Hello my friends i would just like you all to know Hdogkobe was banned by youtube for posting Walter Veith's Videos because of Amazing Discoveries director Dagmar Goubej. This was done without any warning on their behalf.
You're mixing things so much & can't see it. Evolution does not assert that abiogenesis is it's foundation. No, no, no. It starts from when life already exists. No assertion about how that life came about is made. Carbon 14 is one dating method. Scientists use many to determine a reasonable age. What other methods were used in this test you mentioned? You are getting your arguments from apologists and they know squat about science. It is so evident by the way you combine the different theories.
Ok, try to understand this. Science, evolution, the big bang and abiogenesis have NOTHING to do with Atheism. If you want an answer to these questions ask a scientist. Atheist or Christian, they can both lead you on the right track.
I repeat, I only defended evolution from your claim that it was sun worship. A claim that could not be any more wrong.
The things you have used as "evidence" is worthless. This guy said this, that test returned that.
Who dated dinosaur bones using Carbon methods? They means nothing to me. Even so I know that using carbon dating methods on items that do not fall within the range of the method gives false readings.
Iocouru, they have found carbon 14 in every organic life form that is on this earth, even in Diamonds and Coal.
The theory of evolution asserts abiogenesis it is part of the foundation,. All the way from the big bang to the first amino acids to the first protein chains and the first living micro organisms. This is what the text books are teaching, why do you not want to address it? Why limit evolution every time you speak with someone that is against it? What are you trying to hide?
Abiogenesis deals with how life started. Evolution deals with what happened after. You doubt abiogenesis, great. I don't think much of the theory. But it has nothing to do with evolution and has absolutely nothing to do with my beliefs or lack there of. I MUST nothing.
It is not that I "do not want to deal with it". It is that we are talking about one thing, evolution, not abiogenesis.
Iocouru, no we are not just talking about "micro evolution" but macro evolution and the evolution from non life to life. First off we did not decide from the beginning what we were to talk about. Second, I have yet to find any atheist willing to discuss abiogenesis, not a single one have so far dared to touch on the subject. Why I wonder? Is it because the weight of evidence speaks against it ever occuring? I think that is the answer. Now if it is impossible to happen, then why assume it did?
Evolution being disproven is not very likely. There are too many things that line up with the theory. DNA, fossilisation for example. But since Im not a scientist it doesnt matter to me. Evolution has nothing to do with Atheism.
Like I said, I only defended it from your sun worship claim.
Iocouru, well you have no argument against my sun worship claim. You either worship the sun knowingly or by ignorance, the fact of the matter is you call the sun the origin of life on this earth, without it you have no life, thus it is a form of sun worship.
Evolution has nothing to do with atheism? Well, both yes and no.
Fossils is strong evidence against evolution, and a strong evidence for a world wide flood.
The Theory of Evolution is nothing but a metaphysical project. (Karl Popper)
Creation is not scientific so it will never even be considered. Even if it was true. Science does not work on ignorance. This is too complex, therefore godditit is not science.
What you are asking is for someone to seek natural medicines when they need prescription drugs.
Creation is very much scientific it makes statements that can be both observed and tested. Again your paradigm is coloring the evidence more so. Did you know that Creation Science answer the questions that evolution also answers, just better? At least this is my observation.
The argument "this is to complex, therefor godditid" is not the argument of Creation Science, you should know better :) Btw, "Time did it" is not really that much better.
The quick answer is, it answers everything better. You should look at some real creation science and not just look at Kent Hovind, he is only presenting something and he does not have up to date information on every aspect of the argument as far as I know. There is a lot of information out there available, but know also that as soon as any scientist comes with some form of evidence that goes against evolution, meaning that they speak of intelligent design as a possibility will loose everything.
Iocouru, let me give you one example. Scientists tested core samples of granite rock, what evolutionists claim to be the oldest rocks we have, and what they found was helium. Now here is the kicker, helium takes less than 7000 years to escape these rocks due to the temperature of them being around 200 C, now to resupply these rocks with more helium from radiation from other rocks takes 4.5 billion years due to decay ratio. This is observed, this is tested and proves a young earth.
Well.. everything. Think about it, how much evolution can you get if you only have 6000 years to do it on? Not much right, so if the age of the earth is less than 7000 years your theory is dead and gone. Now we do have micro evolution, but I'm not talking about that at all, I'm talking about macro evolution and from inorganic to organic life, that is to say from none life to life, for this must also have happened.
Also, think about this one. What evidence must there be to disprove evolution?
Even though this has nothing to do with evolution, what rocks are you talking about? Where were they found? If this is actually true, you cannot take one thing that is inconsistent with a theory and ignore thousands of other things that are.
There is no evolution from inorganic to organic life. That is not evolution. That is another theory altogether.
Iocouru, you asked me a question of what Creation Science answered better than the evolutionary model, it is not jumping it is answering.
If there is any single thing that is against the theory of evolution, a contradiction it means that the theory is wrong. You cannot keep changing the theory to fit the evidence all the time. I asked you what was required to disprove the theory of evolution, but truth is that nothing can disprove it, because it is in constant flux. Thus its not a theory.
I asked you for the source of these rocks which you ignored and instead claim I am shifting the theory to fit the evidence. Not true. Reread what I said.
I do not call the sun the origin of life. Neither does the theory of evolution. Where did you read that?
No evolution has nothing to do with Atheism. No and no.
Evolution does not address how life started, only what happened once there was life. Where did you read differently?
Iocouru, you did not ask for a source, if you did you formulated it very badly. Now I ask your forgiveness for my misunderstanding. The theory of evolution, or a bio genesis which you MUST have in order to believe what you believe, every time you come with that rehearsed line "Evolution does not deal with.." you are ignoring the questions that are needed to be asked and answered. Why don't you want to deal with it?
Evolution asserts that God is not required, thus it is atheistic at its core.
Iocouru, I believe most people have a misconception about what evolution is, even you. Not meant as an insult. I did not say that YOU only shifted the theory, but that the theory is shifting to fit the evidence. For example, they dated some dinosaur bones using the C-14 method, that is silly. It is only accurate up to about 50 000 years. Again, evidence for a young age of dinosaur bones, that they even found C-.14 in them.
Mekelsior, you keep making it out as if there are only two sides. Evolution or god. You refuse to admit that another side even exists. Chistians who accept evolution. You are wrong when you say evolution assets no god because countless Christians have no problem reconciling both. Hence both positions are not mutually exclusive. I can't argue against a position that doesn't exist. Evolution and science has nothing to do with whether a person believes in god(s) or not. Can't you understand?
I have told you before that the Bible does not mix with evolutionary theory. The only way you can do this is by compromising the Bible and what is written. I cannot answer for what other people believe as I'm not their judge. The Bible is crystal clear God created the earth in six literal days, this is repeated in the 10 commandments and by the words of Jesus Himself. Further more there is plenty of evidence for a young earth, I have already given you some and you have not addressed it.
Iocouru, do you disregard the problem of generation of the first living organism? How did it come to be then, just puffed into existence? There were no evolution of the amino acids, or the molecules and proteins? Strange I really thought there were. So.. you just believe it came into existence with no cause and no reason? Most peculiar. Evidence is a funny thing, and our world view decide much of how we interpret it.
Iocouru, in most cases natural medicines are the best option as the body is in most cases quite capable of curing itself. Now when we need surgery that is something else, put me under and then cut please.
Joke aside, no it is not even remotely close when it comes to analogy. Anyway, just keep an open mind and look for the possibility at least that you might be wrong and that God is in fact needed. Check out the Prophecies in Daniel 2 for example for starters.
All this started because you said evolution was sun worship. Which by the way, you have not explained why. "Both sides of the story" does not exist in science.
You want me to prove evolution? Countless years of research done by the scientific community did not convince you, how will I? Like I said, I don't care if you accept evolution or not. It is the claims you make that leave me at a loss.
Next you'll be saying Atheism is a religion too...
Iocouru, when you say that the scientists that do not believe in evolution are not scientists then how do you think I can convince you that they are? Dr David Berlinski is one man that is skeptical to evolution and I have yet to find any good argument against his. You should check it out. Thing is, I cannot convince you because your premise does not allow the evidence that I have to be counted as evidence. Take a look at the "Evolution Cruncher" you may find that online as a free eBook.
You cannot convince me because I picked up a few books and actually went through them. I have certain questions about evolution myself but find that whole thing concrete enough to accept it.
I didn't say that scientists that do not believe in evolution are not scientists. When I said science I meant the agreed upon consensus of the scientific community. That is science, not a few rouge theories.
I know I cannot convince you, I have stated that before also :) It is up to you go where the evidence leads. It is also my job to do so. I have found for myself, that the Bible is proved beyond anything else I have looked at. There are many people out there that are skeptical to evolution and that have come to similar conclusions as I have. We know we are not the majority but that in itself is not important. The majority can be and are often if not always wrong.
I followed the evidence. That is what you do not understand. I just reached a different conclusion than you. Can you name me one scientist who does not accept evolution and is not a Theist?
People reject evolution for religious reasons only. There is no evidence that we were made by magic. How could there be?
Do you not understand that just because a very, very small group of scientists advocate creation it does not mean that there are two sides?
I have been trying to reason this with many other people, you are the first one to actually understand what I'm trying to say. You have followed the evidence and have just reached a different conclusion than me. Excellent, now reverse it. See I'm not that much of an idiot.
Now you make a statement that people reject evolution for religious reasons only, that is a fallacy. Dr David Berlinski is not a theist and he have rejected evolution as far as I know. Check him out.
My point is exactly that. If evolution could not be reconciled with the bible then you wouldn't have Christians who accept evolution. So your claim is wrong.
You can say you are looking at the evidence honestly and with sincerity but when you automatically discard everything that disagrees with the bible, you are being neither.
Be skeptical of evolution all you like but dont make up nonsense about evolution being sun worship.
I have not said you are not sincere, many are sincere in their beliefs and are sincerely wrong. Many Christians today believe in evolution and are sincerely wrong about that also, they do not go together.
Last, I'm not condescending at all, you just used the same word with two different spellings, it was not meant or intended to make you feel bad. I'm sure that I use bad spelling quite often as well. English is not my first language anyway.
Iocouru, again you just need to study history and look at the religions and the claims that evolution makes. It is a form of sun worship that is a fact. Now you make disagree with this fact as much as you want, but the Bible says the entire world will be lead to worship the sun, either knowingly or by ignorance.
When you have seen again and again that the Bible is true, then being skeptical to things that are against it is logical. Prove evolution then I will follow, yet you cannot prove it.
You have stated that you make your beliefs around the one starting point. There is a god. All your conclusions will lead you to this. I made no claim. I said I would accept what is true regardless of the source. Perhaps you should take your own advise and look the the evidence honestly for a change.
Regardless of whether a god exists or not, your claims are rediculous.
I believe in God because of the evidence leads to that conclusion, at least they did for me. I can only believe in a Maker because I exist, I have not always existed. So if we go back in time we ask the question why do we exist, is there any reason to our existence? Then I think, cause and effect, we are the effect thus there must be a cause. The cause can only be God, as we are intelligent and personal beings, we can love. Thus God must be that as well, but not limited to our abilities.
It is evident that we disagree and all I can say is that just continue to search, cause no man can have a complete knowledge of whats going on. We can only know a little bit of the great picture. You say may claims are "rediculous" (sic), well I disagree with your claim. I have looked at all the arguments, with all honesty and sincerity, I accept that I cannot know everything, but I know enough to be skeptical to the theory of evolution. Yet the argument is not about that at all.
"Many Christians have no problem reconciling both." Where is your point? I'm not many Christians, I'm just one. I do not believe the Bible is compatible with the theory of Evolution, because the God of the Bible speaks and it stands fast, meaning one word and a billion angels stands before God. That is the power of the God of the Bible, and I have just touched the tip, multiply whatever powerful feat you can think of with infinity and you have just started. Yet God is Love.
Indeed, the reason that the Catholic Church perpetuates the idea that evolution and Chrisitianity are not at odds is that the belief of Evolution destorys the book of Genesis and God's 7 day creation and Sabbath. It's truly an attack on God.
Iocouru, I have heard the same argument before, "You should watch videos from actual scientists if you are to learn about science." In this I can only assume that you mean people that teach and believe evolution are real scientists? Well it doesn't work like that, if you want to hear both sides of the story you go to both sides of the argument. I have done that, and the side of Creation is far superior in both arguments and in evidence.
Science is not this field where everyone can give there opinion and make their own versions of events. It is the tool we use to describe what is. Creationists are not accepted by their peers and after reading what they have to offer, they do not capture my interest either. Yes, contrary to what you think, I have actually heard their nonsense.
You say there is better evidence for creation. I say there is not one thing that can be considered evidence. Feel free to prove me wrong.
And there is evidence that can be looked at honestly. You proudly stated that you choose to believe the bible and make your conclusions around it. Yet you claim those that accept reality are looking through glasses. I choose to believe what is true, regardless of it's source.
And again, you are not persecuted. You are ridiculed. Religion makes men think they are persecuted when they are not.
Ioco, you do not understand what I'm trying to say. Let me try and give you the bare bones. This world is separated by two major world views. One that is popular is that idea of evolutionary theory. This theory while it have some good elements is if my paradigm is correct wrong. Now my paradigm explains creation and variations as well just as good as your standpoint. You may claim to believe the truth, but you do not know if you do. The other paradigm is that of God, and the Bible.
Persecution will happen as it has in the past. I believe in the 7th day Sabbath as well as a six day creation, literal 24 hour period. The world however conforms around the idea of billions and billions of years. These people that believe this will look at me and the minority that believes in Creation and the God of the 7th day Sabbath with scorn, and will once again rise against them in an attempt to destroy them. Like Rome did in the past, Rome will do again, now with the Support of the globe.
Your understanding of the world around you, is of course formed and shaped by your beliefs. If you believe that there is no god you will look at the world with such eyes, if you further say that you only depend on Science, and if Science exclude any evidence for God then you have dug yourself into a hole that you in no way can get out of. This is the essence of it all, if you exclude one answer then what if that answer was the Truth? Do you understand what I'm trying to tell you?
When did I say I only believed in science? I defended science against the nonsense that you have been saying. Exactly the same thing applies to you. If you believe there is a god and see the world through those eyes you have dug yourself into a hole. I disbelieved in gods before I learnt about science. Science has absolutely no impact on my rejection of fairy tales.
You are even a minority amongst Christians and you claim that I am excluding answers.
I do not think there is much point in our discussions, you have made your decisions and you believe you are doing the right thing, I disagree with you but I do not wish to argue with you. I just hope that you will always follow the evidence whatever it is and wherever it may lead you. If you would like to study more on this, watch the seminar of Mark Woodman.
Truth is not defined by a popularity vote, you know that. If science exclude God as an answer, what if God is the answer?
Do you understand that science doesn't address the supernatural now? It is not against gods, lapracauns or the boogy man. Science addresses the NATURAL world.
I am still waiting for you to shed some light on how you concluded that evolution was a form of sun worship.
You should watch the seminar by Mark Woodman, just do a search on Youtube and you will find his seminar, he speaks on evolution also but just briefly, it is to show the great picture of the world and the religions that are here.
I have tried to tell you that I know that Science does not address the supernatural world, in fact they do not allow it as an answer to any of the things that happens. This I believe is wrong as they have then excluded something that could be the answer.
Mekelsior, you changed what you said. Before it was that science was against the supernatural. Now it simply does not address it which is actually what I was telling you. You changed what you said to agree with me and didn't even realize. How do you think that science, the study of the natural world, should go about to study the supernatural? It is like asking an accuontant to build a bridge. Different fields.
DiD people even watch his full testimony??? wow this man was an evolutionist and he taught evolution at a university! he laughed at creationists pretty much. But occurences happend in his life because there is a God, things like that are NOT coincedence. So stop arguing over nothing ppl There is a GOD so if u dont agree dont even comment on here because u sound unintelligent. THIS MAN WAS AN EVOLUTIONIST BUT HAD MANY MIRACLES IN HIS LIFE! Thats not chance its GOD
Should I listen to people who didn't believe in god(s) and now do or people who once believed and now don't?
Or should I look at the evidence myself and make my own opinion?
It was very difficult to listen to Veith because he didn't address the issues. To me, it didn't sound like he understood the nonbeliever so how can he claim to once have been one? I didn't believe him.
Ioco, if you want to find out why Wlater J. Veith does not believe anymore in Evolutionary theory and conclusions then you should watch the seminar the Genesis Conflict. To me it appears that people think the argument presented in this video is all that he got but it really is not.
Look at the evidence, I did and I do not believe in evolution. :)
Finally some progress. Science does not deal with the supernatural. Yes. It does not however claim it does not exist. Do you not see the difference?
It sounds to me like you think saying you do not believe in evolution is something to be proud of. You are so wrong there. It is like saying gravity doesn't exist.
What evidence have you seen that led you to this outrages claim? Veith? Really?
I have decided to follow Jesus, this is the main reason I do anything. If I am to believe the Bible it states that God made the earth in 6 days and rested on the 7th. Now I may not understand all the science behind and all the arguments, but I do know enough to make a decision. I'm proud to stand on the side of God, but it is not pride, it is a choice I have made and I will stand by it no matter the ridicule and persecution.
Mekelsior, now we are getting somewhere. You admit that there is no evidence for your position. You simply choose to believe the bible over actual evidence. That is fine. You will still be ridiculed but you should leave your persecution complex at the door. You're not persecuted. At least you are now being honest.
What do you have to say the Christians who accept evolution? You know the majority of Christians accept it right? Well, maybe not in the US.
I do not admit that there is no evidence for my position, there is actually a lot of it, but it is being interpreted in a different way by people who already have decided what to believe. Meaning, there are evidence that can be viewed trough the looking glasses of evolution and that of creation. The Fact is the same, the result and the conclusions are different.
Oh, my stand will be persecuted, as you said many that claim to be Christians believe in Evolution and I know I'm in a minority.
Walter J. Veith has an excellent understanding of evolutionary theory, he have been teaching it at the university for years. This is perhaps why you react to his claims on evolution that you don't know enough about the theory and are as such a believer in just an old religion. Now if you were to study evolution and all it entails like Walter Veith have done, then maybe just maybe you will see the truth of it all.
Well, evidently the scientists have not studied it enough or they would have left, but I think there is more sinister plots that are behind it. Now I know that evolution is false because I have seen things that you have not, yet I am labeled an idiot because I'm critical to the theory. So there is no wonder really that they agree, they are afraid of loosing their favor in the eyes of men. Its like watching a sandbox fight.
Iocouru: No, I'm not an idiot just labeled as one there is a big difference. What I have seen is not something that can be tested, as science has already made the mistake of ignoring anything supernatural. So the very existence of something supernatural would eliminate the premise of the evolutionary theory. Science cannot see this, they do not allow it thus they are the idiots, self made that is.
Quick question: Something comes from nothing? How is that possible?
No, science says that the supernatural does not exist, thus it exclude God as an answer.
Where have you been in science class? Heard of the Big Bang? The question is, where did the mass/energy come from? Have it always existed, if so how did it explode if nothing existed before? If everything was a . in the universe, that constitutes nothing, how does this work? What forces that did not exist cause this thing to explode? Its a fairytale buddy. There are so many things that is against it.
Walter J. Veith believes in a literal six day creation, as do I. You need to watch the seminars about creation, "the Genesis Conflict" and "Total Onslaught" He is a Seventh day Adventist, same as me. :)
Just wonder, that is so well in denoting Catholic Church as "Babylonian Whore" and so naturally behaves against children of black magic, who L. Ron Hubbard an Co. definitely are. I watched some of his creationistic prestnations, which speak only of anti-evolutionism and he has an non-honest treatment of scientific methods, which anyway is not godly. In that aspect I prefer the testimony of Darwin, showing the beauty of nature.
Bobbel, your welcome but please watch them all, as this is why I believe in God rather than in the evolutionary theory. Not as much as it is difficult to disprove evolution cause if the Bible is right it is given by the devil, a fallen angel that is far more intelligent than any human, so how then can we even hope to break the bond that he have on us? Only trough the knowledge and faith in Jesus Christ can fears be dispelled. So give it some time, investigate it with an open but critical mind.
Thanks, well, I feel a spritual welcome, but associated with a deep stomach ache.
> "as this is why I believe in God rather than in the evolutionary theory"
... reads like "as this is why I believe in Mr. Veith rather that in evolution theories.
I my creed there is no term evolution and no Mr. Veith. I do not understand, why they schould be there and again I do not understand, what that diabolic construction around evolution (he does not explain that mighty term at all) should be for.
Brother Veith is a good man this I believe, we do not agree on everything and no I don't follow him, I follow Jesus Christ and the Bible. Some people however have more information than others, more knowledge. He is an authority when it comes to evolution and he have also studied the religions behind the scene. There is much to cover and no single man can get a complete overview of everything, this is why we have more people that we can learn, compare and then check what they say.
Yes, different, but to what degree? Different on phraseology or augmented verses? The main point is that inspite of the difference the main point is still in the book, including its prophetic credibility. Now show me the sources for these different books?
Many of the books in the bible have known variations. Mark for example has three. What you are not realizing is that a very common thing these prophets did was retell an actual historical event, with mistakes because they were only repeating what they heard or read, and then making a prophecy about the future. Problem is, the person making the prophecy is someone else Many years later. After the "prophecy" occurred.
Ok, maybe you'll understand the differences in the synoptics if you look at it this way. If four people witness an event and write a story, it will all come out different. Each other was writing to a specific audience, like Matthew to the Jews et. cetera. Don't you find it odd that early Christians would be persecuted for a fake made up character?? HUH? Roman historians and others document this persecution. So why would people writing a big lie, get the crap beat out of them for it?
You have your responses so rehearsed you dont even realize you are giving answers to questions I didnt ask. What do four witnesses have to do with what I said?
The Septuagint was written around 200 BCE. The Nabonidus Chronicle has a similar theme to Daniel. But it doesnt support the position of Daniel. You giving evidence against what youre saying. Maybe you should take your own advise and READ.
Ok, I going to re-iterate this once more, Josephus documents that Alexander the Great recieved a copy during the annexation of jerusalem in the autumn of 332 BC( Antiquities of the Jews XI, chapter viii, paragraphs 3-5)!! Therefore, Daniel was written before 200BC unlike what you posited! How can the Nabonidus chronicle go against what I am saying?
Darius the Mede was viceroy in Babylon during the reign of Cyrus II (a.k.a. Cyrus the Great, who ruled from c.550-530 BC, So I guess he it mixed up!
Reiterate it as many time as you want. You have now given me three answers to questions I DID NOT ASK. Like I said, you have answers rehearsed and do not realize when you are giving an answer that has nothing to do with what is being discussed. I actually remember you. We have come across each other somewhere or other on Youtube. I asked you if English was your first language which you said it was. You make a very poor argument for that position when you cant comprehend the topic of interest.
Listen, just agrue against the evidence presented, becuase if you scroll down the page, then you can see why I have made the comments I have made. So what about the daniel chapter 9 now? do you still believe it was written in 200 BC(when I just clearly displayed the comment before that it wasn't) Then you told me that the kings in Daniel don't match up. The answers that I'm posting are relating to your questions. By the way, we have never ever met on youtube, TRUST ME!
I still stand by the position that while the book of Daniel was written earlier. The current Daniel Chapter 9 was written in 200 BCE.
When I said the kings don't match up you assumed I meant Darius the Mede. I didn't.
You saw a simple comment I made and being so used to defending your position, you started ranting about nonsense. All the while ignoring what I was actually saying.
How can you stand on your position when there is clear evidence against what you stand for? And your simple comment, your simple comment is concerning this discussion. Moreover, if I'm ranting that back that up with evidence, not just because you say so. I've given you dates, books, and down to pages, what do you have to give me?
If I knew why people stood by a position when there was clear evidence against I would know why people are Christian. I don't know why people are Christian.
I'll give you an example of a rant you made that had nothing to do with the discussion.
"If four people witness an event and write a story, it will all come out different."
You have said several such things that have nothing to do with that is being discussed.
Yes, I'm aware that there are altered versions! However, one of the methods used to verify scripts from fraudulent ones is the matching principle. The versions of the gospels that do agree, agree by manuscripts in the thousands! then there are other versions which have different dates and added or deleted content. So what is your point with these different versions?
Yes, I am telling you that the people said to have followed Jesus were not persecuted. That was made up by the church. You have made no argument besides "Why would they lie?". Using your logic, every religion is true. Why would the other people lie? You do realize that these people were far from the most advanced at their time? They were extremely ignorant and easily deceived. But anyway, we have no common ground to have a normal discussion. You like to insult, I like discussing actual history.
It was hieroglyphics on one of their memorials talking about just what the Bible records in terms of Hebrews being enslaved and then being set free. Not only that, I told you before that Daniel wasn't written in 200BC as you mistakenly quoted before? So now what do you have to say about that and its prophetic authenticity; moreover, it's authenticity as a book?
I didn't say Daniel was written in 200 BCE. I said Daniel Chapter 9 was. And I also mentioned there is a historical inaccuracy with the kings which you were quick to ignore.
I looked up hieroglyphics and found people mentioning it provided evidence but couldn't find what this evidence is. Can you refer me to your source?
Oh yes, you did mention Darius, well it turns out, as many have found out, that people have mistaken this mention with Darius a Persian King. This Darius mentioned is a MEDE!!! and he has been confirmed by the Nabudionus chronicle(forgive me if I mispelled it. Again, Daniel Chapter 9 was not written in 200 BC, do you know why? Well alexander the great ordered the Hebrew writings to be copied and translated in greek, including Daniel, and obviously this happened before 200 BC!!!!
Putting exclamation marks after what you are saying doesn't give it more weight.
And no, I did not mention Darius. I was referring to something else but since you brought it up, Darius the Mede is considered one of the biggest mistakes in Daniel last I checked. Can you refer me to where you read different?
You do not understand what I mean about Daniel 9. If Alexander ordered the book translated that's great. But Daniel 9 was not part of the book at the time. It's a later addition.
Ok, if you READ the septuigant then you will see that the whole book of Daniel is there. EVEN the one from back in Alexander's time, which proves that the writings weren't added later! Look up the Nabudionus chronicle as I refered to it in the last comment for the Kings in Daniel's time.
No, you assume that we are idiots because you state that you are right and that all the historians who have said and proven that Christians were persecuted in their thousands and later by the millions never happened. I find that very interesting, you argue that we discount evidence.
Other than that, yes do accept truth only if evidence can be presented. Do not accept anything on face value. Many Christians does that, but not all of us. So try not to generalize. (I know its difficult sometimes)
You will laugh at people that believe in God until it is to late to do anything about it, then you will have to admit that the evidence was already there, yet you simply decided to discount it because you wanted to live the life you had and not wanting a God to tell you how to live. It changes nothing, evolution has been proven to be an old religion a form of sun worship, now it is simply hidden in more fancy words.
Oh I know perfectly well what I talk about, it is you who have decided that majority decide what is true and what is not. Instead of accusing me of being an idiot you should look it up and challenge me on the statement, but you would rather feel big and mighty don't you? Now your opinion and labeling me does not change the fact, Evolution is a religion. It is still an old religion that involves sun worship. Question, how dependent of the sun is evolution? How much evolution could there be wo it?
You know, I wasn't going to call you an idiot until I realized you repeated the sun worship nonsense again. Idiot. You need to take out a dictionary once in a while. There is life on earth that will never even experience light.
You call me an idiot because you do not know what's going on, this would make you ignorant. All I want is for you to get educated of the important matters in this world. It is not about evolution or the theory but about the things that goes on behind the scene. If you are interested there is a wealth of information online that may shed some light on this. But for your information, calling people idiot just because they have a different opinion than you is not how to conduct any form of debate.
Evolution is the theory that explains the diversification of life. If you go around saying it is a religion and that it is some kind of sun worship people are going to make fun of you.
I remember my science class well enough to know what science is and what scientific theories are. You obviously were not paying attention.
Please show me where "science" says the supernatural does not exist.
Iocouru, I know that it is a theory but you are not reading what I'm saying, Evolutionism is a religion still, it is just hidden in scientific language. They believed in the old days in evolution and it is regardless of your claim a form of sun worship. Now people will make fun of me because I do not believe in the theory but that reflect their character rather than mine, so it really is irrelevant.
Science does not deal with the supernatural, this they have said over and over again.
These people might have lied because they saw a possibility to take advantage by repeating their own version of a story that was very common at the time.
Maybe someone in a high position and a vivid imagination was believed when he spun the story.
Maybe the people who heard the story long after believed the story and didn't know it wasn't true.
You need to establish why something should be believed not why it shouldnt. Otherwise anything anyone says is true until proven different.
So it was an advantage? What could they get out of it? Endless persecutions, they died for their religion because they knew what they saw was true, not for political power. Think about it, what's the point of political power if they can't use it since they're dead? you're coming up with senseless hypothesis when you have truth
Not one of them was killed. That is only church nonsense. Where do you get your information from? Ah that's right, you just believe what you're told without questioning. Very Christian of you.
You are giving them more credit then they deserve. They were superstitious barbarians.
I think this discussion has come to an end. There is not point in talking to someone like you.
So you're telling me that Christians weren't persecuted? You're telling me that the men who believed in Jesus weren't hated by their own people (the Jews). Furthermore, all you do is make ad ohminem attacks, no real legitimate arguments, I don't question things? I actually based my whole argument of questions, maybe you're too stupid and ignorant to see that, how Atheist of you. How do you like that generalization?
They were superstitious barbarians? That's your awnser? WTF?
We have already discuessed the evidence, but your myopic logic doesn't allow you to accept any evidence that proves you wrong. You're intellectualy biased. There is without doubt that Alexander the Great existed, and the existance of Jesus is 10 times more credible than Alexander in timeframe. When we look at form criticms he's at least 100 times more credible, especially with Jewish morality.
Uhh, Alexander the Great's biography was written 400 years after his death (fact), Jesus' was written 40 years after his death (fact). It took ten times less time, and nowhere in history in such a time frame did historica event become myth, furthermore considering Jewish culture, bearing false witness was a sin, and considering they memorized their master's word for word means that it is nearly impossible for the record of the gospels to be wrong. Furthermore, yes you are an idiot.
You just don't get. I know that there are many many historical figures that we accept today who have very little evidence for their existence. I know, I understand. I GET IT.
What do they have to do with Jesus and the evidence for his existence? Nothing. Why cannot you not understand this?
40 Years after Jesus' death means people were retelling what they heard. Doesn't mean it's true.
So your basic argument relies on a gamble, on pure chance. the thing is that, it isn't chance, you're wrong on that assumption. Why would the people lie, why would you assume they lie, why would you assume they're wrong. You keep on saying it doesn't make it true, why not? Give reasons, to be broad and stupid. I told you Jewish morality didn't allow for lies nor mistakes in what they saw, furthermore it wasn't what they heard, because there were 400 eyewitness mentionings!
What was my assumption and argument? I didn't realize I made one. Name me these 400 eyewitnesses. Actually, name me one. My employer is Jewish and he lies through his teeth. Don't believe people simply because they tell you they do no lie. But fair enough, we have something more to discuss now than the evidence of Cesar or Alexander. You want me to explain why I think people would lie... Hmmm... Is this your evidence for Jesus. Jews had the commandment "Thou shalt not lie" therefore they didn't?
"Actually, name me one. My employer is Jewish and he lies through his teeth. Don't believe people simply because they tell you they do no lie. "
Wow, how could you ever compare modern time to the overreligious ancient times when if you lied you not onl commited sin yo yourself and others, but to God. People lived by their religion, they weren't cultural religious people like we have today, that was a stupid argument, furthermore if their culture was not to lie, I believe them.
yea, really, Roman Emporers who don't give a hoot would really talk about a fairy tale Jesus when they were PAGAN? Also, The book of Daniel wasn't written in 200 B.C. like you SAID, how could it be when the septuigant was written off of it? Do you know when that was written? well Alexander the Great authorized it to be translated to greek from its Hebrew original!!!! THEREFORE, THE BOOK OF DANIEL HAD ALREADY BEEN WRITTEN!!!!!!!!!!!
all i can say is watch walter veith- 2 beasts become friends!! the 1260 year prophecy of the ages from the book of daniel the statue of ages, and look up an archiologist named ron wyatt, a dvd to rood awakenin by michael rood!! there is plenty of evidence to prove god is real. thats just a few things to look at to get you started! may the plank be removed from our eye and reason together, god bless jesus
The only God that exists, just watch the videos he mentioned to you, study well and you will find out what's going on. Walter J.Veith and also Mark Woodman has a good presentation that explains what's going on and it cannot be refuted without grasping for straws or being stubborn.
also, Tacitus apart of the Roman Empire made mention to Jesus, and other Roman Historians, and they could care less about Christianity!! I don't believe that Jesus is a man that didn't exist and so many people copied a useless document about a fake God/man.
All I am suggesting, is like every other religion, the people who wrote to books that make up the bible had an agenda. I'm not claiming some elaborate conspiracy. I'm claiming a simple lie, believed by gullible barbarians
The church manipulated the books/letters so much that no one can claim to know what is legitimate and what isnt. And since the original of whatever book you are referring to was probably burnt by the church. You have no way of knowing that the copy was written 25 years later.
How is something a prophecy if it was written after the event?
I have one for you. Was there really a census when Jesus was born requiring Joseph to go to Bethlehem and if so, when? Look at real historical sources, not the bible.
are you talking about the census Quirinius believed to be taken around AD 6/7? Moreover, Josephus-a first century historian, made note of this census; furthermore, he documents the existence of Jesus and he is a known NOT TO BE A CHRISTIAN!! he was against that. There are other secular historians that point to Jesus, now how do reconcile that conspiracy? Are they in on it too, trying to decieve the world?
You shouldnt read so many conspiracy theories. Yes that census. What does Josephus say about it? The census that occurred around that time was not for taxation purposes and did not require people to go to other towns. The taxation census occurred 10 years later. Look it up. Whoever wrote Luke was wrong.
