For some reason, people get scared when someone else has a different "theory" than them.  And they get all up in arms about it.  I don't care how old people think the earth is, as long as they admit it's their "theory".  Alot of the traditional scientific people seem to think there "theory's" are fact.  

Because they were there to use their scientific method when the world began.  NOT.

Quoted: For some reason, people get scared when someone else has a different "theory" than them.  And they get all up in arms about it.  I don't care how old people think the earth is, as long as they admit it's their "theory".  Alot of the traditional scientific people seem to think there "theory's" are fact.   Because they were there to use their scientific method when the world began.  NOT.

Your statements show that you have no clue how science works and that you're incapable of the degree of abstraction necessary for it. I entertain the possibility that everything every religionist everywhere says is true because you can't prove a negative. The difference between faith and science is evidence. Every religion since the beginning of time has the same amount and quality of evidence while science continues to accumulate verifiable and reproducible evidence. You stick with your 2,000 year old user's manual and I'll stick with my attempts to understand reality empirically. You know, science.

Quoted: Quoted: Young Earth Creationists like to say Jesus walked with dinosaurs while claiming the earth is ~6,000 years old. Check out Dr. Dino and Dinosaur Adventureland. They're pretty stupid. Oh snap! IBD (in before Dino ) Let the record show it was not a stupid "young earth creationist" that brought Dr. Dino and Dinosaur Adventureland into this thread, but it was one of the usual suspect anti-Christian trolls...

hehe I wasn't going to say a word about the felon, honestly.

I had never heard of Dinosaur Adventure Land.  Sounds a lot like the museum we have near DFW.

Quoted: Quoted: For some reason, people get scared when someone else has a different "theory" than them.  And they get all up in arms about it.  I don't care how old people think the earth is, as long as they admit it's their "theory".  Alot of the traditional scientific people seem to think there "theory's" are fact.   Because they were there to use their scientific method when the world began.  NOT. Your statements show that you have no clue how science works and that you're incapable of the degree of abstraction necessary for it. I entertain the possibility that everything every religionist everywhere says is true because you can't prove a negative. The difference between faith and science is evidence. Every religion since the beginning of time has the same amount and quality of evidence while science continues to accumulate verifiable and reproducible evidence. You stick with your 2,000 year old user's manual and I'll stick with my attempts to understand reality empirically. You know, science.

I think you've basically proved my point.

Personally I don't know how old the earth is.  I'm just skeptical of it being as old as some of you guys think it is.  There are many theories and they all have merit.  But you have to take on faith any of the theories, because there is no proof.  Evidence can be looked on so many different ways.  None of us were there.

Quoted: Quoted: As long as I can remember I have never read in the Bible anything about Dinosaurs but today in my national government class we were discussing religion in school and one of the other students said that the Bible mentions the Dinosaurs.  I know that their is not a mention to the Dinosaurs in the Bible but the teacher told us to go home and look.   So my question to you is, Is their a mention of Dinosaurs in the Bible and if so what book, chapter, verse can I find it in. Public school? Grade?

I am a college student and it is a national government class and we were specifically discussing religion in school.  I wanted to know if anyone new were in the Bible that it mentions "dinosaurs" (this being a newer term used) since our teacher and others were wanting to know were this is mentioned and one person said that yes it is in the Bible.  

I have read the recommended chapter in the Bible and have come to my own conclusions as to this subject but I am still looking into some things and doing more research into this.

I thought that this would be the best place to ask this question since I could not remember and had no reference point to start from.  I thank you all for your strong opinions on this matter but my general question was answered and I was given my reference point to start from.  I did not anticipate nor expect such a huge issue to be blown out of such a simple question.

FYI to the man that said that this thread is stupid it is only stupid to you others feel that this is a subject that they have great feelings about and they are entitled to their opinion and thoughts and I enjoy reading them but would appreciate it if you all would stick to the subject at hand.

This being weather or not the Bible mentions "Dinosaurs" or not and were this information can be found.

Thank you

Well, I hope there was some useful information for you that answers your questions and gives you some more.

There's plenty of info out there. I can point you to pages that cover a lot of the biology and geology information that lays the groundwork for good science.

Let me know if you're interested.

Quoted: Well, I hope there was some useful information for you that answers your questions and gives you some more. There's plenty of info out there. I can point you to pages that cover a lot of the biology and geology information that lays the groundwork for good science. Let me know if you're interested.

Thank you very much for the offer but when it comes to bones and things I have 6 experts I know personally one that specializes in prehistoric bones and I get great site info and things from them.  Some of the things that some people have written have showed to me once again how uneducated some people can be.  

I would take you up on this for further info but my major concentration of education is in women's health specifically as a NURSE MID-WIFE.  

God is Good All the Time.  (reverse tag for later)

Quoted: Well, I hope there was some useful information for you that answers your questions and gives you some more. There's plenty of info out there. I can point you to pages that cover a lot of the biology and geology information that lays the groundwork for good science. Let me know if you're interested.

that is three, count em THREE times that I have asked you to bring any evidence supporting your theory. As I said before, I respect all theories and understand that I cannot prove my beliefs, only offer evidence to show possibility. I have waited and asked for the same from you and have received none.
I respectfully challenge you to an evolution/creation debate if the moderators allow it. But please sir, lets be respectfull, intelligent and lets not resort to calling things/people "stupid". lets be adult about it. I will open the thread now.

