Question from Jakob:
Hello, I am back with more questions and stuff particularly about the portrayal of the supernatural in the mainstream media, for example Hollywood ghost or demon movies like The Exorcist. Another thing that followed some of these are curses or strange phenomena surrounding them, like in the case of The Omen some of the cast during production died. and one guy supposedly crashed near a sign in the Netherlands that said Ommen 6,66. Upon further investigation that turned out to be an exaggerated claim although, he did crash in the area but not near the sign. also not surprisingly after movies like the exorcist came out more people reported demonic signs. it would seem that Hollywood would do everything in their power to make people believe this baloney. Nevertheless there is a large pseudo-acceptance of these things. Now recently some guy on The Thinking Atheist posted something about a sun miracle. i would appreciate it if you could help me debunk or explain these things.
Answer by SmartLX:
The supernatural is very, very common in Hollywood fiction. If it’s a movie where ghosts are real, or magic is taught in school, or demons are literally clawing to the surface from underground, then we accept it and view the rest of the movie in that context. IF ghosts were plainly real, we think to ourselves, how would these people behave? How would the world be different? Between our own imaginations and where the movie actually goes with the concept, we can arrive at a rough understanding of this hypothetical state of affairs, and ponder and discuss it for a long time afterwards. (For instance, at some point nearly everyone reading this has probably talked through the physics and practicality of a lightsaber while not watching a Star Wars movie.)
It’s a fun mental exercise to imagine alternative realities and contrast them with ours, and fiction helps us do this by inspiring concepts of alternative realities. If people believe these supernatural phenomena are real simply because they’ve seen them in a movie, then we consider them to have trouble distinguishing between fact and fiction, and generally encourage them to get it straight or get help. Stories surrounding movies, like the idea of The Omen being cursed, do tend to be exaggerated as you say, and skeptics have made a meal of that one in particular. Here’s one discussion. Hollywood publicists do nothing to stifle or correct the stories because they’re happy with anything that gets people talking about a movie, which means more ticket sales.
As for the “sun miracle” at Fátima, I did a piece on that one a short time ago at your request, so I hope you got to read it.
17 thoughts on “Hollywood Hokum”
Comments are closed.
There are some stories that are stranger than fiction. But there have been many strikes of the supernatural. You mentioned Holkywood. Sure there are many people itching to make a living and others trying to get rich. As well as with the many who use our belief and lack of belief to get rich. But where did our willingness to believe come from. Are you telling me that all those accounts, every one of them have no factual foundation? What if there are powers beyond belief that were from time of old. Good and bad, that our foreparents had privy to, powers that were more and more dialed back one because of the nature of man, and the other because it was forced to exercise itself less., because the other revealed itself less. What if God actively existed? Man walked am talked with God on a daily basis until Man turned away, forcing God to interact less and less with man because Man would be consumed by His holiness. Now since God interacted less with Man and Man started to lose belief in God, the other power knew that if he openly revealed his power as evil as it was, that constant revelation of his evil could cause Man to come to the realization that if there was an evil power what if there was a good power, and once again man would seek for the good. Now I return to my first premise. For some reason Man has a feeling that there is more than himself. Where did it come from? Man is a curious being. But why assume good and evil? Why would man ome to the illogical assumption that some God is unhappy and that a human sacrifice was nesssary to appease that anger. Why wouldn’t man do as men do today and reason that is the luck of the draw? I tell you that it is because Man knew God. Man interacTed with God until that face to face interaction had to be severed, for man’s sake. And little by little people belie e les and less in God. But God still communicated with man. In one way or another. And the devil still caused his destruction of man but without revealing himself. So man would not be sure about God.
Now you ask why doesn’t God stop the evil? Well that falls on man. Each of us need to decide to help or harm. The desire we have to provide aid and succor those in need comes from God. And the selfish desire to get and hoard in whatever mears possible, comes from the devil. If God were to step in and interfere all the time how would man develop his true self, his true desires. God has revealed Himself through nature. He revealed Himself by becoming as man. He left us His word. And all supernaturally given. Leaving us the question how. Because there are witnesses who have given testimony about God in the Bible. There are witnesses who tell of their relationship with Him now. Many Scientists stake their jobs on the line saying that the Theory of Evolution is a lie perpetrated by people who just don’t want there to be someone that they will have to answer to I. The next life. These scientists say that God made it all. And that the facts show that. They say that Atheism fails to answer the “GREAT QUESTIONS ” of life. That it leaves reason to say impossible than answers. And that an Intelligent Benefactor is the only answer that makes sense. And I ask? If there is no God, why do the Atheists get so worked up at the fact that so many people claim that He is. They waist their time and money to disprove Him, many coming later to accept Himn or go to the grave not being able to cause His death.
Gerald writes a rather large mismash of material up above. I would like to focus on a couple of things:
“And I ask? If there is no God, why do the Atheists get so worked up at the fact that so many people claim that He is.”
Because it’s an irrational and absurd claim. If that were the only instance in people’s lives where they ignored logic and reason, maybe it wouldn’t be so bad. But many of those same cultists extend such nonsensical thinking to all sorts of topics, including scientific ones. They pretend that validated scientific theories like evolution are wrong, and they ignore clear and present dangers like climate change despite the mountain of data and empirical evidence showing it is occurring. Reasoned, empirically supported debate can’t happen in the general population when people don’t know how to be reasoned, and they can’t learn to be reasoned if they go around accepting baseless claims. They get into the habit of NOT thinking for themselves. That’s the last thing this country needs.
“Now you ask why doesn’t God stop the evil?”
Despite the claim that your “god is love”, why would it want evil to stop? Think about it. Evil stops, and there is no reason or need to worship it. It’s supposed to love us unconditionally, but if all the bad stuff went away we wouldn’t need to ask for forgiveness, or better health, or anything. The god’s need for groveling from unimportant creatures in this particular part of the universe would go unfilled…
Tim, you do recognize that this statement you made, “Because it’s an irrational and absurd claim.” Is both irrational, and absurd. The majority of people, from one end of any communicable spectrum to the either other, believe in some form of supernatural. We, they, us, whether believing in the Christian God, or some other, are not fools or extremist to the nice sense of the word. Yes there are those, inside that self same spectrum that do go to the extreme, in the bad sense. But, given what you said, you as an Atheist, as usual ignore evidence that you want to exclude as not having any bearing on what you accept as possible. As a Christian, I have seen and it is as testimony, observed and recorded that more that there are a mountain of evidence of things that those Christians attest to have been accomplished by Christ. Now, are you going to call all of us “irrational and absurd “. We know of what we are talking about. Just because you have not allowed yourself the opportunity to have this experience, doesn’t mean it is not just as valid, no even more so, than the belief that there is no God. There are plenty of supernatural things that are unexplainable. Plenty of things that have happened that is contrary from the end that has usually happened, but for some reason, the opposite happened. Even with the experiments going on in hospitals, there is a leaning to the belief that prayer changes things. Try praying. It really does work.
Gerald writes: [Tim, you do recognize that this statement you made, “Because it’s an irrational and absurd claim.” Is both irrational, and absurd. The majority of people, from one end of any communicable spectrum to the either other, believe in some form of supernatural.]
90% of people believe they are better than average drivers. Just because someone believes something doesn’t make it true. Just because a LOT of people believe something, doesn’t make it true. 30% of Americans believe Big Foot is real. Over 40% believe UFOs are real. 43% of Americans think “millions of illegal votes were cast” during the last election. All these things have ZERO evidence or empirical data supporting them, yet people believe them anyway.
A lot of people believe in the supernatural Gerald? That has nothing to do with the facts, now does it. And their belief doesn’t make their claim anymore legitimate.
[We, they, us, whether believing in the Christian God, or some other, are not fools or extremist to the nice sense of the word.]
I would call them ignorant. They lack knowledge, or in many cases ignore knowledge given to them, that specifically refutes the irrational and absurd claims made about the supernatural. The reason for this have been previously covered, but includes the fear of death, the fear of change, or laziness to think and learn about new topics that they have no previous experience with (usually scientific in nature). As an example, in your specific case you have refused to pursue additional information and learning opportunities about the theory of evolution, instead restating erroneous statements time and again.
[But, given what you said, you as an Atheist, as usual ignore evidence that you want to exclude as not having any bearing on what you accept as possible.]
Incorrect. You have failed to offer any empirical evidence or data for anything, despite what is now dozens of requests for such information by myself and others at this website. You offer things like “personal testimony” which is not verifiable, and therefore not evidence. The definition of legitimate evidence, that can be validated scientifically, has been repeatedly stated to you time and again. Yet you have none to offer…still…
[As a Christian, I have seen and it is as testimony, observed and recorded that more that there are a mountain of evidence of things that those Christians attest to have been accomplished by Christ.]
Or you are lying. Can’t prove it one way or the other, can you. No one can. Can’t state with 100% certainty that your brain properly processed the input it received when you’ve had your “experiences”, can you. No one can. Your so-called “evidence” is not a verifiable fact, and cannot be relied upon as objective data that can be validated by others.
[Now, are you going to call all of us “irrational and absurd “. We know of what we are talking about.]
Sure you do. That’s exactly what the Muslims say, and the Hindus, and the Vikings before that, and the Egyptians before that, and so on. You all just happened to be born to parents who follow the right religion, and happen to belong to the right sect within that religion. What a glorious example of confirmation bias you all are.
[Just because you have not allowed yourself the opportunity to have this experience, doesn’t mean it is not just as valid, no even more so, than the belief that there is no God.]
Wrong assumption. I used to be a Christian. I tried to believe, wanted to believe, prayed on it. Problem was my brain couldn’t help noticing all the logical paradoxes of the claims. My brain couldn’t help taking note that a worldwide flood wasn’t possible, that the Exodus could not be true, that land animals came before and not after winged creatures. I didn’t ignore these things, I explored them. I went to prove them wrong, and instead they proved that my religious belief was wrong. I found out it was irrational and absurd, that’s why I can call all supernatural beliefs exactly that. There is a mountain of proof that blows the godly tales away…
[There are plenty of supernatural things that are unexplainable. Plenty of things that have happened that is contrary from the end that has usually happened, but for some reason, the opposite happened. Even with the experiments going on in hospitals, there is a leaning to the belief that prayer changes things. Try praying. It really does work.]
There is no evidence for the existence of miracles, and as you still can’t provide any, there is no reason to think otherwise. Every study I have ever seen has shown that prayer does not change the chances of survival or improvement for those in the hospital. If you know of one that does, please provide it. Hey look, another request for evidence from me to you…I wonder how that will turn out…
Man are you in full blown denial. You are asking for evidence. And I just and you just said that there are many people who believe in the supernatural. All these people are the witnesses. There have been books written about those people who believe in the supernatural. Books have been written about miracles that have not been attributed to any known causes. First is, just because some people say that there is no evidence (the Bible has been accepted as a valid source of historical evidence on more than one occasion) doesn’t mean that the Exodus never happened. It has been widely known that cultures have struck from their historical records, embarrassing parts of their history. Especially that of the Egyptian history.
There is plenty of evidence of a world wide flood.
a) All major cultures have a worldwide flood recorded in their past. Please refer to “https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_flood_myths)
(http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html)
(https://answersingenesis.org/the-flood/flood-legends/the-genesis-flood-not-just-another-legend/)
b) There is hard evidence that a global flood spread a popori of all kind of organic and inorganic all over the earth. Items that one would expect to see only in certain places of the earth were unexplainably found mixed with other items found in other areas of the earth.(Is there evidence that the flood was global?
The first book of the Bible, the book of Genesis, chapters 6 to 8, tells about a great world-wide flood. Such a major flood would surely leave much evidence. When we look around the world we do indeed find much evidence. Most scientists claim that the past can be understood by what is happening in the world today. The Bible describes a world-wide flood that was so great that it cannot be understood by looking at modern floods. I will list several examples from a study of the earth that a great catastrophe once involved the whole earth
1. Fast moving water can erode away dirt, sand and even rock. When the water slows down, the dirt, sand and rock are dropped. This sediment may contain minerals that can be weathered away quickly. In the San Francisco area of California, beds of sediments hundreds of feet thick contain minerals that would have been destroyed if not buried quickly. Such beds can be seen in many other areas world-wide. These sediments could not have been laid down slowly over thousands of years otherwise the minerals would have been destroyed by weathering. Such beds tell us that a great quantity of water was involved and the sediment was deposited and buried quickly.
2. Stones that are rolled around by waves or currents become rounded and are called wash rock (also called conglomerate). Conglomerate rock in Alberta, CanadaConglomerate beds are common all over the world. One bed that I have studied in Alberta, Canada contains granite boulders of football size, that have been washed several hundred miles from the Rocky Mountains, the nearest source of this kind of rock (Figure 1). This bed is close to 100 feet thick and extends over several hundred square miles. Similar beds of even greater extent are present east of San Diego, California, along the Columbia River, in Washington and Oregon, on the east flank of the Bighorn Mountains of Wyoming, in the Grand Canyon in Arizona, and along the Bay of Fundy, Nova Scotia, Canada only to mention a few in North America. The northwest flanks of the Swiss Alps consist of mountains of uplifted conglomerate that have been washed off the Alps. In the past great sheets of moving water dumped wash rock into thick layers that extend for hundreds of miles in all directions. No similar deposits of this extent are being produced in the world today.
3. Many beds, such as the Redwall of the Grand Canyon, can be traced for thousands of miles (Figure 2). Redwall from Grand CanyonThe Redwall or its equivalent extends north all the way to Canada, east to Niagara Falls in New York, and south to Mammoth Caves in Kentucky. An equivalent is even found on the top of Mt. Everest, the world’s highest mountain. Also evidence of such widespread water is thin bands of clay called tonsteins that appear in or between coal seams. Some of these one or two inch laminations spread across thousands of square miles in Europe. Such massive and far-reaching beds require continent wide, if not world-wide, flooding. The current direction indicators in the Redwall and similar beds, show a generally East to West movement of water. Modern rivers and seas produce currents in various directions depending on the topography of the country. Coal is composed of buried plant material that has been subjected to heat, pressure and chemical action. Some coal beds can be very thick. In the United States and Canada, there are beds that are over 100 ft. thick. Some coal seams in Europe and Australia are several hundred feet thick. Geologists claim that coal is produced from buried marshes and peat bogs. Since it takes several feet of peat to be compressed into one foot of coal, seams of coal several hundred feet thick would require peat bogs over a thousand feet thick. No peat bogs of such depths are found in the modern world. Therefore such thick coal seams require conditions in the past that are not happening in the present world. Some coal seams in the eastern United States can be traced north and south for hundreds of miles. Such geographical extend and such thickness, require massive water movements on a very large scale. A world-wide flood as described in Genesis would be expected to lay down sediments over very broad geographical areas and that is what we see in the geological record.
4. Fish fossils are common. Often the skeletal remains are preserved, that is, the bones have not been scattered (Figure 3). A nearly intact fossil fishExperiments with fresh dead fish have shown that dead fish in water will disintegrate and their skeletons will fall apart in less than one week. The abundant remains of intact fossil fish skeletons indicate rapid burial sufficiently deep to prevent oxidation, bacterial decay, and breakage due to feeding by other animals. Fish that die in modern lakes or rivers usually completely decay and seldom leave any trace of themselves. One bed containing numerous fossil fish scales extends over several states in the Southwestern United States. Surprisingly very few fish bones are found in the same bed. This seems to indicate that scales sloughed off fish that were starting to decay and were swept away by water and buried well away from where the fish bones were buried. Only broad expanses of moving water could do this. In Brazil fish fossils are found with the skin, muscles, organs etc. all preserved. The fish look like they had just been caught but they are petrified and hard as stone. They are abundant and distributed over several thousand square miles. The large plateau where these fossils are found is well above sea level and a good 500 miles from the Atlantic Ocean. Catastrophic conditions are required to create such an extensive assemblage of animals and plants so exquisitely preserved.
5. Massive graveyards of thousands and even millions of fish, dinosaurs, and mammals are seen in North America, Europe, and Africa. The same is true of plants. Fossil sea animals from Cincinnati, OhioFrom Utah-Colorado north to Alberta-Saskatchewan, Canada, thousands of dinosaurs are found in certain beds such as the Morrison Formation. Dinosaur National Monument in Utah has a visitor’s display where numerous dinosaurs are exposed. Agate Fossil Beds National Monument is a good places to see numerous fossil mammals jumbled together. Other parts of the world also illustrate fossil graveyards. The city of Cincinnati, Ohio sits on top of a great mass of sea animals (Figure 4). The Messel site near Frankfort, Germany, is also a most unusual collection of animals and plants. These two sites along with others mentioned above reveal the following information: 1. The burial of great quantities of animals together. 2. Rapid burial and excellent preservation. 3. The presence of species now limited to different continents. 4. The position of mammals that suggest death by drowning. Geological processes as seen in the modern world cannot account for such unusual conditions. A world-wide catastrophe involving water is the easiest explanation.
