Farkel,
How do you reconcile the fact that the alleged writer of Genesis, namely Moses, could list some Kings of Israel in that same book that were to reign some 350 fifty years AFTER he was buried?
I've got many more anachronisms from the Bible. Just answer to people's satisfaction the problem with this one and then challenge me some more. I will make your head spin and show you just how NOT historically accurate the Bible has been.
Go for it. I?ll first remind you that (1) Archaeology is more art than science- it?s detective work, good or bad, that yields the conclusion of the team doing the analysis as to when events occurred, why, how, etc. Archaeological conclusions are always subject to re-interpretation. How many innocents have been jailed, executed, or otherwise punished due to ?bad? detective work, using recent evidence?
Dating methods are likewise inaccurate, and have been proven so. There are numerous examples of hoaxes that were radiocarbon dated to thousands of years, and then determined (after the hoax was revealed) that the dates were way, way off. So much for ?dating? accuracy. When a method of accurately, reliably, dating material is developed, the present day methods will then be ?demolished?, as you are fond of stating. Until then careers, books, and fortunes rely on the appearance of accuracy in findings. Professionals in the fields described above often cover each others backs collaboratively in coming to their conclusions.
If you choose to believe in uncertain conclusions, so be it. The Bible was, and is believed to be God?s inspired word for many centuries, nearly two thousand years. For your ilk to now try to prove otherwise, you?ll need irrefutable proof to convince me.
Go ahead, give it your best shot. This?ll be fun.
Love_Truth- loves it when people threaten ?demolishing? other?s beliefs with out irrefutable evidence to back them up.
Abaddon,
What I wrote above (to Farkel) and here:
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/67962/1068440/post.ashx#1068440
fairly well sums up my response to your latest posts.
To elaborate further, you continually bring up how ?inaccurate? the Bible is, and yet you have posted no irrefutable conclusions to that end.
You bring up the flood (yet again) that we?ve already discussed in another thread:
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/15/66823/1040881/post.ashx#1040881
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/15/66823/1041955/post.ashx#1041955
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/15/66823/1042250/post.ashx#1042250
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/15/66823/1042364/post.ashx#1042364
You likewise bring up evolution theory as ?proof?, which I?ve touched on as well:
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/67808/1058804/post.ashx#1058804
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/67808/1058844/post.ashx#1058844
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/67808/1058897/post.ashx#1058897
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/67808/1058907/post.ashx#1058907
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/67808/1058956/post.ashx#1058956
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/67808/1059031/post.ashx#1059031
So, if you have other or new lines of reasoning you?d like to pursue, be my guest.
Let?s not rehash what?s already been covered on:
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/67335/1047849/post.ashx#1047849
and:
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/15/66823/1037533/post.ashx#1037533
OK?
Now, as for what you consider to be the ?weakest link in evolution theory? I can?t read your mind, but I can certainly read your post history here on JWD. Do you care to point me to the post in question? Or do I have to dig it up myself? Here are what I see as, off the top of my head, the weakest links in evolution theory:
-The spontaneous appearance of life (Creation explains this well, evolution, other theories, not so).
-The drastic jump from one species, genetic type, etc, to a radically different one. (Creation explains this well, evolution, other theories, not so).
- The physical laws. (Creation explains this well, evolution, other theories, not so).
That?s a ?good start?. I may post more, yet that?s enough for now to get the discussion rolling, I believe.
Incidentally, whether I am an archaeologist, a biologist, or an engineer, what is critical in all of the sciences is critical thinking, good analytical skills, a healthy amount of skepticism, a good research tool such as the internet, and it doesn?t hurt to have an IQ in the top 1%. I don?t need to be a "Degreed" subject matter expert, per se, to come to a valid, supportable, defendable conclusion, as long as I have the aforementioned attributes.
In addition to what I wrote above to Farkel about archaeology and dating, I?d add that I?ve found in my 19 years holding senior level positions in Engineering, Consulting, Marketing, and Sales, that University Degrees are good for credentials (to get one?s foot in the door), not good for much else. I can become a subject matter expert without a degree, such was the case with many of the most brilliant minds in recorded history, so appeal to authority alone is unconvincing to me.
So, no, I won?t be taking a test. If you believe something to be factual, irrefutable, whatever, post it and state so. If I?m not familiar with the subject matter, I?ll research it and reply after doing so.
PS- as for the definition of ?
deamazon
?, you?ll have to tell me what that is.
SixofNine,
The first part?s easy- it?s possible to argue about the existence of God because there are numerous conclusions that can be drawn from the observable evidence.
Yes, but an all powerful benevolent and loving god is not one of them, unfortunately.
Seems I?ve already shown my assertion to indeed, be the case (numerous conclusions), and continue to do so. So much for your ?argument?.
Love_Truth- knows this is going to be a "never ending" thread.
P.S.- let's try and continue keeping this civil, eh? I'm not a fan of being callled names or playing the "my opinion is better than yours" games.