C
Call_Me_V
Guest
Yes, they do.
Yes, some might. Such as every single website that I’ve found. What is your source for the claim that bones don’t decompose?
V
- Status
V
J
JulieAA
Guest
Yes, some might. Such as every single website that I’ve found. What is your source for the claim that bones don’t decompose?
Wow, every single website? Amazing! Guess we are not looking in the same books!
Of course, decomposition of bones could be dependent upon the elements involved.
Wow, every single website? Amazing! Guess we are not looking in the same books!
Of course, decomposition of bones could be dependent upon the elements involved.
C
Call_Me_V
Guest
Again, I’m going to have to ask you to please state your source for the claim that bones don’t decompose.
Thanks,
V
J
JulieAA
Guest
]Again, I’m going to have to ask you to please state your source for the claim that bones don’t decompose.
Wow, am I suppose to cut and paste here? Other than “all of the websites” that you have indicated, please send me your sources. I know there are many who share your view; however, I am not one of them.
Wow, am I suppose to cut and paste here? Other than “all of the websites” that you have indicated, please send me your sources. I know there are many who share your view; however, I am not one of them.
C
Call_Me_V
Guest
Very well, here are my sources:
Source
Source
Source
Source
Source
Source
Source
These are just a few sources that a quick Google search turned up, I can provide as many more as you need.
Now then, what is your source? If a cut and paste job is not possible for you, then please just tell me the name of the book, article, etc., if you don’t mind.
Thanks,
V
J
JulieAA
Guest
I am very sorry…I am in the middle of preparing for depo…I will respond tomorrow morning when I have more time. I briefly checked out a few of your sources…evaluated by students…again, decomposition does take place depending upon the elements involved. Another of your sources indicates that it may take place over millions of years…how he substantied that one is beyond my pay grade. He is making a huge assumption…I will be back tomorrow…thank you for your understanding!
C
Call_Me_V
Guest
H
HelenaMT
Guest
Don’t want to derail the thread, but I just have to ask, especially since you are an agnostic (I lean that way often, despite my listed religion) : what religions do you think have far greater evidence for their claims?
C
Call_Me_V
Guest
I think the thread has already been thoroughly derailed, don’t worry
The big one for me is the cult of Sathya Sai Baba. This man is effectively a modern day Jesus. He has performed miracles in front of thousands of witnesses, healed the sick, changed water into oil, created objects out of thin air, raised the dead, bilocated, flown through the air, and so much more, according to the eyewitness testimony of his followers, all of whom claim that he is the divine Son of God, sent to rescue humanity. The central claim of Christian apologists is that we should trust the Gospel accounts, that we should trust these ancient biographies of Jesus, written decades after his death by people that may or may not have been eyewitnesses. This is the evidence that we are presented with. And yet that pales in comparison to the testimony of Sai Baba’s followers. We have thousands of living eyewitnesses for Sai Baba’s miracles. His devout followers have written extensive biographies detailing his teachings, his virgin birth, and his many miracles. And yet Christian apologists don’t expect us to believe that Sai Baba is the Son of God. They do expect us to come to the conclusion that Jesus is the Son of God as a result of several ancient, anonymously authored biographies of Jesus, written by his fanatical followers decades after his death, but they don’t for one second expect us to believe that Sai Baba is the Son of God as a result of the fact that we have thousands of living witnesses for his miraculous deeds, or the biographies written about Sai Baba by his eyewitness followers, during his lifetime. The apologists hold a double standard, expecting us to believe in the divinity of Jesus based on their “evidence”, but to ignore the evidence for the divinity of Sai Baba, which is, dare I say, at least 100 times stronger than the evidence for the divinity of Jesus. That is why their arguments are weak, and if I had to pick a religion based on evidence, it would not be Christianity, it would be the cult of Sai Baba.
That turned into kind of a disorganized rant, but hopefully that answered your question,
V
D
donsnow
Guest
You are in the good company of biologist Robert Gould and other scientists who say there’s not that many fossils to make a claim for Darwinism. Bless your heart.
H
HelenaMT
Guest
Thanks, Very interesting, I’m looking up Sai Baba right now. However, what are the others? You said “many religions”, this is just one.I think the thread has already been thoroughly derailed, don’t worry
The big one for me is the cult of Sathya Sai Baba. This man is effectively a modern day Jesus. He has performed miracles in front of thousands of witnesses, healed the sick, changed water into oil, created objects out of thin air, raised the dead, bilocated, flown through the air, and so much more, according to the eyewitness testimony of his followers, all of whom claim that he is the divine Son of God, sent to rescue humanity. The central claim of Christian apologists is that we should trust the Gospel accounts, that we should trust these ancient biographies of Jesus, written decades after his death by people that may or may not have been eyewitnesses. This is the evidence that we are presented with. And yet that pales in comparison to the testimony of Sai Baba’s followers. We have thousands of living eyewitnesses for Sai Baba’s miracles. His devout followers have written extensive biographies detailing his teachings, his virgin birth, and his many miracles. And yet Christian apologists don’t expect us to believe that Sai Baba is the Son of God. They do expect us to come to the conclusion that Jesus is the Son of God as a result of several ancient, anonymously authored biographies of Jesus, written by his fanatical followers decades after his death, but they don’t for one second expect us to believe that Sai Baba is the Son of God as a result of the fact that we have thousands of living witnesses for his miraculous deeds, or the biographies written about Sai Baba by his eyewitness followers, during his lifetime. The apologists hold a double standard, expecting us to believe in the divinity of Jesus based on their “evidence”, but to ignore the evidence for the divinity of Sai Baba, which is, dare I say, at least 100 times stronger than the evidence for the divinity of Jesus. That is why their arguments are weak, and if I had to pick a religion based on evidence, it would not be Christianity, it would be the cult of Sai Baba.
That turned into kind of a disorganized rant, but hopefully that answered your question,
V
D
donsnow
Guest
Hi, V,I think the thread has already been thoroughly derailed, don’t worry
The big one for me is the cult of Sathya Sai Baba. This man is effectively a modern day Jesus. He has performed miracles in front of thousands of witnesses, healed the sick, changed water into oil, created objects out of thin air, raised the dead, bilocated, flown through the air, and so much more, according to the eyewitness testimony of his followers, all of whom claim that he is the divine Son of God, sent to rescue humanity. The central claim of Christian apologists is that we should trust the Gospel accounts, that we should trust these ancient biographies of Jesus, written decades after his death by people that may or may not have been eyewitnesses. This is the evidence that we are presented with. And yet that pales in comparison to the testimony of Sai Baba’s followers. We have thousands of living eyewitnesses for Sai Baba’s miracles. His devout followers have written extensive biographies detailing his teachings, his virgin birth, and his many miracles. And yet Christian apologists don’t expect us to believe that Sai Baba is the Son of God. They do expect us to come to the conclusion that Jesus is the Son of God as a result of several ancient, anonymously authored biographies of Jesus, written by his fanatical followers decades after his death, but they don’t for one second expect us to believe that Sai Baba is the Son of God as a result of the fact that we have thousands of living witnesses for his miraculous deeds, or the biographies written about Sai Baba by his eyewitness followers, during his lifetime. The apologists hold a double standard, expecting us to believe in the divinity of Jesus based on their “evidence”, but to ignore the evidence for the divinity of Sai Baba, which is, dare I say, at least 100 times stronger than the evidence for the divinity of Jesus. That is why their arguments are weak, and if I had to pick a religion based on evidence, it would not be Christianity, it would be the cult of Sai Baba.
That turned into kind of a disorganized rant, but hopefully that answered your question,
V
Jesus Christ, in the Gospels, which I accept as valid, the protests and arguments of dissenters notwithstanding, warned us of false Christs and false prophets. Jesus walked the talk, which was pleasing to his Heavenly Father.
I will have to google this miracle worker you presented, to see what his talk comprises. If he doesn’t preach what Jesus preached, then he’s a false Christ (miracle worker) and a false prophet.
My time online is about up, so I’ll be back tomorrow.
God loves you,
Don
C
Call_Me_V
Guest
Well, I would also mention Islam, there was a case in Iran, shortly before the big revolution in 1979, where millions of Muslims independently claimed that Khoemini’s face had appeared in the night sky, and took this as divine proof that Allah had anointed him to be the true ruler of Iran. I usually use that in response to the “miracle of the sun” arguments. There’s also some shaman in Africa, I can’t remember his name or where I read about him, but he claims to have come back from the dead, and has the eyewitness testimony of himself, his wife and son, the doctor who declared him dead, and the man who embalmed him. This is far better evidence than exists for the Resurrection of Jesus, and thus I usually use that in response to the “there’s evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus” arguments.
These “miracle workers” are really not hard to find. Sam Harris said something along the lines of “I’ve met hundreds of Western educated, intelligent people, who claim that their favorite spiritual guru has magic powers! That these gurus have walked on water, raised the dead, flown into the sky unaided!”. Christian apologists would not be so quick to cite “eyewitness testimony” if they knew how much B.S. there is that we have tons of eyewitness testimony for. And that’s not even getting in to UFO sightings, ghost sightings, and so on.
V
A
antunesaa
Guest
There’s a lot of knowledgeable people here at the forum that can tell you exactly why your concerns are unfounded, although some people think that, in a very precise sense, we should be finding more bones than we actually find. Anyway, take a look at this:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_evolution
A
antunesaa
Guest
My mother actually met people who witnessed the “miracle of the son”. The thing happened, no doubt about that; if it was a natural phenomenon, then it had been scheduled a couple of months before… This is a key aspect of the Fátima phenomenon, for it allowed many high profile skeptics to go there and exert a strong and credible critical assessment of the “miracle”. One particular guy my mother accidentally met went there only to discredit the whole thing — but came back a devout for the rest of his life.
So you think that there are phenomena so beyond our knowledge of the natural laws that they can be deemed supernatural (like those “miracles” of the Indian guy, or the resurrection of the African guy, which you seem to accept as truthful) and yet side with Sam Harris and call yourself atheist? Given their extraordinary nature, either those things are magic of the Copperfield sort, and you can’t use them to discredit Jesus, or some people indeed have supernatural powers and you cannot be an atheist. You still can say that such evidence is stronger than the evidence for Jesus, but if you’re an atheist you have to discount them all as just man-made illusions. You then have a totally coherent position — but an unconvincing one given that you keep the extraordinary stuff unaddressed.
K
kildare
Guest
Well if we cant 100% believe eye-witness accounts, then what other signs are there to believe that christianity is correct?
What about a sort of anthropic principal - the right religion is the one that survives and bears the best fruit. (As Jesus himself said). I mean statistically neither I nor anyone else should even exist, but we do. Likewise the Universe apparently. And so I exist and so does the catholic church, which just happens to be the greatest force on earth in almost every respect for the last 2000 years.
And this is one of my other proofs for Christainity (not just God).
Exibit A: Western Civilisation based on the Judeo-Christain, which is the civilisation which despite causing great sufferring through its liberal-reactionary conflicts, has progressed humanity, through music, science, art and literature onto the highest conceivable plane.
It also feels right to me. The old testament prophesies were born out completely in Jesus, but in a way no one else at the time could have coneceived. Forget the miracles, if the life of Jesus is a fabrication it has to go down as being the greatest work of literature of all time. In fact its influenced the greatest works of literature anyway. It feels right, because the ideas expressed in the bible do not seem logical and common sense from a human point of view. They shouldnt work, and yet they do - so successfully!
But now maybe I’m getting on to another argument for the truth of christianity.
To those who say -“you might have been born in another civilisation and thus by no fault of your own, not be a christian, or even hear of it”
I reply
"You could have been born a tadpole and now be a frog in a frenchmans soup. So what!
This is the Antropic principle…sort of
What about a sort of anthropic principal - the right religion is the one that survives and bears the best fruit. (As Jesus himself said). I mean statistically neither I nor anyone else should even exist, but we do. Likewise the Universe apparently. And so I exist and so does the catholic church, which just happens to be the greatest force on earth in almost every respect for the last 2000 years.
And this is one of my other proofs for Christainity (not just God).
Exibit A: Western Civilisation based on the Judeo-Christain, which is the civilisation which despite causing great sufferring through its liberal-reactionary conflicts, has progressed humanity, through music, science, art and literature onto the highest conceivable plane.
It also feels right to me. The old testament prophesies were born out completely in Jesus, but in a way no one else at the time could have coneceived. Forget the miracles, if the life of Jesus is a fabrication it has to go down as being the greatest work of literature of all time. In fact its influenced the greatest works of literature anyway. It feels right, because the ideas expressed in the bible do not seem logical and common sense from a human point of view. They shouldnt work, and yet they do - so successfully!
But now maybe I’m getting on to another argument for the truth of christianity.
To those who say -“you might have been born in another civilisation and thus by no fault of your own, not be a christian, or even hear of it”
I reply
"You could have been born a tadpole and now be a frog in a frenchmans soup. So what!
This is the Antropic principle…sort of
A
avflf
Guest
Most of this “Timeline” is pure speculation and when we get to the the formation of life from non-life we are reverting to the middle ages’ idea of “spontaneous generation”, which has been discredited centuries ago.
The dating of earth periods is done with “circular logic” where the date of rocks/sediments are deducted by particular life-forms found in them and the dating of organisms is done by the type of rock/sediment where they are found; so we say that this layer is X billion years old because the organisms found in them are X billion years old and then we calculate that organisms are Y billions of years old because they are found in Y billions years layers.
Darwinist evolution required a belief in uniformitarianism, thus the billions of years figure. They would not entertain the idea of cataclysmic events in their theory but then they had to reluctantly accept that possibility and nowadays have accepted some form of catastrophism and some even believe that maybe up to 98% of all life on earth was destroyed some 65 millions years ago, although Wiki reckons only half of animal species perished - they had to do so to keep the evolution idea on line - but why some survived and others not is not explained.
But if catastrophism is indeed the way the cookie crumbles and the earth has been subjected to life destroying forces throughout its history, then there is not enough time for the development of the number of diverse life-forms that exist at present
D
donsnow
Guest
Good morning,
I Googled Sathya Bai Baba preach and got this link:
google.com/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=en&source=hp&q=Sathya+Sai+Baba+preaches&btnG=Google+Search
There are several links at that web page and I found good information on this one:
encyclopedia-of-religion.org/sathya_sai_baba.html
In short, at age fourteen he told his parents he wanted to go serve God and was the reincarnation of a Muslim saint, whose name he took. He went out under that saint’s name (Sai Baba) and has been ministering to Indians for 72 years.
Although Vladimir Antonov in his book Sathya Bai Baba - the Christ of Our Days
terms Sathya Bai Baba as a Christ, the Sathya Bai Baba presents himself as the reincarnation of Sai Baba, not as a Christ. So, he’s not a false Christ.
Now, he does preach at least two things outside of Christian doctrine.
First, he is an ecumenical preacher, wanting to gather all religions under his mantle to worship God.
Second, in his “Yoga of Action” he states, “Human soul expanded to the Divine state becomes equal to God. Human consiousness expanded to the infinity becomes equal to the source that created the universe.” This is patently false, as even Jesus Christ did not deem himself the Father’s equal.
So, although not a Christian, the man’s claims about himself are borne out by his miracles.
As far as miracle workers, there are OT prophets who raised the dead and gave a pitcher of milk that was always full, etc. There are also modern Protestants who have fasted and prayed forty days and nights and then who went and worked healing miracles. And, there are countless Catholic saints who have worked healing miracles, some have levitated, etc.
I’m just a layman, so I don’t judge out of HRC church miracles.
So, that’s my say on that. That’s as far as I want to go.
God loves ya’ll,
Don
I Googled Sathya Bai Baba preach and got this link:
google.com/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=en&source=hp&q=Sathya+Sai+Baba+preaches&btnG=Google+Search
There are several links at that web page and I found good information on this one:
encyclopedia-of-religion.org/sathya_sai_baba.html
In short, at age fourteen he told his parents he wanted to go serve God and was the reincarnation of a Muslim saint, whose name he took. He went out under that saint’s name (Sai Baba) and has been ministering to Indians for 72 years.
Although Vladimir Antonov in his book Sathya Bai Baba - the Christ of Our Days
terms Sathya Bai Baba as a Christ, the Sathya Bai Baba presents himself as the reincarnation of Sai Baba, not as a Christ. So, he’s not a false Christ.
Now, he does preach at least two things outside of Christian doctrine.
First, he is an ecumenical preacher, wanting to gather all religions under his mantle to worship God.
Second, in his “Yoga of Action” he states, “Human soul expanded to the Divine state becomes equal to God. Human consiousness expanded to the infinity becomes equal to the source that created the universe.” This is patently false, as even Jesus Christ did not deem himself the Father’s equal.
So, although not a Christian, the man’s claims about himself are borne out by his miracles.
As far as miracle workers, there are OT prophets who raised the dead and gave a pitcher of milk that was always full, etc. There are also modern Protestants who have fasted and prayed forty days and nights and then who went and worked healing miracles. And, there are countless Catholic saints who have worked healing miracles, some have levitated, etc.
I’m just a layman, so I don’t judge out of HRC church miracles.
So, that’s my say on that. That’s as far as I want to go.
God loves ya’ll,
Don
A
antunesaa
Guest
A
avflf
Guest
On the other hand the Catholic Church wants to gather all the people of the world under its banner. Seems both are rather similar in their goals.
- Status