Quoted: Quoted: Well, I hope there was some useful information for you that answers your questions and gives you some more. There's plenty of info out there. I can point you to pages that cover a lot of the biology and geology information that lays the groundwork for good science. Let me know if you're interested. that is three, count em THREE times that I have asked you to bring any evidence supporting your theory. As I said before, I respect all theories and understand that I cannot prove my beliefs, only offer evidence to show possibility. I have waited and asked for the same from you and have received none. I respectfully challenge you to an evolution/creation debate if the moderators allow it. But please sir, lets be respectfull, intelligent and lets not resort to calling things/people "stupid". lets be adult about it. I will open the thread now.

Look, I made no positive assertions regarding dinosaurs being in the Bible and there being science in the Bible, you did. I asked for citations, which you failed to produce. Let's just drop it in this thread since it's not your thread to open.

I will just add that when Titans, Leviathans, Giants, Trolls, etc, etc, are mentioned in religious texts, it is most often an attempt of the writers of those texts to explain the existence of dinosaur bones which did not otherwise fit into their worldview and which could not be scientifically explained at the time that those texts were written.

When the Greeks and Romans dug up dinosaur bones, they explained them in their religion as having come from Titans or Giants from prehistory...(much in the same way that they explained lightening as coming from the Gods).

When early Jewish/Semitic cultures found dinosaur bones, they explained them as being evidence of angels, the giant offspring of angels and humans (Nephilim see below),  leviathans, the devil spawn, demons and all sorts of other supernatural things.

So, what makes more sense?  That dinosaurs co-existed with people...which is not scientifically accepted at all, which isn't mentioned directly in the bible (you would think that giant meat, eating predators all over the place would be SPECIFICALLY mentioned, not just alluded to) and which has NO physical evidence to support it?

Or....is it more likely that the people that wrote the Bible and other religious texts tried to explain the existence of fossilized bones in their midst by creating stories around them to make them fit their world view?





Nephilim
"There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. " (Genesis 6:4)

Quoted: Nephilim "There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. " (Genesis 6:4)

Those were the Sikhs.

Yeah, he's that big.

Quoted: <snip> Nephilim <snip>

To this day we still do not know what the Nephilim, Giants, Behemoth, or Leviathan are. They are shrouded in mystery and that is ok.

It's perfectly acceptable to say "I don't know". That doesn't mean that it is outright "wrong" to speculate as to what those creatures might be. It's just that speculation should be identified as such and not claimed to be fact or truth or science. (That's goes for both the Judeo-Christian/Creation side AND the atheist/evolution side of these topics.)

Quoted: Quoted: <snip> Nephilim <snip> It's just that speculation should be identified as such and not claimed to be fact or truth or science.

This is where you and I fundamentally disagree. I assert that:

1) Science is speculation with attempts at empirical verification.

2) Religion is speculation without attempts at verification.

3) Faith isn't speculation as it requires no proof.

It's our fundamental premises that make it difficult for us to agree on this issue. I lack certain a priori assumptions that you would seem to live your life by. There is going to be a Necessary disconnect there.

Quoted: Quoted: For some reason, people get scared when someone else has a different "theory" than them.  And they get all up in arms about it.  I don't care how old people think the earth is, as long as they admit it's their "theory".  Alot of the traditional scientific people seem to think there "theory's" are fact.   Because they were there to use their scientific method when the world began.  NOT. Your statements show that you have no clue how science works and that you're incapable of the degree of abstraction necessary for it. I entertain the possibility that everything every religionist everywhere says is true because you can't prove a negative. The difference between faith and science is evidence. Every religion since the beginning of time has the same amount and quality of evidence while science continues to accumulate verifiable and reproducible evidence. You stick with your 2,000 year old user's manual and I'll stick with my attempts to understand reality empirically. You know, science.

Science and Christianity are not mutually exclusive realms of academic study.  History is evidence.  The Bible (as a historical text) has been proven right EVERY time its stories have been examined - often after naysayers have pointed to the lack of "evidence" for the stories, archeological digs have unearthed the proof.  

The Christian religion has MUCH empirical evidence associated with it.  I understand how solid you believe your understanding of Christianity to be - I assure you, it (your understanding) is far more fragile than you think.  Much of the scientific method and methods you use today are derived and passed down through the Catholic Church - because we want to be able to reconcile our intellect with the wonders we have seen.  Science is the way to further our understanding of the Glory of God's creation - it is not some slovenly attempt by the currently highest form of life to reduce the gas mileage on their SUV.  
Matt

Quoted: This is where you and I fundamentally disagree. I assert that: 1) Science is speculation with attempts at empirical verification. 2) Religion is speculation without attempts at verification. 3) Faith isn't speculation as it requires no proof. It's our fundamental premises that make it difficult for us to agree on this issue. I lack certain a priori assumptions that you would seem to live your life by. There is going to be a Necessary disconnect there.

