Young Writers Society

This "theory" (it's a hypothesis, not a theory. Get it right.) has no factual evidence supporting it. It is entirely disregarded by modern science because whoever came up with it obviously doesn't know the first thing about biology, physics or geography.

That’s rather a statement, given that the people who came up with that hypothesis mostly have doctorates. It would be safe to assume that they learnt this “first thing” about the sciences before you were even born.

That said, I highly doubt there will be any agreement on this topic, because the nature of religion is that it takes things on faith. Even if one proves that there is absolutely no evidence for the existence of Jesus, people would believe it on "faith".

A better way to put this would be, If there turns out to be no evidences... Stating something in the positive, like, even if one proves... does not validate your worldview.

Noninjaspresent,

I believe Jesus did exist, but not as a son of God or someone with supernatural powers, but as a good man who believed all men were equal and severely disliked the slavery present at that time. What makes him stand out the most is that he stood out against those in power and helped many people be freed from the chains of slavery.

I read that, about him freeing slaves, nowhere in the Bible. Perhaps you can reference that or something from another source? I might have missed it.

And there is evidence that scientifically proves certain events (one of being the story where one of the "messengers of God" tells the Pharaoh to release the slaves, and when he doesn't things start happening such as the water turning red (I can't remember the exact title about it at the moment) I made a post about it in one of the clubs). Though the way the evidence proves them is in a way that shows how they can natural happen without any divine acts. Such as the story in brackets. The river can turn red by this type of red algae that can get into that waterway at times. That algae is deadly to the fish, thus leading on to the second thing.

I take it here you mean the Israelites in captivity before the time of Moses? So this is not talking about Jesus. Talking about algae, what kind of algae currently resides in the Nile that looks blood-red, I mean name the species so I can check out on my own. But it is interesting how it only was recorded to have happened then and at no other times. Can you explain this?

Also, there is quite a lot of evidence that proves that what people may see as a god would actually be aliens. Has anyone seen the Indiana Jones movie about the crystal skulls? Well there are real crystal skulls (I'm not too sure but around 10 in total) that have been found. The crystal skulls that have been certified to be real (most are) are cut in ways that no past or present Earthly technology could cut them. Our tools would just make them shatter or break in unrepairable ways.

Can you state the number, as in record number, or however it’s called, of these skulls? Why would you cite an Indiana Jones movie?

Also, crop circles could actually not be hoaxes. In Britain at one time, there was a whole surge of them. A couple of men spoke up saying they were the cause, but when they demonstrated how they did it, their results were vastly different to those that had been found.

Are there any articles on this? Wait, why are there crop circles, which would indicate the extra-terrestials, to have space-travel technology, and yet no contact with them through lightwaves? (not visible light)

And have you ever wondered why the same farming techniques appeared at opposite ends of the globe at roughly the same time (not large enough gaps in time to indicate the spreading of those techniques by travellers).

From a Christian’s point of view, this is rather easy to explain. Hence I will not go into it.

What about the Qu'ran and other well known holy texts. If you looked deep enough you would mostly likely find they have roughly the same amount, if not more evidence that proves them to be correct.

Evidence? Can you at least write a short summary of the evidences? Funny how aliens liked to come to us when we were still not technologically developed enough to remember them through other than “holy texts”, but are now scared even to comunicate with us when we have other means of recording them.

By the way, personal opinion, so don’t get offended.
To those who say oral traditions are bad ways to transfer history to the next generation, let me point out that very few people, even among the Romans, could read, or write. Thus Oral transmissions, were the next best thing, and some even considered them better, especially in confidential material, which, if written, could be robbed from a person which could then be brought to someone who could read. I hope you get what I mean.

Noninjaspresent:

Though the way the evidence proves them is in a way that shows how they can natural happen without any divine acts.

Generally, a lot of the miracles told of in the Bible (not all) can be proven through freak natural causes. It is believed that God generally works in natural ways. There is a quote I like that says "God is not a magician, but a scientist."

Also, there is quite a lot of evidence that proves that what people may see as a god would actually be aliens.

Please tell me you haven't been watching Ancient Aliens on the History Channel. There really isn't any evidence that points to that. If there was, we'd be able to prove aliens exist. All the "evidence" we have is speculation, paranoia, and conspiracy.

What about the Qu'ran and other well known holy texts. If you looked deep enough you would mostly likely find they have roughly the same amount, if not more evidence that proves them to be correct.

Historians have found that the Qu'ran isn't historically accurate. The Bible's historicity can stand up to the toughest scrutiny (I'm not saying it's perfect. The authors of the Bible were human, so there was bound to be some errors). However, many events foretold in the Qu'ran are not accurate and can't be backed up by historical evidence. Most scholars and historians don't believe the Qu'ran to be an accurate account of historical events.

(And as I say this, I mean absolutely no disrespect to my Muslim brothers.)

However, The Qu'ran wasn't really supposed to be a history book. It wasn't meant to be written down, necessarily. Muhammad merely wanted to preach to people about God and wanted his message to be spread. It's really just a beautifully inspired book of faith, not a historical chronicle like the Septuagint (and Bible) was meant to be.

And translation has to come into play. During the translation of those texts, the misinterpretation of one single letter might change the whole meaning of a sentence.

People use this excuse all of the time, when there is really no great amount of evidence to back it up. 85 to 90% of the Bible we have today is accurately translated. The rest of the "mistranslations" do not threaten any major doctrines or beliefs of the Bible, but are merely minor grammatical errors or vocabulary mistranslations. The New Testament is much more accurately translated, though, because we have been able to almost entirely reconstruct the ancient Greek that it had been written in.

ZLYF wrote:Noninjaspresent,

And have you ever wondered why the same farming techniques appeared at opposite ends of the globe at roughly the same time (not large enough gaps in time to indicate the spreading of those techniques by travellers).

From a Christian’s point of view, this is rather easy to explain. Hence I will not go into it.

Well, actually, I know a little about this subject, and farming didn't appear across the world at the same time. For example, there is a gap of some 7000 years between the first domesticated plants in the Old World and in the Americas. And there even being a large difference in times across the Old World itself, the first domesticates appearing in the Near East roughly 13000 years ago, in India about 11000 years ago, and in China 9500 years ago.

Sorry to get off topic, but I felt I had to intrude.

HereBeMonsters wrote:

ZLYF wrote:Noninjaspresent,

And have you ever wondered why the same farming techniques appeared at opposite ends of the globe at roughly the same time (not large enough gaps in time to indicate the spreading of those techniques by travellers).

From a Christian’s point of view, this is rather easy to explain. Hence I will not go into it.

Well, actually, I know a little about this subject, and farming didn't appear across the world at the same time. For example, there is a gap of some 7000 years between the first domesticated plants in the Old World and in the Americas. And there even being a large difference in times across the Old World itself, the first domesticates appearing in the Near East roughly 13000 years ago, in India about 11000 years ago, and in China 9500 years ago.

Sorry to get off topic, but I felt I had to intrude.

Hey HBM,
Can you provide the names of the studies that were done to get these dates? I just want to check the studies themselves before saying anything.
Thanks!

If you go to a university library, find the anthropology section, and start reading about food, you pretty much get that general idea of what HBM said. The evolution of farming really depends on the type of food that is being harvested and how easily it evolves into a more profitable crop (I mean profitable here not in the capitalistic sense but how much it profited the growers in food gains). Also, if there were some plants that could evolve slower, farming technology grew less. So, for example, societies that had grain grew faster than societies that had corn.

By the way, we're off topic again. XD

Snoink wrote:If you go to a university library, find the anthropology section, and start reading about food, you pretty much get that general idea of what HBM said. The evolution of farming really depends on the type of food that is being harvested and how easily it evolves into a more profitable crop (I mean profitable here not in the capitalistic sense but how much it profited the growers in food gains). Also, if there were some plants that could evolve slower, farming technology grew less. So, for example, societies that had grain grew faster than societies that had corn.

By the way, we're off topic again. XD

The thing is, I can’t find the anthropology section!

Ask a librarian to direct you to the history of cultivation and farming! They'll be sure to help.

Ok, I got the studies, online...but what I’m intending to say about is totally off topic and so will not post. Not here, anyway.

I'll message you the studies I referenced, ZLYF, so this thread isn't clogged up any more by irrelevant stuff.

Where were we? I'm new to this debate. Fill me in.

I think it's kinda over...

I could say something, but it wouldn't count towards a very good argument