Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I've always wondered what he looked liked. Little did I know there are dozens of physical descriptions of him. All were witten by his contemporaries, secular enemies of christ. 1: The letter from pilate to ceaser concernin jesus. " A man who was put to death named jesus. He looked diff than those around due to golden color hair and fair skin. " 2: Gamiel, the great jewish rabbi, both personally wrote and put in the talmud "Yeshu was a tall man who stood out due to his blue green eyes and golden hair " 3: Publius lentrelus said "The so.called christ had blue eyes and tawny hair." The oldest pic of jesus, agrees. Now there are also scriptures in the bible seen to say all hebrews were white. David is said to have red hair and fair Ruddy skin and Solomon calls himself white. With all this, is it possible all the hebrews were white?

Hebrews are Caucasoid, as are many Arabs, Persians are not only Caucasoid, but white too. However, seeing how term ''white'' only applies to Europeans for some bizarre unfounded reason...

Well, since you brought it up, there is tons of proof that Celt anglo saxons are the ten lost tribes of israel. Hundreds of people have traced the migrations or the ten tribes, and the always end up in England scotland ireland and other white countries. In fact, gaelic and othe white euro languages are just evolved forms of the hebrew language. In hebrew british means covenant men. Saxon means sons of isaac. odd

Ugh. Jesus was of Hebrew heritage lived in Israel, spoke Greek and Aramaic. Paleness of skin is mark of good luck of genes in some societies in these areas. If your claims are true, what better way to continually point out "THE ONE" by making him unbearably handsome?

There are alot of drawings of him and all most all of them look the same.I go by that mosty.

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
There are alot of drawings of him and all most all of them look the same.I go by that mosty.

Any by his contemporaries?

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
There are alot of drawings of him and all most all of them look the same.I go by that mosty.

Did Jesus look like this?

http://www.usc.edu/dept/LAS/religion/arc/neapolis/zeus.gif

This is Zeus!

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
There are alot of drawings of him and all most all of them look the same.I go by that mosty.
There are lots of drawings of Krishna and they usually look the same. You should convert to Hinduism.

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
There are alot of drawings of him and all most all of them look the same.I go by that mosty.

Like these?
http://new.rejesus.co.uk/images/area_uploads/faces/faces_black_jesus2.jpg
http://www.moonbattery.com/black_jesus.jpg
http://www.jesus-pictures.net/jesus-pictures/black-jesus-crucified.jpg
http://www.lillyofthevalleyva.com/BlackJesusMontage%28c%29BarzoniARTCOM10055775.jpg

#1 - Byzantine art?

#2 - Looks like Sho'Nuff

#3 - Has a homoerotic rating of 8.5

#4 - Kunta Kinte?

Originally posted by Robtard


#3 - Has a homoerotic rating of 8.5

I guess we know which one you printed out. trololol

Originally posted by Mindset
I guess we know which one you printed out. trololol

Na, I already have this as a 10' X 12' in my living room.

NSFW! NSFW! NSFW! NSFW! NSFW! NSFW!NSFW!NSFW!NSFW!
http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/6540/jesuslumberjacklion.jpg

Ooooh *looking through shaky's links* got any black madonnas?

Originally posted by Robtard
Na, I already have this as a 10' X 12' in my living room.

NSFW! NSFW! NSFW! NSFW! NSFW! NSFW!NSFW!NSFW!NSFW!
http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/6540/jesuslumberjacklion.jpg Is that us?

*roars*

You're the lumberjack...

Originally posted by long pig
Well, since you brought it up, there is tons of proof that Celt anglo saxons are the ten lost tribes of israel. Hundreds of people have traced the migrations or the ten tribes, and the always end up in England scotland ireland and other white countries. In fact, gaelic and othe white euro languages are just evolved forms of the hebrew language. In hebrew british means covenant men. Saxon means sons of isaac. odd

Other than the Book of Mormon, what "sources" say that the Isrealites were Anglo-looking White people?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
This is Zeus!

i see what you did there

Mystery solved:

http://i698.photobucket.com/albums/vv341/jedibeastie2/MorganFreeman.jpg

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Other than the Book of Mormon, what "sources" say that the Isrealites were Anglo-looking White people?

It is believed that many Europeans today have their motherland in Iran, or were Iranian tribes originally that inhabited Europe. (mostly east)
Maybe he's referring to that....but I have no idea about ''lost tribes of Israel'' being in Ireland and such.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Other than the Book of Mormon, what "sources" say that the Isrealites were Anglo-looking White people? Well, almost every ancient source call them white, including the OT and nT. Every single time an ancient hebrew's skin color is mentioned, he's called white, fair skinned or a ruddy complextion(Ruddy means to have such light skin you see blood through it. Only one race fits the bill). The hair color is usually red or gold. David had "fair ruddy skin with red hair" The nations around israel said they looked diff than their neighbors. Assyrian king, after taking hebrews captive, they lost their identity and were then known as assyrans. But everyone else called them white assyrians. Hell, when solomon courted sheba, she said "You are white and i am black". They were indeed white, which sucks. We black folk can't he nothin. I'm starting a new thread about hebrew lost tribes and their migration. Even Adam is said to be white.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
It is believed that many Europeans today have their motherland in Iran, or were Iranian tribes originally that inhabited Europe. (mostly east)
Maybe he's referring to that....but I have no idea about ''lost tribes of Israel'' being in Ireland and such. After taken prisoners to iran from israel some did refuse to in back. Instead they went over the caucus mount, later called caucasians. Those were germans. The other ten tribes were taken and migrated north east, where they settled in the scot. eng, ire. This isn't theory, it's fact. Archeology AND DNA PROVE IT. only two races, have any Dna relation today to jews. Whites and cherokee indians. Oddly, cherokees have no native amer dna. They are european.

Originally posted by long pig
Well, almost every ancient source call them white, including the OT and nT. Every single time an ancient hebrew's skin color is mentioned, he's called white, fair skinned or a ruddy complextion(Ruddy means to have such light skin you see blood through it. Only one race fits the bill). The hair color is usually red or gold. David had "fair ruddy skin with red hair" The nations around israel said they looked diff than their neighbors. Assyrian king, after taking hebrews captive, they lost their identity and were then known as assyrans. But everyone else called them white assyrians. Hell, when solomon courted sheba, she said "You are white and i am black". They were indeed white, which sucks. We black folk can't he nothin. I'm starting a new thread about hebrew lost tribes and their migration. Even Adam is said to be white.

Well first off, the word "white" get thrown around and is used too liberally (especially in a legal context). Arabs are considered "white" by the US Census and so were Hispanics until 2000. And neither group is "ruddy".

And are those reports reliable? Maybe they were tampered with after the fact by European scholars. A bunch of easily sunburnt "ruddy" people running around the Middle East just doesn't seem very plausible.

Originally posted by long pig
Oddly, cherokees have no native amer dna. They are european.

That's not odd at all. The Cherokees have been intermixed so much over the centuries that they've practically lost all their Native blood. That actually applies to many tribes. This is why throughout parts of the South and Midwest you'll find red-heads with freckles who claim to be "part Indian".

Originally posted by long pig
Solomon calls himself white. With all this, is it possible all the hebrews were white?

* i don't know who said this but can you clarify Song of Songs 1:5? someone says he's/she's black...

Originally posted by long pig
Well, since you brought it up, there is tons of proof that Celt anglo saxons are the ten lost tribes of israel. Hundreds of people have traced the migrations or the ten tribes, and the always end up in England scotland ireland and other white countries. In fact, gaelic and othe white euro languages are just evolved forms of the hebrew language. In hebrew british means covenant men. Saxon means sons of isaac. odd there really isn't. gaelic didnt come from hebrew. christ was "brown" like the rest of the palestinian jews from 2000 years ago. hitlerist fantasies arent a good history source

Originally posted by long pig
Well, almost every ancient source call them white, including the OT and nT. Every single time an ancient hebrew's skin color is mentioned, he's called white, fair skinned or a ruddy complextion(Ruddy means to have such light skin you see blood through it. Only one race fits the bill). The hair color is usually red or gold. David had "fair ruddy skin with red hair" The nations around israel said they looked diff than their neighbors. Assyrian king, after taking hebrews captive, they lost their identity and were then known as assyrans. But everyone else called them white assyrians. Hell, when solomon courted sheba, she said "You are white and i am black". They were indeed white, which sucks. We black folk can't he nothin. I'm starting a new thread about hebrew lost tribes and their migration. Even Adam is said to be white. anthropologists, geneticists, historians, archaeologistas and common sense happen to have proved what a loaf of crap all this is. Also, adam didn't exist. True story too.

Originally posted by long pig
After taken prisoners to iran from israel some did refuse to in back. Instead they went over the caucus mount, later called caucasians. Those were germans. The other ten tribes were taken and migrated north east, where they settled in the scot. eng, ire. This isn't theory, it's fact. Archeology AND DNA PROVE IT. only two races, have any Dna relation today to jews. Whites and cherokee indians. Oddly, cherokees have no native amer dna. They are european. I laughed a whole minute at this post.

http://video.adultswim.com/squidbillies/squid-jesus.html

Originally posted by 753
I laughed a whole minute at this post.

I thought it smelled funny

Originally posted by Omega Vision
http://video.adultswim.com/squidbillies/squid-jesus.html damn site wont let me watch

Who y b kidden. everybody no Jesus B black.

Is there really any scientific proff that he is white or was a Jew?

Originally posted by square3
Is there really any scientific proff that he is white or was a Jew?

There is very little proof that he even did exist.

Race is irrelevant. All races are human therefore equal.

Originally posted by 753
anthropologists, geneticists, historians, archaeologistas and common sense happen to have proved what a loaf of crap all this is. Also, adam didn't exist. True story too. Actually Adam has been proven to have existed by countless archeologists, scientists, biologists, and gas station clerks. There are experiments that have been done that prove that the earth is actually 20000 years old and all
the evidence otherwise was diligently planted by the sophisticated aliens that God used to make Adam. Adams bones are being held in Area 51 as evidence of creation.

Arguing like the scientific community is fun!

Originally posted by The MISTER
Actually Adam has been proven to have existed by countless archeologists, scientists, biologists, and gas station clerks. There are experiments that have been done that prove that the earth is actually 20000 years old and all
the evidence otherwise was diligently planted by the sophisticated aliens that God used to make Adam. Adams bones are being held in Area 51 as evidence of creation.

Arguing like the scientific community is fun!

I what to know how much of the hogwash, you acturally believe.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I what to know how much of the hogwash, you acturally believe. I believe a lot of what men state as fact but never all. My religious beliefs are faith based. I am aware that in the scientific community God is an irritant mostly and not even considered a possibility to most scientists. Theories are taught as facts when the fact that they are theories should be important.

I was also very upset when I learned that a fake missing link has been attempted multiple times. I realized that there was such a strong desire to get God out of the picture that a reputation was worth risking to do it.

Originally posted by 753
Also, adam didn't exist. True story too.

Y-chromosomal Adam likely did, as did Mitochondrial Eve, just not together and in a magical garden where lions, lambs and T-Rexs played together and all that other Judeo-Christian mythological stuff.

Originally posted by Robtard
Y-chromosomal Adam likely did, as did Mitochondrial Eve, just not together and in a magical garden where lions, lambs and T-Rexs played together and all that other Judeo-Christian mythological stuff. /B] don't care much for the analogy that was used by the geneticists there. I bet a crap load of people think that's scientific support for biblical allegories and some kind of creationism.

What you talking about, Willis?

that reference was completely lost on me

Originally posted by The MISTER
I believe a lot of what men state as fact but never all. My religious beliefs are faith based. I am aware that in the scientific community God is an irritant mostly and not even considered a possibility to most scientists. Theories are taught as facts when the fact that they are theories should be important.

I was also very upset when I learned that a fake missing link has been attempted multiple times. I realized that there was such a strong desire to get God out of the picture that a reputation was worth risking to do it.

I have a feeling you really don't understand the scientific method. Theory is a very high standard. In order for a theory to be accepted and taught, it has to be as near to fact as anything can be. A law is just a theory that has been tested over time to be true. You act like theory is not even close to being fact. The opposite is true, for theorys that have been proven over time, they are as close to fact as does exist in science.

Originally posted by 753
that reference was completely lost on me

You said "Adam (ie the father of modern man) didn't exist", while I realize you were directly referring to the Christian Mythological figure, I mentioned the scientific, more for fun and not to say "you're wrong."

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I have a feeling you really don't understand the scientific method. Theory is a very high standard. In order for a theory to be accepted and taught, it has to be as near to fact as anything can be. A law is just a theory that has been tested over time to be true. You act like theory is not even close to being fact. The opposite is true, for theorys that have been proven over time, they are as close to fact as does exist in science.

Really a theory is a factual statement of why something happens and a law is a factual observation of what happens. Laws note universality and theories explain things.

The Laws of Planetary Motion are explained by the Theory of Gravitation.
The theory of Quantum Mechanics was formulated to explain two laws: that light is a wave and that light is quantized.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Really a theory is a factual statement of why something happens and a law is a factual observation of what happens. Laws note universality and theories explain things.

The Laws of Planetary Motion are explained by the Theory of Gravitation.
The theory of Quantum Mechanics was formulated to explain two laws: that light is a wave and that light is quantized.

So, did you just say I was wrong? And if you did, are you saying that theory is just a wild ass guess, just based on someone's belief. You see, I know what you are saying, but The MISTER is not going to understand the difference. I was trying to make it simple for him.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, did you just say I was wrong? And if you did, are you saying that theory is just a wild ass guess, just based on someone's belief. You see, I know what you are saying, but The MISTER is not going to understand the difference. I was trying to make it simple for him.

Hence "factual statement of".

so, laws are the observational consequences of theories?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Hence "factual statement of".

Did you read the post I replied too? It is a very typical fundamentalist Christian tact. They use the idea that something is a theory, and not a fact, as a wedge to say that theorys are untrue expressions of propaganda.

Originally posted by inimalist
so, laws are the observational consequences of theories?

I think you're sort of putting the cart before the horse. Laws are really just a consequence of the universe just happening to work that way.

I guess the important bit is that a theory explains why we see a particular law that isn't self evident.

Like for example:

When you're on a train going 10mph and you throw a ball forward at 5mph the a person moving at 0mph will measure it moving at 15mph. This law is self evident, or at least no one ever felt the need/had the ability to formulate a theory to explain it.
Then hundreds of years experiments were done that showed that if you're on that same train and let a photon loose, moving at 670,000,000mph a person standing next to the tract will measure it moving at exactly the same speed.
It is not self evident that these two observed laws can both be simultaneously true. Einstein resolved the problem by formulating a theory (Special Relativity) to explain why we see these two effects.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I think you're sort of putting the cart before the horse. Laws are really just a consequence of the universe just happening to work that way.

I guess the important bit is that a theory explains why we see a particular law that isn't self evident.

Like for example:

When you're on a train going 10mph and you throw a ball forward at 5mph the a person moving at 0mph will measure it moving at 15mph. This law is self evident, or at least no one ever felt the need/had the ability to formulate a theory to explain it.
Then hundreds of years experiments were done that showed that if you're on that same train and let a photon loose, moving at 670,000,000mph a person standing next to the tract will measure it moving at exactly the same speed.
It is not self evident that these two observed laws can both be simultaneously true. Einstein resolved the problem by formulating a theory (Special Relativity) to explain why we see these two effects.

I understand all of that. I was purposely making it simple and not going there.

How would you answer this:
Is a theory a fact?
If a theory is not fact, then why is the theory taught is school as a fact?
If a theory is not a fact, then how is it better then the bible, which is fact?

Do you see the problem has nothing to do with the definition of theory?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I understand all of that. I was purposely making it simple and not going there.

That was for inimalist.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
How would you answer this:
Is a theory a fact?

Yes. Specifically it is a fact that is used mainly to explain why we see things. Because of the nature of science the difference between what is called a law and what is called a theory can be fuzzy, but both are factual. More than that because theories often have strict mathematical backings we can sometimes be more sure of their truth than we are of laws.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Yes. Specifically it is a fact that is used mainly to explain why we see things. Because of the nature of science the difference between what is called a law and what is called a theory can be fuzzy, but both are factual. More than that because theories often have strict mathematical backings we can sometimes be more sure of their truth than we are of laws.

this is what normally confused me with the definitions, so thanks

Originally posted by Robtard
You said "Adam (ie the father of modern man) didn't exist", while I realize you were directly referring to the Christian Mythological figure, I mentioned the scientific, more for fun and not to say "you're wrong." yeah, I got that, I was refering to the phrase "what you're talking about willis". I don't know where it comes from.

Originally posted by 753
yeah, I got that, I was refering to the phrase "what you're talking about willis". I don't know where it comes from.

Different Strokes.

Qw9oX-kZ_9k

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That was for inimalist.



Yes. Specifically it is a fact that is used mainly to explain why we see things. Because of the nature of science the difference between what is called a law and what is called a theory can be fuzzy, but both are factual. More than that because theories often have strict mathematical backings we can sometimes be more sure of their truth than we are of laws.

But you only answered the first question. Try answering all of them.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But you only answered the first question. Try answering all of them.

The second and third question only apply if I answer "no" to the first one.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The second and third question only apply if I answer "no" to the first one.

Can you pretend you answered "no" to the first then?

Originally posted by Robtard
Can you pretend you answered "no" to the first then?

The point of the questions was to deal with people who try to twist language to weaken theories and laws of science. By answering "yes" to the first one I did that, anyone who really needs answers to the second two didn't understand what I said.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, did you just say I was wrong? And if you did, are you saying that theory is just a wild ass guess, just based on someone's belief. You see, I know what you are saying, but The MISTER is not going to understand the difference. I was trying to make it simple for him. I understand the concept of theories, laws, and the scientific method, quite well. The fact is that I just don't believe that humans will reveal all the mysteries of the universe despite being unable to investigate 99.99% of the universe outside their solar system. Not all theories are equal to scientific law. Do you understand? I'm not saying every theory is a wild ass guess but the ones that are do share that title. Just like your theories about me some theories are rushed and have the taint of emotional bias. What else would make you think I wouldn't understand something that you could? Did you use the scientific method?

Originally posted by The MISTER
I understand the concept of theories, laws, and the scientific method, quite well. The fact is that I just don't believe that humans will reveal all the mysteries of the universe despite being unable to investigate 99.99% of the universe outside their solar system. Not all theories are equal to scientific law. Do you understand? I'm not saying every theory is a wild ass guess but the ones that are do share that title. Just like your theories about me some theories are rushed and have the taint of emotional bias. What else would make you think I wouldn't understand something that you could? Did you use the scientific method?

Sorry, but I don't understand your question.

So, if you believe that humans cannot know everything about the universe, I would agree with you. We do the best we can. However, the bible was written by humans and therefore falls under this same idea. A person can't say that science is wrong, and that the bible is right without giving enough evidence to prove their case. What happens over and over again is that when Christians are pressed on what evidence they have, they resort to faith. Faith is fine on a one to one basis, but to convince others, you must spend your time supporting your case. Putting down science is not supporting your case. To most people, it is just a diversionary tactic that appealed to emotions, and leads to suspicion that you cannot support your case.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I have a feeling you really don't understand the scientific method. Theory is a very high standard. In order for a theory to be accepted and taught, it has to be as near to fact as anything can be. A law is just a theory that has been tested over time to be true. You act like theory is not even close to being fact. The opposite is true, for theorys that have been proven over time, they are as close to fact as does exist in science. You should listen to some end of the world and conspiracy theories and then you'll understand what I meant. A theory is not always a "very high standard". I appreciate the science community that doesn't have an "agenda". I'll let you know that you're right about me being closed-minded when it comes to the scientific explanations of God and his ways, and the extended history of earth but that's about it. I actually accept what the science world says about the things that it can interact with. The very distant past is not one of those things and I only mean that in that they cannot be as certain about some things as they sound. The Big Bang for example may have been one of millions of similar explosions and we don't know it yet because we haven't come across the evidence that proves that theory to be sound. The truth is we haven't found any proof against that theory either. Some theories can sound great even if they are wild ass guesses.

Originally posted by The MISTER
The Big Bang for example may have been one of millions of similar explosions and we don't know it yet because we haven't come across the evidence that proves that theory to be sound. The truth is we haven't found any proof against that theory either.

We have found proof of the Big Bang. Primarily, radio "echos" predicted by the theory are evident to properly tuned telescopes.

@ the mister.

I get what you're saying, but a 'theory' that has no empirical backing of any kind isn't a theory, it's still a hypothesis. you can't put theories like evolution and graviation that provide mechanistic explanations for known fatcs in the same bag as string hypothesis. without eviednce, anything is just speculation. problem with metaphysical hypothesis is that not only do they lack supporting evidence, but are impossible to verify, many rely on things that all evidence says is impossible and a good deal are just absurd.

Originally posted by The MISTER
You should listen to some end of the world and conspiracy theories and then you'll understand what I meant. A theory is not always a "very high standard". I appreciate the science community that doesn't have an "agenda". I'll let you know that you're right about me being closed-minded when it comes to the scientific explanations of God and his ways, and the extended history of earth but that's about it. I actually accept what the science world says about the things that it can interact with. The very distant past is not one of those things and I only mean that in that they cannot be as certain about some things as they sound. The Big Bang for example may have been one of millions of similar explosions and we don't know it yet because we haven't come across the evidence that proves that theory to be sound. The truth is we haven't found any proof against that theory either. Some theories can sound great even if they are wild ass guesses.

Conspiracy theories are not theories. That is like calling a McDonald's happy meal, fine french cuisine. All scientific theories are peer reviewed, and are held to a high standard.

Also, we can look into the past. If you look into the sky, on a clear night, you are seeing the past. The reason for this is because light takes time to travel across the universe. We know this speed, and we can calculate the distance to stars by looking at the spectrum of the light from the star. There are other ways to calculate the distance to stars, and we can cross reference between the many different ways. What we find is that the further you look into space the more thing are moving away from us. If you run this backward, then in the past, they were closer. That is the big bang, and nothing more. It is like looking at a car driving down the road. If the car is going to the right, it must have come from the left. We don't have to see the car come from the left, we only have to see were it is going.

You really should look at the evidence before you discount it.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Sorry, but I don't understand your question.

So, if you believe that humans cannot know everything about the universe, I would agree with you. We do the best we can. However, the bible was written by humans and therefore falls under this same idea. A person can't say that science is wrong, and that the bible is right without giving enough evidence to prove their case. What happens over and over again is that when Christians are pressed on what evidence they have, they resort to faith. Faith is fine on a one to one basis, but to convince others, you must spend your time supporting your case. Putting down science is not supporting your case. To most people, it is just a diversionary tactic that appealed to emotions, and leads to suspicion that you cannot support your case. You're right and I don't want to be grouped in with those christians for they anger me. I'll share this with you because you have an open mind. The thing that really confuses me about the science of time is that in the Bible there is an accurate description of a mosasaur (called Leviathan) and either a Brontosaurus or Brachiosaurus (called behemoth and stated to have a tail like a cedar tree unlike elephants and hippos). The descriptions are in Job and they seem very accurate to me. How is it possible to describe these creatures in such detail and yet have no awareness of them. That combined with containing the golden rule has led to me trusting the Bible and believing that it contains the truth. I must admit that this requires huge faith on my part but it's not blind faith. I really enjoy science and think it coincides with the bible for the most part. Even the big bang makes sense. In the beginning god created the dark matter(heaven) and the solid matter (earth) Then he said "Let there be light" (Big Bang!)

Originally posted by The MISTER
You're right and I don't want to be grouped in with those christians for they anger me. I'll share this with you because you have an open mind. The thing that really confuses me about the science of time is that in the Bible there is an accurate description of a mosasaur (called Leviathan) and either a Brontosaurus or Brachiosaurus (called behemoth and stated to have a tail like a cedar tree unlike elephants and hippos). The descriptions are in Job and they seem very accurate to me. How is it possible to describe these creatures in such detail and yet have no awareness of them. That combined with containing the golden rule has led to me trusting the Bible and believing that it contains the truth. I must admit that this requires huge faith on my part but it's not blind faith. I really enjoy science and think it coincides with the bible for the most part. Even the big bang makes sense. In the beginning god created the dark matter(heaven) and the solid matter (earth) Then he said "Let there be light" (Big Bang!)

The people of the past were not stupid! They knew about these creatures in the same way we now know about them. They found bones in the ground, articulated in the form of animals. They didn't get it all right, we don't even get it all right.

There is no connection between the big bang and a creation. There is no way to know what happened before the big bang, but that doesn't stop people from speculating. A creation, in this case, is pure speculation. There is just as much of a chance that the big bang was just a change from something earlier. For example, if we were really inside a very large black hole, we would not be able to see outside the black hole. To us, we would think that the birth of the black hole we are in, was the creation of the universe. But from outside the black hole, we would know that there used to be a star there.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The people of the past were not stupid! They knew about these creatures in the same way we now know about them. They found bones in the ground, articulated in the form of animals. They didn't get it all right, we don't even get it all right.

There is no connection between the big bang and a creation. There is no way to know what happened before the big bang, but that doesn't stop people from speculating. A creation, in this case, is pure speculation. There is just as much of a chance that the big bang was just a change from something earlier. For example, if we were really inside a very large black hole, we would not be able to see outside the black hole. To us, we would think that the birth of the black hole we are in, was the creation of the universe. But from outside the black hole, we would know that there used to be a star there.

I'm not suggesting that they were stupid just not capable of discovering mosasaur bones. The Big Bang is connected to creation. If it bothers you that I stated that this way then realize that it's just as bothersome when you state that it is not. Neither of us can prove what we are saying is true so as it stands we believe different things. That doesn't mean that we can't get along though and point out the reasons for our beliefs.

Originally posted by The MISTER
I'm not suggesting that they were stupid just not capable of discovering mosasaur bones. The Big Bang is connected to creation. If it bothers you that I stated that this way then realize that it's just as bothersome when you state that it is not. Neither of us can prove what we are saying is true so as it stands we believe different things. That doesn't mean that we can't get along though and point out the reasons for our beliefs.

All I am saying is, sense we cannot know anything before the big bang, because we were not there, and we cannot see from outside, then any statement about what happened before is pure speculation. That means the burden of proof is on you. Please prove that the big bang was the result of a creation event.

How can you say that people in the past were not capable of finding fossil bone in the Earth. To me, that is simple saying they were too stupid. What does it take to discover fossil bone in the ground? Children have found fossil bones.

If you take the bones of a protoceratops, and rearrange them, you get a griffin. If you take the bones of a mammoth, and rearrange them, you get a cyclops. We have found the bone of a mammoth reburied in a Greek tomb. Why did they do that?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
All I am saying is, sense we cannot know anything before the big bang, because we were not there, and we cannot see from outside, then any statement about what happened before is pure speculation. That means the burden of proof is on you. Please prove that the big bang was the result of a creation event.

How can you say that people in the past were not capable of finding fossil bone in the Earth. To me, that is simple saying they were too stupid. What does it take to discover fossil bone in the ground? Children have found fossil bones.

If you take the bones of a protoceratops, and rearrange them, you get a griffin. If you take the bones of a mammoth, and rearrange them, you get a cyclops. We have found the bone of a mammoth reburied in a Greek tomb. Why did they do that? The mosasaur is an ocean dinosaur. The fact that it was described as a living creature is confusing. I could understand if the description was of a mythical creature but the description is scientifically accurate. You're suggesting that not excavating and identfying prehistoric animals makes for a stupid people. Isn't that a little harsh? Job was written in BC. As for the burden of proof being on me I feel as though orderly existence is proof of purposeful creation. Also our ability to create ideas and imaginations endlessly
seems to be unique to humans as well as accountability for our actions. As the only creatures who have the ability to make choices that impact the environment we are accountable but what for? We've been put here on purpose is a reasonable theory to me and the proof is that we are aware of the fact that something is infinite and had no beginning. That something being our inferior intellectually seems very arrogant.

Originally posted by The MISTER
The mosasaur is an ocean dinosaur. The fact that it was described as a living creature is confusing. I could understand if the description was of a mythical creature but the description is scientifically accurate. You're suggesting that not excavating and identfying prehistoric animals makes for a stupid people. Isn't that a little harsh? Job was written in BC. As for the burden of proof being on me I feel as though orderly existence is proof of purposeful creation. Also our ability to create ideas and imaginations endlessly
seems to be unique to humans as well as accountability for our actions. As the only creatures who have the ability to make choices that impact the environment we are accountable but what for? We've been put here on purpose is a reasonable theory to me and the proof is that we are aware of the fact that something is infinite and had no beginning. That something being our inferior intellectually seems very arrogant.

The description in the bible does not reach the level of scientifically accurate. The bible could be talking about a myth, and not something that lived long ago. What you are saying is speculation. There is nothing wrong with speculation, as long as you know what you are doing. I think you are getting the two confused.

Also, you can't just dismiss burden of proof. You can believe whatever you want, but if you want to communicate with others, then you have to present proof. I'm ok with you believing what you do, but this is a debate forum.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The description in the bible does not reach the level of scientifically accurate. The bible could be talking about a myth, and not something that lived long ago. What you are saying is speculation. There is nothing wrong with speculation, as long as you know what you are doing. I think you are getting the two confused.

Also, you can't just dismiss burden of proof. You can believe whatever you want, but if you want to communicate with others, then you have to present proof. I'm ok with you believing what you do, but this is a debate forum. Well stated. The scientific law that energy can neither be created or destroyed remains unchanged I believe. If that is the case then it provides scientific proof that there was a time previous to the big bang as the big bang was powered by energy that was not created and therefore existed previously. The evidence that energy is here is constant. The alternative is the absence of energy and for that absence to remain constant. Scientifically speaking the alternative is far easier to see staying the course of infinity and disproving any supernatural involvement. Hypothetically nothing would have ever happened and nothing would ever happen. Instead we have something. Either the law of energy being incapable of being created has been defied or we exist in an infinite reality that mysteriously appeared for no scientific reason at all. The other possibility is that the power that caused what we who speak english call the "big bang" ( I'm sure it's many translations sound interesting), is not within the confines of the scientific law and however mysterious that power is it's existence sustains the ability of the universe to manifest and maintain unbreakable laws indefinitely. Though this power source may be impossible to investigate it's existence is supported by the current scientific law that energy cannot be created nor destroyed.

Originally posted by The MISTER
Well stated. The scientific law that energy can neither be created or destroyed remains unchanged I believe. If that is the case then it provides scientific proof that there was a time previous to the big bang as the big bang was powered by energy that was not created and therefore existed previously. The evidence that energy is here is constant. The alternative is the absence of energy and for that absence to remain constant. Scientifically speaking the alternative is far easier to see staying the course of infinity and disproving any supernatural involvement. Hypothetically nothing would have ever happened and nothing would ever happen. Instead we have something. Either the law of energy being incapable of being created has been defied or we exist in an infinite reality that mysteriously appeared for no scientific reason at all. The other possibility is that the power that caused what we who speak english call the "big bang" ( I'm sure it's many translations sound interesting), is not within the confines of the scientific law and however mysterious that power is it's existence sustains the ability of the universe to manifest and maintain unbreakable laws indefinitely. Though this power source may be impossible to investigate it's existence is supported by the current scientific law that energy cannot be created nor destroyed.

Trying to describe extremely advanced cosmology using nothing but high-school level physics is ludicrous.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Trying to describe extremely advanced cosmology using nothing but high-school level physics is ludicrous. I simply applied the science that I'm aware of and I'm sorry If the only people you take serious are advanced cosmologists. Cause you see I noticed you didn't comment on my ideas' flaws, you just avoided it completely.
What's the deal? I'm not a retard so I've put a lot of thought into how to debate this realistically instead of just repeating "You've got to have faith!!!" I never liked that type of answer any more than you so I'm actually trying to be sensible! Was there some flaw in my earlier statement? Was I wrong about the created, destroyed law? If I got it wrong I'll admit it.

Originally posted by The MISTER
Well stated. The scientific law that energy can neither be created or destroyed remains unchanged I believe. If that is the case then it provides scientific proof that there was a time previous to the big bang as the big bang was powered by energy that was not created and therefore existed previously. The evidence that energy is here is constant. The alternative is the absence of energy and for that absence to remain constant. Scientifically speaking the alternative is far easier to see staying the course of infinity and disproving any supernatural involvement. Hypothetically nothing would have ever happened and nothing would ever happen. Instead we have something. Either the law of energy being incapable of being created has been defied or we exist in an infinite reality that mysteriously appeared for no scientific reason at all. The other possibility is that the power that caused what we who speak english call the "big bang" ( I'm sure it's many translations sound interesting), is not within the confines of the scientific law and however mysterious that power is it's existence sustains the ability of the universe to manifest and maintain unbreakable laws indefinitely. Though this power source may be impossible to investigate it's existence is supported by the current scientific law that energy cannot be created nor destroyed.

If you take into account entropy, then you would realized that an equilibrium state cannot be maintained. Quantum fluxuations will occur. The big bang may have been one of these Quantum fluxuations but on a cosmic scale.

Imagine the cosmos in a entropy equilibrium state. Because of Quantum fluxuations there will be places in this equilibrium state where the entropy is above the equilibrium line and some places below. Because of the unpredictable nature of Quantum fluxuations, the amount and intensity of these fluxuations can very greatly. The big bang could have been one of these Quantum fluxuations in a much larger cosmos. On the larger scale the cosmos is still at a entropy equilibrium state, but this universe may just be a Quantum fluxuation were the entropy is very low. We are now experiencing the return to an entropy equilibrium state that is the normal for the cosmos.