Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   archaeology and evolution
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2325 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 16 of 96 (574506)
08-16-2010 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by archaeologist
08-16-2010 5:07 AM


archaeologist writes:
the babylonians had batteries thus they had electricity.
Evidence?
they (all ancients) had flush toilets thus they knew about germs, bacteria and viruses.
That's a stretch, what does having flush toilets have to do with knowing about viruses?
they had doctors and dentists thus they had theories of disease.
They sure did, they involved demons.
they may not have mentioned the word 'americas' but they traveled to the land, we have roman wrecks off the coast of south america
Evidence?
and they had astronomers who charted the stars which means neptune would be included for it is in the heavens as well.
Neptune cannot be seen with the naked eye, so no, they would not have charted it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by archaeologist, posted 08-16-2010 5:07 AM archaeologist has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-16-2010 4:08 PM Huntard has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2325 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 30 of 96 (574572)
08-16-2010 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Dr Adequate
08-16-2010 4:08 PM


Ah yes, the "pot with copper" shit. I was wondering if he was referring to that. Even if it can produce (very weak) electric current, it is not evidence that it was used as such. Nor is the electricity it can produce anywhere near useful to power anything. Also, they are not from the Babylonian era.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-16-2010 4:08 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2325 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 39 of 96 (574658)
08-17-2010 7:34 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by archaeologist
08-17-2010 7:19 AM


archaeologist writes:
some scholars may think this but they do not understand anything about the Bible and wouldn't know.
Of course this is not true, they are the ones that are right, and you, wantintg to lead people away from god, are the one that is wrong.
plus like i said before, scholars do not practice deiscernment and do not take into account all the false teachers who tried to change the Bible to fit their views and accept all mss.
They do, it is you who are a false teacher, who twists the bible to fit his view. How dare you lead people astray!
people did not like it when i used conservipedia, butit was handy.
That's becasue people know conservipedia lies. A lot. God doesn't like liars.
i do not like it when people use wikipedia.
That's because you want to lead people astray from the truth of god. Sinner!
that is one of the worst references anyone could use.
It is for sinners who like to hide the truth of god from people. For honest true believers however, wikipedia reveals the greatness of the lord. Which obviously, you want people to go without, so as to sin and keep sinning.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by archaeologist, posted 08-17-2010 7:19 AM archaeologist has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2325 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 42 of 96 (574663)
08-17-2010 7:46 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by archaeologist
08-17-2010 7:33 AM


archaeologist writes:
no that is not true though many minimalists and secular scholars think that.
Yes it is, as you would admit if you weren't doing satan's work. Heretic!
read pages 33-35 of The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel.
Lee Strobel is working for satan and lies. Burn in righteous fire!
NOW compare to Alexander's biography written by Arrian and Plutarch, that come sin at more than 400 years after his death. quite a difference.
What has Alexander got anything to with this? Heathen!
but it doesn't matter when they were written, the disciples and believers were preaching Jesus' life, death and ressurrection right after the last of those three thus all the eye witnesses were still alive and knew what transpired.
These "disciples" were telling a parable, as god has revealed. Don;t lead people into the lake of fire!
if the disciples were lying, then christianity would not have made it to the 2nd century WHEN all the opposition to the Bible and christians started to take hold. {after all the eye witnesses were dead}
THey weren't lying, they were telling a story. Which you would admit if you were not hell bent on corrupting peoples souls.
you do not get it nor do i think you want to.
It is you who does not want to get it, you like sinning to much!
first off the romans would have and did report what happened and they were given their orders, even though those orders meant they would face death for falling asleep on guard., second, it isn't remote for all it would take would be one or two to write that it didn't happen and it would be published because other people would want to stop tthe lie (if it were a lie) but since it was the truth--no reports, no contradictions of the disciples and we have Jesuss, his life and death and ressurrection as true.
True believers, that want people to see the glory of god know that the stories are just stories. People like you however, who want people to suffer for an eternity, deny this obvious truth.
you all think you think logically but you don't.
We do, it is you who doesn't. You know you don't, which is even worse. But because you like to sin so much, and a re doing satan's work, you keep doing it anyway.
with all the eye witnesses still alive, there was no need for the disciples to write it down but as the church grew, the need for a written record grew.
True believers know there never were any eyewitneses, as the stories were made up.
it is not hard to see why the delay and it was not decades later, you would be lucky if it were 2
True believers know it was at least 4 decades later. But sinners like you like to obfuscate that fact, because you want to keep people from the truth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by archaeologist, posted 08-17-2010 7:33 AM archaeologist has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2325 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 43 of 96 (574664)
08-17-2010 7:48 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by archaeologist
08-17-2010 7:37 AM


archaeologist writes:
you simply apply your own meaning to history whether it is inaccurate or very inaccurate.
As do you. It's just that you want to lead people away from god.
people in the ancient days were not dumb andknew what caused disease,
Yes, demons. Or if you mean something else, evidence please.
unfortunately, the dark ages left many europeans without this knowledge and they suffered from the plague.
They also thought it were demons.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by archaeologist, posted 08-17-2010 7:37 AM archaeologist has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2325 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 51 of 96 (574685)
08-17-2010 9:32 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by thingamabob
08-17-2010 9:28 AM


thingamabob writes:
Was Josephus a myth?
He did write about those events.
1) No, he didn't. Or it's very dubious at best.
2) That was, as JUC said, DECADES later.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by thingamabob, posted 08-17-2010 9:28 AM thingamabob has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2325 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 74 of 96 (575223)
08-19-2010 5:33 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by archaeologist
08-19-2010 5:24 AM


archaeologist writes:
how do you know you have josephus' original copy? maybe those greek mss. were changed by copyists?
We have the originals. It was promised they would never be changed.
how do you know they didn't? maybe their ocmments about it were edited out? maybe they wrote about it in works we do not have? or maybe they didn't need touse it in their works?
do you read long dead minds?
No, we know they weren't changed. We have the originals.
not true. i have books written about non-muslims writing about islam/mohammad.
And they claim that muhammad was a prophet of god? THE prophet, no less? Yet didn't convert?
church histories written by unbelievers, israeli histories written by non-israelies and non-believers.
And they all claimed that what those religions claimed was true, yet they decided not to convert to them?
just wrong and flies in the face of the best biblical scholarship today.
It was only partially wrong.
as is this.
No, that one is actually completely correct.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by archaeologist, posted 08-19-2010 5:24 AM archaeologist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by archaeologist, posted 08-19-2010 7:03 AM Huntard has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2325 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 76 of 96 (575236)
08-19-2010 7:21 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by archaeologist
08-19-2010 7:03 AM


I suggest you read my Message 431. Where I explain why I am posting the way I do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by archaeologist, posted 08-19-2010 7:03 AM archaeologist has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024