorrect. These early concepts of spontaneous generation (referred to here as "Aristotelian abiogenesis" for clarity) held that living organisms could be "born" out of decaying organic substances, et cetera, whic
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis/
Would there not be geological evidence in rocks of 4 to
3.8 billion years old, if there had been such a soup?
The space science studies board believes there should be:
'_These speculations on chemical evolution, multiple
origins of life, and models of early environmental
conditions in the atmosphere and oceans can only be
substantiated by the geological record_.' What testimony
would have been left behind by the primeval soup in the
sedimentary rocks? We can learn this directly from the
work of those scientists who take the primeval soup for
granted. All methods of simulating the formation of
amino acids and other 'building blocks' leave a tarry
polymeric material as their most abundant product. Carbon
that was once composed of living matter is slightly
enriched in 12^C. No chemical reaction, heat, pressure
or other treatment to which these ancient rocks may have
been subjected can change one of these isotopes to
another. Thus the carbon isotope ratio is a reliable and
indestructable fingerprint to determine whether carbonaceous
material, including kerogen, came from living organisms
or by inorganic chemistry from a primordial carbon source.
Sedimentary rocks at Isua in Greenland have been dated at
3.8 billion years ago, a time near the end of the late
heavy bombardment. They do indeed contain kerogen.
Schidlowski reported that all carbon in these rocks divides
distinctly into two groups, one high in 13^C and one depleted
in 13^C, with respect to the isotope ratio found in
atmospheric carbon dioxide. The kerogen of the very old
Isua rocks is depleted in 13^C. This is just what would
be expected if the kerogen had been derived from cyano-
bacteria-like microorganisms capable of photosynthesis
of carbon dioxide and nitrogen by means of an enzyme
system to form living matter.
According to the standard model for the origin of life,
there are two paths the carbon would follow in the
primeval soup. The first is toward forming the ancient
protobiont, the remains of which would go to kerogen.
The second, and the much more abundant amount, is the
tarry material generated in all origin-of-life simulation
experiments. No kerog
"The goal of this site is to assess the current scientific status of evolutionary theory by a careful and fair evaluation of the problems and the arguments for and against evolution."
I believe in God and because I have never doubted in God I study science to learn more about God and the wonderful universe He created, so far I have not been disappointed. I know some people study science to prove there is no God and so far no one has ever scientifically proven the Bible wrong; if anything, people have accepted the Bible in their efforts to prove it wrong.
What I would like to see is the "fundie" hate speech stop, isn't this what our second amendment rights are all about? I know of Christens that have been totally ridiculed and publicly humiliated in schools like Stanford just because they believe in God. One student reported that he took English literature and was asked to study Genesis and the book of Job and the entire class discussion was based around discussions on how stupid and scientifically inaccurate the books are.
The core issue here is abiogenesis , this has never been proven; if anything, it has been disproved which means there is no proof the Bible is wrong and no need to bash "fundies" or teach school children it is a fact. When this is taught as fact from a position of authority, it teaches children there is no God and in that sense it is violating their second amendment right. Even worse, this is being propagated in our universities as fact, this again is wrong because the school is now using a lie to falsify a personal belief system, they are preaching no God based on a lie.
No one who believes in God and understands science is trying to disallow science in the classroom; as a matter of fact, some of our greatest scientists believe in God. If we are going to insist that the second amendment be strictly followed and religion is not to be taught in public schools I don't think teachers should be able to teach atheism or agnosticism either.
It is important to understand how Biblical prophecy works, it can be visions about the future that can also include precise times and sometimes it's similitudes or symbolic enactments that foreshadow a coming event.
I have also spoken by the prophets, and I have multiplied visions, and used similitudes, by the ministry of the prophets.
- Hosea 12:10
First we have a very bazaar event that took place around 1500 BC:
8 Then the Lord said to Moses, "Make a fiery serpent, and set it on a standard; and it shall come about, that everyone who is bitten, when he looks at it, he will live."
9 And Moses made a bronze serpent and set it on the standard; and it came about, that if a serpent bit any man, when he looked to the bronze serpent, he lived."
- Numbers 21:8,9
Jesus makes references this passage.
14 "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up; 15 so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life."
-John 3:14,15
This emblem - a brass serpent raised on a pole - is distinctive in that the Lord Jesus Christ personally applied it to Himself. The more you examine it, the stranger it appears: brass was the Levitical symbol of judgment; brass was the metal that was associated with fire (as the brazen altar, etc.). The serpent was symbolic of sin, introduced in the Garden of Eden. This is a strange emblem, indeed, for the Savior of mankind:
21 He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.
-2 Corinthians 5:21
More details about Christ's death
16 For dogs have surrounded me;
A band of evildoers has encompassed me;
They pierced my hands and my feet. -Psalms 22:16
18 They divide my garments among them,
And for my clothing they cast lots.
-Psalms 22:18
24 So they said to one another, "Let us not tear it, but cast lots for it, to decide whose it shall be"; this was to fulfill the Scripture: "They divided My outer garments among them, and for My clothing they cast lots."
-John 19:24
You might ask, ok what is all this about? If there is a God why is He doing all this bazaar stuff and what does that have to do with me?
The simplest way I know how to explain it is, it's like the relationship between a father and a child, as a father you cannot make your child love you even though you love your child so much you would do anything for them.
God created us for fellowship and when Adam sinned thru his own free will, something our children also have and do, he separated himself from God. Because God is perfect, imperfection or sin cannot survive in His presence, so God became the perfect sacrifice to atone for our sin. The same principle applies to parents and children when parents make sacrifices for their children because they love them only God's sacrifice was much greater.
You might ask what does that have to do with you? God wants to have a relationship with you; He wants to be your father by your own free will. This is what happens when you repent, acknowledge your imperfection, and ask for Jesus Christ to cover your imperfections. What this does is cover you with the blood of Jesus Christ and now when God sees you He sees the perfect son Jesus Christ in you and you can then approach the thrown of God as a son of God.
To sum it up with scripture here is what Jesus Christ did:
4 Surely our griefs He Himself bore,
And our sorrows He carried;
Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken,
Smitten of God, and afflicted.
5 But He was pierced through for our transgressions,
He was crushed for our iniquities;
The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him,
And by His
First let me address this comment: "If the bible were falsifiable and made genuine predictions don't you think that fact would be a little more well known?"
Turns out it is; it just depends on where you get your information from, if it's main stream media you will be getting the biased opinion of Dr Philip R. Davies and the Jesus Seminar. The following is a quote from Dr Philip R. Davies who publishes documentaries for the history channel and other main stream media stations:
It is still a curiosity to most persons in the street that there are University professors of Bible who, like me, do not believe in God.-Philip R. Davies
Unfortunately, Dr Davies and his cronies of like minded researchers represent the overwhelming majority view that is taught in main stream media; even though, they are the overwhelming minority in the theological community, for them it is all about the money and nothing about the truth.
Next I will address this question: "And where are you getting that the bible predicted crucifixion well before the time of Jesus?".
First here are some estimations of when the various 66 books of the Bible were written based on archeological finds, including dated documents and events and names in the Bible that correspond to documents found detailing a particular King or Kingdoms history as written by their royal scribes.
Old Testament - BC
The oldest known copy of the Old Testament is dated approximately 270 BC and is consistent with the Bibles we use today.
You might ask, how do you validate all these dates? The Bible is like a big puzzle because there are dates listed all over and also events that connect events based on the time between events. What this means is every time we find a date in archeology that connects a date in the Bible we have more of the puzzle; for example, the book of Daniel is one of the most archeologically authenticated books in the Bible which gives us another point to help connect the dots.
I might have misunderstood what you meant when you said: "I have always heard it from every pastor and religious person that I've ever met that the bibles were written during the lifetimes of the people who knew Jesus."
So I wanted to be clear on approximately when the books of the Bible were written to establish the time frame of the prophecies I will be describing.
With this background out of the way, I would prefer not to debate the accuracies of the dates because that is a whole other subject. What I want to get to is the actual prophecies, that if proven false disprove the Bible.
Next I will follow up with very detailed and extremely accurate prophecies.
ROTFLMAO - You know nothing about the Bible, you say three detailed accurate descriptions about Jesus Christ have no significance basically because you know nothing about the Bible and you say the Bible is not falsifiable, yet you nothing about the Bible.
BTW: 1000 - 500 = 500 Looks like crucifixion, according to your statement became popular 500 years after the prophecy that Jesus Christ would be crucified.
Notice: I didn't say that you said to study evolution, I said people on this forum.
As far as you personally going to Bible study, that's a personal decision, none of my business.
When you all of a sudden become an authority stating the Bible is not falsifiable that is when I need to stand up and call BS especially when you flat out don't have a clue about what the Bible says and Biblical authentication.
Most people agree that you cannot prove the existence of God scientifically, that is fare game. I guess you could argue that there are parts of the Bible that are not falsifiable based on this assertion; though that does not negate the sections of the Bible that have been authenticated.
It appears you have expressed a definite lack of interest in what the Bible says and I respect your lack of interest, if you are truly interested in the significance of the detailed prophecy I referenced I will explain it; otherwise I wont waist your time nor mine explaining something you are not interested in.
"Your formal education in physics does not seem to have been effective."
This is entirely possible because I only had a 6th grade education when I entered collage at the age of 20, community college in California only requires you be 18 years old to qualify for attendance.
The fact that I worked full time (10 hours a day as a machinist 5 - 6 days a week) made it difficult to be a strait "A" student; though, after 6 years, changing my major 3 times (senior in Mechanical Engineering changed to Physics, senior in Physics then changed to Electrical Engineering) I finally graduated with a BSEE. This included taking all prerequisites from 6th grade to college level and getting a High School Diploma.
I only over shot the required 124 semester credit requirement by taking 54 extra credits in junior and senior level Engineering and Physics.
