Giants of the Bible

,    »  -   131 Comments
164
5.03
12345678910
Ratings: 5.03/10 from 38 users.

Storyline

Giants of the Bible

In this multi-part series, the biblical claim that giant human beings once lived among us will be examined.

The archaeological "evidence," the scientific "evidence," and the claims of certain apologists will be highlighted.

The series concludes with a discussion of physics and how it relates to the verifiability (or not) for the existence of human giants.

The Bible describes many individuals as giants, and it also mentions several giant people groups. Interpreters have speculated about the size of these people with guesses ranging anywhere from 6 feet to more than 30 feet in height.

Also, a great deal of misinformation about biblical giants has been proliferated on the Internet along with some fake pictures of supposed giants. So did these giants really exist? - Tim Chaffey

More great documentaries

131 Comments / User Reviews

  1. TomazZzz

    I'm sorry for the people that take bible even a littlebit - real.

  2. dmxi

    believers beware as this documentary acts like a prick to your bubble & if you want your bubble unscathed then you have to be that prick!

  3. Jack1952

    I wish the makers of this film had delved a little deeper into those pictures of giant skeletons. Had tried to find the source of those pictures and then go on to actually find those skeletons. I'm sure they would have found nothing but I think a solid discrediting of those pics are warranted. This video did not prove hoax, only stated that they were photoshopped. Somebody took those pictures. Find them and talk to them and force them to show us the skeletons. I doubt they will ever find the photographers but it would sure be funny to watch some of those who use those pics as evidence squirm when confronted and asked to verify the authenticity of those pics. That way we can finally put those foolish pictures to rest.

  4. Jack1952

    Thanks. That's exactly what I was looking for. This information would have been a great finish for this film. It would also provide the facts for those, like myself, who are too lazy to look it up, themselves.

  5. Shawn4004

    It would have been nice if the film maker had any kind of expert, i.e. medical doctors, geneticists, to support his claim that a human would be unable to live at, say, 15 feet tall. Without independent verification, what he said is nothing more than an opinion. Further, I think it's inappropriate to compare biblical giants to what we now call gigantism, which is a hormonal disorder. If there were a race of giant humans, it's inconceivable that they all suffered from a hormonal disorder and were able to thrive as a race or species. I mean only to point out problems in the film's argument without regard to my personal beliefs; although I think it's unlikely to be seen this way, I intended my comments as an objective observation.

  6. Chris

    Hardly any use in disputing the Bible Skeptic since his stated agenda clearly colors his views. In almost everything he does, Bible Skeptic sets up his straw men, knocks them down, and then thinks he has exposed the poor Christians for fools. For the sake of viewers, here are a few items to consider:
    1. While some "so called giants" are given actual height measurements, the defining characteristic of the nephilim were that they were "mighty men of renown" of which great height is not a requirement. It represents influence.
    2. The bible mentions the nephilim in a manner that suggests that who and what they were was common knowledge. Clearly, information has been lost regarding their origin and identity.
    3. Bible Skeptic spends most of his time addressing concepts of giants that are based in fairy tales or television programs of recent times while very little is known of the Nephilim.
    4. Several words have been incorrectly translated as "giant" meaning a gigantic human. For example, the word "rephaim" is not originally a word that means giants but refers to to dead ancestors.

    There are more, but I'll let the reader do their own research. However, it's pretty clear that bias plays an enormous role in how things are presented. The neo-athiest would claim that christians have a "god of the gaps" and
    that soon science will provide explanations that will dispel iron-age
    myths. And yet this hubris is based on such poor science. Here are a few well-known examples as food for thought:

    Reports of recent genetic testing indicates the possibility of Neanderthal DNA in the human genome of people of European decent was accepted as gospel (sorry) rather quickly. Isn't that rather close to what the bible was saying regarding a dilution of the human bloodline?

    All the so-called evidence for human evolution would still fit, with room to spare, inside a single coffin. The NY Times reported "That makes a rather poor sample from which to draw conclusions."

    Until fairly recently, it was accepted that evidence for a Israelite civilization was non existent. Now, because errors in the timeline have been exposed, a wealth of artifacts are being reexamined and reclassified as Israelite. Since the bible reports that the Nephilim were tracked down, destroyed and their cities burnt, how much evidence would you expect to find?

    Supposedly, the Argument from Design was defeated by the Multiverse theory (if there are an infinity of universes, then the odds of having a universe fine-tuned for life becomes inevitable) so the math demonstrates that a designer is not needed. But this idea falls under its own weight because it depends upon absolute infinities which do not exist outside in the real world. There is a difference between ideas popularized by best-selling authors (who sell books) and speakers, and peer-reviewed and supported scientific theory. Real mathematicians (information scientists) avoid talking about the multiverse the way that other scientists (who only use math) do.

    Pretty clear that bias continues to filter what documentaries get posted to TDF, as well.

  7. Samuel Morrissey

    Well after that edit a reply is certainly due. If you would care to listen I will explain some things regarding the topic before I deal with your additive assertions. I was going to reply earlier and state that your skepticism seemed perfectly reasonable, before half a page of logical errors appeared beneath it.

    So, with gigantism you are indeed correct that it is a hormonal disorder, that being a prolonged or otherwise excessive production by the brain of hormones that determine overall growth. However, this is essentially a description of the consequence, not the cause.There are a least 2 distinct and separate causes I am aware of, one being cancer (a primary tumor located in the relevant part of the brain causing an exponential increase in the number of cells producing the growth hormones) another being genetic mutation causing non-cancerous gland cells to produce more hormone than they otherwise would. There may be many others.

    IF there is any truth behind the myth of David and Goliath for instance, it seems very likely that his large stature was a result of the first cause, cancer, because a worrying complication of this type of brain tumor is that a relatively light blow to the head can cause the tumor to rupture leading to hemorrhage and death almost instantaneously. Obviously I understand that a stone from a sling traveling well in excess of 100mph would impart a significant force to whatever it struck, certainly enough to kill a man if the blow was direct to the head and not glancing, but you have to admit it fits the condition like a glove - it is simple and plausible. To go further on this particular mystery, requires that simple plausibility be eliminated.

    Now the problems regarding gigantic size are not ones that inhibit the growth itself - as an increase in growth hormone will cause an increase in growth, clearly evidenced by people suffering gigantism. The problem is with the length of nerve cells, which can be about a foot long, which keeps the number of cells in line from any part of your body to your brain down to a small set number (which is essential for the rapidity of signal transfer). The number of these cells in line is not affected by growth hormones in any way, though the length of the cells themselves may be. Ultimately as the long nerve cells are lengthened their functionality is impaired to the point where many with gigantism start to lose feeling and/or motor control in their extremities where the impairment is stacked to its greatest. Many will end up in wheelchairs etc. This is why about 7 feet or just over is absolutely the tallest a human being can get and remain healthy. The archaeological record shows that as a species we have been gradually trending to get larger for several 10s of thousands of years - probably through a type of natural selection (bigger, stronger, more successful) only now we are about as big as we can be without serious structural modifications, which are not going to happen as a result of further selection for 'taller'.

    A mutation that caused the number of nerve cells in line to increase might enable a human organism to exceed this limit, but there are other considerations - a 9 foot man of normal weight would have roughly 50% more blood than a 6 foot man of normal weight. His heart would have to work roughly 50% harder against gravity, as well as pumping 50% more blood over a lifetime. His bones would need to be both stronger and lighter, and too much growth inside the womb endangers both mother and child etc.

    In short, a large number of coinciding mutations are required if we are to get much taller. As the vast majority of individual mutations are either apparently benign or detrimental, to have several that are beneficial to or coincide on the same overarching problem (size) is infinitesimally likely, rather like the answer from multiplying very small fractions together i.e. 1 to the power -10 cubed.

    I am not the best at articulating these things, but I hope that softens your skepticism somewhat. Now I am compelled to refute your logical errors and I will use quotes for clarity.

    The neo-athiest would claim that christians have a "god of the gaps" and that soon science will provide explanations that will dispel iron-age myths. And yet this hubris is based on such poor science. Here are a few well-known examples as food for thought:

    Straw man. That is what you want atheists to claim, not what they actually do, so you built a straw man in order to deride. Also I am intrigued if you would indulge me a reply on this, what exactly is the difference between an atheist like myself and a 'neo-atheist'? finally in terms of hubris, which is more indicative of hubris do you think between the theist believing that human beings are somehow special amongst all life forms and the atheist not sharing that? I look forward to your answer.

    Reports of recent genetic testing indicates the possibility of Neanderthal DNA in the human genome of people of European decent was accepted as gospel (sorry) rather quickly. Isn't that rather close to what the bible was saying regarding a dilution of the human bloodline?'

    So a story has a seeming similarity with recent events? How do you rule out coincidence? regardless I am not very well read in that matter but it seems as though you may have misinterpreted it somewhat, I will do some research and get back to you on that.

    All the so-called evidence for human evolution would still fit, with room to spare, inside a single coffin. The NY Times reported "That makes a rather poor sample from which to draw conclusions."

    You know, you could fit all the worlds written information in a black box no bigger than your thumb, so due to modern technology that analogy is very weak. Do you think the discovery and isolation of DNA followed by several decades of genetic research not to mention over 100 years of archaeology, fossil hunting and observation of living things is 'a rather poor sample from which to draw conclusions? I contend that this is the best sample that we have ever had. Care to promote a better one?

    Until fairly recently, it was accepted that evidence for a Israelite civilization was non existent. Now, because errors in the timeline have been exposed, a wealth of artifacts are being reexamined and reclassified as Israelite. Since the bible reports that the Nephilim were tracked down, destroyed and their cities burnt, how much evidence would you expect to find?

    Bones do not burn easily without modern technology. But I would expect to find as much evidence as if the story were untrue. At which point again to go further into that mystery, this simplest of possibilities must be negated, If we are to distinguish from it.

    Supposedly, the Argument from Design was defeated by the Multiverse theory (if there are an infinity of universes, then the odds of having a universe fine-tuned for life becomes inevitable) so the math demonstrates that a designer is not needed. But this idea falls under its own weight because it depends upon absolute infinities which do not exist outside in the real world. There is a difference between ideas popularized by best-selling authors (who sell books) and speakers, and peer-reviewed and supported scientific theory. Real mathematicians (information scientists) avoid talking about the multiverse the way that other scientists (who only use math) do.

    And to finish a rather obvious reversal of cause and effect. The universe is not 'fine tuned for life' - if you don't believe me, spend a day atop Mt. Everest, or at the bottom of the Marianna trench without oxygen, neither of which even involve leaving our own planet. Life adapts to its environment, which is never perfect, and will definitely change over time. Life clings on like a thin green scum on the surface of 1 planet in 1 star system amongst countless billions as far as we know. Physiological limits like those we are discussing prevent life from gaining a foothold anywhere other than this. Without the protection of the earths magnetic field, there are huge amounts of ionising radiation simply beaming throughout every part of space, particularly close to gigantic emitters like stars, and you think this place is fine tuned for life?

    Pretty clear that bias continues to filter what documentaries get posted to TDF, as well.

    The only bias showing is yours I'm afraid,

  8. Ðaniel Çurtis

    people still think the bible is fact?WOW

  9. Chris

    Interesting rebuttal.

    I should probably let you know that I was a assistant professor of astronomy and mathematics, retired from a major US university. If you care to debate as to whether the universe is considered fine-tuned in favor of life, I should remind you that your take on the facts of of the apparent fine-tuning are not shared by the majority of the scientific community.

