ForumGarden

Pahu;1491133 wrote: That old book, the Bible, says there was someone there as a witness, God. The Bible is not a book of superstitions. Here are the facts:
Just as I predicted - you just follow up with another load of pastings - proof that you are unable to think for yourself.

Creationists are dedicated to finding and sharing truth.
Creationists are dedicated to desperately trying to manipulate evidence to substantiate their own beliefs, and then to share those manipulations with each other. However, they are the only people who give them any credence because they are not proving anything to anyone else - only to themselves, which is a bit pointless, as they aren't the ones who need convincing.

True. But evolutionists ignore the scientific method when it disproves evolution.
Science doesn't disprove anything. It merely changes probabliities one way or the other. So far all the evidence has only served to steadily increase the probability factor in favour of Evolution.

Your claims are without evidence or merit and simply reflect your close minded acceptance of your mythology.


First of all, you have provided the evidence in this very post. I made the claim that you would simply respond by once again pasting something that you have repeatedly pasted time & time again. Your response was to paste something that you have repeatedly pasted time & time again, which clearly proved my point.

Once again, look up the meaning of the terms you choose to use:



mythology

[mi-thol-uh-jee]

Examples

Word Origin

noun, plural mythologies.

1. a body of myths, as that of a particular people or that relating to a particular person:

Greek mythology.

2. myths collectively.

3. the science or study of myths.

4. a set of stories, traditions, or beliefs associated with a particular group or the history of an event, arising naturally or deliberately fostered:

the Fascist mythology of the interwar years.


Mythology | Define Mythology at Dictionary.com

Each & every one of those definitions is descriptive of Creationism. i.e. Based on unsubstantiated stories. Science, in all forms, including Evolution is based on hard evidence, not hearsay. In science the evidence comes BEFORE the interpretation. In Creationism the interpretation comes first, then the evidence is manipulated, manufactured and/or cherry picked in order to fit that interpretation as best it can. In short, apart from in the study of myths, Mythology & Science are generally at opposing ends of the scale (with only a few notable exceptions).

But evolutionists ignore the scientific method when it disproves evolution.

FourPart;1491138 wrote:

Science doesn't disprove anything. It merely changes probabliities one way or the other. So far all the evidence has only served to steadily increase the probability factor in favour of Evolution.


SCIENTISTS SPEAK ABOUT EVOLUTION

Top-flight scientists have something to tell you about evolution. Such statements will never be found in the popular magazines, alongside gorgeous paintings of ape-man and Big Bangs and solemn pronouncements about millions of years for this rock and that fish. Instead they are generally reserved only for professional books and journals.

Most scientists are working in very narrow fields; they do not see the overall picture, and assume, even though their field does not prove evolution, that perhaps other areas of science probably vindicate it. They are well-meaning men. The biologists and geneticists know their facts, and research does not prove evolution, but assume that geology does. The geologists know their field does not prove evolution, but hope that the biologists and geneticists have proven it. Those who do know the facts, fear to disclose them to the general public, lest they be fired. But they do write articles in their own professional journals and books, condemning evolutionary theory.

Included below are a number of admissions by leading evolutionists of earlier decades, such as *Charles Darwin, *Austin Clark, or *Fred Hoyle. The truth is that evolutionists cannot make scientific facts fit the theory.

An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the set of books this Encyclopedia is based on, only 164 statements are by creationists.

"The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of imagination."—*Dr. Fleischman [Erlangen zoologist].

"It is almost invariably assumed that animals with bodies composed of a single cell represent the primitive animals from which all others derived. They are commonly supposed to have preceded all other animal types in their appearance. There is not the slightest basis for this assumption."—*Austin Clark, The New Evolution (1930), pp. 235-236.

"The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic matter is, at present, still an article of faith."—*J.W.N. Sullivan, The Limitations of Science (1933), p. 95.

"Where are we when presented with the mystery of life? We find ourselves facing a granite wall which we have not even chipped . . We know virtually nothing of growth, nothing of life."—*W. Kaempffert, "The Greatest Mystery of All: The Secret of Life," New York Times.

" `The theory of evolution is totally inadequate to explain the origin and manifestation of the inorganic world.' "—Sir John Ambrose Fleming, F.R.S., quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 91 [discoverer of the thermionic valve].

"I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that 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."—*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.

"I am not satisfied that Darwin proved his point or that his influence in scientific and public thinking has been beneficial . . the success of Darwinism was accomplished by a decline in scientific integrity."—*W.R. Thompson, Introduction to *Charles Darwin's, Origin of the Species [Canadian scientist].

"One of the determining forces of scientism was a fantastic accidental imagination which could explain every irregularity in the solar system without explanation, leap the gaps in the atomic series without evidence [a gap required by the Big Bang theory], postulate the discovery of fossils which have never been discovered, and prophesy the success of breeding experiments which have never succeeded. Of this kind of science it might truly be said that it was `knowledge falsely so called.' "—*David C.C. Watson, The Great Brain Robbery (1976).

"The hold of the evolutionary paradigm is so powerful that an idea which is more like a principle of medieval astrology than a serious twentieth century scientific theory has become a reality for evolutionary biologists."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 306 [Australian molecular biologist].

"The particular truth is simply that we have no reliable evidence as to the evolutionary sequence . . One can find qualified professional arguments for any group being the descendant of almost any other."—J. Bonner, "Book Review," American Scientist, 49:1961, p. 240.

"It was because Darwinian theory broke man's link with God and set him adrift in a cosmos without purpose or end that its impact was so fundamental. No other intellectual revolution in modern times . . so profoundly affected the way men viewed themselves and their place in the universe."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 67 [Australian molecular biologist].

"I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning, consequently assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption . . The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do . . For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom."—*Aldous Huxley, "Confessions of a Professed Atheist," Report: Perspective on the News, Vol. 3, June 1966, p. 19 [grandson of evolutionist Thomas Huxley, Darwin's closest friend and promoter, and brother of evolutionist Julian Huxley. Aldous Huxley was one of the most influential liberal writers of the 20th century].

"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."—*Bounoure, Le Monde Et La Vie (October 1963) [Director of Research at the National center of Scientific Research in France].

"As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion [of halfway species] instead of being, as we see them, well-defined species?"—*Charles Darwin, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 139.

" `Creation,' in the ordinary sense of the word, is perfectly conceivable. I find no difficulty in conceiving that, at some former period, this universe was not in existence; and that it made its appearance in six days . . in consequence of the volition of some pre-existing Being."—*Thomas Huxley, quoted in *Leonard Huxley, Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley, Vol. II (1903), p. 429.

"The theory of evolution suffers from grave defects, which are more and more apparent as time advances. It can no longer square with practical scientific knowledge."—*Albert Fleishmann, Zoologist.

"I argue that the `theory of evolution' does not take predictions, so far as ecology is concerned, but is instead a logical formula which can be used only to classify empiricisms and to show the relationships which such a classification implies . . these theories are actually tautologies and, as such, cannot make empirically testable predictions. They are not scientific theories at all."—*R.H. Peters, "Tautology in Evolution and Ecology," American Naturalist (1976), Vol. 110, No. 1, p. 1 [emphasis his].

"Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation."—*Robert Jastrow, The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe (1981), p. 19.

"In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to `bend' their observations to fit in with it."—*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.

"When Darwin presented a paper [with Alfred Wallace] to the Linnean Society in 1858, a Professor Haugton of Dublin remarked, `All that was new was false, and what was true was old.' This, we think, will be the final verdict on the matter, the epitaph on Darwinism."—*Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (1981), p. 159.

"Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from pre-existing species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must have been created by some omnipotent intelligence."—*D.J. Futuyma, Science on Trial (1983), p. 197.

"With the failure of these many efforts, science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. 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."—*Loren Eisley, The Immense Journey, (1957), p. 199.

"The over-riding supremacy of the myth has created a widespread illusion that the theory of evolution was all but proved one hundred years ago and that all subsequent biological research—paleontological, zoological, and in the newer branches of genetics and molecular biology—has provided ever-increasing evidence for Darwinian ideas."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 327.

"The irony is devastating. The main purpose of Darwinism was to drive every last trace of an incredible God from biology. But the theory replaces God with an even more incredible deity—omnipotent chance."—*T. Rosazak, Unfinished Animal (1975), pp. 101-102.

"Today our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses and extrapolations that the theoreticians put forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and falsity of their beliefs."—*Pierre-Paul de Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 8.

"The evolution theory can by no means be regarded as an innocuous natural philosophy, but that it is a serious obstruction to biological research. It obstructs—as has been repeatedly shown—the attainment of consistent results, even from uniform experimental material. For everything must ultimately be forced to fit this theory. An exact biology cannot, therefore, be built up."—*H. Neilsson, Synthetische Artbuilding, 1954, p. 11.

"It is therefore of immediate concern to both biologists and layman that Darwinism is under attack. The theory of life that undermined nineteenth-century religion has virtually become a religion itself and, in its turn, is being threatened by fresh ideas. The attacks are certainly not limited to those of the creationists and religious fundamentalists who deny Darwinism for political and moral reason. The main thrust of the criticism comes from within science itself. The doubts about Darwinism represent a political revolt from within rather than a siege from without."—*B. Leith, The Descent of Darwin: A Handbook of Doubts about Darwinism (1982), p. 11.

"My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. At least I should hardly be accused of having started from any preconceived anti-evolutionary standpoint."—*H. Nilsson, Synthetic Speciation (1953), p. 31.

"Just as pre-Darwinian biology was carried out by people whose faith was in the Creator and His plan, post-Darwinian biology is being carried out by people whose faith is in, almost, the deity of Darwin. They've seen their task as to elaborate his theory and to fill the gaps in it, to fill the trunk and twigs of the tree. But it seems to me that the theoretical framework has very little impact on the actual progress of the work in biological research. In a way some aspects of Darwinism and of neo-Darwinism seem to me to have held back the progress of science."—Colin Patterson, The Listener [senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, London].

"Throughout the past century there has always existed a significant minority of first-rate biologists who have never been able to bring themselves to accept the validity of Darwinian claims. In fact, the number of biologists who have expressed some degree of disillusionment is practically endless."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 327.

"I personally hold the evolutionary position, but yet lament the fact that the majority of our Ph.D. graduates are frightfully ignorant of many of the serious problems of the evolution theory. These problems will not be solved unless we bring them to the attention of students. Most students assume evolution is proved, the missing link is found, and all we have left is a few rough edges to smooth out. Actually, quite the contrary is true; and many recent discoveries . . have forced us to re-evaluate our basic assumptions."—*Director of a large graduate program in biology, quoted in Creation: The Cutting Edge (1982), p. 26.

"The creation account in Genesis and the theory of evolution could not be reconciled. One must be right and the other wrong. The story of the fossils agreed with the account of Genesis. In the oldest rocks we did not find a series of fossils covering the gradual changes from the most primitive creatures to developed forms, but rather in the oldest rocks developed species suddenly appeared. Between every species there was a complete absence of intermediate fossils."—*D.B. Gower, "Scientist Rejects Evolution," Kentish Times, England, December 11, 1975, p. 4 [biochemist].

"From the almost total absence of fossil evidence relative to the origin of the phyla, it follows that any explanation of the mechanism in the creative evolution of the fundamental structural plans is heavily burdened with hypothesis. This should appear as an epigraph to every book on evolution. The lack of direct evidence leads to the formulation of pure conjecture as to the genesis of the phyla; we do not even have a basis to determine the extent to which these opinions are correct."—*Pierre-Paul de Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 31.

"We still do not know the mechanics of evolution in spite of the over-confident claims in some quarters, nor are we likely to make further progress in this by the classical methods of paleontology or biology; and we shall certainly not advance matters by jumping up and down shrilling, `Darwin is god and I, So-and-so, am his prophet.' "—*Errol White, Proceedings of the Linnean Society, London, 177:8 (1966).

"I feel that the effect of hypotheses of common ancestry in systematics has not been merely boring, not just a lack of knowledge; I think it has been positively anti-knowledge . . Well, what about evolution? It certainly has the function of knowledge, but does it convey any? Well, we are back to the question I have been putting to people, `Is there one thing you can tell me about?' The absence of answers seems to suggest that it is true, evolution does not convey any knowledge."—*Colin Patterson, Director AMNH, Address at the American Museum of Natural History (November 5, 1981).

Scientists Speak About Evolution

This is how bright those creationists are...

Snowfire;1491145 wrote: This is how bright those creationists are...




OHMYGOODNESS!!! That is freakin' HILARIOUS! I had to watch it three times in a row because the first time I was speechless and mesmerized by her total stupidity. The second time I marveled at her forced ignorance and deliberate idiocy. The third time I focused on her ridiculous belief system where she equates the name of an object with it's reality, then I suddenly realized...

"Oh HEY! She believes in things that don't exist and doesn't believe in things that do. And if her senses and intelligence contradict her weird beliefs...she totally ignores them!

She's just like Pahu!

Saint_;1491150 wrote: OHMYGOODNESS!!! That is freakin' HILARIOUS! I had to watch it three times in a row because the first time I was speechless and mesmerized by her total stupidity. The second time I marveled at her forced ignorance and deliberate idiocy. The third time I focused on her ridiculous belief system where she equates the name of an object with it's reality, then I suddenly realized...

"Oh HEY! She believes in things that don't exist and doesn't believe in things that do. And if her senses and intelligence contradict her weird beliefs...she totally ignores them!

She's just like Pahu!


Perhaps she IS Pahu - after all, we only have some Avatar pic to go on that he really is male. Oh wait - to assume he is male from that would probably have something to do with ignoring the evidence - depending on which way he wants to portray it.

Pahu STILL doesn't understand how Scientific Theories work. They change (they could even be said to Evolve) according to additional emerging evidence. It's like water. When the shape of the container changes, the water reshapes itself to fit. Creationism, on the other hand is like an ice cube. It is frozen in its original mould remaining as a cube, regardless of the shape of the container and so long as the temperature remains the same it will never change its shape (opinion).

As for that woman - she is called 'Fox' does that make her furry with a big bushy tail. Mind you, as for the dinosaur being a 'dragon', there is some potential for that to have a basis of fact. Primitive man might also have seen these bones & imagined what the creature might have appeared. It is quite understandable how from that evidence they might have conjured up the images of dragons, which could also be the source of the mythical creature.

Mind you, no fossil records have yet been found of any Unicorns, yet they are mentioned to have existed in the Bible - so the earth must have been abundant with them - it has to be true, because the Bible says so.

FourPart;1491154 wrote:

Mind you, no fossil records have yet been found of any Unicorns, yet they are mentioned to have existed in the Bible - so the earth must have been abundant with them - it has to be true, because the Bible says so.


Possibly a rhinoceros or wild ox.

Pahu;1491164 wrote: Possibly a rhinoceros or wild ox.


No - the Bible is most specific about a Unicorn. Unless, of course, you are suggesting that the Unicorn evolved into a Rhinocerous or a Wild Ox...

Pahu;1491164 wrote: Possibly a rhinoceros or wild ox.


Surely not. That would mean the inerrant word of God would need to be interpreted rather than taken literally. You know, written by Man rather than by God.

You can't go round interpreting God's intentions just because you're not sure what is meant.

Snowfire;1491166 wrote: Surely not. That would mean the inerrant word of God would need to be interpreted rather than taken literally. You know, written by Man rather than by God.

You can't go round interpreting God's intentions just because you're not sure what is meant.


To be fair, the early evolutionary records of the rhinoceros was very horse-like, which 'might' have supported the Biblical description - but, then, it couldn't be could it, because Science has supposedly disproved evolution.

