# Evidence of God's existance in a physical world?



## marketgunner (Aug 9, 2015)

Since God is supposed to be a Spirit, trying to find evidence of His existence with physical methods is like trying to measure temperature with a yardstick.  
So if God created anything or all, there must be evidence. Like the wind moving the trees , we can't see the wind but find evidence of something happening

So "atheist", for my own edification, do you have any thoughts on the expanding universe that is expanding at an increasing rate contrary to the rules of thermodynamics?

What is an "atheist's " position on this?


----------



## bullethead (Aug 9, 2015)

If your Jesus was god he existed in physical form. Outside of stories written by anonymous authors evidence of anything god-like about him or his claimed works is nowhere to be found outside of a religious book. 

YOU tell us what is evidence of your god.
Don't forget there are thousands of worshiped gods that get credit for creation etc etc etc.
You claim your god exists. Proof is all on you.


But there is no need for an atheist explanation for your Expansion question.
 A Physicist can answer that for you. http://m.phys.org/news/2013-11-universe.html


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 9, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> Since God is supposed to be a Spirit, trying to find evidence of His existence with physical methods is like trying to measure temperature with a yardstick.
> So if God created anything or all, there must be evidence. Like the wind moving the trees , we can't see the wind but find evidence of something happening
> 
> So "atheist", for my own edification, do you have any thoughts on the expanding universe that is expanding at an increasing rate contrary to the rules of thermodynamics?
> ...





> we can't see the wind but find evidence of something happening


"Something" isnt happening. This is whats happening -


> Wind is air in motion. It is produced by the uneven heating of the earth’s surface by the sun. Since the earth’s surface is made of various land and water formations, it absorbs the sun’s radiation unevenly. Two factors are necessary to specify wind: speed and direction.
> As the sun warms the Earth's surface, the atmosphere warms too. Some parts of the Earth receive direct rays from the sun all year and are always warm. Other places receive indirect rays, so the climate is colder. Warm air, which weighs less than cold air, rises. Then cool air moves in and replaces the rising warm air. This movement of air is what makes the wind blow.


----------



## welderguy (Aug 9, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> "Something" isnt happening. This is whats happening -



Ha! You just confirmed what he just said:

Quote:
"we can't see the wind but find EVIDENCE of something happening."


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 9, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Ha! You just confirmed what he just said:
> 
> Quote:
> "we can't see the wind but find EVIDENCE of something happening."


I think you missed the point.


----------



## welderguy (Aug 9, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> I think you missed the point.



I assume that your point was to say God didn't make the wind,the uneven heating of the earth did.

But,then you have to ask yourself what made the sun and earth and heat and water and set the perfect distance so the earth wouldn't overheat or freeze.And how everything stays aligned and in precise rotation.Oh,and what about that expanding universe that you kind of ignored?


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 9, 2015)

welderguy said:


> I assume that your point was to say God didn't make the wind,the uneven heating of the earth did.
> 
> But,then you have to ask yourself what made the sun and earth and heat and water and set the perfect distance so the earth wouldn't overheat or freeze.And how everything stays aligned and in precise rotation.Oh,and what about that expanding universe that you kind of ignored?





> I assume that your point was to say God didn't make the wind,the uneven heating of the earth did.


No.
However I will say after reading it again my response doesnt make my point clear.
My point is more that you cant attribute evidence to a god until its a fact that god exists.


> But,then you have to ask yourself what made the sun and earth and heat and water and set the perfect distance so the earth wouldn't overheat or freeze.And how everything stays aligned and in precise rotation.


I have asked myself. The answer is that question hasnt been answerd factually by anybody yet. 


> Oh,and what about that expanding universe that you kind of ignored?





> What is an "atheist's " position on this?


I didnt ignore it. I wasnt included. So respecting that, I didnt answer.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 9, 2015)

welderguy said:


> I assume that your point was to say God didn't make the wind,the uneven heating of the earth did.
> 
> But,then you have to ask yourself what made the sun and earth and heat and water and set the perfect distance so the earth wouldn't overheat or freeze.And how everything stays aligned and in precise rotation.Oh,and what about that expanding universe that you kind of ignored?QUOTE]
> 
> Have you asked yourself why there is famine and drought and disease and destruction and asteroids crashing into earth and all the other less than "pretty as a picture" things that you left out?


----------



## welderguy (Aug 9, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> welderguy said:
> 
> 
> > I assume that your point was to say God didn't make the wind,the uneven heating of the earth did.
> ...


----------



## drippin' rock (Aug 9, 2015)

welderguy said:


> WaltL1 said:
> 
> 
> > Yes I have.God does all of it for His own purpose.
> ...


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 9, 2015)

welderguy said:


> WaltL1 said:
> 
> 
> > Yes I have.God does all of it for His own purpose.
> ...


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 9, 2015)

drippin' rock said:


> welderguy said:
> 
> 
> > Well, that's settled.
> ...


----------



## welderguy (Aug 9, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> welderguy said:
> 
> 
> > Sounds pretty evil to me.
> ...


----------



## bullethead (Aug 10, 2015)

welderguy said:


> I assume that your point was to say God didn't make the wind,the uneven heating of the earth did.
> 
> But,then you have to ask yourself what made the sun and earth and heat and water and set the perfect distance so the earth wouldn't overheat or freeze.And how everything stays aligned and in precise rotation.Oh,and what about that expanding universe that you kind of ignored?


You do not understand that during the existence of the planet  there are times where it did overheat and it did freeze and that human life has only been on the planet for an incredibly short time only because during that time conditions are habitable for us. For billions of years humans could not exist. Our species is taking advantage of the opportunity ONLY because the current conditions allow it. 99% of all things that have ever lived on this planet are extinct and they did not die off because of your "perfect" conditions, in fact they are gone because conditions were not perfect.
We are one asteroid strike away from being knocked out of alignment and rotation and mass extinction.

The expanding universe has been answered in post #2.


----------



## welderguy (Aug 10, 2015)

bullethead said:


> You do not understand that during the existence of the planet  there are times where it did overheat and it did freeze and that human life has only been on the planet for an incredibly short time only because during that time conditions are habitable for us. For billions of years humans could not exist. Our species is taking advantage of the opportunity ONLY because the current conditions allow it. 99% of all things that have ever lived on this planet are extinct and they did not die off because of your "perfect" conditions, in fact they are gone because conditions were not perfect.
> We are one asteroid strike away from being knocked out of alignment and rotation and mass extinction.
> 
> The expanding universe has been answered in post #2.



How did the humans get here?


----------



## bullethead (Aug 10, 2015)

Read up on it welderguy. I was conservative on the 99%. It is 99.9% (by multiple scientific sources) with some saying 99.999%. http://paleobiology.si.edu/geotime/main/foundation_life4.html


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 10, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> Since God is supposed to be a Spirit, trying to find evidence of His existence with physical methods is like trying to measure temperature with a yardstick.
> So if God created anything or all, there must be evidence. Like the wind moving the trees , we can't see the wind but find evidence of something happening
> 
> So "atheist", for my own edification, do you have any thoughts on the expanding universe that is expanding at an increasing rate contrary to the rules of thermodynamics?
> ...



I think the expanding universe is a mistake on our part. They're forgetting to factor in the time difference between measurements. 

A light year isn't only a measure of distance, it's a measure of time. So as we get further away from the Earth, the velocities seem to increase. But, if I told you that an hour ago (100 million light years) a car was moving at 100 miles an hour. 40 minutes ago (60 million light years) it was moving at 60 mph. 10 Minutes ago, 10 million years, it was moving 10 miles an hour. 

Is that car accelerating or decelerating as we approach the current time?


----------



## 660griz (Aug 10, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> So "atheist", for my own edification, do you have any thoughts on the expanding universe that is expanding at an increasing rate contrary to the rules of thermodynamics?
> 
> What is an "atheist's " position on this?



I believe that an expanding universe helps with the Big Bang Theory. 

As far as contrary to rules go, well, we obviously don't know all the rules.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 10, 2015)

welderguy said:


> WaltL1 said:
> 
> 
> > Why is it evil?
> ...


----------



## drippin' rock (Aug 10, 2015)

welderguy said:


> WaltL1 said:
> 
> 
> > Why is it evil?
> ...


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 10, 2015)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Quote from Walt1


> "My point is more that you cant attribute evidence to a god until its a fact that god exists."




We often look at the evidence to determine if something exists.

Any evidence, properly understood, suggest something does exists.
The key is properly understood.

The Big Bang even suggest a origin, thus the beginning of space, and time. And if a origin, then perhaps an originator and a purpose,  
But I cannot understand why the universe is said to expand at an increasing rate?  
Will it ever collapse , at the same rates?


----------



## drippin' rock (Aug 10, 2015)

My guess is the Big Bang theory will change and morph over time until eventually, say 2000 years or so, the only evedence of the theory left will be on some hard drive that is so corrupt, man of that time will barely understand what we were thinking and will make stuff up to fill in the gaps.  Lord knows what that will sound like. 
My faith, when I choose to think about it, is placed in Man's ability to figure things out. We will know. It's a matter of time.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 10, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> Quote from Walt1
> ...


This stuff is way above my pay grade but yes its thought be ONE of the possibilities. Although Im not sure if it specifies at the same rate.


