• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A 3,700-Year-Old Meteor Could Explain This Old Bible Story

cpwill said:
I find their conclusion interesting. "We've found evidence that events recorded in the Bible actually happened, proving that the Bible is wrong!" :)
Click to expand...

"Hello tongue, meet cheek."
 
Renae said:
It is interesting that an immoral region was wiped out, out of all the places a meteor could hit...
Click to expand...

Only if one believes - for unfathomable reasons - that reality just so conveniently happens to have waited for 13,500,000,000+ years for them to be born, just so that it could enforce their own personal opinions about their so-called "morals".
 
Rising Sun said:
Only that Bible is wrong in attributing it to the hand of God by showing it has a natural cause.
Click to expand...

Oh. that's neat. So that's like saying that I'm not responsible for that man, because I only pulled a trigger, whereas what killed him was a small piece of metal in the shape of a bullet rapidly passing through his body - which is totally natural.


When natural sciences confirm events the Bible says occurred, that does not detract from the credibility of the accounts. Again, nowhere else would we accept this kind of logic where confirmation becomes disconfirmation.

Do you believe the God of Jesus would kill thousands of innocent men, women and children just to nail a few hedonists?
Click to expand...

I think that there are no innocentts, when it comes to our status before God. We are all sinners. And, we all belong to Him.

What about the 2004 Tsunami killing over 250,000 people. Hand of God or natural occurrence? Haiti earthquakes? Do you agree with Pat Robertson?
Click to expand...

Pat Robertson is a Loony who has only gotten worse with age - no.
 
Last edited:
Lord Tammerlain said:
It would be more like

A person crossed over the median in a red car, but that was caused by the giant pink elephant sitting beside him taking control over the steering wheel. While the police state, the persons drug test indicated high levels of LSD in his system.

The bible attributes the destruction to god. The scientists are attributing the destruction to a meteor, which is a rather common event in earths history. They are saying the cause in the bible is wrong
Click to expand...

.... no, because the Elephant would be an observable physical phenomena within the event itself.

So, it is more like

"And then I saw him drive his car over the median"

"Camera footage shows the car driving over the median"

to be explained by:

"AHA! PROOF He didn't drive the car over the median, because the car just drove over the median!!!!".
 
spud_meister said:
For blaming natural disasters on God?
Click to expand...

Yes Spud, that's exactly what I was saying, you so nailed it. You are so observant on getting to the heart of what others say, it's amazing.


I wish there was a font that oozed sarcasm...
 
cpwill said:
Oh. that's neat. So that's like saying that I'm not responsible for that man, because I only pulled a trigger, whereas what killed him was a small piece of metal in the shape of a bullet rapidly passing through his body - which is totally natural.


When natural sciences confirm events the Bible says occurred, that does not detract from the credibility of the accounts. Again, nowhere else would we accept this kind of logic where confirmation becomes disconfirmation.



I think that there are no innocentts, when it comes to our status before God. We are all sinners. And, we all belong to Him.



Pat Robertson is a Loony who has only gotten worse with age - no.
Click to expand...

Disagreed, but thanks for the analogy. You are making Pat proud!
 
cpwill said:
Oh. that's neat. So that's like saying that I'm not responsible for that man, because I only pulled a trigger, whereas what killed him was a small piece of metal in the shape of a bullet rapidly passing through his body - which is totally natural.


When natural sciences confirm events the Bible says occurred, that does not detract from the credibility of the accounts. Again, nowhere else would we accept this kind of logic where confirmation becomes disconfirmation.



I think that there are no innocentts, when it comes to our status before God. We are all sinners. And, we all belong to Him.



Pat Robertson is a Loony who has only gotten worse with age - no.
Click to expand...


When a natural disaster that happened thousands of years ago is attributed to the wrath of God on sinners, that totally believable.

But, when a modern natural disaster is attributed to the wrath of god on sinners, that makes the person making the claim a "loony."

Somehow, I fail to see the difference. If god created natural disasters thousands of years ago in order to punish sinners, why wouldn't he do so today?
 
cpwill said:
.... no, because the Elephant would be an observable physical phenomena within the event itself.

So, it is more like

"And then I saw him drive his car over the median"

"Camera footage shows the car driving over the median"

to be explained by:

"AHA! PROOF He didn't drive the car over the median, because the car just drove over the median!!!!".
Click to expand...

False analogy

What the article disagrees with is the cause of the event

A supernatural being (god) as opposed to a natural cause (meteor). You are saying the writers are arguing the event never occurred


So in the case of the car, if an invisible elephant (except to the driver) took control over the car, and caused it to drive over the median. Everyone sees the car drive over the median, most people associate the cause of the car going over the median to the distracted driver, not some supernatural pink elephant that no one else saw, but the driver who had LSD in his system
 
Dittohead not! said:
When a natural disaster that happened thousands of years ago is attributed to the wrath of God on sinners, that totally believable.

But, when a modern natural disaster is attributed to the wrath of god on sinners, that makes the person making the claim a "loony."

Somehow, I fail to see the difference. If god created natural disasters thousands of years ago in order to punish sinners, why wouldn't he do so today?
Click to expand...

Cause after Jesus was born, god became kinder and gentler and is no longer the genocidal maniac that he was for 4000 year before
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
False analogy

What the article disagrees with is the cause of the event

A supernatural being (god) as opposed to a natural cause (meteor).
Click to expand...

OTC, as I pointed out, in this case it is like arguing that a driver didn't steer a car a particular way, on the basis that the car was observed traveling in that direction. It is not a difference in event (again, we are somewhat confirming the Biblical account of the event, here), but rather a difference in a priori's as to cause, masquerading as something else.




Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Cause after Jesus was born, god became kinder and gentler and is no longer the genocidal maniac that he was for 4000 year before
Click to expand...
No, God is unchanging.

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk
 
Dittohead not! said:
When a natural disaster that happened thousands of years ago is attributed to the wrath of God on sinners, that totally believable.

But, when a modern natural disaster is attributed to the wrath of god on sinners, that makes the person making the claim a "loony."

Somehow, I fail to see the difference. If god created natural disasters thousands of years ago in order to punish sinners, why wouldn't he do so today?
Click to expand...
He certainly could, however, Christ has not only taken on the wrath accorded to sin, but was the fullest Revelation of God.

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk
 
cpwill said:
No, God is unchanging.

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

So god is still a genocidal maniac, it is just that Jesus is restraining him (self)
 
cpwill said:
He certainly could, however, Christ has not only taken on the wrath accorded to sin, but was the fullest Revelation of God.

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

According to Christian tradition, Christ died to save mankind from sin.

The idea that natural disasters are a manifestation of god's anger at mankind and our penchant for sinning made more sense thousands of years ago before the causes of those natural disasters were known.
 
Dittohead not! said:
According to Christian tradition, Christ died to save mankind from sin.

The idea that natural disasters are a manifestation of god's anger at mankind and our penchant for sinning made more sense thousands of years ago before the causes of those natural disasters were known.
Click to expand...

Bingo! Well, Christ supposedly died to redeem us of the original sin but that's another story.
The creation myth (all cultures have one) in the Bible is nothing more than people trying to explain what they observe. Same with the flood (which is documented in many cultures), same with Sodom and Gomorrah.
Scientists do the same thing. The Big Bang is the scientists creation myth- a guess at what might explain observed phenomena. There's no evidence for it other than it would explain why the universe is expanding.
 
Grand Mal said:
Bingo! Well, Christ supposedly died to redeem us of the original sin but that's another story.
The creation myth (all cultures have one) in the Bible is nothing more than people trying to explain what they observe. Same with the flood (which is documented in many cultures), same with Sodom and Gomorrah.
Scientists do the same thing. The Big Bang is the scientists creation myth- a guess at what might explain observed phenomena. There's no evidence for it other than it would explain why the universe is expanding.
Click to expand...

I have to admit, the Big Bang sounds a lot like "let there be light," but that's just me. I really don't understand the Big Bang idea. I think understanding requires higher math than I've learned.
 
Dittohead not! said:
I have to admit, the Big Bang sounds a lot like "let there be light," but that's just me. I really don't understand the Big Bang idea. I think understanding requires higher math than I've learned.
Click to expand...

The Early Universe
After the Big Bang, the universe was like a hot soup of particles (i.e. protons, neutrons, and electrons). When the universe started cooling, the protons and neutrons began combining into ionized atoms of hydrogen (and eventually some helium). These ionized atoms of hydrogen and helium attracted electrons, turning them into neutral atoms - which allowed light to travel freely for the first time, since this light was no longer scattering off free electrons. The universe was no longer opaque! However, it would still be some time (perhaps up to a few hundred million years post-Big Bang!) before the first sources of light would start to form, ending the cosmic dark ages.
https://jwst.nasa.gov/firstlight.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom