Simon Martin wrote on Wednesday, January 27, 2010 - 09:40 am:[re carbon dating] 1. Wait, if carbon dating is inaccurate, then you just answered your own question? If you are talking about strata and fossil layering, it is based off circular reasoning. They date the fossils off what layer they are found. They date the strata off the layers they are found in.
You entirely ignored there carbon dating, the purported subject. Carbon dating lacks your purported circularity. Further, the fossil-strata circularity itself does not exist. Fossils are dated from strata. If we discover a recognisable fossil found consistently within a stratum then of course that implies a related stratum but the stratum is independently verifiable. It is called consilient evidence.
Why is it that fossil types divide into strata, according well with carbon dating of both the fossils and of the strata. God's little games?
quote:[re DNA differences between "Adam" and "Eve"] 2. Can't really answer that, haven't studied it, and as much as this sounds 'religious' I'm sure that God enabled it to happen, but scientifically I have nothing to back it up or whatever, i'm happy to admit it, haven't really studied genetics in depth in relations to evolution etc. I'm not going to go link another site that might explain it, cause that would be ignorant of me, and something that I may not necessarily agree with scientifically, haven't got time to study it now lol. Very good question though.
Let us be clear about this. Simon does not understand genetics so he does not want to link to a scientific explanation because he might not agree with it. Let us dwell on that statement for a while...
Now on to other matters.
quote:[re differences in skin colour] 3. Genesis 11:1-8
Wherein, god says, "You blokes have committed no sin but I can see you are doing things well, so I will screw you around."
Nice god. Was he feeling a bit insecure?
Incidentally, Simon, those verses refer to language, not to colour or "race", so you failed entirely to answer Perry's question. Unless, of course, you think the language difference between Greeks and Romans, for example, equates to the entire differences between Japanese and Zulus, for example.
quote:[re original sin, and punishment of the sons for the sins of the fathers] 5. That's why God sent Christ. He took the punishment, that's the whole point. By accepting Christ it means he steps in place for you and takes the punishment, so we are then righteous in the sight of God.
What a pity god couldn't give a rat's arse about anyone for thousands of years previously. Here is god dealing with the sons of the King Of Babylon. You will find this in Isaiah chapter 14.
quote:Prepare a place to slaughter his sons for the sins of their forefathers; they are not to rise to inherit the land and cover the earth with their cities.
Looks like murder of the innocents to me. Was there a retrospective washing away of the sins of their forefathers, or did they just get murdered anyway?
quote:and Perry, you're good by your standard, just as I am good by my own, but it comes back to my argument of absolute truth. Osama Bin Laden believes his led a great and holy life. That's why there is God's standard, which no one can measure up too, except through the death of Christ.
David. I noticed you never addressed my argument of absolute truth.
Actually, I did, but you do not understand it. What ••••••• absolute truth? If there was "absolute truth" then why is essentially the same moral code invented by widely differing civilisations, only one of which has this truth "revealed" to them? Why is your "absolute truth" regarded as vengeful tribal crap by jurists from centuries ago let alone today?
quote:And I noticed you always talk about the inerrant bible, from the old testament, which was written for the Jews, and is irrelevant to the world since Jesus came. Gee, at least Miles posted at least 1 scripture from the new testament, be it out of context.
Ah, I have been waiting for you to shoot yourself in both feet with that one.
You said (feel free to re-read yourself) that
quote:the old testament ... is irrelevant ... since jesus came.
Your interest in the old testament young-earth creation stories, Noah's flood, the ten commandments etc are therefore, in your own words,
Simon Martin wrote on Wednesday, January 27, 2010 - 09:40 am:irrelevant
So, what was it you believe?
Wait! There is the wonderful new testament! Here is the new testament in action, personally out of the mouth of jesus (or at least as reported in Matthew).
quote:I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
Sounds like absolute truth to me.
For inerrancy, one can hardly beat the genealogy of jesus, quoted in a couple of gospels. Any particular reason, Simon, that the gospels disagree on the count, naming and ordering of those ancestors? This is the inerrant NT which you told us yourself supersedes the crappy old OT.
quote:Yeah and we generally receive less academic training because we're led by the Holy Spirit, not our own thoughts in our head or ones our teachers have put in.
One hardly dares paint the lily but this here internet thing on which you are writing. From which bible verse was it written? What was the precise inspiration by the holy sprit? Was it, perhaps, some idea we got into our heads, through, maybe, science, based on evidence?
Previous
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page