    It's not a matter of the possible ramifications of fine-tuning that establishes its credibility -- it's the data. The data is outrageous, almost unbelievable. The data sits the universe on a knife edge -- an impossible universe.

    While conclusions drawn from the ramifications of the data belong in philosophy class, the data itself could not be more clear in that the universe could not have evolved into its current state of and from natural undirected causes based upon the known laws of physics.

  10. over the edge

    well said sir.

  11. Achems_Razor

    Please inform us as to what data with sources, you are referring too.

  12. pwndecaf

    So, ipso facto, a god did it...obviously.

    ..major US university...coughOralRobertscough...

  13. Jonathan Michael

    "I should probably let you know that I was a assistant professor of astronomy and mathematics, retired from a major US university."

    Appeal to authority fallacy. Are we going to get through all the fallacies with you? Assertions stand or fall on their own merits, not your academic credentials.

    Also, life evolved, the universe didn't. The evolution of life was guided by natural selection working in tandem with various selection pressures. You are making an equivocation error, another logical fallacy.

  14. robertallen1

    "But this idea falls under its own weight because it depends upon absolute infinities which do not exist outside in the real world." What does Cantor's absolute infinity have to do with the multiverse or is this merely an attempt at a snow job?

    "Real mathematicians (information scientists) avoid talking about the multiverse the way that other scientists (who only use math) do." Are you saying that information scientists are the only "real" mathematicians? If so, what about Andrew Wiles? Ken Ribet, John Coates and Barry Mazur? Now,just who are the "real" mathematicians and who are the "other scientists?" Or is this yet another try at a snow job.

    "Reports of recent genetic testing indicates the possibility of Neanderthal DNA in the human genome of people of European decent [sic] was accepted as gospel (sorry) rather quickly. Isn't that rather close to what the bible was saying regarding a dilution of the human bloodline?" Just what makes this a dilution? Have you studied any biology?
    You are merely trying to work backwards from the a priori assumption that the bible is true (hardly the tactic expected by a true assistant professor of mathematics and astronomy at a major university) which has made it easy for Samuel Morriseey to expose you for the cheap Christian apologist you are,

  15. Andrew Drew

    So they are using the
    King James Bible to support their argument.
    Try looking into the original
    languages of scripture with a Hebrew
    Or Geek dictionary to
    get to the original meaning of a word and
    how it has been
    translated.

  16. Andrew Drew

    use a interleaner bible

  17. Pysmythe

    In some other universe, there may be some strange form of life we wouldn't even recognize as such, with his brain in his derriere and a hole in his head, wondering the same things, who can say?
    No one, as of this moment.
    It seems the data you're referring to is based upon one throw of the dice.

  18. Guest

    why does an astrologist think he has any authority to comment scientifically on evolution?
    And what does your background as a mathmatician have to do with any of this?

    Your argument from authority is invalid...if anything it actually hurts your position more than it helps it!

  19. kris sto

    Ohhh!! ''Giants of the bible''...time to educate my self! Yippee!!!

  20. Chris

    After reviewing your replies, two things become clear:

    1. That all of your information comes from the research of others, most likely in the form of documentaries on TDF. There is not a Ph.D in the bunch. Knowing who Cantor was does not make you qualified to sharpen his pencils.

    2. The anonymous nature of the internet works in your favor.

    Good luck, children. Please go read some text books, stop drinking so much, and go get some sunshine.

  21. dmxi

    i wonder how your future comments will be like when you go into detail?a pleasure to click the 'like' button!

  22. Achems_Razor

    Oh gee! does that mean you are smarter than us?!.. PHD=piled higher and deeper!

    You ain't any more intelligent than the rest of us. Arrogant person. Only ad hominem remarks Eh? Typical of religee's!

    Where is your "data" with sources that I asked of you?

  23. robertallen1

    After reviewing your replies, two things also become clear:

    1. That you make claims without any substantiation such as the absence of a Ph.D. in the bunch. Slinging around the term "absolute infinities" does not qualify you to wipe Cantor's butt.
    2. The anonymous nature of the internet works in your favor as well, in that you can assert whatever you want about your academic qualifications without anyone being able to check up on them.
    Good riddance!.

  24. Jack1952

    Lol. I don't know whether I should thank you for this link or not. This guy is out there. It amazes me that there are people who still believe the hooey this guy is dispensing.

  25. Jack1952

    "Since the bible reports that the Nephilim were tracked down, destroyed and their cities burnt, how much evidence would you expect to find?"

    Quite a bit, actually. It does not say that the Israelites killed every Nephilim that ever lived...only the ones living at that time. There had to be many dozens of generations of them who had lived and died before this supposed genocide. Where are their remains? They should have found something by now, especially if they were well known and prolific enough to live in cities.

    That they could have been Neanderthal is pure speculation and not worthy of one who claims to have the credentials you do.

  26. Jack1952

    He uses a tactic that many who do not have the data to back up their allegations use. He says, "I'll let the reader do their own research." Every time I read a comment that includes a statement like this, I get this feeling that the commenter does not have the data and is giving personal opinions. I expect the same from this guy. If he had the data, his arrogance would have compelled him to gleefully provide us with it.

    Calling us all children. I'm surprised he actually stepped down from his throne to comment in the first place.

  27. Achems_Razor

    Right! and any PHD worth his salt would not flaunt it! He is no more a PHD than I am a theoretical phycisist! The only data he probably has is from a creationist site.

  28. dmxi

    pure entertainment if he hadn't had a trap, with the mission, to lure the easy minded!

  29. Guest

    Peter and Paul all spoke of God’s servant Noah. Noah’s days are shown by Jesus and Peter to be prophetic of “the presence of the Son of man” and a future “day of judgment and of destruction of the ungodly men.” Jehovah, in sparing Noah and his family when he destroyed that wicked world, was “setting a pattern for ungodly persons of things to come.”—2Pe 3:5-7; 2:5, 6; Isa 54:9; Eze 14:14, 20; Mt 24:37-39; Heb 11:7; 1Pe 3:20, 21.

  30. robertallen1

    How do you know what Jehovah (whose existence you cannot prove) was doing?
    As we have no direct writings of "Jesus," how do you know "Jesus" regarded Noah?
    In short, another ignorant post.

  31. mikmik

    You are lying. There is no way you are a prof of astronomy, unless you are teaching some class as an adult rec program. Scientists think exactly how Samuel put it - that it is ludicrous to think it is fine tuned.

  32. robertallen1

    Every volcano that erupts, every hurricane that strikes, every earthquake that hits, in short every natural disaster gives the lie to the concept of fine-tuning.

  33. Phillip Galinsky

    I don't think that it's worth my time to watch this documentary, but I'm interested in knowing which bible passages refer to giants. Many ancient mythologies refer to giants - could these tales have been passed down orally through generations since the time of the coexistence of homo sapiens and neanderthals? The passages themselves might reveal some clues to this, so if anyone watches this long enough to see which passages these are, I'd be grateful if you posted the passage titles or pasted the passages themselves as a reply to this comment.

  34. Jack1952

    You do know that the discussion is about giants who lived in Biblical times. Your post is irrelevant to the topic at hand and is the type of proselytizing that I find quite irritating. Don't preach at me. It is both rude and arrogant.

  35. Charles Lozada

    Silly movie, This is the 21st century for gawds sake! Wishful thinking for small people to look to the heavens to a BIG guy who will listen to our prayers and make the sun shine on our parade day.
    I'll make it real simple for all you religious folks out there in never neverland.
    Isn't it strange to you, that no matter where you were born. God ordained YOUR religion to be the true one? IF you were born in India, more than likely you'd be a Hindu or a Moslem!
    Lucky us in the USA, we were "given" this land by a Xian god named Yeshua , who happens to be a Jew!. And folks this is the TRUE (tm) religion for most of us, Patriotic Americans.
    Sorry Jews, you had your chance! But God did "give" you guys Israel and made you "The Chosen Ones". Impressive!
    Religions Suck! NOTHING divides man more than religious beliefs, we are all brother animals.

  36. Matthew Dorie

    Genesis 6:4 - There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare [children] to them, the same [became] mighty men which [were] of old, men of renown.

  37. Matthew Dorie

    Read different translations of the bible there are so many different interpritations of scripture' the bible is the most interesting history book!!! Jesus is the king of kings and the LORD of lords. Bless you!

  38. docoman

    What do you mean? That it's a translation problem when the Bible talks about giants?

    The David and Goliath story wouldn't make the same sense then, now would it?

  39. docoman

    "sons of God came in unto...."

    Sons is plural. Hmmm, what's Jesus' brothers names?

  40. robertallen1

    Before you post further, I suggest that you read the comment policy against preaching. This site is not your personal pulpit. Any further instances will be reported to a moderator. Act accordingly.

  41. robertallen1

    Actually James, known as "the Just," is mentioned in Galatians 1:1. There is a detailed Wikipedia article about him.

  42. Achems_Razor

    James the just.

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_the_Just

  43. docoman

    From that wikipedia article;

    "Protestant groups claim the Matthew 1:25 statement that Joseph "knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son" to mean that Joseph and Mary did have normal marital relations after Jesus' birth, and that James, Joses, Jude, and Simon were the biological sons of Mary and Joseph; and, thus, Jesus' half-brothers."

    As neither Joseph or Mary are 'God', even though they may have been Jesus' half-brothers they don't qualify as 'sons of God' in that way.

  44. robertallen1

    Now you know what it feels like to be a Christian apologist. Stick to the wallabees; you'll get better results.

  45. docoman

    ??? How is pointing out something with their scripture make me know what it feels like to be a Christian apologist? It doesn't help them. I don't follow you.
    Unless you missed it in my last post, your answer doesn't fit as a 'son of God', but as a son of Mary and Joseph, a half-brother, missing the relevance of my question.
    In Gen 6:4, the meaning of 'sons of God' is different to 'daughters of men', and not only referring to sex/gender. Supposed giants apparently in this case.
    Jesus is supposed to be The Son of God, so who are these other 'sons of God'? I've not heard any Christian answer that one.

    Wallabies? Are you referring to the Aussie Rugby Union team, or trying to be sarcastic?

  46. robertallen1

    The point is that Christian apologists try to explain away the unexplainable, the vague or the patently contradictory. You'd do better with the natural world.

  47. docoman

    Got a good lol from that other link that you posted. High tech Lucifer, stole a crashed alien ship and their bodies. lol.

  48. docoman

    As I was asking a question about a contradiction in the Bible and not apologising for or explaining anything, I fail to see how that makes me know what Christian apologists feel like, as you asserted.

    In fact, in this case, you are more like the apologists then I, when you gave an answer that wasn't correct in the context of my post, thus missing or sidestepping the contradiction. Jesus' brothers, the other 'sons of God' as per Gen 6:4.

    I'm quite aware of what Christian apologists do, as you already know.

    I suggest you reserve your sarcasms for dumb religiee's, you'll get better results.

    Btw, it's wallabies, not wallabees.

  49. Achems_Razor

    Yeah, that link was so weird I decided to delete it, lol
    What is more weird is that 15,000,000 people believe it, funny religee's.

  50. robertallen1

    Please note that Achems_Razor also supplied you with James the Just and referred you to the same Wikipedia article. One way or the other, you'd be the last person anyone would accuse of being a Christian apologist.
    Btw it's religees, not religiee's.

  51. Valarie R Johnson

    Oxymoron story could not see it in its entirety YAWN

  52. robertallen1

    @over_the_edge
    Received your e-mail on problems with discus. Tried to respond to it directly, but it has been deleted. Thank you for researching this.

  53. Fred Harding

    Reply to: Robertallen1

    Anyone can write a book--and I understand you have another volume on breast cancer. What are your qualifications, especially in biology and medicine? Furthermore, it's obvious that you have posted here merely to promote your book and I'm certain that the moderators will deal with this appropriately.

    P.S. In light of a six-day creation, a talking snake, the resurrection, the differing accounts in the synoptic gospels, anyone who claims the bible is reliable is immediately suspect and certainly not entitled to any respect.

    Since when does research require qualifications? Many of the most important discoveries were made by people not involved in a "recognised profession". However, to answer you question regarding my

    1.Another volume on breast cancer. What are your qualifications, especially in biology and medicine?

    For the book(s) I worked with three professors at the University of Washington and a pharmaceutical company "Artemisia BioMedical, Inc as well being involved with Breast Cancer Fund and COSHH, so although personally I am not medically qualified as such, those people are. In fact in the coming book the MD of Artemisia Biomedical will be writing a foreword for the book.

    As an example of my research capabilities, I am not a minerologist but my book on North Molton Gold is described by the owner of the land Peter Stucley, the youngest son of Sir Hugh Stucly and the Great grandson of George Wentworth Warwick Bampfylde, 4th Baron Poltimore (1882-1965).

    Upon first reading my book he wrote and said, "You have done a really marvellous job! It was a fascinating read. Over the last 30 years or so I have gleaned various snippets of information from the family archives, but this is the first time (that I am aware of) where somebody has pulled everything together in such a detailed and concise manner. It is a mineralogical thriller!"

    A major mining concern has read my book and found what it contained worthy enough to carry out some expensive sampling of the mine with a view to commence mining operations after 150 years.

    As for my book I mentioned and the topic here, the Bible does not say there were giants only Nephilim. An entire chapter is devoted to demonstrating this fact. I am more than willing to add this chapter as a post if I am permitted to do so. Oh and by the way, I do not believe in six days of creation and as for miracles, a visitor from the past would believe that being able to speak to someone at the other end of the world, machines carrying hundreds of passengers in the air - miracles. Just because we are not told the technology behind the Biblical miracles does not mean that they did not happen.

    As for respect, this I am not seeking. I am merely pointing out that just because someone believes in something religiously (evolution) , does not mean that it is right and if that person is not prepared to look beyond their belief system then they are not worthy of respect.

  54. robertallen1

    In short, you have no qualifications. In short, your book appears only in Kindle form which means you published it yourself. In short, you posted merely to get suckers to buy your book. In short, your plug was deleted and rightly so. In short, you're a fraud. .

  55. Fred Harding

    I guess the professors in Washington are frauds, the pharmaceutical company I mentioned is a fraud and the doctors whom I am working with are regarding the breast cancer book are too. I guess that the major mining company found my North Molton Gold book so bad that they decided to spend thousands to check it out. Perhaps everyone who has anything to say that you disagree with are frauds My goodness! You have such a huge chip on your shoulder I see no point in debating anything with you so I won't waste my time. Why is it that "casting pearls to swine" comes to mind? Have a nice day.....

  56. robertallen1

    Which professors at University of Washington? Which doctors at the pharmaceutical company? Just which major mining concern is this? As a matter of fact, where is the peer review for any of your works? No, you're a fraud plain and simple trying to sucker people into buying your junk. Well, it didn't work.

  57. Fred Harding

    I guess one needs a degree in Physics to know that if one drops an object that it will fall to the ground - unless you are in space of course.

    Anyway as you have asked not that it will make any difference to your attitude, the professors at UV are Dr Henry Lai, Narendra P. Singh and Tomikazu Sasaki. I won't do the work for you so if you are interested do a Google search on them and read their peer reviewed papers.

    As for the pharmaceutical company I sent you the link so take a look yourself and see what they are doing. Take a look at the pipleline as they go through the long process of FDA regulations for new drugs. They have reached the point of human trials. But according to you they must be frauds and wasting their time.

    As for the major mining company, I have signed a non-disclosure agreement, so I am afraid I am not permitted to disclose who they are. But if all goes well I shall be able to make known the commencement of mining operations sometime later in the year and will have exclusivity to be the first to publish the story in the press.

    As far as peer reviews for my works, I used over 380 peer reviewed references in my Nephilim book but I suppose that does not count. I guess if I add 2 + 2 and make 4, the calculated total must be wrong because unless I can point to a professor of mathematics who can confirm that the result is correct then you are not prepared to accept the result.

    And as for the book containing junk I guess me quoting numerous professors in their field of anthropology is of no value because they are talking junk. Perhaps since most of them quoted are evolutionists you could be right.

    As for trying to sucker people, they have the option to read three chapters of the book on Amazon, (read inside facility) or read the description before purchasing.

    As for publishing on the Kindle I guess you have no idea about publishing otherwise you would not have made the silly remarks that you have. With 70% royalties who is not going to publish for the Kindle. Most if not all leading authors do...

  58. rocketmahn

    Not worth the time.

  59. The salt

    sons as used in this verse in Hebrew is Ben (Strong's Number: 01121), pronounced as bane which means sons (as characterisation, i.e. sons of injustice [for un- righteous men] or sons of God [for angels]. Thus, sons of God refers to the angels of God or God's messengers. The ones that came in unto the daughters of men are referred to as the fallen angels. When Jesus is called the Son of God, the scriptures use a capital letter for Son which means coming from or part of. The angels were created just as we were and are not part of God as Jesus is.

  60. docoman

    Thank you for your literary explanation, that makes sense.

    As for your last sentence...
    The angels (what angels exactly?) were created by our parents having sex? That's how we were created.
    I know most of the Trinity story.. but here's a couple questions you might know what the 'official' answers are; what part of God was Jesus then, before he took on his human form and name, "Jesus" ? And the Holy Spirit, assuming the Trinity has always been in place, why isn't It mentioned in the Bible until after Jesus had arrived?

    Why is the 'God' of the NT so different, not only in nature and actions, but in actual 'physical make-up', to the 'God' of the OT? Why wasn't it the Holy Spirit that gave Moses the commandments?

  61. The salt

    You misunderstood what I was saying. I was saying that both angels and humans were created by God. In other words the point I was trying to make is that neither angels nor humans were in human terms conceived by God.

    Jesus is the Word as John explains in
    John 1:1-3
    [In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.]

    Trinity is a concept created by man to define an Infinite Being such as God. The Hebrew word used for God is Elohim and is a much better explanation of God. To call God Elohim, addresses God in his plurality and singularity. In other words there is only one God, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, who came in the flesh as Jesus.

    Genesis 1:2 [ And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.]
    Psalm 51:11 [Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy Holy Spirit from me.]
    Isaiah 63:10 [But they rebelled , and vexed his Holy Spirit: therefore he was turned to be their enemy , and he fought against them.]
    Three different books in the old testament that refer to the Holy Spirit.

    The Israelites were suppose to have gotten the Holy Spirit, but because they worshiped God through the golden calf the sinned against God and could not receive the Holy Spirit and become priests of God. Only the tribe of Levi did not worship God through the golden calf and became priests of God and they still are today. Pentecost was the time that the Holy Spirit was sent down to enter all the men and women that accepted Jesus as their Messiah.

    Jesus and God the Father are the same now and always. As stated previously.

    With regards to the physical difference. God had to come in the flesh to qualify as a sacrifice for our sins. If you read Leviticus you will understand how the sacrificial system works and what qualifies as an acceptable sacrifice. One is a lamb without blemish and Jesus is referred to as to Lamb of God. If God did not atone for our sins in the flesh we would all have still been under the punishment of death and would have faced eternal damnation.

    Referring back to what I stated above, the commandments were given to Moses by the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, since they are all One (Echad - Hebrew for One).

  62. The salt

    Firstly, may I ask what do you belief in?

    Since there is only one Truth, and that is Jesus. I did not chose Jesus, He chose me and I can only thank Him for changing me to what I am today. I will never bow down and worship a false god or a false prophet, for that is what is coming and the world will be thrown into darkness and will be punished for forsaking the only living God (YHVH). I don't have to prove the existence of God, since science (another false god in some's lives) can't prove that God doesn't exist. The only THEORY made by MAN to try and disprove God is EVILution which can't be proven any way, since it is only a THEORY. People don't like being judged for their actions and want to do away with God so that they can just continue with their lives and not worry about the consequences of their actions. If people would only except Jesus into their lives, the sting of sin (which is death) would not apply to them anymore and He would start changing so many lives.

    We fell from Grace, we trespassed against God's commands. We were holy as God is Holy, until the serpent of old who is called the devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world deceived Adam and Eve to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. After this our body started to decay and death was on us from that time. So, God has given us a way to get back to the state of paradise and His name is Jesus. So, according to me, Jesus that sacrificed His own life and went through all that pain and humiliation for people that won't even accept Him, is showing nothing else but love in my opinion. For God redeemed His people on the cross on that day.

    I'll explain it to you in a simple way. If you take an apple and cut it in to three pieces. Do you have still have one apple or are there now three apples? ..... According to me and the knowledge that I have, there is only one apple. Now if God was the apple then we would still have ONE God in three different forms. If you don't understand that analogy then this verse in the Bible applies to you.
    [If I told you earthly things and ye believe not, how shall ye believe if I tell you heavenly things?]

    Your sarcasm is duly noted. Even if I only listed one example it would have been enough to have proven your statement incorrect.How can ones presence be separated from one's self??? Just because it is not mentioned in the old testament doesn't mean that it was never there. We were not ready to receive the Holy Spirit before Jesus, because the Holy Spirit can not dwell in a profane temple. When Jesus came he restored the temple and the Holy Spirit could enter. Those who have ears to hear and eyes to see will understand what I am saying.

    Did you even read what I said. They are Echad (One), they were all present when the commands were given on the mount Sinai. Maybe you should do a little research in to
    how the Word came in to being. The 66 books of the Bible were written by at least 39 authors and over a period of over 3500 years and they all agree with each other. There has also been over 300 prophesies that have been fulfilled. So, maybe you should do a little bit more research before making assumptions like that. I could give you the name of a book you can read that would prove to you that the Bible is the most accurate book ever written. Just let me know if you would like to read it, then I'll give you the name.

    Like I said I don't agree with the church view on the trinity and I did explain to you what my view is.

    It was never supposed to have been about testing Him, since He came to save us and if he did all that you said then He would have disqualified Himself as a sacrifice for our sins and wewould have still been under the law of sin and death.

    Matthew 4:1-11
    [Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil. And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred .

    And when the tempter came to him, he said , If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread. But he answered and said , It is written , Man shall

    not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple,

    And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written * , He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up ,

    lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone. Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding

    high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.

    Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence , Satan: for it is written , Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve . Then the devil leaveth him, and, behold , angels came and ministered unto him.]

    You show me anyone that would reject the devil if he says that he would give you everything and I will show you a true believer in Jesus.

    So, maybe you should stop being so self-righteous and accept the free gift that God has given us in Jesus. He changes lives!

  63. over the edge

    you skipped over this "No. TDF is not your personal pulpit. You can quote Scriptures, etc. in
    your comments if they are pertinent to the documentary (DO NOT
    EXAGGERATE) – but you absolutely may not use the site as a source for
    conversions." and you were proselytizing. warning #2

  64. The salt

    Please identify where I exaggerated. It seem as though there are double standards on this forum, one for contributors and one for moderators.

    Quoted from Achems_Razor's reply:
    "Also you show no proof of your deities, only man made verbiage from your man made books"

    If someone tries to disprove someones God is that not proselytizing. Isn't that trying to convert someone into not believing.

  65. Achems_Razor

    Do not play the religious persecution card. I was not disproving your gods, I was asking for proof of your claim. I offered no claim.

  66. docoman

    Where does it say he was only 5cm shorter then his bed?
    Out of interests sake, I just measured the mattress I slept on last night. It is 205 cm long. Applying your logic, that must mean I am 200cm tall, which is incorrect, I'm 22 cm shorter then that.

    Now lets consider we're talking about a King's bed.
    Do you really think it's logical that Og, King of Bashan, supposedly the last remaining giant, had a single bed, just big enough for himself to lie on? As if.

  67. docoman

    "Why did you not reprimand docoman for his comments?"

    And what comments of mine would that be?

    The one I thanked you for your logical, sensible answer. Or the ones I asked simple questions of your preaching? Or where I expressed some of my opinion on what you've claimed, and your said preaching, and asked for some evidence?

    Darren is spot on with his post to you. Take the time to read that link, you need to learn what you're talking about.

    Obviously you do not understand what a scientific theory is. Its weird how you seem to be able to explain some old language usages and meanings, but don't have a handle on a very relevant (you preach against it but don't understand it) misconception and understanding on the modern usages and meanings of the word theory.

    And if you don't like my questions or answers, don't talk to me. Have a look back, you'll see you're the one that chimed in on an old conversation and couldn't resist adding your preach on the end of what was until then a decent post.
    You've had a preach, every single post to me. You know it, I know it, everyone else that reads the thread can see it. As soon as you're asked to show some evidence, you went all defensive, and are now trying to play the victim. You say you're only expressing your opinion, but you state it as fact and don't like being questioned.

    Cry all you like, you don't have the 'protected species' status on your claims anymore. Get used to it, or go preach to the choir if you want brainwashed, belief without question responses.

  68. a_no_n

    your god got nailed to a plank of wood...my god has a hammer, nuff said.

  69. The salt

    I wasn't playing a card, I was just merely pointing out the policy that was put in place and I wanted to show that proselytizing is a two way street, since atheism is also a religion and trying to convert someone in not believing in his God is called converting someone to atheism.

    It seems as though you keep miss quoting me, since I stated in all my posts that there is only one God (YHVH) who came in the flesh as Jesus

    And I quote from your posts:

    "I was not disproving your gods, I was asking for proof of your claim."

    "Also you show no proof of your deities, only man made verbiage from your man made books."

    So, please next time if you quote rather use the method I use and paste my words, so I can be held accountable for it.

    It seems as though you are trying to cover your tracks. You said the following:
    "I offered no claim"
    but yet you said the following:
    "Also look up what a scientific theory really means."

    According to Wikipedia:
    "A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation."

    And if evolution is a scientific theory, then you did indeed make a claim that evolution is "correct" and my God does not exist. Since that is what evolution is trying to do. That concludes my proof and it seems that there is in fact a double standard going around.

    By the way, you want me to give proof, but as soon as I give any I get blamed for proselytizing. So, your statement makes no sense to me.

  70. The salt

    We can keep posting contradictory links as much as we want to, it won't make a difference in what I believe and it won't make a difference in what you believe. Since even if I showed you God and He was standing right in front of you, you still wouldn't believe it. So if you want to believe that your ancestor was a monkey or ape, whichever, then that is your own prerogative.

    Did you even read the posts of docoman or did you just read mine? My statement on Matthew 4 is a reply on a question from docoman. So maybe you should read before you write and before you make claims such as you are making. Or am I EXAGGERATING again?

  71. The salt

    I was worried why you were not replying, but luckily the moderators kept me busy. Well first of all calling my God schizophrenic-like is blasphemy in my eyes and would result in an emotional response. Which is against the policy of this forum.

    "However, this community does not tolerate direct or indirect attacks, name-calling or insults, nor does it tolerate intentional attempts to derail, hijack, troll or bait others into an emotional response."

    Secondly, the first post that I sent was not a preach or conversion message, I was just just interpreting the Word for you as you were misinterpreting it.

    Well in actual fact I don't think that I want to read an article written by evolutionists (in other words preachers for the evolution religion), I would much rather hear facts from a neutral point of view, than from advocates for the "scientific theory" of evolution. Strange how just the scientific community can take something like a word such as theory and turn it in to fact.

    Maybe you should do a little research on dark matter another "theory" (not scientific theory) and the consequences of the dwarf galaxy that was discovered. Dark matter needs to exist for the big bang theory (scientific theory - don't know how they test that one) to be valid. Since evolution hinges on the big bang theory, we can safely assume that evolution needs some more patch work.

    Never said I don't like your answers or questions I was just referring to your comment as stated above and how that would lead to an emotional reply. You can't expect me to just sit around will you misinterpret the Word and not say something. If you scroll up in the forum you will see that I replied to someone else's comment as well.

    I just by accident stumbled on to this site looking for interesting documentaries, when I saw the comments. So, you don't have to feel special that I was going out of my way to attack you. If you read my first comment I just gave you an explanation and instead of taking it for what it was, someones view, you went on a tangent. So, in actual fact you started this debate and not me. I was definitely not preaching in all my posts, maybe in the last one to you, but that was an emotional reply.

    Do you even read what you are saying? You were the one that was defensive when I answered your comment on which I first replied. So get your facts straight.

    I'm definitely not crying, was just trying to get a few monkeys of my back. Maybe I should rather go preach to the choir, since trying to reason with a brainwashed person is not going to get me anywhere.

  72. docoman

    Actually salt, I said to you before your Matthew 4 reply;

    "Do you have any evidence for this, bearing in mind the Bible, or any other versions of 'scriptures', don't qualify as proper evidence?" To which you reply with Bible quotes. A simple 'no' would have sufficed.

    So you replying with a Bible passage IS out of context as it was against my request, not relevant to the topic here and is thus against the rules, and you now implying I asked for those Bible quotes is most definitely EXAGGERATING. I'll go one further, you are also being dishonest now as well.

    About your double standards claim.
    Did you consider other peoples beliefs before you started quoting your scriptures at me, even though I requested YOUR view, NOT your scriptures? Which you ignored.

    Why do you seem to think you're the only one that's beliefs need to be considered?

    You're showing a double standard the more you talk about it. By the fruits of your actions....

    If this is the only nonsense you've got, I've got more interesting things to do then read your preaching or excuses for it.

  73. Achems_Razor

    Your post is nonsensical and childish, how old are you? not wasting my time with you.

  74. Darren

    Oh for christ's sake (if I offended you lookup Stephen Fry's quote about being offended) I don't believe that humans are part of the family hominidae, it is a fact, no belief required.

    DO NOT accuse me of being close-minded, "We can keep posting contradictory links as much as we want to, it won't make a difference in what I believe and it won't make a difference in what you believe", I'm quite willing to look at any evidence provided, then using my critical thinking skills, accept or reject said evidence.

    I did read all posts in this conversation, docoman specifically asked to not receive bible quotes. Again your Matthew 4 reply has nothing to do with this doco, read carefully this part of comment policy "No. TDF is not your personal pulpit. You can quote Scriptures, etc. in your comments if they are pertinent to the documentary (DO NOT
    EXAGGERATE) – but you absolutely may not use the site as a source for
    conversions." Am I EXAGGERATING?

  75. docoman

    I acknowledge my part in us being off topic. We both did that, but I asked you some questions, and as I have been on TDF for awhile now and you are only new I should shoulder more of that fault then you.

    I don't take any blame for your preaching, that was all your choice regardless of my asking for your opinion, not a parroting of your scriptures. I did try to steer you away from doing that.

    You'll find that the Mods are pretty consistent and try to not be biased, I've had many posts deleted in my time here, I've also been asked to stay on topic, watch my language etc, so don't feel picked on or special. It's nothing new, it's their job.

    Often a discussion that at least stays relating to the topic somewhat is given a little leeway. And not just religious topics. Even you admitted you were preaching on your last post to me, and that's when you were told not to.
    You're wrong in asserting there are no contradictions in the Bible.
    Read your Gospels again, comparing them to each other. A couple easy questions you can find the contradictions for; what day did Jesus die? Was it passover as stated, or the day before as stated in another Gospel?

    What time did he die? Was it before 9 am or after 12 noon. You'll find both in the Bible.
    What exactly did he say on the cross? Was it, my God, why has thou forsaken me? Or was it, forgive them for they know not what they do? You'll find different accounts in your Gospels that do contradict and cannot both be correct. Did both other men on the crosses that day mock Jesus, or only one? Again, you'll find both in your Bible, but they are obviously mutually exclusive.
    That is not my belief, that's facts you can check on yourself. Can you read obvious contradictions and still say you have faith in everything it says? I can't.

    It is accurate to say you believe based on theological grounds, but not based on factual evidence. You're only kidding yourself if you can't see the distinction.

    In conclusion I'll answer your question to me about my beliefs. I call myself agnostic. I don't know the answer to 'is there a God?' I can however, rule out much of what is preached and made up by man. The Bible and Koran are easy to rule out, once you read them with an open mind and little to no bias, then compare them to the available evidence. In my opinion they're both products of their times, and cannot be the Inspired Word of a perfect God. If there is a perfect God that even remotely cares, IT would not mess up It's message, make it contradict, confuse or be inconsistent with God Itself. IT would make it accessible to everyone, not just a select group. Your scriptures fail on all accounts, and that's why I can't believe them. I can't dismiss obvious errors as it seems believers can, as you have.
    If you can and are fine with that, OK, that's your choice and right too. Good luck with the life after death thing.

  76. The salt

    It takes a man to admit his fault, and I give that to you. I do admit that I was at fault in one of my posts for preaching. The others I was just trying to answer you to the best of my ability.

    With regards to the contradictions, can you quote the verses, so that I can have a look at them.

    Thank you for being honest about what you believe, I feel that you will one day find what you are looking for. I can confirm that there is a perfect God, but his Word has been translated by an imperfect men. I have had some one say things to me only I knew about myself (things that happened in my past). I don't know if you believe in mind-reading, but I can tell you that I don't.

    Wasn't looking at starting an argument with you, but I'm glad that we can part ways with out a grudge. Same to you too.

  77. The salt

    My God conquered death as a human and your's has a hammer? lol

  78. a_no_n

    hah, way to miss the point there...Odin actually did the same thing, he hung himself from a tree, sacrificed himself to himself, and obtained the knowledge of the dead...but i'm being faecetious, i'm actually an athieist, i believe only the sweet embrace of oblivion waits for us after death.

  79. docoman

    Honestly, the best way to do it is by your own study, see for yourself. Read the Gospels (Matt, Mark, Luke and John) side by side, listing down all that was said and done, by whom, when and where, then compare the accounts of the four. Doing ones own research when possible is better then being told I've found, for me at least.

    Here's a couple to start with if you only want to check. I'll give you the passages, you'll have to look them up, I don't wish to quote them here, there's too many and that's abusing the rules and leeway we've been allowed, and my posts are already too long :)

    Read Matt 1:16, then Luke 3:23. Who was Jesus' 'step-father' Joseph father? (Jesus' grandfather) Jacob or Heli?

    For what Jesus last said before he died, compare MATT 27:46,50, LUKE 23:46 and JOHN 19:30.

    How did Judas die? Compare MATT 27:5 to ACTS 1:18.
    They're not translation problems, they are differing accounts of the same things that contradict each other.

    There are a lot more when you start looking. Like the day Jesus died, the time, did he carry the cross himself all the way, did he say anything while carrying the cross.. etc etc. That's just a sample of what can be found in the Gospels (plus Acts), there are many more in the Old and New Testaments.

    In relation to our earlier conversation about the Trinity etc, check out JOHN 10:30 and compare it to JOHN 14:28.
    If you do the research and compare the accounts, do you still believe the Bible doesn't contradict itself? It is an interesting exercise just comparing the Gospels to each other, and one I found very enlightening.

    I'd just like to add as well, that evolution is actually about how life has changed forms, not how it started or the lead up to that, so it doesn't really hinge on the Big Bang Theory. I too share some of your questions and concerns about whether the BB theory is correct in some aspects. But that's a different topic to evolution.
    About your mind reading question, there is some very interesting shows done by Derren Brown on Cold Reading, and how 'psychics' work etc, that you might find very interesting too.

  80. The salt

    I am actually busy with the Gospels at the moment, I'm currently at Luke. Will look into those verses you supplied.

    Just want to state that when you read the first part of Luke he actually states that the recording of the Gospels are people who came to them giving them account of what they saw. The differences between the Gospels are because of different people observing the same event from different view points.

    Your observations mentioned regarding the time and day, you need to take into account that there were no watches or clocks in those days and they didn't have a calendar to work of either. So, they relied on the sun to tell the time and the moon for seasons and festivals. Unfortunately, those are sometimes very inaccurate, especially when you take into account that the sun was darkened when you died and if you weren't keeping an eye on the sun, when the sun shone again it would be a completely new time. But that's just my opinion. I could use a very good analogy to explain the differences as well. If you go to police reports on crimes and you read the eyewitness reports, most of the times they would differ, maybe not a lot, but they would. This is due to different people viewing different points in an event as important and other points as unimportant.

    But, I will definitely have a look at those verses again. I do still believe the Word doesn't contradict Himself. I believe people contradicts themselves, since knowing exactly what was meant in a very old language is very difficult. It's strange how we find Shakespeare's writings difficult to understand, but the bible we can understand perfectly. Shakespeare's writings are 150 years old and the bible thousands of years.

    My point with evolution is that it doesn't prove how we came to be and unfortunately that was part of Darwin's theory (the origin of species). I believe micro-evolution is taking place, but macro-evolution, not so much.

    I have researched Darren Brown and watched a few programs of his on mind reading and hypnosis, can't remember what it was called. Anyway, this guy I was talking about, was praying for me. I don't see Darren Brown doing that type of thing through prayer. But, once again that is just my opinion.

  81. The salt

    Sorry, completely missed that one. I thought you where talking about Thor. lol Did you know that atheism is good for the economy? Because atheists consume a lot more products than any other people, because of their believe in no after life. I don't know, maybe I'm a fool, but I feel that there is more to life than just wondering around in this world. Seems too pointless to me. But that is just my opinion. You can take it with a pinch of salt.

  82. jackmax

    You say that you have researched Derren Brown.
    As he is a non believer I doubt that he would pray for anything, if you had researched properly you would have known that.

    How many years after jesus died was the account of his death first recorded?

    You have stated " I believe micro-evolution is taking place, but macro-evolution, not so much." if that is the case, what biological or logical barriers prevent the former from becoming the latter?

  83. The salt

    There is a difference between research and doing a background check. If you feel that research and checking into some ones life is the same, then I must retract my statement.

    The first gospel was written around 68 -73 A.D. (according to the Wikipedia page on the gospels) ,which was probably determined through the carbon dating or some other method. These methods give periods and not exact dates. So, I wouldn't put my head on the chopping block and say this is the exact time frame.

    If you regard micro-evolution as adaptation, then yes I believe that organisms do adapt to the environment so that they can survive in it. Since, evolution can't prove the origin of life I can conclude that I will never believe in macro evolution, which was Darwin's main focal point in his book on the origin of species. (Its full title was On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.)

  84. docoman

    I understand what you mean by multiple people seeing the same thing and remembering different things about it, but here's some problems with that explanation. How does that mesh with the Divine Inspiration idea, and the Bible being consistent? When two accounts are not only different, but render one untenable, they both cannot be just different versions of the same thing. (In your police report analogy, they might remember different things of importance, but one won't say it was a plane crash and the other say it was a car.) They are different accounts.
    About the time etc in those days, the problem with that explanation is it was the Passover. ALL Jews knew what day it was. (a day then was sundown to the next sundown, not 12 midnight to 12 midnight like now)
    One account said they had the passover meal,( the last supper), then the following morning Jesus was tried and died. The other says he died on the day of preparation for passover, the day before. (interestingly, the day before was when they sacrificed lambs on the alter)
    The time problem cannot be explained away that way, all the Jews knew it was coming up to passover, and what day it was. One can also tell the difference between 9am and midday, even if it's a cloudy day.
    Another problem since you mentioned old languages. The disciples spoke Aramaic, were fishermen etc and so very likely illiterate, yet the Gospels were written in Greek, which was considered the intellectual language at the time. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were not written by those disciples, as far as I'm aware the authors are unknown.

    About evolution, yes, Origin of Species (different life forms), not Origin of Life. Evolution doesn't address abiogenesis, but the change in life forms once it was going.

    I don't know your personal story etc mate, but the point about Derren Brown is that it explains how it can be done (suggestion till you make it fit correctly, or cold reading) and seem like a miracle. Exactly the same thing is said by people who have had a 'psychic' tell them something correct, but Derren Brown shows how they do it. I don't know about your experience salt, I'm just saying there are more possible answers then a 'God' telling them.

  85. docoman

    Thor? :)

  86. jackmax

    It would appear that your understanding of research is somewhat lacking if you don't think background checks are not research.

    If the first gospel was written approximately 68 - 70 AD would be correct in saying that there are no eyewitness accounts of his actual death. And if that's the case how much truth can be taken from hearsay?
    Hearsay is not evidence and cannot be taken as being a reliable account of actual events.

    It appears that you have avoided my question, what biological or logical barriers prevent the former from becoming the latter?

    May I be so rude and ask how old are you?

  87. The salt

    Once again I say there is no contradiction. I just think people can't figure the timeline out of what happened when. You listed a very interesting pair of verses in Matthew 27. The first is verse 46, saying:
    "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying , Eli, Eli, lama sabach thani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"
    And further on in verse 50 it says:
    "Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost."

    It says that Jesus cried again, which disqualifies the verse 46 in Matthew as the last words. Then going to John 19 verse 30 which state the following:
    "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said , It is finished : and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost."
    This verse does not state that he died just after he said that, because nowhere it states that that was His last words.

    But in Luke 23 it says the following:
    "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said , Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost ."

    "and having said thus" means that what ever follows is what happened directly after what was said.

    I can see your point, that one can easily be confused by the matter.

    Want to keep this message shorter, so I won't go into all the "contradictions" now. I still believe the Word does not contradict itself.

    With regards to the disciples we can't assume that all of them where illiterate, since Matthew was a tax collector and must have been literate. Whether the rest were illiterate, we are not able to determine that and with regards the who wrote the gospels. You need to take into account that the versions found with the Dead Sea Scrolls could easily have been the translations from Aramaic version to Greek version, once again that is just an assumption, but could be a valid explanation.

    Then that begs the question: How did everything come into being? Can evolution explain the different fauna and flora, or is evolution just based on animals? So, what replaced God in schools? Evolution, which makes life pointless, since life is function of death in evolution, which is a major contradiction in itself.

    I was also skeptic at first, but the more I saw it the more I understood that what was said was not some words collected from some mind reading trick, but it had a lot more to it. But that is what I experienced, and I'm not here to force my experiences onto anyone. I'm here to be a testimony and to spread the good news. We are not to convert people, but tell everyone of Jesus and then it is that persons free will to make a choice. I apologize if I came across as someone trying to convert, for we do not have to power to convert anyway.

  88. The salt

    I apologize if my understanding was lacking. Let me retract my statement and rephrase it. I watched a few of his tv show Derren Brown: Mind Control and I also read through a few articles of mind control and hypnotism. Does that make me an expert, absolutely not, but I just want to clear that up.

    With regards to the gospels. Are you sure that those are the original copies or where they translations of the original? So, maybe they were not hearsay, but translations of the original.

    Evolution does not solve anything, it just creates more questions and confusion among people. The fact that it tries to explain everything, but can't answer the most fundamental question, how did that first life form that everything came from come into being? How can anyone belief a "scientific theory" that is based on an assumption of something just being there (the barrier, it is ill-logic). Maybe the similarities of species points to a Creator? Just putting it out there.

    I do not know what that has to do with this discussion, since even the old can learn from a child and vice versa. But if it is that important to you, I am 26 years old.

  89. docoman

    You are missing the point about evolution, I said it in my other answer to you. Evolution is about the change in life forms, how you can have one species change over time into a different species. It doesn't know, or attempt to say how life started. That is a different topic. It is possible evolution was set in motion by your 'God', evolution doesn't have anything to do with the Big Bang, galaxy/solar system/planet formation, or even how life started. Just how life changes over time.

  90. docoman

    G'day salt, tks for your answer mate. [edit-took out question about age, I see you already answered that elsewhere] I'm 41, I went to a few religious schools growing up and had Bible as a class for a number of years, had to go to church as a child etc. but haven't now for about 25 years. I'm no expert, but have heard/read most of the Bible, (have read it all) from a couple denominations viewpoints. That's why I'm interested in your view or interpretation, not just what the Bible says, I've heard that, I'm interested in your thoughts.

    Did you say you agree the Gospels were started to be written somewhere around 70 AD, give or take a couple years? ACTS, was probably about 20 years earlier I've heard from a decent source. That means that no living witnesses were alive when they were written, at the absolute best it was 2nd hand, probably more like 3rd or 4th.
    They do say his last words were different, claiming it didn't say those where his last words means that he might've said more... well, if he did, why didn't they quote them, they're important? No mate, that's not how it reads, that's what they thought he said and then died.
    OK, try these 2.
    Read MATT 27:39 to 44. Then compare that to LUKE 23:36 to 43.
    One says one thief mocks Jesus, the other tells him not to and chats with Jesus and receives mercy, the other account definitely says that they both mock him.

    Did Jesus defend himself at the trial, or say almost nothing?
    Read MATT 27:11 to 14. Then JOHN 18:33 to 37.
    As I said mate, there are many more throughout the Bible if you know where to find them. I'd like to hear your thoughts on those 2 events and the accounts of them?

  91. docoman

    I really like that link. Shows how we're not even a speck of dust on a pimple of a planet. I agree, it's pretty arrogant to think somehow it's all about us. I like it that every atom of us that's not hydrogen or helium has definitely been a fuel for a star that's long gone now in a violent death. And the oxygen I breath has been breathed out by an earlier, likely plant, life form here on my planet. I missed the part in Genesis where it talks about that... ;)

  92. jackmax

    From what I've read from your posts, your understanding of evolution is some what lacking.
    Evolution is the change in genetic composition of a population over successive generations, which may be caused by natural selection, inbreeding, hybridization, or mutation.

    In order for evolution to occur, there must be genetic variation. Genetic variation brings about evolution. Without it there will be no evolution. There are two major mechanisms that drive evolution. First is natural selection. Individuals with advantageous traits are more likely to reproduce successfully, passing these traits to the next generation. This kind of evolution driven by natural selection is called adaptive evolution. Another mechanism involves genetic drift, which produces random changes in the frequency of traits in a population. Evolution that arises from genetic drift is called neutral evolution.

    Are you saying that the gospels are copies of other writing from an earlier period and if so where is your evidence to back your claim.

  93. Darren

    Thanks for the welcome and that link, it does make me wonder how tall Abraham was or Adam for that matter?

    I've been a reader and watcher on this site for sum time now (mainly a reader cause I've got to ration my data usage) and read many a fine post from yourself. Decided to join after that laugh provided by jbeckham360 on Devil's Bible comment thread and thank them (it really tickled my fancy at the time).

  94. The salt

    If evolution can't explain the origin of life and is contradictory to my God, then I'm not interested in evolution and learning more about it. That is my honest opinion.

    With regards to the gospels. I asked you a question and I did not make a claim.

  95. The salt

    Do you even listen to yourself. The greatest contradiction is that people that don't believe in God think that everything came from nothing. Maybe that is true in your mind, but not in mine.

  96. The salt

    Good day docoman, hope all is good with you. I've been going to church for most of my life, but the last couple of years I haven't been going to church at all and I feel that I have actually grown closer to God now. I feel that the churches can't help you grow a relationship with God they can only point you in the right direction.

    I'm currently going to a bible study group that taught me quite a lot in the last few months about how you should read the bible and just about the bigger picture that even churches don't see or don't want to preach.

    With regards to the period of when the gospels was written and who wrote them, I do not know. I feel that there are four accounts that tell you about Jesus's life, death and resurrection. Even if they differ in some ways that doesn't detract from the underlying message.

    Did they only crucify people at a certain time? I believe that they are separate occurrences. In Matthew they were busy hanging Jesus and the thieves were already there. Have they already been hung? In Luke it states that there were two malefactors (notes that he doesn't state that they are thieves, which might show a difference), which means evil-doer. So, could there have been four people crucified along side Jesus? I also notice that in verse 44 of Matthew it refers to the thieves, but later on it says ".. in his teeth." Could there be a translation error?

    Once again these are two separate events. In Matthew it says that he was accused by the chief priests and elders and said nothing, but in John it was Pilate that questioned him and He gave him answers to the questions. So, I don't see a contradiction. He remained silent to the accusations of the high priests and elders and answered Pilate on his questions. For if he defended Himself against the accusations, then He would have been found innocent and wouldn't have been crucified.

    Hope this helps.

  97. docoman

    The problem is, when anything contradicts itself in the Bible, it is a big deal. Because, the Bible is the source of ALL so called evidence of God and His plan. (according to Christians that is) Ask any Christian for evidence, they'll either speak of a personal epiphany, usually during a time of mental stress for which there are other possible answers then just God, or more generally quote the Bible as evidence for itself. Which is an obvious logical problem.

    C'mon Salt, really? There might have been more then 2 others on crosses that day, maybe four? It is stated there is 2, not 4. [edit- Bible says 1 either side] It's always in sermons said there's two. One account names their crime, the other account just calls them 'wrong-doers'. Same thing mate. You're splitting hairs, you even used the word 'Might' to try to explain the differences, and ignoring the fact that there are 2 differing accounts about the very same thing, that both cannot be correct. Quite an important thing too the Crucifixion , the whole point of God's plan. Not to mention it points towards the claims of inerrancy and divine inspirition, the very foundation of the Bible and it's associated religions.

    There are many more contradictions, we've only scratched the surface.

    How many more can you explain away as 'might' mean this or that, it could be a translation error, etc to try to keep it making sense?
    It's accepted the Red Sea in the Exodus story was a mistranslation, it should be Reed Sea, (which makes much more sense for the rest of the story and has geographical placing). But even after that was discovered, people still prefer the supernatural tale about the Red Sea and parting of the waters etc.
    The Bible has many more problems with logic and required exceptions and additions to keep it functioning then the BB theory, which we've both agreed isn't a complete answer that needs work. Why excuse the Bible, written by men (a fact that's never been disputed), of more logic problems and errors then the BB theory? That's not being logically consistent.

    Its your right to believe whatever you wish, I'm curious as to how/why you can excuse the Bible's problems but not other things that do make sense, like evolution. (again, it's not about how life started, but how it's changed forms over time.)

  98. jackmax

    Your god, which god would that be considering that there have been estimated to be around 28,000,000 of them so could you narrow it down so I know what BS you have been brainwashed with.

    All four Gospels were written anonymously
    and, based on the writings of the early church fathers, for close to two centuries after they were written, Christians had no idea who wrote them. Only in this later period did Christian scholars start guessing as to who the authors might have been. As the guesses were repeated and adopted by other Christian writers and thinkers, the guesses became traditions, and traditions became dogma.

    The evidence also shows that Matthew, the
    alleged associate of Jesus, actually copied much of his Gospel from Mark and most of the rest from other sources, suggesting he lacked any intimate knowledge of the events surrounding the life of Jesus.
    Luke also used Mark and other sources to compose his Gospel. John appears to have been written in stages by multiple authors using a variety of written sources, and much of John directly contradicts
    Matthew, leaving these two alleged Apostles challenging each other’s
    account of Jesus’ mission at critical points.

    Not only is there a question of the
    identity of the authors of the original Gospel texts, the evidence from ancient sources also shows that during the first few centuries of Christianity many Christian scribes deliberately altered the Gospel texts and many of these changes have been erroneously incorporated into our modern Gospel accounts. In one notorious
    example, the last twelve verses of Mark, the first of the four Gospels to have been written, depict the resurrection of Jesus, but they were not part of Mark’s original Gospel. The verses were added later by an unidentified scribe trying to bring Mark into line with the other Evangelists

  99. The salt

    If you would like to see some proof for God's existence, just go outside and have a look around. Go out at night and have a look at the sky. Everything you see is proof for God's existence.

    If God does not exist, then how do you account for those people who are demon possessed?
    If God doesn't exist, then how can other spiritual things exist? Science can't explain the spiritual.
    This is what we call an indirect proof.

    Doesn't science say that matter can't be created or destroyed but can only change from one form to another. This leaves science at a predicament, since the defenition of the big bang theory is the following:

    "big-bang theory: (cosmology) the theory that the universe originated sometime between 10 billion and 20 billion years ago from the cataclysmic explosion of a small volume of matter at extremely high density and temperature"

    Where did this matter come from? I know my God functions outside of science, but can science function outside of science.

    According to allaboutscience.org:
    "Evolution is the process by which an organism becomes more sophisticated over time and in response to its environment."

    Do a little research on the the bacterial flagellum.

    To be honest I believe that there is more to life than just working yourself to death and collecting material things. In the end even the elect will be fooled by false teachings and false prophets.

  100. over the edge

    next time i suggest you get your science lessons from a scientific site. the definitions you provided are wrong. the big bang was not an explosion but an expansion. also while the 10-20 billiion years ago is technically correct scientists have narrowed the margins much more than that.

    your definition of evolution is even worse. there is no demand that an organism becomes more sophisticated over time. please expand on the flagellum as i haven't had the opportunity to see Behe's lies slapped around in a while

  101. Achems_Razor

    Right.
    "You believe in a book that has talking animals, wizards, witches, demons, sticks turning into snakes, burning bushes, food falling from the sky, people walking on water, and all sorts of magical absurd primitive stories and you say that we are the ones that need help?"

    "Mark Twain"

  102. dewfall

    You're a brave man Blue, those Harry Potter fans have pointy hats and they're not afraid to use them ;)

  103. docoman

    G'day Salt, nice to hear from you. Firstly mate, I've tried to answer your questions, I note your reply didn't address any of my points in my last post. Please, do me the common courtesy to at least try to answer, I do try to for you, I apologise if I've missed any.
    I'll answer in point form, to each paragraph.

    1. "Everything we see is proof of Gods existence". My answer is you should look up and understand the 'blind watchmaker argument', which has been ongoing for many years. It addresses what you're talking about. I do understand where you're coming from, I grew up hearing this argument. I don't see the hand of a 'designing God', I see complexity built on change over time and has become inter-twined and complex over a time scale that is very hard for us humans to understand. Stand it the middle of outback Aus, you'll get a feeling of how old the land is..
    2. :Demon possession", and "how do I account for other spiritual experiences."
    Have you personally witnessed a possession, live, not on TV? I've heard about a few... there was supposedly one done on a woman that died in a country town about 20 mins up the road from me years ago. I've not seen any live, but have seen some footage. It can be answered I think with a neurological approach... many have mental illness or issues, or seizures involving the frontal lobe... which is known under certain stimuli to produce 'delusions of God etc'. Also, with regards to spiritual, religion by no means has a monopoly on the spiritual side of our human nature... in fact it relies on it to appeal to it. Many people have spiritual experience with nature under the influence of psychoactive consumption. All cultures had their 'shamen', and as far as I know the only culture that didn't use some form of psychoactive concoction are the Inuit, as nothing grows there that gets one 'high'.

    3. Whatever your argument with the singularity and the BB, i.e. first cause... when you add any deity, all you do is remove that problem 1 step back... who created your creator... answering 'he's always been there and is outside of time itself' is no bigger a 'long stretch' as some singularity expanded ( NOT exploded..the term Big Bang was a derogatory term that stuck, there is a difference). A deity answer only complicates the matter, and has less evidence then the BB theory, even with it's problems.
    4. I don't understand your problem with evolution to be honest. You admitted that micro-evolution happens... macro is just the natural progression to that over an extended time. There is not only living evidence, and fossil evidence, now that we've started decoding DNA it also bears out that we are all from the same DNA source, with changes/mutations and add on's to get to where we are now.
    5. It's partly correct, but not complete. As over the edge suggested, you would be well advised to read a broader range of authors on the subject, then use your own mind to find which makes sense.
    6. I haven't heard of flagellum, I will look it up when I get time time mate. I'm curious as to what it is now.
    7. I agree, there is more to life then just work then death. If you look at every single life form, in its own way, responds to stimuli to try to survive firstly, and everything's mission, even unto it's own death sometimes, is to breed and pass on it's genes. We're no different. Look how humans feel and react, care for and protect our own young. Same thing.
    IF there is some God, he'll not judge us on what religion we followed (depends largely on where you were born), but how you lived your life, and the choices you made along the way. If there is no God, helping our fellow humans also helps us continue our genes, so it fulfills that need too. Whether you are a decent person or not has nothing to do with what church you do or don't go to, what beliefs you have, but completely by our actions towards others.

  104. docoman

    Yes, but as I just said in my other post, you have the same problem but with 1 more added complication. 'God' doesn't answer the question of first cause, just adds a extra step. Where did he/she/it come from? 'Always been there' isn't an answer.

  105. The salt

    “Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't.” - Mark Twain
    ("fiction - literature in the form of prose, esp. short stories and novels, that describes imaginary events and people.")

    So, according to your quote by Mark Twain and the definition of fiction, he is actually saying that the bible is a book of fiction. Then, according to his above quote the bible is obliged to stick to possibilities. Nice contradiction right? lol Mark Twain is an idiot.

    Maybe, you should just stick to moderating the forum.

  106. The salt

    It's a circular argument, and it just depends on what you believe. It applies both to the big bang and to God.

  107. The salt

    This is actually the definition used by Princeton University, so maybe you should e-mail them and tell them that they don't know what they are talking about, as I'm not a scientists. It seems strange that there are so many different definitions to scientific theories, or maybe it is just me.

    Once again that is not my definition of evolution, its is the definition of the website as stated in my comment. The flagella is a irreducibly complex structure (molecular motor) that won't function if you remove a part from it. Like any motor if you remove a part it won't function. Like a motor car if you remove the cylinders, then the motor won't work anymore.

  108. docoman

    Yes, that's what I'm saying. Anyone making a statement as to what was the 'first cause', is only guessing, whether it be some 'God' (not just yours but all others gods of creation), or some knowledge of what science has labeled the singularity.

    No-one knows the answer, and so really the only reasonable position to take on it, at this point in time with the available evidence, is Agnostic, in my opinion. Hence my stance and my 'label' if I must have one.

  109. docoman

    G'day Salt,

    Princeton might include complexity in their definition of evolution, but that is not the norm with most definitions of it. Google some more and you'll see.

    Evolution tends to create more complexity over time, but it is not an absolute prerequisite that something becomes more complex, just that it changes/adapts. To see a good example, have a look at the Salt Water Croc, and it's predecessors and how little they've changed, Not more complex, they don't need to, their design works well as it is.

    OK, I've had a chance to look into flagellum, and your argument that no doubt accompanies it. Irreducible Complexity. I've seen that argument, just not using flagellum. One of the more recent.. infamous I guess you'd call it.. ones I wonder if you've seen? Ray Comfort and the Banana? Look it up if you haven't seen it.

    I now know what a flagellum is, there are many types. The following is some extracts outlining exactly what your argument is and why it's incorrect, from the 'New Scientist' online magazine, an article authored by Michael La Page. Sorry for the length, but bear with me, it outlines exactly your argument, and then puts to bed your point explaining why.

    "Actually, flagella vary widely from one species to another, and some of the components can perform useful functions by themselves. They are anything but irreducibly complex.
    It is a highly complex molecular machine.
    Protruding from many bacteria are long spiral propellers attached to motors that drive their rotation. The only way the flagellum could have arisen, some claim, is by design.
    Each flagellum is made of around 40 different protein components. The proponents of an offshoot of creationism known as intelligent design argue that a flagellum is useless without every single one of these components, so such a structure could not have emerged gradually via mutation and selection."

    "In reality, the term "the bacterial flagellum" is misleading. While much remains to be discovered, we now know there are thousands of different flagella in bacteria, which vary considerably in form and even function. "

    "The best studied flagellum, of the E. coli
    bacterium, contains around 40 different kinds of proteins. Only 23 of these proteins, however, are common to all the other bacterial flagella studied so far. Either a "designer" created thousands of variants on the flagellum or, contrary to creationist claims, it is possible to make
    considerable changes to the machinery without mucking it up."

    'What's more, of these 23 proteins, it
    turns out that just two are unique to flagella. The others all closely resemble proteins that carry out other functions in the cell. This means that the vast majority of the components needed to make a flagellum might already have been present in bacteria before this structure appeared."

    "It has been proposed that the flagellum originated from a protein export system.
    Over time, this system might have been adapted to attach a bacterium to a surface by extruding an adhesive filament. An ion-powered pump for expelling substances from the cell might then have mutated to form the basis of a rotary motor. Rotating any asymmetrical filament would propel
    a cell and give it a huge advantage over non-motile bacteria even before more spiral filaments evolved."

    "It has also been shown that some of the
    components that make up a typical flagellum - the motor, the machinery for extruding the "propeller" and a primitive directional control system - can perform other useful functions in the cell, such as exporting proteins."

    In conclusion, I agree with La Page when he says;

    "More generally, the fact that today's biologists cannot provide a definitive account of how every single structure or organism evolved proves nothing about design versus evolution. Biology is still in its infancy, and even when our understanding of life and its history is far
    more complete, our ability to reconstruct what happened billions of years ago will still be limited."

    Just because it's hard to explain or understand, doesn't automatically mean 'God' MUST have done it. That's the same reasoning that used to be thought of towards volcanoes being 'gods'....

  110. Achems_Razor

    Do not tell us moderators what to do.
    Warning #1

  111. Achems_Razor

    Again you are telling us moderators what to do.
    Warning #2
    Take heed, no other warnings after this.

  112. docoman

    G'day Salt, I understand it's hard to follow the way the conversations get chopped up and answer every question, I was just trying to get you to answer some of mine, wasn't trying to be pushy mate.

    1. Was about the 'blind watch maker', which gets at inferring intelligent design in things we look at. Not what scientists can do with DNA now or in the past??? That's a side issue.. better reserved for a topic like 'ancient aliens' etc.. I have some thoughts on that...but they're not for here mate.

    2. I watched the link. I've actually seen it on TV here in AUS before. Now, about someone getting hit twice and running off... firstly it depends on how you are hit.. as you know stunt men have learned to 'bounce' and not be injured, the way that car looked it looked similar to that, hit her high on the windscreen in her upper body, not injuring the legs or head. [Edit-the other woman with broken legs didn't get up and run around]
    That is not past human capability mate, especially if as it looked, if they were on drugs. I've hit Kangaroo's at 70 km/h, knocked it about 10 meters forward of my car. I got out to get my tire lever to put it down, and the bugger jumped up and took off. I've also seen a roo take 5 hits from a .22 and still clear a 5 ft fence.
    Those women looked like they were both on drugs, not possessed. Sorry mate, but as neither of us have seen it, as far as you and I are concerned it must remain an unconfirmed myth, possession.

    3 and 4. You're getting mixed up between the definition of a scientific theory, and evolution. Which one are you talking about, I'm happy to discuss either one and any issues or questions you have with them.

    5. What 'broader range of authors' are there other then what's in the Bible? There is only the one scripture for your religion, which is claimed to be the be all and end all authority on everything it mentions. Science is open to debate, change, admitting it got something wrong. Anyone qualified to understand it can prove or disprove any one of many topics, and there are a broad range of authors with differing hypothesis. (note, when you understand scientific theory, you'll see that a scientific hypothesis is equivalent to a 'laymans' theory) To speak against the Bible is Blasphemy, heresy, not open for debate, according to the Church over history.
    IF the Bible is the unerring, non-contradicting scripture as is claimed, then is the price (in silver i think wasn't it) for slaves still the same, or has there been some inflation?

    That's why science will adapt and learn with new evidence, and actually encourages questions and debate and evidence, and religion/the Church/ Bible is the opposite and it doesn't work the same.

    6. I already have researched into flagella, and posted a comprehensive reply to you about 3 hours ago mate.

    7. Cool, that's our own personal thoughts on the subject, thank you for sharing yours.

    I think atheism has the potential to become religion-like, as does any shared beliefs or non-beliefs. (same as politics) Just like there are many kinds of religious people, there are different kinds of atheists, and agnostics too.

    Have you followed up any more of the contradictions in the Bible? Your thoughts on them?
    Have a good day/night too mate. I'm in and from Australia, what part of the globe do you come from if you don't mind me asking?

  113. docoman

    They have a shelf-life do they mate? I'm not asking for salt to get booted, (just being a sh1t-stirrer I am ;) but I believe he/she was already on #2 should be #2.5 now ;)

  114. docoman

    Salt, the mods don't only moderate, they also comment from time to time. If you hang around on different subjects long enough, you'll find every one of them is quite knowledgeable in their areas, and very willing to help people learn. If you keep being sarcastic to them, you'll end up being booted. Their job's not easy, but they're all decent blokes if you can not hold a grudge, everyone won't always agree. Otherwise you'll be gone soon. By your free will too really ;)

  115. oQ

    In fact all of them are in the top 5 commenters....and I must add most of them would agree on most, that's why sometimes one can feel cornered. Just stay true to what you think knowing that it is like clay, it gets shaped by rubbing.

  116. The salt

    Good day docoman, hope things are good in Australia.

    1) Sorry mate, I got a little side-tracked on that reply. If I get time I'll look into the 'blind watch maker' debate.

    2) I haven't ever been run over by a car, so I wouldn't be able to say if that is above human capability. It is plausible for her to have hit the car just right not to have gotten injured. But I don't know if I would be able to get up and have the energy to fight of six police officers of which some were male, even if I used drugs.

    3 & 4) Don't have any questions at the moment.

    5) My view and the church's view is not the same and it is sad to say, but a lot of people in the church think they are saved, but they are not. There must have been some inflation if you take into account that Joseph (Israel's son) was sold into slavery to the ishmaelites for 20 pieces of silver and Jesus was sold to the priests for 30 pieces of silver.

    6) I read your post, but I think it was after I posted my comment.

    Think atheism is actually very close to becoming a religion, since there are already churches for atheists.

    Had a look at the differences in genealogy. The one in Matthew is more a male oriented genealogy and was the genealogy from Josephs side of the family. Where the genealogy in Luke both show male and female. This was Mary's genealogy from her father, because Joseph was his son-in-law that is why it says Joseph which was the son of Heli. Hope that makes sense.

    With regards to how Judas died. It says in Matthew 27 that he hung himself, and we can assume that it was on a tree. So, he died bu hanging himself and then afterwards, the branch broke because it could not carry the weight anymore and he fell and burst open as stated in Acts 1. So, don't think that it is contradictory. Hope that helps.

    I'm form South Africa. So, its mostly day here if you are posting by night.

  117. docoman

    G'day salt, cool, I don't get to talk to many Sth Africans online.

    With those women, you'll note the one hit by the truck with the broken legs didn't get up again. The other one did fight, but didn't 'fight off six coppers', they restrained her when they finally got hold of her. (hard job doing that, watch a few videos of drunks etc getting handled, and you'd think someone drunk would be easy) It shows those women were 'not right', but doesn't show exactly what. 'Possession' is one possibility, but there are others much more likely that don't first require evidence it in fact can happen, like the mentioned drug use, my personal 'front-runner'.

    Hmm, but if the genealogy in Luke shows both male and female, why don't the male ones match up with the male side shown in Mathew?

    About Judus' death. Did you read the two passages, and the context? C'mon salt, Mathew said Judus threw the money into the temple and left. Then hanged himself. The priests deliberated, and chose to buy a cemetery for foreigners WITH THAT MONEY. A place called "the Field of Blood.". Acts says;
    "With the payment he received for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out... Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood."

    Your invented story about hanging then falling, while amusing and entertaining, certainly doesn't fit in with the 2 accounts, or fix the contradictions. Did Judas use the money and buy the field then fall and die, or did Judas leave that money, go hang himself, and the priests buy that field?

    Another example of why the Bible is not all the inspired word of God. Read 1st Corinthians 7:12. Paul says he's not speaking for 'God', but his own opinion.

    Also 2 Corinthians 11:(whole chapter really) Paul, boasting about himself, about him using other churches, about how much and how hard he's done had 'life', he even is derogatory towards the original apostles. That's not the word of 'God', it says so itself....

  118. Darren

    I'm waiting for your rebuttal to over the edge, re: your dishonesty regarding the evolution definition you used in a previous post (here's a reminder "Evolution is the process by which an organism becomes more sophisticated over time and in response to its environment.") which you stated came from 'allaboutscience' than in the reply to over the edge, when he questioned the definition, you said "This is actually the definition used by Princeton University". My conclusion is, you willfully lied.