> The Big Crunch hypothesis is a symmetric view of the ultimate fate of the universe. Just as the Big Bang started a cosmological expansion, this theory assumes that the average density of the universe is enough to stop its expansion and begin contracting. The end result is unknown; a simple estimation would have all the matter and space-time in the universe collapse into a dimensionless singularity, but at these scales unknown quantum effects need to be considered (see Quantum gravity).


Its also thought that its possible that a Big Crunch (the collapse you asked about) is the catalyst for another Big Bang thereby creating a new universe.
I dont claim to even begin to understand it all.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 10, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> This stuff is way above my pay grade but yes its thought be ONE of the possibilities. Although Im not sure if it specifies at the same rate.
> 
> Its also thought that its possible that a Big Crunch (the collapse you asked about) is the catalyst for another Big Bang thereby creating a new universe.
> I dont claim to even begin to understand it all.


Another possibility is what happens when the Black Holes gobble everything up and then gobble each other? All that energy may condense into one point and release...who knows.?.?.?.
But saying I/we don't know is alright. There is no need to insert a magical being into the complex mix and make it even more complex.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 11, 2015)

bullethead said:


> Another possibility is what happens when the Black Holes gobble everything up and then gobble each other? All that energy may condense into one point and release...who knows.?.?.?.
> But saying I/we don't know is alright. There is no need to insert a magical being into the complex mix and make it even more complex.



Hawking radiation.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 11, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Hawking radiation.


I started reading about this Hawking radiation thing.
I must admit, God did it is a whole lot easier


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 11, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> I started reading about this Hawking radiation thing.
> I must admit, God did it is a whole lot easier



Depends on your frame of mind. If God were easy, we'd be believers. It requires us to jump outside of what we can experience in our lives. But, I've never experienced a black hole, either, so I digress.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 11, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Depends on your frame of mind. If God were easy, we'd be believers. It requires us to jump outside of what we can experience in our lives. But, I've never experienced a black hole, either, so I digress.


My frame of mind is a state of confusion when it comes to how outer space stuff works.
That and the assembly directions you get with stuff you have to put together.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 11, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> My frame of mind is a state of confusion when it comes to how outer space stuff works.
> That and the assembly directions you get with stuff you have to put together.



Nobody understands them. They're full of more contradictory demands than scripture.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 11, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Depends on your frame of mind. If God were easy, we'd be believers. It requires us to jump outside of what we can experience in our lives. But, I've never experienced a black hole, either, so I digress.



Any of us with enough due diligence can understand the math and the measurements about how black holes have been  predicted.  

The same with dating based on decay rates and the evidence of evolution based on the geological and fossil record as well as genome research.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 11, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Any of us with enough due diligence can understand the math and the measurements about how black holes have been  predicted.
> 
> The same with dating based on decay rates and the evidence of evolution based on the geological and fossil record as well as genome research.



Yeah, but math is terrible at conveying experience. 

You can figure out the forces involved in a fall, but that doesn't tell you how badly it hurts at the bottom.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 11, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Yeah, but math is terrible at conveying experience.
> 
> You can figure out the forces involved in a fall, but that doesn't tell you how badly it hurts at the bottom.



Nope. It can tell you if it will hurt...or 'you won't feel a thing."


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 11, 2015)

660griz said:


> Nope. It can tell you if it will hurt...or 'you won't feel a thing."



Fair 'nuff. It wasn't until I came out of my nothingness that I noticed I hadn't experienced anything at all.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 11, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Yeah, but math is terrible at conveying experience.
> 
> You can figure out the forces involved in a fall, but that doesn't tell you how badly it hurts at the bottom.



Science (math included) can help you understand why and how under normal physiological conditions there will be a pain experience associated with trauma.  

It can describe how an edged blade cleaves through cell walls to produce a cut.  

The emotional response may vary.

This all goes confirm the OP's contention that God can't be proven by physical means though the apologists keep trying.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 12, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> What is an "atheist's " position on this?



Oh that's easy, and it applies to any argument for God.

Answer:   Deny. Deny. Deny.  No matter the consequences,  just deny.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 12, 2015)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Oh that's easy, and it applies to any argument for God.
> 
> Answer:   Deny. Deny. Deny.  No matter the consequences,  just deny.



It's just as bad as believe.believe. believe. No matter the consequences, just believe.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 12, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Science (math included) can help you understand why and how under normal physiological conditions there will be a pain experience associated with trauma.
> 
> It can describe how an edged blade cleaves through cell walls to produce a cut.
> 
> ...



And that is experience.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 12, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> This all goes confirm the OP's contention that God can't be proven by physical means though the apologists keep trying.



Could you please elaborate on this.  I've read and listened to a lot of apologist and have never, ever, heard of someone offering a "physical" proof of God.  How would one offer a physical "proof" of a spiritual being?


----------



## East River Guide (Aug 12, 2015)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Could you please elaborate on this.  I've read and listened to a lot of apologist and have never, ever, heard of someone offering a "physical" proof of God.  How would one offer a physical "proof" of a spiritual being?



How would you characterize creationsim or intelligent design?  See e.g. post #6.  Do you believe the existence of the physical universe supports the conclusion that god exists?


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 13, 2015)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Could you please elaborate on this.  I've read and listened to a lot of apologist and have never, ever, heard of someone offering a "physical" proof of God.  How would one offer a physical "proof" of a spiritual being?





East River Guide said:


> How would you characterize creationsim or intelligent design?  See e.g. post #6.  Do you believe the existence of the physical universe supports the conclusion that god exists?



Exactly.  I would start at with Creationist websites and start with the silliness that they call science.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 13, 2015)

And/Or if Jesus was god he roamed the earth for 30+ years. He physically was here.
Yet outside if the bible....where's the beef?


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Aug 13, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> Since God is supposed to be a Spirit, trying to find evidence of His existence with physical methods is like trying to measure temperature with a yardstick.
> So if God created anything or all, there must be evidence. Like the wind moving the trees , we can't see the wind but find evidence of something happening
> 
> So "atheist", for my own edification, do you have any thoughts on the expanding universe that is expanding at an increasing rate contrary to the rules of thermodynamics?
> ...



In all fairness, the expansion of the universe is not _necessarily_ against the LOT, the Big Bang is (unless you include some initial, motive force  ). It fits with Einstein's stuff and other findings also corroborate this view. Black holes are fun when you look at the math, but it's still not entirely clear if they exist at all (though, it would make sense if they did). 

The evidence for God's existence is in everything, even in the most militant of atheists', they choose not to see it: None are without excuse.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Aug 13, 2015)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Could you please elaborate on this.  I've read and listened to a lot of apologist and have never, ever, heard of someone offering a "physical" proof of God.  How would one offer a physical "proof" of a spiritual being?



The 'proof' of God is in the spirit. The knowledge of Him is not encountered under the microscope or amongst numerous calculations, that would limit the knowledge of Him to only a select class of people. My 'apologies' are made to those who limit themselves with the cold view of science, and simply can't, won't, or even make an attempt to understand anything else.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 13, 2015)

EverGreen1231 said:


> My 'apologies' are made to those who limit themselves with the cold view of science, and simply can't, won't, or even make an attempt to understand anything else.



1) I haven't really met any like that. Most I have known, including me, have made great efforts to believe in the mythical realms. 

2) Your statement, if you read it from my point of view, would make you laugh too. 
Kinda like, "I can't believe you guys believe in all that science stuff without even trying to understand talking donkeys." Sorry. It is just too much.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Aug 13, 2015)

660griz said:


> 1) I haven't really met any like that. Most I have known, including me, have made great efforts to believe in the mythical realms.



And yet, something seems to have gotten in the way .






660griz said:


> 2) Your statement, if you read it from my point of view, would make you laugh too.
> Kinda like, "I can't believe you guys believe in all that science stuff without even trying to understand talking donkeys." Sorry. It is just too much.



I knew it would be funny to you; but, since some here believe that you can only come to faith unless spoken to by an animal, I felt it appropriate.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 13, 2015)

EverGreen1231 said:


> And yet, something seems to have gotten in the way .



Reality.





> I knew it would be funny to you; but, since some here believe that you can only come to faith unless spoken to by an animal, I felt it appropriate.



Mmm k.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Aug 13, 2015)

660griz said:


> Their reasoning.



Fixed it for you.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 13, 2015)

EverGreen1231 said:


> Fixed it for you.



I'll go with that too.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 13, 2015)

EverGreen1231 said:


> The 'proof' of God is in the spirit. The knowledge of Him is not encountered under the microscope or amongst numerous calculations, that would limit the knowledge of Him to only a select class of people. My 'apologies' are made to those who limit themselves with the cold view of science, and simply can't, won't, or even make an attempt to understand anything else.



Make me understand living in a fish for three days.  I'm open.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 13, 2015)

EverGreen1231 said:


> The 'proof' of God is in the spirit. The knowledge of Him is not encountered under the microscope or amongst numerous calculations, that would limit the knowledge of Him to only a select class of people. My 'apologies' are made to those who limit themselves with the cold view of science, and simply can't, won't, or even make an attempt to understand anything else.


Your assumption is non acceptance is a result of not understanding.
One can understand and still not accept.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 14, 2015)

EverGreen1231 said:


> My 'apologies' are made to those who limit themselves with the cold view of science, and simply can't, won't, or even make an attempt to understand anything else.



The problem is, I do understand.
I understand how old the earth is.
I understand how long humans have been on the earth.
I understand how long religion has been on the earth.
I understand the reason for the invention of religion.
I understand early man's life revolving around seasons and astronomy. 
I understand fables.
I understand the 'placebo affect'. 
I understand religion has a lot to do with geography and parents.
I understand the magnitude of human arrogance. 
I understand that religion is evolving. 
I understand that without religion, the 12 steps of AA may be boiled down to, Stop that, you idiot. 

Short list of what I understand but, this helps to understand God did not make man in his own image. Man created God in his own image.


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 14, 2015)

What do you understand? human speculation in science and you reject the human speculation of scripture

One speculates on the age of the earth very old by current observations; the other by the meaning of the Hebrew word "yown" Which they have just as wrong

Jesus rejected religion as you do. He realized religion is man's efforts to reach God, which is pitiful .This is what you believe, too.
So all the religions you despise, He does too.  He wants a one on one relationship, not meaningless actions.

You do understand arrogance, it is when people think all they know is sufficient and they do not need to learn anymore.

try this from your position. I believe I can show this from scripture in opposition to established Christian doctrine.

Space and time began in one instant long before the visual light spectrum was evident and long before the earth, as we know it, was formed

Would you tend to agree with that statement?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 14, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> Since God is supposed to be a Spirit, trying to find evidence of His existence with physical methods is like trying to measure temperature with a yardstick.
> So if God created anything or all, there must be evidence. Like the wind moving the trees , we can't see the wind but find evidence of something happening
> 
> So "atheist", for my own edification, do you have any thoughts on the expanding universe that is expanding at an increasing rate contrary to the rules of thermodynamics?
> ...




You're starting with the wrong presupposition.  The physical world IS the evidence of God's's existence.  Atheist cannot give a sensible account for it


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 15, 2015)

SemperFiDawg said:


> You're starting with the wrong presupposition.  The physical world IS the evidence of God's's existence.  Atheist cannot give a sensible account for it



Well said, 

Why does the physical world exist?


----------



## bullethead (Aug 15, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> Well said,
> 
> Why does the physical world exist?


Because the possibility exists that it always has.
No one knows what was before the Big Bang.
An infinite physical world is just as likely,if not more likely, than a God...let alone one specific God let alone the Gods of the Bible.


----------



## Terminal Idiot (Aug 15, 2015)

SemperFiDawg said:


> You're starting with the wrong presupposition.  The physical world IS the evidence of God's's existence.  Atheist cannot give a sensible account for it



This is silly. Science has explained - reasonably and intelligently - most of the world around us. And the things that are still a little iffy - black holes, gravity, big bangs, etc. all have some pretty good theories going.

Now then, please give a sensible account for an an all seeing, all knowing, all powerful floaty guy in the sky. Does it make sense that this one being has been around forever - all by himself - no begining, no end? Give a sensible account for "where did God come from?". You can't do it and in all probability you won't even take a stab at it. You will just say, "the bible says so". Well that is reassuring.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 15, 2015)

Terminal Idiot said:


> This is silly. Science has explained - reasonably and intelligently - most of the world around us. And the things that are still a little iffy - black holes, gravity, big bangs, etc. all have some pretty good theories going.
> 
> Now then, please give a sensible account for an an all seeing, all knowing, all powerful floaty guy in the sky. Does it make sense that this one being has been around forever - all by himself - no begining, no end? Give a sensible account for "where did God come from?". You can't do it and in all probability you won't even take a stab at it. You will just say, "the bible says so". Well that is reassuring.



There's as much bad evidence for the existence of ghosts as there is for God; culturally, historically, "traditional wisdoms" (I just learned that term.  It's a new one that's supposed to make voodoo and such sound legitimate.) and even better than God, in video and photographs.  There's even debris left from poltergeists and wounds from Demons.   Yet believers in those things are cast to the fringes.  

It's more true to say "I prefer to believe in a world with God(s)" than to say "There is good evidence for God(s)".

The strongest piece of "evidence" that you'll hear from a believer is "I felt Him with my heart".  What the heck is anyone else supposed to do with that?


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 15, 2015)

SemperFiDawg said:


> You're starting with the wrong presupposition.  The physical world IS the evidence of God's's existence.  Atheist cannot give a sensible account for it


It seems like you are just not able to stop yourself from throwing in something utterly ridiculous into every post.
What is there to account for?
If the physical world is evidence of your god, its also evidence of every other god throughout history with a creation story, its also evidence for every theory man has ever thought of, its also evidence for every theory not yet thought of and if I were to claim I created the world it would also be evidence of that.
The only thing that the existence of the physical world proves is that the physical world exists.
After that you can make up anything you want and it will be evidence of that too.
Think.


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 15, 2015)

bullethead said:


> Because the possibility exists that it always has.
> No one knows what was before the Big Bang.
> An infinite physical world is just as likely,if not more likely, than a God...let alone one specific God let alone the Gods of the Bible.



But if the evidence fits, the conclusion is obvious,  even if not everybody accepts it.

The Big Bang itself suggests a beginning and an origin point.

Instead of opposing evidence from scripture as one here on this forum might believe, the theory supports creation and thus God a creator.

I know what was before this point of origin, where the physical space and time began.  Nothing.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 15, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> But if the evidence fits, the conclusion is obvious,  even if not everybody accepts it.
> 
> The Big Bang itself suggests a beginning and an origin point.
> 
> ...



The Big Bang suggests the beginning and origin of our CURRENT Universe.

With your in depth explanation you are wasting your time in here then. You should go,no run to the world's major scientific organizations and clue them in on your inside knowledge. With all the proof you have to offer they will have you holding your own news conference on every major network by Monday.

BTW, nothing includes no God too.
And if you want to search the threads there is a GREAT explanation on why there was never "nothing".  Me, and don't take it personally, I am going to stick with that explanation instead of of your explanation of "cause I say so".


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 15, 2015)

but you ignore the meaning of the word "creation," It is from nothing.  When you suggest there was nothing, them something exists, then you are preaching creation without using the word.

If we accept that this universe began at one point, we are agreeing with scripture., but perhaps not with many in the church.

Did you know you are agreeing with scripture?

I haven't used cause I said so,  I said examine the evidence. I agree with you you will not get reliable evidence from current church thinking.  Examine the evidence yourself but from reliable sources. Not biased human scientist not biased human theologians.


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 15, 2015)

Do you have evidence of another UNI verse?


----------



## welderguy (Aug 15, 2015)

There have been seashells and shark's teeth found on many of the mountain tops all over the world.
That seems to support a world wide flood in my estimation.just saying.


----------



## East River Guide (Aug 15, 2015)

welderguy said:


> There have been seashells and shark's teeth found on many of the mountain tops all over the world.
> That seems to support a world wide flood in my estimation.just saying.



But all below the K-T boundary, right?  Which would make them at least 65 million years old.   

This may help you:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 15, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> but you ignore the meaning of the word "creation," It is from nothing.  When you suggest there was nothing, them something exists, then you are preaching creation without using the word.
> 
> If we accept that this universe began at one point, we are agreeing with scripture., but perhaps not with many in the church.
> 
> ...





> If we accept that this universe began at one point, we are agreeing with scripture.


Based on that then surely you would agree that if you accept that this universe began at one point, you are also agreeing with all the other creation stories correct?


----------



## Terminal Idiot (Aug 15, 2015)

welderguy said:


> There have been seashells and shark's teeth found on many of the mountain tops all over the world.
> That seems to support a world wide flood in my estimation.just saying.



Wow. Just wow.

This link is a little easier on the eyes than the one previously posted. It answers the question in the first paragraph or two.

http://www.universetoday.com/29833/how-mountains-are-formed/

I suppose some may have issue with the article, however, because it states that mountains take several million years to create. Unless, of course, god poofed them in to being.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 15, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> But if the evidence fits, the conclusion is obvious,  even if not everybody accepts it.
> 
> The Big Bang itself suggests a beginning and an origin point.
> 
> ...



Is it possible God created the universe with the Big Bang?
Can God's creation be explained with science?


----------



## bullethead (Aug 15, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> Do you have evidence of another UNI verse?


I have exactly as much evidence of another UNI verse as I have of a god.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 15, 2015)

welderguy said:


> There have been seashells and shark's teeth found on many of the mountain tops all over the world.
> That seems to support a world wide flood in my estimation.just saying.


Luckily other estimations are more accurate.
How old are the sharks teeth and sea shells on these mountain tops? HOW did the shells and teeth get INSIDE of rocks if God formed the solid Earth and the flood happened much later? 6500 years is not enough time to form solid rocks so how did the teeth and shells get inside the rocks in even less than 6500 years?
Have you EVER bothered to research how these items got on top of a mountain let alone inside of rocks? http://www.desertusa.com/desert-california/seashells-in-desert.html


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 15, 2015)

welderguy said:


> There have been seashells and shark's teeth found on many of the mountain tops all over the world.
> That seems to support a world wide flood in my estimation.just saying.



Wouldn't the only sharks and shell fish that survived the flood
be on the Ark? I think the purpose of the Ark was to kill all of the animals that wasn't on it. All of the plants survived the flood.
The dove returned with an olive leaf which could be a sign or symbol of peace and or the Holy Spirit.


----------



## welderguy (Aug 15, 2015)

bullethead said:


> Luckily other estimations are more accurate.
> How old are the sharks teeth and sea shells on these mountain tops? HOW did the shells and teeth get INSIDE of rocks if God formed the solid Earth and the flood happened much later? 6500 years is not enough time to form solid rocks so how did the teeth and shells get inside the rocks in even less than 6500 years?
> Have you EVER bothered to research how these items got on top of a mountain let alone inside of rocks? http://www.desertusa.com/desert-california/seashells-in-desert.html



According to the bible,the fountains of the earth were broken up.I think this means the earth's crust opened and lots of water from below the surface came out.While this was going on,I'm convinced that mountains could have been formed,large amounts of sediment was spread,lots of things died suddenly and were fossilized(even fish and whales,and trees still standing,roots and all.They have found fossilized "graveyards" containing many species of animals which do not normally live together that,for some strange reason,were in the same exact area when they died suddenly.I'm just saying.


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 15, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Based on that then surely you would agree that if you accept that this universe began at one point, you are also agreeing with all the other creation stories correct?



I do not believe the common creation stories have been interrupted correctly and are biased toward extreme humanistic teachings,  placing undue importance on being flesh and blood.


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 15, 2015)

bullethead said:


> I have exactly as much evidence of another UNI verse as I have of a god.



no, we have some evidence, even testimony of God.

no evidence , just speculation of another universe.

The question is "is the evidence we have trustworthy?"


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 15, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> Is it possible God created the universe with the Big Bang?
> Can God's creation be explained with science?



ultimately, If God is True and our understanding of science is correct, They will agree.

We misplace the creation story as the complete narrative but it is only the redemption part.


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 15, 2015)

This is what we or any as creationist have to consider, If God is omnipotent and completely capable of instantaneously creating the universe complete, why did He take six days?  What purpose was the event in stages? Why so long?

Well if you acknowledge the"fallen spiritual beings" were exiled here from the moment the universe began the longer sequence makes more since.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 15, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> I do not believe the common creation stories have been interrupted correctly and are biased toward extreme humanistic teachings,  placing undue importance on being flesh and blood.


Yeah ok.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 15, 2015)

welderguy said:


> According to the bible,the fountains of the earth were broken up.I think this means the earth's crust opened and lots of water from below the surface came out.While this was going on,I'm convinced that mountains could have been formed,large amounts of sediment was spread,lots of things died suddenly and were fossilized(even fish and whales,and trees still standing,roots and all.They have found fossilized "graveyards" containing many species of animals which do not normally live together that,for some strange reason,were in the same exact area when they died suddenly.I'm just saying.



I see a lot of science in that outlook. Science from the Greatest Scientist himself.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 16, 2015)

welderguy said:


> According to the bible,the fountains of the earth were broken up.I think this means the earth's crust opened and lots of water from below the surface came out.While this was going on,I'm convinced that mountains could have been formed,large amounts of sediment was spread,lots of things died suddenly and were fossilized(even fish and whales,and trees still standing,roots and all.They have found fossilized "graveyards" containing many species of animals which do not normally live together that,for some strange reason,were in the same exact area when they died suddenly.I'm just saying.


Your first mistake is "according to the Bible"
Next you do not need to be a geologist to understand how/where the water comes from but you can EASILY look it up if you were serious about truly learning anything.
You obviously didn't even open the link I gave you.
Who is "they"? Who has found these mass graveyards of various animals that do not belong together? Where are these graveyards? What various species did they find?


----------



## bullethead (Aug 16, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> no, we have some evidence, even testimony of God.
> 
> no evidence , just speculation of another universe.
> 
> The question is "is the evidence we have trustworthy?"


In EVERY religion all we have is man's  version of what man thinks his god would do or did because many people are still clinging onto ancient  writings and traditions whereas in every other aspect of life humans have moved on.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 16, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> This is what we or any as creationist have to consider, If God is omnipotent and completely capable of instantaneously creating the universe complete, why did He take six days?  What purpose was the event in stages? Why so long?
> 
> Well if you acknowledge the"fallen spiritual beings" were exiled here from the moment the universe began the longer sequence makes more since.


I started with "if god" and am trying to prove that before I go ahead and jump to conclusions about everything else.
You are starting with the conclusions and trying to fit everything else in however you can.


----------



## Israel (Aug 16, 2015)

Only God has the capacity, generosity, mercy, magnanimity to allow for a creature to name itself "homo sapiens".
Know this God, or know another.
Or worse, think oneself a "homo sapiens".


----------



## Terminal Idiot (Aug 16, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> I do not believe the common creation stories have been interrupted correctly and are biased toward extreme humanistic teachings,  placing undue importance on being flesh and blood.



How is it you don't believe the stories were interpreted correctly? Do you speak the languages the original texts were written in? And how do you pick and choose what you believe fom the bible, not knowing what was interpreted correctly?

This is a case of 1 plus 1 equals 9. And you are OK with that. You pattern your life after that. Sounds a little sketchy to me, sir.


----------



## Terminal Idiot (Aug 16, 2015)

Israel said:


> Only God has the capacity, generosity, mercy, magnanimity to allow for a creature to name itself "homo sapiens".
> Know this God, or know another.
> Or worse, think oneself a "homo sapiens".



Doesn't seem like an unreasonable name considering all the millions of species we have competed against and their lack of knowledge. And perhaps future generations of 'us' will call themselves 'homo sapiens magis'.


----------



## welderguy (Aug 16, 2015)

Terminal Idiot said:


> How is it you don't believe the stories were interpreted correctly? Do you speak the languages the original texts were written in? And how do you pick and choose what you believe fom the bible, not knowing what was interpreted correctly?
> 
> This is a case of 1 plus 1 equals 9. And you are OK with that. You pattern your life after that. Sounds a little sketchy to me, sir.



Uhh? I believe the man said "interrupted".Not "interpreted".


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 16, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> It seems like you are just not able to stop yourself from throwing in something utterly ridiculous into every post.
> What is there to account for?
> If the physical world is evidence of your god, its also evidence of every other god throughout history with a creation story, its also evidence for every theory man has ever thought of, its also evidence for every theory not yet thought of and if I were to claim I created the world it would also be evidence of that.
> The only thing that the existence of the physical world proves is that the physical world exists.
> ...



That's why I find atheism completely untenable.  I DO think.  Atheism forces one to accept naturalism as the only explanation , and naturalism is self contradictory therefore it cannot be true.  Read Thomas Nagel (an atheist) Mind and Cosmos and Alvin Plantinga's 3 volume set on Warrant then get back to me on who's not thinking.


----------



## welderguy (Aug 16, 2015)

bullethead said:


> Your first mistake is "according to the Bible"
> Next you do not need to be a geologist to understand how/where the water comes from but you can EASILY look it up if you were serious about truly learning anything.
> You obviously didn't even open the link I gave you.
> Who is "they"? Who has found these mass graveyards of various animals that do not belong together? Where are these graveyards? What various species did they find?




Here's one where marine and land-dwelling creatures are found buried together.
L. Grande, “Paleontology of the Green River Formation with a Review of the Fish Fauna,” The Geological Survey of Wyoming Bulletin 63 (1984).

 The chalk beds of Britain stretch right across Europe to the Middle East, as well as into the Midwest of the United States, forming a global-scale fossil graveyard. More than seven trillion tons of vegetation is buried in the world’s coal beds found across every continent, including Antarctica.Such was the speed at which many creatures were buried and fossilized that they were exquisitely preserved. There was no destruction of many fish, which were buried so rapidly, virtually alive, that even fine details of fins and eye sockets have been preserved.

Mawsonites spriggi, when discovered, was identified as a fossilized jellyfish (figure 2). It was found in a sandstone bed that covers more than 400 square miles (1,040 km2) of outback South Australia.12 Millions of such soft-bodied marine creatures are exquisitely preserved in this sandstone bed. Consider what happens to soft-bodied creatures like jellyfish when washed up on a beach today. Because they consist only of soft “jelly,” they melt in the sun and are also destroyed by waves crashing onto the beach. Based on this reality, the discoverer of these exquisitely preserved soft-bodied marine creatures concluded that all of them had to be buried in less than a day!

Some sea creatures were buried alive and fossilized so quickly that they were “caught in the act” of eating their last meal, or at the moment of giving birth to a baby! One minute a huge ichthyosaur had just given birth to her baby, then seconds later, without time to escape, mother and baby were buried and “snap frozen” in a catastrophic “avalanche” of lime mud.

Here's another one:
S.A. Austin, “Nautiloid Mass Kill and Burial Event, Redwall Limestone (Lower Mississippian), Grand Canyon Region, Arizona and Nevada

I've got more if that's not sufficient.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 16, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Here's one where marine and land-dwelling creatures are found buried together.
> L. Grande, “Paleontology of the Green River Formation with a Review of the Fish Fauna,” The Geological Survey of Wyoming Bulletin 63 (1984).
> 
> The chalk beds of Britain stretch right across Europe to the Middle East, as well as into the Midwest of the United States, forming a global-scale fossil graveyard. More than seven trillion tons of vegetation is buried in the world’s coal beds found across every continent, including Antarctica.Such was the speed at which many creatures were buried and fossilized that they were exquisitely preserved. There was no destruction of many fish, which were buried so rapidly, virtually alive, that even fine details of fins and eye sockets have been preserved.
> ...


