Logic dictates that there is a God!

[AlgyTaylor]

Or the Euphrates ... but yeah, that's what I suspect the Garden of Eden was. I don't for one minute deny that there are some grounds behind bible stories. I just don't think that they should be taken as anything more than that ... stories.

[Jesse, Bad Boy]

well you know the bible is lest than 2000 years old and its only a collective of other tribes storys, out of the dust more than likey means when homo sapiens first managed to cross the desert of north africa and got into europe they must off seen europe a garden of eden

North Africa wasn't quite the desert it is now back when Homo Sapiens started its migration, but rather a stretch of plains and grasslands. That, and the application of Euhemerism is not a valid way of accepting history. Granted, while interesting to speculate over, it holds very little water when it stands on its own.

[Balsiefen]

The bible was written by the romans about 200 years after christ when one man decided that the 30 contradicting gospels shoud be cut down to four that were both mainstream and didn't contredict as much. He chose Mathew Mark Luke and John, the others were ignored and many have been lost. There was even a Gospal of Judas.

Christianity only became mainstream when Constantine decided to make a empire-wide religion and chose the small cult his mother happend to worship.

Even christmas is only on the 25th of december because most religions had a midwinter festival-it was actually the day of Apollinasia one of the other large religions.

[WL_southerner]

when homo sapeins made the move out off africa it was all ready a desert just not has big has it is now it started to go dry at the end of the second from last ice age

[Jesse, Bad Boy]

when homo sapeins made the move out off africa it was all ready a desert just not has big has it is now it started to go dry at the end of the second from last ice age

The Sahara was not a full desert until as recently as 2500 BCE, and didn't start becoming a more desert like area until 8000 BCE-5000 BCE (sauce). Homo sapiens, on the other hand, started moving out of Africa nearly 170,000 years ago, as shown on the below map.



This is a map of human races migration, according to the mitochondrial DNA. Numbers represent thousand years before present time (time units used with Radiocarbon dating). The blue line represents area covered in ice or tundra during the last great ice age. Numbers represent thousand of years before present The letters are the mitochondrial DNA haplogroups (pure motherly lineages); Haplogroups can be used to define genetic populations and are often geographically orientated.

[WL_southerner]

nice map but do you know off the chedder man his bones was carbon dated back to 2000 years after the last ice age they cant get any dna from him because after 400 years its unlikey you get any unless the the body been mummiefed like in the peat bogs mummys in europe and they dont go back far enough most are only about 150,000 bc

[Jesse, Bad Boy]

nice map but do you know off the chedder man his bones was carbon dated back to 2000 years after the last ice age they cant get any dna from him because after 400 years its unlikey you get any unless the the body been mummiefed like in the peat bogs mummys in europe and they dont go back far enough most are only about 150,000 bc

Actually I do know about the Cheddar man, but that has little relevance to the topic at hand. If you're trying to use the Cheddar man as proof that North Africa was a desert, you'd be wrong, because it was still a temperate area.

Moreover, they did take mitochondrial DNA from Cheddar Man, they extracted it from his molar.

[WL_southerner]

was not posable they tried but but would need to destroy the whole skelton and probley still not get a dna straind
the reason why they cant get dna from bones after so long is, the rotting body gives out an acid that destroys dna
it was climet changes that made homo sapiens make the move out of africa due it becoming dry
i hope thats a rough map because scotland was under ice

[morph]

logic dictates that Pgrizzle should kill this freakin thread and all the other thread killers should come in to help... as im not sure pgrizzle will be able to kill this thread with just his power..

[XenHu]

Pgrizzle?


HAHAHAHA..

-X

[AlgyTaylor]

2) Why didn't God prevent a false translation in the Bible? You said that he wouldn't allow any errors in the Bible.


I'm not questioning whether or not the Bible is the word of God or not, just establishing that - because of human error - it contains errors. I'll get on to the deeper theological debate once we've passed the first milestone of accepting that regardless of whether God exists or not, the Bible, divinely inspired or not, is primarily a human creation which contains human errors.

Well done Jay, you did well on question 1; basically it's an ambiguous passage which I've taken to mean one thing and you another ...

But please, answer my second question. But bear in mind that you'll get a lot more of them

Good speaking with you man.

[Darklight]

I'll answer the question for him. the simple asnswer is yes. This weather you believe the bible or not is an undisputable fact that due to freewill and basic human error, divine inspirition or not(to be disputed later-I recomend a new thread for that one) the Bible contains MANY human errors and must NOT be taken literaly, to do this is to rationalize that you could do anything and claim that the bible told you too. We cannot expect any human work to be one of perfection. We could believe that due to God giving humans free will, he cannot interfere with any worldly event no matter how small. Ever heard of the Butterfly Effect? To make a perfectly believable work would be to try and convince people to follow any of god's religions. This would break "His" #1 rule that no religious fanatic could dispute that man was created with Free Will. And #2 he cannot directly change any event. At least that's what I was taught by my church.

[Jesse, Bad Boy]

I'll answer the question for him. the simple asnswer is yes. This weather you believe the bible or not is an undisputable fact that due to freewill and basic human error, divine inspirition or not(to be disputed later-I recomend a new thread for that one) the Bible contains MANY human errors and must NOT be taken literaly, to do this is to rationalize that you could do anything and claim that the bible told you too. We cannot expect any human work to be one of perfection. We could believe that due to God giving humans free will, he cannot interfere with any worldly event no matter how small. Ever heard of the Butterfly Effect? To make a perfectly believable work would be to try and convince people to follow any of god's religions. This would break "His" #1 rule that no religious fanatic could dispute that man was created with Free Will. And #2 he cannot directly change any event. At least that's what I was taught by my church.

For an omnipotent creator-figure, there sure is a whole lot that "God" cannot accomplish or manage.

[AlgyTaylor]

the Bible contains MANY human errors and must NOT be taken literaly

Yeah, that's basically what I'm trying to establish first.

[vtmarik]

For an omnipotent creator-figure, there sure is a whole lot that "God" cannot accomplish or manage.

If He could, then there'd be no need for Organized Religion to exist. The money would dry up and they'd go out of business.

Religion is the oldest profession, despite what others may think.

[AAFitz]

...but instead you seem to reject scientific research that is beyond plausible, and is more than probable, and focus on arguments and points that are so basically flawed, and simplified, that one cant help but not consider them illogical

I'm not better then anyone here or anywhere for that matter. I don't think Science is bunk. I have a problem when Science tries to explain away our surroundings leaving God out of the equation. God gives man intelligence, then man turns around and uses that intelligence to try to disprove God. And you are right... some will chose to believe and others will not. Yet logic dictates there is a God.

you have to admit....he is good at this...to be able to respond like this is a talent...i mean you almost want to believe it...its stated so simply that you could mistake it for him quoting something that has been proven to be true

the disregard for the scientific facts in here is kind of silly, but his ability to hold off this many people all at once is pretty good....

im pretty sure if he worked with the top scientists in the world for a year, and they spent all that time working to show him some of the things he doesnt believe....that at the end of it, he would still have the resolve to be able to just say...i dont believe it....right or wrong...that takes some guts

not to say id want him to be teaching a course on logic

to quote The Princess Bride:

i do not think that word means what you think it means

[unriggable]

nice map but do you know off the chedder man his bones was carbon dated back to 2000 years after the last ice age they cant get any dna from him because after 400 years its unlikey you get any unless the the body been mummiefed like in the peat bogs mummys in europe and they dont go back far enough most are only about 150,000 bc

They got DNA from a neanderthal, 2000 years isnt that far back.

[WL_southerner]

they cant get dna from bones that are over 400 years old has rotting flesh gives out and acid that destroys dna, only way is though mummifed bodys

[unriggable]

...but they got it from a neanderthal...which was very, very old.

http://www.jqjacobs.net/anthro/paleo/neanderthal.html

[Jesse, Bad Boy]

was not posable they tried but but would need to destroy the whole skelton and probley still not get a dna straind
the reason why they cant get dna from bones after so long is, the rotting body gives out an acid that destroys dna
it was climet changes that made homo sapiens make the move out of africa due it becoming dry
i hope thats a rough map because scotland was under ice