Trying to box in words like science, religion, and faith with your own personal assertions when they already have clear definitions is a fruitless exercise.

The fundamental premises that "prevents agreement" (lol) is your openly demeaning and disparaging contempt and disdain for anyone who claims to have faith, particularly Christians.

Quoted: Quoted: This is where you and I fundamentally disagree. I assert that: 1) Science is speculation with attempts at empirical verification. 2) Religion is speculation without attempts at verification. 3) Faith isn't speculation as it requires no proof. It's our fundamental premises that make it difficult for us to agree on this issue. I lack certain a priori assumptions that you would seem to live your life by. There is going to be a Necessary disconnect there. Trying to box in words like science, religion, and faith with your own personal assertions when they already have clear definitions is a fruitless exercise. The fundamental premises that "prevents agreement" (lol) is your openly demeaning and disparaging contempt and disdain for anyone who claims to have faith, particularly Christians.

As you wish...

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: For some reason, people get scared when someone else has a different "theory" than them.  And they get all up in arms about it.  I don't care how old people think the earth is, as long as they admit it's their "theory".  Alot of the traditional scientific people seem to think there "theory's" are fact.   Because they were there to use their scientific method when the world began.  NOT. Your statements show that you have no clue how science works and that you're incapable of the degree of abstraction necessary for it. I entertain the possibility that everything every religionist everywhere says is true because you can't prove a negative. The difference between faith and science is evidence. Every religion since the beginning of time has the same amount and quality of evidence while science continues to accumulate verifiable and reproducible evidence. You stick with your 2,000 year old user's manual and I'll stick with my attempts to understand reality empirically. You know, science. Science and Christianity are not mutually exclusive realms of academic study.  History is evidence.  The Bible (as a historical text) has been proven right EVERY time its stories have been examined - often after naysayers have pointed to the lack of "evidence" for the stories, archeological digs have unearthed the proof.   The Christian religion has MUCH empirical evidence associated with it.  I understand how solid you believe your understanding of Christianity to be - I assure you, it (your understanding) is far more fragile than you think.  Much of the scientific method and methods you use today are derived and passed down through the Catholic Church - because we want to be able to reconcile our intellect with the wonders we have seen.  Science is the way to further our understanding of the Glory of God's creation - it is not some slovenly attempt by the currently highest form of life to reduce the gas mileage on their SUV.   Matt

You need to clearly split two different concepts here:

1.  The bible was written in historical times, thus it stands to reason that archaeological evidence will confirm certain historical elements of the Bible, or any other religious text for that matter.  In other words, finding the city of Jericho only confirmed that the historical city existed and that it was destroyed, it does not confirm that the blowing of horns brought down the walls.  Likewise, there is ample historical evidence that Jesus existed.  There is not, however, any historical evidence to show that Jesus was the son of God.  Just because a text contains confirmation that people, places and things existed, it does not mean that the mythos surrounding them is true.

2.  The "miracles" of the Bible and the stories of God's hand touching the lives of people are completely different than the physical proof of the existence of people, place and things.  You cannot extrapolate the MEANING, PURPOSE and CAUSES of things by arguing that those things existed unless you have physical and/or scientific proof to show that causation.  For example, there is no doubt that Jesus existed and that he walked the Earth 2,000 years ago.  His existence and the existence of his followers does not confirm that miracles happened or that he was the son of God.  Likewise, simply writing something down does not make it fact.  Instead, it makes it opinion or speculation.  If, for example, you were able to locate the Arc of the Covenant, it would not prove that God gave the contents to man...unless that physical piece of evidence had characteristics which could not be explained by science.  As of yet, I have never seen a piece of physical evidence to prove that there is anything supernatural in this world.

With that being said, I hold myself out to be a strong Christian.  I believe that the stories in the Bible are largely allegorical and that those stories which science cannot disprove may very well be miracles.  

The problem that I have is with those persons that try to distort the facts to fit a narrow minded concept that the Bible is infallible.  I think it is unnecessary and that it does more harm than good.  In fact, I believe that absurd notions such as "young earth creationism" and the co-existence of dinosaurs and man drive more people from religion than it attracts to it because it makes educated and intelligent people think that Christians are crazy.

I honestly just have no idea why some people's faith is so fragile and tenuous that they have to make such absurd excuses for what, in reality, is just an attempt by early man to explain nature.  In my view, God intended us to gain knowledge as a species and to explain our natural world.  I think the complex story of the evolution of life, medicine, physics and science as a whole are much more amazing than simplistic stories written down thousands of years ago by the same people that didn't want you to cut your beard because it was an affront to God.

Always remember, absolutism on either side is the downfall of all reason.

from troubl3shooter Look, I made no positive assertions regarding dinosaurs being in the Bible and there being science in the Bible, you did. I asked for citations, which you failed to produce. Let's just drop it in this thread since it's not your thread to open.

you cant be scared your whole life. but seriously man, Lets just have a friendly debate. i'll be waiting for you and brucers99. the thread is open.

