JaimeM

when there is acrheological proof it is real.

the red sea crossing has been found.

http://www.pinkoski.com/content/view/22/37/

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTI...

http://www.exchangedlife.com/wyatt/redsea.html

plus the walls of Jericho have been found.

Over the past century four prominent

archaeologists have excavated the site:

Carl Watzinger from 1907-1909,

John Garstang in the 1930's,

Kathleen Kenyon from 1952-1958,

and currently Bryant Wood.

The result of their work has been remarkable, and found that in one part

of the city, large piles of bricks were found

at the base of both the inner and outer walls,

indicating a sudden collapse of the fortifications.

Scholars feel that an earthquake, which may also

explain the damming of the Jordan in the biblical

account, caused this collapse. The collapsed

bricks formed a ramp by which an invader might

easily enter the city (Josh. 6:20).

Of this amazing discovery Garstang states,

"As to the main fact, then,

there remains no doubt:

the walls fell outwards so completely,

the attackers would be able to clamber up

and over the ruins of the city."

- John Garstang,

The Foundations of Bible History;

Joshua, Judges

(London: Constable, 1931), 146.

This is remarkable information because

normally whenever cities are attacked -

the city walls always fall inward, not outward.

they think they have found the walls of Nehemiah as well.

http://ezinearticles.com/?Jars-of-Clay-Found-From-...

there is more but my question is, do you atheist just ignore this because it may prove your beliefs wrong?

I just read an answer where an atheists said "there is not hostility toward religion"

are you kidding.

Atheists are trying to make it so a school can't sanction a prayer because a poor atheist may get upset, what about a Christian child upset he/she cant' pray.

I guess the rights of children are only important to atheists if the child is an atheists.

atheists are trying to take "on nation under God" out of the pledge

and "in God we trust" off of our money

all because they get offended not even because it's wrong

atheists are trying to pass bills and laws so Christian tax payer money goes toward abortion when not one cent of atheist money helps support a church,then they complain because we tithe.

atheists are pushing so our troops can't pray in the name of Jesus--our soldiers defending us can't pray as they choose because some atheist gets offended.

Do you really shut your eyes and say there is not hostility towards religion?

if you do then you are blinded more than I thought.

I have noticed atheists looking to nature to support homosexuality, that in itself is stupid.

I have a question since we are looking to animals for guidance, have you noticed animals don't do abortions?

Why allow animal influence simply because it looks like it agrees with you, yet you deny another when it doesn't?

most of the scientific fields of which atheists study were started by atheists

for instance Meet Charles Townes, physicist, devout Christian and a winner of the prestigious Templeton Prize.

"What does science do?" asks Townes. "Its purpose is to try to understand our universe and how it works. What's the purpose of religion? Its purpose is to try to understand the meaning of our universe."

"One can argue plausibly that Charles Townes is the greatest experimental scientist of the last 100 years. I mean, he discovered the maser, which immediately led to the laser, and he got the Nobel Prize eight years after that." That tribute comes from leading chemist Henry Schaefer, himself a devout Christian and author of the book.

even Sociologist Rodney Stark calculated that a great majority of early scientists were followers of Jesus Christ. More specifically, he found that about 96 percent of innovators from the mid-1500s to 1700 were Christian believers. And the great majority of those-- 61 percent -- were devout Christians.

Then there's Blaise Pascal, Robert Boyle, Isaac Newton.

And Newton was no more Deist. He wrote, "There are more sure marks of the authenticity of the Bible than there are in any profane history.'

and then there was J.J. Thomson who discovered the electron -- and put the text "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom" over the famous Cavendish Laboratory in England.

So since a lot of the fields were started by Christians why do you atheists make up the false belief the we deny science and further more why do you study in a Chrisian field, if Christianity bothers you so bad?

on my yahoo answers profile, I can send emails, but how do I receive them? I always get them in my spam box, is that where they are supposed to go?

Atheists are good at quoting the bad parts of the bible and say God condones it to support themselve yet over look the good, I have often wondered why?

someone posted some old testament scriputre and said God condones it but that person refused to look into why that is.

in

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT)

If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.