Then comes the fact that the 'Uni' of 'Unicorn' means 'One' Both the Rhinoceros & the Wild Bull have 2. The Rhinceros' horn being an evolutionary diversified form of its close relative, the Elephant, and its tusks. But then, according to Creationists Evolution exists within 'kinds' - but, then again, according to Creationists Scientists have disproved Evolution - thus nullifying their own claims. Then comes the question of how a Rhinceros could evolve from the 'kind' of a Wild Bull to that of a Rhinceros. One is cloven hooved - the other has toes.

Even if you look at Creationist websites to read on how they try to explain the Unicorn, it's hilarious at how they try to clutch at straws to work their way around the issue.

Index Fossils 4




J.L.B. Smith, a well-known fish expert from South Africa, studied the first two captured coelacanths, nicknamed the coelacanth “Old Fourlegs and wrote a book by that title in 1956. When dissected, did they have lungs and a large brain? Not at all (e). Furthermore, in 1987, a German team filmed six coelacanths in their natural habitat. They were not crawling on all fours (f).

Before living coelacanths were found in 1938, evolutionists dated any rock containing a coelacanth fossil as at least 70,000,000 years old. It was an index fossil. Today, evolutionists frequently express amazement that coelacanth fossils look so much like captured coelacanths—despite more than 70,000,000 years of evolution (g). If that age is correct, billions of coelacanths would have lived and died. Some should have been fossilized in younger rock and should be displayed in museums. Their absence implies that coelacanths have not lived for 70,000,000 years.

e. “The brain of a 90-pound coelacanth weighs less than 50 grains [0.11 ounces] —that is, no more than one 15,000th of the body weight. No present-day vertebrate that we know of has so small a brain in relation to its size. * Millot, p.*39.

f. “I confess I’m sorry we never saw a coelacanth walk on its fins. Hans Fricke, “Coelacanths: The Fish That Time Forgot, National Geographic, Vol.*173, June 1988, p.*838.

“...we never saw any of them walk, and it appears the fish is unable to do so.* Ibid., p.*837.

g. “Few creatures have endured such an immense span of time with so little change as coelacanths. The cutaway drawing of a present-day specimen seems almost identical with the 140-million-year-old fossil found in a quarry in southern West Germany....Why have coelacanths remained virtually unchanged for eons...30 million generations? Fricke, p.*833. [Answer: They were fossilized a few thousand years ago, at the time of the flood.]

“Throughout the hundreds of millions of years the coelacanths have kept the same form and structure. Here is one of the great mysteries of evolution—that of the unequal plasticity of living things. * Millot, p.*37.

“The coelacanths have changed very little since their first known appearance in the Upper Devonian. A. Smith Woodward, as quoted by Thomson, Living Fossil, p. 70.

“What is even more remarkable is that in spite of drastic changes in the world environment, the coelacanths are still much the same organically as their ancestors. ... In the meantime, research is continuing ... and will try to penetrate the secret of the adaptability which has enabled them to live through many geological eras under widely differing conditions without modifying their constitution.* Millot, p.*39.

“... the coelacanths have undergone little change in 300 million years... * Ommanney, p.*74.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

Pahu;1491225 wrote:

Index Fossils 4




J.L.B. Smith, a well-known fish expert from South Africa, studied the first two captured coelacanths, nicknamed the coelacanth “Old Fourlegs and wrote a book by that title in 1956. When dissected, did they have lungs and a large brain? Not at all (e). Furthermore, in 1987, a German team filmed six coelacanths in their natural habitat. They were not crawling on all fours (f).

Before living coelacanths were found in 1938, evolutionists dated any rock containing a coelacanth fossil as at least 70,000,000 years old. It was an index fossil. Today, evolutionists frequently express amazement that coelacanth fossils look so much like captured coelacanths—despite more than 70,000,000 years of evolution (g). If that age is correct, billions of coelacanths would have lived and died. Some should have been fossilized in younger rock and should be displayed in museums. Their absence implies that coelacanths have not lived for 70,000,000 years.

e. “The brain of a 90-pound coelacanth weighs less than 50 grains [0.11 ounces] —that is, no more than one 15,000th of the body weight. No present-day vertebrate that we know of has so small a brain in relation to its size. * Millot, p.*39.

f. “I confess I’m sorry we never saw a coelacanth walk on its fins. Hans Fricke, “Coelacanths: The Fish That Time Forgot, National Geographic, Vol.*173, June 1988, p.*838.

“...we never saw any of them walk, and it appears the fish is unable to do so.* Ibid., p.*837.

g. “Few creatures have endured such an immense span of time with so little change as coelacanths. The cutaway drawing of a present-day specimen seems almost identical with the 140-million-year-old fossil found in a quarry in southern West Germany....Why have coelacanths remained virtually unchanged for eons...30 million generations? Fricke, p.*833. [Answer: They were fossilized a few thousand years ago, at the time of the flood.]

“Throughout the hundreds of millions of years the coelacanths have kept the same form and structure. Here is one of the great mysteries of evolution—that of the unequal plasticity of living things. * Millot, p.*37.

“The coelacanths have changed very little since their first known appearance in the Upper Devonian. A. Smith Woodward, as quoted by Thomson, Living Fossil, p. 70.

“What is even more remarkable is that in spite of drastic changes in the world environment, the coelacanths are still much the same organically as their ancestors. ... In the meantime, research is continuing ... and will try to penetrate the secret of the adaptability which has enabled them to live through many geological eras under widely differing conditions without modifying their constitution.* Millot, p.*39.

“... the coelacanths have undergone little change in 300 million years... * Ommanney, p.*74.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]


For a start off the fossils were dated as nearer to 350 million years - not 70 million, so he's wrong there, for a start (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coelacanth). Secondly, it wasn't until the Genome Project that it was discovered that the Coelacanth had not evolved from the Lungfish, as originally thought, but that they had evolved independently from a common ancestor in different directions. Therefore, this proves several things. First of all that Dolt Brown is, once again, wrong with his figures (information easily researched). Secondly that there is evidence to track the evolutionary ancestry from the modern Coelacanth the the earlier fossil ones, which were much smaller. The fact that they were later witnessed not to be crawling, as such, is not something that could have been known for certain from the fossils, although even to view a photograph of the creature it could easily be assumed that they did so. The point is that by accepting that they were mistaken in their interpretation proves your other continuous claim that Scientists ignore the evidence.

As for the rarity of fossils in the first place - well, considering how rare the creature is, that's hardly surprising is it. With any organism, 99.9% fall prey to decay or being eaten. Only a tiny fraction meet the circumstances in which they might be fossilised. Therefore a tiny fraction of a rarity is likely to be even rarer. Then, only a fraction of that tiny fraction of a rarity actually gets discovered. Yet Brown claims that the lack of numerous fossils as being evidence for something.

In this simple case there are multiple instances where they have accepted evidence that disagreed with their original views.

1. Modern Science (Genome Project) showed the pattern of evolution to be different that originally thought (ie common ancestry to the Lungfish, but with different lineage).

Evidence accepted. Theories amended accordingly - Evidence NOT ignored.

2. Witnessed not to be crawling, as originally thought.

Evidence accepted. Theories amended accordingly - Evidence NOT ignored.

3. It was originally thought that the Coelacanth was long extinct until one (of only 2 yet found) was caught.

Evidence accepted. Theories amended accordingly - Evidence NOT ignored.

So, what is your latest pasting supposed to prove?

By the way - another thing that seems to be even rarer is any original posting from yourself. Their may, of course, have been a few others, but they may have got lost amongst the swamping mass of pastes from Brown. Much like the Coelacanth. There may be more, but they've yet to be found. Have you ever stopped to think that if every pasted post was deleted how much input would there be from yourself in this entire thread? I would guess no more than 2 pages - if that.

Same old. Same old.

Lol

Humanlike Footprints




Humanlike footprints, supposedly 150–600 million years old, have been found in rock formations in Utah (a), Kentucky (b), Missouri (c), and possibly Pennsylvania (d). At Laetoli, in the east African country of Tanzania, a team headed by Mary Leakey found a sequence of humanlike footprints (e). They were dated at 3.7 million years. If human feet made any of these prints, then evolutionary chronology is drastically wrong.