That is what some scholars critique about the text; however, Luke is attributed to have made an error because of Herod's allusion in the text. When Herod only appeared 10 years later. However, these aren't facts about doctrine that you're disputing, these are facts about facts!! Herod actually existed and so did the Census, the problem is when did it actually occur!
My conclusion is different to yours. Since Luke was written long after the event I believe the whoever this anonymous author was, he was only trying to give authority to his work but retelling something that actually happened. Problem is, he got the timing wrong so instead of sounding more authentic it sounds like a lie to me.
The reference to Jesus by Josephus did not actually appear in his works until about 200 years later. Cant remember his name but the translator was a self professed Liar for the faith. No Christian scholar used that passage when defending the existence of Jesus for 200 years. Why do you think that is?
why do I think that is? are u suggesting a fake conspiracy? anyway, a fellow named Origen discusses Josephus and his relationship to Christ about [Josephus doesn't believe in him]. Yes, if this never existed, then where would he get this notion? Somebody else is talking about Josephus's Ideologies which predate the copied manuscripts of his flavianum. remember his flavianum gave a more favorable mention to Jesus, his shows how Josephus never believed in Jesus!!!!
There are quite a bit of manuscript fragments but most of them are useless. They contradict eachother even though they are supposed to be the same writing. Look at Mark for example. How many times has that been changed? Complete useable manuscripts are not that numerous.
People made up the bible stories for the same reason people made up the stories of every other religion. You actually brought up Daniel 9? It was authored in the 2nd century and the writer could not even get the kings right.
copy's of a manuscript doesn't mean that the actual original Hebrew was written during the second century? You must realize that, who back then is going to copy a manuscript of events that never happened; moreover, keep copying it for centuries to come? What is the motive, a big conspiracy? Just bcuz manuscript dates aren't the original doesn't discredit the manuscript!!! Somebody had to copy it.
And where are the actual Hebrew originals? How can you make a determination about then when they aren't around anymore?
Do you know who is going to copy the manuscripts. Someone who believes it is true perhaps? Using your rationalization, every religion is true because every religion has people who retold the story.
The Hebrew originals aren't around anymore; however, the copies still provide us with the information that was written on the original. Just like the greek manuscripts, the p52 for instance, was written 35 years after the original!!! There is no other document in antiquity with that kind of credibility! Furthermore, I'm not getting into different religions, I'm still focusing on the bible as a credible source of historical information first.
Julius Cesar is not Rome. The Roman Empire was around for 1,000 years. Whether Cesar existed or not doesn't matter. Especially when we are discussing a totally different topic.
I mentioned Caesar bcuz everyone knows he existed! How the heck do you know the Roman Empire existed, by the wreckage plus the manuscripts they left back. The Bible has tons more manuscripts than anything in antiquity like I've been saying; therefore, It has more credibility than the Roman Empire! Furthermore, why the heck would soooooooo many people write fake manuscripts, I mean we're talkin a TON LOAD?
He defined the existance of Rome in history, he had so much influence in Roman History. Also, this is in fact germane to our discussion considering that we are comparing different historical people, if you believe Jesus didn't exist, then Ceaser did not either, which is laughable to say.
Sorry, Julius Cesar is still not Rome. If you remove him it does nothing to the existence of Rome, whether he had influence or not. Are you actually suggesting that the existence of Rome is dependent on whether Cesar existed?
We are not comparing historical figures. Cesar was brought up because Jesus cannot stand up to scrutiny on his own. Therefore you have to look at other people and say Well you believe in this guy then you must believe in Jesus too.
There is a big difference with Cesar and Jesus as I have already stated. I am not claiming to know Cesar existed and if you do not believe me you are blinding yourself from some truth that I am privy to but you're not.
So what if Cesar is not real? What does that change? What changes if Jesus is not real?
You have to look at each thing on its own and make a decision.
So you're practically saying Ceaser doesn't exist? Yeah, you really have weak arguments, if you're the opposition, then I wonder why there are so many iditos who deny Jesus existed. in fact I'm glad it's only a minority of nutjobs.
First of all, fuck you. If you don't have anything to say, don't say anything. Keep your insults to yourself.
Secondly, where did I say Cesar didn't exist? You need to take a breath and read what is being said. Go back and read the comments for a change.
I have been trying to address the comments you two losers have made to the best of my ability. You on the other hand ignore everything I say and make meaningless comments like this one.
What? are you mad because people who deny the existance of Jesus are equivelant to 2012 conspiracists.
So doy uo believe Jesus existed? If you don't, it's the equivelant to saying ceaser is 10 times less credible than something that doesn't exist, you'd have to be an idiot.
Don't know what 2012 is, sorry. I am mad because you called me an iditos nutjob and accused me of saying something I didnt because you were too lazy to read what I said.
Again you are going back to Cesar. Why can't you stick to Jesus and look at the evidence for his existence? You have to revert to Cesar because like I have already said, Jesus does not stand up to scrutiny on his own.
Do you always insult people who do not agree with you? Very Christian of you.
Why can't I stick to Jesus? How stupid of a question is that, all history is relative and comparitive, how can you establish credibility without having other historical events to relate to? That is the most stupidest and most knowledge blocking form of thinking I've heard in my life, Knowledge is meant to be shared with other fields of knowledge, not isolated you ignorant douche. Jesus stands up to scrutiny alone, when compared to Ceaser we give an example, you freaking idiot. Thank you.
I'm very unChristian, you don't have to be Christian to believe Jesus existed, why do you think I said that only nutjobs don't believe in Jesus' existance. I'm an AGnostic Deist, I only believe in Jesus' morality not in Christianity, so you're mistaken.
What you said doesn't stand in any way, your basic argument is that we have to prove Jesus without relying on other sources, it's like trying to prove Einstein's relativity with Einstein's relativity, you need other knowledge you idiot.
You are so dense. Calling someone an idiot repeatedly doesn't give more weight to what you are saying. Please quote me where I said prove Jesus without other sources. I said no such thing. Stop acting like a Christian.
All I said was that the evidence for Cesar has nothing to do with Jesus. Which I simply cannot comprehend why you find that comment so outrages.
I am still open to the topic which you refuse to address and instead throw insults.
So he can't work out how the second preist knew what his problem was?! He told the first priest, who told the second one... a miracle indeed- they saw this guy coming!
Also, the reason why scientific text books are updated is to take into account new findings- like NEW fossils in the cetacean line. Pakicetus- with well formed legs, Basilosaurus- small, well formed hind legs but no joint between pelvis and vertebrae, then modern whales with small bones from pelvis and legs remaining for example
That may be the case but the world "theory" suggests that it isn't entire fact, more importantly evolution and creation can not coexist as the bible states that God made the animals as they were in oppose to setting of reactions which lead to the formation of animals (biblically). Therefore you must chose one or the other
Hello my friends i would just like you all to know Hdogkobe was banned by youtube for posting Walter Veith's Videos because of Amazing Discoveries director Dagmar Goubej. This was done without any warning on their behalf.
InterStatus 2 years ago
You're mixing things so much & can't see it. Evolution does not assert that abiogenesis is it's foundation. No, no, no. It starts from when life already exists. No assertion about how that life came about is made. Carbon 14 is one dating method. Scientists use many to determine a reasonable age. What other methods were used in this test you mentioned? You are getting your arguments from apologists and they know squat about science. It is so evident by the way you combine the different theories.
locouru 2 years ago
Ok, try to understand this. Science, evolution, the big bang and abiogenesis have NOTHING to do with Atheism. If you want an answer to these questions ask a scientist. Atheist or Christian, they can both lead you on the right track.
I repeat, I only defended evolution from your claim that it was sun worship. A claim that could not be any more wrong.
The things you have used as "evidence" is worthless. This guy said this, that test returned that.
locouru 2 years ago
Who dated dinosaur bones using Carbon methods? They means nothing to me. Even so I know that using carbon dating methods on items that do not fall within the range of the method gives false readings.
locouru 2 years ago
Iocouru, they have found carbon 14 in every organic life form that is on this earth, even in Diamonds and Coal.
The theory of evolution asserts abiogenesis it is part of the foundation,. All the way from the big bang to the first amino acids to the first protein chains and the first living micro organisms. This is what the text books are teaching, why do you not want to address it? Why limit evolution every time you speak with someone that is against it? What are you trying to hide?
Mekelsior 2 years ago
Abiogenesis deals with how life started. Evolution deals with what happened after. You doubt abiogenesis, great. I don't think much of the theory. But it has nothing to do with evolution and has absolutely nothing to do with my beliefs or lack there of. I MUST nothing.
It is not that I "do not want to deal with it". It is that we are talking about one thing, evolution, not abiogenesis.
locouru 2 years ago
Iocouru, no we are not just talking about "micro evolution" but macro evolution and the evolution from non life to life. First off we did not decide from the beginning what we were to talk about. Second, I have yet to find any atheist willing to discuss abiogenesis, not a single one have so far dared to touch on the subject. Why I wonder? Is it because the weight of evidence speaks against it ever occuring? I think that is the answer. Now if it is impossible to happen, then why assume it did?
Mekelsior 2 years ago
this is an incredible story
joebarniak 2 years ago
Evolution being disproven is not very likely. There are too many things that line up with the theory. DNA, fossilisation for example. But since Im not a scientist it doesnt matter to me. Evolution has nothing to do with Atheism.
Like I said, I only defended it from your sun worship claim.
locouru 2 years ago
Iocouru, well you have no argument against my sun worship claim. You either worship the sun knowingly or by ignorance, the fact of the matter is you call the sun the origin of life on this earth, without it you have no life, thus it is a form of sun worship.
Evolution has nothing to do with atheism? Well, both yes and no.
Fossils is strong evidence against evolution, and a strong evidence for a world wide flood.
The Theory of Evolution is nothing but a metaphysical project. (Karl Popper)
Mekelsior 2 years ago
Creation is not scientific so it will never even be considered. Even if it was true. Science does not work on ignorance. This is too complex, therefore godditit is not science.
What you are asking is for someone to seek natural medicines when they need prescription drugs.
locouru 2 years ago
Creation is very much scientific it makes statements that can be both observed and tested. Again your paradigm is coloring the evidence more so. Did you know that Creation Science answer the questions that evolution also answers, just better? At least this is my observation.
The argument "this is to complex, therefor godditid" is not the argument of Creation Science, you should know better :) Btw, "Time did it" is not really that much better.
Mekelsior 2 years ago
How is it observed and tested? What does it answer better than evolution?
locouru 2 years ago
The quick answer is, it answers everything better. You should look at some real creation science and not just look at Kent Hovind, he is only presenting something and he does not have up to date information on every aspect of the argument as far as I know. There is a lot of information out there available, but know also that as soon as any scientist comes with some form of evidence that goes against evolution, meaning that they speak of intelligent design as a possibility will loose everything.
Mekelsior 2 years ago
Iocouru, let me give you one example. Scientists tested core samples of granite rock, what evolutionists claim to be the oldest rocks we have, and what they found was helium. Now here is the kicker, helium takes less than 7000 years to escape these rocks due to the temperature of them being around 200 C, now to resupply these rocks with more helium from radiation from other rocks takes 4.5 billion years due to decay ratio. This is observed, this is tested and proves a young earth.
Mekelsior 2 years ago
What do rocks and the age of the earth have to do with evolution?
locouru 2 years ago
Well.. everything. Think about it, how much evolution can you get if you only have 6000 years to do it on? Not much right, so if the age of the earth is less than 7000 years your theory is dead and gone. Now we do have micro evolution, but I'm not talking about that at all, I'm talking about macro evolution and from inorganic to organic life, that is to say from none life to life, for this must also have happened.
Also, think about this one. What evidence must there be to disprove evolution?
Mekelsior 2 years ago
You are jumping around too much.
Even though this has nothing to do with evolution, what rocks are you talking about? Where were they found? If this is actually true, you cannot take one thing that is inconsistent with a theory and ignore thousands of other things that are.
There is no evolution from inorganic to organic life. That is not evolution. That is another theory altogether.
locouru 2 years ago
Iocouru, you asked me a question of what Creation Science answered better than the evolutionary model, it is not jumping it is answering.
If there is any single thing that is against the theory of evolution, a contradiction it means that the theory is wrong. You cannot keep changing the theory to fit the evidence all the time. I asked you what was required to disprove the theory of evolution, but truth is that nothing can disprove it, because it is in constant flux. Thus its not a theory.
Mekelsior 2 years ago
I asked you for the source of these rocks which you ignored and instead claim I am shifting the theory to fit the evidence. Not true. Reread what I said.
I do not call the sun the origin of life. Neither does the theory of evolution. Where did you read that?
No evolution has nothing to do with Atheism. No and no.
Evolution does not address how life started, only what happened once there was life. Where did you read differently?
You have too many misconceptions about evolution.
locouru 2 years ago
Iocouru, you did not ask for a source, if you did you formulated it very badly. Now I ask your forgiveness for my misunderstanding. The theory of evolution, or a bio genesis which you MUST have in order to believe what you believe, every time you come with that rehearsed line "Evolution does not deal with.." you are ignoring the questions that are needed to be asked and answered. Why don't you want to deal with it?
Evolution asserts that God is not required, thus it is atheistic at its core.
Mekelsior 2 years ago
Iocouru, I believe most people have a misconception about what evolution is, even you. Not meant as an insult. I did not say that YOU only shifted the theory, but that the theory is shifting to fit the evidence. For example, they dated some dinosaur bones using the C-14 method, that is silly. It is only accurate up to about 50 000 years. Again, evidence for a young age of dinosaur bones, that they even found C-.14 in them.
Sun is the source of life in abiogenesis theory.
Mekelsior 2 years ago
Mekelsior, you keep making it out as if there are only two sides. Evolution or god. You refuse to admit that another side even exists. Chistians who accept evolution. You are wrong when you say evolution assets no god because countless Christians have no problem reconciling both. Hence both positions are not mutually exclusive. I can't argue against a position that doesn't exist. Evolution and science has nothing to do with whether a person believes in god(s) or not. Can't you understand?
locouru 2 years ago
I have told you before that the Bible does not mix with evolutionary theory. The only way you can do this is by compromising the Bible and what is written. I cannot answer for what other people believe as I'm not their judge. The Bible is crystal clear God created the earth in six literal days, this is repeated in the 10 commandments and by the words of Jesus Himself. Further more there is plenty of evidence for a young earth, I have already given you some and you have not addressed it.
Mekelsior 2 years ago
Iocouru, do you disregard the problem of generation of the first living organism? How did it come to be then, just puffed into existence? There were no evolution of the amino acids, or the molecules and proteins? Strange I really thought there were. So.. you just believe it came into existence with no cause and no reason? Most peculiar. Evidence is a funny thing, and our world view decide much of how we interpret it.
Mekelsior 2 years ago
Iocouru, in most cases natural medicines are the best option as the body is in most cases quite capable of curing itself. Now when we need surgery that is something else, put me under and then cut please.
Joke aside, no it is not even remotely close when it comes to analogy. Anyway, just keep an open mind and look for the possibility at least that you might be wrong and that God is in fact needed. Check out the Prophecies in Daniel 2 for example for starters.
Mekelsior 2 years ago
All this started because you said evolution was sun worship. Which by the way, you have not explained why. "Both sides of the story" does not exist in science.
You want me to prove evolution? Countless years of research done by the scientific community did not convince you, how will I? Like I said, I don't care if you accept evolution or not. It is the claims you make that leave me at a loss.
Next you'll be saying Atheism is a religion too...
locouru 2 years ago
I just realized what you meant with "rediculous" (sic).
I doubt you write in Spanish as well as I write in English. But I guess that is just you. A condescending prick.
locouru 2 years ago
Also, if I disagree with your conclusion, why does that mean I am not being sincere? Cant we both be sincere and just disagree?
locouru 2 years ago
Iocouru, when you say that the scientists that do not believe in evolution are not scientists then how do you think I can convince you that they are? Dr David Berlinski is one man that is skeptical to evolution and I have yet to find any good argument against his. You should check it out. Thing is, I cannot convince you because your premise does not allow the evidence that I have to be counted as evidence. Take a look at the "Evolution Cruncher" you may find that online as a free eBook.
Mekelsior 2 years ago
You cannot convince me because I picked up a few books and actually went through them. I have certain questions about evolution myself but find that whole thing concrete enough to accept it.
I didn't say that scientists that do not believe in evolution are not scientists. When I said science I meant the agreed upon consensus of the scientific community. That is science, not a few rouge theories.
What is my premise and what is your evidence?
locouru 2 years ago
I know I cannot convince you, I have stated that before also :) It is up to you go where the evidence leads. It is also my job to do so. I have found for myself, that the Bible is proved beyond anything else I have looked at. There are many people out there that are skeptical to evolution and that have come to similar conclusions as I have. We know we are not the majority but that in itself is not important. The majority can be and are often if not always wrong.
Mekelsior 2 years ago
I followed the evidence. That is what you do not understand. I just reached a different conclusion than you. Can you name me one scientist who does not accept evolution and is not a Theist?
People reject evolution for religious reasons only. There is no evidence that we were made by magic. How could there be?
Do you not understand that just because a very, very small group of scientists advocate creation it does not mean that there are two sides?
locouru 2 years ago
I have been trying to reason this with many other people, you are the first one to actually understand what I'm trying to say. You have followed the evidence and have just reached a different conclusion than me. Excellent, now reverse it. See I'm not that much of an idiot.
Now you make a statement that people reject evolution for religious reasons only, that is a fallacy. Dr David Berlinski is not a theist and he have rejected evolution as far as I know. Check him out.
Mekelsior 2 years ago
My point is exactly that. If evolution could not be reconciled with the bible then you wouldn't have Christians who accept evolution. So your claim is wrong.
You can say you are looking at the evidence honestly and with sincerity but when you automatically discard everything that disagrees with the bible, you are being neither.
Be skeptical of evolution all you like but dont make up nonsense about evolution being sun worship.
locouru 2 years ago
I have not said you are not sincere, many are sincere in their beliefs and are sincerely wrong. Many Christians today believe in evolution and are sincerely wrong about that also, they do not go together.
Last, I'm not condescending at all, you just used the same word with two different spellings, it was not meant or intended to make you feel bad. I'm sure that I use bad spelling quite often as well. English is not my first language anyway.
Mekelsior 2 years ago
Iocouru, again you just need to study history and look at the religions and the claims that evolution makes. It is a form of sun worship that is a fact. Now you make disagree with this fact as much as you want, but the Bible says the entire world will be lead to worship the sun, either knowingly or by ignorance.
When you have seen again and again that the Bible is true, then being skeptical to things that are against it is logical. Prove evolution then I will follow, yet you cannot prove it.
Mekelsior 2 years ago
What have you to say to the majority of Christians in the world who accept evolution and believe in bible god?
Guess there are more than two sides...
locouru 2 years ago
Evolution and the God of the Bible are not compatible, it is as simple as that.
Mekelsior 2 years ago
Many Christians have no problem reconciling both.
You have stated that you make your beliefs around the one starting point. There is a god. All your conclusions will lead you to this. I made no claim. I said I would accept what is true regardless of the source. Perhaps you should take your own advise and look the the evidence honestly for a change.
Regardless of whether a god exists or not, your claims are rediculous.
locouru 2 years ago
I believe in God because of the evidence leads to that conclusion, at least they did for me. I can only believe in a Maker because I exist, I have not always existed. So if we go back in time we ask the question why do we exist, is there any reason to our existence? Then I think, cause and effect, we are the effect thus there must be a cause. The cause can only be God, as we are intelligent and personal beings, we can love. Thus God must be that as well, but not limited to our abilities.
Mekelsior 2 years ago
It is evident that we disagree and all I can say is that just continue to search, cause no man can have a complete knowledge of whats going on. We can only know a little bit of the great picture. You say may claims are "rediculous" (sic), well I disagree with your claim. I have looked at all the arguments, with all honesty and sincerity, I accept that I cannot know everything, but I know enough to be skeptical to the theory of evolution. Yet the argument is not about that at all.
Take care.
Mekelsior 2 years ago
"Many Christians have no problem reconciling both." Where is your point? I'm not many Christians, I'm just one. I do not believe the Bible is compatible with the theory of Evolution, because the God of the Bible speaks and it stands fast, meaning one word and a billion angels stands before God. That is the power of the God of the Bible, and I have just touched the tip, multiply whatever powerful feat you can think of with infinity and you have just started. Yet God is Love.
Mekelsior 2 years ago
@Mekelsior
Indeed, the reason that the Catholic Church perpetuates the idea that evolution and Chrisitianity are not at odds is that the belief of Evolution destorys the book of Genesis and God's 7 day creation and Sabbath. It's truly an attack on God.
hopgoblin1 2 years ago
You should watch videos from actual scientist if you want to learn about science.
Anyone who claims that evolution is a religion requires an MIR scan.
locouru 2 years ago
Iocouru, I have heard the same argument before, "You should watch videos from actual scientists if you are to learn about science." In this I can only assume that you mean people that teach and believe evolution are real scientists? Well it doesn't work like that, if you want to hear both sides of the story you go to both sides of the argument. I have done that, and the side of Creation is far superior in both arguments and in evidence.
Mekelsior 2 years ago
@Mekelsior
Science is not this field where everyone can give there opinion and make their own versions of events. It is the tool we use to describe what is. Creationists are not accepted by their peers and after reading what they have to offer, they do not capture my interest either. Yes, contrary to what you think, I have actually heard their nonsense.
You say there is better evidence for creation. I say there is not one thing that can be considered evidence. Feel free to prove me wrong.
locouru 2 years ago
And there is evidence that can be looked at honestly. You proudly stated that you choose to believe the bible and make your conclusions around it. Yet you claim those that accept reality are looking through glasses. I choose to believe what is true, regardless of it's source.
And again, you are not persecuted. You are ridiculed. Religion makes men think they are persecuted when they are not.
locouru 2 years ago
Ioco, you do not understand what I'm trying to say. Let me try and give you the bare bones. This world is separated by two major world views. One that is popular is that idea of evolutionary theory. This theory while it have some good elements is if my paradigm is correct wrong. Now my paradigm explains creation and variations as well just as good as your standpoint. You may claim to believe the truth, but you do not know if you do. The other paradigm is that of God, and the Bible.
Mekelsior 2 years ago
Persecution will happen as it has in the past. I believe in the 7th day Sabbath as well as a six day creation, literal 24 hour period. The world however conforms around the idea of billions and billions of years. These people that believe this will look at me and the minority that believes in Creation and the God of the 7th day Sabbath with scorn, and will once again rise against them in an attempt to destroy them. Like Rome did in the past, Rome will do again, now with the Support of the globe.
Mekelsior 2 years ago
Your understanding of the world around you, is of course formed and shaped by your beliefs. If you believe that there is no god you will look at the world with such eyes, if you further say that you only depend on Science, and if Science exclude any evidence for God then you have dug yourself into a hole that you in no way can get out of. This is the essence of it all, if you exclude one answer then what if that answer was the Truth? Do you understand what I'm trying to tell you?
