A Question About Your Eternal Destiny (See Poll).

[QUOTE="123625"]Crush and Black, creationisn is not needed to be beleived in inorder to be christian. It was not written by God.blackregiment

You are free to believe that if you wish. Jesus, the Creator, confirmed a literal Adam and Eve. To accept your premise one would have to believe that Jesus was a liar. God cannot lie.

For all we know,Jesus could've been a liar and a con artist.I mean,with curing the blind miracle,the man might have been pretending to be blind.And jesus went around telling people that he is the son of god back when people were more gulliable.It's one of the main reasons why I don't believe in Christianity.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"] Not necessarily. And yes, biased sources are less reliable because their bias clouds their judgment of the facts.Crushmaster

Ultimately, I might enter heaven because I try to be a good person. This is what my religion tells me.MFaraz_Hayat

[QUOTE="MFaraz_Hayat"]Ultimately, I might enter heaven because I try to be a good person. This is what my religion tells me.harashawn

An objective study of the presuppositions in the Bible would not be very biased at all, and generally would be an acceptable source. Granted, they wouldn't help your point at all. "Creation reserach?" The fact that there is an institution that has the goal of proving Creationism "right" invalidates the source immediately. There is mountains of scientific evidence that proves that literal Creation is not fact.foxhound_fox

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"] "The fact that it changes lives more positively than any other belief system?" How about those who died during the Crusades? How about the native populations that were decimated by European colonisation? How about the discrimination of Protestants by the Catholics? Crushmaster

It was written by an athiest, but your statement, and indeed the opinion piece written, are bunk:

1. The Crusades were fought between the Christian and Muslim Theocratic Kingdoms to reclaim the Holy Land, the same Holy Land for both Christianity and Islam.

2. You're right, but then again one of the primary reasons for colonisation was to spread the "glories" of Christ to the uninformed masses.

3. And yet are still considered as a sect of Christianity...

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="blackregiment"]

No, they can write whatever they want. I have researched the biographies and writing of that group and I do not accept their theories.

blackregiment

To discredit the Word of God.

so the bible is right and all other religions and beliefs are wrong because more people believe in itMcManus107

[QUOTE="Frattracide"] Those two pages are full of assumption and speculation. They don't cite any valid sources or experiments to support their baseless claims and I seriously doubt they were submitted for peer review.Crushmaster

In my mind to be considered a valid source an article has to include the following:

1. No assumptions. That means if you want to claim A caused B then you have to prove A exists and you have to show your evidence and experimentation that led to that conclusion.

2. Cited sources. If you reference an event (like an archaeological expedition) or experiment (like the dating of a fossil) or a previous article (to support a claim in your article)

3. Well documented processes. If you preformed an experiment, then that experiment needs to be documented to the extent that it can be repeated in an independent laboratory.

4. Submission to peer review. If it is not published in a reputable journal, then it is not submitted to peer review.

So far your sources have had none of those qualities.

For all we know,Jesus could've been a liar and a con artist.I mean,with curing the blind miracle,the man might have been pretending to be blind.And jesus went around telling people that he is the son of god back when people were more gulliable.It's one of the main reasons why I don't believe in Christianity.McManus107

C.S Lewis ftw!

[QUOTE="Crushmaster"]Out of curiosity, what would you consider a "valid" source?foxhound_fox

Well then, if you are interested in that, then here's what you do. Rather than expecting others to do your research for you, why don't you provide archaeological evidence that proves conclusively that a person, place, or event recorded in the Bible is in error. Rather than just attempting to discredit the sources of evidence we supply, provide evidence of your choice that refutes the archaeology of the Bible.

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"][QUOTE="blackregiment"]

No, they can write whatever they want. I have researched the biographies and writing of that group and I do not accept their theories.

blackregiment

And the Christian websites don't ever do that?

Did I say that? You are free to reject anything you wish and so am I. Rather than just attempt to discredit the sources of the mountain of links I provided, why don' t you provide a like number of links to archaeological evidence from secular sources that disproves a person, place, or event listed in the Bible. That's the way to approach it. I am not here to do your research for you. I have done mine and am certain of my beliefs.

