sanddbox wrote:clrkbar wrote:I'm did not say it is true because nothing disproves it. That would be stupid, I agree. I was just commenting on your earlier quote above when you question the validity of the Bible's claim (sort of) to a 6k year old earth without giving any reason as to why you were questioning it.
Very well. I suppose it's also fair I give an example of an argument for the earth being 6000 years old, which you can find here.
Notice how vague the article is. They claim there is enormous evidence yet fail to produce anything palpable.
It also uses flawed arguments. For example, they claim that a population grows by 0.5%-2% per year - except they forget to account for the fact that a) people actually die (suprising, right?), b) entire civilizations have been wiped out, and c) just because a population is growing in an age with much better living conditions, that doesn't mean that 2000 years ago that was the case.
Now take these articles.
These articles have actual scientific evidence that you can easily verify. Enough said.
sanddbox wrote:I should be getting to bed soon, but I think I can provide some insight on the geneticists thing.
Presumably (now, I say this without the time to research it), if we all evolved from two humans (as opposed to there being many humans evolving from relatives of monkeys), geneticists would be able to (roughly) trace everyone back to that one set of DNA.
clrkbar wrote:Do you have sources for these ideas? Please don't think I am demanding sources. I almost never source my ideas because I can't normally remember exactly where I learned what I have learned. But if you have them, I would like to research them. Anyways...
I may be ignorant, but what do you mean when you say "genetics would be screaming about it"? Why is a world-wide flood not plausible? What about the animals? Yes, I agree, this all seems a bit far-fetched and fantastical, but go with me here for sake of testing ideas. I am capable of thinking as best I can from a non-believing point of view.
Why does Mark not knowing his geography very well matter? I suck at spelling, maybe Mark was bad at names and remembering places. The book of mark is the shortest of the gospels and is kinda a quick run-through of Jesus' life. It's not for recording facts, but for summarizing Jesus' ministry, just hitting the important highlights. If you want good, solid, recorded facts, look to the gospel of Luke. He was that kind of meticulous person. Does lack of evidence for David and his son mean it is historically accurate? Come on, you guys have gotten mad at me on other posts for saying stuff like that.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests