y-jesus.com— Did Jesus Christ really exist, or is Christianity built upon a legend? Few scholars question Jesus' existence, but some enemies of Christianity are attempting to prove otherwise.
Nov 9, 2009View in Crawl 4
"Yes, I'm not doubting that the water would have killed the above,"Not just everything above, but everything below, underneath, and in the atmosphere. We're talking the earth would be sterilized if you follow the biblical narrative. The amount of energy from the rain alone would raise the temperature of the entire earth to well above 150 degrees Fahrenheit, simple physics calculations demonstrate this. Unless Noah figured out how to perfectly seal up and insulate his ark he would have been parboiled!!! Not to mention that if you accept the biblical version of Noah's flood the ark would have been smashed to pieces by the amount of rain falling from the sky. It would be in the METERS per hour of rain fall. The strongest rainfalls on Earth aren't even over a foot per hour. That's like having fire hoses pounding down on every single inch of the entire Earth, including on Noah's ark, flooding and smashing it to bits in a matter of hours. To give you the exact math on this, 40 days and nights of rain = 960 hours of rain. The story claims that all mountains were covered by 15 cubits of water, so if you take it literally Mt. Everest was covered as well at 8848 meters. To just cover Everest in that 960 hours of claimed rain you'd need a rainfall rate of 9.22 meters per second of rainfall on every single inch of the Earth. Even if you'd like to take Mt. Ararat (where it is claimed Noah eventually landed) at 5137 meters, you'd need at least 5.35 meters of rain per hour. "but were not dealing with this event on man's terms, were dealing it on Jehovah's terms, that he would no doubt have the ability to restore the earth back to its former glory after the water receded down to the level that there was dry land."if he could magically fix everything, then why would he decide to ruin everything to being with? Why didn't he just fix everything sans his magical flood? Why kill everything if he could have just magicked everything to make it better? Why would he choose to kill everybody instead of just fixing what he considered wrong? Considering your god is supposedly all powerful it seems strange that he would choose to destroy the entire world instead of just fixing the issues he had with the world. If your god is real, Noah's Flood just demonstrates how EVIL your god actually is. He chooses to kill instead of fixing. He chooses to destroy over trying to help. That is the actions of an evil individual. Oh, and a funny thing about Noah's flood, according to the bible Noah's flood was occurring at the exact time that the Babylonian Empire was flourishing. So you've got the problem of entire civilizations flourishing at the exact time when every human was supposedly dead from a global flood.
Mnemneth did a great job responding to you, but I've got a few things that I feel need a response to. "Genetic analysis and fossils are real, of course, when you try to tie them into something as far fetched as evolution it most certainly is not!"So basically what you're saying is that genetic analysis which demonstrates the variation of allele(gene) frequencies of populations of organisms are real, but the theory that says that we should expect to see variations in allele frequencies is wrong? Do you understand how stupid that is? The genetic analysis is SHOWING exactly what the theory of evolution predicts!!! The theory of evolution says that we should be expecting EXACTLY what the genetic analysis demonstrates is accurate. How is the theory of evolution wrong when the testing that you admit you accept shows EXACTLY what the theory of evolution says we should see?!The same goes for the fossil record. It demonstrates a slow gradual change in organisms over millions of years, and the theory of evolution predicts that we should see exactly that. To accept that both the fossil record and genetic analysis are real, but not accept the theory, which predicts that we should see exactly what those things demonstrate, is illogical. The theory of evolution isn't predicting something that the evidence doesn't show. It predicted exactly what we see. The theory of evolution PREDICTED what we see when we do population genetic analysis decades BEFORE genetic analysis even became possible! "If you could find something to support your claims other than hearsay from other scientists that haven't really proven the theory of evolution without guesswork then maybe you might have something going for you."The evidence we have is evidence that YOU SAID YOU ACCEPT AS FACT!!! Holy crap you're dumb. Genetic analysis of populations has shown that alleles(GENES) vary in populations of species. You admit that you accept genetic analysis, so you must accept that, otherwise you don't accept genetic analysis, and then you'd have a problem with chemistry and physics. The theory of evolution predicts that we should see variations in allele(GENE) frequencies in populations. Genetic analysis IS the evidence for evolution, which you said you ACCEPT AS FACT. The FOSSIL RECORD which you ACCEPT AS FACT IS EVIDENCE OF EVOLUTION. You admit that you accept the very evidence which demonstrates evolution! You just refuse to accept the logical conclusions of that evidence.
Which one of you ---holes put the virus on my computer. Is that how you work? Someones gets close to putting your crap down and this is how you reward yourselves. Always gotta win at any costs huh. Typical act of selfishness and there is a saying that will apply to whoever did it..."what comes around goes around!" Have a nice life you lowlife pieces of garbage! Your education is about as useless as your are.
"Which one of you ---holes put the virus on my computer. Is that how you work?"Not only doesn't understand evolution, but doesn't understand how computers work either? Wow.Thank you for failing to provide the evidence of which you spoke, and remaining silent on that which you do not know.... at least in one sense. When the opportunity comes for you to back up your statements with evidence, you don't take it because you don't rely on evidence, just your illogical beliefs.
Ummmm...Jesus' Hebrew name was Joshua bar Joseph (after his dad). In that time, Joshua and Joseph were very common names. So was Mary, his mother. The probability of a family existing with Joseph and Mary as the parents, and Joshua as a firstborn son were actually very good. Jesus' siblings names were also very common.
Closed AccountNov 12, 2009
jesus did not exist, except in crazy peoples imaginations.
disgodNov 14, 2009
"Yes, I'm not doubting that the water would have killed the above,"Not just everything above, but everything below, underneath, and in the atmosphere. We're talking the earth would be sterilized if you follow the biblical narrative. The amount of energy from the rain alone would raise the temperature of the entire earth to well above 150 degrees Fahrenheit, simple physics calculations demonstrate this. Unless Noah figured out how to perfectly seal up and insulate his ark he would have been parboiled!!! Not to mention that if you accept the biblical version of Noah's flood the ark would have been smashed to pieces by the amount of rain falling from the sky. It would be in the METERS per hour of rain fall. The strongest rainfalls on Earth aren't even over a foot per hour. That's like having fire hoses pounding down on every single inch of the entire Earth, including on Noah's ark, flooding and smashing it to bits in a matter of hours. To give you the exact math on this, 40 days and nights of rain = 960 hours of rain. The story claims that all mountains were covered by 15 cubits of water, so if you take it literally Mt. Everest was covered as well at 8848 meters. To just cover Everest in that 960 hours of claimed rain you'd need a rainfall rate of 9.22 meters per second of rainfall on every single inch of the Earth. Even if you'd like to take Mt. Ararat (where it is claimed Noah eventually landed) at 5137 meters, you'd need at least 5.35 meters of rain per hour. "but were not dealing with this event on man's terms, were dealing it on Jehovah's terms, that he would no doubt have the ability to restore the earth back to its former glory after the water receded down to the level that there was dry land."if he could magically fix everything, then why would he decide to ruin everything to being with? Why didn't he just fix everything sans his magical flood? Why kill everything if he could have just magicked everything to make it better? Why would he choose to kill everybody instead of just fixing what he considered wrong? Considering your god is supposedly all powerful it seems strange that he would choose to destroy the entire world instead of just fixing the issues he had with the world. If your god is real, Noah's Flood just demonstrates how EVIL your god actually is. He chooses to kill instead of fixing. He chooses to destroy over trying to help. That is the actions of an evil individual. Oh, and a funny thing about Noah's flood, according to the bible Noah's flood was occurring at the exact time that the Babylonian Empire was flourishing. So you've got the problem of entire civilizations flourishing at the exact time when every human was supposedly dead from a global flood.
disgodNov 15, 2009
Mnemneth did a great job responding to you, but I've got a few things that I feel need a response to. "Genetic analysis and fossils are real, of course, when you try to tie them into something as far fetched as evolution it most certainly is not!"So basically what you're saying is that genetic analysis which demonstrates the variation of allele(gene) frequencies of populations of organisms are real, but the theory that says that we should expect to see variations in allele frequencies is wrong? Do you understand how stupid that is? The genetic analysis is SHOWING exactly what the theory of evolution predicts!!! The theory of evolution says that we should be expecting EXACTLY what the genetic analysis demonstrates is accurate. How is the theory of evolution wrong when the testing that you admit you accept shows EXACTLY what the theory of evolution says we should see?!The same goes for the fossil record. It demonstrates a slow gradual change in organisms over millions of years, and the theory of evolution predicts that we should see exactly that. To accept that both the fossil record and genetic analysis are real, but not accept the theory, which predicts that we should see exactly what those things demonstrate, is illogical. The theory of evolution isn't predicting something that the evidence doesn't show. It predicted exactly what we see. The theory of evolution PREDICTED what we see when we do population genetic analysis decades BEFORE genetic analysis even became possible! "If you could find something to support your claims other than hearsay from other scientists that haven't really proven the theory of evolution without guesswork then maybe you might have something going for you."The evidence we have is evidence that YOU SAID YOU ACCEPT AS FACT!!! Holy crap you're dumb. Genetic analysis of populations has shown that alleles(GENES) vary in populations of species. You admit that you accept genetic analysis, so you must accept that, otherwise you don't accept genetic analysis, and then you'd have a problem with chemistry and physics. The theory of evolution predicts that we should see variations in allele(GENE) frequencies in populations. Genetic analysis IS the evidence for evolution, which you said you ACCEPT AS FACT. The FOSSIL RECORD which you ACCEPT AS FACT IS EVIDENCE OF EVOLUTION. You admit that you accept the very evidence which demonstrates evolution! You just refuse to accept the logical conclusions of that evidence.
hchargerNov 16, 2009
Which one of you ---holes put the virus on my computer. Is that how you work? Someones gets close to putting your crap down and this is how you reward yourselves. Always gotta win at any costs huh. Typical act of selfishness and there is a saying that will apply to whoever did it..."what comes around goes around!" Have a nice life you lowlife pieces of garbage! Your education is about as useless as your are.
chilidogsDec 10, 2010
How old are you?
lydeckerNov 16, 2009
"Which one of you ---holes put the virus on my computer. Is that how you work?"Not only doesn't understand evolution, but doesn't understand how computers work either? Wow.Thank you for failing to provide the evidence of which you spoke, and remaining silent on that which you do not know.... at least in one sense. When the opportunity comes for you to back up your statements with evidence, you don't take it because you don't rely on evidence, just your illogical beliefs.
voxpunk88Nov 16, 2009
Ummmm...Jesus' Hebrew name was Joshua bar Joseph (after his dad). In that time, Joshua and Joseph were very common names. So was Mary, his mother. The probability of a family existing with Joseph and Mary as the parents, and Joshua as a firstborn son were actually very good. Jesus' siblings names were also very common.
gangsterunicornDec 4, 2009
for that we need fark
Closed AccountDec 18, 2009
No argument here.