Are you an atheist?

[ConnorGiles]

"Disbelieve" suggests that there had been a prior belief. I have no recollection of ever believing in a god. Biblical stories just didn't cut it for me.

A "lack" of a belief in a god implies a shortage. My life is certainly not short of such delusions.

Maybe I am not an athesist, just a realist.

A "Lack" Implies an absence. So I agree, It is implying belief should be there.

I have never believed and never will. The stories were way to far fetched .

It appears we are both realists.

 

[Bladerunner]

First, I apologize to the thread for posting the full article. However, I strongly feel it was warranted because every time I posted an url address it was thrown off as a religious view by others that did not want anyone to follow up on the subject. The truth will always be the truth no matter how many side roads we take. If you have a problem with this article authenticity simply look up the names of the people , universities, etc., along with the dates and events. They will lead you to the truth. That is IF you really want to know the truth. If you do, ask yourself while looking at the picture below. Is this a ape or a man. Then ask yourself if it just might be an in-between (link)?

Blade

"Many people think the famous “Lucy” fossil is some kind of missing link or pre-human ancestor. But even some prominent evolutionists have claimed it is not.
Lucy fossil -- Australopithecus afarensis“Lucy” is the popular name given to the famous fossil skeleton that American anthropologist Donald Johanson found in Ethiopia in 1974. To many people, Lucy is regarded as some kind of link between ape-like creatures and humans, thus supposedly proving evolution.
But is Lucy really a pre-human ancestor?
According to Richard Leakey, who along with Johanson became probably the best-known fossil-anthropologist in the world, Lucy's skull was so incomplete that most of it was “imagination made of plaster of paris”. Leakey said in 1983 that no firm conclusion could be drawn about what species Lucy belonged to. Anatomist agrees
Reinforcing the fact that Lucy is not a creature between ape and man, Dr. Charles Oxnard, Professor of Anatomy and Human Biology at the University of Western Australia, said in 1987 of the australopithecines (the group to which Lucy is said to have belonged):
“The various australopithecines are, indeed, more different from both African apes and humans in most features than these latter are from each other. Part of the basis of this acceptance has been the fact that even opposing investigators have found these large differences as they too, used techniques and research designs that were less biased by prior notions as to what the fossils might have been.”
Oxnard's firm conclusion? “The australopithecines are unique.” They are so different from humans and from African apes that they could not be intermediate between them, Not ancestor to humans
Neither Lucy nor any other australopithecine is therefore intermediate between humans and African apes. Nor are they similar enough to humans to be any sort of ancestor of ours.
A new species of autralopithecine, Australopithecus garhi, was discovered in 1999 in Ethiopia. Even though this ape was said to be more long-legged than Lucy, it is still just an ape.
In 2002, scientists found another missing link-type suspect. They called this fossil, found in East Africa, the Toumai fossil. It was supposed to be “the oldest trace of a pre-human ancestor”. But even some evolutionists who examined it said it was no such thing. Jawbone sets Australopithecus apart from humans.
As if all this evidence were not enough to show that Lucy had no role in being a human ancestor, more confirmation came in 2007.
Three scientists from the departments of anatomy, anthropology, and zoology at Tel Aviv University reported in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (Vol. 104, pp. 6568-72, April 17, 2007) that the jawbone of the Lucy species (Australopithecus afarensis) is a close match to a gorilla's.
The article's abstract admits that “This finding was unexpected given that chimpanzees are the closest living relatives of humans.”
The scientists concluded that this pretty much discounts these australopithecines as having any role in being a modern human ancestor. Not a missing link
Lucy and the australopithecines show nothing about human evolution, and should not be promoted as having any sort of “missing link” status. "

 

[ConnorGiles]

First of all Blade you ignored my reply

Second I've already said Lucy wasn't part of the Australopithecus family and is part of the Ardipithecus. Still a transitional fossil.

All your article proclaims is that it isn't part of the Australopithecus family and I do believe I already said it wasn't. Lucy was part of the Ardipithecus Family - not Australopithecus.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just want your view on another thing blade.

1. “Christianity is not a religion; it’s a relationship.”

Religion can be defined as “an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and worldviews that relate humanity to the supernatural, and to spirituality.” Christianity fits that definition, of course. But Christians are reluctant to consider our “organized collection of beliefs” a religion for two reasons: First, if Christianity is a religion, then it is only one religion among many, not something in a category all its own. Second, “religion” connotes something cold and dead, while many people experience their faith as something alive.