Figure*30: Humanlike Footprints with Trilobite.

In 1968, 43 miles northwest of Delta, Utah, William J. Meister found apparent human shoe prints inside a 2-inch-thick slab of rock. Also in that slab were obvious trilobite fossils, one of which was squashed under the “heel. According to evolutionists, trilobites became extinct 240 million years before humans evolved. Others have since made similar discoveries at this location, although this is the only fossil where a trilobite was inside an apparent shoe print.

a. Melvin A. Cook, “William J. Meister Discovery of Human Footprints with Trilobites in a Cambrian Formation of Western Utah, Why Not Creation? editor Walter E. Lammerts (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1970), pp. 185–193.

Michael A. Cremo and Richard L. Thompson, Forbidden Archeology (San Diego: Bhaktivedanta Institute, 1993), pp. 810–813.

b. “Geology and Ethnology Disagree about Rock Prints, Science News Letter, 10 December 1938, p. 372.

c. Henry R. Schoolcraft and Thomas H. Benton, “Remarks on the Prints of Human Feet, Observed in the Secondary Limestone of the Mississippi Valley, The American Journal of Science and Arts, Vol. 5, 1822, pp. 223–231.

d. “Human-Like Tracks in Stone are Riddle to Scientists, Science News Letter, 29 October 1938, pp. 278–279.

e. “ ‘Make no mistake about it,’ says Tim [White, who is probably recognized as the leading authority on the Laetoli footprints]. ‘They are like modern human footprints. If one were left in the sand of a California beach today, and a four-year-old were asked what it was, he would instantly say that someone had walked there. He wouldn’t be able to tell it from a hundred other prints on the beach, nor would you. The external morphology is the same. There is a well-shaped modern heel with a strong arch and a good ball of the foot in front of it. The big toe is straight in line. It doesn’t stick out to the side like an ape toe, or like the big toe in so many drawings you see of Australopithecines in books.’  Johanson and Edey, p. 250.

The big toe of Australopithecus africanus splayed out to the side, as in apes. Obviously, the Laetoli footprints were not made by Australopithecines, as most evolutionists claim.

“In sum, the 3.5-million-year-old footprint trails at Laetoli Site G resemble those of habitually unshod modern humans. None of their features suggest that the Laetoli hominids were less capable bipeds than we are. If the G footprints were not known to be so old, we would readily conclude that they were made by a member of our genus, Homo. ... we should shelve the loose assumption that the Laetoli footprints were made by Lucy’s kind, Australopithecus afarensis. Russell H. Tuttle, “The Pitted Pattern of Laetoli Feet, Natural History, Vol. 99, March 1990, p. 64.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

Note how the wording gradually changes. From Humanlike, to Human, to Shoeprint.

You really should research your sources before blindly quoting Brown. It has been determined that the "footprint" wasn't a footprint at all.

The Meister Footprint

The "Meister Print"

The Antelope Springs ‘footprint’ - Bad Archaeology

Furthermore, trilobytes were water living creatures. Therefore anyone stepping on one would also have had to have been in the water (paddling, perhaps). The question is how long do footprints remain in underwater sand? Anyone who has walked along the beach & has left footprints behind them knows that the impressions are far from clear to start with, then at the first wave they are all but gone.

The human mind has an inbuilt desire to see images in vague patterns - that is provable fact. This is demonstrated by making images out of cloud formations or Rorschach Ink Blot Tests. There are photographs of something that looks clearly like a face carved into the rock face, like the presidents heads at Mount Rushmore. Personally I reserve judgement on that. It certainly does look like a face, but without further examination that is not proof. The point is that the desire to see an image in something does not make it so.

The Bible is indeed a very human generated book. It is not the inerrant word of God.

Ted;1491459 wrote: The Bible is indeed a very human generated book. It is not the inerrant word of God.


You are overlooking the fact the writers of the Bible revealed scientific facts that have only recently been discovered and they also accurately predicted the future. Here are the facts:

Bible Accuracy





1. Archaeology confirms the historical accuracy of the Bible:



The Rocks Cry Out

In what ways have the discoveries of archaeology verified the reliability of the Bible? • ChristianAnswers.Net

Archaeology and the Bible • ChristianAnswers.Net

The Bible and Archaeology: How Archaeology Confirms the Biblical Record | United Church of God

http://www.biblestudysite.com/arch.htm



2. The Bible is not a science book, yet is scientifically accurate:



Scientific Facts in The Bible

Science Confirms the Bible - RationalWiki

King James Bible

Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge

Science and the Bible



3. The Bible is filled with hundreds of accurately fulfilled prophecies:

100prophecies.org

101 End Times Bible Prophecy

About Bible Prophecy

Bible Prophecies Fulfilled

Reasons To Believe : Fulfilled Prophecy: Evidence for the Reliability of the Bible

Bible Prophecy



No other book, religious or secular, comes close to those requirements.

What a load of BS.

Just where are these "Accurately fulfilled prophecies" the likes of which can't also be found in any cheap tabloid horoscope? Anyone can 'predict' a set of circumstances and in time those circumstances are bound to happen. I could say that a man with dark hair & blue eyes will walk around the next corner. It may take a while, but eventually a man with dark hair & blue eyes WILL walk around that corner.



Now, if a prophecy were to predict a precise set of circumstances to happen on a precise date & time, with all names & places spot on (not open to interpretation), then that would be a prophecy. However, surprisingly enough, there are no such predictions in the Bible, only vagueries that can be interpreted in any way you want them to.



There are those, on many occasions, who have believed in the "Rapture", as predicted in their various versions of the Bible & have thrown themselves off of the top of buildings in the belief that they would not be harmed, as their God would catch them before they hit the ground. Not surprisingly, every single one of them were killed as soon as they hit the ground. Prophecies fulfilled? I don't think so.



You keep pasting the section about the Bible being "Scientifically Accurate", yet have never shown how. All you ever do is to link to Brown's links to Creationist sites that make wild claims on their fantasies being classed as "Science". This is not being "Scientifically Accurate". According to the Bible the Earth was created before the Sun, yet there was still daylight. Scientifically Accurate? The Heavens & The Earth were created in a single day, yet it has been proven that the Universe is expanding - and what's more, the point that it is expanding from is, surprise surprise, not the Earth, which, if the Bible were Scientifically Accurate, it would be. Stars are know to be Billions of Light Years away from us, yet we can still see them, which means that we are looking billions of years into the past, yet according to the Bible this cannot be so as everything happened less than 6000 years ago. All of these are total Scientific facts which contradict the Bible, even in it's first few verses. "Scientifically Accurate"? Don't make me laugh.

Prophesy in the Bible was not predicting something that would happen hundreds or thousands of years in the future. They were talking about something in progress or something they thought would happen very soon. Just like you tell a young child playing with the stove he/she will get burned. Sure enough when moms back is turned it happens. That was what prophesy was about. I'll make a prophetic prediction. If we keep pumping more and more CO2 into the atmosphere we could be creating a crisis.

Ted;1491469 wrote: I'll make a prophetic prediction. If we keep pumping more and more CO2 into the atmosphere we could be creating a crisis.


Pahu has already declared Global Warming to be a hoax. Therefore all the top world scientists who believe otherwise had better change their opinion. Pahu clearly knows better.

FourPart;1491468 wrote: Just where are these "Accurately fulfilled prophecies" the likes of which can't also be found in any cheap tabloid horoscope? Anyone can 'predict' a set of circumstances and in time those circumstances are bound to happen. I could say that a man with dark hair & blue eyes will walk around the next corner. It may take a while, but eventually a man with dark hair & blue eyes WILL walk around that corner.



Now, if a prophecy were to predict a precise set of circumstances to happen on a precise date & time, with all names & places spot on (not open to interpretation), then that would be a prophecy. However, surprisingly enough, there are no such predictions in the Bible, only vagueries that can be interpreted in any way you want them to.