6. A factor that needs further consideration is the mixing of widely diverse animals from different geographical areas and habitats. In Germany the Geiseltel lignite (soft coal) deposit, is a fantastic mixture of a great variety of animals and plants from insects to mammals and birds and from deciduous trees to fungi. Yellowstone petrified logThe Santana Formation of Brazil mentioned above is a mixture of oceanic animals of various habitats. Open ocean fish, bottom dwelling fish, fresh water fish, and sharks along with plants are all mixed together. The petrified forests of the Yellowstone area contain trees from a number of different environments (Figure 5). Species range from temperate (pines, redwoods, and willows) to tropical and exotic (figs, laurels, breadfruit, catsura, and cinnamon) and from semi-desert to rain forest types. If the study of fossil pollen from the conglomerate beds that contain the Yellowstone petrified trees are included, more than 200 species have been identified. How could such unusual mixtures be brought together and buried except by unusual catastrophic transport by water? A final example of unexpected fossil mixtures is seen in amber (petrified pitch). It is easy to understand how insects could be caught in sticky pitch and wind could blow pieces of leaves and even flowers into the pitch but how could sea animals such as coral be included? Waves or strong currents from the sea must have broken up and carried bits of coral that stuck to the pitch before it became hard or petrified.
These are only a few of many examples from the study of the earth and its contained fossils that support a major world-wide flood. We can trust the Genesis record as a true account of an event in the past that affected the whole world.
Harold Coffin, Ph. D. Geology, paleobotany”)
Gerald writes: [Man are you in full blown denial. You are asking for evidence. And I just and you just said that there are many people who believe in the supernatural. All these people are the witnesses.]
Which isn’t evidence, and the reason it isn’t evidence has been explained to you before. For those not used to Gerald repeating the same claims over and over and therefore don’t know why these witnesses are not evidence, I’ll explain. For one, they could be lying. That’s the problem with claims from people based on their “experiences”. You have no way to know if they even believe what they claim. You also don’t know what data their brain actually received, and how their brain processed that data. The human brain is built for pattern recognition, so much so that it often sees patterns where none actually exist. Because our input systems (sight, hearing, smell, etc) are not perfect, the human brain often removes certain things before processing the information. In the end what we have as “memory” is not actually representative of the data that was received. The classic experimental example of this is in a classroom setting where a “thief” runs in and steals something off the teacher’s desk. When asked to describe the thief, the details given by each student vary by amazing degrees. What was worn, the color of what was wore, was it a man or a woman…even the race of the “thief” varies from person to person. Human’s claiming an experience is NOT an objective, verifiable statement, and therefore is not empirical evidence. Except, apparently, to Gerald that is, who seems hell bent on making this claim over and over and over…
[There have been books written about those people who believe in the supernatural.]
Which is just your personal experiences mantra from above in word form. There are books that have been written about orcs, and unicorns, and Santa, and leprechauns. Does the existence of these books PROVE that any of those things are real? No. Empirical data and facts, that can be validated by others, is what is required. And you don’t have any of that, which is why you keep posting about personal experiences instead of listing actual verifiable data…
[Books have been written about miracles that have not been attributed to any known causes.]
God of the gaps argument. Something XXX happened, and we don’t know why, therefore a god. Not an argument, for reasons explained all over the internet and also at this specific website.
[First is, just because some people say that there is no evidence (the Bible has been accepted as a valid source of historical evidence on more than one occasion) doesn’t mean that the Exodus never happened.]
What it means is there is no reason to think it did happen. Not only is there not evidence for the Exodus, there are plenty of facts that make the claim impossible. You can’t walk across the bottom of the Red Sea for example, because there is an underwater canyon running down the middle of it.
[It has been widely known that cultures have struck from their historical records, embarrassing parts of their history. Especially that of the Egyptian history.]
The Egyptians couldn’t strike things from their record very often, as it was often literally set in stone. The most famous effort to remove something from their records was when Hatshepsut was erased from some pharaoh level sites, although even then her name lived on because the Egyptians made so many records that they just couldn’t remove her from everything. Even if you want to claim that the Egyptians just didn’t mention the Exodus, they certainly kept tight records on the economy, harvest, natural disasters, etc. The removal of hundreds of thousands of Jews from the economy would have been devastating. There is no mention of the Nile turning to blood, or any plagues. No mention of the first born male in every household dying, or their economy suffering from the sudden loss of so many workers. Egypt’s trading partners as well as their enemies also don’t mention anything related to the Exodus. You don’t think the word of hundreds of thousands of slaves leaving wouldn’t have gotten around? Or that part of their military drowned in the Red Sea? Or mention that their crops would have suffered from huge pestilation? Or that the Nile turned to blood? Trading vessels and spies would have mentioned all these things, yet no one anywhere mentions any of it. The silence about it is deafening.
[There is plenty of evidence of a world wide flood]
For eveyone’s information, items 1-5 are listed at this website. Gerald failed to list his source again.
http://www.bibleinfo.com/en/questions/there-evidence-flood-was-global
[a) All major cultures have a worldwide flood recorded in their past]
Not accurate actually. Many have flood stories, but not of a worldwide nature. But let’s ignore that and focus on flood stories themselves. Do me a favor, Gerald. Pick a map, any map at all, from a modern one all the way back to the first maps humans made. Any map will do, your choice. On that map, pick any settlement, town, city, metropolis that you want. Any one will do, your choice. Now, ask yourself this question: Is it near water? It is! Well how about that. Seems people have ALWAYS lived near water. Apparently water is necessary to human survival, and not just because we drink it. Apparently we use it for food sources, like fish and planting rice. And we use it for navigation and trade too. You can’t deny any of this to be true. Now, is there any type of body of water that does NOT flood? There isn’t! Well how about that. Rivers, lakes, streams, creeks, oceans. They rise and fall all the time, via floods and monsoons and tsunamis and tides and storms. Is it any great surprise that humans have a lot of flood stories? Is it any surprise that humans would fear water, since they couldn’t survive on it back in ancient times? Humans were well versed in the power of water and what it could do, and they saw water destroy things all the time. Common sense dictates that there should be a lot of flood stories, and that’s exactly what we see.
[There is hard evidence that a global flood spread a popori of all kind of organic and inorganic all over the earth]
No there isn’t. What there is hard evidence of is many different layers of sediment being laid down over large time periods. The sediments vary in particle size, organic content, fossilized remains, and molecular structure. There is nothing about sedimentary layers that suggest just one flood event. In fact there is so much about the various sedimentary deposits that make it impossible for one single flood event of one year’s duration to have created them.
I’ll go into detail on points 1-5 in my next post.
Tim says “For one, they could be lying. That’s the problem with claims from people based on their “experiences”. You have no way to know if they even believe what they claim. You also don’t know what data their brain actually received, and how their brain processed that data”
Why do you overlook the obvious, just to try to prove something that you know is so indefensible. You want to cross out the testimonies of all the witnesses. Not only of those today, but of those who have ever lived. Why this is convenient for the Atheist. But in a true court of law, a testimony is accepted as evidence of the most sound of evidence. Especially when it comes from more than one or two. And here we have thousand, no millions of witnesses saying the same. From different times of history. From different walks of life. And Even from some who used to be witnesses for the opposite side. And you want to distract by crying not acceptable. There is too much evidence from too many areas for you to just say ignore it. And you might as well accept that evidence as well. Because honey, it ain’t going away.
Gerald writes: [Why do you overlook the obvious, just to try to prove something that you know is so indefensible. You want to cross out the testimonies of all the witnesses.]
I don’t have to cross out their testimonies, because the very nature of testimonies is NOT verifiable. As I have explained previously and will do so once again, you cannot prove that they are true. The person claiming that they had an “experience” cannot prove that they are true. Can you think of any way to show without a doubt that they aren’t lying? I guarantee you can’t, and the reason why is because what someone tells you about their personal experience cannot be validated. They could be lying, and you have no way of knowing if they are or not.
There are just as many Hindus who have “experiences”, but you do not take their word as proof. Why not? Because you are biased towards your own belief system. If “testimony” is not proof for all religions and mystical claims throughout time, then how can it be considered true for your particular version?
Gerald writes: [But in a true court of law, a testimony is accepted as evidence of the most sound of evidence.]
Call any attorney in any office in America. Call any trial judge. No one in the legal system thinks testimony is the most sound evidence. Google it for goodness sake.
You make a claim here that is so easily shown to be nonsense. It is ridiculous that you are so ignorant of so many things, yet continue to write more of them on a weekly basis…
As I said the science of Archeology has shown that the Bible provides a wealth about the ancient past. “Behistun Rock Deciphered
Let’s look at several of the more important archaeological finds that confirm Bible history. Not all of these artifacts have been as publicized as some of the more spectacular ones like the Rosetta stone or the tomb of King Tut of ancient Egypt, yet they are momentous in regards to the evaluation of the Bible chronicle.
The deciphering of the Behistun inscription in the 19th century was one of the most remarkable archaeological advancements and the most vital to understanding ancient writings uncovered in the Fertile Crescent. The discovery opened the door for archaeology to further confirm the Bible’s historical accuracy.
The inscription, like a billboard about the size of half a football field, is situated on a cliff about 300 feet above the base of a mountain in the Zagros Mountains of western Iran. The site lies along the road that connected the ancient capitals of kingdoms of Babylonia and Media: Babylon and Ecbatana. The inscription dates back to 516 B.C. and is an account of Darius I’s assumption of the Persian throne (521-486 B.C.). This account was written in cuneiform in three languages (Babylonian, Elamite and Old Persian). In 1835, Sir Henry C. Rawlinson copied and began to decipher the text, finishing the Persian translation in 1846. He and other scholars were soon able to translate the Babylonian and Elamite portions.
Many ancient cultures in the Middle East used cuneiform, but these works were a mystery until the trilingual Behistun inscription was deciphered—the discovery made possible the translation of other cuneiform writings.
The Behistun breakthrough led to others, including the translation of 22,000 tablets at the ruins of Nineveh, Shalmaneser’s Black Obelisk, Shennacherib’s Prism, and the epic poems of Gilgamesh and Enuma Elish. (These poems contain accounts of the Flood, creation and the tower of Babel that closely parallel the Bible.)
The Fabled Hittites
Bible critics had long sneered at references in the Bible to a people called the Hittites (Genesis 15:20; Exodus 3:8, 17; Numbers 13:29; Joshua 1:4; Judges 1:26 and elsewhere). Their opinion was that the Hittites were simply one of the many mythical peoples made up by Bible writers. Some critics said they may have been a small and unimportant tribe. But the critics were off the beam!
Toward the end of the 19th century, Hittite monuments were uncovered at Carchemish on the Euphrates River in Syria, proving the Bible right. Later, in 1906, excavations at Boghazkoy (ancient Hattusas, capital of the Hittite Empire) in Turkey uncovered thousands of Hittite documents, revealing a wealth of information about Hittite history and culture. The centuries-old Hittite rubbish showed they were a real and formidable power. They were once one of the dominant peoples of Asia Minor and the Near East. They exercised considerable control south into Syria and Palestine.
The Bible was right all along! Today, no one questions the existence of the Hittites. Volumes of books exist on the history, art, culture and society of the Hittites. Yet an anti-Bible prejudice still exists. Scholarly people usually believe that if it’s in the Bible, it’s wrong. But the Bible is right and has always been right.) This is taken from ” https://www.thetrumpet.com/article/1912.24.78.0/religion/christianity/archaeology-proves-bible-history-accurate“
Gerald writes: [As I said the science of Archeology has shown that the Bible provides a wealth about the ancient past.]
And as I said, no one disagrees that the Bible contains historical information (I said it in the Adam and Eve thread, not sure why you are replying here). The Bible has helped independently confirm the existence of kings and locations of battles and so forth. These mundane confirmations are a great assist to archaeology.
Does the fact that the Bible was right about the existence of the Hittites lend any credence to the worldwide flood story? No. Does it make the creation story any more plausible? No. Does it increase the chances of water turning into wine? Nope. The confirmation or truth of one claim doesn’t make the other claims more or less likely. Each one is a separate, stand alone statement that must be evaluated within its own set of facts and data (or lack thereof).
I know the Bible has some true information about mundane happenings like kings existing or cities falling in battle. That doesn’t make the flood story any less ridiculous…
Now as far as who is right among the different world beliefs about God, and how can so many different individuals have different experiences about different religions, well I would remind you that there are almost always 2 different powers portrayed. Good and Evil. Although all can validly have supernatural experiences, not all may come from God. Some could come from the devil. On the other hand there are good people in other lands who attempt to do good, and although their religion may be false, they are endeavoring to do good. There is after all a good that is widely accepted as being good. And all good comes from the true God. So even though they may not call themselves Christians but would rather die than not do good, then God accepts them as His children anyway.
And as to the teaching that the Biblical record is wrong in the days of creation compared to what science is saying, well since science has it wrong about evolution, claiming that creatures slowly evolved from some kind of quagmire mixture of goo, and that some kind of prepubescent inorganic material, had some kind of epiphany moment and by accident became alive, all intelligent beings should be falling down and rolling around on the floor and asking the Evolutionists what other funny jokes are they going to tell. Evolution is wrong and the Evolutionists are too whatever to accept the fact that all organisms reproduce only their own kind. The honest Evolutionists with integrity, have already gone on record stating that it appears as if all animals have been found in an already state of elevated evolution, as if someone had placed them already developed, giving proof that the biblical narration of creation is the one most likely to have transpired. Not Evolution.
So, science is also wrong about what came first. Not the Bible.
Gerald writes: [Now as far as who is right among the different world beliefs about God, and how can so many different individuals have different experiences about different religions, well I would remind you that there are almost always 2 different powers portrayed. Good and Evil. Although all can validly have supernatural experiences, not all may come from God. Some could come from the devil.]
Of course. And naturally your experiences couldn’t have come from the devil. That happened to all those other Christians out there who don’t completely agree with you. They are the suckers and fools in this scenario, eh? And how lucky for you that you happened to be born in a predominately Christian country, in just the right sect of that faith, free from the influence of the devil creature. Fascinating confirmation bias…
Since there is no evidence for such things as gods and devils and the supernatural, you once again are placing the cart before the horse and assigning blame or credit to things that probably don’t exist. Maybe you should first provide that often requested empirical data for the supernatural first…
[There is after all a good that is widely accepted as being good. And all good comes from the true God.]
Prove it then. All you do here is make a baseless claim. I could state that all good comes from quantum mechanics. There’s just as much evidence for that as there is for your supernatural story. So show that “good” is objective and comes from a god creature. I look forward to your empirical data…
[And as to the teaching that the Biblical record is wrong in the days of creation compared to what science is saying, well since science has it wrong about evolution, claiming that creatures slowly evolved from some kind of quagmire mixture of goo, and that some kind of prepubescent inorganic material, had some kind of epiphany moment and by accident became alive, all intelligent beings should be falling down and rolling around on the floor and asking the Evolutionists what other funny jokes are they going to tell.]
I’m glad to see that I took the time and patience to (once again) explain to you yesterday that the scientific theory of evolution has nothing to do with how life began, only how life changed over time. Your continued failure to separate these two things has become idiotic.
You can’t even seem to comprehend the basics of life. You think non-living atoms and molecules can’t come alive? Then how do you explain yourself? You are made up completely of inanimate particles, Gerald. There isn’t one single molecule in your body that is “alive”. Every single atom in your body is replaced about once every 17 years. So if non-living particles can’t turn into life, then you shouldn’t be here.
It’s amazing how many times the facts get in the way of your fairy tale…
[Evolution is wrong and the Evolutionists are too whatever to accept the fact that all organisms reproduce only their own kind. The honest Evolutionists with integrity, have already gone on record stating that it appears as if all animals have been found in an already state of elevated evolution, as if someone had placed them already developed, giving proof that the biblical narration of creation is the one most likely to have transpired. Not Evolution.]
You don’t even know what evolution is, and yet you think you should comment on which claims about evolution have “integrity”. Meanwhile, over 97% of scientists have found the theory of evolution to be accurate and reliable. Over half of those 97% of scientists believe in your god creature and are religious people too. Even their belief in a god being can’t keep them from seeing the truth staring them in the face…
Ok. I don’t know anything about Evolution. But the other Evolutionists who have said it like it should be do know what Evolution. It appears they have been doing the evolution thing before you even. And they have admitted that Evolution, has no truth supporting it. Now, if you doubt what they have stated, go and ask why they made the statements that they made. No, don’t try to interpret them another way. They have not even denied what they said, so why should you come and attempt to tell what they were saying. At least ask them what they say about what they said and let them stand on it or correct it.
You said, (and by you saying this and not apologizing, for what you said because you should have realized that what you said, sheds light on the fact that Evolution is wrong), “You can’t even seem to comprehend the basics of life. You think non-living atoms and molecules can’t come alive? Then how do you explain yourself? You are made up completely of inanimate particles, Gerald. There isn’t one single molecule in your body that is “alive”. Every single atom in your body is replaced about once every 17 years. So if non-living particles can’t turn into life, then you shouldn’t be here.”
Non living atoms do not come alive. They can never come to life. But it takes an Intelligence to direct and organise them to perform the specific tasks that they have been assigned to do. Think about each element. Are you thinking that they just happened upon being what they are. No. Because if it takes an intelligence to break the bonds that hold them, then it took an Intelligence to make them be what they are. The particles are not turning alive. They are being used to allow a person to be. Which is precisely the reason that Evolution is an irrational rational for you to be entertaining as a possible theory. It takes intelligence to put together and to break bonds. It takes intelligence to control the forces to obtain the desired results. This accident crutch of yours is making you and your comrades blind.
You all say the universe popped into being what we know it by an accident. Question, do you know how it did it? Or are there speculations?
You make these assumptions without answering the questions that arise when you pursue your line of reasoning. What questions? Well for one. If the universe just popped into being, Why did it do so? It has been in a state of even flux, before it became the universe for who knows how long, so what tipped the balance? What chemical, form of energy, or quantum singularity, suddenly became pushed, or whatever would have had to happen, to cause that catalyst that made the universe. Everything was in balance. Even if the everything was actually nothing. An accident does not explain the happening. An accident does not come into play when nothing is moving. When everything is in balance. Balance is upset only when you interject a form of intelligence. Someone either by mistake of on purpose caused the unbalance. Every accident that has ever happened except for the one that the Atheist claim that happened on its own, has always happened because of an intelligence, or by a being with a lack of intelligence. Check out my theory. Lightning strikes? No there is a reason. Sinking of the Titanic? No there was a reason. Speeding ticket? No, there was a reason. But when a pool of water that has nothing in it or acting upon it, it is in a state of equibulation. As long as there are no outside forces acting upon it, it remains at peace. And since the forces or lack of forces has either been or not been there before the universe became, then only the presence of an intelligence could possibly have induced the pangs the precluded the birth or the creation of the universe.
An impossible theory you babble, but one with more logic than that of an accident.
Then you attempt to limp on the your crutch “an accident” to explain the life. When you and every other Atheist can observe that life only comes from life yet you ignore what your eyes and the eyes of every living sentient being has always observed, life begets life. Yet you all return to the dark ages making the same mistake that led to the belief of spontaneous generation. It should have been the error that caused the Evolutionist to dismiss that theory the nano second that it began to be formulated in the disorganized mind of the ones that satan placed that lie.
But come on, go ahead and dismiss the truth, that is seeping out from all around you. God lives and all that tries to ignore Him will sooner or later eat their own words.
Gerald writes: [Ok. I don’t know anything about Evolution. But the other Evolutionists who have said it like it should be do know what Evolution. It appears they have been doing the evolution thing before you even. And they have admitted that Evolution, has no truth supporting it. Now, if you doubt what they have stated, go and ask why they made the statements that they made. No, don’t try to interpret them another way. They have not even denied what they said, so why should you come and attempt to tell what they were saying. At least ask them what they say about what they said and let them stand on it or correct it.]
If you are referring to the quote mines you have posted at this website, it has been pointed out how most of these “statements” were taken out of context and selectively edited to make them appear to agree with creationism, when in reality the statements as they were originally made do no such thing. The theory of Evolution is supported by billions of facts. And all your creationist masters can do to counter that is change quotes by people and fabricate lies. Why do they need to lie to you about the theory of evolution, Gerald, if it’s such a bad scientific theory? You’ve never answered that question, why don’t you do so now!
[Non living atoms do not come alive. They can never come to life.]
Right, none of the atoms and molecules are alive. At least that sank in with you. But one of the chemical properties of certain groupings of this matter is what we call “life”. “Life” is just self-replication. Some molecules already do this all by themselves. Living things have just taken that to a new level. We also have some kind of awareness due to the structure of our brain, for reasons we don’t yet understand.
[But it takes an Intelligence to direct and organise them to perform the specific tasks that they have been assigned to do.]
Actually all it takes is the laws of chemistry and physics, Gerald. There is no evidence of this intelligence you claim, and nothing that happens in living things requires intelligence. The exact same chemical reactions and physics happens outside of living things too. There is nothing about life that is different than the rest of the universe as it relates to chemistry or physics or thermodynamics or electromagnetism or anything else…
[Think about each element. Are you thinking that they just happened upon being what they are. No. Because if it takes an intelligence to break the bonds that hold them, then it took an Intelligence to make them be what they are.]
The elements are the way they are because of the elementary particles that make them up and the quantum mechanical properties that they have. It doesn’t take intelligence to break bonds, it just takes energy.
[The particles are not turning alive. They are being used to allow a person to be.]
You are correct the particles are not turning alive. When particles get together in certain groupings and formulate certain structures (like our neural net) they allow for certain properties, like “life” and “awareness”, to present themselves.
[Which is precisely the reason that Evolution is an irrational rational for you to be entertaining as a possible theory.]
That’s a really, really bad false leap of logic. It can be shown, empirically, that changes to the pattern of the molecules in DNA leads to physical changes in living things. That’s evolution. The properties of intelligence and awareness and even “life” aren’t required for evolution, so your attempt to bring the two together as one related topic shows you don’t understand the topics. Viruses aren’t living things, yet are known to evolve. That little piece of empirical evidence blows your entire statement to shreds and renders your attempted joining of the two topics moot.
[It takes intelligence to put together and to break bonds. It takes intelligence to control the forces to obtain the desired results. This accident crutch of yours is making you and your comrades blind.]
It’s just chemistry, Gerald. All it takes is matter following the laws of the universe. No intelligence needed. No intelligence found.
[You all say the universe popped into being what we know it by an accident. Question, do you know how it did it? Or are there speculations?]
I’ve never said that. I’ve said I don’t know how the universe came to be. I’ve also explained how the universe, when added together, equals nothing, in order to point out that the universe doesn’t need an outside agency to exist. The universe is just nothing broken up into pieces. How did that breakup occur? No idea.
[You make these assumptions without answering the questions that arise when you pursue your line of reasoning. What questions? Well for one. If the universe just popped into being, Why did it do so? It has been in a state of even flux, before it became the universe for who knows how long, so what tipped the balance? What chemical, form of energy, or quantum singularity, suddenly became pushed, or whatever would have had to happen, to cause that catalyst that made the universe.]
Once again I will point out to you that the beginning of the universe has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. Once again you have rambled on and gone from one topic to the other as if they are related. They are not. Even if a god creature did the Big Bang, and then left the universe alone, the theory of Evolution would still be valid. Why? Because there are billions of facts that show it to be true, and because how they universe started DOES NOT AFFECT THAT. They are two separate unconnected topics.
As for how the universe began, it started at the Big Bang. What was there before the Big Bang? I don’t know. What I do know is the universe is a free lunch, and does not appear to need a catalyst as it is nothing broken up into pieces. if you think there was a catalyst, present your empirical evidence and write a paper on it.
[Everything was in balance. Even if the everything was actually nothing. An accident does not explain the happening.]
Everything still is in balance. Nothing has changed in our universe, except it’s current state of nothing is different from another state of nothing. Nothing can be many different things Gerald, in the world of quantum mechanics.
[Balance is upset only when you interject a form of intelligence.]
Why would intelligence upset the balance of something? Prove your claim.
[Someone either by mistake of on purpose caused the unbalance. Every accident that has ever happened except for the one that the Atheist claim that happened on its own, has always happened because of an intelligence, or by a being with a lack of intelligence. Check out my theory. Lightning strikes? No there is a reason. Sinking of the Titanic? No there was a reason. Speeding ticket? No, there was a reason. But when a pool of water that has nothing in it or acting upon it, it is in a state of equibulation. As long as there are no outside forces acting upon it, it remains at peace. And since the forces or lack of forces has either been or not been there before the universe became, then only the presence of an intelligence could possibly have induced the pangs the precluded the birth or the creation of the universe.
An impossible theory you babble, but one with more logic than that of an accident.]
Theory? Do you not just realize you are claiming that intelligence OR something without intelligence is responsible? Which means you just argued that it can happen without intelligence, therefore no need for your god being? Since I’m sure you weren’t trying to do all that, why don’t you fix this and try again.
In the meantime, I will point out once again that you are trying to claim that only intelligence can lead to something, which means intelligence had to lead to the intelligence that started this universe, which means that intelligence needed an intelligence so it could start the intelligence that started this universe….ROFL once again your false logic loop, neverending in its lunacy, is presented as a failed argument. Trying to use this failure over and over again isn’t going to make it any better, or make it work, no matter how many times you try…
[Then you attempt to limp on the your crutch “an accident” to explain the life.]
Oh look, now we’ve gone from the start of the universe back to the theory of evolution, a completely unrelated topic. At least you are consistent…
“Everything still is in balance. Nothing has changed in our universe, except it’s current state of nothing is different from another state of nothing. Nothing can be many different things Gerald, in the world of quantum mechanics.”
Prove it. Put your imagination on paper and prove it.
And yes everything is in balance. That is the point. And until something upsets that balance it will stay in its status quo. Everything that was before your big bang, would have always stayed as it was in a form of “sterility” if you follow the logical end of your assumption.
But no, you say somehow something(that was nothing) that was around with that nothing in the beginning all of a sudden,(becoming something) became a catalyst, “contaminated” that produced that big bang. No, no, no, only an “Intelligence” can be the factor that changes the quotient, that changes the sum. God made everything, even you.
not worth my while
“I don’t have to cross out their testimonies, because the very nature of testimonies is NOT verifiable”
You may not be able to check the first Christians in person, but you can see the results of their beliefs. Christianity, has survived countless attempts to eradicate its followers. It has survived the stadiums with all the animals that they contained. Human animals as well as the other. It has survived ruling tyrants. And Christianity will survive all else, for as Christ said ” the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it”
And as far as “In the meantime, I will point out once again that you are trying to claim that only intelligence can lead to something, which means intelligence had to lead to the intelligence that started this universe, which means that intelligence needed an intelligence so it could start the intelligence that started this universe….ROFL once again your false logic loop, neverending in its lunacy, is presented as a failed argument. Trying to use this failure over and over again isn’t going to make it any better, or make it work, no matter how many times you try…”
No. I am claiming that life begets life. And since Life has always existed, Life will never die.
But, intelligence producing life, only has as its limitations of what kind of intelligence we are talking about. The simple innate ability of the one celled organism, is enough to produce a copy of itself. And we still have never seen one pop out of nowhere, even though, as the Atheist claims, it happened at least once. Neither are we seeing whatever came after that simple one celled organism morph into all the other “johnny come laters”
If it was putting out so easily as to make all that you are claiming it did, then that factory should be spitting out all the “whatevers” came after that simple lucky one celled organism. Yet, as we look around day after day after day, all we have on record is that
” every specie produces only its own kind” You don’t have an argument. You look at what is now, and surmise, accident. When to date, there has never been anything good that has ever come from an accident, unless an intelligence of some kind was involved.