So based on the pace I set for completing college you are probably correct in assuming much of my education didn't stick; this is why I spend most of my free time reading everything I can and depend on people as yourself that are obviously more intelligent than I am to help me understand the physical world we live in.
Thank you for your insights and patience with my lack of understanding of the subject matter. I will do my best to better understand what you and others have to offer before I make a fool out of myself again by posting before I have explored all the possibilities presented in this forum.
You say you had no idea that books written before the birth of Jesus were written about Jesus. If this is same kind of Jewish argument that Jesus Christ is not the Messiah Nagid we will just need to agree to disagree. If you truly are not aware of who Jesus Christ is and the fact that the entire Bible is written about the Messiah Nagid who was born to the virgin Marry and given the name Yeshua (Jesus) the Messiah I have good new for you. Yeshua in Hebrew means both "Salvation," and the concatenated form of Yahoshua, the "Lord who is Salvation."
You may say this information is not for you because you have heard rumors that the Bible is not true and is full of circular reasoning, well I am here to tell you that these are just rumors and speculation by people, who like you, have never tested the facts. If you are asking me to be your personal trainer and challenging me to prove it to you then you have miss judged who I am. You say "You're still trying to use your belief that the Bible is true to prove that the Bible is true", again you miss judge what I have said, I was only responding to the comment that the Bible is not falsifiable.
Just like people on this page challenge me to go learn the facts about evolution I challenge you to go learn the facts about the Bible. If you are so inclined, you might find this web site helpful: http://www.khouse.org/, it is one of the few places I know where the details of Bible prophecy are taught, discuss and tested. When someone challenges me to learn about evolution I do not take it as please spoon feed me your proof, a link in the right direction and maybe answering a few questions is sufficient.
Proving the Bible is no easy task because you need to learn how to read the Bible first, you need to learn Jewish customs and terminology, you need to use Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic dictionaries and you need to study archeology. If you just read a section of the Bible the way many preachers do today you will miss most of what the Bible says.
You might say the man that literally split time in two (BC/AD) never lived and the information written about Him is not true, I guarantee that your efforts to prove the Bible wrong will not only authenticate it, it will change your life forever.
Now that I am much calmer my objection is abiogenesis being taught as fact, I have no problem with the majority of biology, only teaches that say they need to teach this concept in order to teach biology properly:
Teaching this tells our children there is no God and closes the door for belief based education for those of us that choose to extend our children's educate to include a belief system such as Biblical training. If you want to teach your children the Bible is not true or some other belief system, not a problem, and if you don't want the Bible taught to your children in school that is your right also.
I don't even have a problem with elective classes that explore the validity of different belief systems as long as they don't lead to hate classes, this forum being an example of a hate forum, just read some of the stuff we said to each other. To be honest, I learned a lot just following up on things people said and ideas I though I knew and didn't know as well as I thought I did, it is a great learning process.
I believe the only way to learn is to communicate and exchange ideas; please don't advocate closing that door. The only thing I ask is that we keep our school curriculum up-to-date, as accurate as possible and teach theory as theory, the problems theories must overcome and fact as fact.
Slashdot Mirror
There is a difference between you and I, if you point me at a PBS, National Geographic or Discovery Channel special on evolution I will be familiar with their works and know their short comings. I have studied both sides of the issue. The video "Unlocking the Mystery of Life" is a scientific summary of the discoveries these scientists have made, they have also backed up their work with scientific publications.
Do you have any idea how hard it is to get scientific work on cosmology or our origins published if your work does not conclude with some sort of statement supporting evolution? This is considered heresy to science itself, it is like the inquisition of Science to speak against the holy grail of "Neo-Darwinian" evolution. If you are truly interested in the truth, I encourage you to examine both sides of the argument.
There are literally hundreds if not thousands of scientists from diverse backgrounds coming to the same conclusions, and you only need to start doing a little digging to find out about the grass-roots movement taking place. Do you think the Discovery Institute and Institute for Creation Research where started because a few scientists had a screw loose? These brave scientists are stepping forward, having their good name smeared and in some cases risking their careers because they have discovered something in the scientific record that is not being told by rehashing the same old tired theory over and over and over again with no results.
I was once like you, I thought science had put a nail in the coffin of the Biblical Record then I started learning a little here and there and all of a sudden a mountain of scientific evidence appeared in support of the Bible. I am amazed at how often the truth is bent to ensure the Bible does not get credit for being correct; for example, is the universe expanding? We all know it is right, prove it, you cannot, all you can prove is there has been an expansion. You don't know if the redshifts are from a previous expansion or the universe is expanding.
So text books teach Hubble's Law as:
r=v/H
Unfortunately this is not what Hubble discovered, this is what he discovered:
r=z/h
Notice there is no velocity in the equation.
I my be stupid and dumb like people say I am, though one thing I am not is a blind follower, I scrutinize everything I learn because that is exactly what my Physics professors and the Bible taught me:
Have you ever thought about the consequences of an expanding universe that is actually expanding at the speed the redshifts are indicating? Have you ever explored the scientific explanations for the problems that arise if the universe is actually expanding at near light speed, the fact that you must break the law's of physics to achieve this objective.
Can you explain why, if you take a sample of lava from the bottom of the Grand Canyon which contains all the major isotopes for radioisotope dating the different isotope dates disagree by 1.5 billion years, which one is correct? Have you ever wondered why the lava in the Grand Canyon contains Helium in amounts that should have only taken 6,000 years to leach out of the rocks? Why are we finding skin on T-Rex, Mt St Helens creating what is called the little Grand Canyon in a few days not billions of years?
Scientists have a lot of explaining to do and while they are doing it I whish they would keep their personal belief system out of the class room, that includes "Neo-Darwinian" evolution.
God bless you and keep you,
LovedByGod
How convenient; in other words, there is no need to investigate the information I provided because it conflicts with your pre-determined outcome of what you believe science should prove in the future.
Doesn't this statement contradict your previous statement? If you refuse to investigate how can you possibly have an opinion about something you have never studied?
What evidence, unproven scientific theories that throw away data in order to prove there is a possibility they might be right without actually proving their theory?
t Jun-Yuan Chen:
Here is a quote from http://www.fredheeren.com/boston.htmpaleontologis
Here are some more links that talk about data "Neo-Darwinian" believers don't want to discuss:
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=news&action=vi ew&ID=51Dinosaurs, Grasses, and Darwinism
o n=view&ID=2033The Devastating Issue of Dinosaur Tissue
a rge mammals once dined on dinosaurs
o 18.htmlDinosaur poop shows grass is older than it seems
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&acti
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6874L
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/248836_din
You can write me off as some kind of crackpot; though, the mounting evidence keeps rolling in. Why is there an abundance of C14 in everything from diamonds, coal and dinosaur fossils? The list gets very large very quickly, though as I have been saying all along:
There is a principle which is a bar against all information,which is proof
against all argument, and which cannot fail to keep man in everlasting
ignorance.
That principle is condemnation before investigation.
--Edmund Spencer
I have provided you with a starting point to discover the true scientific argumants against "Neo-Darwinian" evolution, yet you refuse to expolre the possibilities.
Having your mind made up and closed to the possibility that your religious faith in "Neo-Darwinian" evolution is fact I leave you with Edmund Spencer's statement.
There is a principle which is a bar against all information,which is proof
against all argument, and which cannot fail to keep man in everlasting
ignorance.
That principle is condemnation before investigation.
--Edmund Spencer
It is logical and scientific, if you understand the science behind the statement.
Please provide scientific references to back up your assertion.
Kenyon has backed up his assertions with scientific data and experimentation; if you believe his competency as a scientist is in question please provide proof with references.
Since you brought up the subject "geological time", you probably will not be happy to know that scientist are challenging radioisotope dating methods; in other words, "Neo-Darwinian" evolution my not have had the billions of years required to pull off random evolution.
http://www.icr.org/store/index.php?main_page=prodCould you please expand on your personal revelations concerning:
Do you have "special scientific knowledge" that has not been revealed? Please provide your scientific data/experimentation and sources.
It turns out God does reveal Himself thru His Word; though, that is probably not a discussion that is appropriate for this forum.
I would prefer to stay on subject and discuss the scientific merits of irreducible complex systems verses the faith based "Neo Darwinian" evolution theory.
God bless you and keep you,
LovedByGod
There is a principle which is a bar against all information,which is proof
against all argument, and which cannot fail to keep man in everlasting
ignorance.
That principle is condemnation before investigation.
--Edmund Spencer
Kenyon is regarded as being the first person to write a major book on the origin of life in modern times. (Note by the author: This book was written in 1969) He coauthored the book Biochemical Predestination along with Gary Steinman. In the book they commented on the disparity between conditions created in laboratories and those that probable existed in the ancient geological setting. Kenyon was an evolutionist at the time. Kenyon came to realize that if all this guidance was needed for such little results reached in the lab, that there must have been an intelligent designer.
a n_Kenyon
http://www.nwcreation.net/wiki/index.php?title=De
Sure, evolve a cell from amino acids using no DNA (intelligence) or try evolving a stable protein outside of a cell using no DNA.
u ct_info&cPath=13_15&products_id=2550
Here is a pretty good video if you want to hear from some of the world's top scientists on why Neo-Darwinian evolution could not have happened:
http://www.icr.org/store/index.php?main_page=prod
I find it interesting that the very scientists that wrote the text books to support Darwin's evolution are now the authors of ID, unfortunately their students didn't keep up with their later works.
God bless you and keep you,
LovedByGod
There is a principle which is a bar against all information,which is proof
against all argument, and which cannot fail to keep man in everlasting
ignorance.
That principle is condemnation before investigation.
--Edmund Spencer
BTW - Here are a couple quotes from the articles you posted:
First Article:
"now one of the fundamental scientific theories of biology"
Second Article:
"In science, a theory is not considered fact or infallible"
Not sure what your point is; though, the links you provided proves mine, thank you.