(see in this one God is allowing for the woman to be taken care of, yet in mans world he is put in jail and she is left to fend for her self and hope her family helps--God works it out)

(Judges 21:10-24 NLT)

So they sent twelve thousand warriors to Jabesh-gilead with orders to kill everyone there, including women and children. "This is what you are to do," they said. "Completely destroy all the males and every woman who is not a virgin." Among the residents of Jabesh-gilead they found four hundred young virgins who had never slept with a man, and they brought them to the camp at Shiloh in the land of Canaan.

(part of the scripture was left out of this to make it seem bad--why is that?)

Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)

(this was said so people would obey the law and not disobey and lead others into hell--Iknow you atheist hate hearing this)

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

(in this one God holds man accountable for what he does to his slaves, yet when slavery was legal in America and someone killed a slave there was no accountability--seems like God has better values huh?)

the serpeant wasn't a talking snake, but a word used to describe the nature of satan.

why do you atheists grab the first scripture wihout context, definition or meaning and use it to make useless points?

and you say Christians lack critical thinking

I'm ashamed to say I was ever an atheist to think I was once that stupid.

why do you people twist things?

A question was just asked by an inidividual asking for prayer, and hope for his cousin, and a slew of atheists attacked him for having hope. listed below are some of the detremental and hopless remarks by humans to another human.

If he's not responding to medical care, an imaginary sky-god isn't going to help him.

No.

Prayers don't work.

And that's one of the ways we know there aren't any gods.

And that's one of the reasons people believe in prayer; they make people feel like they're doing something, even when they're not

No, there could be another way for him to not hurt so much, but your prayers are meaningless.

My question is why do you atheists always have to take away someones hope, just because you dont' believe in it.

Why is it Christians speak of loving each other, and wisdom, and hope.

yet atheists (for the most part) say there is no hope, so quit trying.

why is that, why are you mean to someone just because they don't believe the same as you?

even when I was an atheist I respected others beliefs.

I have read a few answers by atheists and have come to a conclusion that they just twist things so it fits what they believe.

I) the talking snake in the garden wasn't a snake, the word snake or serpeant was used to describe satans nature. It's a real easy concept.

2) Just because God knows what will happen to us in the future doesnt' mean we are forced into those acitons. It's no different than if I see my daughter going to turn on the tv, I know she is going to but I'm not forcing her it's a real easy concept.

3) God doesnt' predestine or condemn people to hell. He simply allows you what you want. It's no different than you going to jail for committing a crime. Jail is the punishment, and in retrospect, Hell is hte punishment for sin. It's a real easy concept.

4) We don't hate homosexuals, just the act of homosexuality, it's no different than with a thief, I don't hate the thief just the fact that he steals. it's a real easy concept.

I know you atheists are so stuck in your little box of scientific rules made by man, that your unable or unwilling to look outisde of it for truth.

My question is why do you have to twist things to get what you want?

do you think that the US “hate crime bill” bill, H.R. 1592, should be passed ? it says that to speak against homosexuality is a crime.

Basically Discussion on the hate crime bill in the Judiciary Committee confirms the Bible will not be exempt from hate crime law. The Traditional Values Coalition monitored all meetings. It is reported that Congressman Gohmert, in trying to get an amendment added that would protect constitutional speech, asked the committee, “If a minister was giving a sermon, a Bible study or any kind of written or spoken message saying that homosexuality was a serious sin and a person in the congregation went out and committed a crime against a homosexual, would the minister be charged with the crime of incitement?” After trying to evade that question and still being pinned to the wall by Gohmert, finally Democrat Congressman Artur Davis from Alabama spoke up and said, “Yes.”

In an article, "Pastors: Act now or prepare for jail," the author says if the pastor read from Romans 1, I Corinthians 6, Genesis 19, or Leviticus 18 or 20, and a person who "attended your church, read your materials or heard your broadcast commits a crime – such as pushing away a cross-dresser's unwelcome advances" the pastor would be "punishable as a principal." The pastor could considered as ," as someone who "counsels" and "induces" the now-illegal belief that homosexual behavior is a sin under the hate crime bill.

Darwin wrote, "…Natural selection acts only by taking advantage of slight successive variations; she can never take a great and sudden leap, but must advance by short and sure, though slow steps."

Notice the word only, that means evolution must progress slowly right?

Yet Stepehn J Gould said it could be fast and take great leaps in short amounts of time. so who is wrong?

They can't both be right, it defies the law (I know you atheists like lawas) it defies the law of logical non contradictions.

Darwin conceded that, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

See Darwin understands this and yet in light of the tremendous advances we've made in molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics over the past fifty years. We now know that there are in fact tens of thousands of irreducibly complex systems on the cellular level.

The very thing Darwin said would disprove and break down evolution has happend and yet you still say it's scientifically sound?

Why is that?

I know how you atheists are, this is rather long, so quit reading now, unless your interested.

Darwin wrote, "…Natural selection acts only by taking advantage of slight successive variations; she can never take a great and sudden leap, but must advance by short and sure, though slow steps." Thus, Darwin conceded that, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." Such a complex organ would be known as an "irreducibly complex system". An irreducibly complex system is one composed of multiple parts, all of which are necessary for the system to function. If even one part is missing, the entire system will fail to function. Every individual part is integral. Thus, such a system could not have evolved slowly, piece by piece. The common mousetrap is an everyday non-biological example of irreducible complexity. It is composed of five basic parts: a catch (to hold the bait), a powerful spring, a thin rod called "the hammer," a holding bar to secure the hammer in place, and a platform to mount the trap. If any one of these parts is missing, the mechanism will not work. Each individual part is integral. The mousetrap is irreducibly complex.

The next part is really interesting.

Darwin confessed, "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.

Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a theory in crisis in light of the tremendous advances we've made in molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics over the past fifty years. We now know that there are in fact tens of thousands of irreducibly complex systems on the cellular level.

Why do you athiests blindly try to support this when even he had doubts?

I'm trying to post some pictures on a profile I have in a chat room, but they are small, about thumbnail size, and I can't get them bigger, does anybody know how to format them or enlarge them?

I know you atheists hate long questions, it's just a cop out for some information. but if your lazy don't read, I found all this very interesting.

If evolution was true, there should be large numbers of intermediate fossil organisms present in the fossil record. These 'links' are conspicuous by their absence.

After well over a hundred years of intensely studying the fossil record the 'missing links' are still well and truly 'missing'.

Evolutionists such as Stephen Jay Gould concede this when they say, "The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not based the evidence of fossils."

Yet what did he do, he changed the belief of evolution to fit what evo's want.

Or how about this No mechanism has been put forward that even begins to explain how something like the human eye could have been produced by time, chance, natural selection and mutation.

Let's consider what Darwin himself said: "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."

Evo's say the 2nd law of thermodynamics doesnt' violate evolution.

yet The second law of thermodynamics tells us that a system will always go from ordered to disordered unless there is a plan or outside intelligence to organize it.

World-renowned evolutionist Isaac Asimov when discussing the second law of thermodynamics said:

"Another way of stating the second law then is: 'The universe is constantly getting more disorderly!'" Viewed that way we can see the second law all about us. We have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery, and our own bodies in perfect working order: how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself - and that is what the second law is all about." 1

As Isaac Asimov says, everything becomes more disordered when left to itself. The theory of Evolution puts forward the idea that the atoms produced after the 'Big Bang' organized themselves without a plan and finally produced the human body after billions of years.

Some people argue that the earth is an open system therefore the Second Law of Thermodynanics does not apply. Simply pouring in energy (sunlight) into the earth does not override the Second Law of Thermodynanics. As shown in Isaac Asimov's quote above, the Second Law still applies on earth. Simply pouring energy into a system makes things more disordered!

As Dr John Ross of Harvard University rightly states:

"… there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems

notice I used evolutionists and not Christians to get the point across.

why do you support evolution when it doesn't stack up.

“There is a lot here, so if it's not for you then quit reading now.

Ive been studying and found all this about the faults of evolution, some from Chrisitan sources and some from secular (that way atheists couldn't dismiss it because it was all ?Chrisitian) the result below are from both view points and show flaws of evolution. Inspite of all this why do you still say evolution is possible?

The basic flaw of all evolutionary views is the origin of the information in living beings. It has never been shown that a coding system and semantic information could originate by itself in a material medium, and the information theorems predict that this will never be possible. A purely material origin of life is thus precluded.”

Gitt, Werner

"I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science."

Lovtrup, Soren

The instructions for how to build, operate, and repair living cells represent a vast amount of information (estimated at 12 billion bits). Information is a mental, non-material concept. It can never arise from a natural process and is always the result of an intelligence. Just as a newspaper story transcends the ink on the paper, life’s DNA itself (like the ink) is not the information, it is simply a physical representation or housing of the information (the story). Modifying the DNA via mutation can never produce new genetic information to drive upward evolution, just as spilling coffee on the newspaper, thereby modifying the distribution of the ink, will never improve the story.

Non-living chemicals cannot become alive on their own. The cell is a miniature factory with many active processes, not a simple blob of “protoplasm” as believed in Darwin’s day. Lightening striking a mud puddle or some “warm little pond” will never produce life. This is another view of the core issue of information as the simplest living cell requires a vast amount of information to be present. The “Law of Biogenesis” states that life comes only from prior life. Spontaneous generation has long been shown to be impossible (by Louis Pasteur in 1859). Numerous efforts to bring life from non-life (including the famous Miller-Urey experiment) have not succeeded. The probability of life forming from non-life has been likened to the probability of a tornado going through a junkyard and spontaneously assembling a working 747 airplane. The idea that life on earth may have been seeded from outer space just moves the problem elsewhere.

Design is apparent in the living world. Even Richard Dawkins in his anti-creation book The Blind Watchmaker admits “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.”

The idea that “nothing works until everything works.” The classic example is a mousetrap, which is irreducibly complex in that if one of its several pieces is missing or not in the right place, it will not function as a mousetrap and no mice will be caught. The systems, features, and processes of life are irreducibly complex. What good is a circulatory system without a heart? An eye without a brain to interpret the signals? What good is a half-formed wing? Doesn’t matching male and female reproductive machinery need to exist at the same time, fully-functioning if any reproduction is to take place? Remember, natural selection has no foresight, and works to eliminate anything not providing an immediate benefit.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics refers to the universal tendency for things, on their own, to “mix” with their surrounding environment over time, becoming less ordered and eventually reaching a steady-state. A glass of hot water becomes room temperature, buildings decay into rubble, and the stars will eventually burn out leading to the “heat death” of the universe. However, the evolutionary scenario proposes that over time things, on their own, became more ordered and structured. Somehow the energy of a “Big Bang” structured itself into stars, galaxies, planets, and living things, contrary to the Second Law. It is sometimes said that the energy of the Sun was enough to overcome this tendency and allow for the formation of life on earth. However, application of energy alone is not enough to overcome this tendency; the energy must be channeled by a machine. A human must repair a building to keep it from decaying. Likewise, it is the machinery of photosynthesis which harnesses the energy of the Sun, allowing life to exist, and photosynthesis is itself a complex chemical process. The maturing of an acorn into a tree, or a zygote (the first cell resulting from fertilization) into a mature human being does not violate the Second Law as these processes are guided by the information already present in the acorn or zygote.

the Universe By definition, something must be eternal (as we have “something” today and something cannot come from “nothing”, so there was never a time when there was “nothing”). Either the univer

I was wondering Atheists seem to have some pretty hard and hateful ideas about anybody who disagrees with them (even with science backing them up)

Christians promote hope and an eternity in Heaven to those dying or injured, Atheists say there is no heaven and no hope.

Christians say we are better than animals, atheists say we are no better than an animal and shouldn't expect any better treatment.

Christians say a fetus is a life to be cherished, atheists say it is nothing more than a thing to be thrown away and forgotten about and an eagle egg is worth more( one can get fined 5,000 dollars for breaking one.)

Christians promote love and forgivness, Athesists say there is no such thing (since were all animals and all)

Christians actually look outside science to find answers, atheists are scared to look beyond the little box they all live in, afraid to find mortality.

Why are ahtiest so hateful?

Christians would promote hope to someone dying, that there is a heaven and God who loves them.

Atheists say there is not hope, give up now your life is worthless.

Christians say we are better than animals.

Atheists say we are not better and shouldn't act like it.

Christians promote loving everybody

Atheists promote it's a lie, yet they don't promote love.

Chrisitsans promote truth thru science

Atheists say it's bs just because they don't believe in it.

Christians are free thinking enough to think out side the rules of science

Atheists are scared to go out side the box, and yet say everybody else is ignorrant.

Why are atheists ( in general) so rude?????

Dr. Thomas Barnes, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Texas at El Paso, has published the definitive work in this field.4 Scientific observations since 1829 have shown that the earth's magnetic field has been measurably decaying at an exponential rate, demonstrating its half-life to be approximately 1,400 years. In practical application its strength 20,000 years ago would approximate that of a magnetic star. Under those conditions many of the atoms necessary for life processes could not form. These data demonstrate that earth's entire history is young, within a few thousand of years.

Most of the scientific fields were invented by scientists.

The fact that the earth revolved on it's axis's was not discoverd by Conpernicus but he was taught it in Christian schools (says something HUH?)

The leading scientific figures in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries were overwhelmingly devout Christians who believed it their duty to comprehend God's handiwork.

Dr. Rodney Stark, Professor of sociology and comparative religions at the Univ. of Washington researched leading scientists from 1543 to 1680 and found that of the top 52, one was a skeptic, one a pantheist and 50 were Christians, 30 of whom could be characterized as devout because of their zeal.

A Molecular biologist said this in an interview with columnist George Caylor When asked if the information found in the cell's gene code evolved, he said "George, nobody I know in my profession believes it evolved. It was engineered by genius beyond genius, and such information could not have been written in any other way. The paper and ink did not write the book. Knowing what we know, it is ridiculous to think otherwise." Small wonder for they've discovered in bacteria a mind-boggling array of sophisticated machines and computer systems light years ahead of our own. So scientists publicly deny intelligent design exists, yet affirm evolution, which they know to be false because to admit design and deny evolution is to commit academic and career suicide.

So if a molecular biologist believes evolution is false and so do Christians why do you still argue it's true, and say Christians deny science when we clearly back it up?

in the book Creation: Facts of Life

there is an article about the start of life, you can go there and read it but I'll post a little of it here.

Evolutionists picture a time long ago when the earth might have been quite different. They imagine that fragments of DNA and fragments of protein are produced. These molecules are supposed to “do what comes naturally” over vast periods of time. What’s going to happen? Will time, chance, and chemical reactions between DNA and protein automatically produce life?

You would think so right? wrong.

The problem is that the properties of bases and acids produce the wrong relationship for living systems. Acid-base reactions would “scramble up” DNA and protein units in all sorts of “deadly” combinations. These reactions would prevent, not promote, the use of DNA to code protein production. Since use of DNA to code protein production is the basis of all life on earth, these acid-base reactions would prevent, not promote, the evolution of life by chemical processes based on the inherent properties of matter.

These wrong reactions have produced serious problems for Stanley Miller, Sidney Fox, and other scientists trying to do experiments to support chemical evolution. Almost all biology books have a picture of Miller’s famous spark chamber In it, Miller used simple raw materials and electric sparks to produce amino acids and other simple molecules—the so-called “building blocks of life.” Some newspapers reported that Miller had practically made “life in a test tube.”

Yet he didnt' for he left out oxygen and on purpose because he knew it would ruin his experiment.

Why do you evo's believe in it when science (SCIENCE) says it can't happen?

Christians believe God did this

I just want to know why do you think God created the world to evolve over millions of years?

Cancer has been found in bones of living things that are supposedly millions of years old, and since animals were created before man on the 5th day(then supposedly there were millions of years of death and disease before the 6th day), that would imply that death and disease happened before the fall of man.

God specifically says that death and disease were the direct result of Adams disobedience.

So if any animals or plants died before Adam to accomidate evolution then Genesis and therefore the bible is incorrect.

Why do most Christians read what they believe instead of believing what they read?

God did not create things to evolve over time, or His statement "it is good." was pretty meaningless if things had to evolve to become truly good.

Why do you think God created evolution? even science denies it.