31 Jul 12
Originally posted by RJHindsWell then it doesn't come across as if you are debating in good faith. If you genuinely wanted to get to the heart of what someone who disagrees with you thinks, you wouldn't be using clumsy rhetorical devices. That it 'works' for you comes as no surprise. I was just drawing attention to the fact that your pretense is not disguised at all.
It works for me. 😏
31 Jul 12
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadI think the discovery of the DNA information language code in the cells proves the Biblical account that the creatures formed by God are made to reproduce after their own kind. Therefore, evolution is prevented by the instructions in this tiny DNA molecule.
And I dispute that claim.
I say that I do know some things about how what happened in the past and that I can prove it and that it is more than a good guess. I do not believe that knowing the origin of the universe is a prerequisite for knowing what happened yesterday or knowing what happened 100, 1000, 1 million or 1 billion years ago.
I would even g ...[text shortened]... apparent history within the matrix which may go back prior to switch on time - and can be known.
31 Jul 12
Originally posted by JS357No, if I or anyone did we would have moved the line of beyond our reach to it is
If whatever we are forming a snapshot of is beyond our reach, we have to make do with the snapshot. Do you have any ideas and beliefs that are immune to this problem?
now within our reach wouldn't we? Think about the distant past and how people are
now treating it, they spell out in great detail what they say happened billions of
years ago and belittle those that disagree with them. They don't know what
happened billions of years ago, they just make their claims as if what they think
is so spot on it could be nothing else.
Kelly
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
31 Jul 12
Originally posted by KellyJaySo we are all working pretty much from snapshots.
No, if I or anyone did we would have moved the line of beyond our reach to it is
now within our reach wouldn't we? Think about the distant past and how people are
now treating it, they spell out in great detail what they say happened billions of
years ago and belittle those that disagree with them. They don't know what
happened billions of years ago, th ...[text shortened]... y just make their claims as if what they think
is so spot on it could be nothing else.
Kelly
31 Jul 12
Originally posted by KellyJayHowever, one can use exactly the same argument about the First World War which most of us did not witness. Yet you have no objection whatsoever to people talking about that as if they think they are so spot on it could be nothing else. If somebody told you that the first world war did not take place you would think they are delusional.
No, if I or anyone did we would have moved the line of beyond our reach to it is
now within our reach wouldn't we? Think about the distant past and how people are
now treating it, they spell out in great detail what they say happened billions of
years ago and belittle those that disagree with them. They don't know what
happened billions of years ago, th ...[text shortened]... y just make their claims as if what they think
is so spot on it could be nothing else.
Kelly
So there is a problem with your argument.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
31 Jul 12
Originally posted by KellyJayOn page 13 of this thread you said, "We can look at snap shots in the now, look at the little bit of time we have had and then form a guess upon something quite beyond our reach. "
I don't follow, snapshots?
Kelly
I was interested to see if you thought we all do that. All I mean is, I think we agree, we all do that. No one is looking at more than snapshots in the now.
01 Aug 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadWe have eyewitness accounts in writing and even pictures taken of World War I, so why should one doubt that it took place? We also have eyewitness accounts of the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ, plus a couple pictures, so why should we doubt that took place? 😏
However, one can use exactly the same argument about the First World War which most of us did not witness. Yet you have no objection whatsoever to people talking about that as if they think they are so spot on it could be nothing else. If somebody told you that the first world war did not take place you would think they are delusional.
So there is a problem with your argument.
01 Aug 12
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsif we only had eye witness reports of WW1 from a single source, then we would doubt it as much as eye witness accounts of jesus are doubted.
We have eyewitness accounts in writing and even pictures taken of World War I, so why should one doubt that it took place? We also have eyewitness accounts of the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ, plus a couple pictures, so why should we doubt that took place? 🙄
WWI has mountains of evidence as well as contemporary historical coverage. you can even visit the sites and see some of the wreckage as a direct result from that war.
these are things that christianity completely lacks. it has no eye witnesses, only alleged eye witness accounts. it has no contemporary historian coverage, which is really telling for someone who was supposed to make such an impact in the world.
there is nothing. the only logical interpretation of the existing evidence is that of a growing legend.
christ got more and more legendary with each retelling of the tale. he slowly grew from a humble simple man to a miracle worker and eventually, centuries later he became promoted to a god.
the early christian myth makers had such a problem with the legendary aspect that they had to sort through many of the branching stories, pick the ones that they wanted to support their doctrine and then attempted to stamp out all the competition in a very unchristian like manner.
01 Aug 12
Originally posted by VoidSpiritWe have just as much evidence of the existence of Christ as we do for any other historical person or event that goes back a thousand years or better. And if you wish to play your game, there are no eyewitnesses of WWI only written accounts of the witnesses. There are other written accounts and archaeological evidence supporting what is written in the Holy Bible. People visit Israel all the time to visit the sites written about in the Holy Bible. So your objections are bogus. 😏
if we only had eye witness reports of WW1 from a single source, then we would doubt it as much as eye witness accounts of jesus are doubted.
WWI has mountains of evidence as well as contemporary historical coverage. you can even visit the sites and see some of the wreckage as a direct result from that war.
these are things that christianity complet ...[text shortened]... doctrine and then attempted to stamp out all the competition in a very unchristian like manner.