gdemetz wrote:Hogwash! You guys just don't want to accept that there is any evidence no matter what you see! You have the childish idea that despite the detailed Biblical account, along with other accounts and evidences, that the whole story was just made up! Check out this site: "IBSS Biblical Archaeology, Evidence of the Exodus from Egypt." This sites more than 100 other sources!
Just where in this document do you find any evidence of the Exodus out of Egypt? Tell me page and verse. I want to know what it is that you assume is evidence.
And in the end, the love you take, is equal to the love...you make. PMcC
gdemetz wrote:Hogwash! You guys just don't want to accept that there is any evidence no matter what you see!
As to a world wide flood I don't recall you providing any evidence. The whale bones were not evidence of a flood in any way if you understand some basis science in this area. You have yet to answer how a global flood did not kill any people, animals or plants. Civilizations kept on going before and after. How does one get millions of species of animals on one boat, especially since many of them would have come from areas to far away or to hard to get to. Keep thinking about it and it becomes less plausible until I had to admit it would be impossible, unless God used all kinds of magic, and magic to hide it after.
It's just like the flood, only it is more recent. The reference I gave you had more than 100 references to it. Just read it, and if you have a problem with one of the pieces evidence he lists, you can let me know.
gdemetz wrote:It's just like the flood, only it is more recent. The reference I gave you had more than 100 references to it. Just read it, and if you have a problem with one of the pieces evidence he lists, you can let me know.
Read it. I have a problem with all of them.
Which one do you believe is the most compelling?
“We look to not only the spiritual but also the temporal, and we believe that a person who is impoverished temporally cannot blossom spiritually.” Keith McMullin - Counsellor in Presiding Bishopric
"One, two, three...let's go shopping!" Thomas S Monson - Prophet, Seer, Revelator
gdemetz wrote:It's just like the flood, only it is more recent. The reference I gave you had more than 100 references to it. Just read it, and if you have a problem with one of the pieces evidence he lists, you can let me know.
Read it. I have a problem with all of them.
Which one do you believe is the most compelling?
He brought up wale bones, but we dealt with that one already. Funny he doesn't want to explore what the scientific community knows about the world around us. Many of them are even Christian.
The problem here is that some like gdemetz have no idea what real science is about and how it works, and why theories are likely to be correct. He goes off on these crack pot sites that don't even get into detail of the processes that support a global flood. An example is the mention Erratic Boulders. All they seem to say is that they were deposited far from there source by the great flood, but give no details of what processes explain where they got there. The real scientists who study these things can find there source by examining glaciers and where they moved in the past. The rocky mountains are a good example. Glaciers from the mountains moved down and out of the mountains in generally in a NE direction in northern US and up into Canada. They didn't get far before hitting the Laurentide ice sheet which turned the ice into a SE direction. This means that erratics would be moved out of the mountains and then would turn SE with the ice that is carrying them. When you look at the evidence it supports the scientific understanding and not some crack pot theories about a global flood. We can do the same with the other things you want to believes are evidences but it would take to much time, so it is reasonable to ask which one you think is most compelling and from from there.
I don't think that any one of those evidences by itself is very compelling, but if they are all considered as a whole I think it is compelling. You know, there are a lot of scientists with PHD's who don't agree with the ideas which are commonly expressed here.
gdemetz wrote:I don't think that any one of those evidences by itself is very compelling, but if they are all considered as a whole I think it is compelling. You know, there are a lot of scientists with PHD's who don't agree with the ideas which are commonly expressed here.
Hi gdemetz!
All those evidences (even taken as a whole) are without merit. I understand that you're hoping to defend your beliefs and bolster your world view by citing these, but they don't really convince anyone else with the most basic understanding of science. You're kind of flogging a dead horse.
I respect your valiant attempt to convince others, but it fails at multiple levels. Your beliefs are based on unproven premises. Your defenses are based on wild speculation by others who are trying to find even the most ridiculous explanation to support their preconceived ideologies.
Good luck with that.
This, or any other post that I have made or will make in the future, is strictly my own opinion and consequently of little or no value.
"Faith is believing something you know ain't true" Twain.
gdemetz wrote:Why do you think that there are many with PHD's in science who agree with me? Everybody picks their own flavor of scientist, I guess.
Why do you think the overwhelming majority (all, with the exception of those with a religiously based vested interest) of people sporting scientific PHD's disagree with you?
Of course, that also means that when you use the word 'many' you are actually referring to a quantity of people better described as 'hardly any'.
“We look to not only the spiritual but also the temporal, and we believe that a person who is impoverished temporally cannot blossom spiritually.” Keith McMullin - Counsellor in Presiding Bishopric
"One, two, three...let's go shopping!" Thomas S Monson - Prophet, Seer, Revelator