Mekelsior 2 years ago
@Mekelsior
When did I say I only believed in science? I defended science against the nonsense that you have been saying. Exactly the same thing applies to you. If you believe there is a god and see the world through those eyes you have dug yourself into a hole. I disbelieved in gods before I learnt about science. Science has absolutely no impact on my rejection of fairy tales.
You are even a minority amongst Christians and you claim that I am excluding answers.
locouru 2 years ago
I do not think there is much point in our discussions, you have made your decisions and you believe you are doing the right thing, I disagree with you but I do not wish to argue with you. I just hope that you will always follow the evidence whatever it is and wherever it may lead you. If you would like to study more on this, watch the seminar of Mark Woodman.
Truth is not defined by a popularity vote, you know that. If science exclude God as an answer, what if God is the answer?
Mekelsior 2 years ago
Do you understand that science doesn't address the supernatural now? It is not against gods, lapracauns or the boogy man. Science addresses the NATURAL world.
I am still waiting for you to shed some light on how you concluded that evolution was a form of sun worship.
locouru 2 years ago
You should watch the seminar by Mark Woodman, just do a search on Youtube and you will find his seminar, he speaks on evolution also but just briefly, it is to show the great picture of the world and the religions that are here.
I have tried to tell you that I know that Science does not address the supernatural world, in fact they do not allow it as an answer to any of the things that happens. This I believe is wrong as they have then excluded something that could be the answer.
Mekelsior 2 years ago
Mekelsior, you changed what you said. Before it was that science was against the supernatural. Now it simply does not address it which is actually what I was telling you. You changed what you said to agree with me and didn't even realize. How do you think that science, the study of the natural world, should go about to study the supernatural? It is like asking an accuontant to build a bridge. Different fields.
locouru 2 years ago
DiD people even watch his full testimony??? wow this man was an evolutionist and he taught evolution at a university! he laughed at creationists pretty much. But occurences happend in his life because there is a God, things like that are NOT coincedence. So stop arguing over nothing ppl There is a GOD so if u dont agree dont even comment on here because u sound unintelligent. THIS MAN WAS AN EVOLUTIONIST BUT HAD MANY MIRACLES IN HIS LIFE! Thats not chance its GOD
kjmusic 2 years ago
kjmusic,
Should I listen to people who didn't believe in god(s) and now do or people who once believed and now don't?
Or should I look at the evidence myself and make my own opinion?
It was very difficult to listen to Veith because he didn't address the issues. To me, it didn't sound like he understood the nonbeliever so how can he claim to once have been one? I didn't believe him.
locouru 2 years ago
Ioco, if you want to find out why Wlater J. Veith does not believe anymore in Evolutionary theory and conclusions then you should watch the seminar the Genesis Conflict. To me it appears that people think the argument presented in this video is all that he got but it really is not.
Look at the evidence, I did and I do not believe in evolution. :)
Mekelsior 2 years ago
Finally some progress. Science does not deal with the supernatural. Yes. It does not however claim it does not exist. Do you not see the difference?
It sounds to me like you think saying you do not believe in evolution is something to be proud of. You are so wrong there. It is like saying gravity doesn't exist.
What evidence have you seen that led you to this outrages claim? Veith? Really?
locouru 2 years ago
I have decided to follow Jesus, this is the main reason I do anything. If I am to believe the Bible it states that God made the earth in 6 days and rested on the 7th. Now I may not understand all the science behind and all the arguments, but I do know enough to make a decision. I'm proud to stand on the side of God, but it is not pride, it is a choice I have made and I will stand by it no matter the ridicule and persecution.
Mekelsior 2 years ago
Mekelsior, now we are getting somewhere. You admit that there is no evidence for your position. You simply choose to believe the bible over actual evidence. That is fine. You will still be ridiculed but you should leave your persecution complex at the door. You're not persecuted. At least you are now being honest.
What do you have to say the Christians who accept evolution? You know the majority of Christians accept it right? Well, maybe not in the US.
locouru 2 years ago
I do not admit that there is no evidence for my position, there is actually a lot of it, but it is being interpreted in a different way by people who already have decided what to believe. Meaning, there are evidence that can be viewed trough the looking glasses of evolution and that of creation. The Fact is the same, the result and the conclusions are different.
Oh, my stand will be persecuted, as you said many that claim to be Christians believe in Evolution and I know I'm in a minority.
Mekelsior 2 years ago
He needs to dig it up, he does not understand evolution.
gregrutz 2 years ago
Walter J. Veith has an excellent understanding of evolutionary theory, he have been teaching it at the university for years. This is perhaps why you react to his claims on evolution that you don't know enough about the theory and are as such a believer in just an old religion. Now if you were to study evolution and all it entails like Walter Veith have done, then maybe just maybe you will see the truth of it all.
Mekelsior 2 years ago
No other scientist agree with him.
They all accept evolution.
I have studied evolution, I agree with all the other people who have studied it.
gregrutz 2 years ago
Well, evidently the scientists have not studied it enough or they would have left, but I think there is more sinister plots that are behind it. Now I know that evolution is false because I have seen things that you have not, yet I am labeled an idiot because I'm critical to the theory. So there is no wonder really that they agree, they are afraid of loosing their favor in the eyes of men. Its like watching a sandbox fight.
Mekelsior 2 years ago
70% of scientist accept God
99% of them accept evolution.
You are lost, read a science book.
gregrutz 2 years ago
What have you seen that I have not? What have you seen that the scientific community ,which disagrees with you, has not?
You are labeled an idiot for saying idiotic things. Like "evolution has been proven to be an old religion a form of sun worship".
Were you home schooled? It would explain a lot.
locouru 2 years ago
Iocouru: No, I'm not an idiot just labeled as one there is a big difference. What I have seen is not something that can be tested, as science has already made the mistake of ignoring anything supernatural. So the very existence of something supernatural would eliminate the premise of the evolutionary theory. Science cannot see this, they do not allow it thus they are the idiots, self made that is.
Quick question: Something comes from nothing? How is that possible?
Mekelsior 2 years ago
It is not that science does not allow the supernatural. Its is that the supernatural does not fall in the realm of science. HUGE difference.
Something from nothing... You tell me since you are making that claim.
locouru 2 years ago
No, science says that the supernatural does not exist, thus it exclude God as an answer.
Where have you been in science class? Heard of the Big Bang? The question is, where did the mass/energy come from? Have it always existed, if so how did it explode if nothing existed before? If everything was a . in the universe, that constitutes nothing, how does this work? What forces that did not exist cause this thing to explode? Its a fairytale buddy. There are so many things that is against it.
Mekelsior 2 years ago
When someone denies evolution theory he might be ceationist, haven't seen his testimony of creationism.
But if he isn't able or willing to disassociate himself from a spiritual backyard as Scientology, what a Christian might that be?
Bobbel888 2 years ago
Walter Veith is not a follower of Scientology, he is a Christian.
Mekelsior 2 years ago
Walter J. Veith believes in a literal six day creation, as do I. You need to watch the seminars about creation, "the Genesis Conflict" and "Total Onslaught" He is a Seventh day Adventist, same as me. :)
Mekelsior 2 years ago
Thanks for your links.
Just wonder, that is so well in denoting Catholic Church as "Babylonian Whore" and so naturally behaves against children of black magic, who L. Ron Hubbard an Co. definitely are. I watched some of his creationistic prestnations, which speak only of anti-evolutionism and he has an non-honest treatment of scientific methods, which anyway is not godly. In that aspect I prefer the testimony of Darwin, showing the beauty of nature.
Bobbel888 2 years ago
Bobbel, your welcome but please watch them all, as this is why I believe in God rather than in the evolutionary theory. Not as much as it is difficult to disprove evolution cause if the Bible is right it is given by the devil, a fallen angel that is far more intelligent than any human, so how then can we even hope to break the bond that he have on us? Only trough the knowledge and faith in Jesus Christ can fears be dispelled. So give it some time, investigate it with an open but critical mind.
Mekelsior 2 years ago
Thanks, well, I feel a spritual welcome, but associated with a deep stomach ache.
> "as this is why I believe in God rather than in the evolutionary theory"
... reads like "as this is why I believe in Mr. Veith rather that in evolution theories.
I my creed there is no term evolution and no Mr. Veith. I do not understand, why they schould be there and again I do not understand, what that diabolic construction around evolution (he does not explain that mighty term at all) should be for.
Bobbel888 2 years ago
Brother Veith is a good man this I believe, we do not agree on everything and no I don't follow him, I follow Jesus Christ and the Bible. Some people however have more information than others, more knowledge. He is an authority when it comes to evolution and he have also studied the religions behind the scene. There is much to cover and no single man can get a complete overview of everything, this is why we have more people that we can learn, compare and then check what they say.
Mekelsior 2 years ago
He is an authority when it comes to evolution.
NO, Biologists are the authority and they say evolution happened. Fact.
gregrutz 2 years ago
Why can't you believe in God and accept evolution happened?
gregrutz 2 years ago
11:15-12:42
Is this his true commitment, Scientology?
Bobbel888 2 years ago
You have given me evidence that Daniel was written before 200 BC. I am not questioning that.
Are you unaware that there are different versions of the same book?
I am not talking about the four different Gospels I am talking about one specific book from one period compared to the same book of another period.
locouru 2 years ago
Please, please, please, show me the different versions and their different dates!!!
wovuween147 2 years ago
Yes, different, but to what degree? Different on phraseology or augmented verses? The main point is that inspite of the difference the main point is still in the book, including its prophetic credibility. Now show me the sources for these different books?
wovuween147 2 years ago
why have my comments not posted
wovuween147 2 years ago
Coz it was the weekend. I have not been on the computer.
I have to admit that I have to look through my notes as I can't remember the source.
locouru 2 years ago
Ok, I'll wait for the different versions, its Ok to look in your notes!
wovuween147 2 years ago
Yes, there is evidence of the census of Jesus's birth. And yes it was the one of Quirinuis. Archealogoy has proved it.
wovuween147 2 years ago
Many of the books in the bible have known variations. Mark for example has three. What you are not realizing is that a very common thing these prophets did was retell an actual historical event, with mistakes because they were only repeating what they heard or read, and then making a prophecy about the future. Problem is, the person making the prophecy is someone else Many years later. After the "prophecy" occurred.
locouru 2 years ago
Ok, maybe you'll understand the differences in the synoptics if you look at it this way. If four people witness an event and write a story, it will all come out different. Each other was writing to a specific audience, like Matthew to the Jews et. cetera. Don't you find it odd that early Christians would be persecuted for a fake made up character?? HUH? Roman historians and others document this persecution. So why would people writing a big lie, get the crap beat out of them for it?
wovuween147 2 years ago
You have your responses so rehearsed you dont even realize you are giving answers to questions I didnt ask. What do four witnesses have to do with what I said?
The Septuagint was written around 200 BCE. The Nabonidus Chronicle has a similar theme to Daniel. But it doesnt support the position of Daniel. You giving evidence against what youre saying. Maybe you should take your own advise and READ.
locouru 2 years ago
Ok, I going to re-iterate this once more, Josephus documents that Alexander the Great recieved a copy during the annexation of jerusalem in the autumn of 332 BC( Antiquities of the Jews XI, chapter viii, paragraphs 3-5)!! Therefore, Daniel was written before 200BC unlike what you posited! How can the Nabonidus chronicle go against what I am saying?