Yeah, I use to believe all that BS until I actually spent some time going thru the (non) proofs. It is very interesting how much of this stuff is based on "faith based" assumptions that makes the rest of the "facts" fall in line.
Bottom line, we wouldn't be having these discussions if it was truly factual because the people that are raising the issues are the top scientists in the fields.
If you would spend more time doing your home work instead of working on your forum debating skills you would know how absurd Darwinian Evolutionary Theory is.
Darwin Evolution is faith based, fortunately there are more and more biologists coming out of the closet and discussing the major problems with Darwin's theory.
There are horror stories from PhD candidates in biology who ask too many questions about the flaws in Darwinian Evolution and being threatened with expulsion.
The biology community is split far more than the academic community and people on this sit would want you to believe.
Darwin Evolution theory != Science, it is only faith. I don't knock your faith so how about leaving mine alone. Funny, my son asked his anthropology professor for proof of Darwinian Evolution and the professor said we don't have the proof yet; though, we are close. My son's response, then you believes in Darwinian Evolution by faith? The professor conceded, yes it is by faith.
I guess you are right; I have no idea why you keep asking me about Adam and Eve, what does my personal opinion about the Bible have to do with a discussion on science?
You keep accusing me of denying science by adding stuff that I never said, where did I deny the General Theory of Relativity? I love that theory and really enjoy crunching through the calculation, it is a part of physics I find beautiful and refreshing.
Let me explain it using little words, Hubble discovered r = z/h proving that the distance between galaxies is proportional to the redshift of galaxies, wonderful stuff.
Next Hubble decided to multiple "z" by "c", creating velocity from a unit less value, bad math, this is the equation you see for Hubble's Law: r = v/H. What Hubble did was interpret the data saying the universe must be expanding, he didn't have proof, he just assumed and you know what that means (ass u me), he made an ass out of u and me. Sorry bad hummer.
Anyway if you got this far, there is no proof the universe is expanding and with recent (post 1800) findings, the quantized redshifts, Hubble's modified equation is wrong in the sense that quantized redshift violate the mathematics Hubble proposed.
Notice, no one is questioning the Theory of General Relativity, as a matter of fact it makes one wonder what the initial conditions and parameters should be when accounting for the "quantized" redsift.
You keep accusing me of questioning science and I keep trying to tell you I am not questioning science, I am questioning how science is being applied to the given set of scientific data.
For example, Plug into the General Theory of Relativity:
- Infinite universe that has no edge and no center and you get one model, the big-bang model.
- Finite universe that has an edge and a center and you get the lesser known white-hole model.
Which one is right? So far the most recent "quantized" redshift data is pointing in the direction of the white-hole model.As far as your critique of me picking and choosing sentences and formulas, I must have over estimated your technical background, because I having spent years studying the subject matter, assumed you also have done the same. With this inference, I assumed we would have the same scientific relationship that you describe:
It is obvious from you commentary you need a lot more spoon feeding that I have been supplying.
God bless you and keep you.
Thank you for your honesty.
My point exactly, you brought it up and teachers and professors bring it up in classes, why?
Let me give you an example:
If the change in the wavelength is given by "dy" and the standard wavelength is represented by "y", then the redshift is defined as:
1. z = dy/y
This is based off of measurements and there is no dispute in the scientific community.
If astronomical distance is r and redshift is z, then in mathematical terms Hubble's Law can be written as:
2. r = z/h
where h is a constant of proportionality, this is proven.
Essentially Hubble's Law is a redshift/distance relationship, and as such simply notes that the redshift of galaxies is proportional to their distance. That is the hard core of data that astronomers and cosmologists have to deal with.
However, once they go beyond these data and begin the "interpretation" of the data, the problems seem to begin. Although cautious about the procedure until more data came in, Hubble suggested that z could be multiplied by the speed of light, c, thereby transforming the dimensionless number into a velocity.
Hubble suggested that the redshift, which lengthened the wavelengths of light from distant galaxies, might indicate they are moving away from us also. This is one possible interpretation of the redshift data. As such the basic equation in (1) was interpreted to became:
3. zc = v or re-arranging z = v/c which suggests v/c = dy/y
Then allowed the equation to be rewritten as:
4. r = cz/H = v/H
Then it ended up being rewritten as:
5. z = {[1+(v/c)]/[1-(v^2/c^2)]^-1/2} - 1
In 1995, Malcolm Longair wrote: "Thus, redshift does not really have anything to do with velocities at all in cosmology. The redshift is a...dimensionless number which...tells us the relative distance between galaxies when the light was emitted compared with that distance now. It is a great pity that Hubble multiplied z by c. I hope we will eventually get rid of the c." [Longair, 1995, p.369].
Notice the date, 1995, not 1800
You probably have no clue what I am talking about so I will stop here and we can just say I am a stupid "fundie" who doesn't understand science.
God bless you and keep you
THERE IS ALSO NO SCIENTIFIC PROOF AGAINST ADAM AND EVE.
So there is no need to bring it up in school, PERIOD.
Right, so teach it that way; don't teach it as FACT because that would be a LIE.
Speaking of science, have you seen this site: http://www.asa3.org/
Oh no, Christians that are scientists, it must be 1800.
I guess you are saying that it is a fact that there is a theory, not there is a solution and that is a fact, not sure what the point is here?
As I have stated many times, stuff like this is a personal choice, not sure what that has to do with abiogenesis and the lack of a "missing link"?
I have no problem with this as long as it is taught accurately; for example, Hubble's Law should be taught as fact and Hubble's assertion that the universe is expanding should be taught as theory and things like the quantized redshifts that do not follow the predicted behavior of an expanding universe should be diosclosed.
Another example would be making sure students know the missing link has not been found in 150 years of searching and there is no proof protocells create complex cells.
God bless you and keep you
We agree, then get it out of the text books until it is settled; especially, since the general consensus in the scientific community is that it never happened.
I don't know why you keep bringing up Hebrew Scriptures, they are not taught in public school from a Christian perspective and I don't see anyone trying to force it on anyone? One could argue that some teachers go out of their way to say the creation as described in the Bible is not true, this is a faith or lack of faith statement on their part because they cannot back it up scientifically.
I suppose you have some kind of missing link or scientific proof that protocells evolved into complex cells?
If you take the time to hear what I am saying it is teach the science we know, evolution of viruses, finches .... Blah blah blah, not stuff we don't know and is controversial.
Teachers do not have the right to teach there is no God and there was never an Adam and Eve because of some unproven very controversial theories that are very questionable; further more, what business do schools have teaching anything about Hebrew Scriptures?
You seam to be stuck on my personal faith which is just that my personal faith, please stop talking about God and stick to the subject that there are very controversial aspects of evolution specific to abiogenesis that have no business being taught in school let alone used to teach children there is no God.
Right now it seam to be ok to teach there is no God and there was no Adam and Eve in school and ridicule Christians, the standard should work both ways, if you want to teach your children there is no God or there is a God then do it at home not in the public schools; in other words, don't teach anything about God or Hebrew Scriptures in school.
It is one thing to teach non-controversial biology, microbiology, macro biology and general proven evolution facts in school; though, teaching very controversial origin-of-life and missing link theories that are riddled with errors and problems as fact is totally irresponsible and wrong.
God bless you and keep you
Yet you still post, do you really mean you want the last word?
I suggest you realize that just because I am a Christian and my nick name is "LovedByGod"
doesn't automatically mean I am some kind, of as you would put it, "fundie" that doesn't have a grasp of reality, I am also a Vietnam vet does that make me a warmonger?My nick name could have very easily been Really Pissed Off Person That Doesn't Like People Lying To Children"; though, I restrained.
So here is the bottom line, I think it is bull shit that our schools teach abiogenesis and evolution of non like species; for example, fish evolving into dogs.
Notice you do not need to mention God here, you don't need to believe in God; your own personal faith is your own personal business.
What I am opposed to is teaching there is no God because there was no Adam because of abiogenesis, prove it before you teach it.
I am fine with separation of church and state the way it is being interpreted by the ACLU these days as long as they include atheism and agnostic in with the other faiths they are attacking.
So as you can see "I am sick of this shit" also, so we agree on something.
God bless you and keep you
To brush me off with broad accusations is totally unfounded and unwarranted; you are making assumptions about my abilities and accuracy to research the subject that is only founded on your personal opinion.
Your assumption that the ability to "evolve" in general is being disputed or questioned by the scientific community is inaccurate, what is in question is the specific assertion that "abiogenesis" is a fact, which it is not, and the assertion that non related species evolve into non related species.
I will spell it out in simple terms so there is no need for speculation:
Abiogenesis: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3A+Abi ogenesis&btnG=Google+Search/
Here is another page I have been going thru: http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/index.htm
From the about page:
"The goal of this site is to assess the current scientific status of evolutionary theory by a careful and fair evaluation of the problems and the arguments for and against evolution."
God bless you and keep you.
What about Hubert Yockey?
0 Story.htm
I believe in God and because I have never doubted in God I study science to learn more about God and the wonderful universe He created, so far I have not been disappointed. I know some people study science to prove there is no God and so far no one has ever scientifically proven the Bible wrong; if anything, people have accepted the Bible in their efforts to prove it wrong.
What I would like to see is the "fundie" hate speech stop, isn't this what our second amendment rights are all about? I know of Christens that have been totally ridiculed and publicly humiliated in schools like Stanford just because they believe in God. One student reported that he took English literature and was asked to study Genesis and the book of Job and the entire class discussion was based around discussions on how stupid and scientifically inaccurate the books are.
The core issue here is abiogenesis , this has never been proven; if anything, it has been disproved which means there is no proof the Bible is wrong and no need to bash "fundies" or teach school children it is a fact. When this is taught as fact from a position of authority, it teaches children there is no God and in that sense it is violating their second amendment right. Even worse, this is being propagated in our universities as fact, this again is wrong because the school is now using a lie to falsify a personal belief system, they are preaching no God based on a lie.