Its interesting that your answersingenesis website doesnt mention the ages of these layers.
However if you go to actual archaeological websites you can find out.
You wont like the answers.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 16, 2015)

SemperFiDawg said:


> That's why I find atheism completely untenable.  I DO think.  Atheism forces one to accept naturalism as the only explanation , and naturalism is self contradictory therefore it cannot be true.  Read Thomas Nagel (an atheist) Mind and Cosmos and Alvin Plantinga's 3 volume set on Warrant then get back to me on who's not thinking.


Why did you change the subject?
The subject was the existence of the physical world as evidence.
Dont want to talk about that any more?


----------



## welderguy (Aug 16, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Its interesting that your answersingenesis website doesnt mention the ages of these layers.
> However if you go to actual archaeological websites you can find out.
> You wont like the answers.



Their dating methods are questionable, but the fossil records are far less questionable. ....IMO.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 16, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Uhh? I believe the man said "interrupted".Not "interpreted".


Its kinda obvious the man made a typo. 


> Originally Posted by marketgunner
> I do not believe the common creation stories have been interrupted correctly and are biased toward extreme humanistic teachings, placing undue importance on being flesh and blood


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 16, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Their dating methods are questionable, but the fossil records are far less questionable. ....IMO.


Yeah lets not let the ages of the layers get in the way.
Or you could do a little research on the accuracies of dating.
From answersingenesis where they dont mention the age -


> This includes the Kaibab Limestone at the top of the strata sequence and exposed at the rim of the canyon, which today is 7,000–8,000 feet above sea level.2


Of course they didnt mention -


> Kaibab Limestone - This layer averages about 250 million years old and forms the surface of the Kaibab and Coconino Plateaus. It is composed primarily of a sandy limestone with a layer of sandstone below it. In some places sandstone and shale also exists as its upper layer. The color ranges from cream to a greyish-white. When viewed from the rim this layer resembles a bathtub ring and is commonly referred to as the Canyon's bathtub ring. Fossils that can be found in this layer are brachiopods, coral, mollusks, sea lilies, worms and fish teeth.


Now why wouldnt answersingenesis not mention that? Oh I dont know maybe.......


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 16, 2015)

bullethead said:


> I started with "if god" and am trying to prove that before I go ahead and jump to conclusions about everything else.
> You are starting with the conclusions and trying to fit everything else in however you can.



no , I am not. Look at all evidence from all sources digest what you have without prejudice then form your conclusion.

You are choosing to ignore evidence to force a conclusion


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 16, 2015)

Terminal Idiot said:


> How is it you don't believe the stories were interpreted correctly? Do you speak the languages the original texts were written in? And how do you pick and choose what you believe fom the bible, not knowing what was interpreted correctly?
> 
> This is a case of 1 plus 1 equals 9. And you are OK with that. You pattern your life after that. Sounds a little sketchy to me, sir.



we consider first the nature of God
second the meaning of the words from the original languages. as close as we get. We do not guess. We use the literal meaning of the words, even if we do not fully understand the meaning. We do not change the meaning to fit our limited understanding
third we use the information logically.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 16, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> we consider first the nature of God
> second the meaning of the words from the original languages. as close as we get. We do not guess. We use the literal meaning of the words, even if we do not fully understand the meaning. We do not change the meaning to fit our limited understanding
> third we use the information logically.


I cringe every time you use the word logic.


> we consider first the nature of God


LOGICALLY God must be PROVEN to exist before you can consider his nature or anything else about him.
You dont see it but your indoctrination causes you to start your logical process from an illogical position.
You take it as a proven FACT that your God exists and go from there.
That only works if you are talking to people who start from the same illogical point.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 16, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> no , I am not. Look at all evidence from all sources digest what you have without prejudice then form your conclusion.
> 
> You are choosing to ignore evidence to force a conclusion



What evidence am I ignoring?
Ancient man would find something.  If they had a logical explanation they used it. If they couldn't figure it out they wrote that a god did this or a god said that and for those reasons things are the way they are. Some people think that is evidence of a god.
I think it is man trying to explain something they didn't understand.


----------



## Terminal Idiot (Aug 16, 2015)

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BRHefbIgKxk

I think this is a fine time to plop this in to the discussion. It is about 10 minutes long - you should watch all of it, but if you cant, start at 8:00. It is a great point that religious people's insertion of God starts where their own personal understanding stops. Anytime you hit a roadblock in your ability to understand what goes on around you, that is when God is put forth. NDT suggests that at some point god will not fit in the picture (because we learn more everyday).


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 16, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Here's one where marine and land-dwelling creatures are found buried together.
> L. Grande, “Paleontology of the Green River Formation with a Review of the Fish Fauna,” The Geological Survey of Wyoming Bulletin 63 (1984).
> 
> The chalk beds of Britain stretch right across Europe to the Middle East, as well as into the Midwest of the United States, forming a global-scale fossil graveyard. More than seven trillion tons of vegetation is buried in the world’s coal beds found across every continent, including Antarctica.Such was the speed at which many creatures were buried and fossilized that they were exquisitely preserved. There was no destruction of many fish, which were buried so rapidly, virtually alive, that even fine details of fins and eye sockets have been preserved.
> ...


You didnt actually go read any of studies that you listed here did you?
I can tell because -


> Here's one where marine and land-dwelling creatures are found buried together.


You think "buried together" literally means they were found together like side by side at the same level.
You didnt read about this either -


> Such was the speed at which many creatures were buried and fossilized that they were exquisitely preserved. There was no destruction of many fish, which were buried so rapidly, virtually alive, that even fine details of fins and eye sockets have been preserved.


Or you would have read that the state of preservation isnt determined by the "speed of which they were buried".
You didnt read about this either -


> Consider what happens to soft-bodied creatures like jellyfish when washed up on a beach today. Because they consist only of soft “jelly,” they melt in the sun and are also destroyed by waves crashing onto the beach. Based on this reality, the discoverer of these exquisitely preserved soft-bodied marine creatures concluded that all of them had to be buried in less than a day!


Mawsonites spriggi were NOT found washed up on a beach. They were found AT THE BOTTOM of what was once the sea FLOOR.
That makes the sun melting them and the waves crashing on them crap. 
And you didnt read about this either -


> One minute a huge ichthyosaur had just given birth to her baby, then seconds later, without time to escape, mother and baby were buried and “snap frozen” in a catastrophic “avalanche” of lime mud.


Or you would know -


> The last ichthyosaurs disappeared in the Cretaceous — several million years before the last dinosaurs died out


. 
And if you had read about this guy -
S.A. Austin
You would know he works for -
Institute for Creation Research
And that scientists and archeologists disagree with him.



> I've got more if that's not sufficient


No thats quite sufficient.

Just a suggestion - maybe just maybe you should consider that websites like answersingenesis only gives you partial information and is banking on the fact that you will just nod your head up and down and not actually go and do a little research on your own.
Sadly they are right.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 16, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> You didnt actually go read any of studies that you listed here did you?
> I can tell because -
> 
> You think "buried together" literally means they were found together like side by side at the same level.
> ...


This!!!


----------



## welderguy (Aug 16, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> You didnt actually go read any of studies that you listed here did you?
> I can tell because -
> 
> You think "buried together" literally means they were found together like side by side at the same level.
> ...



I did read it.How else do you think I knew about it to be able to get you riled up about it?

As for the speed of the preservation, the creatures that died "in the act" are pretty supportive of a sudden catastrophic event that caused their death.


----------



## welderguy (Aug 16, 2015)

welderguy said:


> i did read it.how else do you think i knew about it to be able to get you riled up about it?
> 
> As for the speed of the preservation, the creatures that died "in the act" are pretty supportive of a sudden catastrophic event that caused their death.



this!!!


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 16, 2015)

bullethead said:


> What evidence am I ignoring?
> Ancient man would find something.  If they had a logical explanation they used it. If they couldn't figure it out they wrote that a god did this or a god said that and for those reasons things are the way they are. Some people think that is evidence of a god.
> I think it is man trying to explain something they didn't understand.



yes, there are many gods as evidence of man imagination. It is evidence. We must also include all the evidence even thought we do not accept it as true.

I was speaking about a process in general not you specifically.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 16, 2015)

welderguy said:


> I did read it.How else do you think I knew about it to be able to get you riled up about it?
> 
> As for the speed of the preservation, the creatures that died "in the act" are pretty supportive of a sudden catastrophic event that caused their death.


Still wanting to ignore dates arent you?
Is this the one you are talking about?


> Paleontologists have long suspected that some dinosaurs shook their tail feathers to woo mates. And a new analysis of "Romeo and Juliet" -- bird-like oviraptor dinos found locked in a 75-million-year-old embrace -- is yielding new clues about the feathery mating theory.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 16, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Why did you change the subject?
> The subject was the existence of the physical world as evidence.
> Dont want to talk about that any more?



Uhhh.  I haven't changed the subject.


----------



## welderguy (Aug 16, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Still wanting to ignore dates arent you?
> Is this the one you are talking about?



I wasn't aware of that one but it's another one that supports how things suddenly die and are fossilized by rapid sediment flow.If you want to believe that date that's quite alright.I won't think any less of your intelligence.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 16, 2015)

welderguy said:


> I wasn't aware of that one but it's another one that supports how things suddenly die and are fossilized by rapid sediment flow.If you want to believe that date that's quite alright.I won't think any less of your intelligence.