[QUOTE="McManus107"] so the bible is right and all other religions and beliefs are wrong because more people believe in itCrushmaster

then what did you say?

Wrong. Jesus could have been speaking allegorically.Funky_Llama

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"][QUOTE="blackregiment"]

No, they can write whatever they want. I have researched the biographies and writing of that group and I do not accept their theories.

blackregiment

And the Christian websites don't ever do that?

Did I say that? You are free to reject anything you wish and so am I. Rather than just attempt to discredit the sources of the mountain of links I provided, why don' t you provide a like number of links to archaeological evidence from secular sources that disproves a person, place, or event listed in the Bible. That's the way to approach it. I am not here to do your research for you. I have done mine and am certain of my beliefs.

And yet I'm not the one making unverified claims. All I have done is debunk your claims with simple common sense. You are trying to confirm a belief by using the belief in and of itself. You are basically saying that Christianity is the one, true religion because the Christian holy book says so. Indeed, I could say that Hinduism is the one, true religion because the Hindu holy book says so. Does that make me just as right as you?

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"] Wrong. Jesus could have been speaking allegorically.Crushmaster

[QUOTE="blackregiment"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]But it was their motives you were attacking, despite the fact that you were complaining about us doing the same with the sources you quote. What, by the way, were their motives?Funky_Llama

To discredit the Word of God.

Feel free to do your own research and come to your own opinions. I am not here to do your research for you.

then what did you say?McManus107

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="blackregiment"]

No, they can write whatever they want. I have researched the biographies and writing of that group and I do not accept their theories.

blackregiment

To discredit the Word of God.

Not everyone can conform with your rigid beliefs, y'know.

Most anyone (aside from yourself) can conclude that the Bible is, at least, a somewhat dubious source for historical information, due to its age, multiple translations and just how vague the darn thing is. The people behind the book I posted sifted through all the junk and picked out what can actually be proven and what likely happened in the Bible.

I'm sorry if pointing out glaring flaws "discredits" your favorite book (and entire belief system). Perhaps you'd like all the errors and inaccuracies intact?

Considering probably every single secular university/research institution whole-heartedly supports evolution, I do not see how that invalidates it. As to the last sentence of your post, I have yet to see these "mountains" of "scientific evidence" disprove literal creation, that cannot itself be disproven by something else.Crushmaster

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]An objective study of the presuppositions in the Bible would not be very biased at all, and generally would be an acceptable source. Granted, they wouldn't help your point at all. "Creation reserach?" The fact that there is an institution that has the goal of proving Creationism "right" invalidates the source immediately. There is mountains of scientific evidence that proves that literal Creation is not fact.Crushmaster

And this doesn't suggest something to you about the veracity of evolution? Not even slightly?

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"] Wrong. Jesus could have been speaking allegorically.Crushmaster

[QUOTE="Crushmaster"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"] Wrong. Jesus could have been speaking allegorically.Teenaged

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="blackregiment"]

To discredit the Word of God.

blackregiment

Feel free to do your own research and come to your own opinions. I am not here to do your research for you.

Strange, given how eager you usually are to dump a metric tonne of unreliable links on me. I wonder why that could be.

By the way, pigs fly. I'm not proving it though - you should do your own research.

It was written by an athiest, but your statement, and indeed the opinion piece written, are bunk:

1. The Crusades were fought between the Christian and Muslim Theocratic Kingdoms to reclaim the Holy Land, the same Holy Land for both Christianity and Islam.

2. You're right, but then again one of the primary reasons for colonisation was to spread the "glories" of Christ to the uninformed masses.

3. And yet are still considered as a sect of Christianity...

tycoonmike

[QUOTE="McManus107"] then what did you say?Crushmaster

yes,but I misunderstood it so what did you mean when you said

[QUOTE="Crushmaster"]Considering probably every single secular university/research institution whole-heartedly supports evolution, I do not see how that invalidates it. As to the last sentence of your post, I have yet to see these "mountains" of "scientific evidence" disprove literal creation, that cannot itself be disproven by something else.foxhound_fox

Also, it's strange how young-earth creationists never try picking a fight with the hubble constant.

