Missing link found

The first Neanderthal skeleton found was in 1856 - I suppose that 150 years out of date makes your "research" quite up to date for Creationist "science".

Neanderthal Facts

Now YOU do some research - try it before you start spouting doctrine next time. And don't forget Tek, assume makes an ass out of you and me. Or you in this case. Whatever.
 
Hmm, a site without any references to where the information was obtained, just a page with text.  How you put and credence in that I do not want to know.  What makes a person looks like an [EDIT] is not assumptions, but rather the belief of proof without any credibility to thier source of it, which your's has nothing to back it, no references at all.  And it uses the same scams that advertisers and marketers use, which sadly enough I have done at times as one, listing dates and places to make it sound legit, but with no stated basis to check up the claims on or where they were derived from.  I could just as easily, so as everyone else, could spew out unbacked propaganda such as that, all ya need is a web connection and notepad.

Let me give na example of what I mean.  Lets sent out a survey to 5000 people in my community about whether they support Bush or Kerry.  Now on this survey, there are various questions such as "Who are you going to vote for?" or "Who's position on Medicare/social security/etc do you support?" and the resulting "Why?" questions.  Now lets say, hypothetically, everyone said they would vote for Bush.  I, as a publisher of a local paper, put my "results" in the paper, but, I do it like this.  In the article, I say that out of 5000 people polled, everyone said they would vote for Bush, so they are in full support of all his policies.  BUT, I left out the fact that only 2000 people supported, oh, lets say, his medicare policy, but since I didnt publish the actual numbers or provide a way for people to check what I say against them for people to look up, leaving that fact out had no consequence on the seeming validity of my statement, since people trusted my publication, even tho my statements may have sounded legit with the facts I did give, the absence of all facts or a means to compare them to the results, resulted in my being able to sway public opinion by mosrepresenting the truth.

Same applies to the site.  No references, no sources, and on a subject prone to bias due to a lot of peoples anit-Christian worldviews.  What is to say that that source was not a distortion of the truth caused by the absence of ALL facts.  Just something to think about.
 
Sorry bout that, wasnt really thinking about that since I was just restating something someone had said. Its edited now anyways.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Hmm, a site without any references to where the information was obtained, just a page with text. How you put and credence in that I do not want to know.
Click to expand...
And this is different from all the texts of the Bible how...?
 
In passing --- I'm quite sure, from years of personal research, feathers are no where near similar to scales.

Show me otherwise.
 
Alrite, heres my response to the first 1/3 of the jynormouse prophecy article. You probably thought that I forgot  
wink.gif
This article goes on for days, and was pretty bogus. so here it is...
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Jesus claimed another fulfillment of nonprophecy in Luke 24:46. Speaking to his disciples on the night of his alleged resurrection, he said, "Thus it is written and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day." That the resurrection of Christ on the third day was prophesied in the scriptures was claimed also by the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4: "For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the scriptures." In two different places, then, New Testament writers claimed that the resurrection of the Messiah on the third day had been predicted in the scriptures. Try as they may, however, bibliolaters cannot produce an Old Testament passage that made this alleged third-day prediction.
Click to expand...
no no, this is an intentionally misleading argument. Jesus earlier in his life prophecied that he would destroy the temple and rebuild it in THREE days. Thats where the three came from. The part they are refferring to as written in the scripture is that of Jesus dieing(sp?) as a ransom for many.
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]We see only vague generalities and not even remote possibility in the statement. Who reading this statement in the original context would have supposed that it was a prophecy of a resurrection that would occur centuries later? The entire psalm was written in first person and had obvious reference to matters that concerned the writer's present condition. In the opening verse, he said of the god to whom the psalm was addressed, "I have no good beyond thee." Does this sound like something that the sinless Jesus would say?...    
...As long as this possible meaning exists, Psalm 16:10 does not contain details specific enough to be considered a "valid" prophecy. Peter's and Paul's reasoning principle that they applied to this verse is therefore flawed, because David certainly did "see the pit (grave)" in the sense that he was buried.
Click to expand...
Of course no one would think that this verse would suppose ressurection, The jews believed the messiah to establish a physical empire, and didn't think the messiah would die. The verse written by DAVID (not Jesus...) "nor would you allow your Holy One to see corruption" would suggest that Jesus body would not corrupt, or rot also translated to see the grave. Which would then suggest a ressurection by Jesus, not david... It is clear that this verse is not talking about David not seeing corruption because "Holy" means where God is. God could not be in David because he was under the old covenant, so Holy one could not refer to David, but only one who God exist in.
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Aside from this problem with Matthew's claim of prophecy fulfillment in Herod's massacre of the innocents, we have good reasons to suspect that no such event ever even happened. None of the other gospel writers mentioned it nor did any secular historian con-temporary to the times. Except for Matthew's reference to it, history is strangely silent about this exceptionally barbaric act, and in some cases the silence is significant enough to cast serious doubt on Matthew's claim that it happened.
Click to expand...
[b said:
Quote[/b] ](piece pulled from the book Case for Christ by Lee Strobel. Lee is in an interview with John Mcray, PH.D. Author of Archaeology and the New Testament)
"Certainly an even of this magnitude would have been noticed by someone other than Matthew" I insisted. "With the complete absence of any historical or archaeological corroboration, isn't it logical to conclude that this slaughter never occurred?"
"I can see why you'd say that," McRay replied, "since today an event like that would probably be splashed all over CNN and the rest of the news media"
I agreed. In fact, in 1997 and 1998 there was a steady stream of news accounts about Muslim extremists repeatedly staging commando raids and slaying virtually entire villages, including women and children, in Algeria. The entire world was taking notice.
"But," added McRay, "you have to put yourself back in the first century and keepa few things in mind. First, Bethlehem was probably no bigger than Nazareth, so how many babies of that age would ther be in a village of five hundred or six hundred people? Not thousands, not hundreds, although certainly a few.
"second, Herod the Great was a bloodthirsty king: he killed members of his own family; he executed lots of people who he thought might challenge him. So the fact that he killed some babies in Bethlehem is not going to captivate the attention of people in the Roman world.
"And third, there was no television, no radio, no newspapers. It would have taken a long time for word of this to get out, especially from such a minor village way in the back hills of nowhere, and historians had much bigger stories to write about."...
(pg 104&105)
Click to expand...
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]An examination of the Micah 5:2 "prophecy" in context indicates that it was indeed a reference to the clan rather than the town: "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of you shall come forth to Me the One to be Ruler in Israel." The fact that the Bethlehem in this verse was described as "little among the thousands of Judah" casts serious doubt on Matthew's application of the statement. In a region as small as Judah, one could hardly speak of a town as one of "thousands," yet in terms of a Judean clan descended from Bethlehem of Ephrathah, it would have been an appropriate description for an obscure family group that hadn't particularly distinguished itself in the nation's history. The NIV translates that part of the verse like this: "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah...." Similar renditions are made by the RSV, NRSV, NAS, NAB, the Jerusalem Bible, and other translations, all agreeing that Micah referred to a family clan rather than a town.
Click to expand...
The author conveniently left out the first part of chapter 5 where it says "marshal your troops..." Why would he tell a small family (clan) to marshal troops? A footnote in my Bible says that clans means rulers. The verse also talks about this leader/ruler being from the ancient time, which was also left out of the argument... (" whose origins are from of old, from ancient times") who else could he be talking about other than Jesus?
Didn't really see any legitamate claims in this article, I disagreed with the whole first 1/3 of it, so I figured the rest would be that way. If you think theres anything valid, you can point it out and I'll tell u what I think..
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Id hate to waste any of your's [sarcasm]o so precious time[/sarcasm]
Click to expand...

Eh? What's the inference here?

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]what would it take to list one supposed contradiction creation has with science.
Click to expand...

I'm not a scientist, and as far as I know, neither are you. We'd both be posting what other scientists think, but for the sake of argument, I can't even accept Creationism as scientific. Where's the scientific data to suggest that the earth and everything in it was created in six days?

Absence of either scientific evidence in favour of Evolution, or evidence conflicting with Creation wouldn't prove Creation by default.

Since you asked for scientific contradictions with Creationism, I'll say that earth seems to be pretty old, and the universe older.
 
It has truly been said that saying innaccuracies in Evolutionary Science prove Creationist Science is akin to saying that the difficulty in measuring a parking lot with a metre rule proves the parking lot is 6 feet long.
smile.gif
 
I agree, but innaccuracies in Evolution would prove that one of the religions is true, so it would give reason to believe that Creationism is correct.
 
Master~Plan : No worries, I didn't even want you to respond to it, because I certainly don't expect you to respond to the entire thing, and if you pick and choose paragraphs to respond to from the enormous article, well then...

I just wanted you to read it. I think it makes some great points; you called it bogus. Oh well.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]I'm not a scientist, and as far as I know, neither are you. We'd both be posting what other scientists think, but for the sake of argument, I can't even accept Creationism as scientific. Where's the scientific data to suggest that the earth and everything in it was created in six days?

Absence of either scientific evidence in favour of Evolution, or evidence conflicting with Creation wouldn't prove Creation by default.

Since you asked for scientific contradictions with Creationism, I'll say that earth seems to be pretty old, and the universe older.
Click to expand...
aye, creation and evolution are 2 separate issues. Not gonna try to water it down, or pretend I know some profound answer, because truthfully thats a doozy of a question...
How could one prove my car was made on an assebly line over the course of a couple days? You say the earth seems to be pretty old, and I understand and agree. The earth looks really old to me too. When I walk down the street I see a building. It doesn't take faith to believe that that building I'm looking at had an architecht, builder, and a painter. The building has 4 sturdy walls that block wind and hold up the slanted roof that deflects rain. Going throughout the whole house is plumbing. I know that house has been made by someone, even though no one told me that someone made it, because of the design that I see in the house. In the same way I look at a tree which has a sturdy trunk holding everythign together with slanted leaves to deflect rain, and "plumbing" up the middle which supplies the whole tree with water. I see this whole world screaming design. Ray Comfort, an evolutionist from New Zealand who was converted to christianity, says what are the chances of 7 leaves falling off a tree and then landing on the ground in a perfectly straight line? Then he goes on to say how much more unlikely is it that this whole world came into existence? I have never seen anything make itself before, why and how could this world find a way to make itself out of a void? This world looks old because it is old. What would be the difference between something that looks a thousand years old to something that looks a million years old?
 
Master Plan, then what of the planets that are no so "fine-tuned" as you suggest earth to be and do not, to our knowledge, contain life?
 
^ Just because we have a purpose of existence, does that mean everything else has to? Should God have left space blank? I still see how planets systematically orbit, and aren't running into eachother. The moon is shining whenever the sun isn't so were not walking into trees. All the planets are different, and I don't see why God would make them fine-tuned. Honestly if the planets contained any sophistication near what the earth had, I think this would support a theory of spontanious life. But as you can see, we are a special isolated situation.
 
Jango

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]I agree, but innaccuracies in Evolution would prove that one of the religions is true, so it would give reason to believe that Creationism is correct.
Click to expand...

Oh dear... Inaccuracies in Evolution, if they were genuine and not simply a misunderstanding of thermodynamics / whatever, would prove - brace yourselves - inaccuracies in Evolution. If the science was good you might be able to expand things a bit and disprove the theory of evolution. Let's entertain that unlikely hypothetical. By then you would have - and brace yourselves again - disproved evolution, nothing more. You wouldn't have suddenly proved by proxy the supernatural, or the ideas of Creationism any more than you would have proved that ice-cream is better than chocolate.

Please, try to be a bit more thoughtful; you don't even have a valid point here.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Master~Plan @ April 01 2004,12:58)]^ Just because we have a purpose of existence, does that mean everything else has to? Should God have left space blank? I still see how planets systematically orbit, and aren't running into eachother. The moon is shining whenever the sun isn't so were not walking into trees. All the planets are different, and I don't see why God would make them fine-tuned. Honestly if the planets contained any sophistication near what the earth had, I think this would support a theory of spontanious life. But as you can see, we are a special isolated situation.
Click to expand...
Pointing to the "purpose" on Earth and then dismissing the apparent lack of purpose on other planets shouts inconsistency.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Pointing to the "purpose" on Earth and then dismissing the apparent lack of purpose on other planets shouts inconsistency.
Click to expand...
-sorry, I don't follow, humans are the only things that have purpose, and we don't live on other planets so...
 
Restate your statement, because I guarantee you will disagree with yourself if you reread that carefully.
 
^sorry bro, I don't see any discrepancy. Your gonna have to spell it out for me. I'm sorry if I was vague about something, but what I write makes sense to me because I know what I mean before I say/read it. does anyone else see it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top