Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   51 scientific facts that disprove the Bible
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 68 of 167 (498215)
02-09-2009 3:21 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by Peg
02-09-2009 2:37 AM


quote:
The numerous cases where individuals or events recorded in the Bible, once rejected as ”unhistorical’ by critics, have eventually been demonstrated beyond denial to be historical . There was a time when Belshazzar was considered fictional until they found his palace...then there was Pontius Pilate who was thought to be fictional becuase there was no mention of him outside the bible, then they found his name inscribed on stone.
How many of these "numerous" cases can you actually document ?
I ask because there are strong reasons to think that many - perhaps all - are the inventions of Christian apologists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Peg, posted 02-09-2009 2:37 AM Peg has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 69 of 167 (498216)
02-09-2009 3:23 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Peg
02-09-2009 3:17 AM


You said "All languages" were traced back to a common source. Not just the Indo-European family. So how about supporting the claim you actually made ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Peg, posted 02-09-2009 3:17 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Peg, posted 02-09-2009 5:12 AM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 79 of 167 (498250)
02-09-2009 5:47 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by Peg
02-09-2009 5:12 AM


quote:
i gave you a quote directly out of the book i also quoted. i gave you a quote directly out of the book i also quoted.
You gave a quote that did not support your claim. Your quote dealt only with the Indo-European language family. As I told you.
So are you going to support the claim that you actually made or retract it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Peg, posted 02-09-2009 5:12 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Peg, posted 02-09-2009 6:25 AM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 81 of 167 (498258)
02-09-2009 6:34 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by Peg
02-09-2009 6:25 AM


Maybe you should try reading it. I've bolded the bits you seem to have missed:
pg31. 'the languages of Europe and northern India can be arranged in a kind of family tree that goes back to a single Proto-Indo-European predecessor...'At some point, ALL indo europeans spoke the same language and at some later point various groups must have spread across Europe in one of the great undocumented migrations of prehistory'
As I said it deals only with the Indo-European languages. There are plenty of others (even in Europe there's the Basque language). Most of the Middle-eastern languages aren't part of that family at all ! (Persian is Indo-European, but that's the biggest exception).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Peg, posted 02-09-2009 6:25 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Peg, posted 02-09-2009 6:39 AM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 83 of 167 (498261)
02-09-2009 6:47 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by Peg
02-09-2009 6:39 AM


The book clearly states that it is talking about the Indo-European languages, which are those of Northern India and Europe. It's in your quotes.
Your claim was about all languages, which includes all those in the rest of the world - Africa, most of Asia, the Americas and Australasia.
quote:
i didnt write the book, im just reading it.
If you wrote the book you wouldn't be misreading it in the way that you are.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Peg, posted 02-09-2009 6:39 AM Peg has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 117 of 167 (498596)
02-12-2009 1:32 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by Buzsaw
02-11-2009 11:59 PM


quote:
1. I agree with Peg that your #1 is totally false and not Biblical.
It's a perfectly reasonable interpretation of the text.
quote:
2. That depends on whether micro changes happened to the physiology of animals after radical climate change altered their habitat. Teeth that were designed to tear flesh would have been also necessary to deal with fibrous vegetation etc.
It's not just teeth (and I'm pretty sure that you're wrong even there). There's the whole matter of digestion as well as the instinct and capabilities needed to catch food.
Those "micro" changes are looking pretty macro from here.
quote:
3. Our problem with the first woman is no more significant than your problem with how the genders evolved so as to begin to reproduce male and female.
THAT is definitely untrue.
quote:
4. So what happened to a whole species of reptilian animals rather suddenly? Perhaps their physiology was somehow changed so that all reptiles became short legged. If an ice age allegedly killed them all it should have wiped out about everything else as well.
This doesn't even make sense. Sorry, you don't get to put forward some crazy strawman as the only alternative to your view.
quote:
5. How do you know that humans way back when didn't live longer? It's speculation on your part just as you would claim that it's speculation on our part to belive they did live longer lives. After all, some of the animals evidently were larger etc, indicative that the habitat may have been changed at some time.
Because they are human, and humans don't live that long. Not in any of the many environments that humans live in.
quote:
6. We have had 7 ft plus men. How do you know there weren't giants? There were likely few of them so little evidence would have been preserved.
Because there aren't any now, there are no reliable records or any archaeological sign of them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Buzsaw, posted 02-11-2009 11:59 PM Buzsaw has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 165 of 167 (498754)
02-13-2009 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by General Anubis
02-13-2009 12:31 PM


Re: Where does the Bible say that?
quote:
However, the Bible does say that it is the Word of God, in which case you would have to call God a liar to not believe something in the Bible.
No, it doesn't. So if there were something false in the Bible you'd be the one calling God a liar, by putting a falsehood into his mouth.
quote:
That is quite blasphemous if I'm not mistaken, considering God cannot lie...
Then I guess you've got yourself a big problem there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by General Anubis, posted 02-13-2009 12:31 PM General Anubis has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024