But it’s actually important to see Christianity as one religion among many because it allows us to see the radically different Other as real — someone who holds her beliefs as dear as we do ours. Also, while “religion” can be a lifeless system of belief, it does not have to be — even the Bible speaks of the “true religion” that God wants us to practice.

2. “The Bible is the word of God.”

Neither the Bible, nor the Nicene Creed, nor the Apostle’s Creed says this. 2 Timothy 3:16 says all scripture is inspired by God, but “inspired” ≠ God’s word, nor God’s words.

John 1 says, “In the beginning was the Word, and the word was with God, and the word was God.” So, if “the Bible is the word of God,” but the word of God is God, then the Bible is God. But of course, John is talking about Jesus, who Christians have long believed to be both God’s “word” and God himself.

Jesus is the word of God, and Jesus is God. Scripture is neither.

3. “If everything in the Bible is not literally true, the whole thing falls apart.”

This is the sort of saying that inspires people to land at one of two poles: anti-intellectualism or anti-faith. But all Christians really need to believe is that all scripture is inspired by God and useful.

But what does it mean to say the Bible is “inspired”? I think it’s like a film “based on a true story.” So how can we pick out the pieces that are and are not accurate depictions of God? Adam Hamilton uses the image of the two great commandments (love God and love your neighbor) as a colander for sifting the whole Bible: We keep scripture that agrees with those commandments, and wrestle with what doesn’t.

4. “America is (or was) a Christian nation.”

The United States of America is what scripture describes as a “kingdom of this world,” and as such, it cannot be “Christian” in any sense of the word. As Greg Boyd points out in his book The Myth of a Christian Nation, if the USA followed the principles of the kingdom of God, it would probably collapse.

America as a Christian nation never existed. We’ve been turning people into slaves and killing our enemies since day one. Yes, we’re also a nation that has enshrined and protected powerful ideals of freedom and opportunity. But the USA is not a Christian nation, nor can it ever be.

5. “If you died tonight, do you know if you would go to heaven?”

This question, familiar to anyone who has ever talked to an evangelist, belies the fact that many Christians believe leaving the body and going to heaven is the goal of the faith. But this idea isn’t from Christianity. It’s from Plato, the Greek philosopher who thought our bodies were bad and that our goal should be to get our souls out of those bodies and into the spiritual realm. The early church condemned this way of thinking as heresy.

Paul wrote that “to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord” — and, yes, we may go to heaven when we die. But that’s not the end of the story. The real Christian hope is that what happened to Jesus in the resurrection is going to happen to the entire universe.

6. “Jesus talked more about hell than heaven.”

In the gospels, Jesus uses words often translated as “hell” exactly eleven times. By contrast, Jesus uses the word “heaven” eleven times in the Sermon on the Mount alone. The gospel writers include the word “heaven” 123 times, mostly when quoting Jesus.

But again, Jesus talks about heaven as somewhere we go when we die exactly zero times. He talks about Abraham’s Bosom, but that’s not heaven. He says in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but that’s not heaven either. And sometimes when Jesus talks about heaven, he just means the sky.

Jesus doesn’t talk about hell as we understand it, either. He talks about people being “cast into outer darkness” in his parables, and about people being cast into Gehenna, which was the garbage dump outside Jerusalem.

Heaven and hell were not Jesus’ focus. His focus was the kingdom of God, or “the kingdom of heaven,” his movement of love and justice for all that Christians believe will culminate in the restoration of all things at his return.

Found this article online. What are your views on it? It quite blatantly calls these 6 popular phrases of Christianity a lie.

 

[Bladerunner]

:First of all Blade you ignored my reply

Second I've already said Lucy wasn't part of the Australopithecus family and is part of the Ardipithecus. Still a transitional fossil.

All your article proclaims is that it isn't part of the Australopithecus family and I do believe I already said it wasn't. Lucy was part of the Ardipithecus Family - not Australopithecus.

Think you need to watch this youtube....video.... it will be good for you.

Ardipithecus:

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?...&mid=C7F660DB939BFEB50AE9C7F660DB939BFEB50AE9

Blade

 

[Bladerunner]

[quote: from article posted by ConnorGiles] "2. “The Bible is the word of God.” Neither the Bible, nor the Nicene Creed, nor the Apostle’s Creed says this. 2 Timothy 3:16 says all scripture is inspired by God, but “inspired” ≠ God’s word, nor God’s words."

