Atheists: This site goes into great detail of the evidences of God and the Bible, will you read it?

Question

http://www.godsaidmansaid.com/subject.asp?Cat2=262

This is under Archeological evidence and talks about things such as:

Dinosaurs
6,000 year old earth
Carbon Dating errors
Evidence of the flood and Noah
Caveman

and around 20-30 more

Also click on "God Said Man Said for evidences from these topics:

How man came from dirt
Vain Imaginations
Truth Knows No Opinion
Ever Learning
The Holy Spirit is in your belly
Story about Forty Eight Hours in Hell

and like 200 more

This site also discusses the historicity of Jesus under 11 topics

Along with many evidences of prophesy within the Bible

Let me know what you think about this site.

The devil is forcing you not to look into it, and instead go in denial about how you've already read it. Well, I don't believe any of you have read this. Otherwise you'd be aware of the evidences.

When are you all going to own up? And put forth as much energy into finding the evidences as I've put in giving you evidences. It's sad that you really don't care. Just imagine how infinitely important the consequences are if your belief in no God is wrong. I can't even tell whether any of you are here to gain anything from the other side, or just here to deny everything that comes your way. I just want you all to know I care about you, and that is the reason I put forth time and energy to help you all. Peace and <3.

Answer 1

You really should try to understand that many of us were "schooled" in Christianity and have at the very least heard these "claims" before. But, like the Bible, we also know that those who seek power and control -- through religion -- make up great lies and call them facts to further their cause. Just because something is written down, doesn't make it true -- and often anything written by someone who is heavily religious is taken with a grain of salt... at least by me.

I wonder, do you automatically believe anything you hear or read by someone of the same faith as you? I question things said and written by those who's ideas are similar to mine as well. Everybody has the ability to lie and exaggerate "for their cause". Don't be so gullible.

Answer 2

You don't care about evidence. You talk to us about owning up, but almost every question you ask is dishonest, because you clearly have absolutely no interest in logic, evidence, rationality or fact. The website you direct us to is clearly creationist propaganda. It is as biased as a website possibly could be, it focuses more on attacking straw man arguments than on presenting its own evidence, and it lies.

For example, under the 'Six Thousand-Year-Old Earth' heading we find "I also mentioned erroneous dating techniques. Carbon-14 which is a dating technique used to date once living things is probably the dating system with the most notoriety." The reality is that no estimate of the age of the Earth uses carbon dating in any way. The site's main evidence in favour of a six thousand year old earth is the 'fact' that recorded history only goes back about five thousand years. Not only is that not true (the indigenous people here in Australia have history going back tens of thousands of years), but it assumes the age of the earth must be similar to the age of the human species. That's absurd, and deep down I'm sure you realise that. And it then goes on to present various fallacious arguments concerning the fossilisation of dinosaur bones and population growths. I will make no attempt to counter these arguments, for the simple reason that even if these arguments were accurate, they would still be completely irrelevant. They still make no reference to the age of the earth.

In short, either you didn't realise that the website you directed us to is filled with lies, deceit, propaganda, and irrational arguments, or you didn't care. Either way it has become painfully obvious that you have no interest in evidence. You clearly have an Internet connection, so there really is no excuse for the ignorance presented in your questions. I find your willful ignorance and intellectual dishonesty depressing, and as such I probably won't bother responding to your questions in the future. If logical argument could convince you then you would have been convinced long ago. Maybe some day you'll open your eyes, but until then there's really no point in discussing anything with you.

Answer 3

I just read through a bit of it; and it is all the same nonsense, there is such a lack of research in regards to this propaganda site. They have an institute with the name "creation" in it looking for ways to suggest the Bible is correct scientifically. The evidence accepted by mainstream science wasn't found by a group called "evolutionists," it was found by objective scientists. This is desperation. Desperation on the part of those clinging to a stubborn dogma. There are so few sources on this website; and the worse one of them all is the Bible.

Perhaps if objective scientists said "evolution is wrong, and here's why..." with evidence that will withstand the scientific method, then I would accept. It is funny how you Christians will accept all the lovely things science has brought to you (including the very computer you are using to spread your belief). I'd bet you would accept medicine and hospital care as well; but, when science, the same science that has brought you so many advantages in life says a belief you have is probably wrong, you freak out.
Ridiculous.

Why don't you fundies start boycotting medicine!? Why don't you go back to living in shacks without anything science has brought to you. You look like huge hypocrites.

Answer 4

I read the Carbon 14 Dating article and right from the get go it was getting the science completely wrong. I mean technically it's correct in a lot of it's statements,

Carbon 14 is used on dead things
Radiocarbon can't be used on rocks
Only good for 50,000 years
"Many" scientists don't trust it past 3000 years.

The main problem with this is that to date fossils that are insanely old they don't use radiocarbon AT ALL. There are several other radiometric dating methods using different elements that have a half life of well over 10 billion years.

Since I picked that article out at random and it was so horribly misinformed I'm guessing the rest of it is just as bad.

However it will be a good thing to pick apart and have nice ready made answers for morons that just accept it all.

Answer 5

I've heard almost 90% these before and they were either completely fake, based on old, biased, and already disproved evidence, or they made conclusions by using only partial evidence from few sources.

I've said it before and I will say it again: If it doesn't come from a credible source and if the entirety of the source isn't used then the conclusions don't hold water. A .com site screams that its "evidence" is a hoax. Try getting some actual sources like scientists with actual degrees to credit this "evidence". I'll help your search, there aren't any.

Answer 6

Oh please, this is an argument about symantics and the "proof" behind local folklore and legend. Most of us have just enough proof when discussing the morals behind stories such as "The Boy Who Cried Wolf," and "The Three Little Pigs". The Bible is a collection of moral stories written by men who followed a mortal prophet, then edited by a pagan emperor. Argue the loopholes all you will, the HISTORIC evidence of the Bible origins are infallible.

Answer 7

I must admit the idea that with "perfect environment, perfect diet and no risk from the sun" man would live for upwards of 900 years. One must ask, how come scientists haven't unlocked or even located this magical part of our DNA?
Also, if the dinisaurs lived only 6000 years ago, the same time as humans, then surely with the huge numbers of fossils found there would be at least a few human ones tangled up in the remains.....
Just a couple of thoughts there.....

Answer 8

They all basically start by essentially saying "there is a god who did this so of course he did it"

It talks about dinosaurs by talking about "Satan's incessant attack upon the truth."

Sorry there are much better sites than this if you want to try to present evidence of god. And yet all come back to having faith. And frankly if you do have faith why do you have to use websites like this? Why not be happy and secure in your belief if indeed you believe. No one is asking you not to believe.

Let me ask you this. I may be missing something being a non-theist but does the bible tell you to go out trying to come up with excuses, half truths and outright lies to believe? Or does it just say trust?

I'm not bashing anyone's beliefs here or trying to convince you that your beliefs are wrong. In fact I would say perhaps some of the more focused Christians here could take you under their wing.

Answer 9

I was going to read it, because I do believe that many religions take actual events and write them in metaphors as a way to teach history and morality. And that even the bible can help historians learn about history. But that it isn't to be taken as 100% fact.

But then I read the 6,000 year old earth part of your post. Believing that doesn't take faith in the bible, it takes complete ignorance to science and scientific evidence. Sorry, but if you believe the earth is 6,000 years old, then I have no respect in anything you have to say about science or history.

Actually, you know what, I will read the part about the 6,000 year old earth, and respond later with one of two things. 1. HAHAHAHAHA, this was designed for people with less then a 1st grade education, or 2. had good points. Wait for my response...


1. HAHAHAHA. To any person with scientific education, that link doesn't provide evidence. It provides lies, false information, intentional misleading, and overall ludicrous scientific statements.

Answer 10

I read a few of the articles, I was disappointed not to find the pictures of men riding dinosaurs

I could spend all day picking holes in all the arguments I read though. For example they say the earth is 6000 years old because written history begins at that point. Would it not be more logical to assume that 6000 years ago is the point when man began to write in a format understood by us?