11 Aug 12
Originally posted by RJHindsBut "spiritual matters" can just be anything anyone wants to think or say by way of speculation and superstition using purely subjective "evidence". What makes you think it is valid for you to apply your personal catchall "spiritual matters" thing to matters of science? We know that the Earth is billions of years old and that homo sapiens have existed for 200,000 years or so, and yet your personal catchall "spiritual matters" thing has you here, week in week out, denying it for purely religious reasons that bear no relation to the reality of what we have discovered and what we know. Why do you think it is somehow valid that your 'certainty' and 'sincerity' trumps the knowledge that has been gained by those members of mankind that are outside your religious mindset?
I have nothing against scientifically based deductions once the assumptions have been properly tested and established as scientifc facts. I even have faith in trust in good science. But there is another type of faith and trust that deals with spiritual matters that science does not touch with the scientific method. Science tests the truth of physical matters, not spiritual matters.
11 Aug 12
Originally posted by FMFWe don't know the Earth is billions of years old. That is simply a hypothesis that some evolutionists have stated and others, like you, keep repeating as if it is true. Scientist actually have no real evidence to prove man lived more than about 4 or 5 thousand years ago.
But "spiritual matters" can just be anything anyone wants to think or say by way of speculation and superstition using purely subjective "evidence". What makes you think it is valid for you to apply your personal catchall "spiritual matters" thing to matters of science? We know that the Earth is billions of years old and that homo sapiens have existed for 200,00 ...[text shortened]... has been gained by those members of mankind that are outside your religious mindset?
11 Aug 12
Originally posted by RJHindsSaying this may be an important part of your personal "spiritual matters" thing, but it does not affect the reality of what mankind knows about the past. I know you are really insistent and earnest about this, but no matter how deep your earnestness, it doesn't change anything that it is external to your personal thoughts and superstitions.
Scientist actually have no real evidence to prove man lived more than about 4 or 5 thousand years ago.
11 Aug 12
4 edits
Originally posted by FMFI don't believe in any superstitions. Belief in God and Christ is a religious belief, not a superstition.
Saying this may be an important part of your personal "spiritual matters" thing, but it does not affect the reality of what mankind knows about the past. I know you are really insistent and earnest about this, but no matter how deep your earnestness, it doesn't change anything that it is external to your personal thoughts and superstitions.
The following are examples of Superstions:
1. Believing that blowing out all of the candles on your birthday cake in one breath will cause your wish to come true.
2. Believing it is unlucky for a groom to see his bride, on the day of the wedding, before the ceremony starts.
3. Believing it is bad luck to walk under a ladder.
4. Believing it is bad luck for a cat to cross your path.
5. Believing that opening an umbrella inside the house brings bad luck.
6, Believing that breaking a mirror brings seven years bad luck.
7. Believing that carrying a certain object (lucky charm), like a rabbit's foot, brings good luck.
11 Aug 12
Originally posted by RJHindsIs it that you think you have scientific evidence that supports your claim that homo sapiens are only 5,000 years old, or is it that you refuse to accept any scientific evidence that does not comply with your claim that homo sapiens are only 5,000 years old?
Scientist actually have no real evidence to prove man lived more than about 4 or 5 thousand years ago.
11 Aug 12
Originally posted by FMFMy evidence is not scientific, but historical. The history as described in the Holy Bible seems to indicate mankind has existed for just a little over 6,000 years. There is no exact statement that makes it a historical fact and therefore, my believe is just an educated guess similiar to the guess made by scientists. However, I believe my educated guess is much more accurate and reliable. 😏
Is it that you think you have scientific evidence that supports your claim that homo sapiens are only 5,000 years old, or is it that you refuse to accept any scientific evidence that does not comply with your claim that homo sapiens are only 5,000 years old?
11 Aug 12
Originally posted by RJHindsWhat about Chinese historical evidence or that from India, the Indus valley and ancient languages like Sanskrit? There is a lot of evidence saying for instance, that the Sphinx is 8000 years old by itself and that wasn't made by the weather.
My evidence is not scientific, but historical. The history as described in the Holy Bible seems to indicate mankind has existed for just a little over 6,000 years. There is no exact statement that makes it a historical fact and therefore, my believe is just an educated guess similiar to the guess made by scientists. However, I believe my educated guess is much more accurate and reliable. 😏
The constrictors on your brain is astounding, but you don't even know it, being so profoundly brainwashed.
