I am a christian, i and i strongly belive in my lord jesus christ, and i also belive that if you belive in him and except him as your savior, u will go to heaven. and i also believe that he created the world, not the big bang, or that we came from stupid apes.
Jericho was a walled city. Recently, some archaeologists found it remains, just as described in the Bible. The walls were extremely thick (sort of like those of ancient Babylon) so no army could possibly have destroyed it. I don't believe catapults were invented yet. It would be a while before anything could destroy walls of that size. Apparently something had totally demolished those walls. We Christians believe that was the work of God's hand.
Nineveh (the one Jonah went to) was also discovered. It was eventually destroyed. I forgot where it was in the Bible that it tells of the city's destruction, but the stuff the guys found was exactly the same as what was told about in the Bible by a prophet many years before it actually happened. There was a flood. The walls were made of mud, so you can imagine what happened. The city was then taken over by a rival empire.
Sodom and Gomorrah I think they only found one of these cities, but it was covered with a whole bunch of ash and everything was burnt. Even the rocks were affected. Apparently, the city started burning from the roofs of the houses. Bible says the city was obliterated by sulfur raining from the sky.
Most of the archaeological evidence that people denied was stuff that disproved evolution. I don't think they rejected the three things I posted above, I think nobody really thought of them as important enough to make them known.
Cool thanks very interesting information. I don;t really know enough about the bible to make a proper comment on the finds mentioned but still very cool. It doesn't exactly proove much though. In terms of how real god is just that some parts of the bible are based on facts. Oh well I dunno thanks though.
What I was trying to point out was that, maybe we should look at this discussion from an inverted view. Instead of trying to find ways to prove Christianity or evolutionism, just find ways to disprove Christianity and evolutionism. If you can't find any ways to disprove one of the two, well...you have a problem on you hands. What will you do about it? So far, I have found nothing against Christianity. It has made me more sure than ever that Christians have chosen the right path. What can I say? It is the most obvious choice there is between evolutionism and Christianity!
You keep mentioning these facts. What are they? do they even exist?
So far your prof is they found some cites that were demolished. Honestly each one can be explained either by earthquake or volcano. I have yet to hear anything that disproves evolution from you.
To disprove Christianity you simply have to disprove that the bible is written by God or via God. Shouldn't be too hard from the Straight Dope. 1250 to 1000 BC - Conquest of the land of Canaan begins before 1200, and the tribes of Israel form a loose confederation. The histories of the tribes of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, and Moses are told orally, handed down from generation to generation.
Scholars are skeptical of the idea of Moses as single author. Among their objections:
* Several stories are repeated, with different characters or different emphasis (called "doublets". For instance, there are two creation stories (Gen 1 and Gen 2). There are three stories of a patriarch traveling among pagans and pretending his wife is his sister. There are two stories of Moses striking a rock to produce water. There are two versions of the Ten Commandments (one in Exodus, one that Moses recaps in Deuteronomy) with slightly different wording. There are, in fact, a lot of these doublets.
* There are internal inconsistencies. The number of days of the Flood story don't add up right. At one point, Noah takes two of each animal; at another point, he takes two of some, seven of others. Joseph is sold into slavery to Ishmaelites in one verse, to Midianites a few verses later. The Mountain of Revelation is sometimes called Sinai and sometimes Horeb. Moses' father-in-law is sometimes called Yitro and sometimes Ruel, and so on.
Scholars in late 18th century Germany noted that in most of the duplicated stories, one set described God using the Hebrew word Elohim (usually translated "God" while the other set tended to use God's four-lettered Name Y-H-W-H (usually translated "Lord," sometimes miscalled "Jehovah." This gave rise to the theory that there were two different authors, one called E and one called J (German for Y), whose works were somehow combined to form a single text. Later analysis of the grammar, vocabulary, and writing style provided evidence for two other authors the Priestly author and the Deuteronomist.
THE CATHOLIC AND ORTHODOX BIBLES
The first part of the Christian Bible is called the Old Testament, and is largely the Hebrew Bible. However, knowledge of Hebrew was rare among the early Gentile Christians. Rather than attempt to create their own version of the Hebrew canon, they seem to have adopted what is called the Septuagint translation--a Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible plus some other books, dating from around 250 BC. The Septuagint apparently was the Greek version most commonly available (it was the basis for the earliest Latin translations as well).
Manuscripts of the Septuagint include texts in Greek for which no Hebrew versions exist. These are now called the Apocrypha.
Origen was one of the very few early Christian scholars capable of working with Hebrew texts. He recognized that there were minor differences between the Septuagint text familiar to Christians and the Hebrew text used by Jews. He created the Hexapla, a massive "arallel columns" document comparing the Septuagint, other Greek translations, and the Hebrew versions.
Jerome, when he came to work on his translation (known as the Vulgate or "common tongue" translation), denied that any text other than the Hebrew canon was an authoritative basis for the Old Testament. But his view did not prevail.
The road to canonization of the New Testament was quite a bit rockier and quite the reverse of the Old. What ended in orthodoxy actually had its roots in heresy. While the Jews examined books to see if they were consistent with the main religious text (the Torah), the early Christians engaged in a more fundamental argument about what constituted Christianity and especially about the nature of Christ. Judaism was a centuries-old ancient religion with clear traditions. Christianity was new, had no tradition, and was torn with disagreement about what it was and what it should be.
The chief competitor to what would become mainstream Christianity was Gnosticism. The Gnostics believed that one did not need the intermediary of the church to experience God; that one could and should experience him firsthand if one knew the "secret tradition." One can easily see how this would threaten the orthodox church.
But the Gnostics did give one important idea to the church. A second century Gnostic named Marcion gave us the first list of books he felt appropriate for a New Testament. It was very short, including only an edited Gospel of Luke and some of Paul's letters. Marcion was also extremely anti-semitic and thought that Christianity should be completely divorced from Judaism, going so far as to say that Jesus was not born of Jewish parents but sprang full-grown from the mind of God.
None of Marcion's writings survived, having been expunged by the orthodox church. The only record we have of his activities are the church's attacks on him. But in setting out a canon he had planted an important seed. A literary fragment known as the Muratorian canon (named after Lodovico Muratori, who first recognized its importance) gave a list of possibly four Gospels and a major part of the rest of the New Testament. Other early Christian writers compiled other lists. Eventually church councils were held to determine a single set of books.
The first officially sanctioned canon of the New Testament was attempted by Irenaeus of Lyon. Irenaeus saw the effect Gnosticism was having on Christianity and feared that the church was splintering into factions. Formalizing doctrinal authority seemed to be the answer. He felt there were two sources of authority: Scripture and the apostles. A work could be accepted as canonical if the early church fathers used it. He never really compiled a list of books, but he did establish the basis for subsequent determinations of orthodoxy.
In 367 AD, Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria under Constantine the Great, set forth what proved to be the final canon of New Testament books in a letter listing 27 works. In 382 AD, at a synod held at Rome under Pope Damasus, church leaders influenced by Jerome adopted this list. The list was affirmed in councils at Hippo in 393 and 419 AD under Augustine and was officially ratified at a council in Rome around 473 AD. However, that council added no books that had not already been included in most earlier lists, and excluded no books that had not already been excluded by most lists.
One example. You all look at fossils in the geological column right? Well, you only look at like one percent of the fossils. You don't even glance at all the clams that are scattered all over the geological column. How come they never changed?
You look at similarities between different animals and say those animals must have evolved from each other. The DNA that controls those parts of the animals that look similar are not similar at all.
When you look at the DNA of stuff the way your theory tells you to (the complexity of the creature), most of the time, stuff evolves in the "wrong" order. I sometimes looks like rats are more complex than apes.
One thing people commonly argue with evolutionists about is that there are absolutely no "in between" animals. You already made changes to your theories to explain that, but how much chance is there of a male and a female creature having the exact same mutations?
If the earth has been able to support life for as long as you evolutionists believe it has, the oceans would be WAY saltier than they are. The oceans get salty because of mineral deposits from rivers and rain returning to the ocean.
Question. How does Mercury exist? The sun has been burning away for a while. It is much smaller than what it would have been when Mercury was supposedly formed. In fact, the sun would have been so big that Mercury would be inside the sun!
How much chance is there of DNA being formed in a way that it makes life? There is so little chance that there is almost no chance that it could possibly be formed even with the time you evolutionists said it took. That isn't a lot of chance if you ask me.
There are more, but it has been two years since I have taken biology and four since general science.
nice point fortytwo, it just doesnt make sense to many "ifs" in evolution i mean nothing anymore is evolving a might not be a scientist but i can see that evolution is all wrong. the earth is not that old and would there be more asteroid hits too?
You finished your post before I did, so I didn't see it until I posted.
I'm not Catholic and there is a large chunk of what Catholics believe that I don't believe. I wouldn't know anything about those things. I would make a new topic just to argue with them if I had time.
First of all, you only said a few things about a few minuscule details that don't seem to match up. That isn't enough to disprove an entire religion.
With enough guys living just to preserve a history, you can get pretty accurate, especially when you have a God there to help you along.
Is there anything wrong with different names for a mountain? 'Cause I don't see what that has to do with anything. "Doublets" are there, like you said, to emphasize on things. They are also there to build on what was previously said. I wouldn't be surprised if someone emphasized different parts of a story to get it into a person's head better. Also, sometimes, something happens more than once (like the World Wars).
You would have to show me where you got the thing about years not adding up right. I didn't catch that part.
Noah did take two of some animals and seven of others. I don't see how that doesn't match up. You will have to show me which verses for that too. Why would it be contradicting if in one place he two of some animals and if in another place he takes two of some and seven of others?
About Joseph. Has it ever occurred to you that Joseph might have been sold to Midianites who were a tribe of Ishmaelites?
What difference would it make if some locals called a mountain something and most other people called it something else? That happens quite often these days too
I think you have more than one name too. You have at least a first and a last name, I'm quite sure.
well, Noah's Ark is instantly debunked by the fact that Noah would have to have fed 114 animals per second. ----------------------- @fourtytwo, evolution is not disproved because clams have not changed monumentally over millions of years. Clams are but one example, and because their food (plankton, particulate food) hasn't changed over that time, and their climate hasn't changed. Evolution doesn't just happen randomly, it is a purposeful change. You haven't presented any compelling evidence insofar.
I have nothing against atheists, i just dont see their beliefs. not much really makes sense of it all. if anyone wants to explain it to me, please comment on my page
UGH!!!! Your entire fucking argument is based on a misconception!!! We did not immediately go from monkey to Man!!! Over millions of years, the ancestor of the Lacerta Erectus phylum split into two evolutionary roads, that of sapien bipeds and simians. It wasn't a change within a single specimen, it was a small modification of the genetic code over a very long period of time. ---------------------- @fourtytwo again, if you can't disprove a religion with only a few facts, then why can you disprove a fact with one argument?