Darius the Mede was viceroy in Babylon during the reign of Cyrus II (a.k.a. Cyrus the Great, who ruled from c.550-530 BC, So I guess he it mixed up!
wovuween147 2 years ago
Reiterate it as many time as you want. You have now given me three answers to questions I DID NOT ASK. Like I said, you have answers rehearsed and do not realize when you are giving an answer that has nothing to do with what is being discussed. I actually remember you. We have come across each other somewhere or other on Youtube. I asked you if English was your first language which you said it was. You make a very poor argument for that position when you cant comprehend the topic of interest.
locouru 2 years ago
Listen, just agrue against the evidence presented, becuase if you scroll down the page, then you can see why I have made the comments I have made. So what about the daniel chapter 9 now? do you still believe it was written in 200 BC(when I just clearly displayed the comment before that it wasn't) Then you told me that the kings in Daniel don't match up. The answers that I'm posting are relating to your questions. By the way, we have never ever met on youtube, TRUST ME!
wovuween147 2 years ago
I still stand by the position that while the book of Daniel was written earlier. The current Daniel Chapter 9 was written in 200 BCE.
When I said the kings don't match up you assumed I meant Darius the Mede. I didn't.
You saw a simple comment I made and being so used to defending your position, you started ranting about nonsense. All the while ignoring what I was actually saying.
locouru 2 years ago
How can you stand on your position when there is clear evidence against what you stand for? And your simple comment, your simple comment is concerning this discussion. Moreover, if I'm ranting that back that up with evidence, not just because you say so. I've given you dates, books, and down to pages, what do you have to give me?
wovuween147 2 years ago
If I knew why people stood by a position when there was clear evidence against I would know why people are Christian. I don't know why people are Christian.
I'll give you an example of a rant you made that had nothing to do with the discussion.
"If four people witness an event and write a story, it will all come out different."
You have said several such things that have nothing to do with that is being discussed.
locouru 2 years ago
That was in response to your comment that the synoptic gospels don't contain the same content. that's not rambling
wovuween147 2 years ago
I did not say the synoptic gospels contained different content. Read it again.
I said, and repeated, that there are different versions of the same book.
I asked you repeatedly. Do you not know this?
locouru 2 years ago
Yes, I'm aware that there are altered versions! However, one of the methods used to verify scripts from fraudulent ones is the matching principle. The versions of the gospels that do agree, agree by manuscripts in the thousands! then there are other versions which have different dates and added or deleted content. So what is your point with these different versions?
wovuween147 2 years ago
People are Christians because the so called evidence against Christianity, about real Christianity I must add, are all refuted with ease.
Mekelsior 2 years ago
If you like to ask questions so much why don't you try answering one.
locouru 2 years ago
Yes, I am telling you that the people said to have followed Jesus were not persecuted. That was made up by the church. You have made no argument besides "Why would they lie?". Using your logic, every religion is true. Why would the other people lie? You do realize that these people were far from the most advanced at their time? They were extremely ignorant and easily deceived. But anyway, we have no common ground to have a normal discussion. You like to insult, I like discussing actual history.
locouru 2 years ago
I guess I am just too much of an idiot because I refuse to believe what people say without some sort of evidence that what they're saying is true.
locouru 2 years ago
The story of the Israelites coming from Egypt is also recorded with the Egyptians! The Egyptians sure didn't have any motive to promote the bible!
wovuween147 2 years ago
Recorded by the Egyptians as if it was a real event? Who wrote that?
locouru 2 years ago
It was hieroglyphics on one of their memorials talking about just what the Bible records in terms of Hebrews being enslaved and then being set free. Not only that, I told you before that Daniel wasn't written in 200BC as you mistakenly quoted before? So now what do you have to say about that and its prophetic authenticity; moreover, it's authenticity as a book?
wovuween147 2 years ago
I didn't say Daniel was written in 200 BCE. I said Daniel Chapter 9 was. And I also mentioned there is a historical inaccuracy with the kings which you were quick to ignore.
I looked up hieroglyphics and found people mentioning it provided evidence but couldn't find what this evidence is. Can you refer me to your source?
locouru 2 years ago
Oh yes, you did mention Darius, well it turns out, as many have found out, that people have mistaken this mention with Darius a Persian King. This Darius mentioned is a MEDE!!! and he has been confirmed by the Nabudionus chronicle(forgive me if I mispelled it. Again, Daniel Chapter 9 was not written in 200 BC, do you know why? Well alexander the great ordered the Hebrew writings to be copied and translated in greek, including Daniel, and obviously this happened before 200 BC!!!!
wovuween147 2 years ago
Putting exclamation marks after what you are saying doesn't give it more weight.
And no, I did not mention Darius. I was referring to something else but since you brought it up, Darius the Mede is considered one of the biggest mistakes in Daniel last I checked. Can you refer me to where you read different?
You do not understand what I mean about Daniel 9. If Alexander ordered the book translated that's great. But Daniel 9 was not part of the book at the time. It's a later addition.
locouru 2 years ago
Ok, if you READ the septuigant then you will see that the whole book of Daniel is there. EVEN the one from back in Alexander's time, which proves that the writings weren't added later! Look up the Nabudionus chronicle as I refered to it in the last comment for the Kings in Daniel's time.
wovuween147 2 years ago
How do you know that Daniel 9 was not part of what Daniel the prophet wrote? The original documents are all gone, so how do you know? :)
Mekelsior 2 years ago
No, you assume that we are idiots because you state that you are right and that all the historians who have said and proven that Christians were persecuted in their thousands and later by the millions never happened. I find that very interesting, you argue that we discount evidence.
Other than that, yes do accept truth only if evidence can be presented. Do not accept anything on face value. Many Christians does that, but not all of us. So try not to generalize. (I know its difficult sometimes)
Mekelsior 2 years ago
yes do accept truth only if evidence can be presented
Watch a video by DonExodus2 or cdk007
or ''why do people laught at creationist''.
gregrutz 2 years ago
You will laugh at people that believe in God until it is to late to do anything about it, then you will have to admit that the evidence was already there, yet you simply decided to discount it because you wanted to live the life you had and not wanting a God to tell you how to live. It changes nothing, evolution has been proven to be an old religion a form of sun worship, now it is simply hidden in more fancy words.
Mekelsior 2 years ago
evolution has been proven to be an old religion a form of sun worship,
THAT'S A GOOD ONE, WHO MAKE THIS SHIT UP. YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TAKING ABOUT, READ A BIOLOGY BOOK, IDiot.
gregrutz 2 years ago
Oh I know perfectly well what I talk about, it is you who have decided that majority decide what is true and what is not. Instead of accusing me of being an idiot you should look it up and challenge me on the statement, but you would rather feel big and mighty don't you? Now your opinion and labeling me does not change the fact, Evolution is a religion. It is still an old religion that involves sun worship. Question, how dependent of the sun is evolution? How much evolution could there be wo it?
Mekelsior 2 years ago
You know, I wasn't going to call you an idiot until I realized you repeated the sun worship nonsense again. Idiot. You need to take out a dictionary once in a while. There is life on earth that will never even experience light.
locouru 2 years ago
You call me an idiot because you do not know what's going on, this would make you ignorant. All I want is for you to get educated of the important matters in this world. It is not about evolution or the theory but about the things that goes on behind the scene. If you are interested there is a wealth of information online that may shed some light on this. But for your information, calling people idiot just because they have a different opinion than you is not how to conduct any form of debate.
Mekelsior 2 years ago
Mekelsior,
Evolution is the theory that explains the diversification of life. If you go around saying it is a religion and that it is some kind of sun worship people are going to make fun of you.
I remember my science class well enough to know what science is and what scientific theories are. You obviously were not paying attention.
Please show me where "science" says the supernatural does not exist.
locouru 2 years ago
Iocouru, I know that it is a theory but you are not reading what I'm saying, Evolutionism is a religion still, it is just hidden in scientific language. They believed in the old days in evolution and it is regardless of your claim a form of sun worship. Now people will make fun of me because I do not believe in the theory but that reflect their character rather than mine, so it really is irrelevant.
Science does not deal with the supernatural, this they have said over and over again.
Mekelsior 2 years ago
These people might have lied because they saw a possibility to take advantage by repeating their own version of a story that was very common at the time.
Maybe someone in a high position and a vivid imagination was believed when he spun the story.
Maybe the people who heard the story long after believed the story and didn't know it wasn't true.
You need to establish why something should be believed not why it shouldnt. Otherwise anything anyone says is true until proven different.
locouru 2 years ago
So it was an advantage? What could they get out of it? Endless persecutions, they died for their religion because they knew what they saw was true, not for political power. Think about it, what's the point of political power if they can't use it since they're dead? you're coming up with senseless hypothesis when you have truth
ogirv101 2 years ago
Not one of them was killed. That is only church nonsense. Where do you get your information from? Ah that's right, you just believe what you're told without questioning. Very Christian of you.
You are giving them more credit then they deserve. They were superstitious barbarians.
I think this discussion has come to an end. There is not point in talking to someone like you.
locouru 2 years ago
So you're telling me that Christians weren't persecuted? You're telling me that the men who believed in Jesus weren't hated by their own people (the Jews). Furthermore, all you do is make ad ohminem attacks, no real legitimate arguments, I don't question things? I actually based my whole argument of questions, maybe you're too stupid and ignorant to see that, how Atheist of you. How do you like that generalization?
They were superstitious barbarians? That's your awnser? WTF?
ogirv101 2 years ago
Jesus didn't exist. If you think I am wrong lets discuss the evidence for Jesus.
You say Jesus stands up to scrutiny. Lets put that to the test.
locouru 2 years ago
We have already discuessed the evidence, but your myopic logic doesn't allow you to accept any evidence that proves you wrong. You're intellectualy biased. There is without doubt that Alexander the Great existed, and the existance of Jesus is 10 times more credible than Alexander in timeframe. When we look at form criticms he's at least 100 times more credible, especially with Jewish morality.
ogirv101 2 years ago
Alexander the Great now... Ah-huh... You sure make a convincing argument.
We have not discussed the evidence. Again you are simply saying that Jesus is more credible than someone else. How is that evidence?
I guess I am too much of an idiot because I dont understand what Jewish morality has to do with any of this.
locouru 2 years ago
Uhh, Alexander the Great's biography was written 400 years after his death (fact), Jesus' was written 40 years after his death (fact). It took ten times less time, and nowhere in history in such a time frame did historica event become myth, furthermore considering Jewish culture, bearing false witness was a sin, and considering they memorized their master's word for word means that it is nearly impossible for the record of the gospels to be wrong. Furthermore, yes you are an idiot.
ogirv101 2 years ago
You just don't get. I know that there are many many historical figures that we accept today who have very little evidence for their existence. I know, I understand. I GET IT.
What do they have to do with Jesus and the evidence for his existence? Nothing. Why cannot you not understand this?
40 Years after Jesus' death means people were retelling what they heard. Doesn't mean it's true.
locouru 2 years ago
So your basic argument relies on a gamble, on pure chance. the thing is that, it isn't chance, you're wrong on that assumption. Why would the people lie, why would you assume they lie, why would you assume they're wrong. You keep on saying it doesn't make it true, why not? Give reasons, to be broad and stupid. I told you Jewish morality didn't allow for lies nor mistakes in what they saw, furthermore it wasn't what they heard, because there were 400 eyewitness mentionings!
ogirv101 2 years ago
What was my assumption and argument? I didn't realize I made one. Name me these 400 eyewitnesses. Actually, name me one. My employer is Jewish and he lies through his teeth. Don't believe people simply because they tell you they do no lie. But fair enough, we have something more to discuss now than the evidence of Cesar or Alexander. You want me to explain why I think people would lie... Hmmm... Is this your evidence for Jesus. Jews had the commandment "Thou shalt not lie" therefore they didn't?
locouru 2 years ago
"Actually, name me one. My employer is Jewish and he lies through his teeth. Don't believe people simply because they tell you they do no lie. "
Wow, how could you ever compare modern time to the overreligious ancient times when if you lied you not onl commited sin yo yourself and others, but to God. People lived by their religion, they weren't cultural religious people like we have today, that was a stupid argument, furthermore if their culture was not to lie, I believe them.
ogirv101 2 years ago
yea, really, Roman Emporers who don't give a hoot would really talk about a fairy tale Jesus when they were PAGAN? Also, The book of Daniel wasn't written in 200 B.C. like you SAID, how could it be when the septuigant was written off of it? Do you know when that was written? well Alexander the Great authorized it to be translated to greek from its Hebrew original!!!! THEREFORE, THE BOOK OF DANIEL HAD ALREADY BEEN WRITTEN!!!!!!!!!!!
wovuween147 2 years ago
hi i saw your thing with ogirv101,
all i can say is watch walter veith- 2 beasts become friends!! the 1260 year prophecy of the ages from the book of daniel the statue of ages, and look up an archiologist named ron wyatt, a dvd to rood awakenin by michael rood!! there is plenty of evidence to prove god is real. thats just a few things to look at to get you started! may the plank be removed from our eye and reason together, god bless jesus
pplwakeup 2 years ago
pplwakeup, which god are you trying to prove?
locouru 2 years ago
The only God that exists, just watch the videos he mentioned to you, study well and you will find out what's going on. Walter J.Veith and also Mark Woodman has a good presentation that explains what's going on and it cannot be refuted without grasping for straws or being stubborn.
Mekelsior 2 years ago
And what I said still stands.
Jesus didn't exist. If you think I am wrong lets discuss the evidence for Jesus.
You say Jesus stands up to scrutiny. Lets put that to the test.
locouru 2 years ago
Jesus didn't exist. If you think I am wrong lets discuss the evidence for Jesus. Not the lack of evidence for Cesar.
locouru 2 years ago
also, Tacitus apart of the Roman Empire made mention to Jesus, and other Roman Historians, and they could care less about Christianity!! I don't believe that Jesus is a man that didn't exist and so many people copied a useless document about a fake God/man.
wovuween147 2 years ago
All I am suggesting, is like every other religion, the people who wrote to books that make up the bible had an agenda. I'm not claiming some elaborate conspiracy. I'm claiming a simple lie, believed by gullible barbarians
The church manipulated the books/letters so much that no one can claim to know what is legitimate and what isnt. And since the original of whatever book you are referring to was probably burnt by the church. You have no way of knowing that the copy was written 25 years later.
locouru 2 years ago
How is something a prophecy if it was written after the event?
I have one for you. Was there really a census when Jesus was born requiring Joseph to go to Bethlehem and if so, when? Look at real historical sources, not the bible.
locouru 2 years ago
are you talking about the census Quirinius believed to be taken around AD 6/7? Moreover, Josephus-a first century historian, made note of this census; furthermore, he documents the existence of Jesus and he is a known NOT TO BE A CHRISTIAN!! he was against that. There are other secular historians that point to Jesus, now how do reconcile that conspiracy? Are they in on it too, trying to decieve the world?
wovuween147 2 years ago
You shouldnt read so many conspiracy theories. Yes that census. What does Josephus say about it? The census that occurred around that time was not for taxation purposes and did not require people to go to other towns. The taxation census occurred 10 years later. Look it up. Whoever wrote Luke was wrong.
locouru 2 years ago
That is what some scholars critique about the text; however, Luke is attributed to have made an error because of Herod's allusion in the text. When Herod only appeared 10 years later. However, these aren't facts about doctrine that you're disputing, these are facts about facts!! Herod actually existed and so did the Census, the problem is when did it actually occur!
wovuween147 2 years ago
My conclusion is different to yours. Since Luke was written long after the event I believe the whoever this anonymous author was, he was only trying to give authority to his work but retelling something that actually happened. Problem is, he got the timing wrong so instead of sounding more authentic it sounds like a lie to me.
locouru 2 years ago
The reference to Jesus by Josephus did not actually appear in his works until about 200 years later. Cant remember his name but the translator was a self professed Liar for the faith. No Christian scholar used that passage when defending the existence of Jesus for 200 years. Why do you think that is?
locouru 2 years ago
why do I think that is? are u suggesting a fake conspiracy? anyway, a fellow named Origen discusses Josephus and his relationship to Christ about [Josephus doesn't believe in him]. Yes, if this never existed, then where would he get this notion? Somebody else is talking about Josephus's Ideologies which predate the copied manuscripts of his flavianum. remember his flavianum gave a more favorable mention to Jesus, his shows how Josephus never believed in Jesus!!!!
wovuween147 2 years ago
There are quite a bit of manuscript fragments but most of them are useless. They contradict eachother even though they are supposed to be the same writing. Look at Mark for example. How many times has that been changed? Complete useable manuscripts are not that numerous.
People made up the bible stories for the same reason people made up the stories of every other religion. You actually brought up Daniel 9? It was authored in the 2nd century and the writer could not even get the kings right.
locouru 2 years ago
copy's of a manuscript doesn't mean that the actual original Hebrew was written during the second century? You must realize that, who back then is going to copy a manuscript of events that never happened; moreover, keep copying it for centuries to come? What is the motive, a big conspiracy? Just bcuz manuscript dates aren't the original doesn't discredit the manuscript!!! Somebody had to copy it.
wovuween147 2 years ago
And where are the actual Hebrew originals? How can you make a determination about then when they aren't around anymore?
Do you know who is going to copy the manuscripts. Someone who believes it is true perhaps? Using your rationalization, every religion is true because every religion has people who retold the story.
locouru 2 years ago
The Hebrew originals aren't around anymore; however, the copies still provide us with the information that was written on the original. Just like the greek manuscripts, the p52 for instance, was written 35 years after the original!!! There is no other document in antiquity with that kind of credibility! Furthermore, I'm not getting into different religions, I'm still focusing on the bible as a credible source of historical information first.
wovuween147 2 years ago
Julius Cesar is not Rome. The Roman Empire was around for 1,000 years. Whether Cesar existed or not doesn't matter. Especially when we are discussing a totally different topic.
locouru 2 years ago
I mentioned Caesar bcuz everyone knows he existed! How the heck do you know the Roman Empire existed, by the wreckage plus the manuscripts they left back. The Bible has tons more manuscripts than anything in antiquity like I've been saying; therefore, It has more credibility than the Roman Empire! Furthermore, why the heck would soooooooo many people write fake manuscripts, I mean we're talkin a TON LOAD?
wovuween147 2 years ago
"Julius Cesar is not Rome."
He defined the existance of Rome in history, he had so much influence in Roman History. Also, this is in fact germane to our discussion considering that we are comparing different historical people, if you believe Jesus didn't exist, then Ceaser did not either, which is laughable to say.
ogirv101 2 years ago
Sorry, Julius Cesar is still not Rome. If you remove him it does nothing to the existence of Rome, whether he had influence or not. Are you actually suggesting that the existence of Rome is dependent on whether Cesar existed?
We are not comparing historical figures. Cesar was brought up because Jesus cannot stand up to scrutiny on his own. Therefore you have to look at other people and say Well you believe in this guy then you must believe in Jesus too.
locouru 2 years ago
There is a big difference with Cesar and Jesus as I have already stated. I am not claiming to know Cesar existed and if you do not believe me you are blinding yourself from some truth that I am privy to but you're not.
So what if Cesar is not real? What does that change? What changes if Jesus is not real?
You have to look at each thing on its own and make a decision.
locouru 2 years ago
So you're practically saying Ceaser doesn't exist? Yeah, you really have weak arguments, if you're the opposition, then I wonder why there are so many iditos who deny Jesus existed. in fact I'm glad it's only a minority of nutjobs.
ogirv101 2 years ago
First of all, fuck you. If you don't have anything to say, don't say anything. Keep your insults to yourself.
Secondly, where did I say Cesar didn't exist? You need to take a breath and read what is being said. Go back and read the comments for a change.
I have been trying to address the comments you two losers have made to the best of my ability. You on the other hand ignore everything I say and make meaningless comments like this one.
locouru 2 years ago
What? are you mad because people who deny the existance of Jesus are equivelant to 2012 conspiracists.
So doy uo believe Jesus existed? If you don't, it's the equivelant to saying ceaser is 10 times less credible than something that doesn't exist, you'd have to be an idiot.
ogirv101 2 years ago
Don't know what 2012 is, sorry. I am mad because you called me an iditos nutjob and accused me of saying something I didnt because you were too lazy to read what I said.
Again you are going back to Cesar. Why can't you stick to Jesus and look at the evidence for his existence? You have to revert to Cesar because like I have already said, Jesus does not stand up to scrutiny on his own.
Do you always insult people who do not agree with you? Very Christian of you.
locouru 2 years ago
Why can't I stick to Jesus? How stupid of a question is that, all history is relative and comparitive, how can you establish credibility without having other historical events to relate to? That is the most stupidest and most knowledge blocking form of thinking I've heard in my life, Knowledge is meant to be shared with other fields of knowledge, not isolated you ignorant douche. Jesus stands up to scrutiny alone, when compared to Ceaser we give an example, you freaking idiot. Thank you.
ogirv101 2 years ago
You will know them by their fruits and your fruits are VERY Christian.
If your misunderstanding of what I said is so shocking, I don't know how you would react if you were on my side.
What does the sharing of knowledge have to do with what I said? Can you quote me where I said this? I can't find it.
You are ranting about something that has nothing to do with what I said.
Slow down, breath. It is possible to speak to people without insulting them.
locouru 2 years ago
I'm very unChristian, you don't have to be Christian to believe Jesus existed, why do you think I said that only nutjobs don't believe in Jesus' existance. I'm an AGnostic Deist, I only believe in Jesus' morality not in Christianity, so you're mistaken.
What you said doesn't stand in any way, your basic argument is that we have to prove Jesus without relying on other sources, it's like trying to prove Einstein's relativity with Einstein's relativity, you need other knowledge you idiot.
ogirv101 2 years ago
You are so dense. Calling someone an idiot repeatedly doesn't give more weight to what you are saying. Please quote me where I said prove Jesus without other sources. I said no such thing. Stop acting like a Christian.
All I said was that the evidence for Cesar has nothing to do with Jesus. Which I simply cannot comprehend why you find that comment so outrages.
I am still open to the topic which you refuse to address and instead throw insults.
locouru 2 years ago
So he can't work out how the second preist knew what his problem was?! He told the first priest, who told the second one... a miracle indeed- they saw this guy coming!
Also, the reason why scientific text books are updated is to take into account new findings- like NEW fossils in the cetacean line. Pakicetus- with well formed legs, Basilosaurus- small, well formed hind legs but no joint between pelvis and vertebrae, then modern whales with small bones from pelvis and legs remaining for example
the12throotof2 2 years ago
Lol, Evolution theory is proven. The Pope supports it, and 1/3 of all Christians accept it.
ogirv101 2 years ago
That may be the case but the world "theory" suggests that it isn't entire fact, more importantly evolution and creation can not coexist as the bible states that God made the animals as they were in oppose to setting of reactions which lead to the formation of animals (biblically). Therefore you must chose one or the other
Tarantulaphobia 2 years ago