All Bible prophecies are precise. Here is one:



Tyre's mainland would be destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar

Bible prophecy: Ezekiel 26:7-9

Prophecy written: Between 587-586 BC

Prophecy fulfilled: 573 BC

In Ezekiel 26:7-9, the prophet said in 590 BC that Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar would destroy the mainland of Tyre. Four years later, the Babylonians began a 13-year siege of Tyre. It lasted from 586 BC to 573 BC. (Alexander the Great later destroyed the island portion of Tyre, in 332 BC).

Ezekiel 26:7-9 (NIV):

7 "For this is what the Sovereign LORD says: From the north I am going to bring against Tyre Nebuchadnezzar[1] king of Babylon, king of kings, with horses and chariots, with horsemen and a great army.

8 He will ravage your settlements on the mainland with the sword; he will set up siege works against you, build a ramp up to your walls and raise his shields against you.

9 He will direct the blows of his battering rams against your walls and demolish your towers with his weapons.

NIV Footnote: [1] Hebrew Nebuchadrezzar, of which Nebuchadnezzar is a variant; here and often in Ezekiel and Jeremiah

Tyre's fortresses would fail

Bible prophecy: Amos 1:9-10

Prophecy written: About 750 BC

Prophecy fulfilled: 333-332 BC

In Amos 1:9-10, the prophet said that God would cause Tyre's protective fortresses to fail, as punishment for the way that Tyre treated Israel. That prophecy was fulfilled in 586-573 BC when Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar attacked the mainland of Tyre, and in 333-332 BC when Alexander the Great conquered the island of Tyre. Alexander's army built a land bridge from the mainland to the island so that they could use a battering ram to break through the island's fortress.

Amos 1:9-10 (NIV):

This is what the Lord says: "For three sins of Tyre, even for four, I will not turn back [my wrath]. Because she sold whole communities of captives to Edom, disregarding a treaty of brotherhood, I will send fire upon the walls of Tyre that will consume her fortresses."

Tyre would be attacked by many nations

Bible prophecy: Ezekiel 26:3

Prophecy written: Between 587-586 BC

Prophecy fulfilled: 573 BC, 332 BC, etc.

In Ezekiel 26:3, the prophet said that Tyre, the Phoenician Empire's most powerful city, would be attacked by many nations, because of its treatment of Israel. At about the time that Ezekiel delivered this prophecy, Babylon had begun a 13-year attack on Tyre's mainland. Later, in about 332 BC, Alexander the Great conquered the island of Tyre and brought an end to the Phoenician Empire.

Ezekiel 26:3 (NIV):

therefore this is what the Sovereign Lord says: I am against you, O Tyre, and I will bring many nations against you, like the sea casting up its waves.

Tyre's stones, timber and soil would be cast into the sea

Bible prophecy: Ezekiel 26:12

Prophecy written: Between 587-586 BC

Prophecy fulfilled: 333-332 BC

In Ezekiel 26:12, the prophet said that Tyre's stones, timber and soil would be thrown into the sea. Ezekiel's prophecy accurately describes how Alexander the Great built a land bridge from the mainland to the island of Tyre, when he attacked in 333-332 BC. Alexander's forces took rubble from Tyre's mainland and tossed it - stones, timber and soil - into the sea, to build the land bridge (which is still there).

Ezekiel 26:12 (NIV):

They will plunder your wealth and loot your merchandise; they will break down your walls and demolish your fine houses and throw your stones, timber and rubble into the sea.

Tyre would be scraped and made bare

Bible prophecy: Ezekiel 26:4

Prophecy written: Between 587-586 BC

Prophecy fulfilled: 333 BC

In Ezekiel 26:4, the prophet said the buildings of Tyre would be ripped down and that the rubble would be scraped away. This might have happened in two stages. The Babylonians destroyed the mainland of Tyre during an attack that ended in 573 BC. Then, Alexander the Great attacked the island of Tyre in 333-332 BC. It is believed that Alexander's army scraped the rubble from the mainland and tossed it into the sea, building a land bridge to the island to conquer it. The prophecy may have been fulfilled in another way: During the centuries after Alexander's conquest of Tyre, the Greeks, Romans, Crusaders and Arabs came to the area of Tyre and put up their own buildings on or near the site of the original Phoenician Tyre. In doing this, the workers would have had to remove rubble from the original Phoenician Tyre.

Ezekiel 26:4 (NIV):

They will destroy the walls of Tyre and pull down her towers; I will scrape away her rubble and make her a bare rock.

Tyre would lose its power over the sea

Bible prophecy: Zechariah 9:3-4

Prophecy written: Between 520 and 518 BC

Prophecy fulfilled: Since 332 BC

In Zechariah 9:3-4, the prophet said that the Phoenician city of Tyre would lose its status as a powerful nation on the Mediterranean Sea. Today there is a city called Tyre that is either on, or near, the original Phoenician site. But this Tyre is a small city in modern-day Lebanon. It is certainly not the powerful nation that it was in the days of Zechariah.

Zechariah 9:3-4 (NIV):

Tyre has built herself a stronghold; she has heaped up silver like dust, and gold like the dirt of the streets.

But the Lord will take away her possessions and destroy her power on the sea, and she will be consumed by fire.

Phoenician Tyre would never again be found

Bible prophecy: Ezekiel 26:21

Prophecy written: Between 587-586 BC

Prophecy fulfilled: After 332 BC

In Ezekiel 26:21, the prophet said that the Phoenician city of Tyre would be brought to an end and would never again be found. When Alexander the Great destroyed the city in 332 BC, he brought an end to the Phoenician Empire. The Empire was never revived or "found" again. As for the city itself, it has been torn down and built upon by a succession of foreign powers. Today, finding artifacts from the original Phoenician Tyre is difficult. According to the Columbia Encyclopedia, Fifth Edition: "The principal ruins of the city today are those of buildings erected by the Crusaders. There are some Greco-Roman remains, but any left by the Phoenicians lie underneath the present town."

Ezekiel 26:21 (NIV):

I will bring you to a horrible end and you will be no more. You will be sought, but you will never again be found, declares the Sovereign Lord."

Phoenician Tyre would never be rebuilt

Bible prophecy: Ezekiel 26:14

Prophecy written: Between 587-586 BC

Prophecy fulfilled: Since 332 BC

In Ezekiel 26:14, the prophet says the Phoenician city of Tyre would be destroyed and never be rebuilt. This was fulfilled when Alexander the Great conquered Tyre in 332 BC. His conquest brought an end to the Phoenician Empire. The empire never recovered from the attack. And so, it could never rebuild Tyre. Other nations and empires have built and rebuilt cities on or near the original Phoenician site.

Ezekiel 26:14 (NIV):

I will make you a bare rock, and you will become a place to spread fishnets. You will never be rebuilt, for I the Lord have spoken, declares the Sovereign Lord.

To this day fishermen spread their nets on the remains of Tyre.

FourPart;1491468 wrote:

You keep pasting the section about the Bible being "Scientifically Accurate", yet have never shown how. All you ever do is to link to Brown's links to Creationist sites that make wild claims on their fantasies being classed as "Science". This is not being "Scientifically Accurate". According to the Bible the Earth was created before the Sun, yet there was still daylight.


Not so. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The heavens include the sun.

Scientifically Accurate? The Heavens & The Earth were created in a single day, yet it has been proven that the Universe is expanding - and what's more, the point that it is expanding from is, surprise surprise, not the Earth, which, if the Bible were Scientifically Accurate, it would be. Stars are know to be Billions of Light Years away from us, yet we can still see them, which means that we are looking billions of years into the past, yet according to the Bible this cannot be so as everything happened less than 6000 years ago. All of these are total Scientific facts which contradict the Bible, even in it's first few verses. "Scientifically Accurate"? Don't make me laugh.


Light Speed


There are Biblical indications that the earth and the universe were created with the appearance of age. There are several examples of this:

The stars (Gen. 1:14-19)—The sun, moon, and stars were revealed on the fourth day of the creation week. Individually and collectively they were to have different functions: dividing the day from the night, serving as navigational aids, as chronological indicators, for illuminating the earth, as well as for declaring the glory of God (Psalm 19:1). What is not often noticed is that "it was so" on the very day of their revealing (Gen. 1:15). Granted, the Biblical word "star" (Heb: kokab; Gr: aster) is a broader term than our English usage of "star" as an energy source, and includes just about anything in space, but the point is that the stars—and the nearest is 4 1/2 light-years distant—were seen on the first day of their existence. This means that even if the distances are correct, the stars would merely have given the appearance of having been here longer. Therefore, the stars and the light beams connecting them visually to the Earth were both created at the same time.

This concept raises several questions. First, does this not mean that God—like some magician—is intentionally deceiving us by making things appear to be older than they actually are? The question really goes back to the matter of intent: did God intend to fool us, or did He intend primarily to make things fully functional but we are fooled only because we view them with certain uniformitarian assumptions? Therefore, while it is true that the earth and the universe were created with the appearance of age, I think we do better to speak of the creation of a fully functional universe that, as a secondary feature, merely gives the appearance of age.

Conclusion

There are three "secular" or non-Biblical possibilities to the problem of harmonizing a young universe with the allegedly-great distances of the outer galaxies: (1) the distances may not be that great after all; (2) light may take a "shortcut" as it travels through deep space; (3) the speed of light may have been considerably faster in the past. These three are not mutually exclusive, and may in fact be used in conjunction with each other. The fourth solution, which may be used independently or in conjunction with the above three, is that God created the light beams as well as the stars so that they could be—as indeed they were—seen when they were created.

Starlight and the Age of the Universe | The Institute for Creation Research

FourPart;1491485 wrote: Pahu has already declared Global Warming to be a hoax. Therefore all the top world scientists who believe otherwise had better change their opinion. Pahu clearly knows better.


Many scientists do not believe man is responsible for global warming. For over ten years it has been cooling. Mars is warming. Here are the facts:

Global warming



A composite map of Antarctica showing areas of greatest warming in red. The Wilkins Ice Shelf lies off the peninsula in the top left corner, and shows extensive warming. Overall, Antarctica shows little warming, and many areas to the East (right) are almost cooling.[1]

The global warming theory is the liberal hoax[2] that the world is becoming dangerously warmer due to the emission of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and water vapor. Liberals have used the theory of man-made global warming to seek rationing by government of life-saving energy production and consumption.

The most accurate data—from satellites—confirms that there has been virtually no global warming since 1998.[3] The media insist otherwise by publicizing local variations in unscientific surface thermometers,[4] when the more scientific atmospheric temperature does not show such an increase.[5] Moreover, natural periods of global warming and global cooling are expected to occur regardless of human activity, and not long ago liberals were demanding more government control to combat an alleged cooling in temperatures, with some scientists warning of a possible ice age.[6] Global cooling, a theory that predates global warming, obviously occurs naturally many times throughout Earth's geological history.[7] The ease of refutation of anthropogenic global cooling claims foretells the eventual fate of the current global warming hysteria.

Many political activists use the term "global warming" to refer to anthropogenic global warming theory (AGW), which asserts that human activity such as spewing "greenhouse gases" is causing an increase in temperature and is more significant than natural causes and cycles. The AGW theory is supported by left-leaning political parties, as well as a majority of sovereign states, national agencies, and an intergovernmental panel (see IPCC). The reality is that there is no immediate global crisis, and even dire warnings by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) admit that significant effects will not be manifested for at least 100 years. Predictions made by climate models publicized by the IPCC have not come to pass in recent years. Many scientists, such as Hal Lewis, have decried global warming as a conspiracy for the purpose of securing trillions of dollars in grant money.

In November 2009, emails were disclosed that implicated a wrongful manipulation and concealment of data by scientists who have insisted that there is dangerous man-made global warming. Prior to ClimateGate, both the Republican and Democratic party Platforms in 2008 suggested that global warming is happening, that it is caused by human activity, and that it should be counteracted. For example, in 2007, the Republican presidential candidate Senator John McCain called global warming "an issue we can no longer afford to ignore".[8] In 2010, an independent analysis cleared the scientists involved of any wrongdoing as scientists, but remarked upon their omissions as data-presenters. Accordingly, the effects of the scandal still linger.[9]

Former vice president Al Gore, won a Nobel Prize in 2007 for claiming that there is a dangerous man-made global warming that threatens the world. However, it has since been revealed that he convinced many people through inaccurate information in his "documentary," i.e., he only won the Nobel Prize by lying.

Global warming - Conservapedia

Ho Hum

Ted;1491492 wrote: Ho Hum


Wake up! You may learn something.

They are It's amazing that all the scientists are wrong but the pseudo scientists are all correct. You want me to wake up to that drivel? I don't think so. Ignorance is bliss. They are the wanna be scientists.

"Let there be light" - that's the Sun - coming AFTER the Heavens & the Earth.

"Prophecies" made within a few years of happening are not "prophecies" in the Biblical sense. They are just interpretations on the current political situation. If I observe a ball rolling slowly towards a cliff edge I could prophesise that that ball will eventually fall off the edge of that cliff. There is nothing miraculous about that. As soon as IS started to use terrorist actions against the Western world then it was pretty obvious that there would be military action taken. To have prophesised that is nothing miraculous. either. State where in the Bible something has been prophesised that we can see happening NOW - and with precision - not your usual vagueries.

Remember, the Bible makes claim that the sun goes around the earth. So much for being Scientifically Accurate.

FourPart;1491506 wrote: "Let there be light" - that's the Sun - coming AFTER the Heavens & the Earth.

"Prophecies" made within a few years of happening are not "prophecies" in the Biblical sense. They are just interpretations on the current political situation. If I observe a ball rolling slowly towards a cliff edge I could prophesise that that ball will eventually fall off the edge of that cliff. There is nothing miraculous about that. As soon as IS started to use terrorist actions against the Western world then it was pretty obvious that there would be military action taken. To have prophesised that is nothing miraculous. either. State where in the Bible something has been prophesised that we can see happening NOW - and with precision - not your usual vagaries.


The scattering and regathering Israel would be one example:



God warned Israel when He imposed the Law:

“Disobey and I will scatter you.

“After you have had children and grandchildren and have lived in the land a long time – if you then become corrupt and make any kind of idol, doing evil in the eyes of the Lord your God and provoking Him to anger, I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you this day that you will quickly perish from the land that you are crossing the Jordan to possess. You will not live there long but will certainly be destroyed. The Lord will scatter you among the peoples, and only a few of you will survive among the nations to which the Lord will drive you.

(DEUTERONOMY 4:25-27)

... they did not believe His promise ... and did not obey the Lord. So He swore to them with uplifted hand that He would ... scatter them throughout the lands.

(PSALMS 106:24-27)

See also Leviticus 26:14-33 and Deuteronomy 28:58-67



Israel did disobey and God did scatter them

This is how it happened:

ca 1460 BC The Exodus from Egypt and the giving of the Law

The warnings were followed by promises. God would scatter Israel, but God would regather the people in the future.

Over the following hundreds of years the nation failed to live up to the Law. God sent prophets to warn them but they continued to fail.

727 BC The Assyrians conquered Naphtali and the Israelite tribes east of the Jordan River.

The scattering of the Jewish people began.

722 BC The Assyrians conquered the northern kingdom of Israel.

The survivors of the ten tribes of Israel were exiled.



Assyria failed to defeat Judah but, about 100 years later, the Babylonians destroyed Jerusalem and the First Temple.

Siege of Lachish by the Assyrians in 701BC

586 BC The Babylonians conquered the southern kingdom of Judah

The Jews went into exile.

539 BC The Persians conquered Babylon

They allowed tens of thousands of Jews to return to Israel under Ezra. The Temple was rebuilt in Jerusalem. Most Jews remained in exile in Babylon.

AD 70 The Romans destroyed Jerusalem during the First Jewish Revolt

The Second Temple was destroyed. Many Jews fled the land.



AD 135 The Jews rebelled a second time. The Romans desolated Israel. The Jews were banished from Jerusalem. Hardly any remained in the land.

However, God had promised that He would bring the Israelites back to the Promised Land in the future

...if they will confess their sins and the sins of their fathers – their treachery against Me and their hostility toward Me, which made Me hostile toward them so that I sent them into the land of their enemies  then when their uncircumcised hearts are humbled and they pay for their sin, I will remember My covenant with Jacob and My covenant with Isaac and My covenant with Abraham, and I will remember the land. For the land will be deserted by them and will enjoy its sabbaths while it lies desolate without them. They will pay for their sins because they rejected My laws and abhorred My decrees. Yet in spite of this, when they are in the land of their enemies, I will not reject them or abhor them so as to destroy them completely, breaking My covenant with them. I am the Lord their God. But for their sake I will remember the covenant with their ancestors whom I brought out of Egypt in the sight of the nations to be their God. I am the Lord.

(LEVITICUS 26:40-45)

“But if from there you seek the Lord your God, you will find Him if you look for Him with all your heart and with all your soul.

When you are in distress and all these things have happened to you, then in later days you will return to the Lord your God and obey Him. For the Lord your God is a merciful God; He will not abandon or destroy you or forget the covenant with your forefathers, which He confirmed to them by oath.

(DEUTERONOMY 4:29-31)

“Do not be afraid, for I am with you; I will bring your children from the east and gather you from the west. I will say to the north, ‘Give them up!’ and to the south, ‘Do not hold them back.’ Bring My sons from afar and My daughters from the ends of the earth ...

(ISAIAH 43:5-6)

In 1948 Israel was reestablished.

Remember, the Bible makes claim that the sun goes around the earth. So much for being Scientifically Accurate.


Where does the Bible say that?

The Bible is an ancient document containing much wisdom. It is a man made document written by ordinary human beings (men) It is a book written after observations and much oral tradition. Nor does it contain modern scientific thought. In fact itd is written based on ancient conceptions which change as the years go on.

Pahu;1491514 wrote: The scattering and regathering Israel would be one example:



God warned Israel when He imposed the Law:

“Disobey and I will scatter you.

“After you have had children and grandchildren and have lived in the land a long time – if you then become corrupt and make any kind of idol, doing evil in the eyes of the Lord your God and provoking Him to anger, I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you this day that you will quickly perish from the land that you are crossing the Jordan to possess. You will not live there long but will certainly be destroyed. The Lord will scatter you among the peoples, and only a few of you will survive among the nations to which the Lord will drive you.

(DEUTERONOMY 4:25-27)

... they did not believe His promise ... and did not obey the Lord. So He swore to them with uplifted hand that He would ... scatter them throughout the lands.

(PSALMS 106:24-27)

See also Leviticus 26:14-33 and Deuteronomy 28:58-67



Israel did disobey and God did scatter them

This is how it happened:

ca 1460 BC The Exodus from Egypt and the giving of the Law

The warnings were followed by promises. God would scatter Israel, but God would regather the people in the future.

Over the following hundreds of years the nation failed to live up to the Law. God sent prophets to warn them but they continued to fail.

727 BC The Assyrians conquered Naphtali and the Israelite tribes east of the Jordan River.

The scattering of the Jewish people began.

722 BC The Assyrians conquered the northern kingdom of Israel.

The survivors of the ten tribes of Israel were exiled.



Assyria failed to defeat Judah but, about 100 years later, the Babylonians destroyed Jerusalem and the First Temple.

Siege of Lachish by the Assyrians in 701BC

586 BC The Babylonians conquered the southern kingdom of Judah

The Jews went into exile.

539 BC The Persians conquered Babylon

They allowed tens of thousands of Jews to return to Israel under Ezra. The Temple was rebuilt in Jerusalem. Most Jews remained in exile in Babylon.

AD 70 The Romans destroyed Jerusalem during the First Jewish Revolt

The Second Temple was destroyed. Many Jews fled the land.



AD 135 The Jews rebelled a second time. The Romans desolated Israel. The Jews were banished from Jerusalem. Hardly any remained in the land.

However, God had promised that He would bring the Israelites back to the Promised Land in the future

...if they will confess their sins and the sins of their fathers – their treachery against Me and their hostility toward Me, which made Me hostile toward them so that I sent them into the land of their enemies  then when their uncircumcised hearts are humbled and they pay for their sin, I will remember My covenant with Jacob and My covenant with Isaac and My covenant with Abraham, and I will remember the land. For the land will be deserted by them and will enjoy its sabbaths while it lies desolate without them. They will pay for their sins because they rejected My laws and abhorred My decrees. Yet in spite of this, when they are in the land of their enemies, I will not reject them or abhor them so as to destroy them completely, breaking My covenant with them. I am the Lord their God. But for their sake I will remember the covenant with their ancestors whom I brought out of Egypt in the sight of the nations to be their God. I am the Lord.

(LEVITICUS 26:40-45)

“But if from there you seek the Lord your God, you will find Him if you look for Him with all your heart and with all your soul.

When you are in distress and all these things have happened to you, then in later days you will return to the Lord your God and obey Him. For the Lord your God is a merciful God; He will not abandon or destroy you or forget the covenant with your forefathers, which He confirmed to them by oath.

(DEUTERONOMY 4:29-31)

“Do not be afraid, for I am with you; I will bring your children from the east and gather you from the west. I will say to the north, ‘Give them up!’ and to the south, ‘Do not hold them back.’ Bring My sons from afar and My daughters from the ends of the earth ...

(ISAIAH 43:5-6)

In 1948 Israel was reestablished.
Note that most of that is in the past tense - stories of prophecies claimed to have been made in one story book & then claimed to have been fulfilled by the same story book.

As for Israel being re-established, that was nothing to do with God. It was the result of the United Nations as reparation for the holocaust caused by some other mad dictator, which had absolutely nothing to do with the 'scattering of the tribes'. As I said before, it's all a matter of horoscopes. You can read any event from the past to be some interpretation of some vague prophesy. That's how horoscopes work. A true prophesy would have said something like "nearly 2000 years after the lifetime of Jesus, an Austrian despot by the name of Hitler will decree war upon the people of Israel. He will be overthrown by the people of the world and they will return them to Israel, where they shall continue to be at war with the people of Palestine". THAT would have been a prophesy. It gives a timeframe, a named person & his nationality, what he would do & what would result in the event. NOT something like God decided to punish an entire nation by extraditing them, then at some time (whenever you choose to believe it happened), will bring them together again. Your 'prophecies' are merely cheap horoscopes.

Where does the Bible say that?


Joshua 10:12 - 10:14

12 Then Joshua spoke to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the sons of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, "O sun, stand still at Gibeon, And O moon in the valley of Aijalon."

13 So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, Until the nation avenged themselves of their enemies. Is it not written in the book of Jashar? And the sun stopped in the middle of the sky and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day.

14 There was no day like that before it or after it, when the LORD listened to the voice of a man; for the LORD fought for Israel.¦


It clearly states that the sun was moving, otherwise it could not have stopped. If it had been "Scientifically Accurate" it would have said that the Earth stood still.

Gallileo was tried by the Church for heresy when he claimed that Copernicus was right, inasmuch as the Earth goes around the Sun, and not vice versa, as the Bible claims.

In a dream world evolution did not happen. In the real world we have pseudo scientists or wanna be scientists. Use of the Bible is poor in this thread. With all due respect some like to be like the ostrich and bury their head in the sand. Evolution is a proven fact.

Ted;1491536 wrote: In a dream world evolution did not happen. In the real world we have pseudo scientists or wanna be scientists. Use of the Bible is poor in this thread. With all due respect some like to be like the ostrich and bury their head in the sand. Evolution is a proven fact.
Although, as Pahu says, only accepted as a fact by Atheists:

Pope Francis declares evolution and Big Bang theory are real and God is not 'a magician with a magic wand' | Europe | News | The Independent

Ted;1491516 wrote: The Bible is an ancient document containing much wisdom. It is a man made document written by ordinary human beings (men) It is a book written after observations and much oral tradition. Nor does it contain modern scientific thought. In fact itd is written based on ancient conceptions which change as the years go on.


Evidence for the Devine authorship for the Bible is the writers revealed facts that have only recently been discovered and they accurately predicted the future. Here are the facts:



Bible Accuracy





1. Archaeology confirms the historical accuracy of the Bible:



The Rocks Cry Out

In what ways have the discoveries of archaeology verified the reliability of the Bible? • ChristianAnswers.Net

Archaeology and the Bible • ChristianAnswers.Net

The Bible and Archaeology: How Archaeology Confirms the Biblical Record | United Church of God

http://www.biblestudysite.com/arch.htm



2. The Bible is not a science book, yet is scientifically accurate:



Scientific Facts in The Bible

Science Confirms the Bible - RationalWiki

King James Bible

Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge

Science and the Bible



3. The Bible is filled with hundreds of accurately fulfilled prophecies:

100prophecies.org

101 End Times Bible Prophecy

About Bible Prophecy

Bible Prophecies Fulfilled

Reasons To Believe : Fulfilled Prophecy: Evidence for the Reliability of the Bible

Bible Prophecy



No other book, religious or secular, comes close to those requirements.

FourPart;1491530 wrote: Note that most of that is in the past tense - stories of prophecies claimed to have been made in one story book & then claimed to have been fulfilled by the same story book.


Except for the fact that Israel was regathered as prophesied.

As for Israel being re-established, that was nothing to do with God. It was the result of the United Nations as reparation for the holocaust caused by some other mad dictator, which had absolutely nothing to do with the 'scattering of the tribes'.


God often uses humans to fulfill His goals.



Joshua 10:12 - 10:14

It clearly states that the sun was moving, otherwise it could not have stopped. If it had been "Scientifically Accurate" it would have said that the Earth stood still.

Gallileo was tried by the Church for heresy when he claimed that Copernicus was right, inasmuch as the Earth goes around the Sun, and not vice versa, as the Bible claims.


The Bible often uses appearance, just as we do today. We, including scientists, always refer to the sun rising and setting. Does that mean we believe the sun rotates around the earth?

Ted;1491536 wrote: In a dream world evolution did not happen. In the real world we have pseudo scientists or wanna be scientists. Use of the Bible is poor in this thread. With all due respect some like to be like the ostrich and bury their head in the sand. Evolution is a proven fact.


Where is that proven fact?

FourPart;1491546 wrote: Although, as Pahu says, only accepted as a fact by Atheists:

Pope Francis declares evolution and Big Bang theory are real and God is not 'a magician with a magic wand' | Europe | News | The Independent


The Pope is wrong as shown by the evidence.

Pahu;1491563 wrote: Evidence for the Devine authorship for the Bible is the writers revealed facts that have only recently been discovered and they accurately predicted the future. Here are the facts:


The only 'fact' is that you keep pasting the same nonsense over & over again. Saying that some non-existent entity 'revealed' himself is not evidence of anything. As discussed with Mickiel elsewhere, 'Biblical' Archaeology is not proof of any form of entity. It merely proves the existence of certain cities & occasionally some historical figures - none of which were under any question. That much is hard evidence of actual places & people. It is NOT evidence of the existence of a God. At best it is only evidence of people who BELIEVED in a God.

Even today, all too frequently, we experience people who have mental health problems who 'hear' voices talking to them. These may be thought to be 'God' or 'Aliens', or just simply 'voices'. However, we know these to be illnesses & we know what it is that causes them. It has been witnessed & recorded using MRI scans. There is no doubt that these 'crazies' believe that God is 'revealing' himself to them. Then there are the gullible ones, such as yourself, who will believe them. Such people exist, and have always existed. That is a fact. We know what it is that causes it. That is a medical fact. That God is really talking to them. That is not a fact & to think otherwise, with all the medical evidence to hand is superstitious nonsense.

Black is really White.

No it's not.

Black is really White.

Tell me why.

Black is really White.

What evidence do you have to that effect?

Black is really White.

Do you see a common theme here? No matter how often you paste the same rubbish, it doesn't make it any less rubbish. You never argue a case with your own thoughts. All you do is continue to say Black is really White by repeatedly pasting from a single book. Don't you have the capacity to think for yourself.

Tell me - do you hear these voices as well? Is Walt Brown 'revealing' himself to you?

FourPart;1491569 wrote: The only 'fact' is that you keep pasting the same nonsense over & over again. Saying that some non-existent entity 'revealed' himself is not evidence of anything. As discussed with Mickiel elsewhere, 'Biblical' Archaeology is not proof of any form of entity. It merely proves the existence of certain cities & occasionally some historical figures - none of which were under any question. That much is hard evidence of actual places & people. It is NOT evidence of the existence of a God. At best it is only evidence of people who BELIEVED in a God.


For good reason. Before the universe existed there was nothing from which it appeared, which is impossible by any natural cause. Therefor the cause of the universe was supernatural proving the existence of God.

Pahu, you are following the pseudo scientists. The wanna be scientists. You want the proof first you need to open your eyes and your brain.

"...science is fine as long as it generates results and findings that fit the views of the church..."


This creationist astrophysicist says that if the science conflicted the bible, he would come down on the side of the bible. That is not how science works, which is precisely what we have been saying to Pahu.

Ted;1491572 wrote: Pahu, you are following the pseudo scientists. The wanna be scientists. You want the proof first you need to open your eyes and your brain.


What is the definition of a pseudo scientist or a wanna be scientist? And what does that have to do with my proof that God exists?

That may be how a part of the church thinks. However it is not all churches nor is it a majority.

Snowfire;1491576 wrote: This creationist astrophysicist says that if the science conflicted the bible, he would come down on the side of the bible. That is not how science works, which is precisely what we have been saying to Pahu.




Fortunately science does not conflict with the Bible. As a matter of fact, the modern scientific method was founded by Christians. Here are the facts:



MODERN SCIENCE FOUNDERS



What five things do these names have in common?

Agassiz

Babbage

Boyle

Faraday

Kelvin

Kepler

Lister

Maxwell

Mendel

Newton

Pascal

Pasteur

Ramsay

Seno

Simpson

The Answer:

1. All human.

2. All men.

3. All scientists.

4. All founded modern science.

5. All creationists.

Agassiz—Ichthyology

Babbage—Computers

Boyle—Chemistry

Faraday—Magnetic theory

Kelvin—Thermodynamics

Kepler—Astronomy

Lister—Antiseptic surgery

Maxwell—Electrodynamics

Mendel—Genetics

Newton—Physics

Pascal—Hydrostatics

Pasteur—Bacteriology

Ramsay—Isotopic chemistry

Seno—Stratigraphy

Simpson—Gynecology

The Bible and science should not be in conflict. Unless of course one doesn't know how to read the Bible. You should be looking at modern bone fide scientists. Newton has been long gone and science is much advanced. Get real.

What does the Pope have in common with Pahu? Not a lot. According to Pahu he has to be an Atheist because he accepts science.

Pahu;1491568 wrote: The Pope is wrong as shown by the evidence.
Surely the Pope follows the same 'evidence' as yourself - aka the Bible? The difference is that he has the sense to recognise the hard evidence of science.

So many times you have said that only Atheists believe in the scientific explanation of the origin of the universe. This has proved you to be wrong.

Ted;1491597 wrote: The Bible and science should not be in conflict. Unless of course one doesn't know how to read the Bible. You should be looking at modern bone fide scientists. Newton has been long gone and science is much advanced. Get real.


What are modern bone fide scientists? Has the physics Newton founded been replaced?

FourPart;1491605 wrote: What does the Pope have in common with Pahu? Not a lot. According to Pahu he has to be an Atheist because he accepts science.





When did I say one has to be an Atheist to accept science? If you mean evolution you may have a point.