I Hope You Are Skeptical
"Suppose I believed that I was God and that I thought the whole universe revolved around me?" The confident youth waited for my reaction to his question.
I simply answered, "I think that you would a normal human being."
He was a little taken back that I wasn't impressed by his "outrageous" statement, and asked, "What do you mean?" I explained by asking him where he thought "here" was. He told me that it was where he stood.
Every human being thinks the same way. We define "here" as being where we are. Everything and everyone else is "there." Each of us thinks that we are the center of the universe. Semantics? Let's take it a little further. Define "now" for me. Tell me when it is. You can't. The split second that you try to pinpoint "now," it becomes "then." I often find myself explaining the nature of "now" after I ask people if they have ever stolen anything. This is their typical answer to the question: "Yes, I have. But that was in the past." You are even forced to define the reading of this sentence as something you did in the past.
These thoughts are a little strange, and you may be thinking that there are still some things that we can still be sure of--the sun still rises, the sky is still blue, and "up" is still "up." Not true. The sun never rises. The earth turns, giving us the illusion that the sun is rising, although it remains still (it seems to be still, but it is actually moving through the universe). The sky isn't blue. Ask any astronaut. It has no color. Neither is "up" up. Remember that the earth is round. What is up to someone at the North Pole is not up to someone at the South Pole. In fact, if everyone on the earth pointed to where we thought was "up," we would all point in different directions.
So many things that we think are absolutes are not. History has shown us that even what science defines as truth today may be laughed at in one hundred years.
What then can we be sure of? Is there such a thing as "absolute," unchanging truth? We will look at this subject later in this publication.
In April 2001, through a series of strange circumstances, I found myself speaking at the American Atheists, Inc., National Convention in Orlando, Florida. The audience of over 250 were reasonably polite... until I made the statement that the Bible was filled with scientific and medical facts, written thousands of years before man discovered them. The reaction was one of immediate and unified mockery.
Their response was understandable. If I was speaking the truth, then the Bible is supernatural in origin--not a pleasant thought for a professing Atheist. This, however, is not altogether bad news for the unbeliever. If the Bible proves itself to be the Word of the One who created all things, it make sense to search its pages. After all, time will take each of us to the grave, and if there was one chance in a million that the Bible's promise of immortality and threat of damnation is true, we owe it to our good sense to look into it.
The Bible doesn't attempt to defend its inspiration. Genesis simply opens with the words "God said." It repeats these words nine times in the first chapter. The phrase "The Lord spoke" is used 560 times in the first five books of the Bible and at least 3,800 times in the whole of the Old Testament. Isaiah claims at least 40 times that his message came directly from God; Ezekiel, 60 times; and Jeremiah, 100 times.
There are about 3,856 verses directly or indirectly concerned with prophecy in Scripture. Mormons, Buddhists, and Muslims have they consider their own sacred writings, but the element of proven prophecy is absent in them. Neither do any other books in any of the world's religions (Vedas, Bhagavad-Gita, Koran, etc) contain scientific truth. In fact, they contain statements that are clearly unscientific.
Most people are not aware that the Bible was written over a period of 1,600 years, by more than 40 authors, who wrote on three different continents in three different languages. They spoke on hundreds of controversial subjects, and yet they penned their words with agreement and harmony.
These facts make the information given this publication even more incredible.
Before we look at these "scientific facts" in the Bible, I must preface them with some very important information. To do this, I will have to quote the Bible. This is not using what is commonly called "circular reasoning." I simply want to make a point that is relevant to what I am going to present.
Many years ago, I ran a children's club. At the end of the club I told about one hundred kids to line up for some candy. There was an immediate rush, and the line sorted itself into what I was as being a line of greed. The bigger, selfish kids were at the front, and the small and timid ones were at the back. I then did something that gave me great satisfaction. I told kids to turn about face. Everyone kid. Then I told them to stay where they were, and I took great delight in going to the other end of the line and giving the candy to the smaller, timid kids first.
In a world where the rich get richer, and the poor get stomped on, we are informed that God has gone to the other end of the line with the message of everlasting life (I know that you may not believe in the existence of God, but please bear with me). Here is what we are told:
For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness... For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and I will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent... But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God has chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; and base things of the world, and things which are despised, has God chosen yes, and things which are not, to bring to nothing things that are: That no flesh should glory in his presence (1 Corinthians 1:18, 19, 27-29).
How has God gone to the other end of the line? Simply by choosing that which is foolish, weak, base, and despised. Let me illustrate what He has done.
Do you believe that the following Biblical accounts actually happened?
* Adam and Eve
* Noah's Ark
* Jonah and the Whale
* Joshua and the walls of Jericho
* Samson and his long hair
* Daniel and the lion's den
* Moses and the Red Sea
If you're an Atheist, of course you don't. To you, believing such fantastic stories would mean that you would have to surrender your intellectual dignity. Who in their right mind would ever do that? The answer is simply those who understand that God has chosen foolish, weak, base, and despised things of the world to confound those who think they are wise.
Look at the intellectual offense in the tone of this letter I received, regarding the Orlando debate on the subject "Does God Exist?"
"How sad for you to have so completely surrendered your intellect to an ignorant, pre-scientific book. I know about your upcoming debate... I won't be there, but I'm sure that the audience will get some good belly laughs from your presentation. Biblical literalists may not be very bright, but they are extremely funny." (MattmanDude sidenote... That sure sounds familiar, lol)
I hope you have opened this book with a good deal of skepticism. You should. The world is full of simple folk who will make a shrine to a knot in a tree because it supposedly has the features of a dead "saint." You are wise to consider the evidence before deciding whether something is true.
Where's The Evidence?
Imagine that you are looking at a luxury liner moving through calm waters. To your amazement, about a dozen people jump off the ship and cling to a lifeboat. You watch as the rest of the passengers stand on the ship and laugh at them. You can understand their reaction. What those few people did was foolish. It made no sense.
Suddenly, the ship hits an unseen iceberg and sinks, taking with it all who stayed on board. Now you see that those who seemed like fools were wise, but those who stayed on the ship were fools.
We have in the Bible a command to jump off the luxury liner of this world. Before you laugh at stupid Christians, ask yourself if there is any proof that its claims are true. The following pages give compelling evidence that the Bible is no ordinary book.
MattmanDude sidenote: That's end of the forward but here's one last part from a future chapter that made me laugh a bit.
If every creature evolved with no Creator, there are numerous problems for "scientific" evolution. Take for instance the first bird. Did the bird breathe? Did the bird breathe before it evolved lungs? How did it do this? Why did it evolve lungs if it was happily surviving without them? How did it know what needed to be evolved if its brain hadn't yet evolved.
MattmanDude sidenote: Skipping ahead a bit...
Michael Ruse, in his book Darwin's Theory: An Exercise in Science, said, "An increasing number of scientists, most particularly a growing number of evolutionists... argue that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at all... Many of the critics have the highest intellectual credentials."
Dr. T. N. Tahmisian of the Atomic Energy Commission said, "Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever."
Malcom Muggeridge, the British journalist and philosopher said, "I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it has been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so flimsy and dubious a hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has."
MattmanDude: All right, that's all I'm going to copy down for now. I might do some more interesting parts of this book later.
Speaking for me, The trick is to believe the message of the bible and know science while being aware that there is more knowledge to be found. Well for me that works quite well.
Could you (or someone) explain why this proves i should believe in Christianity? You know other religions claim their Holy book proves science as well (the main one being Islam)?
Is there any particular reason why i should believe the Bible over the Quran?
and, on a side note, do you believe the story of the flood is actually true? I'll just assume the creatures got to the ark easily enough (i don't know how but w/e). Think of the size of the ship needed, not to mention all of the food required for all the creatures... Would someone care to explain how this is possible? If anyone believes it at all... Perhaps you could show me the "proof" he has later in the book of this or something?
Islam is an Abrahamic religion. All Abrahamic religions contains some truths.
Bible: Adam and Eve (all humans can trace their ancestry back to them).
Science: Mitochondrial Eve and Y-Chromosomal Adam (all humans can trace their ancestry back to them).
Bible: Earth hangs on nothing. (Job 26:7)
Science: We've been in space. The Earth is supported by nothing. It's "floating" in space shall we say?
Bible: Trenches and valleys in the sea. (Psalm 18:15)
Today: With the right equipment (that didn't exist back then) we've been able to reach the very bottoms of the seas and see that it's not flat as people used to think.
Bible: The sea has paths for fishes. (Psalm 8:8)
Science: Fishes and the like swim in currents which are kinda of like the "roads" of the sea.
Bible: Heaven is expanding. (Jeremiah 10:12)
Science: The universe is expanding and we see galaxies constantly moving away from one another as a result.
Bible: Everything we see are composed of things that cannot be seen. (Hebrew 11:3)
Science: Everything we see are composed of things we cannot see. These things are atoms.
Bible: Sea has vents. (Job 38:16)
Science: Sea has vents.
Bible: World has jet streams. (Ecclesiates 1:6)
Science: Discovered jet streams in 1930.
The Bible had all these scientific facts before science proved them.
As for Noah's Ark:
Fish fossils and fossils of whales and other DEEP SEA creatures have been found on mountains and other places on lands. Such fossils were recorded by the Ancient Greeks who suspected that a flood must have taken place ages ago.
It's likely the end of the ice age would have brought great floods across the earth too and flooded all of the land.
Nearly every religion and culture has a flood story with one man surviving the flood and ensuring that the human race lives on. Most always build a boat with animals on. Even the Native Americans had a similar story.
That itself is proof that some type of flood must have happened.
1. two people are not enough to sustain a gene pool by. We know this because of modern science.
2. Although well written, this isn't exactly scientific fact. Anyone who looks around would be able to see that the Earth is not supported by anything :P Also:
Bible: "For the foundations of the earth are the LORD's; upon them he has set the world." (Samuel 2:8)
3. "The valleys of the sea were exposed and the foundations of the earth laid bare at your rebuke, O LORD, at the blast of breath from your nostrils." (Pslam 18:15)
Well he's talking about the valleys of the sea, but i see no mention of the mid-oceanics ridges/trenches in there...
4. "all that swim the paths of the seas." (Psalm 8:8)
I'd hardly call that compelling evidence for the discovery of Ocean currents. There is a plethora of other things it could be referring to, such as the fact that fish swim in the sea...
5. "But God made the earth by his power; he founded the world by his wisdom and stretched out the heavens by his understanding." (Jeremiah 10:12)
Sounds like he's talking about God creating the earth...
6. Theories of atoms can date back to the 6th century BCE in India. The Greeks first philosophized the atom in the 5th century BCE (Leucippus), however it was his student, Democritus, who systemized his views in around 450 BCE. The bible may propagate this idea, I will admit that, but it was not the bible which first came up with this idea.
7. I have to admit this one was hard to refute (as i am not an expert in this field :P) but after a little research i found the 'Milos shallow sea-vents of the southern Aegean arc' (say that 5 times fast). These are basically shallow sea vents which occur in the greek archipelago around volcanic areas (more specifically in Milos). Some of these vents result in small explosions as tension is released, the sound of which could be heard for a large distance. I do not think it would've been hard for the Greeks to observe this phenomenon (both the bubbling of the sea and the sound), and record it. As before, the bible may propagate this idea but it did not create the idea.
8. "The wind blows to the south and turns to the north; round and round it goes, ever returning on its course." (Ecclesiastes 1:6)
Looking at the context of the passage (google it) i'd have to say he's using the wind as an example to show the futility of the world. But just assuming he actually is referring to the jet streams (if god really did inspire him to), then you think he would've mentioned the jet streams go from West --> East and back around... not South --> North and around. -.-
Ark:
Ah well allow me to refute you then (if you think that's enough information). In one of your other points you listed, you claimed that the Bible proves deep sea trenches and whatnot. I refuted this by showing you the actual passage, but let's ignore that for now and assume you are correct. Would it be safe for me to assume you believe in the Plate Tectonics theory? When two plates collide, there is immense pressure being acted on them both. A couple of things can happen, but for the purposes of this argument i will only list one of them: Both plates push upwards. This is how mountains are created (I think you see where this is going?) You see, to say fish fossils on mountains PROVES a flood is disingenuous as it actually proves the theory of plate tectonics more (something which the bible proves, as you claim)
Really, to disprove this argument you would have to not believe in plate tectonics which you say you support, in which case I cannot have a serious discussion with you. Feel free to respond to my other claims.
Also, just off the top of my head, but i once read the "Epic of Gilgamesh" and that had a flood story as well... It also had a man who lived forever (who could pass this trait on by simply telling you his life story), and a flower which could extend your lifespan... The Greeks also had similar stories to this. Therefore, by your logic, it is true since multiple sources have similar stories...
Ark refute refuted:
You didn't refute me about the deep sea trenches as my other comment I just created proved. You missed out a vital part. As for the mountains: that's true but you missed out the part about sea fossils being discovered on land all across the world throughout history. So you either have to believe that all land was under the ocean once or that a flood occurred. Concerning the first belief, The Bible actually says the Earth was originally just covered in water before God created land.
The Epic of Gilgamesh is but one story. There are plenty of others which all reference one survivor. All cultures and most religions have a flood story. You say that my logic here is flawed but that's untrue. Where are the religions and cultures talking about a mass Exodus? Where are the religions and cultures talking about God giving them a set of rules? Where are the religions and cultures talking about a Messiah who will save the entire world? There are few if none. This is because an Exodus occurred only for the Jewish people.
Religions and cultures often contain similar stories (a angel/god/being who rebelled against the Creator being an example) because these stories have originated from one place where the story has been passed down from generation to generation.
It's likely the end of the ice age would have brought great floods across the earth too and flooded all of the land. It's funny how you ignored this part because it's likely the end of the ice age would bring floods. Look at today where little bits of ice melting bring GREAT FLOODS to lands near seas and rivers. Imagine a world with tons more ice than today melting. That's sure to bring flooding to most parts of land. The Bible says it rained for 40 days and 40 nights but my argument doesn't contradict this. It could have rained simultaneously to fuel the flood even more and raise the sea level.
Well yes I did actually... Your statement here is an oversimplification. So i can only choose those two things? How about I choose... what i said the first time! fish fossilize at the bottom of the sea, are enveloped by sedimentary rocks which form part of the tectonic plates, and are then pushed to the surface by two plates colliding (exactly what i said the first time). I won't go into details, if you want them go watch the discovery channel or something. here's a pro-tip as well: a lot of fossils of under-sea life are found near mountains.
You misinterpreted what i said i think. You claimed that a lot of civilization had a flood story, therefore it must be true. I said this was faulty because (using that logic) people with eternal lives exist because there are multiple stories about that in ancient civilizations as well. What you've just said it the opposite of what you initially said so you're kind of contradicting yourself... but at least you're explaining your argument now instead of before when you just said you were right because people 4000+ years ago agree with you...
Well okay, the last Ice Age reached it peak 18,000 years ago (at 16,000 BCE) and ended approximately 10,000 years ago, which would be 8,000 BCE. Now, the earliest known civilization, the Natufians, which existed from around 12,000 BCE to 9,000 BCE. So were they living in Sumeria during the flood? Even if the theory you are proposing is true, all plant life would've been wiped out in 8,000 BCE but would miraculously re-appear in 4,000 BCE for the rise of the first great civilization of Sumer? Even if you believe that maybe certain parts of the world were untouched by the flood where some plants would've survived, the constant rain would have cut off their supply of oxygen and killed them.
You're missing the point again. Sea fossils have been found on land too, not just mountains. As for the flood story:
No. I said that most cultures and religions have a similar flood story with striking similarities. You're saying that some of these stories mention immortal men but these flood stories are few and rare compared to the majority which mention a boat being built, one family surviving and that family going on to populate the world again.
As for the plants and trees surviving that is simple. Not all were killed according to Genesis hence why a dove brought leaves from an Olive tree back to Noah. Seeds and the like would also have survived to give regrowth and insects obviously survived too to speed up the regrowth.
1: Mitochondrial Eve and Y-Chromosomal Adam say otherwise. Google them. It's proven by science that we descended from these two individuals.
2. It is a scientific fact. You can't see the world floating while on it and Samuel 2:8 is referring to earth itself (hence why it's lowercase).
3. "Foundations of the earth..." refers to trenches.
4. Hardly. Fish swim is the sea but why say they swim in the paths of the seas? That is referring to Ocean currents because Ocean currents are exactly that.
5. So heavens is the Earth? I don't think so.
6. The theories of Atoms may not have come from The Bible but it's in it still. It's still a scientific fact and The Bible still mentions it (which is what this article is about).
7. Again, it's not about The Bible mentioning something first and here the idea could easily have originated from The Bible first. I doubt King David went to Greece or even spoke Greek to speak to Greeks about it. This 7th fact seems to support the idea that King David was indeed divinely gifted.
8. Hardly. Jet streams go around the earth. Why does it need to go into specifics?
En.wikipedia.org
"The oceanic trenches are hemispheric-scale long but narrow topographic depressions of the sea floor. They are also the deepest parts of the ocean floor."
Sounds like they are the foundation of the earth to me...
Psalm 18:15 "Then at your command, O LORD, at the blast of your breath, the bottom of the sea could be seen, and the foundations of the earth were laid bare."
Y-Chromosomal Adam and Mitochondrial Eve:
Nearemmaus.com
I don't believe these to be Adam and Eve as these two individuals existed at different time-frames but they still do away with the theory that humanity cannot trace their ancestry back to one or two people. All can trace their ancestry back to these two (one who is being argued as being Noah) as science has proved.
This alone agrees with the Biblical account.
Of course I doubt this will convert you Admiral. Even these things won't convert you:
The Big Bang didn't originate from nothing and no top scientist believes that as these articles prove:
Science.nasa.gov
"The Universe must have been born in this single violent event which came to be known as the "Big Bang."
Science.nationalgeographic.com
"The big bang theory leaves several major questions unanswered. One is the original cause of the big bang itself. Several answers have been proposed to address this fundamental question, but none has been proven—and even adequately testing them has proven to be a formidable challenge."
Most scientists believe the The Big Bang came from somewhere. The idea of The Big Bang coming from an infinite dense compressed space which had existed for infinity isn't even a scientific accepted theory. Is this relevant to the discussion? It is because The Bible also says the universe and everything in it had a beginning. As time progresses, we get more and more evidence also agreeing with this but atheist scientists say "we are unsure what caused The Big Bang" even though the answer is staring them in the face. Even if it's a unconscious energy that caused The Big Bang, it's still a creator.
I can bring up all the scientific facts from The Bible (I can even bring up the medical facts which can only be found in The Bible and no other historical source) and you won't convert because you've already made your choice and will continue to argue against The Bible simply because of your disbelief in God.
Advanced Medical Knowledge in The Bible:
Bibleevidences.com
Ending part 1
Wow, well there are many ways I can respond to this, so let me begin...
Thank you for showing me this link, as you can tell by my arguments here i have no basis in fact and reality and in fact believe that something can come from nothing. Yeah that crap we learned in grade 9 science about everything being made of matter? And how matter can not be created or destroyed? What a load of bull, seriously... Just because it is proven by science and modern science is based on this doesn't mean it's true. Yes that is correct, as a man of science i believe that science is incorrect and physically and scientifically impossible things, can in fact occur.
Well all joking aside i find it to be quite the insult you would even assume this? My life is science and math, that is my passion and career, it's not some idle hobby I like to wave around from time to time to **** off Religious people. I came here for an intelligent debate which has now descended into Ad Hominem attacks and petty assumptions. Seriously?
-
The assertion that the infinitely small ball of mass (which became the big bang) existed for all eternity is technically incorrect just for the fact that time did not exist in this infintely small ball of mass. Also according to the theory, there will be a universal shrinking as well, where the universe will collapse in on itself. I am hardly the expert on the this so i won't attempt to go into any specifics for you, all i can state is the obvious facts of the theory in rebuttal to your lack of facts on the theory. The fact is, is that science is not a religion or belief system. We have facts, the facts show that the Lambda-Cold Dark Matter Model (Big Bang) is the most accurate theory we have of the universes creation. There is disagreement as to how it happened (around the first 0.01 ns), but the theory is believed by almost all scientists (some polls say 99% some say 95%).
Ending part 2
You already tried bringing up 'facts', i refuted them and you brushed them off. The last thing i'm going to do is go to a christian site about medical information to find balanced info. That's like going to a Communist website for balanced information about Stalin... you just aren't gonna get it. Plus refuting this would require me to do even more research which i can instead use to study for my exams so i won't perpetuate this anymore. Your last paragraph here is incredibly childish as well, please i thought you were above these insults? Yeah i'm sorry if i offended you with all my god-hating comments and replies, as you can clearly see in every single reply i make i mention the fact that i hate god but somehow i don't think he exists? (right i hate something that doesn't exist) Please i challenge you, show me the source where i claim i don't believe in God. and please, i argued against the cherry-picked passages you presented to me using REAL and ACTUAL facts, i hardly call that the entire Bible. Please grow up and stop misconstruing what i say.
You didn't refute anything. You've created opinions and nothing more. You've already gone to the Christian site and you've seen what the Bible has said about blood, quarantine, antiseptic, microscopic organisms and sanitary practices.
And nope I never said you hated God and I haven't insulted you. You took my comments as insulting because they debunk your entire arguments. It's you who needs to grow up and calm down over one paragraph which only you and you alone found offensive.
If you aren't going to go to the site, I'll guess I'll quote it here to debunk you once again in front of everyone else.
The Israelites were instructed to wash themselves and their clothes in running water if they had a bodily discharge, if they came in contact with another person's discharge, or if they had touched a dead human or animal carcass. They were also instructed to wash any uncovered vessels that were in the vicinity of a dead body, and if a dead carcass touched a vessel it was to be destroyed. Items recovered during war were also to be purified through either fire or running water. In addition, the Israelites were instructed to bury their human waste outside of camp, and to burn the waste of their animals (See Numbers 19:3-22, Lev. 11:1-47; 15:1-33, Deut 23:12).
These sanitary practices without question saved countless lives in the Israelite camps by protecting them against infection caused by unseen germs. Meanwhile, their Egyptian peers were dying by the thousands due to "remedies" that almost always consisted of some amount of human or animal dung1. As mentioned earlier, the sound sanitary practices that we take for granted today only began to flourish about a 100 years ago.
Bacteria
Some time after I wrote these web pages, a Bible skeptic unwittingly showed me yet another example of advanced scientific/medical knowledge in the Bible. He posted a message on a discussion board that ridiculed some verses in Leviticus 13 and 14 that mention leprosy on walls and on garments. He felt this was silly and an error since leprosy is a human disease. What this skeptic was unaware of is the fact that leprosy is a bacteria, a living organism, that certainly can survive on walls and garments! In fact, the Medic-Planet.com encyclopedia notes that leprosy "can survive three weeks or longer outside the human body, such as in dust or on clothing"2. It is no wonder that God commanded the Levitical priests to burn the garments of leprosy victims! (Leviticus 13:52)
Laws of Quarantine
In the same Med-Planet encyclopedia cited above we read that "It was not until 1873 that leprosy could be shown to be infectious rather than hereditary."2 Of course God knew this all along, as His laws to Moses reveal (Leviticus 13, 14, 22, Numbers 19:20). His instructions regarding quarantine to prevent the spread of leprosy and other infectious diseases are nothing short of remarkable, considering that this life-saving practice was several thousand years ahead of its time. Infected persons were instructed to isolate themselves outside the camp until healed, and were to shave and wash thoroughly. The priests that administered care were instructed to change their clothes and wash thoroughly after inspecting a plague victim.
It should be re-emphasized that the Israelites were the only culture to practice quarantine until the last century, when medical advances finally demonstrated the importance of sanitation and isolation during plagues. The devastating black plague of the 14th century that claimed millions of lives was not broken until the church fathers in Vienna began encouraging the public to start following the guidelines as set forth in the Bible. The promising results in Vienna compelled other cities to follow suit, and the dreaded plague was finally eradicated3.
The First Antiseptic
Hyssop oil was charged by God to Moses to be used as a purifying agent. Hyssop oil has been shown to contain 50% antifungal and antibacterial agents (Numbers 19:18, Psalm 51:7).
Lack of facts on what theory? I stated the same that you stated. I provided the evidence too and yes I do believe The Big Bang happened which is why we observe universes rapidly moving away from each other along with other measurements which show the universe is expanding.
I guess you don't realize how much you've done away with your own atheist theory.
"The assertion that the infinitely small ball of mass (which became the big bang) existed for all eternity is technically incorrect just for the fact that time did not exist in this infintely small ball of mass."
"There is disagreement as to how it happened..."
"I'm an atheist..."
Heh. Your quotes pretty much say something caused The Big Bang. Science itself says there must have been a cause behind The Big Bang. As an atheist though you just don't want to call that cause God and atheist scientists also refuse to say God caused it despite the evidence being there.
However you look at it you just admitted that the universe didn't come from nothing so the reasonable conclusion is God. The other alternative is a never-ending cycle of universes dying and giving rebirth to another but that would have had to have started from somewhere too..
For more on God, time and the universe read this article:
Moddb.com
"I won't."
Then don't bother responding.
@Adam and Eve
It says right in the article that they lived 100,000 - 150,000 years apart, with the male being approximately 50,000 years ago. Chiefly, i'd like to know who is arguing that this is Noah (give an argument don't just state this for future reference). But to be honest, you really don't need to state an argument for it or who made it because i can refute it easily right now! Let us begin:
Assuming he is Noah then it would follow basic logic that the mitochondiral eve would be his wife, i don't know if he had daughters so it could be them too, since they are the last females in the entire world. This would put mitochondrial eve at the same time as adam, not 100,000-150,000 years before. Ignoring this, if Noah was y-chromosome adam, then that would put the flood at approximately 48,000 BCE which would be the 481st century BCE... The earliest, earliest flood stories from the Bible date back to the 10th century BCE which is 999-900 BCE... Do i need to explain how improbably this sounds? I can only imagine what they would've been doing for 47,000 years of civilization before they finally decided to write something down... There's also a small problem with the last glacial period occuring during this time as well.
Ummm what? They lived years apart. How could Mitochondrial Eve be Noah's wife? You're still ignoring the evidence which has been proven with science that all humans can trace their ancestry back to these two which you said was impossible beforehand.
@Trenches
No you're missing the point. I don't know if on purpose or not however. Are Trenches the 'Foundations of the Earth'? Well technically no they're the foundations of the Crust of the Earth but that doesn't matter since they had no way of knowing that back then and it's all semantics anyways. So yes, they are the foundations of the Earth. However, the statement "Foundations of the earth" is so ambiguous you wouldn't know what it means. For example i will give you a hypothetical scenario:
"You are living in the time before science has discovered the mid-oceanic trench and other various trenches in the Sea floor around the world. One day you are reading the Bible and come accross this passage 'Then at your command, O LORD, at the blast of your breath, the bottom of the sea could be seen, and the foundations of the earth were laid bare.' You immediately think to yourself 'Foundations of the Earth must mean the large Trenches in the ocean floor caused by continental drift and plate tectonics, as opposed to generically referring to the bottom of the sea!"
If you think the above scenario is true then you are sorely misguided. The only reason you can interpret this passage as meaning Trenches now is because of the discovery of Trenches. The Bible did not predict valleys and trenches on the Sea floor by the simple phrase "foundations of the earth", that is just silly.
And you're missing the point. The Bible also says The Earth floats in space and according to your logic I should disregard it meaning such because people back then couldn't possibly know.
Yes people back then could know because God could tell them as he told David.
1. Yes I was going to go into greater detail but i needed to cut down my comments. Basically, those theories are most likely correct since i cannot, logically, think of why they wouldn't be until research can prove it otherwise. However, something you missed and I failed to mention is that they don't have to be from the same time, and in fact science says that they are probably not from the same time period at all... Think about it logically, you have DNA which can be traced back to your mother, and DNA which can be traced back to your great-great grandfather (on your fathers side). They are not from the same time period.
2. Ok if we're going to argue semantics then in your original quote (Job 26:7) 'earth' is also lowercase... So i suppose you're right still but noticing that God put dirt and rocks hanging upon nothing doesn't count as science still.
3. Right... okay, is there any way you can back that up? Like a quote from the author showing that's what he meant? Why didn't he write 'trenches' instead? etc. etc. When he says 'Foundations of the Earth' he means just that, the bottom of the Sea. He never goes into specifics at all.
4. That's really an umbrella statement. For example the 'ocean currents' are the 'paths of the sea' but the 'paths of the sea' are not 'ocean currents', since many other things can be classified as being 'paths of the sea' (such as rivers carrying water to the sea, or maybe trade routes between two nations on the sea). It's the same as 'ants' are 'insects', however 'insects' are not 'ants' because there are many other things what can be classified as 'insects'.
5. Totally... What i meant was the passage seems to be referring to God creating the dirt/rocks (because earth isn't capitalized so it's not the planet you see...) by his understanding, and then creating the sky or 'heavens'. Or perhaps it means he made Heaven, as in the place you go when you die. You see these passages are very ambiguous, which does not constitute 'fact'.
6. The article is about the bible 'predicting' these facts. As i said in my initial response it may propagate this fact, which i have no objections to as it obviously is the case, but it does not predict the discovery of atoms or the theory in any way.
7. Again, the Bible did not predict the discovery of Sea-Vents for the reason I said. a sea-faring people would have noticed these natural occurences before the Bible was written. Basically the Bible may have predicted it, but it was already known. Also the book of Job is commonly thought to have been written in the 5th century BCE, at the same time as the beginning of the Greco-Persian wars. It would not have been hard for information and technology to be gained by either side in this conflict (similar to how the Crusades brought Europe out of the Dark Ages with the discovery of technology and Greek and Roman philosophy preserved by the Muslims.).
8. Ha, this must be a joke right? Well i can't exactly argue facts with a person who thinks the 'facts' don't need to go into "specifics". Besides the obvious fact that you are ignoring the facts here, i'll just use this logic for a second... don't need to go into specifics? Well then the original quote will say "The wind blows somewhere and turns to another direction; someplace it goes, ever moving in a direction." When the specifics do not matter how can we have an intelligent conversation based on facts?
1. "Mitochondrial Eve and Y-Chromosomal Adam say otherwise. Google them. It's proven by science that we descended from these two individuals." -- I'm still waiting for you to debunk this.
2. Okay then: "For the foundations of the earth are the LORD's; upon them he has set the world." (Samuel 2:8) Full quote:
"He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth up the beggar from the dunghill, to set them among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of glory: for the pillars of the earth are the LORD'S, and he hath set the world upon them." This verse is speaking about people not the earth.
3. Trenches are technically part of the foundation.
4. So whales swim in rivers?
5. They are ambiguous to you. Heaven originally meant space since God himself said it cannot contain him:
1 Kings 8:27 "But will God really dwell on earth? The heavens, even the highest heaven, cannot contain you. How much less this temple I have built!"
8. Then what would you describe the jet streams as? Solomon was being poetic was simultaneously stating a fact. Jet streams go around the Earth.
"Jet streams may start, stop, split into two or more parts, combine into one stream, or flow in various directions including the opposite direction of most of the jet."
"1. two people are not enough to sustain a gene pool by. We know this because of modern science."
Put two unclothed people in a massive garden and you'll be surprised at how many kids they'll have, lol.
@Admiral-165:
If you don't want to believe in religion, no one is telling you that you have to.
Least I'm not. I can't speak for every member of my group. There are some more zealous people who think that religion should be forced on others... I personally don't share that opinion, but each person must walk their own path in life.
Sorry, i'm just a sucker for intelligent conversations... Also i apologize for the essay i wrote in response, but i had a lot to say lol.
lol, no problem. I don't mind debate as everyone is civilized about it.
We're all entitled to our own opinions and perspectives. :)
Telling people what is true isn't forcing your beliefs on anyone. If Christianity is true, then it would be morally wrong to not share that news with everybody.
But there's no point in preaching to people who have already made up their minds on the subject and who will never change their beliefs no matter what evidence you show them.
It just makes Christians even more resented than they already are when you try.
If someone who is not a Christian asks me about my beliefs or expresses some interest in learning about God and the Bible, then I'm happy to share my knowledge with them.
But if a person is a profound atheist or a believer in a religion other than Christianity and has no interest in learning about my faith, I see no reason to shove it down their throat. That's not my place. It's their life, it's their beliefs.
Also, while you and I might know Christianity to be true... from a world wide viewpoint you could say it is only true from our own perspective. To an atheist it is not true (even if it is).
Truth is a very illusive thing. Just like Mr. Comfort expresses in this article above... there is almost no such thing as absolute unwavering truth.
you'r not going to find one here
Well he clearly did. He clearly won't find it in your domain however. Didn't your English teacher tell you that every sentence must start with a capital letter and what the hell does "you'r" mean? I think you mean "you're" and BTW you must put a full stop at the end of every sentence.
And we're the ones who are dumb? Don't make me laugh. If you're going to pretend to be more intelligent then at least act it.
God operating on Adam to remove his rib was the first account of having the patient put to sleep before such a procedure. The bone marrow in a man's rib has a lot of stem cells that can be used to create living tissue which was used to create Eve. Thus the reason why Adam's rib was removed.
I think its good that Admiral is challenging us because it helps us think about our faith and look for answers as God didn't want us to sit about and believe what anyone says without considering whether or not there's truth behind it. I do believe that science and Christianity complement each other as they both look for the truth.
But as Mattman says we shouldn't shove our faith down peoples throats as they need to make their minds up. I was told a told a saying tho "preach the gospel and if you have to use words" That is the biggest challenge for me as I don't always act like a follower of Christ which is something I need to constantly work on.