John Armagh //Global flood is proved by the fossil record.//
Apart from the missing mixed boneyards of dinosaurs and large mammals.
Apart from the lack of dinosaurs above the KT boundary.
Apart from the lack of large mammals below the KT boundary.
Apart from the millions of missing fossils which would be there if every living creature not on the ark was killed in a global catastrophe.
Apart from the fact that fossils are spread through distinct geological layers - layers which a flood simply would not produce.
So, stop this falsehood, Sergio - your perpetrating lies and deception is not doing your claims of witnessing the truth of the Gospel any good at all.
Mathew Benjamin Barnard But, since you brought up the flood, Evolutionists believe that strata layers were deposited slowly over millions and millions of years. Some claim that much of the strata is simply "river" deposits or river deltas. Creationists and a growing number of geologists see problems with such interpretations. First because there is virtually no evidence of erosion between the layers, and second, because the sheer size and extent of the layers tells us that they could not have been formed by rivers, nor river deltas. That's because many of the "layers" are quite thick and cover literally thousands of square miles.This, coupled with the presence of marine fossils that are buried in many of the layers, tells us that they were deposited by ocean currents by a flood or floods like nothing we have seen in moderns times.We can say for certain that it was the ocean (as opposed to a lake) because of the marine fossils that are buried in much of this strata. For example, in the Grand Canyon area itself, old Earth geologists have said that the Ocean swept over the whole area on six different occasions. Young Earth geologists say it was probably only once.- Mathew Benjamin Barnard And, In Mountains all over the world one can find sea shells and other marine fossils. These include the Sierras, the Swiss Alps, the Himalayas and many more. But, I suppose people carried them to the tops of these mountains to play a joke on evolutionists, just for laughs.
James Daniel Logan "Phd=really good at ONE thing, and one thing only."
And it also shows that they know more on that subject than others, especially if they not only have the PhD, but work in the field as well.- John Armagh Anyway, it is better to be good at one thing than good for nothing, Sergio - which is what Creationism is.
- John Armagh //And, In Mountains all over the world one can find sea shells and other marine fossils. These include the Sierras, the Swiss Alps, the Himalayas and many more. But, I suppose people carried them to the tops of these mountains to play a joke on evolutionists, just for laughs.//
That bloody silly old chestnut again. Only an ignorant, fool would bring that up. 
- Mathew Benjamin Barnard James and John, by that you're admitting the scientists I named know more than others, cause they have PhD's too?
- Mathew Benjamin Barnard John, you are disputing that sea shells have been found on top of the highest mountains?
- Sergio Amezcua Phd.... Does mean they have knowledge than others, but some Phd' are smart... Others Brilliant.
- John Armagh //you are disputing that sea shells have been found on top of the highest mountains?//
Nope. But unlike you, fella, I *know* how they got there. Because I know a bit about geology. - Mathew Benjamin Barnard Sure you do. They were pushed up that high.....Yea, I've heard that before. Too bad it's conjecture.
- John Armagh //Too bad it's conjecture.//
Really? Well that's funny because the drift of the continents which caused it can be measured - and is consistent with the "conjecture". - Simon Albright Andshiney Mathew Benjamin Barnardyour list is as valuable as the list of steves. Science isn't a popularity contest.
- John Armagh //Oh, you know as much as the PhD's I named?//
What I know is from PhDs (there is no apostrophe in the plural of PhD btw) who are actual experts in their field - not A bunch of charlatans who deny science. - John Armagh If anything which is not observed is conjecture then you must consider that the fertilisation event which preceded your own birth is also conjectural,Mathew.
- James Daniel Logan "James and John, by that you're admitting the scientists I named know more than others, cause they have PhD's too?"
As I'm not going to look into everyone on that list, I can't say for sure. One thing, it depends on what they are talking about. As an MBA myself, if I were to try to use my education level and speak out about my knowledge of Biology, then that would be a falsehood, as it is outside of my expertise. Also, after reading about Snelling the other day, I would question any who contradict themselves, and why they do so.
Just looking at the first two on your list for example, if a Psychologist and a Medical Physicist are arguing Geology against an actual Geologist, the first two would be speaking out of their expertise, and therefore would not necessarily know what they were talking about. It's not that hard of a concept to understand. I see so many 'creationists' point to 'scientists' that are speaking outside their expertise against people who are actually experts in specific fields....just because someone has a PhD, does not automatically mean they know what they are talking about it if is outside their field of study. - John Armagh // by that you're admitting the scientists I named know more than others, cause they have PhD's too?//
Hardly. Certainly not if they deny evolution. They are just a bunch of fools with PhDs. - Mathew Benjamin Barnard Because elevations on earth change slowly, some wondered if sea bottoms could rise miles into the air, perhaps over millions of years. However, mountaintops, which experience destructive freezing and thawing cycles, erode relatively rapidly—and so should fossils slowly lifted by them. Also, mountaintops accumulate few sediments that might blanket and protect such fossils.
Mickey Garces mathew, creation science is a joke. Proven by many court cases of the last 30 years. Just believe in your abrahamic theology but accept modern empirical science because at the end thats all we really have. Evolution is the most tested and accepted fact in science today. As a matter of fact much of science today would not make sense without it. If you want to read a great book get Evolution by Donald Prothero one of the best book on the subject l have read in the last 45 years- Simon Albright Andshiney the great thing about science is that it doesn't care about your opinions. It's right no matter what you believe.
Joel R. Daniel We've covered Jesus existence over, and over, and over again. There are few if any historians that seriously doubt Jesus' existence. It's silly to even make the trollish statement.- Mathew Benjamin Barnard Right, Joel. Jewish sources such as Josephus, and Roman sources such as Tacitus confirm jesus' existence. These sources are compared and contrasted to Christian sources such as the Pauline Letters and the Synoptic Gospels. These sources are usually independent of each other (e.g. Jewish sources do not draw upon Roman sources), and similarities and differences between them are used in the authentication process.
- Joel R. Daniel Matthew Mathew Benjamin Barnard - yes. All of these have been covered here numerous times before and those of us who've been here a while know there's no scholarly issue with the historicity of Jesus. Yet it continues to come up time and again as though it were real.....
- Mickey Garces not to get in to this, but Dave is right. the names you mention were not contempories of jesus. the once that where never mention him.
- Mathew Benjamin Barnard Modern archaeologists have used the records of Josephus. I guess his records were good enough for them.
Lincoln Phipps Not to get into this but "Contemporaneous" means at the same time. Josephus was born AFTER Jesus lived. Go figure.- Mathew Benjamin Barnard You brought it up, Mickey. So, I thought it necessary to bring it up that modern Archaeology uses his records.
- John Armagh // However, mountaintops, which experience destructive freezing and thawing cycles, erode relatively rapidly—and so should fossils slowly lifted by them. Also, mountaintops accumulate few sediments that might blanket and protect such fossils.//
In which case you have to assert that the fossils which are found are close enough to the surface to have been eroded away. But when the mountains were folded the layers where the sea creatures were were much deeper than your assertion would like them to be. 
John Herrick Have uyou read his writings Mathew Benjamin Barnard? There is no archaeological information in them to speak of, just a lot of who did what! And yes they were written 59 yARS OR MORE AD.- Mathew Benjamin Barnard Well, In November, 1990, the bones of Caiaphas the high priest were found in Peace Forest, just south of Jerusalem in an ossuary with the name Caiaphas on it. The Jewish historian Josephus mentioned Josephus Caiaphas, a high priest who served around A.D. 18-36. This time period fits exactly the time that Jesus was convicted by the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem and later crucified by the Romans. There are more examples, But this one came to mind.
- John Armagh //First because there is virtually no evidence of erosion between the layers//
Oh not that old bollocks AGAIN, Mathew.
Erosion was going on all the time whilst the layers were being laid down. The fact that there are layers at all is that the deposition rate was greater than the erosion rate. To assert that all the erosion had to take place on the top of the layer is some kind of banal assertion that the layer was suddenly plonked down in one go. What a crock of shite - really.
You're going to have to to a lot better than that, matey. Try speaking with someone who does *not* have a shonky PhD. 
Rosemary Lyndall-Wemm I hate to break this to you, Sergio, but you were NOT actually alive in the first century CE. You did NOT spend you time listening to every word of Yeshua bar Joseph of Nazareth. You were NOT there when people wrote down accounts of what Jesus said. You did NOT see if they consulted their scriptures so that they could make their character quote the verses correctly. You are NOT capable of infallibly interpreting scripture.
In other words, you are not a credible witness.- Mathew Benjamin Barnard In many instances, numerous details provided by Josephus can be checked, including architechural data, and their accuracy confirmed. Such precision, where it can be established, is surprising, especially since the information was set down in writing years after Josephus had left Palestine. In addition, it is clear that in some cases he is describing objects that he cannot possibly have seen, let alone measured. Thus he probably never visited Masada or set foot on its summit, so he cannot himself have measured its walls. For sixty years preceding the Great Revolt, the desert fortress was occupied by a Roman garrison and civilians were not normally allowed entry. Even so, he writes in War (VII, 286) that the walls of Masada were seven stadia, i.e., about 1300m. long. And so indeed they were. Similarly, he describes in War (I, 403) the walls of Samaria-Sebaste, built by Herod, as being twenty stadia long (3720m.). This figure also approximates to their length as unearthed. The perimeter of the walls of Jerusalem is said by Josephus (War V, 159) to extend to thirty-three stadia (6138m.), whereas in Avi-Yonah's reckoning they were 5550m. long; but this is a difference of merely 10%. Again, the harbour of Caesarea built by Herod has been studied meticulously by A. Raban and he finds that Josephus's account of it is by and large correct. At Masada, too, the description of the northern palace (which Josephus calls the western palace, War VII, 286) matches the remains as discovered. The same my be said of the width of the wall, eight cubits, which is close to 4 m. (WarVII, 286). On the other hand, the historian alludes to thirty-seven towers on the walls of Masada (War VII, 287), whereas only twenty-seven were identified during the excavations. Either the excavators were unable to recognize all the towers, or Josephus's work contains a textual error, which may possibly be the fault of a copyist. Further perusal of Josephus would undoubtedly reveal additional instances of similar archaeological data
- Dave Van House and then...Horus, Attis, Mythra, Dionysus, etc...all these stories were exact copies of the Jesus story...myth.....and vice versa....whatever. and Noah's flood...etc.....Gilgamesh copy. and so on......yawn.
Edward Nims Trust in ancient historians at your own risk... There were reports of a LOT of holy men working miracles in those days. Finding "credible" evidence for Jesus being supernatural or doing supernatural things means you also have believe others (although less popular) fit the same bill.
No comments:
Post a Comment