Page 6 of 11 FirstFirst 1234567891011 LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 155

Thread: The Bible - Proof that Christianity is True

  1. #76
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,221
    Rep Power
    8

    Default

    Originally Posted by TunerAddict
    Nothing is a fact. I've already gone over it. Nothing can be proved or disproved. There is evidence for every side, it is up to the observer to decide which they believe.

    Nothing is proven, only supported.
    Evolution is one of the things you used to discredit the bible as being true. Now you say it's not proven, yet you have not been able to disprove the bible's outstanding scientific and prophetic accuracy.

    The best you've come up with is, its a fairly tale, even though it is all proven to be absolutely true. Fairy tales are not.

    I show you where scientists cannot even agree on evolution, so how can it be a fact?

    The bible = accuracy which means it has proven to be accurate.

    Evolution is clearly theory since even scientist's cannot agree on what it is. In any capacity.

  2. #77
    Veteran LJ4ptplay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Ft. Collins, CO
    Posts
    2,950
    Rep Power
    12

    Default

    Originally Posted by Knicks4lyfe
    Evolution

    Definition: Organic evolution is the theory that the first living organism developed from lifeless matter. Then, as it reproduced, it is said, it changed into different kinds of living things, ultimately producing all forms of plant and animal life that have ever existed on this earth. All of this is said to have been accomplished without the supernatural intervention of a Creator. Some persons endeavor to blend belief in God with evolution, saying that God created by means of evolution, that he brought into existence the first primitive life forms and that then higher life forms, including man, were produced by means of evolution. Not a Bible teaching.

    Is evolution really scientific?

    The “scientific method” is as follows: Observe what happens; based on those observations, form a theory as to what may be true; test the theory by further observations and by experiments; and watch to see if the predictions based on the theory are fulfilled. Is this the method followed by those who believe in and teach evolution?

    Astronomer Robert Jastrow says: “To their chagrin [scientists] have no clear-cut answer, because chemists have never succeeded in reproducing nature’s experiments on the creation of life out of nonliving matter. Scientists do not know how that happened.”—The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe (New York, 1981), p. 19.

    Evolutionist Loren Eiseley acknowledged: “After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past.”—The Immense Journey (New York, 1957), p. 199.

    According to New Scientist: “An increasing number of scientists, most particularly a growing number of evolutionists . . . argue that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at all. . . . Many of the critics have the highest intellectual credentials.”—June 25, 1981, p. 828.

    Physicist H. S. Lipson said: “The only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it.” (Italics added.)—Physics Bulletin, 1980, Vol. 31, p. 138.

    Are those who advocate evolution in agreement? How do these facts make you feel about what they teach?

    The introduction to the centennial edition of Darwin’s Origin of Species (London, 1956) says: “As we know, there is a great divergence of opinion among biologists, not only about the causes of evolution but even about the actual process. This divergence exists because the evidence is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain conclusion. It is therefore right and proper to draw the attention of the non-scientific public to the disagreements about evolution.”—By W. R. Thompson, then director of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control, Ottawa, Canada.

    “A century after Darwin’s death, we still have not the slightest demonstrable or even plausible idea of how evolution really took place—and in recent years this has led to an extraordinary series of battles over the whole question. . . . A state of almost open war exists among the evolutionists themselves, with every kind of [evolutionary] sect urging some new modification.”—C. Booker (London Times writer), The Star, (Johannesburg), April 20, 1982, p. 19.

    The scientific magazine Discover said: “Evolution . . . is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians, but is also being questioned by reputable scientists. Among paleontologists, scientists who study the fossil record, there is growing dissent.”—October 1980, p. 88.

    What view does the fossil record support?

    Darwin acknowledged: “If numerous species . . . have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution.” (The Origin of Species, New York, 1902, Part Two, p. 83) Does the evidence indicate that “numerous species” came into existence at the same time, or does it point to gradual development, as evolution holds?

    Have sufficient fossils been found to draw a sound conclusion?

    Smithsonian Institution scientist Porter Kier says: “There are a hundred million fossils, all catalogued and identified, in museums around the world.” (New Scientist, January 15, 1981, p. 129) A Guide to Earth History adds: “By the aid of fossils palaeontologists can now give us an excellent picture of the life of past ages.”—(New York, 1956), Richard Carrington, Mentor edition, p. 48.

    What does the fossil record actually show?

    The Bulletin of Chicago’s Field Museum of Natural History pointed out: “Darwin’s theory of [evolution] has always been closely linked to evidence from fossils, and probably most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument that is made in favor of darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true. . . . the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution.”—January 1979, Vol. 50, No. 1, pp. 22, 23.