11 Aug 12
Originally posted by RJHinds8. believing that some guy who died on a cross can grant you immortality.
I don't believe in any superstitions. Belief in God and Christ is a religious belief, not a superstition.
The following are examples of Superstions:
1. Believing that blowing out all of the candles on your birthday cake in one breath will cause your wish to come true.
2. Believing it is unlucky for a groom to see his bride, on the day of the weddin ...[text shortened]... elieving that carrying a certain object (lucky charm), like a rabbit's foot, brings good luck.
11 Aug 12
Originally posted by RJHindsget your sciences right. it's actually geologists who discovered that the earth is billions of years old. and various cross-field sciences have tested and verified this information.
We don't know the Earth is billions of years old. That is simply a hypothesis that some evolutionists have stated and others, like you, keep repeating as if it is true. Scientist actually have no real evidence to prove man lived more than about 4 or 5 thousand years ago.
these discoveries and proofs happened long ago, but since you're still stuck in the writings of stone age primitive superstitious people, your scientific knowledge is outdated by about 6000 years.
11 Aug 12
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseHistory of China:
What about Chinese historical evidence or that from India, the Indus valley and ancient languages like Sanskrit? There is a lot of evidence saying for instance, that the Sphinx is 8000 years old by itself and that wasn't made by the weather.
The constrictors on your brain is astounding, but you don't even know it, being so profoundly brainwashed.
Chinese historical records reach back into the realm of legend, 5,000 years ago. It is impossible to cover even the major events of this ancient culture in a short space, but here are some highlights.
The first non-mythical dynasty to rule China was the Xia (2200- 1700 B.C.), founded by Emperor Yu. It was succeeded by the Shang Dynasty (1600-1046 B.C.), and then the Zhou Dynasty (1122-256 B.C.). Historical records are scanty for these ancient dynastic times.
http://asianhistory.about.com/od/china/p/ChinaProfile.htm
Any date only 5,000 years ago does not conflict with the Biblical history of man. So I see no problem with the history of man being in China 5,000 years ago. The date of 2200 B.C. is just fine with me.
History of India:
Ancient India:
Archaeological evidence of early modern humans in what is now India dates back 80,000 years. However, the first recorded civilization in the area appeared just over 5,000 years ago. This was the Indus Valley/Harappan Civilization, c. 3300-1900 BCE, in what is now Pakistan and northwestern India.
http://asianhistory.about.com/od/india/p/indiaprof.htm
Again, dates of about 3300-1900 BCE is no big problem for Biblical history of the Hebrews. We can ignore archaeological dates claiming unrealistic dates of 80,000 years, since we know of the tendency of archaeologists to overestimate the age of their finds to make them seem more important and there are no dates stamped on them as proof. Those extreme dates are nothing but exaggerated guesses.
The Great Sphinx of Giza:
The Great Sphinx of Giza (The Terrifying One), commonly referred to as the Sphinx, is a limestone statue of a reclining or couchant sphinx (a mythical creature with a lion's body and a human head) that stands on the Giza Plateau on the west bank of the Nile in Giza, Egypt.
It is the largest monolith statue in the world, standing 73.5 metres (241 ft) long, 19.3 metres (63 ft) wide, and 20.22 m (66.34 ft) high. It is the oldest known monumental sculpture, and is commonly believed to have been built by ancient Egyptians of the Old Kingdom during the reign of the pharaoh Khafra (c. 2558–2532 BC).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Sphinx_of_Giza
Again, Biblical history has no problem with the Sphinx being built about 2558–2532 BC.
11 Aug 12
Originally posted by VoidSpiritExcuse me. I thought Geology was a field of science too. But if they give bogus dates like the ones I have seen, then perhaps you are right and geologists are not scientists after all.
get your sciences right. it's actually geologists who discovered that the earth is billions of years old. and various cross-field sciences have tested and verified this information.
these discoveries and proofs happened long ago, but since you're still stuck in the writings of stone age primitive superstitious people, your scientific knowledge is outdated by about 6000 years.
11 Aug 12
Originally posted by RJHindsyou are not qualified to determine whatever dates they give are "bogus." you didn't even know that it was their scientific discipline involved in determining the age of the earth.
Excuse me. I thought Geology was a field of science too. But if they give bogus dates like the ones I have seen, then perhaps you are right and geologists are not scientists after all.