No one who believes in God and understands science is trying to disallow science in the classroom; as a matter of fact, some of our greatest scientists believe in God. If we are going to insist that the second amendment be strictly followed and religion is not to be taught in public schools I don't think teachers should be able to teach atheism or agnosticism either.
God bless you and keep you.
PS: I have problems with stuff like this: http://www.leestoneking.net/My%20Own%20Personal%2
How did he trick all those medical professionals or did he just pay them off?
It is important to understand how Biblical prophecy works, it can be visions about the future that can also include precise times and sometimes it's similitudes or symbolic enactments that foreshadow a coming event.
First we have a very bazaar event that took place around 1500 BC:
Jesus makes references this passage.
This emblem - a brass serpent raised on a pole - is distinctive in that the Lord Jesus Christ personally applied it to Himself. The more you examine it, the stranger it appears: brass was the Levitical symbol of judgment; brass was the metal that was associated with fire (as the brazen altar, etc.). The serpent was symbolic of sin, introduced in the Garden of Eden. This is a strange emblem, indeed, for the Savior of mankind:
More details about Christ's death
You might ask, ok what is all this about? If there is a God why is He doing all this bazaar stuff and what does that have to do with me?
The simplest way I know how to explain it is, it's like the relationship between a father and a child, as a father you cannot make your child love you even though you love your child so much you would do anything for them.
God created us for fellowship and when Adam sinned thru his own free will, something our children also have and do, he separated himself from God. Because God is perfect, imperfection or sin cannot survive in His presence, so God became the perfect sacrifice to atone for our sin. The same principle applies to parents and children when parents make sacrifices for their children because they love them only God's sacrifice was much greater.
You might ask what does that have to do with you? God wants to have a relationship with you; He wants to be your father by your own free will. This is what happens when you repent, acknowledge your imperfection, and ask for Jesus Christ to cover your imperfections. What this does is cover you with the blood of Jesus Christ and now when God sees you He sees the perfect son Jesus Christ in you and you can then approach the thrown of God as a son of God.
To sum it up with scripture here is what Jesus Christ did:
First let me address this comment: "If the bible were falsifiable and made genuine predictions don't you think that fact would be a little more well known?"
Turns out it is; it just depends on where you get your information from, if it's main stream media you will be getting the biased opinion of Dr Philip R. Davies and the Jesus Seminar. The following is a quote from Dr Philip R. Davies who publishes documentaries for the history channel and other main stream media stations:
Unfortunately, Dr Davies and his cronies of like minded researchers represent the overwhelming majority view that is taught in main stream media; even though, they are the overwhelming minority in the theological community, for them it is all about the money and nothing about the truth.
Next I will address this question: "And where are you getting that the bible predicted crucifixion well before the time of Jesus?".
First here are some estimations of when the various 66 books of the Bible were written based on archeological finds, including dated documents and events and names in the Bible that correspond to documents found detailing a particular King or Kingdoms history as written by their royal scribes.
Old Testament - BCThe oldest known copy of the Old Testament is dated approximately 270 BC and is consistent with the Bibles we use today.
- 2100 - 1600 Job
- 1500 - 1401 Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy
- 1500 - 501 Psalms
- 1406 Joshua
- 1051 - 1004 Judges
- 1011 - 931 Ruth
- 971 - 931 1&2 Samuel
- 848 - 841 Obadiah
- 800 - 701 Hosea
- 793 - 753 Jonah
- 762 - 760 Amos
- 750 - 680 Micah
- 700 Proverbs
- 663 - 612 Nahum
- 627 - 582 Jeremiah
- 622 - 612 Zephaniah
- 606 - 604 Habbakuk
- 605 - 536 Daniel
- 598 - 400 1&2 Chronicles
- 593 - 571 Ezekiel
- 586 - 585 Lamentations
- 560 - 538 1&2 Kings
- 520 Haggai
- 520 - 518 Zechariah
- 516 Joel
- 470 - 465 Esther
- 450 Ezra
- 450 - 430 Malachi
- 430 Nehemiah
New Testament - ADYou might ask, how do you validate all these dates? The Bible is like a big puzzle because there are dates listed all over and also events that connect events based on the time between events. What this means is every time we find a date in archeology that connects a date in the Bible we have more of the puzzle; for example, the book of Daniel is one of the most archeologically authenticated books in the Bible which gives us another point to help connect the dots.
I might have misunderstood what you meant when you said: "I have always heard it from every pastor and religious person that I've ever met that the bibles were written during the lifetimes of the people who knew Jesus."
So I wanted to be clear on approximately when the books of the Bible were written to establish the time frame of the prophecies I will be describing.
With this background out of the way, I would prefer not to debate the accuracies of the dates because that is a whole other subject. What I want to get to is the actual prophecies, that if proven false disprove the Bible.
Next I will follow up with very detailed and extremely accurate prophecies.
God bless you and keep you.
ROTFLMAO - You know nothing about the Bible, you say three detailed accurate descriptions about Jesus Christ have no significance basically because you know nothing about the Bible and you say the Bible is not falsifiable, yet you nothing about the Bible.
BTW: 1000 - 500 = 500 Looks like crucifixion, according to your statement became popular 500 years after the prophecy that Jesus Christ would be crucified.
Notice: I didn't say that you said to study evolution, I said people on this forum.
As far as you personally going to Bible study, that's a personal decision, none of my business.
When you all of a sudden become an authority stating the Bible is not falsifiable that is when I need to stand up and call BS especially when you flat out don't have a clue about what the Bible says and Biblical authentication.
Most people agree that you cannot prove the existence of God scientifically, that is fare game. I guess you could argue that there are parts of the Bible that are not falsifiable based on this assertion; though that does not negate the sections of the Bible that have been authenticated.
It appears you have expressed a definite lack of interest in what the Bible says and I respect your lack of interest, if you are truly interested in the significance of the detailed prophecy I referenced I will explain it; otherwise I wont waist your time nor mine explaining something you are not interested in.
God bless you and keep you.
"Your formal education in physics does not seem to have been effective."
This is entirely possible because I only had a 6th grade education when I entered collage at the age of 20, community college in California only requires you be 18 years old to qualify for attendance.
The fact that I worked full time (10 hours a day as a machinist 5 - 6 days a week) made it difficult to be a strait "A" student; though, after 6 years, changing my major 3 times (senior in Mechanical Engineering changed to Physics, senior in Physics then changed to Electrical Engineering) I finally graduated with a BSEE. This included taking all prerequisites from 6th grade to college level and getting a High School Diploma.
I only over shot the required 124 semester credit requirement by taking 54 extra credits in junior and senior level Engineering and Physics.
So based on the pace I set for completing college you are probably correct in assuming much of my education didn't stick; this is why I spend most of my free time reading everything I can and depend on people as yourself that are obviously more intelligent than I am to help me understand the physical world we live in.
Thank you for your insights and patience with my lack of understanding of the subject matter. I will do my best to better understand what you and others have to offer before I make a fool out of myself again by posting before I have explored all the possibilities presented in this forum.
God bless you and keep you.
PS - Thank you for the prayer.
Jim,
You say you had no idea that books written before the birth of Jesus were written about Jesus. If this is same kind of Jewish argument that Jesus Christ is not the Messiah Nagid we will just need to agree to disagree. If you truly are not aware of who Jesus Christ is and the fact that the entire Bible is written about the Messiah Nagid who was born to the virgin Marry and given the name Yeshua (Jesus) the Messiah I have good new for you. Yeshua in Hebrew means both "Salvation," and the concatenated form of Yahoshua, the "Lord who is Salvation."
You may say this information is not for you because you have heard rumors that the Bible is not true and is full of circular reasoning, well I am here to tell you that these are just rumors and speculation by people, who like you, have never tested the facts. If you are asking me to be your personal trainer and challenging me to prove it to you then you have miss judged who I am. You say "You're still trying to use your belief that the Bible is true to prove that the Bible is true", again you miss judge what I have said, I was only responding to the comment that the Bible is not falsifiable.
Just like people on this page challenge me to go learn the facts about evolution I challenge you to go learn the facts about the Bible. If you are so inclined, you might find this web site helpful: http://www.khouse.org/, it is one of the few places I know where the details of Bible prophecy are taught, discuss and tested. When someone challenges me to learn about evolution I do not take it as please spoon feed me your proof, a link in the right direction and maybe answering a few questions is sufficient.
Proving the Bible is no easy task because you need to learn how to read the Bible first, you need to learn Jewish customs and terminology, you need to use Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic dictionaries and you need to study archeology. If you just read a section of the Bible the way many preachers do today you will miss most of what the Bible says.
You might say the man that literally split time in two (BC/AD) never lived and the information written about Him is not true, I guarantee that your efforts to prove the Bible wrong will not only authenticate it, it will change your life forever.
God bless you and keep you.
Made you look.
Now that I am much calmer my objection is abiogenesis being taught as fact, I have no problem with the majority of biology, only teaches that say they need to teach this concept in order to teach biology properly:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
Teaching this tells our children there is no God and closes the door for belief based education for those of us that choose to extend our children's educate to include a belief system such as Biblical training. If you want to teach your children the Bible is not true or some other belief system, not a problem, and if you don't want the Bible taught to your children in school that is your right also.
I don't even have a problem with elective classes that explore the validity of different belief systems as long as they don't lead to hate classes, this forum being an example of a hate forum, just read some of the stuff we said to each other. To be honest, I learned a lot just following up on things people said and ideas I though I knew and didn't know as well as I thought I did, it is a great learning process.
I believe the only way to learn is to communicate and exchange ideas; please don't advocate closing that door. The only thing I ask is that we keep our school curriculum up-to-date, as accurate as possible and teach theory as theory, the problems theories must overcome and fact as fact.
God bless you and keep you.