[QUOTE="McManus107"]For all we know,Jesus could've been a liar and a con artist.I mean,with curing the blind miracle,the man might have been pretending to be blind.And jesus went around telling people that he is the son of god back when people were more gulliable.It's one of the main reasons why I don't believe in Christianity.123625

C.S Lewis ftw!

Thats a bit of a false trichotomy isn't it?

He could also be just a regular guy whos deeds were grossly exaggerated over a period of time thorough the tradition of oral storytelling.

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"][QUOTE="Crushmaster"]Indeed?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4168.aspCrushmaster

Your links are flawed.

The first link just says that fossils were made during the flood because there was a lot of water and mud for them to be buried in. We know this one to be true at least, but both the geological time scale and radiometric dating confirm that this happens over millions of year, not a few thousand. If the Bible were true, we'd expect to see a lot more younger bones to have undergone mineralisation. Fossils aren't bone anymore, they're rock and I don't know of any source showing that this can happen within a few thousand years.

Your second link about the Great Flood also makes a gross misconception about mountain building processes. These are a result of plate tectonics, so ocean floors get pushed up to the surface of mountains. If the Old World were flooded as the Bible says it was, we'd expect many other parts of the world to be flooded as well, as water must stay level, yet we have no references of this in the Americas, Australia, New Zealand etc. There's also no sources citing how water can mould canyons and mountains so very fast, the maths just doesn't add up. It also makes a gross assumption about India hitting Asia within the last few thousand years, which we KNOW is impossible because continents only move 1 centimetre a year

Neither of your links provide further reading on scientific studies. It just makes an assumption and expects you to believe it. Where's the sources on radiometric dating? Geological time scale? Fossilisation process in thousands of years, not millions? Any sources on flash floods shaping landscapes? How does it account for plate tectonics? Where is the evidence that the Old World had less extreme topography? If the Bible is scientifically accurate, why are these people not accounting for all current scientific disciplines?

[QUOTE="Teenaged"][QUOTE="Crushmaster"]
Only if this verse was lying: (Luke 3:38) - "Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God."
This verse is from the geneaology (not sure if I spelled that right) of Christ.123625

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"]It was written by an athiest, but your statement, and indeed the opinion piece written, are bunk:

1. The Crusades were fought between the Christian and Muslim Theocratic Kingdoms to reclaim the Holy Land, the same Holy Land for both Christianity and Islam.

2. You're right, but then again one of the primary reasons for colonisation was to spread the "glories" of Christ to the uninformed masses.

3. And yet are still considered as a sect of Christianity...

Crushmaster

Since you agree with me on two of the three points, how is killing in the name of a religion bringing peace to the world?

In other words, you don't have any. ;)Funky_Llama

That's very interesting.
1: Claiming to be Christian and being Christian are two very different things.
2: I don't need to comment on this.
3: Yes, they are, as is Mormonism and the Jehovah's Witnesses. The Bible says that only those who accept Christ as their Savior and repent of their sins are Christians. Nearly all Catholics have not done that; they trust in their works, which cannot save them.Crushmaster

[QUOTE="blackregiment"][QUOTE="tycoonmike"]

And the Christian websites don't ever do that?

tycoonmike

Did I say that? You are free to reject anything you wish and so am I. Rather than just attempt to discredit the sources of the mountain of links I provided, why don' t you provide a like number of links to archaeological evidence from secular sources that disproves a person, place, or event listed in the Bible. That's the way to approach it. I am not here to do your research for you. I have done mine and am certain of my beliefs.

And yet I'm not the one making unverified claims. All I have done is debunk your claims with simple common sense. You are trying to confirm a belief by using the belief in and of itself. You are basically saying that Christianity is the one, true religion because the Christian holy book says so. Indeed, I could say that Hinduism is the one, true religion because the Hindu holy book says so. Does that make me just as right as you?

You are free to believe what ever you choose. That being said, you keep complaining about the evidence I have supplied to support the accuracy of the archaeology of the Bible. I claim that it is accurate, you don't seem to think so. Let's take a quick tally on the evidence provided so far to support each of our opinions.

Blackregiment 39

Tycoonmike 0

I'd say you have some catching up to do. :)

[QUOTE="blackregiment"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]And your evidence for this is...?Funky_Llama

Feel free to do your own research and come to your own opinions. I am not here to do your research for you.

It seems to be the christian thing.give proof if you have,tell them to do their own research or revert back to talking about faith if they don't have proof

The fact that a site is trying to validate an already invalid claim proven wrong by the reliable academic community does in fact invalid it as a source for anything within the confines of an objective debate.

The Earth is not 6000-10000 years old. This has already been proven false. The major piece of evidence that so proves this is the dating of all the geological formations on the planet, which has the age of the Earth to be about 4.54 billion years old. Read this article if you want to know how they do it. We also have ice cores from glaciers that are older than the proposed literal creation age of the Earth.foxhound_fox

[QUOTE="123625"]

As i beleive he was either the Lord, a liar, or a lunatic.

C.S Lewis ftw!

Frattracide

Thats a bit of a false trichotomy isn't it?

He could also be just a regular guy whos deeds were grossly exaggerated over a period of time thorough the tradition of oral storytelling.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"] In other words, you don't have any. ;)Crushmaster

Well then, if you are interested in that, then here's what you do. Rather than expecting others to do your research for you, why don't you provide archaeological evidence that proves conclusively that a person, place, or event recorded in the Bible is in error. Rather than just attempting to discredit the sources of evidence we supply, provide evidence of your choice that refutes the archaeology of the Bible. blackregiment

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"][QUOTE="blackregiment"]

Did I say that? You are free to reject anything you wish and so am I. Rather than just attempt to discredit the sources of the mountain of links I provided, why don' t you provide a like number of links to archaeological evidence from secular sources that disproves a person, place, or event listed in the Bible. That's the way to approach it. I am not here to do your research for you. I have done mine and am certain of my beliefs.

blackregiment

And yet I'm not the one making unverified claims. All I have done is debunk your claims with simple common sense. You are trying to confirm a belief by using the belief in and of itself. You are basically saying that Christianity is the one, true religion because the Christian holy book says so. Indeed, I could say that Hinduism is the one, true religion because the Hindu holy book says so. Does that make me just as right as you?

You are free to believe what ever you choose. That being said, you keep complaining about the evidence I have supplied to support the accuracy of the archaeology of the Bible. I claim that it is accurate, you don't seem to think so. Let's take a quick tally on the evidence provided so far to support each of our opinions.

Blackregiment 39

Tycoonmike 0

I'd say you have some catching up to do. :)

Oh, you are funny! Unjustified "proof" is as good as no proof.

[QUOTE="Frattracide"][QUOTE="123625"]

As i beleive he was either the Lord, a liar, or a lunatic.

C.S Lewis ftw!

123625

Thats a bit of a false trichotomy isn't it?

He could also be just a regular guy whos deeds were grossly exaggerated over a period of time thorough the tradition of oral storytelling.

[QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="Teenaged"]Still sounds as an allegory to me.Teenaged

[QUOTE="Crushmaster"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"] In other words, you don't have any. ;)Funky_Llama

He doesn't like my book... :(

Dude what do you have against catholics? They beleive in the salvation in sins.123625

Well I have to go to dinner. I have enjoyed the discussion. Till later, God bless.blackregiment

You are free to believe what ever you choose. That being said, you keep complaining about the evidence I have supplied to support the accuracy of the archaeology of the Bible. I claim that it is accurate, you don't seem to think so. Let's take a quick tally on the evidence provided so far to support each of our opinions.

Blackregiment 39

Tycoonmike 0

I'd say you have some catching up to do. :)

blackregiment

You didn't provide evidence, you provided links to apologetic websites. And half of them were pointless. Claims made in the bible are not valid just because certain buildings existed or certain people may have existed. and those nouns happened to be in the bible. One could produce a similar list for the koran.