The bible - fact or fiction???

[AUTaxMan]

It matters because it "makes no sense".

So he could have just "wiggled" his nose and they all just went "poof" welcome to your new digs!!

It does make sense if you believe that there is an omnipotent God. Why is this concept so hard for you to grasp?

If "makes no sense" means "cannot be explained by science," you are assuming that (a) all things can be explained by science, and (b) there is no thing that the human does not have the capacity to comprehend.

I happen to believe that there are things that are beyond the realm of human comprehension. This is a reasonable assumption. It appears that you do not share this belief. Based on my assumption, an omnipotent and omnipresent God makes logical sense. Based on yours, it does not.

[karnivore]

I believe it says they are prehistoric human skulls. My mistake, I thought that was what you meant by half human/half man. As soon as they find one with antlers I will let you know.



Guess what? Just as you are not a Paleontologist, I am not a scientist. So why are you expecting me to answer that question? I can offer this though. What are your thoughts on the T-rex's age? How old is too old for there to be "soft tissue"? What exactly was the point of posting the website? Are you telling me 6,000 years is not too old and T-Rex must have been hanging out with Adam in the Garden of Eden?

When does pre-historic mean "evolved from animals"? I dont get how you can equate the two. Pre-Historic means long ago before alot of stuff was recorded by pretty much nothing. And you better let me know about a human with antlers mister :)

The point of the website was that there should have been 0% chance of blood cells in a 70 million year old fossil, so for it to have been there it wouldn't be that old. Also, the fact that it said they had to break the thigh bone to remove it is when they found it. They usually don't break dinosaur bones, but keep them intact. Not saying we should, but I wonder how many more will have blood cells for them to think it might not have been so long ago.

[*censored*]

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?

--Epicurus, Greek philosopher, BC 341-270

[karnivore]

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?

--Epicurus, Greek philosopher, BC 341-270

I dont get how he is wishing ill or violence to people when he doesn't stop things from happening. He could stop it yes, but from bad things good things happen, notably compassion.

[habsheaven]

It does make sense if you believe that there is an omnipotent God. Why is this concept so hard for you to grasp?

If "makes no sense" means "cannot be explained by science," you are assuming that (a) all things can be explained by science, and (b) there is no thing that the human does not have the capacity to comprehend.

I happen to believe that there are things that are beyond the realm of human comprehension. This is a reasonable assumption. It appears that you do not share this belief. Based on my assumption, an omnipotent and omnipresent God makes logical sense. Based on yours, it does not.

If you grasp the concept of an omnipotent God, than yes is doesn't have to make sense. "Makes no sense" to me means I have read up on "scientific" explanations for human migration. Granted there are many hypothesis mixed in along the way and varying theories for different migrations, but the circumstantial evidence supporting some sort of physical migration over generations is staggering. I choose to accept these theories as more plausible than an omnipotent God. Why is that so hard to grasp?

[AUTaxMan]

If you grasp the concept of an omnipotent God, than yes is doesn't have to make sense. "Makes no sense" to me means I have read up on "scientific" explanations for human migration. Granted there are many hypothesis mixed in along the way and varying theories for different migrations, but the circumstantial evidence supporting some sort of physical migration over generations is staggering. I choose to accept these theories as more plausible than an omnipotent God. Why is that so hard to grasp?

I never said that those theories made no sense. In fact, I never addressed them at all.

[Star_Cards]

Another good question about the creation of the bible... If the bible was in fact written by god or by man directly through god, then what about translation. The original wasn't written in english so who's to say it's all been translated correctly.

[AUTaxMan]

Another good question about the creation of the bible... If the bible was in fact written by god or by man directly through god, then what about translation. The original wasn't written in english so who's to say it's all been translated correctly.

The Old Testament was written in Hebrew, the New Testament in Greek, and has been translated many, many times. Because of the consistencies in translation, it is generally accepted as having been correctly translated. There are concordances and other scholarly sources that address varying translations and why they might differ.

[karnivore]

Another good question about the creation of the bible... If the bible was in fact written by god or by man directly through god, then what about translation. The original wasn't written in english so who's to say it's all been translated correctly.

It was written through man from God.
If it wasn't translated correctly there would be alot of news about it differing from the original script. There are still Greek and Hebrew texts to where we can gather from it.

[habsheaven]

When does pre-historic mean "evolved from animals"? I dont get how you can equate the two. Pre-Historic means long ago before alot of stuff was recorded by pretty much nothing. And you better let me know about a human with antlers mister :)

It doesn't. It means older humans evolving from an earlier stage of life. I am not sure why you insist on humans needing to evolve from an animal.

The point of the website was that there should have been 0% chance of blood cells in a 70 million year old fossil, so for it to have been there it wouldn't be that old. Also, the fact that it said they had to break the thigh bone to remove it is when they found it. They usually don't break dinosaur bones, but keep them intact. Not saying we should, but I wonder how many more will have blood cells for them to think it might not have been so long ago.

You know this how? You say this why? You think they are lying? You think they missed the age by what, 69.99 million years?