Well, you declined to explain why you accused me of being dishonest.
You simply do a cut and paste of some Bart Ehrman yada yada and somehow think you’ve justified your comment.
Not so.....
This reminds me of how strongly you stood behind Magic Larry Krause when he came out with his book about how science could show how the universe “came from nothing.” Stephen Colbert embarrassed him and Krause finally admitted that you had to start with “something.” His comments about “not needing a God to explain the universe” proved to be just more baloney ginned up to boost books sales. He further discredited himself when ASU canned him for his sexual improprieties and relationship with Epstein.
So why am I bringing this up? You hailed Magic Larry and he turned out to be just a huckster.
The same is true of Bart Ehrman..... he’s a book salesman and found his audience. He cares little for the truth but he has found itching ears to scratch.
Read “Misquoting Truth: A Guide to the Fallacies of Bart Ehrman’s ‘Misquoting Jesus’”
Again you're being dishonest. Never "finally admitted that you had to start with “something.”", In his book (which I'm sure you've never read) he's very up front about how he defines "nothing" as he is in his video presentations.
Besides even if Krause's hypothesis is not true, it doesn't not prove your god, you are creating a false dichotomy, even if this one falls, you still have all your work before you to meet your burden of proof for your theistic claims.
Not so, you are again mistaken. Krauss did in fact admit it right there on the Colbert video. See it for yourself. As I recall, Colbert closed the interview by saying ..... in response to his admission that you had to start with a box of ‘something’ ........”.... and that is not nothing!”
Further, I did indeed buy the book and did indeed read it. It was clear that the title of the book was simply a come on and gave the wrong impression about a “universe” from nothing. He also did indeed say that science has now shown “God” is not necessary to explain how the universe came into existence.
I have never said nor implied that refuting Magic Larry proves there is a god. You just made that up. This is simply more bob and weave from you. I suspect you brought that up to deflect from your errors and misrepresentations.
The tax collector said: “Lord Jesus, have mercy on me, a sinner.” Jesus said he went home “justified.”
Well, you declined to explain why you accused me of being dishonest.
You simply do a cut and paste of some Bart Ehrman yada yada and somehow think you’ve justified your comment.
Not so.....
This reminds me of how strongly you stood behind Magic Larry Krause when he came out with his book about how science could show how the universe “came from nothing.” Stephen Colbert embarrassed him and Krause finally admitted that you had to start with “something.” His comments about “not needing a God to explain the universe” proved to be just more baloney ginned up to boost books sales. He further discredited himself when ASU canned him for his sexual improprieties and relationship with Epstein.
So why am I bringing this up? You hailed Magic Larry and he turned out to be just a huckster.
The same is true of Bart Ehrman..... he’s a book salesman and found his audience. He cares little for the truth but he has found itching ears to scratch.
Read “Misquoting Truth: A Guide to the Fallacies of Bart Ehrman’s ‘Misquoting Jesus’”
Again you're being dishonest. Never "finally admitted that you had to start with “something.”", In his book (which I'm sure you've never read) he's very up front about how he defines "nothing" as he is in his video presentations.
Besides even if Krause's hypothesis is not true, it doesn't not prove your god, you are creating a false dichotomy, even if this one falls, you still have all your work before you to meet your burden of proof for your theistic claims.
Not so, you are again mistaken. Krauss did in fact admit it right there on the Colbert video. See it for yourself. As I recall, Colbert closed the interview by saying ..... in response to his admission that you had to start with a box of ‘something’ ........”.... and that is not nothing!”
Further, I did indeed buy the book and did indeed read it. It was clear that the title of the book was simply a come on and gave the wrong impression about a “universe” from nothing. He also did indeed say that science has now shown “God” is not necessary to explain how the universe came into existence.
I have never said nor implied that refuting Magic Larry proves there is a god. You just made that up. This is simply more bob and weave from you. I suspect you brought that up to deflect from your errors and misrepresentations.
I didn't bring up Krauss in this thread, you did.
T Create a strawman, then accuse the opposition of bringing up said strawman? Wow, that's not what I would expect from you.
Last edited by antelope_sniper; 06/15/20.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
Well, you declined to explain why you accused me of being dishonest.
You simply do a cut and paste of some Bart Ehrman yada yada and somehow think you’ve justified your comment.
Not so.....
This reminds me of how strongly you stood behind Magic Larry Krause when he came out with his book about how science could show how the universe “came from nothing.” Stephen Colbert embarrassed him and Krause finally admitted that you had to start with “something.” His comments about “not needing a God to explain the universe” proved to be just more baloney ginned up to boost books sales. He further discredited himself when ASU canned him for his sexual improprieties and relationship with Epstein.
So why am I bringing this up? You hailed Magic Larry and he turned out to be just a huckster.
The same is true of Bart Ehrman..... he’s a book salesman and found his audience. He cares little for the truth but he has found itching ears to scratch.
Read “Misquoting Truth: A Guide to the Fallacies of Bart Ehrman’s ‘Misquoting Jesus’”
Again you're being dishonest. Never "finally admitted that you had to start with “something.”", In his book (which I'm sure you've never read) he's very up front about how he defines "nothing" as he is in his video presentations.
Besides even if Krause's hypothesis is not true, it doesn't not prove your god, you are creating a false dichotomy, even if this one falls, you still have all your work before you to meet your burden of proof for your theistic claims.
Not so, you are again mistaken. Krauss did in fact admit it right there on the Colbert video. See it for yourself. As I recall, Colbert closed the interview by saying ..... in response to his admission that you had to start with a box of ‘something’ ........”.... and that is not nothing!”
Further, I did indeed buy the book and did indeed read it. It was clear that the title of the book was simply a come on and gave the wrong impression about a “universe” from nothing. He also did indeed say that science has now shown “God” is not necessary to explain how the universe came into existence.
I have never said nor implied that refuting Magic Larry proves there is a god. You just made that up. This is simply more bob and weave from you. I suspect you brought that up to deflect from your errors and misrepresentations.
I didn't bring up Krauss in this thread, you did.
T Create a strawman, then accuse the opposition of bringing up said strawman? Wow, that's not what I would expect from you.
Wrong again, I brought up Krauss to show you that Bart Ehrman is just like him.... a book salesman.
You post links and excerpts from these guys and go on to assert that these “experts” support what ever thesis you espouse at the time. This is simply not true.....
Now, what is this condescending baloney about “.... not what I would expect from you....?
Assuming an undeserved air of superiority? This may be a characteristic of a ...... well, you look it up.
A last pathetic shot from someone who sees himself swamped and sinking in his own misrepresentations and cannot defend his allegations?
Well, that’s enough for tonight. We can resume tomorrow if you like. G’night.
Last edited by TF49; 06/15/20.
The tax collector said: “Lord Jesus, have mercy on me, a sinner.” Jesus said he went home “justified.”
Genesis was believed to be a literal account of the creation of the world by God, as written by people who had no idea about the age, scale or scope of the world or the universe.
Many believers in this day and age move away from a literal interpretation of genesis because a literal creation as described in genesis is clearly wrong.
If the earth were billions of years old, then nuclear decay would have made all uranium turn into lead by now.
This is simply not true. Over 99% of the naturally occurring uranium in the world is U-238, and its half-life is 4.5 billion years. That means that we have half as much U-238 in the world now as we did 4.5 billion years ago when the earth was formed. It also means that in another 4.5 billion years, we will still have half as much U-238 in the world then as we do now. And in another 9 billion years, we will still have half as much U-238 in the world then as we will have in another 4.5 billion years from now.
Yep. Yet that old chestnut is dragged out time after time regardless of explanation.
Come move Pike's Peak for me with nothing but your Faith.
All we need see is some good old text book miracles - walk on water, water into wine, bring to life a 3 day cold cadaver,...
Many more christians now with bucketloads of faith , yet none able to replicate the above.
Still no Christian here can explain where the physical body of Jesus ended up after ascending into the clouds.. unless they are suggesting one is flesh & blood in the heavenly spiritual Realm?
-Bulletproof and Waterproof don't mean Idiotproof.
Thankfully man will never be able to disprove the existence of God or an afterlife of glory for His followers.
If man could fully disprove it, I'd be worried about god's followers . Many need that carrot at the end of the stick to keep them from doing bad things, without it, they'd be the worse around.
Just watched a show about Jericho tonight on TV. According to the show, archeologists have determined that Jericho had been reduced to rubble and ashes by nearby rival tribes several hundred years before the Israelites were in the area. According to that show, the Israelites must have stolen local legends from earlier in time about Jericho, and rewrote themselves into the tale as the victors. Pretty interesting stuff.
what dates do they give for the destruction of Jericho? and, What date do they give for the Exodus?
Thankfully man will never be able to disprove the existence of God or an afterlife of glory for His followers.
If man could fully disprove it, I'd be worried about god's followers . Many need that carrot at the end of the stick to keep them from doing bad things, without it, they'd be the worse around.
Thankfully man will never disprove the existence of Odin, Tor, Freya, Loki, Balder and all the other Gods my ancestors followed... or the other 20.000+++ Gods other people belive in.
The US in the last 40 years:
Socialism for big corporations and military industrial complex
Thankfully man will never be able to disprove the existence of God or an afterlife of glory for His followers.
If man could fully disprove it, I'd be worried about god's followers . Many need that carrot at the end of the stick to keep them from doing bad things, without it, they'd be the worse around.
Thankfully man will never disprove the existence of Odin, Tor, Freya, Loki, Balder and all the other Gods my ancestors followed... or the other 20.000+++ Gods other people belive in.
You left out Zero. Remember when you told us we had nothing to fear regarding losing our guns to dhimmicraps, or something like that?