    A View of Life states: “Beginning at the base of the Cambrian period and extending for about 10 million years, all the major groups of skeletonized invertebrates made their first appearance in the most spectacular rise in diversity ever recorded on our planet.”—(California, 1981), Salvador E. Luria, Stephen Jay Gould, Sam Singer, p. 649.

    Paleontologist Alfred Romer wrote: “Below this [Cambrian period], there are vast thicknesses of sediments in which the progenitors of the Cambrian forms would be expected. But we do not find them; these older beds are almost barren of evidence of life, and the general picture could reasonably be said to be consistent with the idea of a special creation at the beginning of Cambrian times.”—Natural History, October 1959, p. 467.

    Zoologist Harold Coffin states: “If progressive evolution from simple to complex is correct, the ancestors of these full-blown living creatures in the Cambrian should be found; but they have not been found and scientists admit there is little prospect of their ever being found. On the basis of the facts alone, on the basis of what is actually found in the earth, the theory of a sudden creative act in which the major forms of life were established fits best.”—Liberty, September/October 1975, p. 12.

    Carl Sagan, in his book Cosmos, candidly acknowledged: “The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer.”—(New York, 1980), p. 29.

    Might it be that the evolutionary process took place as a result of mutations, that is, sudden drastic changes in genes?

    Science Digest states: “Evolutionary revisionists believe mutations in key regulatory genes may be just the genetic jackhammers their quantum-leap theory requires.” However, the magazine also quotes British zoologist Colin Patterson as stating: “Speculation is free. We know nothing about these regulatory master genes.” (February 1982, p. 92) In other words, there is no evidence to support the theory.

    The Encyclopedia Americana acknowledges: “The fact that most mutations are damaging to the organism seems hard to reconcile with the view that mutation is the source of raw materials for evolution. Indeed, mutants illustrated in biology textbooks are a collection of freaks and monstrosities and mutation seems to be a destructive rather than a constructive process.”—(1977), Vol. 10, p. 742.

    What about those “ape-men” depicted in schoolbooks, encyclopedias and museums?

    “The flesh and hair on such reconstructions have to be filled in by resorting to the imagination. . . . Skin color; the color, form, and distribution of the hair; the form of the features; and the aspect of the face—of these characters we know absolutely nothing for any prehistoric men.”—The Biology of Race (New York, 1971), James C. King, pp. 135, 151.

    “The vast majority of artists’ conceptions are based more on imagination than on evidence. . . . Artists must create something between an ape and a human being; the older the specimen is said to be, the more apelike they make it.”—Science Digest, April 1981, p. 41.

    “Just as we are slowly learning that primitive men are not necessarily savages, so we must learn to realize that the early men of the Ice Age were neither brute beasts nor semi-apes nor cretins. Hence the ineffable stupidity of all attempts to reconstruct Neanderthal or even Peking man.”—Man, God and Magic (New York, 1961), Ivar Lissner, p. 304.

    Do not textbooks present evolution as fact?

    “Many scientists succumb to the temptation to be dogmatic, . . . over and over again the question of the origin of the species has been presented as if it were finally settled. Nothing could be further from the truth. . . . But the tendency to be dogmatic persists, and it does no service to the cause of science.”—The Guardian, London, England, December 4, 1980, p. 15.

    Wow. Evolution is a fact huh?
    You must have copied these quotes from a religious, anti-evolution website. Because many of these are taken out of context. The Carl Sagan quote you listed is a prime example. Carl Sagan is a hero to me and I've read almost everything he has published. The quote from Cosmos was completely taken out of context. He was explaining why some people still believe in creationism and later explains the entire fossil record and how it proves evolution to be true. Carl Sagan said "...evolution is fact, not a theory".

    Stop only reading propaganda. Religion has a motive. To disprove evolution. Science does not have a motive. To only find the truth. That's the difference. Science tests theories, studies facts and data and then comes up with a theory or conclusion. Religion already has their own belief, therefore they try to discredit anything that disproves their belief. Even by lieing or misleading. They have done this throughout history. Open your mind.

    Originally Posted by Paul1355
    i was watching tv and carl baugh was on whos a scientist who is christian and he found fossils that showed human and dinosaur footprints together so if you want to discuss that i have all day.
    Another example of religion lieing to keep believers. Do you know the whole story of this? A religious zealot actually went to the fossil bed in southern Colorado and carved human footprints adjacent to the dinosaur footprints. Carbon dating showed the footprints to be faked. Again, that's the difference between religion and science. Science gathers facts and data and proposes a theory or conclusion. Religious people feel so threatened by the truth, they will actually lie and mislead to convince people that their beliefs are true.

    It's ok to accept the fact there is no God. I was raised in a religious family. It is difficult when you first realize that you've devoted your life to lies created by people in order to control the masses. But once you've accepted the truth, it is liberating to know you are free.

    Here try listening to [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

    It's a freethinker's internet radio station. It discusses the topics we've discussed but with a sense of humor.

  3. #78
    Veteran TunerAddict's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    2,183
    Rep Power
    8

    Default

    Paul, try using your brain. Nothing can be proven. There is no way to 100% prove something. And its not like I'm discrediting my belief in evolution. The Bible cannot be proven. Nothing can be proven. Get it through your thick heads.

  4. #79
    Veteran LJ4ptplay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Ft. Collins, CO
    Posts
    2,950
    Rep Power
    12

    Default

    Originally Posted by Knicks4lyfe
    Evolution is one of the things you used to discredit the bible as being true. Now you say it's not proven, yet you have not been able to disprove the bible's outstanding scientific and prophetic accuracy.

    The best you've come up with is, its a fairly tale, even though it is all proven to be absolutely true. Fairy tales are not.

    I show you where scientists cannot even agree on evolution, so how can it be a fact?

    The bible = accuracy which means it has proven to be accurate.

    Evolution is clearly theory since even scientist's cannot agree on what it is. In any capacity.
    You keep saying that everything in the bible has been proven to be true.

    It has not been proven that Jesus was the son of God.

    It has not been proven that Adam and Eve existed.

    It has not been proven that Noah's Arc existed.

    And the list goes on and on and on, yet you continue to say the bible is perfect and everything is true. Why do you ignore these things. I've answered every claim you've given but you continue to ignore the truth.

  5. #80
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,221
    Rep Power
    8

    Default

    Originally Posted by LJ4ptplay
    You keep saying that everything in the bible has been proven to be true.

    It has not been proven that Jesus was the son of God.

    It has not been proven that Adam and Eve existed.

    It has not been proven that Noah's Arc existed.

    And the list goes on and on and on, yet you continue to say the bible is perfect and everything is true. Why do you ignore these things. I've answered every claim you've given but you continue to ignore the truth.
    Only the son of God could do the things that Jesus did, so that is proof. Plus Jehovah said he'd give Jesus the name above all other names (except his) anywhere you go in the entire world they know of Jesus. Even other faiths believe that he existed.

    You and I are here. We sin, and die because they did. Seriously?

    Your boy Turner said other people knew about the flood, therefore it was not a myth, it actually happened.

    Plus, with all the other apparent truths in the bible, there is no need for me to doubt it. None of it is theory, it has all in one way or another been proven. Or soon will be.

    You say you think freely, as if you do not have a God. Well let me give you something to run with.
    Actually YOU ARE NOT A FREE MIND. Whether you know it or not, you worship Science and evolution. They are your Gods because it is what you put faith in. I'm of the True Christianity faith, while you are an evolutionist. Still a faith.

  6. #81
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,221
    Rep Power
    8

    Default

    Originally Posted by LJ4ptplay
    You must have copied these quotes from a religious, anti-evolution website. Because many of these are taken out of context. The Carl Sagan quote you listed is a prime example. Carl Sagan is a hero to me and I've read almost everything he has published. The quote from Cosmos was completely taken out of context. He was explaining why some people still believe in creationism and later explains the entire fossil record and how it proves evolution to be true. Carl Sagan said "...evolution is fact, not a theory".

    Stop only reading propaganda. Religion has a motive. To disprove evolution. Science does not have a motive. To only find the truth. That's the difference. Science tests theories, studies facts and data and then comes up with a theory or conclusion. Religion already has their own belief, therefore they try to discredit anything that disproves their belief. Even by lieing or misleading. They have done this throughout history. Open your mind.



    Another example of religion lieing to keep believers. Do you know the whole story of this? A religious zealot actually went to the fossil bed in southern Colorado and carved human footprints adjacent to the dinosaur footprints. Carbon dating showed the footprints to be faked. Again, that's the difference between religion and science. Science gathers facts and data and proposes a theory or conclusion. Religious people feel so threatened by the truth, they will actually lie and mislead to convince people that their beliefs are true.

    It's ok to accept the fact there is no God. I was raised in a religious family. It is difficult when you first realize that you've devoted your life to lies created by people in order to control the masses. But once you've accepted the truth, it is liberating to know you are free.

