Digg

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at mywisegeneration.blogspot.com

Video: Proof of Christianity: Challenging Skeptics

mywisegeneration.blogspot.com — VenomFangX (Shawn) is one of the many popular young individuals on YouTube who openly discusses criticisms and skepticisms of God. In this particular video, he provides strong logical proof of Christianity by challenging skeptics to fully understand their position when they say the prophesies and historical contexts of the Bible are a man-made...

Bury

iucraigmc 94 days ago

81 diggs
digg it

163 Comments
Who Dugg It?
Blog It
Email It

Good2BMe, on 04/22/2008, -9/+15Well thought out. Gotta like this guy! :-)
neopolaris, on 04/22/2008, -11/+10Skeptics=the deceived
- elcapitanp, on 05/08/2008, -0/+2Yeah, because rigorous logic is so much more decieving than iron age literature.
postingbh, on 04/22/2008, -6/+3Is VenomFangX the same person as SampleX?
- these3remain, on 04/23/2008, -6/+4Nope. But SampleX is pretty sharp, too.
  - postingbh, on 04/23/2008, -0/+3You forgot /sarcasm
rightwingattila, on 04/22/2008, -9/+12I love this guys videos. Right on the money as usual!
esantipapa, on 04/22/2008, -14/+14You like venomfangx? He gives you no cred in the science department, nor the theological arena. Take more than five minutes dabbling in youtube vids and see the responses to his nonsense. Most of his scientific claims (the Grand Canyon was formed in a matter of hours by a great flood) and theological ones (rational people should convert to Christianity immediately, because its just so... perfect) are so ridiculous its hard to take him seriously at all. At first, watching his videos, I thought he was like http://youtube.com/user/Theologikos who is hilariously sarcastic and totaly satirical. But alas, he is just a Bible-junkie, looking for his next confrontational fix. He's just as easily defeated too.
A good response...http://youtube.com/watch?v=gbNKC5HPcJU
Another...http://youtube.com/watch?v=n7Vt-TaTc5Y
There are a *****-load more... this douche doesn't know his ass from a aardvark.
- strat777, on 04/22/2008, -9/+7"this douche doesn't know his ass from a aardvark."
  
  Noone really knows anything. What are you trying to say?
- ApokalypseNow, on 04/22/2008, -9/+9He seriously believes that the Grand Canyon was formed in a matter of hours? Seriously?
  I'm sure others have said how crazy this is in the response videos, but I gotta say it here... WRONG! The minerals in and around the Grand Canyon are largely GRANITE. That's a really hard rock, and no amount of rushing water over a short period of time is going to chop through granite like that.
  
  More reasons why this claim is ridiculous here:
  http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH581.html
  - kelly, on 04/22/2008, -8/+9Do you expect us to believe that millions of years of light pink debris were followed by millions of years of gray debris, followed by millions of years of dark pink debris, and so forth? What possible factors could have explained this uniformity of color, not to mention the uniformity of the lines dividing the layers? They are relatively smooth, even lines that stretch for great distances without any signs of erosion between them. It actually looks like the product of different types and weights of silt settling after a flood.
    
    The idea that nearly perfect stripes would have formed through years of decay, being of distinct and differing colors, and without erosion lines, is just plain dumb.
    - ApokalypseNow, on 04/23/2008, -5/+9Granite is not a sedimentary rock, so your "debris" argument is, in fact, the one that is "just plain dumb".
      - kelly, on 04/23/2008, -8/+11If we examine the prevailing interpretive literature about the Canyon, we find that the views presented are predominantly based on evolutionary theories. For the Canyon, this means that the rock layers were laid down over literally hundreds of millions of years, and that the Canyon was later carved slowly by the Colorado River. These theories tend to deny God’s involvement.
        
        But, if we look at the Canyon through the eyes of a biblical, or scriptural, geologist (those who believe in the Bible’s timeline of a young earth), we will see a very different Canyon. These geologists see a young canyon carved with a massive amount of water, likely in a matter of just days, shortly after the global flood of Noah’s day about 4,300 years ago.
        
        So is there evidence to support a biblical model? Yes. Let’s briefly examine a couple of the areas which do just that.
        
        According to the biblical model, the vast majority of the sedimentary layers we see in the Grand Canyon (and in the rest of the world for that matter) were deposited as the result of a global flood that occurred after, and ultimately as a result of, the initial sin that took place in the Garden of Eden about 6,000 years ago.
        
        Let’s look at the folding that is found in the sedimentary rock layers of the Canyon.
        
        Look at this picture:
        http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/images/Ca ...
        
        The picture (linked above) is a fold in the Tapeats Sandstone in Carbon Creek, one of the side canyons within Grand Canyon. You can plainly see that the rock was bent, or as the geologist would say, “folded,” while still soft or pliable. Notice that this folding has taken place without cracking the rock. Folds like this indicate that the folding had to happen soon after deposition, and that the deposition and the upheaval responsible for the folding were in fact one event.
        
        Another area that supports the biblical model is the contact lines between the layers themselves. When evolutionists look at this contact point between the Coconino Sandstone and the Hermit Shale, as seen to the right, they see 10 million years of “missing” time and material.
        
        But the creationists, using the biblical model, don’t see “missing” material at all. They see classic flood geology, only on a scale so large that it boggles the mind of the evolutionist.
        
        Now see this picture:
        http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/images/He ...
        
        Note the knife-edge line of the contact point; this contact is the same throughout the length of the Canyon. If this represents 10 million years of missing material, why don’t we see any sign of either physical or chemical erosion between the layers?
      - eir574, on 04/23/2008, -3/+9@kelly:
        
        You copied all of that from answersingenesis.com. Do you understand what you copied? Can you give further explanation? Can you tell me why the "missing time" can't be accounted for by erosion? Can you explain to me why the folding you refer to could not possibly have occurred long after the layers had been deposited? Could the compression not have happened very slowly over very large periods of time, which would have avoided the types of sudden, strong forces capable of cracking the rock?
      - kelly, on 04/23/2008, -6/+10eir574,
        
        "Can you tell me why the "missing time" can't be accounted for by erosion?"
        
        Erosion is something that happens gradually over time. You simply wouldn't see a thin line like that for gradual erosion that would occur over thousands of years... let alone millions. If erosion occurred over a long period of time, the sediment would pile up gradually and make multiple lines... each of which would be very thick... ESPECIALLY for a canyon this large. Instead, we see one thin line indicating that the process happened quickly.
        
        "Can you explain to me why the folding you refer to could not possibly have occurred long after the layers had been deposited?"
        
        There are two factors involved. Massive amounts of water and it dropping quickly. "Bending of rocks" is not a term literally meaning bending like you would a young tree branch but rather the illusion of bending caused by water and lots of it moving in a consistent and forceful fashion so as to ware away some areas but not others. A simpler (yet easier) analogy would be like a blank of wood sitting under a flow of water. After some times, the section sitting directly under the flow will start to ware away while the areas that weren't under the most direct pressure would be less affected. The end result would appear to be a bending affect. The normal flow of water doesn't have the capability to "bend rocks" That flow would be equivalent to the excess water not under direct pressure in my wood analogy.
        
        "Could the compression not have happened very slowly over very large periods of time"
        
        This question is answered at the beginning of my response. Sediment collected over long periods of time is dispersed at the same rate of the flow. Because of this, wouldn't see a thin line but rather a thick one... and more likely, several thick ones.
        
        Now I have a question for you... why did you digg down my response, was it because you thought I didn't understand the article I posted and hoped to catch me on it or is it because you don't like the implications that it has for the "science" they're teaching you?
      - ApokalypseNow, on 04/23/2008, -7/+7kelly, you (or rather, your copy/paste source) are still working under the mistaken assumption that granite is a sedimentary rock - it is an IGNEOUS rock that came up through the surface, not one that was laid down.
        
        The points in the talkorigins link I gave you in my initial post here have not been addressed.
      - kelly, on 04/23/2008, -7/+8I'm not working under any mistaken assumptions. Sediment occurs from mere dust.
        
        You're under the mistaken assumption that I believe the sediment came from the granite itself. You come to this conclusion solely because that would occur if water passed through granite over millions of years.
        
        Your argument harkens back to that old adage... "If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail"
        
        "The points in the talkorigins link I gave you in my initial post here have not been addressed."
        
        You mean like the way you're not addressing the points I brought up?
      - eir574, on 04/23/2008, -4/+8@kelly:
        
        You cut and paste a source without showing understanding of it. I'm not a geologist. Are you? You very well might be, but if you were, I suspect you'd be aware of competing theories and hypotheses regarding the topics you presented, and you didn't show that awareness. Even if both of the things you've said are true, you haven't proven beyond all doubt that a flood occurred. I also noted that your source was answersingenesis, which often gets its science wrong. It sounds technical and makes people think that it makes sense, but that doesn't make it right. It doesn't even reference any papers or other sources I can go to for more complete information.
        
        You may want to have a look at this site: http://www.answersincreation.org/grandcanyon.htm . It has a number of articles that contradict your assertion that a flood caused the grand canyon. I'm not going to tell you that I know for sure that they're right, because like I said, I'm not a geologist. I recognize that there are people who have much greater expertise than I do in this area. If you're well schooled in geology, though, certainly you'll be able to explain to me why this site's science is wrong. When you're done with that, I can find you others. The site I linked to may not link to more technical explanations and papers, but I can find those, too. In fact, I was reading some just the other day.
        
        And, if your assertions were true, I would not be afraid of them. Challenges to scientific paradigms are exciting! Like every other scientist I've ever worked with, I would love nothing more in my career than to be associated with one. So far, I just haven't seen any creation "science" that even comes close to achieving that.
      - kelly, on 04/23/2008, -6/+10eir574,
        
        "You cut and paste a source without showing understanding of it."
        
        You responded assuming that I didn't understand solely because I posted information from an externmal source. Yours is the greater injustice IMHO.
        
        I'm not a geologist. Are you?
        
        Nope and yet I've studied quite a bit about the grand canyon.
        
        "You very well might be, but if you were, I suspect you'd be aware of competing theories and hypotheses regarding the topics you presented, and you didn't show that awareness."
        
        Are you saying that I didn't show that because I didn't agree with that hypotheses? That's rather presumptious of you don't you think?
        
        "Even if both of the things you've said are true, you haven't proven beyond all doubt that a flood occurred."
        
        And yet the evidence I showed lends greater creedence to the notion that erosion didn't occure over millions of years. That is science. Looking at the information and coming to a conclusion.
        
        "I also noted that your source was answersingenesis, which often gets its science wrong."
        
        What you're saying is that it gets its science "wrong" because it doesn't agree with the "science" that suggests that the world is millions of years old. My whole argument comes about as a result of calling into question the scientific data that brought about those conclusions... and no, not because my faith suggests otherwise but because there is plenty of science that compells us to think otherwise.
        
        It sounds technical and makes people think that it makes sense, but that doesn't make it right.
        
        Nor does it make the technical nature of the "science" you reference automatically make it right. You're patronising me and it's not appreciated.
        
        It doesn't even reference any papers or other sources I can go to for more complete information.
        
        If I provided those references (and I can) you would call those references into question too because they don't agree with the "science" you've been taught.
        
        Going forward, I would recommend that you not be so quick to dismiss science coming from sources that reinforce the Biblical message even if (probably especially if) it contradicts what is more commonly recognized as it has been already established that secular scientists have an agenda to not allow any science that supports Biblical references. Shoot, a whole movie was recently created about how these scientists do everything in their power to take away one's freedom of inquiry of it happens to disagree with the general consensus view.
      - eir574, on 04/23/2008, -4/+8@kelly:
        
        ""Bending of rocks" is not a term literally meaning bending like you would a young tree branch but rather the illusion of bending caused by water and lots of it moving in a consistent and forceful fashion so as to ware away some areas but not others."
        
        Are you seriously suggesting that rocks can't bend over time? I'm not suggesting that water did it. I'm suggesting that something else did it. Geologists say something else did it.
      - kelly, on 04/23/2008, -8/+10"Are you seriously suggesting that rocks can't bend over time?"
        
        Read my post again. I put together a very clear analogy so that you wouldn't misunderstand me... and yet it seems you still did.
      - eir574, on 04/23/2008, -4/+7@kelly:
        
        "Read my post again. I put together a very clear analogy so that you wouldn't misunderstand me... and yet it seems you still did."
        
        You described the illusion of bending as could be created through the action of water. I'm asking you whether you're seriously saying that the action of water is the only condition under which bending can either occur or can appear to have occurred.
        
        I would have been willing to discuss this with you, but if you're going to insult me, I have better things to do.
      - kelly, on 04/23/2008, -7/+9"I'm asking you whether you're seriously saying that the action of water is the only condition under which bending can either occur or can appear to have occurred."
        
        Nowhere in my reply did I say or even imply that water was the only way rocks could "bend". I said that given the sediment evidence of water flowing very quickly and in great amounts that this explains the bending of the rocks shown in the images I presented.
        
        "if you're going to insult me"
        
        I'm sorry if you feel insulted but I certainly didn't do so.
        You on the other hand insulted my intelligence by implying that I'm coming to the conclusions that I do because the evidence presented to me sounds technical.... rather than me coming to those conclusions because I've studied the information, weighed the evidence and came to a conclusion because of it.
        
        I don't mind debating with you... I can go on for days. But if this was your effort to bow out semi gracefully... I understand.
      - eir574, on 04/23/2008, -3/+8@kelly:
        
        I asked you to explain why the folding couldn't have occurred by means of compression over a long period of time. Your response said that bending of rocks isn't really bending, but is just an illusion created by the action of water. If you didn't mean to imply that this is the only way folds such as the one you referred to could have been created, then your answer was non-responsive since you only talked about water and what it's capable of doing.
        
        I didn't intend to insult you when I said that it's easy to be convinced by evidence that essentially sounds scientific without being scientifically accurate. In fact, I allowed for the possibility that you might have expertise in the field, and then spoke in general terms. If you present me with a technical explanation of a quantum mechanical phenomenon, it may sound authoritative to me because I don't have enough expertise to know whether it's right or wrong. If that explanation falls in line with what I'd consider to be common sense, it's easy to start to believe that it's true without knowing for sure. In the end, we all have to trust experts in fields in which we lack expertise. As such, it's easy to be led astray.
      - kelly, on 04/23/2008, -7/+9"I asked you to explain why the folding couldn't have occurred by means of compression over a long period of time. Your response said that bending of rocks isn't really bending, but is just an illusion created by the action of water."
        
        First of all... the bending isn't an illusion in the sense that your eyes are being fooled but rather, an illusion that the rocks aren't bending like you might otherwise understand a young twig otherwise bends.
        
        What I explained to you is that the rocks bent because of the large flow of water occuring over a short amount of time. We know its a short amount of time because of the single, thin layer of sediment that I referenced. Therefore, explaining why rocks could not have folded over long periods of time was irrelivent... not because rocks can't fold over long periods of time but because we know that the canyon was not created over a long period of time.
      - eir574, on 04/23/2008, -3/+8@kelly
        
        I somehow didn't see your lengthier response a few posts above. Some of it may be moot by now, but I'll respond briefly anyway before heading to bed (at least to points that haven't already been covered).
        
        me: "I also noted that your source was answersingenesis, which often gets its science wrong."
        
        you: "What you're saying is that it gets its science "wrong" because it doesn't agree with the "science" that suggests that the world is millions of years old."
        
        No. I'm saying it states as scientific fact things that are not scientific fact. Some of these things have nothing to do with the age of the earth.
        
        "You responded assuming that I didn't understand solely because I posted information from an externmal source. Yours is the greater injustice IMHO."
        
        I said that you hadn't *shown* that you'd understood it.
        
        "Shoot, a whole movie was recently created about how these scientists do everything in their power to take away one's freedom of inquiry of it happens to disagree with the general consensus view."
        
        It's also possible that those people didn't present strong science. At least some of the claims made were blatantly untrue, such as that Richard Sternberg lost his positions as an editor of a scientific journal and at the Smithsonian because he approved the publication of a paper on intelligent design. The move ignores the fact that both positions were scheduled to end anyway. Sternberg makes a big deal out of the fact that the Smithsonian made him turn in his keys. This is true. The Smithsonian made everyone turn in their keys because they were moving to a new lock system.
        
        People seem to be using the observation that creationists aren't doing well in the scientific community (e.g. aren't receiving funding, aren't getting academic positions, and are being denied tenure (which is a natural consequence of not getting funding)) as evidence that they're being silenced. I know plenty of scientists whose grant proposals were rejected, whose papers were rejected, and who have trouble getting funding. Are they being silenced? No. Funding agencies are either finding that their science is lacking or that it isn't in line with their priorities. Journals are finding that their science is lacking or that it isn't in line with their priorities. My graduate advisor used to do quite well for himself, but for the past five or six years hasn't been able to get any funding. He's been forced to shut down his lab. Is he being silenced? No. His science has been lacking in recent years. His hypotheses don't make sense in light of scientific knowledge in his field, and his conclusions don't follow from the data. Sadly, I suspect that he's just getting older and isn't as mentally sharp as he used to be.
        
        "secular scientists"
        
        I have personally worked with religious scientists.
      - eir574, on 04/23/2008, -3/+7@kelly:
        
        I realize that I made a claim that answersingenesis gets science wrong without presenting an example.
        
        The site claims that new genetic information can't be created: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/is-na ... . I hear this quite a lot on digg. This is flat out wrong. It ignores duplication of genes and even of entire genomes (the latter happens frequently in plants). Once the organism has an extra copy of a gene, there's much less selective pressure against mutations in that gene. As mutations occur, new genetic information is created. If you're interested, you could also look up transposons.
        
        It's also unclear what people mean when they say that mutations can't cause an increase in information. A point mutation in a single gene causes sickle cell anemia. At first glance, this is a deleterious mutation. However, the disease only occurs in people who get two copies of the mutant allele. Since the mutant allele confers protection against malaria, people who have one copy have that protection and don't have sickle cell anemia. Hence, they have a clear survival advantage over other members of the population. Was information added, or was it lost? Neither. It's a change in information that gave rise to a new phenotype.
      - kelly, on 04/23/2008, -6/+7"No. I'm saying it states as scientific fact things that are not scientific fact. Some of these things have nothing to do with the age of the earth."
        
        Without seeing specificly what you're referencing, I can't answer acurately but I would suspect that the things you take issue with are the points they might otherwise reference as fact that contradict comonly understood science.
        
        I think I need to reinfoce the greater picture here that I don't think you've considered which is that secular scientists automatically rule out a scientific conclusion if it reinforces one that is already pre-established in the Bible.
        
        Therfore, much of that which they (answersingenesis) reference which runs contrary to what is not commonly understood by secular scientists is not the result of adopting bad science. Rather, it's the product of allowing the science that secular scientists automatically ruled out solely because it reinforced Biblical principals.
        
        I said that you hadn't *shown* that you'd understood it.
        
        Even if I didn't understand it. That wouldn't negate the information I posted. If I post a response that sounds logical, I believe propper edeqate would be to automatically assume that I do understand until there is reason to believe otherwise.
        
        "It's also possible that those people didn't present strong science."
        
        Before you come to that conclusion, I suggest you watch the movie
        
        "At least some of the claims made were blatantly untrue, such as that Richard Sternberg lost his positions as an editor of a scientific journal and at the Smithsonian because he approved the publication of a paper on intelligent design."
        
        It is true that the Sternberg case is controversial - it doesn't change the reality that there are evidences of this controversy on both sides of the spectrum. The reality is many sites have sprang up offering conjecture regarding the scientists who came forth in "Expelled" in an attempt to state, "What really happened was such-and-such" or "He didn't get tenure because of this-or-that".  The reason this is interesting is because the minute a film is released (or weeks before) suggesting intelligent design as a possibility, a machine has begun its work to instantly discredit it as propaganda. These sites aim to establish that the film, the people who partook in it and those of whom it discusses lack credibility (or they were victims in the case of the pro-Darwinists).  Ironically, in the act of blatantly attempting to discredit or victimize the scientists, filmmakers and participants in the film, they only further illustrate the point of the movie that any opposing viewpoint will be publicly discredited and squandered.  There is another big flaw in this argument. Discrediting the "accuracy" of the film does not explain why thousands of other scientists not in the film have discredited the ideas of Darwinian theory as a reasonable explanation to the origin of species.
        
        "I know plenty of scientists whose grant proposals were rejected, whose papers were rejected, and who have trouble getting funding. Are they being silenced? No."
        
        But those scientists were given sound reasoning for not getting the advancement they hoped for. It was very clear why the scientists referenced in the film who didn't receive advancement was solely because they referenced information that reinforced Biblical principals.
        
        "Funding agencies are either finding that their science is lacking or that it isn't in line with their priorities."
        
        You need to see the movie before you make such a claim. These points were specifically referenced in the film. The scientists had all the credibility that any scientits would need to gain advancement. And didn't for as little as publishing a paer that lent credibity to Biblical principals or presented evidence that supported Biblical princiapals. Seriously, you need to see the movie before making such a claim.
      - alkajazz, on 04/23/2008, -3/+6Why is the Grand Canyon so deep? Is this not consistent with other gullies/canyons we know were formed from a sudden rush of water?
      - eir574, on 04/23/2008, -2/+6"I think I need to reinfoce the greater picture here that I don't think you've considered which is that secular scientists automatically rule out a scientific conclusion if it reinforces one that is already pre-established in the Bible."
        
        I could turn that around and say that creationists automatically rule out any scientific conclusion that isn't consistent with the bible.
        
        I've worked in labs for 14 years now. You can sit there and tell me that none of the people I've worked with are open to paradigm changes, but I'm the one who has actually worked with them. They're open. I'm open. The science has to be sound, though. So far, it isn't. It's also not sufficient to look for evidence that is not inconsistent with a biblical account and then to say that it proves that the account is correct. Much of creation science does that.
      - kelly, on 04/23/2008, -6/+4"I could turn that around and say that creationists automatically rule out any scientific conclusion that isn't consistent with the bible."
        
        While I'm not going to speak for all creationists because I'm sure that are some that do exactly that. History shows us however that the most prominent respected scientists came to their conclusions based on solid science and then observed that it jived with the Bible.
        
        "You can sit there and tell me that none of the people I've worked with are open to paradigm changes"
        
        You have to admit, this is more than even a paradigm change.
        
        "The science has to be sound, though. So far, it isn't."
        
        I just argued in favor of evidence that lends credibility to a Biblical flood. The whole point of you keeping this thread alive (I assume) is to try to debunk the sound science I presented. Yours is a perfect example of someone who came to a predetermined conclusion despite the sound science that was presented. Perhaps you're not as open as you'd like to think you are. I would wager that the other scientists you've worked with were just as open.
        
        @alkajazz
        
        The depth of the grand canyon was established for the same reason why some canyons are deeper than others.
      - eir574, on 04/23/2008, -2/+6"I just argued in favor of evidence that lends credibility to a Biblical flood. The whole point of you keeping this thread alive (I assume) is to try to debunk the sound science I presented. "
        
        You've presented evidence. You haven't argued that all competing theories are wrong. Neither of us is a geologist, so I doubt we're capable of doing that. It sounds like you believe the science is sound because you trust the source and perhaps because it's consistent with other sources that you trust. That's why I made that argument that most of us are not qualified to look at the primary data and determine whether the conclusions drawn from that data are sound. In areas in which I am qualified to look at the primary data and analyze the conclusions of others, I've found creationist arguments to be seriously lacking.
        
        Yesterday there was a thread in which someone recounted the discovery of plant fossils in Washington state as evidence for a global flood. He said that since the plants are only found in the middle east, their appearance in Washington state must mean that there was a flood that brought them there. He argued just as strongly as you are for his evidence. However, he could not refute that plate tectonics and continental drift could be responsible for the appearance of those plants well outside their modern day environment. To overthrow a theory in science, you need to show that the theory is inconsistent with the data, not just that the data could be interpreted differently.
      - kelly, on 04/24/2008, -4/+3"You've presented evidence. You haven't argued that all competing theories are wrong."
        
        Actually I did exactly that.
        I pointed out that if the canyon was shaped by millions of years of water rushing through it, you would see multiple thick sediment lines but instead you see one very thin sediment line. For such a massive canyon such as the Grand, the only conclusion you can come to with that is that MASSIVE MASSIVE amounts of water came through there and washed away very quickly. That not only reinforces the Bible's flood story, but it also kills any notion that the canyon was formed by way of millions of years water rushing through it.
        
        "However, he could not refute that plate tectonics and continental drift could be responsible for the appearance of those plants well outside their modern day environment."
        
        http://answersingenesis.org/creation/v12/i1/fossil ...
      - kelly, on 04/24/2008, -5/+3"Actually I did exactly that."
        
        I should clarify that. I haven't argued that ***all*** competing theories are wrong. However, I have successfully argued that the most widely held belief about the canyon's creation is wrong and that the evidence indicates that the Biblical understanding of events is correct.
      - eir574, on 04/24/2008, -1/+3@kelly
        
        "Actually, I did exactly that."
        
        All you did was state that you wouldn't get thin sediment lines from water rushing through the canyon over millions of years. Saying it isn't proof.
      - eir574, on 04/24/2008, -1/+3@kelly
        
        I should have also said in my last post that you're misrepresenting the theory of the grand canyon's formation by saying that it was created by the Colorado river over millions of years. That's one aspect of the theory, but there are other geological events that contributed to the canyon we see today. It's not true that every aspect of the canyon's structure must be explained through the action of water.
        
        You can't just take a couple of features of the grand canyon, say that those features could have been formed by a flood, and call that evidence that the canyon was created by a flood. There are many aspects of the canyon that the young earth creationist argument does not explain. I provided you with a link to one website that discusses some of this, and you can find others if you're interested.
    - kelly, on 04/23/2008, -6/+9I should have said, "Sediment ***CAN*** occur from mere dust. It can also come from dirt and crushed rock etc. I was simply explaining that it is not the product of granite as that would require many (millions) of years of erosion and we know that didn't happen simply because there is a single very thin line of sediment indicating that the water flowed through the canyon quickly and then settled quickly.
  - postingbh, on 04/23/2008, -6/+8If I recall correctly, VenomFangX claims that the Grand Canyon was formed "in about 5 minutes." There are numerous videos on YouTube destroying his arguments.
    - kelly, on 04/23/2008, -6/+85 minutes was a bit ambitious. a couple hours is more close. With that said He is MUCH MUCH closer than those claiming it occurred over a span of 10 million years.
      
      All those "evidence videos" do is present the arguments that support their theory and always fail to mention the information that destroys their whole theory.
    - postingbh, on 04/23/2008, -2/+7What theory are you referring to?
      - kelly, on 04/23/2008, -4/+4their theory of evolution, big bang, anything contracting the Bible etc etc etc
      - postingbh, on 04/23/2008, -2/+5What do the theory of evolution or the big bang have to do with the Grand Canyon? Furthermore, how does the Bible support the argument that the Bible was created by rushing water over the period of five minutes or even a few hours? I mean, if you're going to make the creationist argument, why not just claim that the Grand Canyon was created in its current state?
      - kelly, on 04/24/2008, -3/+3"What do the theory of evolution or the big bang have to do with the Grand Canyon?"
        
        I didn't bring up the videos... you did.
        
        "Furthermore, how does the Bible support the argument that the Bible was created by rushing water over the period of five minutes or even a few hours?"
        
        Nobody said that the Bible says (or the Grand Canyon for that matter) was created by rushing water. The Bible simply says there was a flood, and the Bible gives references to the earth's age. This whole thread is about how evidence found in the Grand Canyon contradicts theories made by scientists that suggest that the earth is millions of years old and that the Grand Canyon was created in that amount of time.
        
        If you're going to jump in and make blanket statements about what you think I believe... I would recommend that you at LEAST educate yourself about what's been said up 'till this point.
      - postingbh, on 04/24/2008, -1/+5"I didn't bring up the videos... you did."
        - I brought up the videos which falsify VenomFangX's claims about the Grand Canyon. But those videos have nothing to do with the theory of evolution or the big bang. Again, I'm not sure why you even bring these into the discussion.
        
        "Nobody said that the Bible says (or the Grand Canyon for that matter) was created by rushing water."
        - VenomFangX claims the Grand Canyon could be formed in about 5 minutes from a flood: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BS5vid4GkEY
        - You said: "5 minutes was a bit ambitious. a couple hours is more close" and "While I believe water could have done the job, there are other theories."
        
        "If you're going to jump in and make blanket statements about what you think I believe... I would recommend that you at LEAST educate yourself about what's been said up 'till this point."
        - Well I've already directly quoted you, so I don't know what else you want. Maybe some more quotes from you:
        "These [old earth] theories tend to deny God’s involvement."
        "These geologists see a young canyon carved with a massive amount of water, likely in a matter of just days, shortly after the global flood of Noah’s day about 4,300 years ago."
        "For such a massive canyon such as the Grand, the only conclusion you can come to with that is that MASSIVE MASSIVE amounts of water came through there and washed away very quickly. That not only reinforces the Bible's flood story, but it also kills any notion that the canyon was formed by way of millions of years water rushing through it."
        
        So yeah, I think your position is rather clear. Regardless, this portion of the thread was specifically about providing insight into the history of VenomFangX. If you're looking to extend your young earth arguments and conversations, please do so elsewhere.
    - alkajazz, on 04/23/2008, -1/+5What evidence are you referring to?
      - kelly, on 04/23/2008, -4/+3postingbh, referenced evidence videos on YouTube that supposedly destroy the argument made by the parent poster
  - rjwusa, on 04/23/2008, -4/+6"...WRONG! The minerals in and around the Grand Canyon are largely GRANITE. That's a really hard rock, and no amount of rushing water over a short period of time is going to chop through granite like that...."
    
    WRONG! The fact is that most of the rock in the Grand Canyon is composed of sedimentary rock which can only be formed at the bottom of the ocean or in shallow coastal plains. The Kaibab Limestone which is the current top of the Grand Canyon is composed mostly of a sandy limestone, with some sandstone and shale thrown in for good measure. This means that it was probably formed in a shallow sea near the coast. The fact that it contains fossils of creatures that used to live in the ocean, like brachiopods, coral, mollusks, sea lilies, worms and fish teeth, only tends to reinforce this belief. The intrusion of sandstone and shales into this later means that at times the layer was also above the surface of the water but still very close to the edge. Sandstones are solidified sand which are typically fields of sand dunes or beaches, and shales are solidified mud which are common to river deltas. By dating the fossils found in the rock of the Kaibab Limestone, geologists have determined that it is approximately 250 million years old, and this is the youngest layer. http://www.bobspixels.com/kaibab.org/geology/gc_ge ...
    
    The major sedimentary rock layers exposed in the Grand Canyon and in the Grand Canyon National Park area range in age from 200 million to nearly 2 billion years old. Most were deposited in warm, shallow seas and near ancient, long-gone sea shores. Both marine and terrestrial sediments are represented, including fossilized sand dunes from an extinct desert. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology_of_the_Grand_ ...
    - ApokalypseNow, on 04/23/2008, -2/+8I find myself corrected!
      
      In any case, the point still stands that that much rock could not have been cut by simple rushing water in the course of a few hours, regardless of the composition of said rock.
      - kelly, on 04/23/2008, -4/+3While I believe water could have done the job, there are other theories. One of these is that the earth was a smaller planet in earlier times and that the massive amount of water that rained was new water (not rain brought about for standard condensation) When the new (flood) water was introduced, it caused the earth to expand like a old, dried up nerf ball might might otherwise do if submerged in water. This would have caused all the planets to break apart (before it was one giant continent.
        
        If you were to take that theory even further, you can theorize that the flood caused a mini ice age and the arizona grand canyon (which was previously repositioned to be further north as a result of a smaller planet was part of what we now know as the north pole. As the earth grew the polar ice caps would have pushed right through anything that stood in their way... including granite and lime stone.
        
        Here is video of growing earth theory. Keep in mind that this isn't a creationist video but a theory that was generated by analyzing the science. The fact that it happens to work without discrediting the Bible is interesting.... and probably one of the reasons why its not considered more seriously.
        
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjgidAICoQI
      - postingbh, on 04/23/2008, -2/+5@kelly:
        
        Now replace "theory" with "hypothesis"
      - eir574, on 04/23/2008, -2/+7@kelly,
        
        Growing earth proponents will need to show that their hypothesis is better supported by the evidence than is plate tectonics. The growing earth hypothesis was thrown out long ago when evidence for subduction was discovered. So, you'd need to explain either why the evidence for subduction does not occur or why plate tectonics is wrong for other reasons.
      - kelly, on 04/24/2008, -2/+3Actually, in that video, they reference that no subduction occurred.
        
        Regardless, it's just a theory. It's not like the argument falls apart if it were found to be true. I just found it interesting that this theory would still work based on the Biblical flood account.
      - eir574, on 04/24/2008, -2/+6I know the growing earth proponents don't claim that subduction occurred. I'm saying that the hypothesis was thrown out (by the vast majority of scientists, at least, though clearly not by all) when evidence for subduction was discovered, and that made plate tectonics a better theory. I was suggesting that you/others could backtrack and reverse that shift by showing that subduction doesn't occur, ever. That would call the prevailing theory -- plate tectonics -- into question. That alone wouldn't make the growing earth hypothesis correct, but part of advancing a new hypothesis (or, in this case, bringing back an old one) is showing that it's better than existing theories.
      - kelly, on 04/24/2008, -2/+3Again, my argument isn't made or broken by the theory of a growing earth... I simply made the observation that should it be proven true, it jives with the flood story.
      - alkajazz, on 04/24/2008, -1/+6If earth was growing would we not notice a change in gravity? Or possibly our orbit? It would be more far reaching if this was occurring.
  - animalwheeler, on 04/23/2008, -5/+7AN wrote:" That's a really hard rock, and no amount of rushing water over a short period of time is going to chop through granite like that. "
    
    Ever heard of a waterjet???? The stone industry uses them, lots of water at high pressures, with an abrasive. If there was enough water to cut a canyon in five minutes, I'd give there was enough pressure from that water, and as it cuts material away, an abrasive aggregate will flow with the water.
    Yes, some amounts of water will cut granite.
    
    And for those who always need citations- Northwood, one of the leading mfr in Stone Fabrication machining:
    http://www.northwoodstoneworks.com/cnc-sawjet/mode ...
    - ApokalypseNow, on 04/23/2008, -1/+11I'm aware of waterjets - that's not an amount of water, that's a PRESSURE of water. The amount of water used in them is surprisingly small for the substances they cut through.
  - victorypup, on 04/23/2008, -7/+10LOL, I'm no geologist. I follow some of this stuff only for entertainment. Those who refuse to believe in creation have an ever changing explanation for why or how we are hear. I'm quite comfortable knowing that my God created all things, time has no bearing on anything he does. And he does all things well.
- alkajazz, on 04/22/2008, -8/+10He's just your basic "Satan has planted all the scientific evidence to fool us" creationists.
- these3remain, on 04/23/2008, -10/+11"He gives you no cred in the science department, nor the theological arena. " While you may be qualified to criticize his lack of scientific expertise, you are not regarding the theological arena. His arguments are quite sound and not a single "skeptic" who has posted on this thread can debunk or deny the hundreds of Biblical prophesies that have been fulfilled and the enormous odds of even a handful of them being fulfilled. If one were open-mindedly seeking truth, one would have to admit that the fulfillment of Biblical prophesy is something that is incomprehensible without the existence of an omniscient God. As the man said, it's not coincidence after coincidence after coincidence.
  - eir574, on 04/23/2008, -7/+10The odds of a handful of prophecies being fulfilled go up if you make many prophecies, particularly if you make some of them vague and then declare them fulfilled based on those vague conditions having been, well, vaguely met. Furthermore, how do I know that somewhere along the line as the bible was being translated from one language to another that someone didn't insert a prophecy or two based on events that had already happened/? I know you don't believe that, but in order for me to believe that the fulfillment of prophecies speaks to the bible's truthfulness, I'd have to have very solid evidence that the prophecies were written before the events that supposedly fulfill them occurred. In that sense, any prophecy that was fulfilled before the bible was first written is automatically suspect. I'd also need to know that fulfillment of the prophecy hasn't biased translation in a way that would make the prophecy and the fulfillment seem less vague.
    
    I've asked people before to tell me how many prophecies there are in the bible, both fulfilled and unfulfilled, and I've never gotten an answer. Similarly, no one has been willing to tell me how many prophecies in the bible have expiration dates that have already passed.
    
    Oh, and SampleX, if you're hanging around here, you've already told me many times how intellectually inferior I am to you (in fact, how intellectually inferior so very many people are to you, and how I take an extra hit because I'm a woman), so please do me a favor and pass this one over. This is an open forum and you're obviously free to respond if you'd like, but I've decided that there's no point in my continuing to read your posts. Clearly, I'm too intellectually inferior to understand you anyway, so I'm addressing this question to someone else. Besides, haven't you also said that, like so many other atheists, I'm too intellectually lazy to bother to put in the effort to understand what you have to say?
    - these3remain, on 04/23/2008, -8/+11"particularly if you make some of them vague and then declare them fulfilled based on those vague conditions having been, well, vaguely met." But there are hundreds of prophesies in the Bible that are pretty specific some of which were mentioned in the video, i.e., the Messianic prophesies of Isaiah for example. There are over three hundred prophecies concerning Jesus Christ in the Old Testament alone. Not only was it foretold where He would be born and what family He would come from, but also how He would die and that He would rise again on the third day. These prophecies were written a bare minimum of hundreds of years, and in some cases thousands of years before His birth since the last prophet, Malachi , wrote 400 years before the birth of Christ.There is no other religious book with the extent or type of predictive prophecy that the Bible has.
      There are hundreds and hundreds of other prophesies since a good portion of the Old Testament are the writings of the prophets - all of whom God used to write at different times; 17 to be exact. There are "major" prophets such as Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel and minor prophets from Hosea to Malachi as well as prophets throughout the history of Israel who are mentioned throughout the Old Testament such as Samuel, Elijah, Elisha, etc.
      "I've asked people before to tell me how many prophecies there are in the bible, both fulfilled and unfulfilled, and I've never gotten an answer."
      In all probability , because the number of prophecies in the Bible both fulfilled and unfulfilled is in the thousands. It would require more space than digg allows to examine each and every one of them. The Bible contains hundreds of detailed prophecies relating to the future of individual nations including Israel, to the future of certain cities, to the future of mankind, and to the coming of one who would be the Messiah, the Savior of not only Israel, but all who would believe in Him. God Himself required that false prophets, i.e., those who "prophesied" but whose prophesies did not come to pass , were to be put to death not only so that His people would not be mislead, but to uphold the integrity of His Word since true prophets were God's spokesmen.
      There are prophecies that have yet to be fulfilled such as those found in Ezekiel , several New Testament epistles and of course, the Revelation.
      "Similarly, no one has been willing to tell me how many prophecies in the bible have expiration dates that have already passed."
      I assume you are thinking in terms of the way some televangelists proclaim stuff like "Jesus is returning in 1999" - that sort of thing by way of "expiration dates"? If so, there aren't any "expiration dates" that were spoken by the prophets of God in the Bible - any specifics regarding dates have been fulfilled in amazing detail. For example the prophecy of Christ's death given in Daniel 9:24 is precise and was fulfilled. You may read about it on this link which also provides other time specific events in Bible prophecy regarding Jesus, the rebuilding of the city walls and Jerusalem (just 3 prophecies alone):
      http://www.theprophecies.com/mathprophecy1.html
      The following are a mere 6 of the prophecies written in the Old Testament regarding Jesus and their corresponding fulfillment in the New Testament (written 400 years later):
      * He would be a descendent of King David (Isaiah 11:1-5; Matthew 1: 1-6)
      * He would be born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2; Matthew 2:1)
      * His own people would reject Him (Isaiah 53:3; John 1:11)
      * The price of His betrayal would be 30 pieces of silver (Zechariah 11:12; Matthew 26:15)
      * He would suffer execution without the breaking of any of His bones (Psalm 34:20; John 19:33-36)
      * God would resurrect Him from the grave (Psalm 16;10;Acts 2: 30-32)
    - eir574, on 04/23/2008, -7/+11No, I'm not thinking of televangelists making prophecies in modern times. I'm referring only to the ones that you and others say have been fulfilled.
      
      "In all probability , because the number of prophecies in the Bible both fulfilled and unfulfilled is in the thousands."
      
      That's exactly my point. If the bible makes thousands of prophecies, then it's not surprising that a small number were fulfilled. In science, we call it a fishing expedition. If you make thousands of predictions, a few are likely to be right by chance, even if the probability of any one prophecy being right is quite small. If no one has determined exactly what constitutes a biblical prophecy and has pulled out all of them, we don't know how much of a fishing expedition this is.
      
      Much of what you wrote depends on establishing that the prophecies were written when you say they were written and on showing that the wording has remained absolutely faithful over the years. This becomes even more of an issue when the fulfillment of a prophecy is recounted in the bible itself.
      
      Out of curiosity, how was the prophecy that Jesus would be a descendent of King David proven? Is that genealogy recorded anywhere other than in the bible? If not, I'd say that's circular. In addition, how can you prove that the prophecy that his people would reject him was recorded before his birth?
      
      Just to be clear, I'm not questioning your right to believe as you wish. I'm questioning the use of biblical prophecy as proof that the bible is accurate and/or that there is a god.
      - these3remain, on 04/23/2008, -7/+5Here are the probabilities regarding the chance of ANY man living to the present day fulfilling only 8 (out of the 300+) prophesies concerning Jesus: "The following probabilities are taken from Peter Stoner in Science Speaks (Moody Press, 1963) to show that coincidence is ruled out by the SCIENCE (my emphasis) of probability. Stoner says that by using the modern science of probability in reference to eight prophecies, ‘we find that the chance that any man might have lived down to the present time and fulfilled all eight prophecies is 1 in 1017." To illustrate what this number and probability represents i.e., 1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000, Stoner illustrates it by supposing that "we take 1017 silver dollars and lay them on the face of Texas. They will cover all of the state two feet deep. Now mark one of these silver dollars and stir the whole mass thoroughly, all over the state. Blindfold a man and tell him that he can travel as far as he wishes, but he must pick up one silver dollar and say that this is the right one. What chance would he have of getting the right one? Just the same chance that the prophets would have had of writing these eight prophecies and having them all come true in any one man." Now considering 48 of these prophesies being fulfilled in one man the number is even more staggering: Stoner considers 48 prophecies and says, "we find the chance that any one man fulfilled all 48 prophecies to be 1 in 10157, or 1 in 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 000,000,000." Coincidence? I don't think so and Jesus fulfilled all of the hundreds of prophesies made about Him - you can do the math on that one.
        "If the bible makes thousands of prophecies, then it's not surprising that a small number were fulfilled." On the contrary, the overwhelming majority of prophecy has already been fulfilled with only a limited amount yet to be fulfilled. From the statistics quoted above, it is no small feat.
        "If no one has determined exactly what constitutes a biblical prophecy and has pulled out all of them, we don't know how much of a fishing expedition this is." But Bible scholars HAVE determined what constitutes Biblical prophecy and "pulled out all of them" - I already told you in my previous post that digg space wouldn't allow all of them to be posted and examined.
        "Out of curiosity, how was the prophecy that Jesus would be a descendent of King David proven? Is that genealogy recorded anywhere other than in the bible?"
        In all probability, I would say "yes" because genealogical records were of utmost importance in Biblical times since the Jewish faith is passed on through the mother. Families had to register to pay taxes during the Roman Empire and do so in the village in which they were born. I'd have to do a bit more footwork but the Bible is one of the most investigated and historically documented book ever written - which is why I find it interesting that atheists dismiss it as "myth" and "fairy tales".
        "Much of what you wrote depends on establishing that the prophecies were written when you say they were written." Which is well -established by archaeological finds and carbon dating (if you trust that) . If you are familiar with the historian Josephus, he is another source outside of the Bible whose written accounts affirm much of what is written in the Bible.
        Here's an example of a prophecy made by Isaiah, who lived around 750 B.C. It was in regard to a king who would not exist until 550 B.C. - Cyrus. Isaiah 44:24 -end: Thus saith the Lord, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb: I am the Lord that maketh all things, that stretcheth forth the heavens alone, that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself—
        didn’t have anybody helping me; I did that—
        That frustrateth the tokens of the liars and maketh diviners mad, that turneth wise men backward, and maketh their knowledge foolish. (Hmmm.I wonder who He was referring to in that verse?)
        That confirmeth the word of his servant and performeth the counsel of his messengers, that saith to Jerusalem: Thou shalt be inhabited; and to the cities of Judah, ye shall be built, and I will raise up the decayed places thereof.
        That saith to the deep, Be dry; and I will dry up thy rivers:
        That saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd and shall perform all my pleasure: even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built, and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid."
        When did Cyrus live? And when did Cyrus do all of those things? Cyrus flourished in 550 B.C. When did Isaiah say these things? When did Isaiah live? Isaiah lived 750 B.C. More than two hundred years before this thing came to pass, Isaiah prophesied that Jerusalem would be destroyed and desolate, that Judah would be without inhabitants—it would be waste, would be a vacuum and sterile and empty. And two hundred years before it happened, Isaiah called the ruler by name who would come and give the decree that Judah should be inhabited and Jerusalem should be rebuilt and the foundations of the temple relaid. Historical events recorded outside of the Bible as well as documented by archaeological research.
        "how can you prove that the prophecy that his people would reject him was recorded before his birth?" By the dating of the oldest existing texts of the Old Testament such as the Dead Sea Scrolls. Carbon dating puts the scroll containing Isaiah at 335 B.C. - which doesn't meant that this is when Isaiah wrote it , but when this scroll was written. But even if the scroll was "the one" written by Isaiah, it is still quite a few years before the birth of Christ. And Isaiah (as well as other Old Testament refererences in Psalms) does express the fact that Jesus would be despised and rejected of men in Isaiah 53:3 as well as Isaiah 49:7 - hundreds of years before the birth of Christ.
      - eir574, on 04/23/2008, -2/+7How do I know for sure that Isaiah 53:3 refers to Jesus? I've read some commentaries that offer alternate explanations. This is part of what I mean when I say that some prophecies are vague. It would be more convincing if there were a succinct passage in the bible that specifically said that Jesus would be rejected by his people. But, some amount of interpretation is needed to get that meaning out of Isaiah. You've said that non-believers can only understand the bible as literature, and I accept that. But, if that type of understanding is not sufficient to read and unambiguously understand prophecies, then it's again circular reasoning to say that the prophecies should lead one to believe.
        
        Also, as postingbh pointed out before, if prophecies were already known to Jesus, he could have caused events to happen that could be interpreted as fulfillment of those prophecies.
      - these3remain, on 04/23/2008, -5/+2"to say that the prophecies should lead one to believe."
        I've never made that statement and never would since the fulfillment of prophecy is not something that will lead a person to belief in Christ. Fulfilled prophecy is something that provides additional affirmation to those who already believe. It is only through the power of the Holy Spirit striving with the non-believer and convicting them of sin, righteousness and judgment that a person may come to faith in Christ. They may not, too, because everyone is free to choose to reject Christ. I would also like to add that just because the Bible prophecies that Jesus would be despised and rejected of men, it doesn't mean "exclusively" the Jews, although He was rejected by the Jews of His day as well as present day, as the Messiah. And despite the rejection of the Jewish people, they are still God's chosen people and God will continue to work out His plan for Israel and the Jewish people. There are many "Messianic" Jews today, i.e., people who are Jewish but have accepted Christ as the Messiah, and according to the Bible , many more will come to faith in Him in the future.
        "if prophecies were already known to Jesus, he could have caused events to happen that could be interpreted as fulfillment of those prophecies." While that may make sense to you, it makes no sense to me in light of the hundreds of prophecies that Jesus fulfilled, i.e., that knowing the prophecies He caused events to happen that could be "interpreted" as fulfillment. Jesus , in fact, did know the prophecies about Him and was sent to fulfill the prophecies written about Him. And given the probability of 1 person fulfilling 8 of those prophecies being what it is, one would think that even if Jesus "caused" all of the events , i.e., deliberately arranged them, it is an impressive feat that this one man was able to fulfill the 300+ prophecies. That feat alone should give one pause to consider the supernatural, if one were so inclined. If you can cite anyone else that exists or has lived on the earth who has had as many prophecies written about them and fulfilled them all , I would certainly be impressed by that person,too.
      - eir574, on 04/24/2008, -1/+6"Fulfilled prophecy is something that provides additional affirmation to those who already believe."
        
        This is, in fact, my main point. One has to have some level of faith already to believe that the prophecies have been fulfilled. Some people claim that it's absolute historical evidence that should lead any halfway reasonable person to Christianity.
    - platypibri, on 04/23/2008, -7/+4"Furthermore, how do I know that somewhere along the line as the bible was being translated from one language to another that someone didn't insert a prophecy or two based on events that had already happened"
      Well, if you are willing to learn Hebrew, we got the book of Isaiah dated about 700 years before the birth of Christ. And it reads the same as the Hebrew Tanak of today (we call the Tanak the Old Testament)
      And here's what we know about those texts.
      "Of the 166 words in Isaiah 53, there are only 17 letters in question. Ten of these letters are simply a matter of spelling, which does not affect the sense. Four more letters are minor stylistic changes, such as conjunctions. The three remaining letters comprise the word LIGHT, which is added in verse 11 and which does not affect the meaning greatly. Furthermore, this word is supported by the Septuagint (LXX). Thus, in one chapter of 166 words, there is only one word (three letters) in question after a thousand years of transmission - and this word does not significantly change the meaning of the passage." (Norman Geisler & William Nix, "A General Introduction to the Bible", Moody Press, Page 263).
      You may not believe. I can handle that. But we DO NOT believe BLINDLY. We have much evidence.
      - these3remain, on 04/23/2008, -7/+3Thank-you, Plat, good job.
      - eir574, on 04/23/2008, -1/+9"But we DO NOT believe BLINDLY. We have much evidence."
        
        I believe that you believe that you don't believe blindly, and that you believe you have evidence. I have heard people say, however, that those who don't think that evidence is sufficient are intellectually lazy and willfully blind, and that they close their eyes to the obvious truth because to do otherwise would force them to become accountable to god.
      - platypibri, on 04/23/2008, -6/+3You've heard it said. Well, try it yourself. I did two years of seminary before I realized I didn't have enough of a heart for people to be an effective pastor. I did the work. Also, I finished a liberal arts education in visual arts. I did the requisite sociology, the psychology, the physical science too. Not as deep as some, but I was hardly "willfully blind".
        Look, I don't think Atheists are stupid for what they believe. I don't think they are intellectually lazy and willfully blind as a whole, though some surely are. I DO think they are by and large unusually dismissive of the massive evidence (in history alone) of the world's various sacred texts.
        If you accepted a spiritual reality, I could then begin making a strong defense for the Christian view of that reality. Until such time, all we are really doing on digg (most of us) is showing we haven't abandoned reason or intellect to embrace Christianity, and reminding people, truthfully, that the doctrine of Evolution asks as many questions as it answers.
        We humans live by faith. The only real question is faith in what.
    - alkajazz, on 04/23/2008, -2/+9"Well, if you are willing to learn Hebrew, we got the book of Isaiah dated about 700 years before the birth of Christ" That is irrelevant? She talking about the possibility of someone molding a messiah around a pre-existing prophecy.
      - eir574, on 04/23/2008, -1/+8Ah, I hadn't even gotten to that, but thank you. It's a good point. I was talking about someone slipping in a "prophecy" after the event had already occurred, or changing the wording a bit to make a vague passage sound like a more specific prophecy after it had been fulfilled.
        
        People still haven't addressed the circular reasoning behind the accuracy of some of the prophecies. If the prophecies appear in the bible and are confirmed by the bible, then that's circular evidence. I note that no one addressed my question as to how we know that Jesus descended from King David (other than by turning to the bible, in which case the prophecy would be circular), and where it is written before his birth that he would be rejected by his people.
      - these3remain, on 04/23/2008, -5/+3"She talking about the possibility of someone molding a messiah around a pre-existing prophecy."
        Yeah and I guess you just dismiss the probability stats regarding only 8 of those prophesies being "molded" into one man. Jesus fulfilled over 300 - written at various times but all pre-dating His birth. What would the probability be that someone could "mold" a Messiah that fulfills ALL of those prophesies?
      - alkajazz, on 04/23/2008, -1/+7I would love a link so I can read up on these 300 prophecies.
      - platypibri, on 04/23/2008, -6/+3The Bible is 66 distinct books written over thousands of years. It is not circular to use an encyclopedia to prove your point, or none of us would have got out of freshman composition. What "vauge" prophecies are you talking about? Casting lots for his clothes? That's pretty specific. That He'd heal the blind and the lame and the sick? That He'd cleanse the The Temple? That his cousin John would be born 6 months earlier and would grow up to lead the way for him? That the temple priest who dedicated him was told by God he would not die until he saw God's salvation? That's just off the top of my head.
      - postingbh, on 04/23/2008, -2/+9Here is the point about circular prophecy fulfillment, which I don't think these3remain and platybibri are understanding. First, the verification of prophecies cant be influenced by people who know about them. So hypothetically speaking, if the Koran says, "And on the 11th day of the 9th month, great birds will fly into the western towers," the attacks of 9/11 would not count as verification of the hypothetical prophecy. Sure, the hypothetical prophecy is really old and really specific, but the hypothetical prophecy was also known by people who could orchestrate such an event.
        
        Secondly, when people are looking for something in particular (such as the fulfillment of a prophecy), they only look for events that verify their belief. For instance, if you listen to a Beatles song backwards, you probably hear mumbo jumbo. But if someone tells you what to listen for, you hear things like John is dead. Likewise, if a prophecy is made that "He would be born in Bethlehem," people will only look for "Him" in Bethlehem and when a male baby is born in Bethlehem, people might very well think that the prophecy has been fulfilled. Additionally, if someone has the ability to influence such an event, like the mother, that person might actively be trying to fulfill the prophecy. So if Mary knows about the prophecy that "He would be born in Bethlehem," Mary might make up a fantastic claim to draw attention to her baby and convince people that the prophecy has been fulfilled. In other words, if L Ron Hubbard writes about an alien impregnating a woman named Mary in Bethlehem, PA in the year 2150, the result of which is the reincarnation of Hubbard himself, you can bet your ass that someone named Mary in Bethlehem, PA in 2150 will be making up fantastic claims about alien abductions, her virginity, and bulging stomach. Not only that, but Scientologists will actively seek out this woman and upon hearing her story would fall to their hands and knees marveling at the "fulfilled prophecies" of Hubbard. They would also probably aggressively reject any healthy skepticism of their claims. They would rather you just take her word for it... Prophecy fulfilled! All hail Hubbard!
        
        For prophecies to be verified, there must be an element of independence. If the Bible said something about a great wave destroying the western city of spring festivals, I would be convinced and declare myself a believer because the event was independently generated. If we could somehow recover the DNA of Jesus and find out that he was missing the Y chromosome, I would be convinced because the DNA could be independently tested. But if you tell me that the Bible predicts the establishment of Israel, I'm not going to be impressed because there is no independence.
      - eir574, on 04/23/2008, -1/+7@postingbh,
        
        You said that better than I did. Thank you.
      - platypibri, on 04/23/2008, -5/+3Well, I really don't care if you are impressed. But I'll tell you what. Consensus is, most of the book or Revelation hasn't happened yet. You clearly fit your own criteria (which I suspect is why you chose it) so why don't you read that book, and watch how the future plays out. But don't wait too long, because not everyone makes it to the end.
      - these3remain, on 04/24/2008, -5/+4Here's a link to get you started; I don't know if it contains 300+ or not but there's enough to get you started. The problem arises in that you are not a believer and as such will not understand the spiritual truths that are presented - nevertheless, have at'em.
        http://www.teachinghearts.org/dre17hdan09b.html
      - platypibri, on 04/24/2008, -3/+3Wow. Cool link. I'll have to bookmark that.
      - gordonj, on 04/29/2008, -0/+4"Well, I really don't care if you are impressed. But I'll tell you what. Consensus is, most of the book or Revelation hasn't happened yet. You clearly fit your own criteria (which I suspect is why you chose it) so why don't you read that book, and watch how the future plays out. But don't wait too long, because not everyone makes it to the end."
        
        This is exactly the reason why it's scary having fundamentalist christians in charge of the nukes. It's exactly what postingbh was pointing out about people waiting for a specific prophecy to occur who have the capacity to create it themselves, i.e. it's a self-fulfilling prophecy.
    - these3remain, on 04/23/2008, -7/+3I noted the verses in Isaiah that prophesied about His rejection. There are verses in the Psalms (authorship attributed to King David) which express the same thoughts - all written hundreds of years prior to Christ's birth. You still refuse to accept the statistical figures regarding probability of prophetic fulfillment in one person; interesting.
      - eir574, on 04/23/2008, -2/+9I know that you noted the verses, but I don't know how you've proven that the verses in the psalms were definitely written many years before Jesus was born.
        
        I accept that the probability of any one prophecy being fulfilled is low. But, if you make enough prophecies, those probabilities become less convincing. If I make 1 prediction, the odds that it came true by chance might be small. If I make thousands of predictions, the odds that some of them will come true by chance go up even if the odds of any given prophecy being fulfilled are small.
        
        But, none of that even comes into play unless the dates of the prophecies and the actual words used at the time they were first written can be proven beyond reasonable doubt. If a biblical prophecy is only counted as being fulfilled in the bible itself, I consider that to be circular. You didn't say exactly what the evidence in the Psalms is, but just that similar thoughts were presented. That sounds vague, though I can't know for sure without knowing specifically what it is that you're talking about.
      - platypibri, on 04/23/2008, -7/+3No, because they ALL came true. There is no messianic prophecy Jesus did not fulfill. THAT is HARD to do.
      - eir574, on 04/23/2008, -1/+9@Platybibri,
        
        Then give me a list of every single prophecy in the bible, fulfilled or not. So far, no one has been able/willing to do that.
      - platypibri, on 04/23/2008, -5/+3Try google. I really want to be helpful, but I'm not typing all that into a little box at digg for you to just reject it anyway, because you really don't want it to be true. This is a hot topic, I bet there's a hundred websites out there for you to look at. If you have trouble with the search, my email is my user name at yahoo dot com. I'll help if I can.
      - eir574, on 04/24/2008, -1/+7There are websites that list biblical prophecies. The last time I googled, though, I couldn't find a website that claimed to have listed every single passage in the bible that could be construed as a prophecy, fulfilled or otherwise. The fact that multiple people have told me that the list would be far too long to post on digg, though, tells me that the number of prophecies is significant. This lets me know that the significance of the prophecies that have been fulfilled goes down compared to the probability of any one prophecy having been fulfilled by chance. (Sorry if that sounds confusing. It's a vague description of correcting for multiple hypothesis testing in statistical analyses.)
    - these3remain, on 04/23/2008, -6/+2"Then give me a list of every single prophecy in the bible, fulfilled or not. So far, no one has been able/willing to do that." Why is that the demand? If someone did, would you investigate every single one of them? Why not start with the 300 Messianic prophesies? If I list those, are you going to explore and read each one? If so, I'll start with those. Again, to list EVERY SINGLE prophecy in the Bible would take more space than digg allows since a good portion of the Bible is prophetic in nature. If , however, you are only demanding these prophesies and aren't willing to read and study them, then your demands are ridiculous and there is no point in continuing the discussion.
      - eir574, on 04/23/2008, -1/+7"Why is that the demand? "
        
        Because, as I said, if thousands and thousands of prophecies were made, that changes the significance of some having come true (assuming that I accept that they came true). I would not be able to fully evaluate the 300 Messianic prophesies without knowing what all of the prophecies are. That's a valid and necessary part of a statistical analysis.
      - platypibri, on 04/23/2008, -5/+3You need to just read the Bible (and not just be told about it) and decide for yourself. The amount of text you are asking us to type for you is not only ridiculous, but would require many sequential digg posts.
      - eir574, on 04/24/2008, -1/+7I'm not actually asking you to type out all of the prophecies. If someone had gone through the bible and made a comprehensive list, then that list would most likely exist somewhere, or at least someone could point me to the number of items on that list. My point wasn't really to get a complete list. It was to point out the statistical problem.
    - these3remain, on 04/25/2008, -3/+2Well, I hope you are busy examining the link that I provided for the Messianic prophesies. If you are unwilling or unable to examine those, then don't require a comprehensive list since you are unwilling or unable to examine the short list. The probability stats as stated regarding 1 person fulfilling just 8 of the Messianic prophesies is still accurate regardless of the number of other prophesies that have also been fulfilled in the Bible. Platy is correct in stating that most of Bible prophecy has been fulfilled; there is only a minority of prophetic statements yet to be fulfilled - those can be found in Revelation (primarily) although there are cross-references to Ezekiel and Daniel (off the top of my head) as well. So you could simply read the Bible from Genesis to Jude for a comprehensive list of prophesies that have been fulfilled and jot them down as you go along. And then read Revelation for those that have not been fulfilled. Or just start with the list of Messianic prophesies if you need a quicker read.
      - eir574, on 04/25/2008, -1/+5I'm confused about something. My point was that you have to have faith to believe that the prophecies are evidence for faith. Unless I've misinterpreted you, you've said that, too:
        
        "Fulfilled prophecy is something that provides additional affirmation to those who already believe."
        
        My point in asking whether there exists a list of all of the prophecies in the bible was that it's necessary in order to complete the statistical analysis necessary to determine if the fulfillment of prophecy should be convincing to a non-believer. I wasn't saying that I wanted to do the statistical analysis, especially in light of the fact that your link says that statements such as that the Messiah would be male count as prophecy. There must be many, many other such statements in the bible that could be considered prophecies. And, the statistical considerations assume that other issues have been settled (postingbh's post described them the best, I think).
    - these3remain, on 04/27/2008, -3/+2"My point in asking whether there exists a list of all of the prophecies in the bible was that it's necessary in order to complete the statistical analysis necessary to determine if the fulfillment of prophecy should be convincing to a non-believer."
      And I believe I responded to this but in the event that I didn't here goes. A non-believer is not going to be convinced regardless of the statistical accuracy of fulfilled prophecy or even the number of fulfilled prophecies throughout the Bible if we are referring to the veracity of the Bible and it being God's Word. While there is independent, historical evidence that verifies many Biblical accounts, i.e., archaeological finds, other peer historians,etc., no one has ever been "argued" into the kingdom of God. If God , through His Holy Spirit, is not striving with the individual so that they might come to know Him, no amount of "proof" or verifiable "evidence" will change the heart of the person. It is only by grace, the unmerited favor of God, through faith, that a person comes to salvation in Christ - not the statistical probability being accurate or as Jesus put it "even if one should rise from the dead" - an unbelieving person will not believe because of those things.
      - eir574, on 04/27/2008, -1/+6I'm going to take this opportunity to direct you to another thread in this discussion: http://digg.com/arts_culture/Video_Proof_of_Christ ... . You have accused me of hypocrisy several times on digg (twice recently and once awhile back), and each time there has been no response to my defense. I'm not trying to stalk you, but I do feel that I deserve a chance to respond to your accusations. So, I'm posting the link to one of those responses again in case you somehow haven't seen it yet.
    - these3remain, on 04/28/2008, -4/+1"I'm not trying to stalk you, but I do feel that I deserve a chance to respond to your accusations. So, I'm posting the link to one of those responses again in case you somehow haven't seen it yet."
      Methinks thou protesteth too much. If you are waiting for me to say that you are free of hypocrisy and equitable in your chastisements for name calling and insulting remarks towards Christians on digg, I would need evidence for that. While you have addressed name-calling and insults in general, do you have examples where you have specifically rebuked an atheist poster on digg when they have insulted a Christian?
      I would also like to add that not every Christian on digg is on with the intent to proselytize; in fact, it's actually insulting to have you suggest that they fail to understand that name-calling and insults will not win converts. Perhaps you do not see it for what it is since most Christians who are on digg to proselytize do understand that name-calling and insulting others is not consistent with Christ's message and unbecoming behavior for a child of God. That does not mean that when they are relentlessly insulted that they will always turn the other cheek - we are human and in the sanctification process, i.e., no Christian has "arrived" so to speak. It does mean that if they are fully committed followers that insults and name-calling will be for some a non-occurrence and for others, hopefully minimal.
      - eir574, on 04/28/2008, -1/+6If you had followed the link I gave you, you'd see that StaticThunder backs me up on that. There was another specific instance when you asked me why I hadn't said something so GWI2, and I had done so nearly a full day earlier. Unfortunately, the system that digg has for searching that far back in my comment history is pretty pathetic, so I can't find all of the relevant posts. This was fairly early on in my time on digg (I'd registered much earlier, but had only recently started paying attention to the comments), and what I knew of GWI2 came pretty much only from the handful of his comments I'd read on that particular page. Later on I noticed that his posts were normally much worse than the ones I was seeing. So, having set the stage a bit, here's the link: http://digg.com/politics/Oama_ties_same_sex_issues ... . It was somewhere else on that page (I think maybe in two places) that you asked when I was going to say something to GWI2. It was particularly difficult to read every comment on that page, so I don't expect that you would have necessarily seen my earlier response to GWI2. Since you're continuing to make the accusation of hypocrisy and have asked for examples, I'm providing this. There have been others as well, but these are the ones I can find the most easily.
        
        I'm also allowing for the possibility that it was someone else who accused me of not rebuking GWi2. I think it was you, but if it wasn't, I'm sorry. Unfortunately, digg is having some problems and won't let me look far enough back into your history to confirm that you were the one who made that comment to me.
        
        As I've said before, I'm not claiming that I say something every time someone with whom I generally agree says something rude. I don't. No one does. I'm saying that I try to do it, and that it's something I think we could all try to do a better job of. Certainly, though, your accusation that I've never done it is untrue.
        
        I'm not saying that every Christian on digg who insults people intends to proselytize. I'm saying that some who do intend to do that (e.g. SampleX) do use insults, and do fail to see that it's ineffective. He also does it without provocation. If you ask him, he'll tell you that he's not insulting people, but that he's just pointing out their character flaws (such as intellectual dishonesty, laziness, idiocy, intellectual inferiority, etc.). I know this because I've asked him. That's an extreme example, but I've seen others that aren't quite that bad. I've also seen people praise SampleX for his effective proselytization attempts.
    - these3remain, on 04/28/2008, -4/+1"I'm saying that some who do intend to do that (e.g. SampleX) do use insults, and do fail to see that it's ineffective. He also does it without provocation."
      "without provocation"? Can you please cite evidence for this? Perhaps you were not insulting in your comment but generally there are others that post on the thread who are and he may be reacting to that in his comments; at least from what I have observed. As you can observe on any thread, there are many digg atheists who name-call and insult on a regular basis without provocation, too. Interestingly enough, they consider what they are doing and saying as factual the same way that SampleX does. You know - all the comments referring to Christians as morons, idiots, liars, etc. aren't "intended" to be insulting - they are just stating the facts.
      And you know for a fact that SampleX is specifically intent upon proselytizing everytime he posts? Even you can't know the intent of every person, let alone every Christian who posts on digg. Some are responding to insulting comments made in previous threads without one thought toward proselytizing. Some are simply posting their opinions, again , with no thought toward proselytizing. I understand that your feelings were hurt by SampleX but you need to let it go. Not that it justifies it, but he's human. I noticed another post referring to Christians and basically anyone who believes in God as being "insane" - nothing productive about that remark and insulting enough to warrant being addressed. But I don't expect that you would be able to equitably address all the insulting remarks posted by digg atheists towards those who hold to a religious worldview because you would have to be on here all day long. Even Christians rebuke other Christians as I'm sure you have noted people's posts in regard to spiritblade's new id. But spiritblade or godsoogood (whatever) is an exception so it doesn't take much effort to correct or rebuke a "Christian" poster on digg who is being offensive simply because Christians on digg are a minority and those who are offensive are an even smaller part of that minority.
      Again, it is insulting to Christians to imply that they don't have the sense to realize that name-calling and insults are a deterrent from the Gospel. Most Christians DO know that.
      - eir574, on 04/28/2008, -1/+5Again, I'm not implying that ALL or even most Christians don't have the sense to realize that name-calling and insults are not effective. I'm saying that *some* do.
        
        It's been awhile since I've conversed with SampleX, but I can assure you that in conversations about Christian doctrine in which he was attempting to convince me that the historical evidence precludes disbelief in the Christian god, and in which I never insulted him, he would frequently tell me that I'm intellectually lazy, intellectually dishonest, and intellectually inferior to him.
        
        It would be difficult to find these examples since it's been awhile since I've been willing to converse with SampleX, and since the search function on digg is nearly useless. Besides, would you even believe me if I provided the links? Providing links to cases in which I'd called atheists out on their behavior towards Christians was insufficient to convince you that I've done it before. I know I only provided two examples, but there have been more. It's just tough to find them. If you don't believe the two examples, then there's no point in my spending time looking for more.
        
        " I understand that your feelings were hurt by SampleX but you need to let it go"
        Thanks for suggesting. Done long ago, to the extent that my feelings were ever hurt. We were talking about examples of name calling in proselytization attempts, though, so I brought it up.
    - these3remain, on 04/30/2008, -3/+1Besides, would you even believe me if I provided the links? Providing links to cases in which I'd called atheists out on their behavior towards Christians was insufficient to convince you that I've done it before.."
      I did not realize you posted any links as examples; whatever link you may have posted did not take me to an example of your calling out atheists for their ill-behavior. I'm sure you have; my point was that it is done infrequently and arbitrarily; and necessarily so since I'm sure you do not have all day to address insulting remarks made by digg atheists towards those who hold religious worldviews.
      - eir574, on 04/30/2008, -0/+3Like I said, digging through my comment history is not practical due to digg's poor search function and my general inability to remember exact key words (which don't even always seem to produce the search results that they should -- seriously, who coded that search?). If the link I provided where StaticThunder said that he and I had that conversation is not sufficient proof, then don't keep making the accusation, and don't keep goading me on other threads elsewhere on digg. I have *never* claimed that I spend my days fighting intolerance on digg. I don't know why you have had to hammer home that point given that I never disagreed with you there.
        
        The only claim I have made is that discourse in general does not benefit from name calling, and that people who want to see a debate advanced would do well to point that out to those who are arguing on their side. It tends to mean more when that comes from someone with whom you generally agree. I have been careful to say many times that no one is responsible for another person's behavior.
        
        I really have no idea what you've been trying to prove here. It seems like you've been trying to knock me down a peg, especially since you've made the claim of hypocrisy before and since you're now doing it on another digg thread. Since I never claimed superiority in this regard, I don't know why you seem to have a problem with me.
      - platypibri, on 04/30/2008, -1/+3Everyone gets turned up to a boil sometimes. We are human. However, while eir574 and I seem to be on opposite sides of the fence, he really is one of the more reasonable people in threads like this. I don't find him to be the attacking sort.
        Over in the Atheist Soldier thread, I had a lot of people coming after me, attacking what I said with little substance and lots of fury. Accusing me of stuff I've never done (like digging down Atheists simply because they were Atheists.).
        There might have been interesting discussion if guys like him were more the norm, and less the exception. Not to say he never gets hot under the lid, but in general, I have a much more positive view of him than a lot of people on digg, Atheist, Christian, or Muslim.
      - eir574, on 04/30/2008, -0/+3@platypibri,
        
        Thanks for the compliment, and for the reminder that I do get "hot under the lid" from time to time, and probably much more often than I do out in the real world! I've been telling myself for the past couple of weeks that it's time to leave digg. I haven't been here for long (at least I've only been active for the past few months), but I've seen more hatred and intolerance here than I've ever had the misfortune to witness in the rest of my life. Anonymity can bring out the worst in people, to be sure, but there really are people here who espouse more hatred than I've ever seen before. Of course, they don't call it hatred. They call it truth.
        
        Leaving digg is tough, though, since I work at a computer and am constantly faced with periods of 5-10 minutes with little to do but wait for my code to crash so that I can get back to debugging. Digg's always right at my fingertips . . . . still, it's probably best that I go sometime soon.
        
        @these3remain:
        
        This whole thing started when I said that *some* Christians insult people while they're proselytizing. You seemed to take offense and told me that those people must represent a small minority of Christians, and that maybe they weren't even proselytizing at the time. (Does that make it all that much better? But, in my view they were proselytizing because they were talking about why I should believe that Christianity is the one, true religion.) I never said that it was the majority of Christians who were doing this -- not in the post on this page, and not ever. I'm extraordinarily careful about that. I have also said many times on digg that no one person is responsible for another's behavior. I may or may not have said that in this conversation and you may or may not have seen me say it elsewhere, but I certainly did not intend to imply otherwise.
        
        So, if that's your root problem with me, then I think your attentions are misdirected. If it's the hypocrisy of supposedly not practicing what I preach, then, again, your attentions are misdirected. Other than those two things, I don't know what else to tell you.
- strat777, on 04/23/2008, -6/+4The fact still is noone can prove anything in the long run. We all run on some faith, whether it be that God exists, or He doesnt. So who knows who is right or wrong?
  - postingbh, on 04/23/2008, -1/+11"So who knows who is right or wrong?"
    - Well, I'm pretty sure the WND crowd will say they are absolutely, without a doubt, 100% right.
  - eir574, on 04/23/2008, -1/+8"We all run on some faith, whether it be that God exists, or He doesnt."
    
    There's a third possibility. I don't need to decide if each proposed deity does or does not exist. If I don't see enough evidence to believe and there's no way to say with 100% certainty that the deity doesn't exist, then I simply don't take a position. This does mean that I live my life as if the deity doesn't exist, but that's not to say that I believe that he absolutely isn't real. I can't know that.
    - platypibri, on 04/23/2008, -8/+3Yes. And if there is no God, you'll be ok. If there is a God, ANY god, all the texts I've read indicate you are going to have problems.
      - eir574, on 04/23/2008, -2/+8And, you're going to have problems if the ancient Romans were right. You're also going to have problems if no one has yet identified the one "true" religion (not phrased well, but I think you get the picture). Pascal's wager doesn't work. It's a fallacy that assumes that there are only two options: that the Christian god not only exists, but that he cares if you don't acknowledge him, and that there's no god at all. To a non-believer, those aren't the only two options.
      - platypibri, on 04/24/2008, -5/+3What problem would I have in the Roman Pantheon? I'd simply be subject to YHWH, a Hebrew deity acknowledged by Romans. They were polytheistic. YHWH was not considered a false god by the Romans. In fact, most religions deal with Jesus at some point. Many Buddhist believe he is one attained enlightenment. Islam calls him a Prophet of God, and that had we listened to him, Muhammad would not have had to come. I read a psychic hand book that believed he was a high level psionicist, and my wiccan friends in highschool believed him to be a powerful white warlock. I think I'll be ok sticking with Jesus where ever I end up.
      - eir574, on 04/24/2008, -2/+9Then maybe you'd have a problem with the gods of the ancient Egyptians, or some other culture. The point was that there's more than the two options you gave, and that Pascal's wager therefore doesn't work. In addition to all of the potential other deities, there are also other options.
    - these3remain, on 04/25/2008, -3/+2"In addition to all of the potential other deities, there are also other options." At least, in your opinion. In our opinion , and God's opinion - and that's Who we're talking about, there are no other options. You can believe whatever you choose - that is an option - but it is not an option in having a relationship with the living God.
      - eir574, on 04/25/2008, -1/+7I was speaking specifically about the use of Pascal's wager to attempt to sway non-believers to believe through logical means. It's a logical fallacy that has nothing to do with opinion.
    - these3remain, on 04/28/2008, -5/+1"I was speaking specifically about the use of Pascal's wager to attempt to sway non-believers to believe through logical means. It's a logical fallacy that has nothing to do with opinion."
      But Platy was addressing the fact that your non-decision , i.e., "If I don't see enough evidence to believe and there's no way to say with 100% certainty that the deity doesn't exist, then I simply don't take a position." is still taking a position - at least from God's perspective. There isn't any "fence sitting" in God's economy. One is either for Him or against Him so even when one doesn't "take a position" it is still taking a position as far as God is concerned.
      - eir574, on 04/28/2008, -1/+6platy said this:
        
        "Yes. And if there is no God, you'll be ok. If there is a God, ANY god, all the texts I've read indicate you are going to have problems."
        
        I interpreted that to be an appeal to Pascal's wager because he's saying that the safest position is for me to believe in god. I can't know for sure that's what he was doing, he didn't correct me.
        
        You're looking at things from a religious perspective, but Pascal (and I) are addressing things from the perspective of a non-believer who is told that the safer option is to believe since I could be in trouble if I don't. The fallacy is that this sets up a false dichotomy: that my only two options are to believe in a deity or to not believe and face some sort of punishment. I know that's not the choice that Christians believe we have, but the wager is made to appeal to the atheist, not to the theist. On that level, it doesn't work.
    - these3remain, on 04/28/2008, -4/+1And as I stated, taking no position is still taking a position. It may not be as far as an atheist is concerned, but it is as far as not just Christians, but many others are concerned as well since many also believe the secular notion that "silence is tacit consent".
    - elcapitanp, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1Taking no position is not a position any more than bald is a hair color. If one does not have a belief in God, sees no reason to establish a belief in God, then how is that a position? It is by definition, the absence of a position. Besides, believing in God simply because you are hedging your bets, or because you are afraid of hell, is unethical.
- strat777, on 04/23/2008, -6/+7I can only have faith on what I feel is right, and I feel that Christ is my Lord and Savior. I cant prove to you how I know this is true, besides that fact that I feel that it is, and I cant prove my feelings.
  - eir574, on 04/23/2008, -2/+10I appreciate the fact that you said that. What I'm arguing with is not your faith, but the claims that some people make that the truth of Christianity can be proven. Some people then go further and say that those people who don't accept that truth are therefore intellectually lazy or inferior. I don't much appreciate that, and I'm amazed that some people think that's a good way to proselytize.
    - these3remain, on 04/23/2008, -9/+2"Some people then go further and say that those people who don't accept that truth are therefore intellectually lazy or inferior." And there are numerous atheists on digg that claim the same thing about Christians - I don't appreciate that.
      I think the number of people , at least on digg, who make the claim that you keep putting out there about non-believers is the underwhelming minority. I know I've never made that statement. I have stated that non-believers cannot understand the Bible other than from the standpoint of literature ( and that is not MY opinion, but God's Word). That is not the same as calling someone "intellectually lazy or inferior" or as most digg atheists refer to Christians as "morons" "dumb expletive deletives" ,etc. I'm amazed that some people think that's a good way to be persuasive in mounting an argument.
      - eir574, on 04/23/2008, -2/+10The name calling isn't right regardless of which side it comes from. And, there are people on both sides are guilty of supporting the name callers and praising their posts without addressing the name calling. For instance, I've seen people congratulate SampleX on his posts while ignoring the fact that he's one of the people who frequently engages in name calling. (When I asked him about it, he said that it's the truth, so it's not name calling. Nice.)
        
        I do think that anonymous forums can bring out the worst in people, and that the name calling that happens here is more common that what we'd see in real life.
      - platypibri, on 04/23/2008, -4/+3Well, the first thing we do as Christians, to get into the club so to speak, is admit that we, by the very nature of our flesh, are sinners, and in dire need of forgiveness and redemption. Does it really seem to you you are going to find a lot of perfection in that group?
        We try, because God charged us with the task of trying. We fail, because we are Men. But can't you see through this thread that the majority of the people talking to you are reasonable people who only care for your spiritual welfare? Trying to help you see a reality your mind seems open to?
      - eir574, on 04/23/2008, -2/+7@platibri:
        
        I'm not arguing that Christians should be perfect. I'm saying that those people (and I know they're not necessarily representative of the majority) who think that name calling is an effective method of proselytizing are misguided, as are the people who congratulate them for their efforts but don't address the insults they lob at non-believers. I'm also not saying that it happens on only one side.
      - platypibri, on 04/24/2008, -3/+4You guys must hate me. :)
        It's simple, I stake my life on the fact that Yeshua of Nazareth is YHWH, God made flesh. That he is the King of Kings Lord of Lords and God of gods. I'll trust him so much, that I am absolutely confident with my life and my immortal soul. I'll die some day, and I am completely unafraid. Not that I rush to d

Video: Proof of Christianity: Challenging Skeptics