I spent a few hours trying to figure out what you said here (thus far you have neglected any accepted standard of English that I am aware of), and I think I have the answers to what I think you said.

was not posable they tried but but would need to destroy the whole skelton and probley still not get a dna straind
the reason why they cant get dna from bones after so long is, the rotting body gives out an acid that destroys dna

Yes, it is possible. You're clearly misinformed or do not know modern DNA extraction standards.

it was climet changes that made homo sapiens make the move out of africa due it becoming dry

We have no conclusive proof of this, and the fact they migrated out when it was rather temperate in Africa makes that theory almost obsolete.

i hope thats a rough map because scotland was under ice

............................................________
....................................,.-‘”...................``~.,
.............................,.-”...................................“-.,
.........................,/...............................................”:,
.....................,?......................................................\,
.................../...........................................................,}
................./......................................................,:`^`..}
.............../...................................................,:”........./
..............?.....__.........................................:`.........../
............./__.(.....“~-,_..............................,:`........../
.........../(_....”~,_........“~,_....................,:`........_/
..........{.._$;_......”=,_.......“-,_.......,.-~-,},.~”;/....}
...........((.....*~_.......”=-._......“;,,./`..../”............../
...,,,___.\`~,......“~.,....................`.....}............../
............(....`=-,,.......`........................(......;_,,-”
............/.`~,......`-...............................\....../\
.............\`~.*-,.....................................|,./.....\,__
,,_..........}.>-._\...................................|..............`=~-,
.....`=~-,_\_......`\,.................................\
...................`=~-,,.\,...............................\
................................`:,,...........................`\..............__
.....................................`=-,...................,%`>--==``
........................................_\..........._,-%.......`\
...................................,<`.._|_,-&``................`\

It's not representative of the climate changes, but rather the migration of Homo Sapiens over the course of time. I was showing how humans migrated out of Africa between 170-150 BCE, waaaaay before the Sahara turned into a dustbowl.

[unriggable]

they cant get dna from bones that are over 400 years old has rotting flesh gives out and acid that destroys dna, only way is though mummifed bodys

That's not why, the reason is because other DNA gets dropped in from the doctors analyzing.

[WL_southerner]

unriggable are you in england if so watch the next horzin programs there going to be very intresting, its about the only mummifed neanthal man there is, that was found in sommerset levels in the hard peat bogs
each week they be doing a lead up to it,i think the first one is a up date about the ice man it might be about the ice maidain ,each week will be diffrent all leading up to the neanthal man, there 6 programs all together

[jay_a2j]

2) Why didn't God prevent a false translation in the Bible? You said that he wouldn't allow any errors in the Bible.


I'm not questioning whether or not the Bible is the word of God or not, just establishing that - because of human error - it contains errors. I'll get on to the deeper theological debate once we've passed the first milestone of accepting that regardless of whether God exists or not, the Bible, divinely inspired or not, is primarily a human creation which contains human errors.

Well done Jay, you did well on question 1; basically it's an ambiguous passage which I've taken to mean one thing and you another ...

But please, answer my second question. But bear in mind that you'll get a lot more of them

Good speaking with you man.

Thats like asking why God didn't prevent 911. Or the December 2005 Tsunami. I can't answer it. But 911 was free will.

[Jesse, Bad Boy]

2) Why didn't God prevent a false translation in the Bible? You said that he wouldn't allow any errors in the Bible.


I'm not questioning whether or not the Bible is the word of God or not, just establishing that - because of human error - it contains errors. I'll get on to the deeper theological debate once we've passed the first milestone of accepting that regardless of whether God exists or not, the Bible, divinely inspired or not, is primarily a human creation which contains human errors.

Well done Jay, you did well on question 1; basically it's an ambiguous passage which I've taken to mean one thing and you another ...

But please, answer my second question. But bear in mind that you'll get a lot more of them

Good speaking with you man.

Thats like asking why God didn't prevent 911. Or the December 2005 Tsunami. I can't answer it. But 911 was free will.

Free will you say?


Tell me, jay, why would an omnibenevolent deity allow such evil to exist?

[Aradhus]

Isaiah 53:10

Yet it was the Lord's will to crush him and cause him to suffer.