ChatterBank3 mins ago
christian religous evidence ?
48 Answers
hi guys- this is mainly aimed at those of the christian faith, as it is the only one i am in the slightest bit familiar with.....
i have always wanted to ask a priest or vicar but i do not know any,
what evidence is there that god exists ?
i am not trying to rattle cages, just to get perspective...
thank you.
i have always wanted to ask a priest or vicar but i do not know any,
what evidence is there that god exists ?
i am not trying to rattle cages, just to get perspective...
thank you.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by pianoman81. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Hi Luna-tic - I believe dinosaurs were around the same time as man, in fact I believe the Bible mentions them several times. Of course the word dinosaur (terrible lizard) only came in to play in the 1800's, but they go under such names as behemoth, levithian and dragon in the Bible.
I believe at the time of the Flood (Noah's ark), the climate and conditions changed dramatically on earth and afterwards it became less favourable for dinosaurs to survive. That and with being hunted they died out, (look how many species are on the extinction danger list today).
Outside of the Bible I believe there is other proof of dinosaurs co-existing with man.
They only started discovering their fossils in the last couple of hundred years, but many ancient cvilisations, such as the Aztecs and Incas have pottery with paintings of men riding dinosaurs or spearing them. How come if they had never seen them?
There are fossilised footprints of dinosaurs beside human prints, of human prints even in dinosaur prints, (were they tracking/hunting them?).
DNA had been found in a fossilized dino bone, except DNA would have broken down if it had been there for millions of years.
The existence of dinosaurs is totally in keeping with the Bible.
I believe at the time of the Flood (Noah's ark), the climate and conditions changed dramatically on earth and afterwards it became less favourable for dinosaurs to survive. That and with being hunted they died out, (look how many species are on the extinction danger list today).
Outside of the Bible I believe there is other proof of dinosaurs co-existing with man.
They only started discovering their fossils in the last couple of hundred years, but many ancient cvilisations, such as the Aztecs and Incas have pottery with paintings of men riding dinosaurs or spearing them. How come if they had never seen them?
There are fossilised footprints of dinosaurs beside human prints, of human prints even in dinosaur prints, (were they tracking/hunting them?).
DNA had been found in a fossilized dino bone, except DNA would have broken down if it had been there for millions of years.
The existence of dinosaurs is totally in keeping with the Bible.
Llamatron -
<<why not just stop at the universe and just say that the universe is eternal instead?>>
Because it is not, we can see that it is not. It is changing, not constant, (the Sun's losing mass, the moon's orbit is widening, etc).
But God doesn't change, he ever IS. He has no begining, thus no 'cause'.
<<why not just stop at the universe and just say that the universe is eternal instead?>>
Because it is not, we can see that it is not. It is changing, not constant, (the Sun's losing mass, the moon's orbit is widening, etc).
But God doesn't change, he ever IS. He has no begining, thus no 'cause'.
Lighter, sorry to jump in here, but take a look at this. http://www.crystalinks.com/ufohistory.html
By your own reasoning, how come ancient man could make reproductions of these things, in drawings, paintings and artifacts, if he'd never seen them?
By your own reasoning, how come ancient man could make reproductions of these things, in drawings, paintings and artifacts, if he'd never seen them?
Lighter, have you looked at the link I gave you? I'd be interested in your thoughts.
I didn't say science had proof of life in the universe. I said scientist believe there is an abundance of life in the universe - so once again you're twisting my words to suit you. However, you claim absolute proof of god with no concrete evidence whatsoever.
And I don't think I've lambasted anyone, except perhaps Mani - and he deserved it!
I didn't say science had proof of life in the universe. I said scientist believe there is an abundance of life in the universe - so once again you're twisting my words to suit you. However, you claim absolute proof of god with no concrete evidence whatsoever.
And I don't think I've lambasted anyone, except perhaps Mani - and he deserved it!
Hello Lighter, My jokey reference to dinosaurs only came about because I was mildly linking it to your post just previous to mine about the intelligent plan of the creator/s.
I am not disputing the fact that man may of walked next to dinosaurs and hunted some to extinction(The mammoth).
Just that the sheer size of some was immense so after that mistake god must of thought these creatures are just too big and found a kind way of virtually exterminating the colossal beasts.
I am not disputing the fact that man may of walked next to dinosaurs and hunted some to extinction(The mammoth).
Just that the sheer size of some was immense so after that mistake god must of thought these creatures are just too big and found a kind way of virtually exterminating the colossal beasts.
I'm assuming you're talking about the so-called 'Soft DNA' that was found in a dinosaur bone, and which has been widely trumpted by the ID brigade as proof that dinosaurs were recent?
Ah. Oh well. This has occurred because of a huge misunderstanding (whether through ignorance or deliberately occasioned) of what needed to be done to extract the so-called 'soft tissue' which was actually fossilsed and required significant chemical treatments to allow extraction.
It certainly doesn't support any notions of it being recent material whatsoever (though ID sites have continued to misrepresent the science behind this find and its significance).
More here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/flesh .html
Ah. Oh well. This has occurred because of a huge misunderstanding (whether through ignorance or deliberately occasioned) of what needed to be done to extract the so-called 'soft tissue' which was actually fossilsed and required significant chemical treatments to allow extraction.
It certainly doesn't support any notions of it being recent material whatsoever (though ID sites have continued to misrepresent the science behind this find and its significance).
More here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/flesh .html
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.