[/quote]
Hebrews 4:12 - For the word of God [is] quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and [is] a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
Jeremiah 23:29 - [Is] not my word like as a fire? saith the LORD; and like a hammer [that] breaketh the rock in pieces?
2 Timothy 3:16-17 - All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
Matthew 4:4 - But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
Ephesians 6:17 - And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:

[quote: from article posted by ConnorGiles] John 1 says, “In the beginning was the Word, and the word was with God, and the word was God.” So, if “the Bible is the word of God,” but the word of God is God, then the Bible is God. But of course, John is talking about Jesus, who Christians have long believed to be both God’s “word” and God himself. Jesus is the word of God, and Jesus is God. Scripture is neither.

[/quote]
A play on words,, Liberals are very good at this....Take the Tora or the first five books of the Bible. They wre given to Moses directly from God himself. Does this not make his word the word to live by and the Bible is a written history of that word. But It appears it is not good enough for you.
Jesus is part of the Trinity The Father, Son and the Holy Ghost. They are one and have been since Jesus decended to heaven following his resurrection.

[quote: from article posted by ConnorGiles]3. “If everything in the Bible is not literally true, the whole thing falls apart.”
This is the sort of saying that inspires people to land at one of two poles: anti-intellectualism or anti-faith. But all Christians really need to believe is that all scripture is inspired by God and useful.
But what does it mean to say the Bible is “inspired”? I think it’s like a film “based on a true story.” So how can we pick out the pieces that are and are not accurate depictions of God? Adam Hamilton uses the image of the two great commandments (love God and love your neighbor) as a colander for sifting the whole Bible: We keep scripture that agrees with those commandments, and wrestle with what doesn’t.

[/quote]
A typical Ploy used by atheist to discredit the Bible, anyone or anything. This has been my experience with them here in the USA.
God Created all things, therefore he is perfect. Thus, if he was perfect he would not allow his words to be played on or tarnished by those that wrote the books of scripture called the Bible. He did not do this for all other religious books.
example: The prophet Jeremiah wrote to the Israelites at the time Israel was conquered by the Babylonian empire. His writings, recorded between approximately 629 BC and the fall of Jerusalem in 586 BC, record geo-political events that we can verify via secular historical works. However, in the 25th chapter of (Jeremiah, he foretells that the Israelites will be held captive in Babylonian lands for 70 years, at the end of which they would be released when Babylon was in turn conquered by another nation. Can we verify this prediction?
Nearly a century later, a captive Israelite named Daniel is serving as a mid-level manager in the Medes kingdom of Ahasuerus. As recorded in Daniel’s own book, chapter 9, he reads the words penned by Jeremiah. His prayers ask his God to keep his promise, and release the Israelites to return home. Just like the chiming of an eternal clock, these events occur as prophesied by Jeremiah. These events are all included in the Bible, and are verifiable through secular history as well.
I have found that some ,men/women will do anything in the name of GREED, POWER and MONEY including invoking "in the name of God" if it suits their needs. I also have found that many people, Atheist and other non-Theist groups will throw down the bible because of the lifestyle they want to live.

[quote: from article posted by ConnorGiles] 4. “America is (or was) a Christian nation.”
The United States of America is what scripture describes as a “kingdom of this world,” and as such, it cannot be “Christian” in any sense of the word. As Greg Boyd points out in his book The Myth of a Christian Nation, if the USA followed the principles of the kingdom of God, it would probably collapse.
America as a Christian nation never existed. We’ve been turning people into slaves and killing our enemies since day one. Yes, we’re also a nation that has enshrined and protected powerful ideals of freedom and opportunity. But the USA is not a Christian nation, nor can it ever be.

[/quote]
The USA was founded on Christian Principles. The ten Commandments. What better morals are there? Greg Moyd tried to write another "The God Delusion" so he would also have a following of people as a God. Ask yourselves this: Where would the rest of the world be without the USA.
Freedom and Opportunity IDeals: Guess that is the American Dream. We had people that were slaveowners in the south and North. THere a many of good Christian men died to free those slaves. As you are an atheist, (man's denomination without God) so were the slave owners even though they proclaimed themselves to be Christians. Yes, slavery was permitted in the Bible however, there were very strict rules by which Gods people could be enslaved. Again he let man have a free will and simply set the rules for them.

[quote: from article posted by ConnorGiles] 5. “If you died tonight, do you know if you would go to heaven?”
This question, familiar to anyone who has ever talked to an evangelist, belies the fact that many Christians believe leaving the body and going to heaven is the goal of the faith. But this idea isn’t from Christianity. It’s from Plato, the Greek philosopher who thought our bodies were bad and that our goal should be to get our souls out of those bodies and into the spiritual realm. The early church condemned this way of thinking as heresy.
Paul wrote that “to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord” — and, yes, we may go to heaven when we die. But that’s not the end of the story. The real Christian hope is that what happened to Jesus in the resurrection is going to happen to the entire universe.

[/quote]
When we die (first time): … and the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit returns to God who gave it. (Ecclesiastes 12:7). This is an allusion back to Genesis 2:7 and the creation of Adam. He was made from dust and God breathed into him the “breath of life” to make him a living person. The word “breath” is the same as the word “spirit” in Hebrew. When we die, the life-force that keeps us alive returns to God. He keeps all things alive by his power or spirit. This is not a conscious part of us, it is simply the power of God that keeps us alive. Psalm 104:29-30 says much the same thing about animals.
When the battle of Armageddon has been won, there wil be a 1000 years of peace on Earth with Christ at the Head of it all. At the end of the 1000 years, the dead will be resurrected and Judgement day(s) will commence.

#6 will get to later, have no time for it now.

Blade

 

[ConnorGiles]

Think you need to watch this youtube....video.... it will be good for you.

Ardipithecus:

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?...&mid=C7F660DB939BFEB50AE9C7F660DB939BFEB50AE9

Blade

I did a bit more research and latest information on National History Museum and National Geographic and many more renowned scientific websites have claimed "Lucy" to be Australopithecus. But you still havent answered how this fossil can be justified? It is still known to be 3.2 million years old. That Vastly out dates the bible. Explain how something ape like was created over 3 million years before your "creation date" when supposedly all things were created.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

OK, what we have here is a failure to communicate.

EVERY FOSSIL is transitional. Evolution NEVER STOPS. However, the Biblical crowd cannot accept this fact. Each of us who survives is just a very small amount better than our prior generations. In a mere 2000 years, the average height of an adult male has grown a few inches. In a matter of a few hundred years, the lung capacity of the Sherpa tribesmen (who act as guides for Mt. Everest expeditions) has increased.

The problem is that our lifespan is short with respect to evolution. Therefore, for the Biblical crowd, they don't live long enough to see fish turn into reptiles or reptiles turn into birds - so therefore it must not have happened. With a short history implied in the Bible, of COURSE they can't take the long view on anything.

The Rev. Ussher who came up with that 6000-year history made several assumptions, not the least of which was that if the generation wasn't named in the Bible, it didn't exist. So when he counted generations and multiplied by 30 (or whatever number he actually used), he came up with 6000 years, give or take a few. But what if the Bible didn't discuss all the generations there were? For instance, we don't say that the children of Adam and Eve committed incest, so where did they find their spouses unless other generations existed beforehand to provide same?

 

[Rabbie]

Blade, you seem to be a little confused about evolution. Many devout Christians believe that evolution is part of God's plan. Why do you think that you know better than them.

 

[Bladerunner]

I did a bit more research and latest information on National History Museum and National Geographic and many more renowned scientific websites have claimed "Lucy" to be Australopithecus. But you still havent answered how this fossil can be justified? It is still known to be 3.2 million years old. That Vastly out dates the bible. Explain how something ape like was created over 3 million years before your "creation date" when supposedly all things were created.

wait a minute.....you said in an earlier post: "All your article proclaims is that it isn't part of the Australopithecus family and I do believe I already said it wasn't. Lucy was part of the Ardipithecus Family - not Australopithecus."

I do believe the article in question did place Lucy in the Australopithecus family and you said it was not...Please make up you mind/.

Another quote from that post of ConnorGiles: "Second I've already said Lucy wasn't part of the Australopithecus family and is part of the Ardipithecus. Still a transitional fossil."

Blade

 

[Bladerunner]

OK, what we have here is a failure to communicate.

EVERY FOSSIL is transitional. Evolution NEVER STOPS. However, the Biblical crowd cannot accept this fact. Each of us who survives is just a very small amount better than our prior generations. In a mere 2000 years, the average height of an adult male has grown a few inches. In a matter of a few hundred years, the lung capacity of the Sherpa tribesmen (who act as guides for Mt. Everest expeditions) has increased.

Hello Doc Man......I do believe in a small degree of evolution as you stated above. What I have a problem is the evolution you state below. The bible plainly states the GOD made all including the land animals. Dinosaurs-----YES.......Cave men......yes (even mentioned in the Bible)

"The problem is that our lifespan is short with respect to evolution. Therefore, for the Biblical crowd, they don't live long enough to see fish turn into reptiles or reptiles turn into birds - so therefore it must not have happened. With a short history implied in the Bible, of COURSE they can't take the long view on anything."

The Rev. Ussher who came up with that 6000-year history made several assumptions, not the least of which was that if the generation wasn't named in the Bible, it didn't exist. So when he counted generations and multiplied by 30 (or whatever number he actually used), he came up with 6000 years, give or take a few. But what if the Bible didn't discuss all the generations there were? For instance, we don't say that the children of Adam and Eve committed incest, so where did they find their spouses unless other generations existed beforehand to provide same?

I particularly like incest problem. Yes, we do it all the time with animals,,,NO???????.....ah but my dear man,,,we do...... and the Kings and Queens of the UK, and other countries did it to keep the BLUE blood alive?????????????????
God outlawed incest among his people when he handed out the laws to live by (to Moses, roughly 1400BC). On the other hand, at what point (number of people) would you need to survive. 2,,,,NO???????

I am not sure about the dating, because others have been wrong as in the Exodus of the Hebrew People from Egypt. It still remains a problem for us to date things further than a few thousand years back with any reliability. Same way with the Universe. its age is just an assumption. I dare say Theory because there are those in here that say a theory is law or is at the very least real.


Blade

 

[Bladerunner]

Blade, you seem to be a little confused about evolution. Many devout Christians believe that evolution is part of God's plan. Why do you think that you know better than them.

Hello Rabbie: It has been a while..... had a feeling you was still out there!

As I stated evolution in the sense that people change to suite their environment, Yes. If you are talking about becoming a man from an Ape like animal previously that came from the sea....NO

We see evolution all the time especially in microbiology where the life spans are such that we can see them. Lets say a bacteria (staph) has become resistant to antibiotics in specific regions of the country. This was caused by the physicians giving antibiotics for the all cure. (i.e. giving antibiotics for the cold or the flu).

Because our cells have been able to adapt, I would also say that this part of evolution is part of God's plan.

Again, it goes down to the dating which scientist have us believe everything is billions of years old simply because it could not be otherwise. Otherwise ...unless a entity (God) made it so. Instead of the millions of years they claim it took for our planet to cool down enough to support life. there is evidence to the contrary that it only took a few thousand years.

You see everything man kind has done done to date in regards to dating has come from a bunch of assumptions. Nothing concrete. Except the written word of God.


Blade

 

[Rabbie]

Hello Rabbie: It has been a while..... had a feeling you was still out there!

As I stated evolution in the sense that people change to suite their environment, Yes. If you are talking about becoming a man from an Ape like animal previously that came from the sea....NO

We see evolution all the time especially in microbiology where the life spans are such that we can see them. Lets say a bacteria (staph) has become resistant to antibiotics in specific regions of the country. This was caused by the physicians giving antibiotics for the all cure. (i.e. giving antibiotics for the cold or the flu).

Because our cells have been able to adapt, I would also say that this part of evolution is part of God's plan.

Again, it goes down to the dating which scientist have us believe everything is billions of years old simply because it could not be otherwise. Otherwise ...unless a entity (God) made it so. Instead of the millions of years they claim it took for our planet to cool down enough to support life. there is evidence to the contrary that it only took a few thousand years.

You see everything man kind has done done to date in regards to dating has come from a bunch of assumptions. Nothing concrete. Except the written word of God.


Blade

So you know better than the Archbishop of Canterbury and many other eminent Churchmen. Your arrogance is breathtaking. Why would a God create a planet with a lot of evidence that it is much older than you say just to confuse his followers? It does not sound that something a loving God would do but perhaps your God if he exists is not as nice as you would have us believe

 

[Galaxiom]

I am not sure about the dating, because others have been wrong as in the Exodus of the Hebrew People from Egypt.

As far as I am aware there is no archaeological evidence for the Hebrews coming from Egypt at all. Genetic evidence from modern Jewish populations not only doesn't support an Egyptian origin but doesn't even suggest a single origin.

The Biblical story includes far fetched aspects such as the Red Sea parting for them to cross, wandering in the desert for forty years to complete a journey that should have taken a few weeks while living on food that fell from the sky.

It still remains a problem for us to date things further than a few thousand years back with any reliability.

Radiocarbon dating has been validated against many other age markers such as tree ring data and is reliable to the order of 30,00 years.

There are many other radiometric dating methods covering a vast range of time scales up to an beyond the age of the Earth.

"For example, a study of the Amitsoq gneisses from western Greenland used five different radiometric dating methods to examine twelve samples and achieved agreement to within 30 Ma (million years) on an age of 3,640 Ma."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating

Same way with the Universe. its age is just an assumption. I dare say Theory because there are those in here that say a theory is law or is at the very least real.

No it isn't "just an assumption". It is based on a vast amount of coherent scientific observation combined with a thorough understanding of the physical processes involved.

The distances to celestial objects up to a few thousand light years has been measured by parallax. Even at these relatively short distances the Biblical dating looks ridiculous since it is in the range of the time the light takes to get here.

Longer distances are measured using the observed brightness of a particular type of supernova which is always the same intrinsic brightness. Observations have been made showing galaxies at distances exceeding ten billion light years.

The speed of distant stars is measured using "red shift" frequencies of light in the spectrum of the star.

These two thoroughly investigated techniques show that galaxies recede from the Earth at a speed proportional to their distance. Extrapolating this information leads to the conclusion that the entire Universe came from the same place 13.82 billion years ago.

Meanwhile your Biblical source is based on one huge assumption that the Genesis account is correct despite there being zero evidence to support it and it being contrary to all observation.

 

[Bladerunner]

So you know better than the Archbishop of Canterbury and many other eminent Churchmen. Your arrogance is breathtaking.

WHO? do they get into their breeches the same way I do (one leg at a time). The last I heard they will die and be resurrected for judgement, the same as I will. One other note: I have heard all kinds of unfair, un-nicities said about the catholic church and its leaders. No, It was not from you but you did not denounce it either. I guess that makes me just a little less arrogant than the others.

p.s. I do not even know nor have I heard of what their stance on evolution is. Evidently, We are not of the same opinion.

Why would a God create a planet with a lot of evidence that it is much older than you say just to confuse his followers? It does not sound that something a loving God would do but perhaps your God if he exists is not as nice as you would have us believe

where is the evidence it is much older. If we are confused, it is because we are not as smart as we think we are.

What has God's love got to do with how we (man) think and come to conclusions concerning on his activities. I am sure my wife of many years has seen me do things she would not agree with , yet she does not say anything and in the end forgives me and still loves me. Love is not conditional.

have a great evening and coming weekend Rabbi. It has been good talking to you again.

Blade

 

[Bladerunner]

As far as I am aware there is no archaeological evidence for the Hebrews coming from Egypt at all. Genetic evidence from modern Jewish populations not only doesn't support an Egyptian origin but doesn't even suggest a single origin.

From what I have read there is not a consensus among scientist on whether the mtDNA undergoes recombination. Until this is resolved,,, your simply out in left field

The Biblical story includes far fetched aspects such as the Red Sea parting for them to cross, wandering in the desert for forty years to complete a journey that should have taken a few weeks while living on food that fell from the sky.

The (reed) Red Sea indeed exist and its bottom is littered with chariot wheels, bodies of men and horses. Check it out.

As far as wondering for forty years, it was God punishment to the Israeli people because of their disobedience at Mt. Sinai. Yes, God did feed them. Just because he was mad at them, he still loved them.

The picture shows: Pillars that may commemorate the Red Sea crossing by the ancient Israelites have been discovered in recent years on both sides of the Gulf of Aqaba arm of the Red Sea. One on the Egyptian shore and another located on the Arabian side with “the legible remains of ancient paleo-Hebrew inscriptions.” Evidently the words for pharaoh, death, Egypt, King Solomon and the sacred name of God, YHWH, are all present on the second pillar.

OOPs! The more man hunts for the beginning in his own view the more he finds God has already been there.

Radiocarbon dating has been validated against many other age markers such as tree ring data and is reliable to the order of 30,00 years. There are many other radiometric dating methods covering a vast range of time scales up to an beyond the age of the Earth.

"For example, a study of the Amitsoq gneisses from western Greenland used five different radiometric dating methods to examine twelve samples and achieved agreement to within 30 Ma (million years) on an age of 3,640 Ma."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating

No it isn't "just an assumption". It is based on a vast amount of coherent scientific observation combined with a thorough understanding of the physical processes involved.

The distances to celestial objects up to a few thousand light years has been measured by parallax. Even at these relatively short distances the Biblical dating looks ridiculous since it is in the range of the time the light takes to get here.

Longer distances are measured using the observed brightness of a particular type of supernova which is always the same intrinsic brightness. Observations have been made showing galaxies at distances exceeding ten billion light years.

The speed of distant stars is measured using "red shift" frequencies of light in the spectrum of the star. These two thoroughly investigated techniques show that galaxies recede from the Earth at a speed proportional to their distance. Extrapolating this information leads to the conclusion that the entire Universe came from the same place 13.82 billion years ago.

Meanwhile your Biblical source is based on one huge assumption that the Genesis account is correct despite there being zero evidence to support it and it being contrary to all observation.

first everyone has told me (when I bring up Wikipedia)that it is unreliable since everyone can change it. So it is out....Sorry!

. From what I have read it is apparent that millions of years worth of radioactive decay has occurred in a extreme rapid acceleration during a short period of time. If it had not Hellium could not have become trapped in granites, radiohalos (Polonium) could not have left their signature and "fission tracks" could not have formed. Strange about him leaving these bits of evidence that are conveniently ignored by MAN

Genesis 1,1: In the Beginning, God created the Heaven and the Earth and
Ask yourself, why do secular scientist fear that these radiodating figures are wrong? Is it enough fear for secular scientist to screw the results concerning the falsehoods of radiodating in order to fit their worldviews. If he could create the universe and man then he could certainly accelerate the time which would effect radiodating, distance/light dating and all other sorts of measurement.

What we as Christians have is a assumption and that assumption is the word of GOD written in the bible surviving thousands of years, several rewrites (alarming accuracies) and many attempts by man to destroy it.

What you atheist, secular scientist have are a set of assumptions that every thing started with a certain set of Physical laws (God made them) while your predictions are based on the fact that nothing can break these laws except maybe NEW laws. I guess I could call it 'the written word of MAN'.....impressive

Blade

 

[Galaxiom]

From what I have read there is not a consensus among scientist on whether the mtDNA undergoes recombination. Until this is resolved,,, your simply out in left field

The mitochondria is a separate entity that lives in the cytoplasm of the cell. There is no evidence being involved in genetic recombination and it has never been observed to do so. Such notions are speculation by believers masquerading as scientists because they are desperate to make the Biblical account scientifically plausible.

The (reed) Red Sea indeed exist and its bottom is littered with chariot wheels, bodies of men and horses. Check it out.

Where do I check it out? If such things were on the bottom they would have been recovered and examined and everyone would know about it. Your claim is wholly unsubstantiated.

The picture shows: Pillars that may commemorate the Red Sea crossing by the ancient Israelites have been discovered in recent years on both sides of the Gulf of Aqaba arm of the Red Sea. One on the Egyptian shore and another located on the Arabian side with “the legible remains of ancient paleo-Hebrew inscriptions.” Evidently the words for pharaoh, death, Egypt, King Solomon and the sacred name of God, YHWH, are all present on the second pillar.

You show a photo of a pillar. Once again, if it was from the time of Exodus it would be common knowledge.

You can visit the pillar of salt that was supposed to have come from Lot's wife too. Religious fakes abound.

The more man hunts for the beginning in his own view the more he finds God has already been there.

No. The more man hunts the less places remain for God.

first everyone has told me (when I bring up Wikipedia)that it is unreliable since everyone can change it. So it is out....Sorry!

Research has shown that Wikipedia is reliable on hard science because any nonsense is removed.

From what I have read it is apparent that millions of years worth of radioactive decay has occurred in a extreme rapid acceleration during a short period of time. If it had not Hellium could not have become trapped in granites, radiohalos (Polonium) could not have left their signature and "fission tracks" could not have formed.

Not according to prevailing scientific knowledge. All you have read is speculation from believers who have zero evidence to support their view.

If he could create the universe and man then he could certainly accelerate the time which would effect radiodating, distance/light dating and all other sorts of measurement.

Such speculative claims are necessary for the Biblical account to fit the evidence. The alternative and far more likely conclusion is that the Biblical account is utter nonsense.

 

[Galaxiom]

What has God's love got to do with how we (man) think and come to conclusions concerning on his activities. Love is not conditional.

Your God's "love" is extremely conditional on complete unquestioning compliance to His every rule. Fail to meet His expectations and He will curse with eternal damnation.

In fact the relationship between God and His followers is a classic case of an abusive relationship. He tells us we are born bad and only through Him can we ever be worth anything.

Jesus is nothing more than the public face of an abuser who pretends to the world that he is a great guy.

 

[Bladerunner]

[

QUOTE=Galaxiom;1423029]Your God's "love" is extremely conditional on complete unquestioning compliance to His every rule. Fail to meet His expectations and He will curse with eternal damnation.

In fact the relationship between God and His followers is a classic case of an abusive relationship. He tells us we are born bad and only through Him can we ever be worth anything.

Jesus is nothing more than the public face of an abuser who pretends to the world that he is a great guy.

[/QUOTE]

Not True:

As a child you are without sin. Everyone sins when they get to a knowing age. As I believe you stated at one time (forgive me if I am wrong), but you believe there is nothing after death. That is all that God offers you if you cannot come to live by his standards. If not you shall not have everlasting life.

He tells in thru Adam and Eve that they are in a paradise equivalent to heaven. Yet she thru satan throws all that away and damns us all to a life of sin. Jesus came along and died for all our sins, past , present and future. All he ask is that you believeth in him for thru him is everlasting life.

You already believe in what you will die of. Nothing! You can change that at anytime before your death.Your Choice.!

 

[Galaxiom]

As a child you are without sin. Everyone sins when they get to a knowing age.

Where in the Bible does it say that?

As I believe you stated at one time (forgive me if I am wrong), but you believe there is nothing after death. That is all that God offers you if you cannot come to live by his standards. If not you shall not have everlasting life.

I don't know what happens after death. However I would prefer nothing to living by the psychopathic standards of the God Of Abraham

He tells in thru Adam and Eve that they are in a paradise equivalent to heaven. Yet she thru satan throws all that away and damns us all to a life of sin.

Typical of the misogynist rubbish in your religion.

Jesus came along and died for all our sins, past , present and future. All he ask is that you believeth in him for thru him is everlasting life.

As I have asked before, who decided that death of an innocent is required for forgiveness? Clearly since your God created everything He created that rule.

Indeed the Old Testament goes into great length to explain what innocent animal is an acceptable sacrifice for a sin.

You religion is a psychopathic death cult that controls people though fear of retribution by your God.

 

[Bladerunner]

Where do I check it out? If such things were on the bottom they would have been recovered and examined and everyone would know about it. Your claim is wholly unsubstantiated.You show a photo of a pillar. Once again, if it was from the time of Exodus it would be common knowledge.You can visit the pillar of salt that was supposed to have come from Lot's wife too. Religious fakes abound.

Here are two. one the crossing of the Red Sea. This one is more an archeological trip through ancient Egypt and Arabia. The second is the finding of the real Mt. Sinai.

As you say, if found they would be a real find and should be known world wide. However, as you will see the placement of Mt. Sinai places it in a place that if known by the inhabitants, they would destroy all evidence. This one also has a trail of the exodus which is different from Red Sea Crossing because it is the Egyptian Mt. Sinai (false one)

Pay close attention to what you see and the scripture. They match pretty close. As they say at the end, unless you have a team of archeologist in there one cannot be certain but if it quacks like a duck or walks like a duck, well you decide.

And yes these films are not secular. One of yours would not be caught dead producing one of these. You and they hate God and the resulting religion too give a different opinion.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?...&mid=4BC05113104F6B8D81814BC05113104F6B8D8181 (Red Sea Crossing)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ubKUip6pz0 (confirms Ron Wyatt Red Sea Crossing and the real Mt. Sinai)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mB5Aw14e4M (The real Mt. Sinai)


I know......... that you are going to throw off on these as religious falsehoods. They do show scripture along with geographical places on this earth which is one reason why you stated the Bible is Bad. Nothing fits but Exodus really happened, There is history of it and Mt. Sinai really exist.

Blade