  119. The salt

    I guess calling someone a liar isn't insulting them?

    With regards to your accusation directed at me. If you actually read the message I replied to you would understand my reply. This is exactly what happens when we read the writings of Paul. We only have Paul's answers and not the questions. But let me quickly correct your error. In the first paragraph of the accused post I was referring to my said definition of the big bang. In my second paragraph I was referring to my said definition of evolution.

    With regards to not replying to over the edge. I wish not to reply to any moderator anymore, since every time I reply they seem to get offended. I wish to leave this discussion on my own accord, which will be today, since I do not want to associate myself with people that falsely accuse someone of something he didn't do. It reminds me too much of my countries police.

  120. The salt

    Good day docoman, this will be my last reply, since Darren accusation that I'm a liar was the last straw.

    I do agree with the woman that they could have been using drugs and that could explain their behavior.

    I don't know if you are married. but if you were would your wife and your family tree be the same?

    The on in Luke is Mary's family tree and the one in Matthew is Joseph's family tree. They are separate and not the same. Why they where put there was to show that Jesus's mother and father's family tree lead to King David, which makes Jesus rightful to be King of the world.

    My reply was on the contradiction of how Judas died not on how the field was bought. When Judas gave the money back the priests were not allowed to take it since it was blood money, so in actual fact it was still Judas's money. So, when it states that Judas bought the field, it just means that it was his money that was used to buy the field. That is my explanation.

    In 1st Corinthians 7:12 Paul was replying to question about when you are allowed to divorce. They asked if someone is married to a non-believer if they could divorce them. The law (torah) does not address that. So, that is why he said "But to the rest speak I, not the Lord...."

    I can't go in to detail regarding the whole chapter, since it would take too long and this is my last post I will not be able to reply again. You must just understand that, Paul's writings are letters to the churches and the letters are answers to the questions directed to him by the churches. We only have the answers and not the questions, so it is easy to misinterpret what he was saying.

    Was nice having a discussion with you. I hope you find the truth and that it is what you expected. My God bless you. Good bye.

  121. Darren

    My mistake,I read your comment incorrectly, so please accept my apology.

  122. Darren

    I have already apologised, so please don't quit posting here because I didn't read your posts correctly.

  123. over the edge

    you are free to not reply to me. but please don't play the persecution card. trust me my skin is thick enough that i rarely get offended. if you are still sore that i pointed out out your misinterpretation of the comment policy then fine.

  124. jackmax

    He's not quitting because of anything you have said. It appears that he is quitting due to the fact he is getting smashed all over the park over his lack of knowledge.

  125. docoman

    G'day Salt,
    I had trouble following along with the 'princeton definition' thing, wasn't sure. [I couldn't see with a quick look anything about Princeton in that first link which confused me] Part of the problem I think is, the two terms that your posts demonstrated you didn't have an exact understanding of the terms were 'evolution' and in science, what is a 'theory'. Not the BB Theory which it seems you looked up, but just 'theory'. It's different in science to how it's generally used by the public. There's not much we absolutely know for sure, enough so that we call it a law. The next step down in science is a theory, which has evidence towards, but may still be modified or changed if a better understanding or other evidence comes to light. Gravity is still a theory for example. Germ theory, why/how we get sick, is still a theory. A well accepted one, but a scientific theory still nonetheless. The science term equivalent to a 'layman's theory' is an hypothesis. (an idea basically)

    Evolution is supposed to be only about how life has changed forms, not how it started. Truth is, although some scientists have proposed some hypotheses about life starting, none have enough evidence to become a well established theory. Evolution doesn't explain life starting, just it changing over time.

    About the genealogy of Christ, fair enough, but you can see how it can create confusion, they should have made it more clear in my opinion.

    With Judas, what he did with the money and how he died is tied together, the story is intertwined. Either way, the accounts don't match up, you have to do some 'add on' to make it fit together. It says he died two different ways, did two different things with the money. (the money was used the same way, but different people brought that land)

    I agree that Paul's writings are letters to churches, many answering letters which we don't have now.
    My point there was, that's Paul's correspondence, as he says in parts, it's his opinion, not the word or commands of 'God'. Which goes against the claim of every word being the word of God. They're Paul's words and interpretations. (to fit the current times and attitudes towards divorce in that case). The same point I was alluding to about slaves. The Bible says it's ok to have slaves, how many shekels of silver they're worth etc, but no one decent these days still believes that. That was a product of its times, not the commands and words of our 'God' in my opinion.

    It's been enjoyable talking to you salt. I have many more contradictions in the Bible, over 100 more in fact, that we could go through step by step (take a long time). I grew up in a Christian household, but after reading and doing some Bible study myself, and actually listening to the 'church' people, then comparing their actions to their words, I could see from an early age it was just wrong. In my opinion, the Bible is a political tool, same as the Church. The 'God' in the Bible I concluded cannot be correct, there probably was a morally decent leader/teacher that we call Jesus, but I don't believe he was 'God' himself, or the whole 'born in sin' idea. I've never met a young baby that had any 'evil or sin' in it whatsoever.
    If there is a 'God' watching me, It will judge me by my intentions and actions. Which despite many religious peoples claims, decent morals don't come from their religion... it comes from within the individual.

    My general point while talking to you is, the claim that the Bible is all the divine, inspired, inerrant word of God cannot be true when you study the Bible closely enough comparing where it discusses the same things, in my opinion and by my logic. (that's before even looking at any supernatural claims in there) I have no argument that there are some good rules and life lessons, but as far as it being instructions given by my God for me to follow, I can't buy that. That God is too vengeful and vain for starters to fit the description of a perfect deity in my opinion.
    If you can overlook any errors because you feel the rest of the message is good that's cool, it's everyone's right to choose what to believe or not. If you get comfort, or it helps you be a better person then that's good too. We can agree to disagree on some things and move on, that's part of the beauty of humans, we're all different yet the same.

    (You mentioned you're in a Bible study group. A little experiment if you're curious... one on one, get them to read the two scriptures about Judas' death, and ask them their explanation. See how many different ones you get, and if any give the same answer you did?)

    I've been called all sorts of things on here because of my opinions, my favorite so far was I'm a 'Nazi gestapo pedophile that gets my jollies from watching films of Vietnamese kids getting napalmed'. I found that one quite amusing, it's all water off a ducks back now. If you weren't lying don't worry about it, answer and the truth will speak for itself. If you were, then he called it correctly, don't do it anymore. (He's since said he made an error and has apologised) (tbh I cbf what or where which definitions were used, I just can tell by the way you've used the terms in your posts that your understanding of exactly what the 2 terms mean is a little off, in a very common way, most make the same errors.)

    We all got a little heated at times during this conversation, I can't see it now but I may have implied you were either wrong or lying earlier too. If you weren't then my apologies, if you were then please don't. :) Don't take it too personal, most of us don't really know who anyone else is but a random avitar and name on a screen. It's easy to get heated and say something we normally wouldn't face to face.

    If you don't want to comment here anymore that's also your right. Was nice talking to you Salt, all the best to you and yours, have a good Christmas mate, and good luck in your future.

  126. susan g

    I haven't watched the doc yet, nor have I read all the comments, so I don't know if this has been mentioned.

    Since humans have been getting taller through time it would stand to reason they were much smaller in biblical times. There is a medical condition called acromegaly. People with this condition can grow to be as tall as 8ft! They not only grow to enormous heights, but their hands, feet, and features are also very large. Think how someone with this condition 7-8 ft tall would look to the average person of say 5ft? They would have most certainly looked like giants!

  127. Darren

    G'day jackmax, you're probably right, the salt was getting out while the getting was good. However, I did misread the post then accused the salt of lying, my bad, docoman stated "I had trouble following along with the 'princeton definition' thing, wasn't sure." so maybe I can be forgiven for my poor comprehension skills.

    PS talking about getting smashed, perhaps we can take the poms 5 zip!

  128. jackmax

    G'day Darren,

    Great day for us Aussies yesterday with the best to come I'd put money on 5-0.
    Docoman and myself enjoyed a few quite ones whilst watching the poms get smashed.

    Even if you had mis-read salts post, you apologised.

    Since being a member of this site I have read many religees lack of understanding of evolution, or the true understanding of what science is trying to achieve.

    The beauty of science is that fact it's only interested in the truth and will correct itself if incorrect unlike religion.
    Did you notice that when the opportunity to increase their knowledge about thing that go against their religiee belief, most religee's do the same as salt.

    As they say at times the truth can be confronting and some would rather put their head in the sand than admit being wrong.

  129. Jon

    The written traditions started at the time Israel came out of Egyptian slavery. They were persecuted as a race and treated like livestock by their rulers. Under this condition, superstitions and false ideas filled the minds of the ordinary Israelite. Fact is only Moses was raised a nobility who got training and formal education. The rest of the Israelites know their roots from oral traditions, most likely from folk lore or recreating stories in a sensational, exaggerated and less sober style.

    Moses too had an issue. In fact God rejected Moses for his inability to show the Almighty to the Israelites. This happened when Moses failed to acknowledge the power of God before Israel by giving thanks after God granted the wish of the community to give them water.

    Moses wanted to save his work and effort for posterity, leading to the written account of his misadventure. Yet the nation of Israel - conditioned as slaves - regarded Moses as the great prophet, not understanding that Moses failed to lead them to God too - proof of which is written as the reason why Moses had to die in the desert as punishment or sign that he failed in this mission..

    Perhaps the primitive language or crude literary form and expression of lore by Israel got to share blame for the exaggerations and confusions that Scriptures contain. Realize that in those days, folk lore or story telling was the media mode of public communication and entertainment. This style is comparable to ancient or classic compilations prior to publishing and the science procedure such as Arabian Nights or Aesop's Fables

    For this reason, Jesus had to come down from heaven to show men the Way to God. His advise was to let the Holy Spirit guide you to the knowledge or Truth of the Scriptures. People may never realize the issues or what really happened unless it is the Holy Spirit explaining it.

    Indeed God is the author of history since men may try or attempt to create history yet God always has the final say. God's Word is absolute so that Scriptures would prove that the disobedience of Israel never prospered.

  130. Tom Carberry

    Actually, humans have grown smaller and smaller over the centuries, reversing the trend only in the last 200 years or so, with better over all nutrition. Go to any castle in Germany and look at suits of armor, worn by the noble warriors, and you will see what I mean -- most young teenagers today couldn't fit into them.

    Geneticists have shown that human brain size has shrunken every where at least 10% and over 25% in some places, such as between pre-agriculture and post-agriculture European women.

    Something truly terrible happened to humanity and to the rest of the planet some not so many thousands of years ago, leading to the instantaneous extinction of the mammoths and possibly the instantaneous extinction of large mammals in North America. Across the globe human myths talk of a near complete destruction of humanity.

    The few who survived, starved and had to eat whatever they could find, including grasses, which eventually became our "staple" foods of wheat, rice, and corn, "foods" with almost no nutrition and on which people cannot thrive and grow large.

  131. Tom Carberry

    Many ancient texts speak of giants. The Iliad, for example.

    And archaeologists have found "giants," or at least very tall people compared even to modern people, such as the Mummies of Urumchi, Celtic people found deep in central Asia, many standing 6'6" or taller, even the women.

Leave a comment / review: