free will vs omniscience

[Juan_Bottom]

My post was cooler than all of yours combined into one. Also, I was first.

Yeah yours had very pretty C O L O R

[Snorri1234]

My post was cooler than all of yours combined into one. Also, I was first.

Only by 2. And we all pointed to your post anyway.

[Frigidus]

My post was cooler than all of yours combined into one. Also, I was first.

Only by 2. And we all pointed to your post anyway.

Even when we agree we argue about it.

[Neoteny]

My post was cooler than all of yours combined into one. Also, I was first.

Only by 2. And we all pointed to your post anyway.

Even when we agree we argue about it.

It's true.

[Juan_Bottom]

My post was cooler than all of yours combined into one. Also, I was first.

Only by 2. And we all pointed to your post anyway.

Even when we agree we argue about it.

It's true.

Nuh uh. Define "agree...."

[PLAYER57832]

Recently, the Exodus of Israel from Egypt was proven by the Egyptian chariots from that time period at the bottom of the Red Sea. Unless the Egyptians started throwing chariots off ships (and Egypt didn't have a navy at that point), there was an Exodus

Haha, where did you hear this? Source or it didn't happen (it didn't).

And further, most scholars believe that this was a mis-translation, that the sea referred to was actually the Sea of Reeds, which is shallower, situated in more the correct position AND which actually does have (tentative .. they are admittedly debateable) archeological and written records to substantiate.
So

In conclusion, I feel that LocutusofBorg01 is a troll

[/quote]
I believe you nailed this one well!

[Snorri1234]

My post was cooler than all of yours combined into one. Also, I was first.

Only by 2. And we all pointed to your post anyway.

Even when we agree we argue about it.

Word. I remember when I was arguing and Jiminiski agreed with me and pointed out something and I resorted to arguing with him even though it was besides the point and we both were on the same side.


Dammit, I'm a dick.

[LocutusofBorg01]

I'll provide as many sources as I can, but I will admit some of the claims I made were by word-of-mouth. However, some of the claims you have made (I'm sure, if not all) are by word-of-mouth as well, and to be valid they need sources also. In other words, we all have to play by the same rules

Do you swallow everything somebody says without question if they are standing on a pulpit?

No

You are one of these nuts who think Science is a religion aren't you.

No

I think you should probably leave the science up to the scientists. I have the distinct idea that you don't know anything about genetics or evolution.

I know enough about evolution and genetics to know they don't go together

Hell, of any book in all of history, the Bible is a front runner for the most tampered with.

Again, no sources, but I'll answer anyways.

When the Dead Sea Scrolls were found (scrolls with much of the Old Testament in them), they were checked against current translations, and it was extremely accurate. There were only minor errors in any of the text, none of which changed anything. When ancient Hebrew scribes copied the Bible they would copy a book, then count the letter and find the middle letter of the book. If it wasn't right, the entire copy was thrown out. This was only one of the safeguards

As you can see, the most noticeable difference is that the fruit fly has a whopping six chromosomes, compared to our 23, and a chimp's 24. You really can't expect anyone to take anything you say seriously when you are making such a colossal error.

Exploring Creation with Biology
Apologia Press
Dr. Jay Wile

Maybe I got some terminology wrong, but the idea is the same. Good evidence, by the way

When did the dinos die out? About 64 million years ago. The earliest recognizably bipedal protohuman was about 6 million years ago. About 58 million year difference!

HOW CAN YOU TELL?
Carbon dating (scientific fact, look it up) is only accurate up to 10,000 yrs. (from one of the most respected science teachers in the ASCI). Also, human footprints have been found fossilized inside dinosaur prints.

Rather presumptous to claim that is a "truth"

It is a truth, discovered in the 18th century. (Look it up)

Truth? I don't think so. Scientists have created amino acids (building blocks of life) using electricity and a handful of basic elements.

You're right, they have, but amino acids are not living cells. No one has ever created a living cell. Also, the amino acids created in the experiments are 50-50 left and right handed. All amino acids in nature are right handed. In other words, they didn't come close.

Wow, that's some backwards shit. I mean, even ignoring the blatantly obvious problem of Jesus existing vs jesus being divine, that statement still is a bunch of horsecrap. You're saying that a prominent figure in roman politics who had his face put on coins and conquered large parts of the world somehow had less people writing about him and making stuff of him than Jesus. Even after Julius Caesar's death there were many historians who referenced his life and work. The guy wrote a bunch of stuff, most importantly his letters to home about his conquests in france and other places. Anyone claiming that same shit you're saying better have some awesome new evidence that not only proves Jesus' existence but also invalidates everything written about Caesar both by himself and others.

Josh McDowell, "A Ready Defense". Read it.

I'm not saying Caesar didn't exist. That's stupid. I'm saying it's impossible to be a sane human being who's done any research to say Jesus didn't exist.

[Neoteny]

And the race begins anew...

[Backglass]

I'm saying it's impossible to be a sane human being who's done any research to say Jesus didn't exist.

I don't think anyone here doubts that a man named jesus once lived. I am sure he did and was most likely very charismatic and influential. Do I believe he was the half-god offspring of a magical being that impregnated an earth woman while she slept? Hardly.

And please tell us more about man & dinosaurs...I am dieing to hear more.

[joecoolfrog]

Gods reaction to that quality defence of creationism ;

At times like this he probably wishes he had stopped when he got to the fruit flies

[Neoteny]

I'll provide as many sources as I can, but I will admit some of the claims I made were by word-of-mouth. However, some of the claims you have made (I'm sure, if not all) are by word-of-mouth as well, and to be valid they need sources also. In other words, we all have to play by the same rules

To give you an idea of where my knowledge comes from: I'm pursuing microbial genetics as a career. I can cite quite a bit with peer-reviewed data.

Maybe I got some terminology wrong, but the idea is the same. Good evidence, by the way

Thanks, it's a really cool site. I still can't agree with the idea you're presenting. Chimps are the most closely related extant species to humans that we know of.

HOW CAN YOU TELL?
Carbon dating (scientific fact, look it up) is only accurate up to 10,000 yrs. (from one of the most respected science teachers in the ASCI). Also, human footprints have been found fossilized inside dinosaur prints.

We don't use carbon dating for dinosaurs. We use materials with a longer half-life, so they can go farther back. It's not quite as accurate, but it's accurate enough to secure the many billions of years perspective.

[Juan_Bottom]

This is the craziest.....

[Frigidus]

Hell, of any book in all of history, the Bible is a front runner for the most tampered with.

Again, no sources, but I'll answer anyways.

When the Dead Sea Scrolls were found (scrolls with much of the Old Testament in them), they were checked against current translations, and it was extremely accurate. There were only minor errors in any of the text, none of which changed anything. When ancient Hebrew scribes copied the Bible they would copy a book, then count the letter and find the middle letter of the book. If it wasn't right, the entire copy was thrown out. This was only one of the safeguards

But here's the crux: that only works if you're Jewish. The New Testament was anything but rigorously proof read. The whole of the New Testament was copied many times over, each copy usually done by one person. These same people poorly copied Homer, Livy, Cicero, and countless other classic works, which to medieval scholars were just a step below the Bible on a scale of importance. Not to mention that translating from Latin to, say, English is very individual. People are still coming out with individual (and rather different) translations of the above mentioned classics. Even assuming proper translation, writing a few words wrong and passing it around for others to copy replicates small errors. I would be literally floored if the Bible wasn't riddled with mistakes.

[kagetora]

I think you should probably leave the science up to the scientists. I have the distinct idea that you don't know anything about genetics or evolution.

I know enough about evolution and genetics to know they don't go together

This made me laugh. Ever read Origin of Species? Genetics is the basis of evolution.

Hell, of any book in all of history, the Bible is a front runner for the most tampered with.

Again, no sources, but I'll answer anyways.

When the Dead Sea Scrolls were found (scrolls with much of the Old Testament in them), they were checked against current translations, and it was extremely accurate. There were only minor errors in any of the text, none of which changed anything. When ancient Hebrew scribes copied the Bible they would copy a book, then count the letter and find the middle letter of the book. If it wasn't right, the entire copy was thrown out. This was only one of the safeguards

I gave up on the bible a few years back, but I did search Dead Sea Scrolls and found two interesting points on the fact that the bible was compiled by men and not God, and that much was left out.

18. The scrolls contain previously unknown stories about biblical figures such as Enoch, Abraham, and Noah. The story of Abraham includes an explanation why God asked Abraham to sacrifice his only son Isaac.

22. Although the Qumran community existed during the time of the ministry of Jesus, none of the Scrolls refer to Him, nor do they mention any of His follower's described in the New Testament

When did the dinos die out? About 64 million years ago. The earliest recognizably bipedal protohuman was about 6 million years ago. About 58 million year difference!

HOW CAN YOU TELL?
Carbon dating (scientific fact, look it up) is only accurate up to 10,000 yrs. (from one of the most respected science teachers in the ASCI). Also, human footprints have been found fossilized inside dinosaur prints.

1. Do you know how easy that would be to make a hoax of?
2. You can't carbon date a rock. (fossils)
3. Do you have pics?

Truth? I don't think so. Scientists have created amino acids (building blocks of life) using electricity and a handful of basic elements.

You're right, they have, but amino acids are not living cells. No one has ever created a living cell. Also, the amino acids created in the experiments are 50-50 left and right handed. All amino acids in nature are right handed. In other words, they didn't come close.

1. First off, no. Most are left handed in nature, but right handed exist.
2. That's what scientists are trying to do now.

[Snorri1234]

I know enough about evolution and genetics to know they don't go together

Right, should I point this out or does someone else want to grab it?

Maybe I got some terminology wrong, but the idea is the same. Good evidence, by the way

Well yeah, if you meant to say something else from what you actually said then whatever. Chimps are still far more related to humans than fruitflies are.

HOW CAN YOU TELL?
Carbon dating (scientific fact, look it up) is only accurate up to 10,000 yrs. (from one of the most respected science teachers in the ASCI). Also, human footprints have been found fossilized inside dinosaur prints.

1.) Carbon dating really isn't used for determining the age of dinosaurs. Plenty of other isotopes are good for doing old stuff.
2.) Carbon dating is valid up to 60,000 years, not 10,000.
3.) Those human footprints are way less old than the fossils they're in.

Rather presumptous to claim that is a "truth"

It is a truth, discovered in the 18th century. (Look it up)

I don't have to look it up, I know enough about it. Using 18th century science is rather silly anyway, but that "life cannot come from non-life"-shit is really only about the present, not the old times.

No one has ever created a living cell.

Well, duh. Do you have any idea how hard that is?

Wow, that's some backwards shit. I mean, even ignoring the blatantly obvious problem of Jesus existing vs jesus being divine, that statement still is a bunch of horsecrap. You're saying that a prominent figure in roman politics who had his face put on coins and conquered large parts of the world somehow had less people writing about him and making stuff of him than Jesus. Even after Julius Caesar's death there were many historians who referenced his life and work. The guy wrote a bunch of stuff, most importantly his letters to home about his conquests in france and other places. Anyone claiming that same shit you're saying better have some awesome new evidence that not only proves Jesus' existence but also invalidates everything written about Caesar both by himself and others.

Josh McDowell, "A Ready Defense". Read it.

f*ck that. This is not about whether some guy named Jesus existed and was rather charismatic, but about Julius Caesar having more proof. Fact is that he existed beyond a shadow of doubt, and that Jesus probably existed but not everything in the bible about him is fact. Shit, Julius claimed he was descendant from gods himself, I don't see you saying that that is fact.

[joecoolfrog]

The Essenes who are believed to have been the compilers and guardians of the scrolls were a strongly messianic sect, they were eagerly anticipating a messiah and yet mention Jesus not once.......Mmmmmmmm
Now they lived at the same time as Jesus reputedly did and in the same region so what can we deduce from the fact that they either had never heard of him or considered him too insignificant to warrant a single line ?

[PLAYER57832]

I'll provide as many sources as I can, but I will admit some of the claims I made were by word-of-mouth. However, some of the claims you have made (I'm sure, if not all) are by word-of-mouth as well, and to be valid they need sources also. In other words, we all have to play by the same rules

I know enough about evolution and genetics to know they don't go together

No, you don't... because they most definitely do NOT conflict.

As you can see, the most noticeable difference is that the fruit fly has a whopping six chromosomes, compared to our 23, and a chimp's 24. You really can't expect anyone to take anything you say seriously when you are making such a colossal error.

Exploring Creation with Biology
Apologia Press
Dr. Jay Wile

Maybe I got some terminology wrong, but the idea is the same. Good evidence, by the way

How about at least 2000 articles published in legitimate, JURIED, PEER-REVIEWED Journals.

When did the dinos die out? About 64 million years ago. The earliest recognizably bipedal protohuman was about 6 million years ago. About 58 million year difference!

HOW CAN YOU TELL?
Carbon dating (scientific fact, look it up) is only accurate up to 10,000 yrs. (from one of the most respected science teachers in the ASCI). Also, human footprints have been found fossilized inside dinosaur prints.

One of the most famous set of "footprints", from Texas, simply wasn't a foot print at all. Others are plain forgeries (fact, look it up!)

I am going to skip over the carbon dating issue. It is mostly used for archeology, historic times, anyway.

Atomic dating is much more accurate.

The greatest evidence is the layering of the fossil record ... and despite the recent CBN program that blithely tried to claim there "is no evidence of geologic layers" there is. Drive down just about any highway in CA, Arizona ...even through the hills out East here, and you will see some of it, but the real story only comes when you tie various visible sections AND chemical analysis that show disperse layers were once tied, etc. Take a BASIC geology class or read a REAL geology text and you will get the truth.

Again, ask why these supposed Christians make so many lies. Christ's foundation is truth, not lies. The only way they got people to beleive these lies is by isolating kids from learning truth ... either home-schooling or in small religious schools. Education is about expanding one's horizens and learning truth, not narrowing it.

Truth? I don't think so. Scientists have created amino acids (building blocks of life) using electricity and a handful of basic elements.

You're right, they have, but amino acids are not living cells. No one has ever created a living cell. Also, the amino acids created in the experiments are 50-50 left and right handed. All amino acids in nature are right handed. In other words, they didn't come close.

Now you are stretching. Even a few years ago, those same people feeding you all this "information" were disputing that they could do even what they have done.

Twenty years ago, I happened to KNOW some of these folks. You know what their real agenda is? It is not truth. I don't ask you to ignore what you have been told, but I do ask that you at least take the time to even read and understand the very basics of what so very, very, very many OTHER people believe. There is a reason its only your narrow group that accepts these ideas .... they are NOT correct. Sorry, but that is the absolute truth!

Wow, that's some backwards shit. I mean, even ignoring the blatantly obvious problem of Jesus existing vs jesus being divine, that statement still is a bunch of horsecrap. You're saying that a prominent figure in roman politics who had his face put on coins and conquered large parts of the world somehow had less people writing about him and making stuff of him than Jesus. Even after Julius Caesar's death there were many historians who referenced his life and work. The guy wrote a bunch of stuff, most importantly his letters to home about his conquests in france and other places. Anyone claiming that same shit you're saying better have some awesome new evidence that not only proves Jesus' existence but also invalidates everything written about Caesar both by himself and others.

Josh McDowell, "A Ready Defense". Read it.

I'm not saying Caesar didn't exist. That's stupid. I'm saying it's impossible to be a sane human being who's done any research to say Jesus didn't exist.

[/quote]

Actually, sorry, but I am pretty well with Loc here. There is absolutely debate (outside of Christianity, that is) about who Jesus was, etc. But few credible scholars deny his existance.

[Juan_Bottom]

I don't think that there are any Atheists(definitly none here) that dispute the existance of Jesus. It's a stance we all take. Atheists just don't think he was magic, is all.

[Backglass]

I don't think that there are any Atheists(definitly none here) that dispute the existance of Jesus. It's a stance we all take. Atheists just don't think he was magic, is all.

Exactly. A great man....but just a man like you and I.

[PLAYER57832]

The Essenes who are believed to have been the compilers and guardians of the scrolls were a strongly messianic sect, they were eagerly anticipating a messiah and yet mention Jesus not once.......Mmmmmmmm
Now they lived at the same time as Jesus reputedly did and in the same region so what can we deduce from the fact that they either had never heard of him or considered him too insignificant to warrant a single line ?

You sort of have it backwards. A lot of scholars believe the Essenes influenced Jesus, that he likely speant time with them. However, there is the phrase "a prophet is never respected in his own land" is pertinent.

[LocutusofBorg01]

Exactly. A great man....but just a man like you and I.

I don't think you realize how impossible that is. Let's look at the logical steps.

Jesus was a man who claimed to be God. There are two possibilities:

1. He was telling the truth
2. He was lying

Let's look at 2 for a second

2a. He knew he was lying
2b. He didn't know he was lying

2a goes on to:
He was a liar

2b goes on to:
He was a lunatic

“I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: “I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept His claim to be God.” That is the one thing we must not say. A man who said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell." -CS Lewis

Let's look at 1:

He was telling the truth:
Therefore, He is (and was) the Son of God, throned in glory, and is coming back the world.

Make your choice, but DO NOT say Jesus was a great man. He was not. He was either Lord, a liar, or a lunatic

[PLAYER57832]

Exactly. A great man....but just a man like you and I.

Make your choice, but DO NOT say Jesus was a great man. He was not. He was either Lord, a liar, or a lunatic

Uh .. non Christians go with "liar and lunatic" most every time ... or sometimes just say that we Christians got it wrong, that he was a teacher, a prophet, but not God (Islam, for example, says this.)

And, you really cannot PROVE otherwise, scientifically, logically. It is a matter of belief.

[Juan_Bottom]

Hes right ya'll...

He was either Lord, a liar, or a lunatic

None of whom can do great things...

[PLAYER57832]

I guess yet another thread lapses into the old "is there Goc" and "is Evolution real" discussion.

Anyone want to return to the free will vs omniscience?