    Here try listening to [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

    It's a freethinker's internet radio station. It discusses the topics we've discussed but with a sense of humor.
    Question, do you believe Jesus existed? If you do, then what you are saying is Carl Hagans belief in evolution as an imperfect man is higher than the son of God, who was born from a virgin for the sole reason of being made perfect in flesh. Therefore he'd not be under Adamic sin like you and I are. And he'd have a perfect mind and ability. If you believe that Jesus existed, then you'd have to wonder why such a man of his ability decided that the best thing he could do with his life was devote it to spreading the good news of the Kingdom.

    I know Jesus existed not just on faith in many things, but the fact that his prophetic words saved many Christian lives in the year 70 ce when those who obeyed what he said when they saw the signs fleed to Judea and lived. It is documented history that this took place. And the only way they would have known to do that is if Jesus truly existed and they relied on him truly being the son of God. That is the ONLY way it would make sense that they left when they did. AND IT HAPPENED. It's not a hoax, not a theory.. IT HAPPENED.


    If Carl Hagan proved it as a fact, a fact it would be. Except there happen to be other people who investigate the same things he has and they don't all agree. So how can it be a fact? Like, it's a fact Jesus warned Christians what to look for when their impending destruction of their homeland came, why? Because when it happened as he said it would, they had time to leave... as he said it would. They were the ONLY survivors of that destruction other than the captives that stayed in Jerusalem. FACT. That is documented in Roman history for actually happening. Can't debate that. Hagan can be debated, hero or not, it's true.

    And true religion does have a motive. But it is not to expose evolution the lie that it is, but to expose all lies, while spreading the truth about Jehovah and his motives and helping other to come to know him and follow his son. HA! I wish it was just that simple actually

    You cannot ever hope to dispute religion without facts. Just because you believe it does not mean it is FACTUAL. Remember, Satan Had Adam and Eve think they could be God. Were they really? Heck, that is what evolution is basically now. He has people believing there is no God, so they are basically their own Gods, and live by their rules and laws they seem fit. But that is what liars have to do. They have to keep telling lie on top of lie to make their story stick. Satan's pretty darn good at it.

  7. #82
    Veteran TunerAddict's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    2,183
    Rep Power
    8

    Default

    The "son of god"'s name wasn't Jesus.

  8. #83
    Veteran Paul1355's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    East Coast
    Posts
    5,464
    Rep Power
    13

    Default

    Originally Posted by TunerAddict
    Paul, try using your brain. Nothing can be proven. There is no way to 100% prove something. And its not like I'm discrediting my belief in evolution. The Bible cannot be proven. Nothing can be proven. Get it through your thick heads.

    so every criminal that was locked away due to evidence was never really proven guilty correct? if the fingerprint is there, witnesses, signed confession,video it cant be proven right? because nothing can be proven...even if there is so much evidence that its overwhelming it still cant be proven..ok man ill stop aruging with u on that becuase it really does not make sense but that will never register to ur brain.

  9. #84
    Veteran Paul1355's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    East Coast
    Posts
    5,464
    Rep Power
    13

    Default

    Originally Posted by TunerAddict
    The "son of god"'s name wasn't Jesus.
    turner are you muslim or is it lj4ptplay? honest question i just want to know were ur coming from

  10. #85
    Veteran TunerAddict's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    2,183
    Rep Power
    8

    Default

    Originally Posted by Paul1355
    so every criminal that was locked away due to evidence was never really proven guilty correct? if the fingerprint is there, witnesses, signed confession,video it cant be proven right? because nothing can be proven...even if there is so much evidence that its overwhelming it still cant be proven..ok man ill stop aruging with u on that becuase it really does not make sense but that will never register to ur brain.
    Exactly, even though you're not grasping. We don't know everything. The only way to prove something is to know everything. We will NEVER know everything. You don't prove someone guilty in court, you use evidence to come to the conclusion that that person is most likely guilty. Nothing can be proved because there are too many variables that we don't know. Once again, we don't know everything. Maybe I should stop since this isn't registering in your brain. Its not that ****ing hard to understand. Think about it. How can we prove anything 100%. That would require total knowledge.

  11. #86
    Veteran TunerAddict's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    2,183
    Rep Power
    8

    Default

    Originally Posted by Paul1355
    turner are you muslim or is it lj4ptplay? honest question i just want to know were ur coming from
    You obviously don't know **** about Christianity then.

    First, Muslims believe in 'Jesus.' They just think he was another prophet of Allah/God. He also abstained from alcohol.

    Secondly, if you went back in time and met 'Jesus,' people wouldn't be calling him that. Why? Because that wasn't his name. His Hebrew name was Yeshua. Jesus comes from the mistranslation of the Greek mistranslation. Hell, even the Passion of the Christ movie got that right by using Yeshua. For someone that is so religious and knows all the 'facts' its a little pathetic you didn't know this.

  12. #87
    Veteran Paul1355's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    East Coast
    Posts
    5,464
    Rep Power
    13

    Default

    Originally Posted by TunerAddict
    You obviously don't know **** about Christianity then.

    First, Muslims believe in 'Jesus.' They just think he was another prophet of Allah/God. He also abstained from alcohol.

    Secondly, if you went back in time and met 'Jesus,' people wouldn't be calling him that. Why? Because that wasn't his name. His Hebrew name was Yeshua. Jesus comes from the mistranslation of the Greek mistranslation. Hell, even the Passion of the Christ movie got that right by using Yeshua. For someone that is so religious and knows all the 'facts' its a little pathetic you didn't know this.
    whoa son chill out i just asked a simple question if your muslim or not and if it bothers you ill call him yeshua it doesnt matter i knew he was Yeshua the Messiah. Turneraddict, i never said i didnt know that, were just not living in ancient times and that's what most people call him down here in America, Jesus Christ.

    And it all comes down to this, your source of origin is the Quran or Koran however you want to spell it...mine is the Bible and one of us is wrong. Jesus is more than a prophet because he said the scriptures speak of Him. It's up to you to intelligently re-search who Jesus really is. Jesus is God, to die in your sins without believing that Jesus is God is the only way you will have eternity in hell. No person can full-fill the hundreds of prophecies, do all the documented miracles he's done, and has risen from the grave through his ressurection. Not only is Jesus the second person of the Trinity, he is God, and he is my personal savior.

  13. #88
    Veteran TunerAddict's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    2,183
    Rep Power
    8

    Default

    But you're now admitting that nothing can be proven, as in 100%, right?

  14. #89
    Veteran Paul1355's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    East Coast
    Posts
    5,464
    Rep Power
    13

    Default

    Originally Posted by TunerAddict
    But you're now admitting that nothing can be proven, as in 100%, right?
    No, i did not admit that nothing can be proven, I just told you who Jesus was.

  15. #90
    Veteran LJ4ptplay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Ft. Collins, CO
    Posts
    2,950
    Rep Power
    12

    Default

    Yes, Jesus existed. That's a historical fact. What is not a fact is that he was the son of God. People thought David Koresh was the son of God too and that he performed miracles.

    But, once again, your only source for "proof" is the bible. Yet, I've given you several examples where the bible is not true. For example, it is not true that the earth, or even life on earth is only 6,000 years old. It is proven fact that the earth is much older, 5-6 billions years.

    If you actually believe that life on earth is only 6,000 years old and that all creatures lived on the earth at the same time (dinosaurs, humans, etc.) than you are living in a a mental prison. Because you will ignore facts backed up by data and believe things that a logical person knows are impossible. I'm done with this argument. It is going in circles. I give you facts, you refute them by quoting the bible. I prove the bible is not right, you refute that by quoting the bible. I'll stick with reality.

    And yes, my mind is free, because I can take in facts and analyse them, and then come up with my own conclusions. If a logical, more sound theory than evolution or the big bang theory arises, and is backed up by facts and analysed data, then I will analyse it myself and come up with my own conclusion. You cannot do that. You must believe the bible, and every fact that comes up to disprove the bible, you must ignore.

    It is obvious at this point that neither one will convince the other. All I ask of you is to accept other people's beliefs for what they are. Whether they be athiesm, agnostic, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhism, or multi-denominational. Not everybody is Christian.

    But, I guess, that is my biggest issue with religion. With so many religions and different beliefs, how can just one be right. You profess, with great commitment, that the bible is true. Yet, someone in India professes, with just as much commitment and proof, that Hinduism is true. The only reason you believe in Christianity is because you were raised in a Christian society. The only reason that person believes in Hindism is because they were raised in a Hindu society. So essentially, the location you were born determines whether or not you receive everlasting pardise? That is not a loving, kind God.
    Last edited by LJ4ptplay; Jul 01, 2008 at 16:34.

Similar Threads

  1. Marbury blog
    By metrocard in forum NY Knicks
    Replies: 62
    Last Post: Jul 24, 2007, 16:01

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •