nomercy Wrote:Indeed, scientists' theorems can be false, but they put much more work into discovering them. I never claimed the man Jesus was false, simply the deity. Jesus himself was true, he was indeed crucified by the Romans, according to the books I've read on the subject. However everything after that, that is to say the resurrection, the floods, the parting of the Red Sea, none of it has proof enough to stand up in the history books. There simply is not commendable evidence that such things as those happened.
However, there are theorems that are quite a bit more truthful-seeming, to my ears. One example, the resurrection of Jesus. There are those who believe he was not dead when he was entombed. This would be ample proof to say that he did not in fact die there. However, there is the factor of the death certificate drawn up by the Roman emperor at that time, which states Jesus died.
Your assumption that my quotes on Darwinism are taken from Darwinist websites... I've done in-depth research on the subject myself, so I do believe I know what I'm talking about. Your aforementioned statement of "why don't you arrange a place to meet so i can kill you" is tantamount to a death threat and is, now, punishable by law. However sinceyou would have no hope of harming me, I won't take it too seriously. Yet.
well actuallly jesus would have had to have died. mainly becuase roman executioners were very efficient. if anyone came down from the cross alive they themselves would be killed. next comes the empty tomb. since Jesus was killed he clearly had a tomb. well if the tomb as indeed empty then the disciples would have had to steal the body unless he rose form the dead. well Jesus was proclaiming that he was the son of God. people would have made it so that his disciples could not steal the body. now they had no oppurtunity and no motivation. then the stone becomes rolled away and the body is gone. in order for this to happen the guards which had swords and spears would need to be dead and depending on how deep the stone was into the cave you might actually have to be inside the cave to roll the stone away. possibly the wrong tomb? no chance. otherwise history would have recorded that. next if any other document besides what the bible said is true then the disciples gave their testaments with their lives. now while it is true that people will die for something that they believe to be true not many will die for something that they KNOW to be false. if Jesus hadn't risen from the dead then wouldn't one of them have said why should I die for a lie about a dead man? you have to admit this is pretty good proof for the resurection. trust me tehre is no chance jesus could have lived through the crucifixion. the empty tomb is a problem for all scientists who want to disprove christianity. if you can prove jesus never rose from the dead then you can disprove christianity.
I wasn't threatening you when I wrote the death thing. I was merely saying that would be the easiest way to prove my point or your point. I don't have a problem with you and I definitely don't want to kill you. I was only saying that that would be the easiest way top prove either of our points.
also about humans being random mutations. we are very very complex creatures. random and complex are two entirely different contradictory things. random is basically mere chance. if something is complicated then it probably didn't happen.
one thing about darwinism that does have a gaping hole in it is how did the first whatever it was whether it was a cell or molecule or whatever. how did it get there? even if it was there what would the chances be of it existing for very long? it is barely feasible for the thing to exist. then it is goign to take forever for the earth to be made. then there are always the chances of it being destroyed somehow. next the sun and the earth have to be about exactly where thy are now to even support life. then there obviously has to be oxygen in order for there to be an ozone layer to blok out UV rays. Even if darwinism has evidene in it's favor it is implausible for a niverse like ours to exist without guidance of some sort. you have to admit it puts a hole in the darwinism theory. one nmore thing darwinism can't explain is how some things happen. there a medical impossibilities that I don't think darwinism can explain. then there are physical impossibilities that happen with people. unless there is a God none of these things make sense. for examplle soem people report being tugged by something as soon as they are about to die that obviously made it so they didn't die. some people report things going through other things. so either that si proof for the existence of God or proof of the existence of ghosts that can possess anything and make it do what they want. and they are very nice to humans. I think the God hypothesis is a much more reasonable conclusion.
one piece of evidence for the worldwide flood may be how many different religions have tales of a worldwide flood. if a lot of different ones have this tale this is most likely a historical truth. unless somehow all the different people from each religion got together and said. let's put a tale about a worldwide flood into all of our religions. while not great proof it is something to consider.
the parting of the red sea is something I cannot prove happened. however If an almighty god does exist then it wouldn't be very hard to part a sea.seeing as it would be part of his creation it would not be hard to manipulate.
one thing that disproves polytheism is ockham's razor. another thing that does is every religion with multiple gods describes them as being much like humans. irritable, spiteful things like that. next if the god of fire and god of water got into a fight then one of them would be dead eventually and one of those things would be gone permanently. pretty much disproves polytheism. therefore there is really only atheism and monotheism that are left. I know the polytheism thing has nothing to do with your argument I'm just saying one reason that monotheism makes more sense than some other faiths.
also i'm not really bored I was just tired when I wrote that. when you're tired you feel bored. or at least I do.
I also never said you don't know what you are talking about. if you didn't then you would have conceded long ago.
RIP nomercy.