Debate here if you doubt Jesus is the Creator of the universe born in flesh

[Apatheist]

Apatheist,

https://ancientnostalgia.weebly.com/exodus.html

See excerpts from the Ipuwer Papyrus around 40% down if you want extrabiblical collaboration supporting pre-Exodus plagues?

See photographs and information around 85% down if you want an enormous amount of evidence for 1) a literal crossing over the Red Sea and 2) Mount Sinai having a burned and blacked top while sitting next to a split stone with water erosion around it in an area that gets like half and inch of rainfall per decade and many pots found nearby and a giant stone altar found nearby and cattle and menorah inscriptions found nearby (the Area 51 of archaeology complete with massive amounts of barbwire fencing and a Saudi Arabian guard post?)?

Also are you familiar with the Tower of Babel if you are speaking of a world with one language? Are you familiar with evidence for the year being 360 days in the past and the sun being in more alignment with the moon and women’s menstrual cycles? Just be patient if there is evidence many things fell into corruption and He is letting wheat grow up among tares and waiting for you and others to turn back before coming to judge the earth. https://360dayyear.com/

I'm sure there were plagues in the past, and the movement of various tribes. Nothing to do with Moses though.
The point about the Tower of Babel: AI's view:
The Tower of Babel story is primarily an origin myth. However, it is widely believed to be inspired by a real, historical structure: the Etemenanki, a massive ziggurat dedicated to the god Marduk in the ancient city of Babylon.
Connection to the Bible: During the Babylonian Exile in the 6th century BCE, exiled Israelites lived in Babylon. Seeing the grand, towering ziggurat alongside a bustling, multilingual empire heavily influenced their storytelling.
Multiple Languages: In the Book of Genesis, the story serves as an etiological tale—a narrative created to explain why humanity speaks many different languages.

People came to speak different languages, plagues and extreme weather happened, and the thought was "because god..." etc, when there was a perfectly prosaic explanation that they didn't yet understand.

So...as with a lot of these things, they did exist or happen, just not for the reason that the religious interpret.
The words I highlighted sum it up precisely.

[jusplay4fun]

(...)

@jusplay4fun,

I suggest looking more into young earth creationism and a literal global flood and how much evidence supports these things.

Do you think this represents millions of years of history and that dirt suddenly changed colors every million years or so with no water erosion for hundreds of thousands of years at a time?

[img] http://ancientnostalgia.weebly.com/uploads/3/1/9/9/31990651/published/xiuhdmb.jpg?1591311135[/img]

Well consider what happens to sediment during liquefaction. The following images don’t contain my own words and you can do your own experiments with sand toys purchased from Amazon maybe:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BTPK6LQK/re ... V9kZXRhaWw

[img] http://ancientnostalgia.weebly.com/uploads/3/1/9/9/31990651/published/noah-hydro-fig3-sand-300x300.jpg?1591310129[/img]

[img] http://ancientnostalgia.weebly.com/uploads/3/1/9/9/31990651/sedpre_orig.jpg[/img]

[img] http://ancientnostalgia.weebly.com/uploads/3/1/9/9/31990651/noah-hydro-fig2-sand-400x300_orig.jpg[/img]

[img] http://ancientnostalgia.weebly.com/uploads/3/1/9/9/31990651/editor/slide-12.jpg?1591224770[/img]

Let's focus on the question of erosion:

Santa Elena Canyon, Big Bend National Park, Texas
Santa Elena Canyon's walls put the 'Big' in Big Bend National Park as they stretch 1,500 feet into the blue Texas sky. This desert landscape feels as old as time, but it's relatively young geologically: Most formations here result from rough-and-tumble tectonics within the past 100 million years. The resulting tossed and turned bedrock was later eroded by the (even younger) Rio Grande, forming deep gorges whose sediment layers lie at various odd angles. The canted cliffs in this shot are just a hint at the park's extreme elevation differences: More than 6,000 feet separate Big Bend's highest and lowest points.

Erosion to form Large canyons is not limited to the Grand Canyon.

[Apatheist]

@Lionz, a question or two occurred to me: we now know that the Indian sub-continental plate is moving north at 5cm per year (although they now believe, according to this: https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/geosoc ... m=fulltext, that it has been up to 4 times as fast). Based on 5000 years, that's 25000 cm, or 250 metres (about 273 yards). What would be the point of creating a planet where India had only moved 250m, but was made to look (based on tectonics, carbon dating, the Himalayas etc) like it had moved a lot further? Why create rocks and canyons that extrapolations suggest are much older, but are only made to look like it? Why have ferns with hundreds of chromosomes that make it look like they've been through so many mutations, which would take way more than 5000 years? Why have dinosaur fossils that look like they're hundreds of millions of years old, when they're not? Wouldn't it be more awesome to have created intelligent life when Gondwanaland was still around, and watch it develop? Why not have Jesus born right at the start, immortal, and have him hang around to explain what's going on?
Why fool us into thinking all this stuff is much older than it actually is?
I'd love to know your take on that. I know what the default cop-out answer is, please don't waste our time with that.

[Apatheist]

Pleased to come across an old clip of Sir David Attenborough on the Jonathan Ross chat show, essentially echoing what I've always said: every culture has searched for its own explanation, and come up with different myths. They can't all be right; how can one judge which one is correct?

So, if you don't want to agree with me, perhaps you can agree with one of the most respected people in the world.

[Lionz]

Apatheist,

AI standing by secular academia means secular academia is correct?

Consider here if you doubt continents shifted quickly with land in a wet putty like state:



Are you familiar with the word uniformitarianism if you think a current rate of change means something has always been changing at the same rate?

Also, evolution happens a lot faster than you realize maybe. Consider stuff posted earlier if you doubt animals considered prehistoric existed around the Nile about 2,000 years ago. And is the Creator really trying to trick us with stuff like dinosaurs if we have about 12 distinct dinosaur kinds with sharp boundaries between them in the fossil record and the fossil record should theoretically give us a rough sketch of the beginning and middle and end of their complete history? People might be tricked into believing nonsense about history because there are powers in high places who do stuff like turn the real Mount Sinai into the Area 51 of archaeology and try to suppress the truth with barbwire fences and smoke and mirrors. Isn’t it apparent that something happened in history even if it’s apparent to us both that the world is filled with myths? Why would anyone be a secular materialist if it’s depressing and the data doesn’t even align with it anyway?

Jusplay4fun,

Do you have a point that I’m missing if I brought up erosion in regards to something totally different than the Grand Canyon? If you think this portrays layers of earth that slowly accumulated over millions of years, can you point out what happened in terms of rain erosion or lack thereof?:

[jusplay4fun]

Jusplay4fun,

Do you have a point that I’m missing if I brought up erosion in regards to something totally different than the Grand Canyon? If you think this portrays layers of earth that slowly accumulated over millions of years, can you point out what happened in terms of rain erosion or lack thereof?:

I asked you in March where this photo was taken? what am I/are we Looking at?

Re:
Lionz wrote: Sun Mar 29, 2026 4:51 am
@jusplay4fun


You also seem very concerned and interested in Genesis 6:4 and the Nephalim. That is a LOTS of attention to ONE BIBLE verse that is UNCLEAR and speculative, at best, as I already stated. I get the feeling that I am being dragged into debating an issue that is NOT worth my time.


Here is another quote by Lionz, that I will respond to:

You do think this represents millions of years of history and that dirt suddenly changed colors every once in a while and there was no rain erosion for hundreds of thousands of years at a time?:

First of all, you do not identify the place the photo was taken, so I assume that there is NO extraordinary explanations needed.

I re-read much of this entire thread and did NOT SEE where Lionz has answered the question I posed to him about that ONE photo in March of 2026 in this thread: Where is it? what is it? Until that question is answered, I see NO NEED to discuss that photo.

[Apatheist]

Apatheist,

AI standing by secular academia means secular academia is correct?

Not sure where you're getting your ideas from.
AI simply culls and organises what it finds on the internet. It's simply picking up what learned professional people, and others, have already posted. It's just a more distilled version of Google.
Sir David Attenborough is not AI. He's a 100 year old man with more experience of the natural world than just about anyone on the planet. That makes him way more credible about it than you or I.

Consider here if you doubt continents shifted quickly with land in a wet putty like state:



Are you familiar with the word uniformitarianism if you think a current rate of change means something has always been changing at the same rate?

Continents shifting, or changing speed, at the rate you suggest, would be very noticeable for those standing on it.
What's you're suggesting is a speedometer that goes 0,1,2,98,99,100. It just doesn't happen.

Also, evolution happens a lot faster than you realize maybe. Consider stuff posted earlier if you doubt animals considered prehistoric existed around the Nile about 2,000 years ago.

Considered pre-historic because people didn't understand evolution or history at the time. People were WRONG back then - just because they thought woolly mammoths were pre-historic doesn't mean they were; also, there's nothing to stop animals that were prehistoric from continuing to exist (eg sharks, crocodiles etc). 2000 years ago is not pre-history - we had writing at least 3500 years ago.

And is the Creator really trying to trick us with stuff like dinosaurs if we have about 12 distinct dinosaur kinds with sharp boundaries between them in the fossil record and the fossil record should theoretically give us a rough sketch of the beginning and middle and end of their complete history? People might be tricked into believing nonsense about history because there are powers in high places who do stuff like turn the real Mount Sinai into the Area 51 of archaeology and try to suppress the truth with barbwire fences and smoke and mirrors. Isn’t it apparent that something happened in history even if it’s apparent to us both that the world is filled with myths? Why would anyone be a secular materialist if it’s depressing and the data doesn’t even align with it anyway?

I suggest you look up what happens with extinction events. What are you expecting, a fossil for every year? We're lucky that any fossils survive at all. You haven't explained why these would be planted to make us think they're millions of years old when they can, in your world, be no more than 5000 years old.
Why would anyone believe in a young Earth created by an imaginary friend when there is so much evidence of the age of the planet, the solar system and the universe?

You are, however, avoiding the question.
Why would things be made to make us think they're millions of years old if they're actually only a few thousand years old?
What's the point of that? Who benefits?

[jusplay4fun]

I think this discussion and debate shows the fallacy of those who take the Bible literally. (As I have posted before, the Bible is NOT a book of Science nor History.) I have met and know fundamentalists who believe such and some are my students. Since I teach at a very conservative religious private school, I avoid this discussion, UNLESS my student asks me about any of this. I got into one such discussion and one of my students commented "good point" when I quoted from the Letter/Book of Peter and also referenced the Genesis creation story.

Many fundamentalists believe that the world is only some 10,000 years old (or less).

Here is one of the more famous "calculations" of the age of the earth and the world, by Bishop Ussher:

Annalium pars posterior, published in 1654. In this work, he calculated the date of the Creation to have been nightfall on 22 October 4004 BC.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Ussher

[Apatheist]

I think this discussion and debate shows the fallacy of those who take the Bible literally. (As I have posted before, the Bible is NOT a book of Science nor History.) I have met and know fundamentalists who believe such and some are my students. Since I teach at a very conservative religious private school, I avoid this discussion, UNLESS my student asks me about any of this. I got into one such discussion and one of my students commented "good point" when I quoted from the Letter/Book of Peter and also referenced the Genesis creation story.

Many fundamentalists believe that the world is only some 10,000 years old (or less).

Here is one of the more famous "calculations" of the age of the earth and the world, by Bishop Ussher:

Annalium pars posterior, published in 1654. In this work, he calculated the date of the Creation to have been nightfall on 22 October 4004 BC.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Ussher

Hmmm...he calculated the beginning as being October. Since that is, by its name, the eighth month, that in itself is questionable...and surely if you wanted the garden of Eden to grow, you wouldn't start the world just as it's heading into winter, would you?

Oh, and Lionz:

Why would anyone be a secular materialist if it’s depressing and the data doesn’t even align with it anyway?

You mean, as opposed to those famously jolly Buddhists and optimistic and cheerful Catholics, and all the "data" you have that "prove" the Earth is only 5000 years old? Do me a favour!
Now, please answer the question about why we would be led to believe things are billions of years old if they're not.

[jusplay4fun]

I think this discussion and debate shows the fallacy of those who take the Bible literally. (As I have posted before, the Bible is NOT a book of Science nor History.) I have met and know fundamentalists who believe such and some are my students. Since I teach at a very conservative religious private school, I avoid this discussion, UNLESS my student asks me about any of this. I got into one such discussion and one of my students commented "good point" when I quoted from the Letter/Book of Peter and also referenced the Genesis creation story.

Many fundamentalists believe that the world is only some 10,000 years old (or less).

Here is one of the more famous "calculations" of the age of the earth and the world, by Bishop Ussher:

Annalium pars posterior, published in 1654. In this work, he calculated the date of the Creation to have been nightfall on 22 October 4004 BC.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Ussher

Hmmm...he calculated the beginning as being October. Since that is, by its name, the eighth month, that in itself is questionable...and surely if you wanted the garden of Eden to grow, you wouldn't start the world just as it's heading into winter, would you?

Oh, and Lionz:

Since I do not take the Bible Literally, do not ask me. See what Lionz says about this, Apatheist.

[Apatheist]

Apologies, JP our updates crossed! I have just restated my original question.

[jusplay4fun]

Apologies, JP our updates crossed! I have just restated my original question.

Apologies accepted. Thanks.

[jimboston]

Why would things be made to make us think they're millions of years old if they're actually only a few thousand years old?
What's the point of that? Who benefits?

Why would you try to use logic to “debate” with a religious person on a “matter-of-faith”?

It’s like trying to explain advance mathematics to your dog.

Religions will always and have always, bent the rules of logic and just made-up stuff to “prove” their personal religion is “the right one”.

Very few religions have ever been willing to accept the beliefs of other religions.

Science, logic, and internal contradictions cannot change the mind of a religious fanatic who is not already open to the idea of accepting the possibility that they’re wrong.

[jimboston]

I believe the universe is created by ME, and only exists when I’m awake.

“Prove” me wrong.

If I put on my “religious blinders” it’s impossible.

[Apatheist]

Why would things be made to make us think they're millions of years old if they're actually only a few thousand years old?
What's the point of that? Who benefits?

Why would you try to use logic to “debate” with a religious person on a “matter-of-faith”?

It’s like trying to explain advance mathematics to your dog.

Religions will always and have always, bent the rules of logic and just made-up stuff to “prove” their personal religion is “the right one”.

Very few religions have ever been willing to accept the beliefs of other religions.

Science, logic, and internal contradictions cannot change the mind of a religious fanatic who is not already open to the idea of accepting the possibility that they’re wrong.

I disagree.
I saw a tv show the other day where someone was convinced that the moon landings didn't happen, because we can't see any evidence of it from here.
They were then shown the evidence from the lunar orbiter of the landing site; they did eventually concur that we had gone to the moon, although continued to insist that we didn't in 1969, and this stuff happened later.
Then there was the flat earther who was taken up high and shown the curvature of the Earth.

I question people if they assert evidence of something that I do not believe stands up. It's already happened with Lionz - he posted some pictures of a spotted lizard, claiming it was all sorts of things, "no-one" knew what it was, must be a mythical beast etc...and a couple of seconds of googling revealed it to be a Nile monitor, which he finally accepted.
If he asserts that the Earth is only a few thousand years old, he has to justify why the evidence appears to indicate otherwise, and explain the purpose of this deception - or stop asserting it.
Hopefully, via this albeit slow process, we may begin to eradicate the scourge of religion from the world (or arrive at the answer to which one, if any, is correct).
Don't give up too quickly!

[Dukasaur]

I agree. I believe that salvation is possible, and religious nuts can be brought to sanity. The history of the Enlightenment proves it.

I'm too tired to engage in much of it myself nowadays, but I have worked strenously in the past to remove the blinders from some of our posters here.

[Maxleod]

Some of the most brilliant minds in mankind's history, like Newton, Pascal, Einstein, believed in God. But I guess you all know better than them

[Apatheist]

I believe the universe is created by ME, and only exists when I’m awake.

“Prove” me wrong.

If I put on my “religious blinders” it’s impossible.

Well, one could posit that everything was created overnight, this is day 1, and all our memories have been created to make us believe that we and everything else have been around for longer.
One could also posit that everything has been removed and replaced with an exact half-size replica overnight.
Since we have no way to know some of these things, there's not much point worrying about them, so best to stick to resolving the different theories about what we can see within the realm as we understand it.
Sometimes it won't be proof, but one can show evidence that supports or contradicts a point of view. That's all we're doing here. If you don't want to, or don't think it's worth doing, then don't contribute to the forum thread, simple. No reason to stop others.

[Apatheist]

Some of the most brilliant minds in mankind's history, like Newton, Pascal, Einstein, believed in God. But I guess you all know better than them

Other, equally brilliant minds, like Voltaire, did not.
We know more science now than they did. Things are evolving and science is eating away at religious explanations.

[jimboston]

Why would things be made to make us think they're millions of years old if they're actually only a few thousand years old?
What's the point of that? Who benefits?

Why would you try to use logic to “debate” with a religious person on a “matter-of-faith”?

It’s like trying to explain advance mathematics to your dog.

Religions will always and have always, bent the rules of logic and just made-up stuff to “prove” their personal religion is “the right one”.

Very few religions have ever been willing to accept the beliefs of other religions.

Science, logic, and internal contradictions cannot change the mind of a religious fanatic who is not already open to the idea of accepting the possibility that they’re wrong.

I disagree.
I saw a tv show the other day where someone was convinced that the moon landings didn't happen, because we can't see any evidence of it from here.
They were then shown the evidence from the lunar orbiter of the landing site; they did eventually concur that we had gone to the moon, although continued to insist that we didn't in 1969, and this stuff happened later.
Then there was the flat earther who was taken up high and shown the curvature of the Earth.

I question people if they assert evidence of something that I do not believe stands up. It's already happened with Lionz - he posted some pictures of a spotted lizard, claiming it was all sorts of things, "no-one" knew what it was, must be a mythical beast etc...and a couple of seconds of googling revealed it to be a Nile monitor, which he finally accepted.
If he asserts that the Earth is only a few thousand years old, he has to justify why the evidence appears to indicate otherwise, and explain the purpose of this deception - or stop asserting it.
Hopefully, via this albeit slow process, we may begin to eradicate the scourge of religion from the world (or arrive at the answer to which one, if any, is correct).
Don't give up too quickly!

Those psycho conspiracy theorists are related to crazy religious fanatics, but they are not identical.

I would also assert that the particular people /scenarios you describe are rare.

[jimboston]

Since we have no way to know some of these things, there's not much point worrying about them, so best to stick to resolving the different theories about what we can see within the realm as we understand it.

My point… no one can “know” or prove/disprove the existence of “God”.

[Apatheist]

Since we have no way to know some of these things, there's not much point worrying about them, so best to stick to resolving the different theories about what we can see within the realm as we understand it.

My point… no one can “know” or prove/disprove the existence of “God”.

Well, I've already shown three things:
a) There are many different and conflicting definitions of gods and the afterlife - almost 4000 gods have been created by mankind. They can't all be right.
b) An omnipotent god who can both create and destroy anything is a logical impossibility.
c) Much of what is cited as evidence from the bible is just an origin myth, with a simple, prosaic, terrestrial explanation. This calls into question anything else that is claimed.

Whilst we can't prove it one way or the other, what we can do is discredit, refute and eliminate any religions, assertions and events that are clearly not what they claim to be - the most obvious example being the church claim that everything orbited the Earth.

[jimboston]

a) The DC Universe has over 4000 fictions characters… what’s your point?
b) Says YOU… maybe I say otherwise, and since I’m GODI think I’d know better.
c) Please Science! You’re using something as mundane as science to refute ME?
Science is just a false construct created by the Devil, I just allow it to exist to Test Your Faith. Duh!
You’ve obviously failed that test!

[Apatheist]

a) The DC Universe has over 4000 fictions characters… what’s your point?
b) Says YOU… maybe I say otherwise, and since I’m GODI think I’d know better.
c) Please Science! You’re using something as mundane as science to refute ME?
Science is just a false construct created by the Devil, I just allow it to exist to Test Your Faith. Duh!
You’ve obviously failed that test!

a) In case anyone's not clear - the point is that some elements of religion are mutually exclusive. Therefore they cannot all be correct. Since at least one is therefore wrong, there's no reason to trust any one of them.
b) Since you don't exist, why should I or anyone listen you? Anyway, prove you know better - create something that you can't destroy. I'm waiting...

[Dukasaur]

Some of the most brilliant minds in mankind's history, like Newton, Pascal, Einstein, believed in God. But I guess you all know better than them

Newton, like Kepler, believed in God. Yes, he was a genius, but he was also insane. https://historycollection.com/16-exampl ... ac-newton/ No shame there; genius and madness often walk hand-in-hand, but it does make his judgement suspect.

Einstein did not believe in a personal god. He called himself an agnostic, a believer in the wishy-washy concept of an impersonal "god" figure who set the rules for the universe but did not meddle in the affairs of individual like your Judeo-Christian muppet.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious ... t_Einstein

Einstein expressed his skepticism regarding the existence of a personal god, often describing this view as "naïve"[3] and "childlike".[16] In a letter written in 1947, he stated that "The idea of a personal God seems to me an anthropological concept that I cannot take seriously."[17] In a letter to Beatrice Frohlich on 17 December 1952, Einstein stated, "The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naïve."[18]

Pascal was, unfortunately, trapped in the limitations of his very strict Catholic upbringing. If you actually read his writings, you will see there was the brilliant mind of a sceptic trying to break the chains of orthodoxy in which it was ensnared, but never quite succeeded.