Ever lasting life with or without God.

For some reason, the topic seems to want to drop off the map of currently active topics, if a topic title is modified. So here's a bump, to get it back on the map.Adminnemooseus[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 05-12-2003]

Methinks we have yet another manifestation of the Eternal Standoff. Yes, as far as I know, a fair bit of the bible is disproved by science. The fact that you, mike the wiz, don't believe Allah and Shiva heal people doesn't affect the documented reports at all. I personally don't believe Jesus heals people. Does that make it untrue? Of course not! I can't prove that he does or doesn't at the moment, just as you can't prove that Allah, etc. doesn't heal his followers. As for the ape-man thing, I'm not entirely sure what's a hoax and what's not... that may still be (at least slightly) up for debate. But the point is:Creationist theory is a side effect, as it were, of the Christian faith. It doesn't have to be true in order for a Creationist to defeat an Evolutionist in an argument. As a matter of fact, it is literally impossible for an Evolutionist to win without convincing the other to abandon his faith. But a Creationist can't necessarily defeat an Evolutionist either, because the Creationist, while under his impermiable (and, in my opinion, totally legitimiate) defensive shell of Faith, he has no evidence at all to disprove the Evolutionist. So essentially argument is pointless and serves only to drive people's tempers up as they try and find a way to explain something that can't be explained.I don't think Creationists "play the Faith card" as a last resort argument. Creationism and faith come hand in hand, because in order to hold strong with a frail argument against incredible opposition one must have incredible, blinding faith. But that works for some people, serves to give them purpose, an outlet for emotions, and an inlet for the "God's love," which, even if one doesn't believe in God, can't be denied, because it affects people so strongly. Whether it's really God loving them, or just an internal mental disorder, it makes people happier, and feel more fulfilled - and that's something real, no matter how you look at it.So even if it's in our nature to debate the topic, please, can we all lose the "pat the lone silly creationist defender on the head and explain to him why he's got it all wrong" attitude? Even if I'm against him, it still bothers me.Cheers,
Arren

And let me add the other bit that goes in here, crash, only so it gets said explicitly: back amongst those ancient apes and ancient (pre-?)humans was a little band of critters that were both at the same time. They couldn't make their own vitamin C, and they didn't have an operative urate oxidase. They likely had no noticeable tails. And some of their descendants now are being rapidly exterminated in West Africa by another line of their descendants, us.

I know that some here are, or at least appear to be, trying to convince others to "abandon" their faith. But that shouldn't be (and I think mostly isn't) the intent. It is also absolutly NOT necessary for a "creationist" to lose his/her faith in order to understand the evidence and logic and conclusions being presented. What is necessary is that the "creationist" finally understand that his/her faith is NOT dependent on a literaly reading of every last blooming bit of the Bible. That the true message there is NOT one that has anything to do with a physical, natural scientific descriptioin of the real world.It is the simplistic twisting of the Scriptures that they have to give up and that's all. Most individuals of faith manage it fine. A few have gotten very hung up on some dangerous ideas.We are asking them to get out and stay out of the schools. Others are asking them to get out of their churchs before they do any more damage.Believing that your God created everything is one thing. Deciding that you will tell Him exactly how He did that is something else. And using a book that is intended for other things as the reason for telling Him is really something else.

quote:

---

I don't think Creationists "play the Faith card" as a last resort argument.

---

Well, you may not think that, but when Brian said that, he was not speaking generally. He was describing what Mike the Wiz did. Mike the Wiz, a creationist, made some statements, couldn't defend those statements, and--only after it became clear that he couldn't defend anything he said--then he played his faith card.I agree with Brian that this is pretty typical behavior for Creationists. I don't know how you can't, but even if you can't see it generally, to deny it happens after it just happened in this thread is just inaccurate.

quote:

---

ok how about the fbi man who said it was documented as a miracle that he recieved a new body part. ok one testimony may look silly but when you hear of dozens you start asking 'why would these people who do not benefit in any way from lying tell us these things.'

---

I spent a couple years in the charismatic movement, and even saw a couple little things I would classify as supernatural happen. However, I never met one person I would describe as honest who had actually witnessed one of these amazing events, such as an FBI man growing a new body part. Who were these doctors? Why was there no newspaper reports?Things like this story never happened. You dismiss much better documented stories from this Sai Baba guy, while believing hearsay from TBN, which represents a network of people who would love to document an actual overwhelming miracle like a new body part, but have never been able to. People have followed up on stories by Benny Hinn and Kathryn Kuhlmann, and I have been to several healing meetings, and I have never seen one genuine miracle turn out to be true.I'm not even saying one or two miracles didn't happen. I am saying that the ones you described didn't happen, and I have much better reasons for that than your reasons for dismissing Sai Baba, which is because you don't agree with him religiously. I think highly unusual, supernatural things happen on a regular basis, and I do know of honest people who have told me absolutely incredible stories, including my couple of experiences, but I know of no one in the charismatic movement (TBN's circle of people)like that, and the people I know with such stories are as likely to be non-Christian as Christian..

If they do it's too bad we can't figure out a way of dealing with them. There doesn't seem to be any handle to separate them from the mistakes in perception, hoaxes and pure delusions that also happen.The faith based approach doesn't seem to deal with it well because it has no way of doing the separation.The scienctific approach can't get a handle on it because it is so unreproducible. And I guess being supernatural defined to be outside of it's purvue.I don't know of any third way that can manage it. Any ideas?

quote:

---

If they do it's too bad we can't figure out a way of dealing with them.

---

I don't have a suggestion for dealing with them. It's just that some stories are pretty believable, and several have happened to me, so they seem believable to me.I guess the most significant one I ever experienced was a letter from my sister explaining a progressive infection in my nephew (age 2) that had blinded him in one eye and cost him 50% of the vision in the other. I and two friends prayed for him, and I felt an immediate relief as I prayed. Something was nagging at me, though, like we weren't getting all the way through (whatever that means--it was just a feeling), and we prayed for a long time, but that "not quite done" feeling never went away.I got a letter from my sister a week later saying his infection had unexpectedly disappeared, and his vision had returned 100% in both eyes, but the infection hadn't quite gone away in one eye. They treated that for the next six months till it was gone, but his eyesight stayed at 100% the whole time.

quote:

---

There doesn't seem to be any handle to separate them from the mistakes in perception, hoaxes and pure delusions that also happen.

---

I can't separate them, either, not even the one I just gave. It could have been coincidence, I guess, but I live a lot by those kind of feelings, and they are, at least to me, astonishingly reliable.Another example. There is a check I get once a month at my business that is quite large. It comes from California, and it is handwritten, so I take it to the branch of my bank that knows me best, even though they're not closest, because they don't put a hold on the check. I like to drive on a wooded road to that bank, even though it's a little longer, because I like the drive. Last month, I felt like I shouldn't. I went that direction, anyway, for two blocks, but I felt even more I shouldn't, so I made a turn and went the short way through town.From the bank, I was going to another office by my house to set up a computer for a friend. Halfway there it dawned on me that he might not be there, and the office might be locked. I called his cell phone, and I found out he had left and was thirty seconds up the road from me. He pulled off on the side of the road, and I picked up the key from him. Had I gone the long way to the bank, I would have missed him. He'd have turned right where I met him and headed down a highway.Small thing, but those small things happen to me a lot when I follow those feelings. With time, I could produce dozens of such incidents.Chance? Maybe, but I doubt it.How do we get a handle on it? I don't know anything about getting a handle on it. I teach my kids not to ignore those gut feelings, and I recommend to others they learn to be spiritual.I don't know that any of my experiences proves anything to anyone but me. I do know that it's a rare bird who can write such experiences off when it happens to them.We're sorry, but something went wrong (500) is a web site that collects "transcendental" experiences by scientists. I am not presenting it as proof of those experiences, but such experiences are hard to ignore, scientist or not, and even scientists tend to get spiritual when something like that happens to them.

hi Mike, This is untrue, apart from a few cities, regions and some individuals, archaeology is silent about the vast majority of biblical events.Creationists seem to know less about archaeology than they do about science. What do you think archaeology has backed?Here are a few questions that maybe you could provide archaeological support for.1. Can you provide any evidence for any of the patriarchs?2. Can you provide any evidence for Israelites in Egypt before the 9th century BC?3. Can you explain why there are two different routes for the Exodus?4. Why are so many of the places given for the Exodus route never been found?5. Why are such prominent characters, such as Saul, David, and Solomon, who have great epic events associated with them totally invisible?6. Why are some of the Canaanite cities 'utterley destroyed' by Joshua suddenly still occupied by Canaanites in Judges?What you have to realise Mike is that archaelogy can do little to prove biblical events, so what if the bible happens to mention a city from antiquity, all that proves is that the person writing the account has recorded the name of a city.Think of it this way. Read a James Bond novel and you will read about places like London, Washington, Moscow, and a whole range of other real towns and cities, this doesn't mean there is a real James Bond, or a real M, or Q, or Moneypenny!Say for example that someone happens to find an inscription that mentions King Solomon, it is a non-sequitur that everything in the bible about Solomon becomes true. Who are 'they'?Again this is circumstantial evidence. Would it be possible for buildings to remain after the tremendous amount of water needed to flood the earth to the depth of 22ft above Everest?What was the dating of the buildings and the other 'signs of life'?Has there been any other buildings found in any other countries that were flooded at the same time as the Black Sea ones?Does the evidence suggest a local flood or a worldwide one?Also, please take this piece of advice, it is nothing personal but you really need to start referencing your sources if you are to be taken seriously. It has disproven many things in it yes. The spiritual side of things cannot be proven or disproven but the brute facts can.Science has disproven that people can live to the age of 969 years.Science has disproven that sheep mating in sight of striped branhces does not influence the genetic make up of the sheep.Science has disproven the sudden appearance of all varieties of life on the planet.Science has disproven a wordwide flood, a flood of this magnitude has to leave a universal fingerprint, it has left nothing.I could go on and on, but I hope you get the drift. Sorry but I found nothing on that page that proves anything at all from the Bible, maybe you could help me out here and explain what to me what you think has been proven here. Im sorry but I don't think God has been disproved, He has not been proved either, and as there is no evidence to support the existence of God then I have no reason to believe that one exists.Evolution has been proved, it is seen everyday. What makes you think that evolution doesn't happen?What do you find amusing about the evolution of man?You had to play the faith card in relation to the healings discussion, and I can tell you for a fact that you have to play it again in relation to archaeology.I am not a scientist, so I wouldn't claim to have a great knowledge of evolutionary science, I leave that to the people who are qualified scientists.As far as Theology and Archaeology are concerned, I am very happy to discuss any aspect of either with you as I am very much at home in these areas.Best WishesBrian.------------------
Remembering events that never happened is a dangerous thing!

'You had to play the faith card in relation to the healings discussion, and I can tell you for a fact that you have to play it again in relation to archaeology.'the falling of the walls of jericho - fact (archeoligists on discovery channel)evidence that the cities of sodom and gomorah where destroyed by fire - fact. ( archeoligists)the creation and living evidence of humans , and there incredible design - fact (common sense)'Can you provide any evidence for Israelites in Egypt before the 9th century BC'recently a jewish settlement was foud and in egyptian writings (discovery channel)it was an archeologist on t.v who actually said this , you tell him your right and he's wrong!'Does the evidence suggest a local flood or a worldwide one?'a local one , you win on this point!'Science has disproven that people can live to the age of 969 years.'but in a pre flood and better earth than it is now , they havent proved it.(part of creationism - well known)i've answered honestly and to the best of my knowledge and have not mentioned faith.

Hi Mike, OK. lets ignore for the moment that we don't know who these archaeologists are, thats actually irrelevant to the point.The falling of the walls of Jericho prove what?You do know that the dating of any destruction at Jericho is at odds with Bible chronology? Jericho was uninhabted when Joshua was said to have destroyed it.But on a basic premise of archaeology, that the walls of Jericho are found in a condition that suggests they crumbled actually proves what?All it proves is that the walls have fallen at some stage of their existence. Now you have to discover evidence of when they fell, what was the likely cause of this, when did it happen, and is ther a way to link this to the biblical account?How do you know that this narrative isnt simply etiological?Archaeology cannot prove that God had a hand in the falling of Jericho's walls, that is taken on faith. Sorry, but Sodom and Gomorah have not been found, where are you getting this stuff? Common sense tells me the opposite, where did God get the material from to create things with. Is it common sense to think that man was made from a handful of dust and a woman was made from a rib? Why wasn't Eve only 4 inches tall ? You are going to have to be a bit more specific here, like where and when and what. There will be evidence of 'Canaanites' of course since there were trade routes into Egypt, nomads also settled in the Eastern Delta, but what specifically identifies 'Jewish' ethnicity?You tell me who the archaeologist is and I will tell him he is wrong. I sincerely hope it wasn't David Rohl! How do we know that there was a pre-flood earth when there is no evidence of a flood?Every biological fact has proven that we cannot live to 969 years of age. Our bodies could not cope with that life span. Do you have direct physical evidence of this, or is it down to that faith thing again? Yes I do not doubt that you have answered honestly, and I appreciate your time and effort in posting these examples.You have not explicitly mentioned faith, but some of your examples are purely faith based, like the 969 years of age and the 'better' pre flood world.You also need faith that God made the walls of Jericho fall.Sodom and Gomorah have not been found, you need faith that they ever existed, read the myth of Baucis and Philemon, this could prove that the Sodom and Gomorah narrative is a product of the storyteller's imagination.I cannot see how creation can be taken on anything else other than faith.Take careBrian
------------------
Remembering events that never happened is a dangerous thing![This message has been edited by Brian Johnston, 05-13-2003]

'Remembering events that never happened is a dangerous thing!'like the evolution of man which is a theory!'I cannot see how creation can be taken on anything else other than faith.'go to Sucuri WebSite Firewall - Access Denied or creationevidence.org ,Brian i am not a scientist and faith is part of being christian, but these sights can answer many scientific questions you have, i admitt i am not super intelligent and i have an awful memory but there are intelligent people at these websites who believe creation can be taken as fact.with hoards of scientific evidence.
trying to say your right and i'm wrong however is boring.

also this topic is about everlasting life , which requires faith.

So? So is gravity and germ theory of disease. Maybe you don't know what "theory" means.Anyway it's still better than creationism, which is a lie. It is. That's why we like to have discussions where people support their positions with logic and/or evidence.

Hi Mike Mike I am not a scientist either, that is why you will very seldom see me tackling a scientific question regarding evolution. I would only answer that type of question if it was a very easy one to answer, like the often promoted 'if man descended from apes why are there still apes?', I would answer these type of questions, but I am out of my depth when things start to get serious. I recognise that I am out of my depth so I do not really get that involved.To be perfectly honest, although I find the evolution/creation debate interesting, I am not all that fascinated by it. My own subjects are World Religions, The Old Testament, The Primary History of Ancient Israel, and Near Eastern Archaeology. These are what I am interested in and what I feel I can discuss at a fairly decent academic level.Maybe in the future I might decide to study a science, but at the moment I really do not have the time. That being said, I can still identify blatant mistakes at many websites, which are both creationist and evolutionist.The thing about the creationist sites, in my opinion, is that they are mostly run by nonqualified people, there are some that have qualified scientists but these are few and far between. These sites tend to repeat the same sort of arguments, even when an argument has been shown to be in error, you can still find it promoted at certain creationist sites.If I were really that interested in learning about the origins of life from a scientific viewpoint I would study at a local college and then go to a university and gain the knowledge that would enable me to make an informed choice for myself. I would not learn about science from a website unless it had been recommended to me by a course advisor or had been specifically set up for the course I was doing.As for creation, I have taught creation many times, I have taught many different creation myths in the last 4 and a half years. Creation is taught in schools, in departments of religious studies, and I believe that is where it belongs. It really has nothing to do with your intelligence, it has to do with the number of hours of study that you put in.If i could make an observation, and please do not take this personally, I think that maybe you should focus on one topic at a time, gain a good knowledge of that topic and then discuss it. Once you are fairly competent at that topic then study another one, and so on.I am not singling you out here, a few bible beievers have appeared here in the las tfew months and they try to hold discussions in about 6 or 7 diferent topics, and it simply cannot be done. I know that you mean well and you are doing your best to defend your beliefs, and I applaud you for that, but by spreading yourself too thinly you do not have the time to argue each case strongly enough. It has nothing to do with youyr intelligence but a lot to do with focussing on one subject at a time and becoming familiar with that subject.I think we are all guilty of wanting to run before we can walk, but gaining a good knowledge of a subject takes time. If you simply repeat what you read on some websites then there are many people at this site that will tear your arguemtns to shreds. This is because a lot of people at this site have studied these topics to a very high academic level and have heard ALL the arguments that you have posted before.This is why I could answer all your questions about archaeology and the Bible very soon after you posted them. I have studied Near Eastern Archaeology for years and all the points you raised are bacis points that I have heard many times before.You will need to work on your memory and there are various techniques to help you do that.I sympathise when you post something like 'an archaeologist says there were Israelites in Egypt' and you cannot recall who said it. I was very guilty of this myself for a long time, but saying this is no use in a debate. Your opponent could counter by saying that they know an archaeolgist who says there wasn't Israelites in Egypy. The debate then is meaningless, you cancel each other out and no one learns anything new. It is very boring yes, but I am not here to score points, I am here to help improve my knowledge.I am not trying to correct you for the sake of just disagreeing with you, I am interested in perhaps you and I and everyone else at this forum working together to improve each other's knowledge, and if I see you posting something that I know for certain to be incorrect then I assume that you would at least look into it and perhaps appreciate that I have taken the time to point out the mistake. I would be very grateful to anyone who took the time to help me out by showing me a mistake that I have posted.We all make mistakes Mike, we all have our strengths and weaknesses, and non of us are perfect. I don't claim to know everything about the Bible or archaeology, but because I am very interested in them both that is why I study them almost everyday.Take Care Mike,Brian