None of us alive today can testify about observed events in biblical times.
You are correct. But we have scientists called aerologists who study history. None of the stories of the Bible have been proven untrue and many, many have been confirmed by them.
Did you really say aerologists study history? In an argument about mythology vs reality?
Wowsers....
Didnt know atmoshperic scientists can confirm biblical stories.... i guess you could argue they are studying the “heavens” hahahaha
Sorry for the spell check error. Let's try it again. Archeologists. Does that make more sense?
A wee wee bit lmao..
But they also uncover facts that counter the biblical claims too... lots of them.
Name five, please.
"Only Christ is the fullness of God's revelation." Everyday Hunter
The Bible also says a day in Gods eyes is as a thousand years to man. So a literal 7 human or earth days may not be to God. Another fact. Honey bees use logarithms to tell distance to flowers to other bees with a brain the size of a pinhead. Some plants cannot survive without bees and the bees cannot survive without flowering plants. Which evolved first? I think they were created first.
The college professor who discovered the granite rock creation was at the University of Tennessee in the 1980's. Don't remember his name.
The Bible also says a day in Gods eyes is as a thousand years to man. So a literal 7 human or earth days may not be to God. Another fact. Honey bees use logarithms to tell distance to flowers to other bees with a brain the size of a pinhead. Some plants cannot survive without bees and the bees cannot survive without flowering plants. Which evolved first?
They co-evolved. Originally, the plants benefited from incidental contact with the bees, but didn't depend on them. Gradually, they came to depend on them. Same with the nectar vis a vis the bees.
God didn't literally, using his hands, mold Adam from the muck of the earth (as it's poetically described in Genesis). Just like God didn't literally deliver Israel from an iron furnace, as it's described in Deuteronomy. The latter was a poetical way of stating that it was harsh for the Israelites in Egypt. God molding Adam from muck, similarly, refers to Adam's origins stemming from inorganic matter.
I like to think of it this way and is similar to your statement.
"God formed man from the dust of the earth...."
what was the smallest particles man knew about thousands of years ago? "dust". Now if God said that He formed man from atoms, molecules, protons, electrons, neutrons, etc , man would not have any concept of what He was talking about..... until the microscope was invented. What is this "dust"? the same particles of matter that the earth is made of, yet arranged differently.
Does this mean that God did not literally use "real dust"? no. He could/can do whatever He wants.
Abiogensis (life arising from non-living matter" is a main teaching that Macroevolutionists must believe..... if the universe has a beginning. Unfortunately, many Christians discount abiogenesis, yet the Book of Genesis actually supports the concept of abiogenesis....... because "God formed man from the dust of the earth."
Young Earth Creationist Fundamentalists are an unusual bunch to me. They so badly want to argue against evolutionists that they actually contradict the Bible in their own argument. The Bible supports a "Big Bang" type of event and it also demands abiogenesis as true. Also, the Hebrew word "Yom" found in Genesis and translated as "day" does not literally or always refer to a 24 hour period of time. It literally means the ending of one time period and the beginning of another.
When one studies the Hebrew instead of the King James Version, one comes to understand that a 6,000 yr old earth viewpoint is not demanded by Scripture and an ancient earth is actually more logical when examining Genesis 1-3.
If the earth were billions of years old, then nuclear decay would have made all uranium turn into lead by now.
This is simply not true. Over 99% of the naturally occurring uranium in the world is U-238, and its half-life is 4.5 billion years. That means that we have half as much U-238 in the world now as we did 4.5 billion years ago when the earth was formed. It also means that in another 4.5 billion years, we will still have half as much U-238 in the world then as we do now. And in another 9 billion years, we will still have half as much U-238 in the world then as we will have in another 4.5 billion years from now.
This goes back to assumption on top of assumption on top of assumption. You assume there was no daughter product in the beginning. You assume the rate has never changed. You assume none has been leached out or migrated into your sample. And there are many times more radiometric systems that show a much younger earth than show an older earth. The scientists who use the slow ones do so because they know they need billions of years for evolution to function. They are like the media. Dishonest.
"Only Christ is the fullness of God's revelation." Everyday Hunter
None of us alive today can testify about observed events in biblical times.
You are correct. But we have scientists called aerologists who study history. None of the stories of the Bible have been proven untrue and many, many have been confirmed by them.
Did you really say aerologists study history? In an argument about mythology vs reality?
Wowsers....
Didnt know atmoshperic scientists can confirm biblical stories.... i guess you could argue they are studying the “heavens” hahahaha
Sorry for the spell check error. Let's try it again. Archeologists. Does that make more sense?
A wee wee bit lmao..
But they also uncover facts that counter the biblical claims too... lots of them.
![[Linked Image from darrellcreswell.files.wordpress.com]](https://darrellcreswell.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/mustard-seed-faith-matthew-1720.jpg)
