As a continuation of the previous discussion.
Ok just some things. TLP and I decided to make a separate topic for the never ending discussion about religion. Everybody can join in, but expect some hard arguing from both sides!
The idea of this topic is that those who are willing to participate get the opportunity to do so and those who don't want to see it don't have to see it.
Ok just some things. TLP and I decided to make a separate topic for the never ending discussion about religion. Everybody can join in, but expect some hard arguing from both sides!
The idea of this topic is that those who are willing to participate get the opportunity to do so and those who don't want to see it don't have to see it.
[quote="TheLionPrince"]Yes, I know the term, "Mitochondrial Eve", doesn't refer to the biblical Eve. It's simply a scientific term that refers to the descendants of mankind originated from one humanoid female. Adam was the only man on Earth for quite a short period of time before the births of his sons (and 130 years when he gives birth to his third known son, Seth) compared to what it says in Genesis 5:4-5 which refers to him being the father of "many sons and daughters" for 800 years of his lifespan. Overall, Adam lived 930 years on Earth before he died due to no known diseases at the time and a healthy gene pool. So, yeah, Adam's lifespan would have overlapped with the lifespans of his sons and daughters. [/quote]
The term is scientific. By no means does this even imply that Adam was the only living male on Earth, as your source specifically states. No human can live for more than 150 years now. The average lifespan around the time was between 25 and 40. There is no, and let me make it clear by repeating it ''NO'' scientific valid proof that any human on this planet has ever lived for more than +-150. Especially not at that time. It is impossible. Such a ridiculous claim is not even worth a discussion.
And of course this would mean that everyone on this planet is the product of incest.
Yet elsewhere incest is condemned.
None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness. Leviticus 18:6
And, at least in some cases, is punishable by death.
And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. Leviticus 20:11
And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood shall be upon them. Leviticus 20:12
And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you. -- Leviticus 20:14
Go figure.
[quote]As for geological evidence1 of Noah's Flood, in fact last year, archaeologist Robert Ballard2 (who discovered the remains of the RMS Titanic in 1985) investigated a theory in which the now-salty Black Sea was once an isolated freshwater lake surrounded by farmland, until it was flooded by an enormous wall of water from the rising Mediterranean Sea, and unearthed an ancient shoreline which is evident that a possible3 flood occurred there. Through the use of carbon dating, they dated the object to have originated in 5000 B.C. which some experts believe Noah's Flood to have happened in. [/quote]
1. This is not evidence. This is a claim by 'one' or 'some' individuals.
2. Again, one person.
3. & 4. That is as unscientific as it gets. Science isn't science because 'some' people believe something to be true. Science is science because the majority of the scientific community values evidence in favor of the claim.
You are trying to tell me that we can date back the position of the continents billions of years ago, but we can't find sufficient evidence for a very important and geologically recent flood? That can mean two things: 1. the evidence has been miraculously wiped out by some force beyond nature, or 2. the flood never happened as it was described because when we know people don't walk on water and people can't turn water into wine we might also accept that the rest of the claims are rubbish.
[quote]As for Horus's one of three birthdays and one falling on December 25, each civilization celebrates their version of the winter solstice. In terms of Jesus, it is highly unlikely Jesus was born in December since in the book of Luke, there were present shepherds with their sheep in the field which would be sheltered inside if the temperatures were cold. Not to mention, it's cold and wet in Bethlehem which is an unsafe environment to birth a child. [/quote]
Well if that's unlikely, I can't imagine how unlikely walking on water is.
Furthermore on the Horus subject.
-Read your things
-Agree with most of it
-I stand corrected on the 12 desciples
[quote]If performing miracles, driving out demons, walking on water, and resurrecting from the dead is too much for you to believe, that's fine by me.[/quote]
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