The Christian religion has MUCH empirical evidence associated with it.  I understand how solid you believe your understanding of Christianity to be - I assure you, it (your understanding) is far more fragile than you think.  Much of the scientific method and methods you use today are derived and passed down through the Catholic Church - because we want to be able to reconcile our intellect with the wonders we have seen.  Science is the way to further our understanding of the Glory of God's creation - it is not some slovenly attempt by the currently highest form of life to reduce the gas mileage on their SUV.   Matt

well said

Quoted: MOST people who believe that the Word of God is infalable believe that the world is about 6K years old.  MOST believe that the dinosaurs stopped getting large and were normal sized lizards and/or died out shortly after the flood. You might want to change how you blanket statement these people.

A few questions:
Why do these people ignore radiocarbon dating?
Why do these people ignore the evidence that dinosaurs are not related to lizards, but are instead related to birds?

And lastly, when you say dinosaurs "stopped getting large" are you trying to say that they EVOLVED?

Quoted: ya'll are so lame. why cant people be intelligent and discuss facts and not opinion. this thread got off topic quick and turned into a pissin match. Heres a few FACTS about Dinos if someone wants to open their mind enough to listen. Dinosaurs were just big lizards.

You say you want to keep this discussion fact based yet you quote religious texts and claim dinosaurs were lizards.
A religious text is taken on faith and it cannot be proven.
Facts indeed.

I have respect for someone who says "I only accept the Bible as the basis for knowledge, this is my opinion on the matter."
However, when you start to call faith "facts" that is when I get irritated.

Quoted: The Christian religion has MUCH empirical evidence associated with it.  I understand how solid you believe your understanding of Christianity to be - I assure you, it (your understanding) is far more fragile than you think.  Much of the scientific method and methods you use today are derived and passed down through the Catholic Church - because we want to be able to reconcile our intellect with the wonders we have seen.  Science is the way to further our understanding of the Glory of God's creation - it is not some slovenly attempt by the currently highest form of life to reduce the gas mileage on their SUV.   Matt well said

That door swings both ways, buddy.  Just remember that I'm always willing to change my beliefs to fit newly discovered scientific facts.  Are you willing to change your beliefs?  Are you flexible in your interpretations?  Do you believe that there is ONE, INFALLIBLE source of knowledge relative to this issue?  

So...who has the fragile and inflexible belief system...you or me?

Quoted: Quoted: MOST people who believe that the Word of God is infalable believe that the world is about 6K years old.  MOST believe that the dinosaurs stopped getting large and were normal sized lizards and/or died out shortly after the flood. You might want to change how you blanket statement these people. A few questions: Why do these people ignore radiocarbon dating? Why do these people ignore the evidence that dinosaurs are not related to lizards, but are instead related to birds? And lastly, when you say dinosaurs "stopped getting large" are you trying to say that they EVOLVED?

Radiocarbon dating is rejected by scientists after about 50000 years. It is inaccurate because the carbon-14 has a half-life of 5,700 years. So if you understand this, then you understand that there is a point where it cannot be measured. that point is roughly 50000 years.

Also, in order for it to work even in the 50000 years, you have to know if the rate of decay, amount of C-14 in the atmosphere, etc. has always been the same, which nobody does. Nice try though.  

Also, your belief about dinosaurs being related to birds has been proven incorrect years ago. you undoubtedly are referring to archaeopteryx. just google "archaeopteryx fraud" if you dont believe me. its not your fault though, its still in the textbooks.

any more? this is fun!!

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: For some reason, people get scared when someone else has a different "theory" than them.  And they get all up in arms about it.  I don't care how old people think the earth is, as long as they admit it's their "theory".  Alot of the traditional scientific people seem to think there "theory's" are fact.   Because they were there to use their scientific method when the world began.  NOT. Your statements show that you have no clue how science works and that you're incapable of the degree of abstraction necessary for it. I entertain the possibility that everything every religionist everywhere says is true because you can't prove a negative. The difference between faith and science is evidence. Every religion since the beginning of time has the same amount and quality of evidence while science continues to accumulate verifiable and reproducible evidence. You stick with your 2,000 year old user's manual and I'll stick with my attempts to understand reality empirically. You know, science. Science and Christianity are not mutually exclusive realms of academic study.  History is evidence.  The Bible (as a historical text) has been proven right EVERY time its stories have been examined - often after naysayers have pointed to the lack of "evidence" for the stories, archeological digs have unearthed the proof.   The Christian religion has MUCH empirical evidence associated with it.  I understand how solid you believe your understanding of Christianity to be - I assure you, it (your understanding) is far more fragile than you think.  Much of the scientific method and methods you use today are derived and passed down through the Catholic Church - because we want to be able to reconcile our intellect with the wonders we have seen.  Science is the way to further our understanding of the Glory of God's creation - it is not some slovenly attempt by the currently highest form of life to reduce the gas mileage on their SUV.   Matt You need to clearly split two different concepts here: 1.  The bible was written in historical times, thus it stands to reason that archaeological evidence will confirm certain historical elements of the Bible, or any other religious text for that matter.  In other words, finding the city of Jericho only confirmed that the historical city existed and that it was destroyed, it does not confirm that the blowing of horns brought down the walls.  Likewise, there is ample historical evidence that Jesus existed.  There is not, however, any historical evidence to show that Jesus was the son of God.  Just because a text contains confirmation that people, places and things existed, it does not mean that the mythos surrounding them is true. 2.  The "miracles" of the Bible and the stories of God's hand touching the lives of people are completely different than the physical proof of the existence of people, place and things.  You cannot extrapolate the MEANING, PURPOSE and CAUSES of things by arguing that those things existed unless you have physical and/or scientific proof to show that causation.  For example, there is no doubt that Jesus existed and that he walked the Earth 2,000 years ago.  His existence and the existence of his followers does not confirm that miracles happened or that he was the son of God.  Likewise, simply writing something down does not make it fact.  Instead, it makes it opinion or speculation.  If, for example, you were able to locate the Arc of the Covenant, it would not prove that God gave the contents to man...unless that physical piece of evidence had characteristics which could not be explained by science.  As of yet, I have never seen a piece of physical evidence to prove that there is anything supernatural in this world. With that being said, I hold myself out to be a strong Christian.  I believe that the stories in the Bible are largely allegorical and that those stories which science cannot disprove may very well be miracles.   The problem that I have is with those persons that try to distort the facts to fit a narrow minded concept that the Bible is infallible.  I think it is unnecessary and that it does more harm than good.  In fact, I believe that absurd notions such as "young earth creationism" and the co-existence of dinosaurs and man drive more people from religion than it attracts to it because it makes educated and intelligent people think that Christians are crazy. I honestly just have no idea why some people's faith is so fragile and tenuous that they have to make such absurd excuses for what, in reality, is just an attempt by early man to explain nature.  In my view, God intended us to gain knowledge as a species and to explain our natural world.  I think the complex story of the evolution of life, medicine, physics and science as a whole are much more amazing than simplistic stories written down thousands of years ago by the same people that didn't want you to cut your beard because it was an affront to God. Always remember, absolutism on either side is the downfall of all reason.

Circumstantial evidence has merit.  It is in our own judicial system (which I admit is not perfect) and I believe has been used in other judicial systems for a long time now.  Circumstantial evidence does prove that Jesus was the Son of God.  And miracles did happen.  BUT, you have to take on faith that the written word is solid.  I believe it to be.  

People of all kinds are interested in the truth.  And because NONE OF US WERE THERE TO CONFIRM ANY OF THE THEORIES, we have to take on faith many things.  I don't believe one side to be more ignorant than the other.  But there are a good deal of smart minds that believe in both sides of the issue.  The disdain that some of you guys show for an opposite theory is disrespectful.  What does it edify to talk like that?  Do you think it makes yourselves look smarter?  The problem is either theory starts with a completely different belief in the very beginning of using any scientific method.  If you believe the world is 50 zillion years old, you will set out to prove this.  Yet you can really only go back so far.  And how far is that??????  It is my opinion that you can only go back as far as the written word.  That's why the term PRE HISTORY is used when talking about things that happened supposedly 60,000 years ago or so.

Quoted: Quoted: ya'll are so lame. why cant people be intelligent and discuss facts and not opinion. this thread got off topic quick and turned into a pissin match. Heres a few FACTS about Dinos if someone wants to open their mind enough to listen. Dinosaurs were just big lizards. You say you want to keep this discussion fact based yet you quote religious texts and claim dinosaurs were lizards. A religious text is taken on faith and it cannot be proven. Facts indeed. I have respect for someone who says "I only accept the Bible as the basis for knowledge, this is my opinion on the matter." However, when you start to call faith "facts" that is when I get irritated.

Again (5th time now), i cannot prove my theory, I admit that. all i do is provide evidence to support a possibility. This is more than you or anyone else has done. The facts that I state are simply the evidence.

Carbon dating is not accurate - Fact

The dinosaurs related to birds theory being proven wrong years ago - Fact

I have more if you like, but im trying to give your side a chance 1st.

I cant help that the evidence overwhelmingly supports my theory and not yours. Sorry.

Quoted: Circumstantial evidence has merit.  It is in our own judicial system (which I admit is not perfect) and I believe has been used in other judicial systems for a long time now.  Circumstantial evidence does prove that Jesus was the Son of God.  And miracles did happen.  BUT, you have to take on faith that the written word is solid.  I believe it to be.   People of all kinds are interested in the truth.  And because NONE OF US WERE THERE TO CONFIRM ANY OF THE THEORIES, we have to take on faith many things.  I don't believe one side to be more ignorant than the other.  But there are a good deal of smart minds that believe in both sides of the issue.  The disdain that some of you guys show for an opposite theory is disrespectful.  What does it edify to talk like that?  Do you think it makes yourselves look smarter?  The problem is either theory starts with a completely different belief in the very beginning of using any scientific method.  If you believe the world is 50 zillion years old, you will set out to prove this.  Yet you can really only go back so far.  And how far is that??????  It is my opinion that you can only go back as far as the written word.  That's why the term PRE HISTORY is used when talking about things that happened supposedly 60,000 years ago or so.

I would be very appreciative if you would provide me with the circumstancial evidence and logical analysis that you claim makes a case for the existence of Biblical miracles and which would also tend to show that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.  

Luckily, since I'm a lawyer, I'm a pretty good judge of circumstancial evidence.  You just make your case and we'll use the prevailing legal standard of circumstancial evidence together to test the strength of your argument.

I honestly (no sarcasm here) can't wait to really get into this...it should be interesting.  I'll just reiterate that, in regards to my personal faith, I do not require any "proof" (circumstancial or otherwise) to believe that Jesus was the Son of God.  

I'll say it again...I think that most of these methods of trying trying to prove the unprovable are more harmful than helpful to our faith, but you can certainly give it a shot.  You may have the answer.

Quoted: I'll say it again...I think that most of these methods of trying trying to prove the unprovable are more harmful than helpful to our faith, but you can certainly give it a shot.  You may have the answer.

I've personally never been to the galapogos islands to see the turtles Darwin used to make his initial hypothesis regarding evolution.

I've never been to the moon.

I've never personally seen the plethora of life at the bottom of the sea floor.

I've never personally seen the time differential induced by varying gravity fields...

I have FAITH in the men and women who have spent their lives proving this shit that they are correct.  

Science REQUIRES faith.  Your faith is simply placed in men.  No?  Their results are repeatable?  Why are their results repeatable?  You have faith that the world will behave according to the rules of Creation from one moment to the next.  The entirety of science is underpinned by faith...
Matt

This will take me some time.  But have you ever heard of Josh McDowell?  

Quoted: Quoted: Circumstantial evidence has merit.  It is in our own judicial system (which I admit is not perfect) and I believe has been used in other judicial systems for a long time now.  Circumstantial evidence does prove that Jesus was the Son of God.  And miracles did happen.  BUT, you have to take on faith that the written word is solid.  I believe it to be.   People of all kinds are interested in the truth.  And because NONE OF US WERE THERE TO CONFIRM ANY OF THE THEORIES, we have to take on faith many things.  I don't believe one side to be more ignorant than the other.  But there are a good deal of smart minds that believe in both sides of the issue.  The disdain that some of you guys show for an opposite theory is disrespectful.  What does it edify to talk like that?  Do you think it makes yourselves look smarter?  The problem is either theory starts with a completely different belief in the very beginning of using any scientific method.  If you believe the world is 50 zillion years old, you will set out to prove this.  Yet you can really only go back so far.  And how far is that??????  It is my opinion that you can only go back as far as the written word.  That's why the term PRE HISTORY is used when talking about things that happened supposedly 60,000 years ago or so. I would be very appreciative if you would provide me with the circumstancial evidence and logical analysis that you claim makes a case for the existence of Biblical miracles and which would also tend to show that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.   Luckily, since I'm a lawyer, I'm a pretty good judge of circumstancial evidence.  You just make your case and we'll use the prevailing legal standard of circumstancial evidence together to test the strength of your argument. I honestly (no sarcasm here) can't wait to really get into this...it should be interesting.  I'll just reiterate that, in regards to my personal faith, I do not require any "proof" (circumstancial or otherwise) to believe that Jesus was the Son of God.   I'll say it again...I think that most of these methods of trying trying to prove the unprovable are more harmful than helpful to our faith, but you can certainly give it a shot.  You may have the answer.

way to change the subject. just like a lawyer.

there are over 300 recorded accounts of Jesus Christ being seen alive and well after his crucifixion. is that uh... sir cum stanchal enough?

I think he knew I wasn't a lawyer and he is trying to call me out.  I'm man enough to admit I don't know it all, but I believe I can get the info asked for.  I was thinking that several witnesses are counted for circumstantial evidence, but to be honest I was not completely sure.  I was going to refer to a book.

I think he knew I wasn't a lawyer and he is trying to call me out.  I'm man enough to admit I don't know it all, but I believe I can get the info asked for.  I was thinking that several witnesses are counted for circumstantial evidence, but to be honest I was not completely sure.  I was going to refer to a book.

Quoted: I think he knew I wasn't a lawyer and he is trying to call me out.  I'm man enough to admit I don't know it all, but I believe I can get the info asked for.  I was thinking that several witnesses are counted for circumstantial evidence, but to be honest I was not completely sure.  I was going to refer to a book.

If he is  a Lawyer that does not mean he is a good judge.

DOH!

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Circumstantial evidence has merit.  It is in our own judicial system (which I admit is not perfect) and I believe has been used in other judicial systems for a long time now.  Circumstantial evidence does prove that Jesus was the Son of God.  And miracles did happen.  BUT, you have to take on faith that the written word is solid.  I believe it to be.   People of all kinds are interested in the truth.  And because NONE OF US WERE THERE TO CONFIRM ANY OF THE THEORIES, we have to take on faith many things.  I don't believe one side to be more ignorant than the other.  But there are a good deal of smart minds that believe in both sides of the issue.  The disdain that some of you guys show for an opposite theory is disrespectful.  What does it edify to talk like that?  Do you think it makes yourselves look smarter?  The problem is either theory starts with a completely different belief in the very beginning of using any scientific method.  If you believe the world is 50 zillion years old, you will set out to prove this.  Yet you can really only go back so far.  And how far is that??????  It is my opinion that you can only go back as far as the written word.  That's why the term PRE HISTORY is used when talking about things that happened supposedly 60,000 years ago or so. I would be very appreciative if you would provide me with the circumstancial evidence and logical analysis that you claim makes a case for the existence of Biblical miracles and which would also tend to show that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.   Luckily, since I'm a lawyer, I'm a pretty good judge of circumstancial evidence.  You just make your case and we'll use the prevailing legal standard of circumstancial evidence together to test the strength of your argument. I honestly (no sarcasm here) can't wait to really get into this...it should be interesting.  I'll just reiterate that, in regards to my personal faith, I do not require any "proof" (circumstancial or otherwise) to believe that Jesus was the Son of God.   I'll say it again...I think that most of these methods of trying trying to prove the unprovable are more harmful than helpful to our faith, but you can certainly give it a shot.  You may have the answer. way to change the subject. just like a lawyer. there are over 300 recorded accounts of Jesus Christ being seen alive and well after his crucifixion. is that uh... sir cum stanchal enough?

Is there any physical evidence of this?  What are the 300 accounts that you refer to?  Were they written by objective sources, or were they written by people with an agenda?

Quoted: Quoted: I think he knew I wasn't a lawyer and he is trying to call me out.  I'm man enough to admit I don't know it all, but I believe I can get the info asked for.  I was thinking that several witnesses are counted for circumstantial evidence, but to be honest I was not completely sure.  I was going to refer to a book. If he is  a Lawyer that does not mean he is a good judge.

Lol, I never said that I would be.  I wasn't the person that brought up the validity of circumstancial evidence, though.  If you want to play that game and invoke the legal system as a basis for proving something, then you had better be prepared to play the game.

Quoted: I think he knew I wasn't a lawyer and he is trying to call me out.  I'm man enough to admit I don't know it all, but I believe I can get the info asked for.  I was thinking that several witnesses are counted for circumstantial evidence, but to be honest I was not completely sure.  I was going to refer to a book.

I'd still like to know what your sources are.

heres one. just let me know if you want more. there is no shortage.

Josephus - a 1st century jewish historian who has written many accounts of his days said this

"About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man.  For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had  first come to love him did not cease.  He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him.  And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared."
                               - Jewish Antiquities, 18.3.3 §63

[

Quoted: heres one. just let me know if you want more. there is no shortage. Josephus - a 1st century jewish historian who has written many accounts of his days said this "About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man.  For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had  first come to love him did not cease.  He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him.  And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared."                                - Jewish Antiquities, 18.3.3 §63

Nevermind...I found it.  I was looking in the wrong book.  

As I said before, there is no question that Josephus wrote about Jesus.  I'm wondering what your analysis of this is and what you think that it proves.  If you read my earlier post, you will see that I do not question that Jesus existed as an historical figure.  I will add that I also do not question that people believed at the time that he was the Christ and that he could perform miracles.  What you quoted does nothing more than confirm what is already in the Bible.  

It just doesn't PROVE anything, other than that Jesus existed and that people believed in him.  The question of whether Jesus existed isn't at issue here.  The problem is that you are claiming that you have PROOF that Jesus performed miracles and that he was the Son of God.

The evidence that you have presented, and are likely to present in other posts, only proves that contemporaries of Jesus believed that he was the Son of God and that he performed miracles.  It does not prove the TRUTH of those things.

I will also add that if the standard of TRUTH is having contemporaries write about you and say that you did amazing, miraculous things, then your logical device does nothing more than prove that Islam, Buddhism and most of the world's other major religions are true and correct ways to salvation.

look man, i know you lawyers can nitpick to death. cant you just say "thanks for taking the time to research that"

Just go to your local library and look at books about biblical history, or try to just google "personal written accounts of Jesus" or something like that.

you act like im making this up as i go.

Quoted: look man, i know you lawyers can nitpick to death. cant you just say "thanks for taking the time to research that" Just go to your local library and look at books about biblical history, or try to just google "personal written accounts of Jesus" or something like that. you act like im making this up as i go.

I wasn't trying to nitpick...and get off of the lawyer hating.  I just couldn't find it in my hard copy because I had pulled the wrong book.  My fault.  See my post, above, though for analysis.

Quoted: Let's try and keep this on topic.

Ummm... on-topic was answered on the first page.  Now, it's a discussion... sometimes such discussions branch out.  
Matt

Quoted: [ Quoted: heres one. just let me know if you want more. there is no shortage. Josephus - a 1st century jewish historian who has written many accounts of his days said this "About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man.  For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had  first come to love him did not cease.  He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him.  And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared."                                - Jewish Antiquities, 18.3.3 §63 Nevermind...I found it.  I was looking in the wrong book.   As I said before, there is no question that Josephus wrote about Jesus.  I'm wondering what your analysis of this is and what you think that it proves.  If you read my earlier post, you will see that I do not question that Jesus existed as an historical figure.  I will add that I also do not question that people believed at the time that he was the Christ and that he could perform miracles.  What you quoted does nothing more than confirm what is already in the Bible.   It just doesn't PROVE anything, other than that Jesus existed and that people believed in him.  The question of whether Jesus existed isn't at issue here.  The problem is that you are claiming that you have PROOF that Jesus performed miracles and that he was the Son of God. The evidence that you have presented, and are likely to present in other posts, only proves that contemporaries of Jesus believed that he was the Son of God and that he performed miracles.  It does not prove the TRUTH of those things. I will also add that if the standard of TRUTH is having contemporaries write about you and say that you did amazing, miraculous things, then your logical device does nothing more than prove that Islam, Buddhism and most of the world's other major religions are true and correct ways to salvation.

I never claimed I had any proof of Jesus performing miracles. remember "circumstantial evidence"? The ones that wrote about it first hand had the proof.

and dont leave out the part where he said "he appeared to them...restored to life"

All you do is keep typing words without really saying anything. Im really not trying to be rude, but it is hard to tell what YOU believe and where you stand.

I will add once again that, for me, proof of these things is immaterial.  You need to stop claiming that you have historical proof of the TRUTH of these things and just believe in them.  Faith that Jesus is the Son of God is enough for me.  Trying to bring archaeology, physics or any any other science into this does nothing other than cheapen your beliefs.  

Archaeology and historical analysis can prove that people, places and things existed, but it will never prove the truth of those things.  If you try to claim that they do, then you will do nothing other than drive more scientific thinkers from religion.  Keep the two separate.  

An even greater sin against both God and science is when a person fails to recognize that the Bible is a subtle instrument which is not meant to explain the natural world, the age of the earth or the creation of the Universe.  There is absolutely nothing in the Bible that contradicts with science unless you are so narrow minded that you believe that the Bible is the ONLY source of knowledge in the world.

In other words, instead of trying to look to the Bible for evidence that dinosaurs existed, why is it so hard to accept that the Bible just doesn't mention it because it isn't important to religion.  God's plan to create the world may have called for 6 days of creation or 6 trillion years of creation.  It just isn't important.  The bottom line is that he made it.  My personal view is that he took a real long road to make it, but he made it nonetheless.  

Here's the book I was referring to. the book i'm talking about

If you want you can buy it and see if you agree with this guy.  You're smarter than me so you can use your own discretion on it.  

Quoted: Here's the book I was referring to. the book i'm talking about If you want you can buy it and see if you agree with this guy.  You're smarter than me so you can use your own discretion on it.

I'll check it out.  I would recommend that you check this out:

Genesis and the Big Bang:  The Discovery of Harmony Between Modern Science and the Bible

What Schroeder argues, basically, is that the biblical account of creation in six days can be read as taking place over six _literal_ days -- and that not only does this reading fail to conflict with modern science, indeed science itself supports that reading. The solution? The six days are "God's time," reckoned from within one frame of reference, and the millions of years with which science deals are "earth time," reckoned from within another. The two are reconciled by the theory of relativity. Moreover, this reading is firmly grounded in traditional Jewish texts that predated the theory of relativity by one or two thousand years. I'll let Schroeder fill you in on the details. But whether those details are sound or not, his _approach_ is refreshingly sane.

Quoted: I will add once again that, for me, proof of these things is immaterial.  You need to stop claiming that you have historical proof of the TRUTH of these things and just believe in them.  Faith that Jesus is the Son of God is enough for me.  Trying to bring archaeology, physics or any any other science into this does nothing other than cheapen your beliefs.   Archaeology and historical analysis can prove that people, places and things existed, but it will never prove the truth of those things.  If you try to claim that they do, then you will do nothing other than drive more scientific thinkers from religion.  Keep the two separate.   An even greater sin against both God and science is when a person fails to recognize that the Bible is a subtle instrument which is not meant to explain the natural world, the age of the earth or the creation of the Universe.  There is absolutely nothing in the Bible that contradicts with science unless you are so narrow minded that you believe that the Bible is the ONLY source of knowledge in the world. In other words, instead of trying to look to the Bible for evidence that dinosaurs existed, why is it so hard to accept that the Bible just doesn't mention it because it isn't important to religion.  God's plan to create the world may have called for 6 days of creation or 6 trillion years of creation.  It just isn't important.  The bottom line is that he made it.  My personal view is that he took a real long road to make it, but he made it nonetheless.

you need to re-read this thread from the beginning.

1st - dinosaurs are mentioned in the bible - read pages 1 and 2 of this post.

2nd - I never said that the Bible contradicts with science, you are twisting my words, which is understandable for a lawyer (sorry, i had to). read my posts and you will see that. But I do say that the bible contradicts with the Evolution theory, which is not science.

I invite you to a thread I started today, in the religion section, about debating creation and evolution, a young and old earth. Its called "creation vs. evolution". Since Evolution is a broad subject, I have defined it for the terms of discussion.

Evolution is a theory. Science is the study of things that can be tested, observed etc. Evolution cannot be tested or observed. It is a belief and is faith based, therefore in that sense, it is also a religion. If you want to debate any aspect of evolution or a young earth, I am happy to.