A Challenge For You Atheist Apologetics

[Inti]

Can you do it ?  I submit that my request to you [ atheists ] is just as ridiculous and yours was to ask we defend our beliefs without using the Bible.

Anyone care to have a go ?

Tim

Well it seems that I have managed to

[Bread_of_Life]

Inti,

If you need any info on methods of dating, including thermoluminescence (which is quite fascinating and versatile) and other methods of dating like radiocarbon dating, don't hesitate to get in touch.

Nik

[Inti]

Inti,

If you need any info on methods of dating, including thermoluminescence (which is quite fascinating and versatile) and other methods of dating like radiocarbon dating, don't hesitate to get in touch.

Nik

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks for the offer, I know vaguely about Radio Carbon dating, the basics where covered in the Physics I

Edited September 15, 2005 by Inti

[Bread_of_Life]

An excellent site you might want to visit is "radiometric dating: A Christian Perspective":

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

Although it doesn't cover every type of dating, it covers all the most common types that show that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old.

If you're really hardcore, you might want to purchase "The Age of the Earth" by G. Brent Dalrymple, although I'd only recommend it if you have a lot of time for such things!

If you have any specific questions on particular methods of dating, something maybe you didn't understand at first reading, just PM me and I'll be happy to explain.

[ted]

So, basically, the Christians cannot use the Bible as a reference for their claims and the Atheists cannot use scientific studies as their reference?

What's the fun if we can't tear down each other's evidence?

It all boils down to; however perfect or imperfect the Bible is perceived to be, Christians believe it. However perfect or imperfect scientific studies against it appear to be, non-believers believe them.

However long and entertaining this thread may turn out to be, I'm going to make a prediction: Not one person from either side is going to change their mind, nor be rattled in their faith of their evidence.

Anyone wanna bet?

t.

[Inti]

So, basically, the Christians cannot use the Bible as a reference for their claims and the Atheists cannot use scientific studies as their reference?

What's the fun if we can't tear down each other's evidence? 

This is starting to look like the Jets and the Sharks.

t.

This is what i'm trying to drum into you, the bible doesn't constitute scientific evidence.

Seriously how on earth can you believe that Humans live to ages greater than 500, and still have children?

The fact that there are so many contridictions in the Bible, not only shows it's inaccurate, but that it's been written by more than one author.

[Inti]

It all boils down to; however perfect or imperfect the Bible is perceived to be, Christians believe it. However perfect or imperfect scientific studies against it appear to be, non-believers believe them.

However long and entertaining this thread may turn out to be, I'm going to make a prediction: Not one person from either side is going to change their mind, nor be rattled in their faith of their evidence.

Thats exactly right, you take what you believe on faith. I like to work on fact. If the facts change, or get proved incorrect at a later date, as often happens in science, I won't cling to the old ideas because of faith. I'll move on, read up about the new theories and laws, and live a happy little life.

Edited September 15, 2005 by Inti

[ted]

The fact that there are so many contridictions in the Bible, not only shows it's inaccurate, but that it's been written by more than one author.

Of course it was written by more than one author. Some say it's up to around 40 different authors. How does that prove itself wrong or inaccurate?

Seriously how on earth can you believe that Humans live to ages greater than 500, and still have children?

Truth be known, I didn't, up until around five years ago. Seems I'm pretty ignorant to believe something like that, doesn't it? Maybe so.

Then again, the Bible also says that in the last days, people will scoff at it and turn away from it's teachings, and trust in their own knowledge and not in His Word.

Sounds pretty accurate to me, if indeed, we are nearing the last days that the Bible refers to. That's just one of the predictions it makes. Take a look around your world; notice an increase in wars or rumors of wars? Yup, that's in there too. How about floods? Droughts? Diseases? Famines? Earthquakes? How would they (the 40 or so authors) be able to predict these things and get most of them right so long ago?

The more I list them, the more I realize that maybe it is a pretty accurate set of writings.

Anyway....

Thats exactly right, you take what you believe on faith. I like to work on fact. If the facts change, or get proved incorrect at a later date, as often happens in science, I won't cling to the old ideas because of faith. I'll move on, read up about the new theories and laws, and live a happy little life.

You have faith in these "facts" and live a happy little life. Cool.

Until the facts change with new discoveries, but you then just change your mind along with the new discoveries. Great. Much to be expected. But, how does a fact change in the first place?

Secondly, if I was to tell you that the Bible "evolved" over many years (the facts have changed, you might say), would you then be prepared to accept it as true like you do with other facts?

Why or why not?

Personally, I think the Bible changed a bit over the years not because it is in fault, but because our understanding of what is in there, and what it may mean to us, has changed a bit due to more recent discoveries in the area of archeology and in discoveries of similar, but seemingly older text. Isn't that acceptable under your own rules that you stated in the above quote? Or am I missing something?

Are we, or are we not, allowed to change our minds when presented with newer discoveries, and still remain credible?

Now honestly, how can you believe, or have faith in, science, which brought you a flat earth as fact?

Do you see where I'm going with this? Sometimes, we just have to bite the bullet and understand that we may be wrong in what we believe to be true.

Now, can you show me, that after so many years of contradictions and changes to the Bible, where any of versions say that Jesus was not the Gift of God sent for the remission of our sins? Surely, by now, with all of our amassed intelligence, that one should be tossed out the window, right? Surely we can prove beyond any argument, that Jesus was not the Son of God, nor even God Himself.

Now, you brought up that you wouldn't cling to old ideas because you have a faith in them, implying that you would be willing to change your mind about a fact if it was proven not to be true. Can you show me exactly why I should discard my faith in God because the fact that He is real has been disproved?

I don't want to go to hell, so please, if you can show me a fact which proves it's not true, I'll simply not worry about it anymore.

If I'm trusting in a mythical figure, or at best, a simple man that people set up to be the Son of God falsely, then please, show me the proof, so I don't have to look stupid anymore.

This is what i'm trying to drum into you, the bible doesn't constitute scientific evidence.

Thank you for revealing your intentions, but maybe you should change your beat?

The Bible is not a science text book, but rather a revelation inspired by God, given to mankind so that we can understand His intentions concerning us. It gives us just enough understanding to trust in Him, and the rest remains in our faith in Him, for it is this faith that He is looking for in the first place, not an opportunity to prove His existence. He's done that by creating the air that you breath in the first place.

Have a good day!

t.

[Guest TheHope45]

I thought your post was a very enlightened one Ted, well thought out, with a very practical approach. I think all the people who are posting in this apologetics forum seem to have very intimate knowledge of the subjects that they are preaching about, whether science or the J man himself.

I'm kinda new to this stuff myself, more of a curious soul, but why is it that science can't just be figuring out the way in which God made things work? I mean he spoke things into existence, but they had to happen some and work somehow. Like if I make a lever and someone figures out that when I put force one side i can push greater weight up on the other side, that doesn't really mean that I didn't create it right? Maybe I am totally off track by why can't science just be the figuring out of God's work just like me watching the way someone runs and realizing God invented it to allow people to move from place to place?

Anyways, I could be completely wrong about this, but hey, we are all in search of the truth right? Once again I enjoy all the talents that each of you are putting forth whether in the service of the Lord or not, it is a still a beautiful thing to watch.

God Bless,

JD

[VRSpock]

Fact...science....math.......all here say....

Here's a problem to solve guys.

If 1*1=1 and 1*(-1)=-1 and (-1)*(-1)=1 then what does 1 * the square root of -1 = ????? what times itself equals -1 ??????

These are known as imagnary numbers....because it's impossible to represent the answer to this problem numerically. Yet we know the value is exists, because in simple analytical geometry x,y,z graphed equations containing a variable that involves the square root of a negative number in its value, we see the wave pattern generated by the equation equally displaced each time the imaginary numbers come up in the equation.

Tell me the exact value of the square root of negative one and I might consider science, math and the "laws" of this physical universe as anything other than childs play in the hands of God.

And no...it's not 42

holes...big gaping holes.

Edited September 16, 2005 by vrspock