Yeah I purposely left out the circumstances of where they were discovered to see if you would just make something up to support what you want to believe.


> As for what happened to the pair in the desert...after whatever romance may have transpired, a large sand dune suddenly collapsed on top of them, preserving the pair for near-perpetuity.


Let me guess - a rapid sediment flow is what caused the sand dune to collapse and bury them in sand. No mention of sediment but hey.....
And please give me a link to the one you were talking about. I would like to read about it. The only one I could find was this one.


> I won't think any less of your intelligence.


Your answersingenesis website says the earth is 2,000 years old. Im not real worried about what you think about my intelligence.
Seriously for a minute, between me and you, I just showed where you were only given information to make you think one way and you were NOT given the information that they didnt want you to know. And they didnt want you to know for really good reason.
That doesnt bother you? Doesnt even raise any questions with you?


----------



## welderguy (Aug 16, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Yeah I purposely left out the circumstances of where they were discovered to see if you would just make something up to support what you want to believe.
> 
> Let me guess - a rapid sediment flow is what caused the sand dune to collapse and bury them in sand. No mention of sediment but hey.....
> And please give me a link to the one you were talking about. I would like to read about it. The only one I could find was this one.
> ...



Sand is not sediment? Pretty pathetic argument because you know I was speaking in general terms.

All of your arguments have been nothing more than an attempt to diminish credibility.nothing very concrete.

I'm still waiting for you to explain why seashells and sharks teeth are found on top of so many of the mountain ranges all over the world.


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Aug 16, 2015)

welderguy said:


> I'm still waiting for you to explain why seashells and sharks teeth are found on top of so many of the mountain ranges all over the world.



the simple answer is that because at one time they were all under water, at the bottom of the ocean.  Simple ain't it?

Now to determine when they were under water.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 16, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Sand is not sediment? Pretty pathetic argument because you know I was speaking in general terms.
> 
> All of your arguments have been nothing more than an attempt to diminish credibility.nothing very concrete.
> 
> I'm still waiting for you to explain why seashells and sharks teeth are found on top of so many of the mountain ranges all over the world.


Welder the link I provided for you explains EXACTLY how those sharks teeth and sea shells got on mountains. They were not mountains yet. The ground that became mountains was below sea level until the plates in the Earth shifted and turned them into mountains. It is still happening as some mountains are still getting taller.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 16, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Sand is not sediment? Pretty pathetic argument because you know I was speaking in general terms.
> 
> All of your arguments have been nothing more than an attempt to diminish credibility.nothing very concrete.
> 
> I'm still waiting for you to explain why seashells and sharks teeth are found on top of so many of the mountain ranges all over the world.





> All of your arguments have been nothing more than an attempt to diminish credibility.nothing very concrete.


Are you forgetting you used all these examples to support your claim? In a AAA forum? That is meant for discussion/debate?
And I didnt "attempt" to do anything. I ripped it to shreads.
You saying nuh-uh doesnt change that.
And I would still like that link I requested above.


> I'm still waiting for you to explain why seashells and sharks teeth are found on top of so many of the mountain ranges all over the world.


Been answered by Bullet. If you dont like his information it will only take you a second to find out for yourself.
Here's a great video -
http://education.nationalgeographic.com/media/plate-tectonics/


----------



## welderguy (Aug 16, 2015)

bullethead said:


> Welder the link I provided for you explains EXACTLY how those sharks teeth and sea shells got on mountains. They were not mountains yet. The ground that became mountains was below sea level until the plates in the Earth shifted and turned them into mountains. It is still happening as some mountains are still getting taller.



It's a pretty good argument, don't get me wrong.But when you take all the evidence as a whole, collectively-the seashells/shark teeth, fossil graveyards, the sediment found in areas that doesn't belong, the crustacean encrypted water salinity, whole forests and vegetation suddenly fossilized in the same layer of sediment,....it's all pointing to a worldwide flood.
Something else I wonder about is why the fossil fuel that's drilled for is in localized places instead of spread out all over the earth.


----------



## welderguy (Aug 16, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> And please give me a link to the one you were talking about. I would like to read about it. The only one I could find was this one.



What exactly are you wanting a link to?


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 16, 2015)

welderguy said:


> What exactly are you wanting a link to?





> As for the speed of the preservation, the creatures that died "in the act" are pretty supportive of a sudden catastrophic event that caused their death.





> I wasn't aware of that one but it's another one that supports how things suddenly die and are fossilized by rapid sediment flow


I want to read about the creatures that die "in the act".
The other one you referenced above.


----------



## East River Guide (Aug 16, 2015)

welderguy said:


> It's a pretty good argument



It's really more than that, it's the best explanation for reality.  But we'll give you a fair shake- Can you point me to a legitimate scientific analysis of your theory?  Not someone with an agenda trying to cobble misplaced facts together to make fanciful claims?

It saddens me that there is so much scientific illiteracy in this country and that people's good intentions are preyed upon by unscrupulous hucksters that take advantage of well meaning but uninformed searchers.   So give it your best shot- what's the best analysis you have to support this hodgepodge of yours that will take it from flat earth to legit?


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Aug 16, 2015)

how old is the moon?


----------



## welderguy (Aug 16, 2015)

East River Guide said:


> It's really more than that, it's the best explanation for reality.  But we'll give you a fair shake- Can you point me to a legitimate scientific analysis of your theory?  Not someone with an agenda trying to cobble misplaced facts together to make fanciful claims?
> 
> It saddens me that there is so much scientific illiteracy in this country and that people's good intentions are preyed upon by unscrupulous hucksters that take advantage of well meaning but uninformed searchers.   So give it your best shot- what's the best analysis you have to support this hodgepodge of yours that will take it from flat earth to legit?



Straight up, I'm not a big science wiz.I made B's and C's.I have to rely on people a lot smarter than me to give straight up facts.But, as you alluded to, there is no one out there that is completely unbiased.It boils down to those who believe God and those who don't. You don't. I do.Some scientists do.Some don't. The interpretation of evidence is reflected by each.
You call it hodgepodge.I call it obvious evidence.It's because I have no problem believing what God's word has said about it.I don't NEED any more evidence, but more evidence is a bonus.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 16, 2015)

East River Guide said:


> It's really more than that, it's the best explanation for reality.  But we'll give you a fair shake- Can you point me to a legitimate scientific analysis of your theory?  Not someone with an agenda trying to cobble misplaced facts together to make fanciful claims?
> 
> It saddens me that there is so much scientific illiteracy in this country and that people's good intentions are preyed upon by unscrupulous hucksters that take advantage of well meaning but uninformed searchers.   So give it your best shot- what's the best analysis you have to support this hodgepodge of yours that will take it from flat earth to legit?





> that take advantage of well meaning but uninformed searchers.


Not that you asked  but my opinion differs and I think Welder's response to you above confirms my opinion.
There are those who only want to hear what they want to hear. They are not well meaning in the sense that they are searching. They only want to confirm what they already think and will go to any length to avoid learning anything different.
In effect, they arent being taken advantage of, they are getting exactly what they asked for.


----------



## Terminal Idiot (Aug 16, 2015)

Ok, so at this point it just feels like welder guy is trolling us just to get us all worked up.


----------



## welderguy (Aug 16, 2015)

Terminal Idiot said:


> Ok, so at this point it just feels like welder guy is trolling us just to get us all worked up.



I wouldn't really go that far,although it is kinda fun sometimes.I just honestly like to try to show my side on it the best I can(most of the time I fail).But it's all good.I realize,I don't have the power to give anybody the necessary faith to believe the "unbelievable",but I still like to challenge myself and others if possible.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 17, 2015)

welderguy said:


> It's a pretty good argument, don't get me wrong.But when you take all the evidence as a whole, collectively-the seashells/shark teeth, fossil graveyards, the sediment found in areas that doesn't belong, the crustacean encrypted water salinity, whole forests and vegetation suddenly fossilized in the same layer of sediment,....it's all pointing to a worldwide flood.
> Something else I wonder about is why the fossil fuel that's drilled for is in localized places instead of spread out all over the earth.


It is not an argument at all. It is what has happened. It isn't guesses. It is still happening daily and is observable. It is something that is studied. 
The evidence as a whole IS taken by the people who study tectonics and it is you that is missing the portions that allow you to see the whole evidence.
If you really wonder about fossil fuel then you should educate yourself about it. I can tell you that the hydrocarbons in oil and gas are lighter than water and will travel to through the cracks in rocks and "pool" at the high points. That is what geologists look for when deciding where to drill for fuels and why they are "localized".
Whatever we post in here to help is backed up by sources and facts but you ignore it anyway.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 17, 2015)

http://m.livescience.com/37706-what-is-plate-tectonics.html
Welder read this. No flood necessary


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 17, 2015)

bullethead said:


> http://m.livescience.com/37706-what-is-plate-tectonics.html
> Welder read this. No flood necessary


It wont matter.


> It boils down to those who believe God and those who don't. You don't. I do.Some scientists do.Some don't. The interpretation of evidence is reflected by each.


He made it very clear how he will view anything you put in front of him.
If you ever doubt your decision to leave the mind job that is religion, the above is a good reminder.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 17, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> It wont matter.
> 
> He made it very clear how he will view anything you put in front of him.
> If you ever doubt your decision to leave the mind job that is religion, the above is a good reminder.


Amen to that!


----------



## welderguy (Aug 17, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> It wont matter.
> 
> He made it very clear how he will view anything you put in front of him.
> If you ever doubt your decision to leave the mind job that is religion, the above is a good reminder.



And I second the AMEN to that.

One of the biggest confirmations to me,that what God said in His word really happened, is not all the physical evidence(although that is pretty big too).It is the sheer tenacity in which those who hate Him try to suppress and abolish it.

No amount of arguing will change that.In fact,the more argument,the more the confirmation.


----------



## drippin' rock (Aug 17, 2015)

Scientist: Much of the exposed land we have, including mountains, was once under water. As the plates shifted, sometimes violently, they bumped into each other and created mountains. Shells, coral, and other ocean matter that had settled into layers of sediment were now thousands of feet above sea level. 

Christian: oh yeah? Prove it.


----------



## welderguy (Aug 17, 2015)

drippin' rock said:


> Scientist: Much of the exposed land we have, including mountains, was once under water. As the plates shifted, sometimes violently, they bumped into each other and created mountains. Shells, coral, and other ocean matter that had settled into layers of sediment were now thousands of feet above sea level.
> 
> Christian: oh yeah? Prove it.



We(Christians) don't need that to be proven.It's obvious.We just contend that it happened suddenly during the great flood,just as God said.The fossils of the millions of dead creatures, who died so suddenly,are a very reliable piece of evidence supporting it's truth.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 17, 2015)

welderguy said:


> And I second the AMEN to that.
> 
> One of the biggest confirmations to me,that what God said in His word really happened, is not all the physical evidence(although that is pretty big too).It is the sheer tenacity in which those who hate Him try to suppress and abolish it.
> 
> No amount of arguing will change that.In fact,the more argument,the more the confirmation.


You prove my point with every post you make.


> One of the biggest confirmations to me,that what God said in His word really happened, is not all the physical evidence(although that is pretty big too)


You MUST ignore the information given to you, you MUST ignore the videos where the scientist is actually showing you and touching the tetonic plates, you MUST ignore where he is underwater showing you the formations it causes, you MUST ignore fossils on DIFFERENT levels, you MUST ignore dating methods, you MUST ignore how fossil fuels are created, you MUST ignore that every piece of what you call evidence has been shreaded over and over.
Why?
Not because you can prove it wrong, not because you can show inaccurate testing methods, not because you have opposing PHYSICAL evidence.
Because its says so in a book. Thats been proven over and over to be inaccurate, changed, translated incorrectly, added to, subtracted from and that relies on miracles. 


> It is the sheer tenacity in which those who hate Him try to suppress and abolish it.


Another lie you must tell yourself.
You MUST ignore that you are talking to Atheists and Agnostics because that makes your "those who hate Him" ridiculous.


> In fact,the more argument,the more the confirmation.


What a sad position.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 17, 2015)

welderguy said:


> We(Christians) don't need that to be proven.It's obvious.We just contend that it happened suddenly during the great flood,just as God said.The fossils of the millions of dead creatures, who died so suddenly,are a very reliable piece of evidence supporting it's truth.





> who died so suddenly,


Thats how we know all the facts we provide never make it to your brain. You cant allow it. Because then you wouldnt be able to think this -


> are a very reliable piece of evidence


Its also why you have to dismiss the dating of those fossils.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 17, 2015)

welderguy said:


> We(Christians) don't need that to be proven.It's obvious.We just contend that it happened suddenly during the great flood,just as God said.The fossils of the millions of dead creatures, who died so suddenly,are a very reliable piece of evidence supporting it's truth.


Here's your chance -
SHOW us that these millions of sea creatures, many of which are reported to have been extinct for millions of years, were ALIVE at the time of the flood and the flood is what killed them.


----------



## welderguy (Aug 17, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> You prove my point with every post you make.
> 
> You MUST ignore the information given to you, you MUST ignore the videos where the scientist is actually showing you and touching the tetonic plates, you MUST ignore where he is underwater showing you the formations it causes, you MUST ignore fossils on DIFFERENT levels, you MUST ignore dating methods, you MUST ignore how fossil fuels are created, you MUST ignore that every piece of what you call evidence has been shreaded over and over.
> Why?
> ...



HA! You should really try to stay more calm because you're hurting your arguments with yet more confirmations.

But seriously,I haven't ignored any of it.I'm considering all of it as objectively as I can.But the big roadblock that I hit is the dating methods.I just can't see how they could be accurate as they claim.It's based too much on guesses and speculation.How is it not?


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 17, 2015)

welderguy said:


> HA! You should really try to stay more calm because you're hurting your arguments with yet more confirmations.
> 
> But seriously,I haven't ignored any of it.I'm considering all of it as objectively as I can.But the big roadblock that I hit is the dating methods.I just can't see how they could be accurate as they claim.It's based too much on guesses and speculation.How is it not?


You ask alot of questions that the answers to are easy to find.
Dating methods have + or - tolerances.
Thats how we know you arent serious about learning anything. For you ignorance seems to be bliss.
Serious question -
A layer of earth where fossils are found is dated to be say 200 million years old.
Your answersingeneis says the earth is 2,000 years old.
Do you actually think dating methods are off by 199,998,000 years?


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 17, 2015)

Welder when you get around to answering this, dont forget that you claimed that these bird like oviraptors DINOSAURS could have been killed in the flood.


> bird-like oviraptor dinos found locked in a 75-million-year-old embrace --


So dont forget that would mean they were ALIVE and running around at the time of the flood.


> Here's your chance -
> SHOW us that these millions of sea creatures, many of which are reported to have been extinct for millions of years, were ALIVE at the time of the flood and the flood is what killed them.


----------



## welderguy (Aug 17, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> You ask alot of questions that the answers to are easy to find.
> Dating methods have + or - tolerances.
> Thats how we know you arent serious about learning anything. For you ignorance seems to be bliss.
> Serious question -
> ...



Walt,seriously? 2,000 years?? We are currently living in the year 2015 last I checked,and that's just the AD part.

Again,how is that 200 million year figure not based on some amount of speculation and assumption?

I'll read your answer in the morning or whenever you reply after that.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 17, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Walt,seriously? 2,000 years?? We are currently living in the year 2015 last I checked,and that's just the AD part.
> 
> Again,how is that 200 million year figure not based on some amount of speculation and assumption?
> 
> I'll read your answer in the morning or whenever you reply after that.


Oh I apologize they said a couple of thousand years in one place but it looks like their official position is 6,000 years.
So we went to dating being 199, 994,000 years off.
Well that certainly makes a difference.
The question I asked you stands.


> Again,how is that 200 million year figure not based on some amount of speculation and assumption?


Of course that plays a role thats why there are tolerances. Its also based on testing and sampling and known quantities and......
Its interesting that some amount of specualtion and assumption is a road block to you when the results differ from your beliefs.
But you have no problem with God made the universe, someone elses Gods arent real, talking donkeys, people living in whales, floods covering the earth and on and on. Surely you can see how your thinking is skewed toward denial of what you DONT want to believe?


----------



## welderguy (Aug 18, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Oh I apologize they said a couple of thousand years in one place but it looks like their official position is 6,000 years.
> So we went to dating being 199, 994,000 years off.
> Well that certainly makes a difference.
> The question I asked you stands.
> ...



So, because you must rely on a sort of "faith" that the speculations and assumptions are within your tolerances, you are no different(in that regard) to me having faith to believe Isaiah 40:12:

"Who hath measured the waters in the hollow of His hand,and meted out heaven with the span, and comprehended the dust of the earth in a measure, and weighed the mountains in scales,and the hills in a balance?"

That flood was a simple task for Him.Very believable when you compare it to His greatness.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 18, 2015)

welderguy said:


> That flood was a simple task for Him.Very believable when you compare it to His greatness.



Yes, I am sure he didn't lose a bit of sleep after wiping out everything on earth. 

I would think it would be better to think of it as fable. 
Why would you want to worship a God that makes a mistake and decides the best way to fix it is to wipe out everything and start over? Could an all knowing, all powerful being think of something a little less dramatic?


----------



## welderguy (Aug 18, 2015)

660griz said:


> Yes, I am sure he didn't lose a bit of sleep after wiping out everything on earth.
> 
> I would think it would be better to think of it as fable.
> Why would you want to worship a God that makes a mistake and decides the best way to fix it is to wipe out everything and start over? Could an all knowing, all powerful being think of something a little less dramatic?



It was man's fault.They were in rebellion and mocking God.In a nutshell, being atheistic.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 18, 2015)

welderguy said:


> So, because you must rely on a sort of "faith" that the speculations and assumptions are within your tolerances, you are no different(in that regard) to me having faith to believe Isaiah 40:12:
> 
> "Who hath measured the waters in the hollow of His hand,and meted out heaven with the span, and comprehended the dust of the earth in a measure, and weighed the mountains in scales,and the hills in a balance?"
> 
> That flood was a simple task for Him.Very believable when you compare it to His greatness.


You are avoiding -


> Here's your chance -
> SHOW us that these millions of sea creatures, many of which are reported to have been extinct for millions of years, were ALIVE at the time of the flood and the flood is what killed them.


And you still havent given me -


> I wasn't aware of that one but it's another one that supports how things suddenly die and are fossilized by rapid sediment flow





> I want to read about the creatures that die "in the act".
> The other one you referenced above.





> So, because you must rely on a sort of "faith" that the speculations and assumptions are within your tolerances, you are no different(in that regard) to me having faith to believe Isaiah 40:12:


They arent "my tolerances". They are the tolerances determined through lots of testing, cross testing, testing to known ages, confirmation testing across different methods etc.
But you would know that if you were actually interested in learning about it.
Its all at your finger tips but you dont go look. Theres a reason for that. You DONT WANT to know. You want to be able to question it so it doesnt interfere with what you already believe.
How honest is it of you to continue to reject it, make arguments against it and not even try to learn about what it is you are arguing against? 


> That flood was a simple task for Him.Very believable when you compare it to His greatness.


Nice try at change of direction.
There isnt one post in our discussion about God's ability to make a flood.

Lets do this -
You just admit you dont have carp to back up your claims. You dont have carp to show the mountains of information we are giving you is false. You dont know carp about what it is you are arguing against. And you dont actually want to know carp about it.
Its just a matter of being honest.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 18, 2015)

welderguy said:


> It was man's fault.They were in rebellion and mocking God.In a nutshell, being atheistic.


Those darn Atheistic newborns, fetuses and young children. How dare they.


----------



## welderguy (Aug 18, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> You are avoiding -
> 
> And you still havent given me -
> 
> ...



You missed my point.It was :
We could argue til both of us are blue faced about these trivial arguments, but when it's all said and done,we either see God or we are blinded.

As for the fetuses, they were just as guilty if they were vessels of dishonour.That's the cold hard truth.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 18, 2015)

welderguy said:


> It was man's fault.They were in rebellion and mocking God.In a nutshell, being atheistic.



Mocking God? He/she has a pretty thin skin.
And, he/she just couldn't think of a way to 'punish' the mockers and not kill every living thing, unborn babies, puppies, children, etc. 
Nice. 

Have you shopped around for other Gods?


----------



## 660griz (Aug 18, 2015)

welderguy said:


> You missed my point.It was :
> We could argue til both of us are blue faced about these trivial arguments, but when it's all said and done,we either see God or we are blinded.
> 
> As for the fetuses, they were just as guilty if they were vessels of dishonour.That's the cold hard truth.



But wait, God says the child does not inherit the sins of the parents.
"The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor shall the father bear the guilt of the son."

 Ezekiel 28:15, "You were perfect in your ways from the day you were created, till iniquity was found in you." So we see that an infant is born perfect and without sin until he becomes of an accountable age and then begins to sin.

Unless God is mocked by the parents?


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 18, 2015)

welderguy said:


> You missed my point.It was :
> We could argue til both of us are blue faced about these trivial arguments, but when it's all said and done,we either see God or we are blinded.
> 
> As for the fetuses, they were just as guilty if they were vessels of dishonour.That's the cold hard truth.





> about these trivial arguments,


If they are trivial why are you arguing against it?


> we either see God or we are blinded.


Or we purposely blind ourselves so that we can only see God.


> As for the fetuses, they were just as guilty if they were vessels of dishonour.That's the cold hard truth


No thats just disgusting.
What makes it more disgusting is your argument against abortion will be how those fetuses are innocent victims.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 18, 2015)

660griz said:


> But wait, God says the child does not inherit the sins of the parents.
> "The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor shall the father bear the guilt of the son."
> 
> Ezekiel 28:15, "You were perfect in your ways from the day you were created, till iniquity was found in you." So we see that an infant is born perfect and without sin until he becomes of an accountable age and then begins to sin.
> ...


Oh come on thats just trivial.
You dont have the power of discernment.
You are taking that out of context.
Those particular ones are just figurative not literal.
Whatever else can be thought of to avoid the contradiction.
Step right up, spin the wheel, see which one it lands on.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 18, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Oh come on thats just trivial.
> You dont have the power of discernment.
> You are taking that out of context.
> Those particular ones are just figurative not literal.
> ...



The Lord moves in mysterious ways.


----------



## welderguy (Aug 18, 2015)

660griz said:


> But wait, God says the child does not inherit the sins of the parents.
> "The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor shall the father bear the guilt of the son."
> 
> Ezekiel 28:15, "You were perfect in your ways from the day you were created, till iniquity was found in you." So we see that an infant is born perfect and without sin until he becomes of an accountable age and then begins to sin.
> ...



Then how did your boy Esau get left out of "the age of accountability"?
God said before he was even born, He hated him.


----------



## welderguy (Aug 18, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> If they are trivial why are you arguing against it?
> 
> Or we purposely blind ourselves so that we can only see God.
> 
> ...



Nope.the fetuses are not innocent (unless covered by the blood od Jesus),
But humans taking other humans lives unjustly is murder.


----------



## welderguy (Aug 18, 2015)

660griz said:


> The Lord moves in mysterious ways.



Now you said a mouthful there!


----------



## 660griz (Aug 18, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Nope.the fetuses are not innocent



I know you are not disagreeing with the word of God!
I meant to do that in my preacher voice.
Are you disagreeing with the word of GAAWDuh?!


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 18, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Nope.the fetuses are not innocent (unless covered by the blood od Jesus),
> But humans taking other humans lives unjustly is murder.


Yes Welder I understand why you have to create a difference. I dont understand HOW you can do it but I certainly understand WHY you have to.
You do more to confirm to me that having the strength to walk away from this twisted way of thinking was the right thing to do than I think any person I have ever conversed with on here.
Thank You!


----------



## welderguy (Aug 18, 2015)

660griz said:


> I know you are not disagreeing with the word of God!
> I meant to do that in my preacher voice.
> Are you disagreeing with the word of GAAWDuh?!



No.like I said before, unless you are covered in the blood of Jesus you are not innocent. We have no righteousness of our own.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 18, 2015)

So Welder -
Did you decide to be honest and admit to this? -


> Lets do this -
> You just admit you dont have carp to back up your claims. You dont have carp to show the mountains of information we are giving you is false. You dont know carp about what it is you are arguing against. And you dont actually want to know carp about it.
> Its just a matter of being honest.


----------



## welderguy (Aug 18, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Yes Welder I understand why you have to create a difference. I dont understand HOW you can do it but I certainly understand WHY you have to.
> You do more to confirm to me that having the strength to walk away from this twisted way of thinking was the right thing to do than I think any person I have ever conversed with on here.
> Thank You!



He's hidden these things from the wise and prudent and revealed them unto babes.Paradoxical, isn't it.
Like Gris put it so well, mysterious ways.

BTW I'll try to get those links you wanted when I get home to my computer (phone's too hard)


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 18, 2015)

welderguy said:


> He's hidden these things from the wise and prudent and revealed them unto babes.Paradoxical, isn't it.
> Like Gris put it so well, mysterious ways.
> 
> BTW I'll try to get those links you wanted when I get home to my computer (phone's too hard)


No the paradox would be the part about revealing them unto babes and then killing them all.
Yes very mysterious indeed.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 18, 2015)

welderguy said:


> No.like I said before, unless you are covered in the blood of Jesus you are not innocent. We have no righteousness of our own.



So, all infants that die go straight to hades?
No need to answer. I know the Bible is not clear on this issue and numerous interpretations have arose. 
From, they are without sin, they go to hades, they go to heaven, they go to heaven if they are baptized. Oh wait, some say you can't be baptized if you don't believe. Well, babies don't know so how can they believe. And the game goes on.
Also, there is born with a nature to sin and true sin. Both unclear. 
Good stuff.


----------



## welderguy (Aug 18, 2015)

660griz said:


> So, all infants that die go straight to hades?
> No need to answer. I know the Bible is not clear on this issue and numerous interpretations have arose.
> From, they are without sin, they go to hades, they go to heaven, they go to heaven if they are baptized. Oh wait, some say you can't be baptized if you don't believe. Well, babies don't know so how can they believe. And the game goes on.
> Also, there is born with a nature to sin and true sin. Both unclear.
> Good stuff.



The ones covered in the blood of Jesus go to heaven.The ones not covered go to CensoredCensoredCensoredCensored.what's hard to understand about that?


----------



## 660griz (Aug 18, 2015)

welderguy said:


> The ones covered in the blood of Jesus go to heaven.The ones not covered go to CensoredCensoredCensoredCensored.what's hard to understand about that?



I know right. Easy Peasy.
I just filled up a pump sprayer with the stuff and I am on my way to Egleston.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 18, 2015)

welderguy said:


> The ones covered in the blood of Jesus go to heaven.The ones not covered go to CensoredCensoredCensoredCensored.what's hard to understand about that?



They don't fall into the subset of "the world"? 

Man, even John 3:16 isn't plain language.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 18, 2015)

welderguy said:


> And I second the AMEN to that.
> 
> One of the biggest confirmations to me,that what God said in His word really happened, is not all the physical evidence(although that is pretty big too).It is the sheer tenacity in which those who hate Him try to suppress and abolish it.
> 
> No amount of arguing will change that.In fact,the more argument,the more the confirmation.


Hate a God?
It would have to be pretend hate.


----------



## welderguy (Aug 18, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> They don't fall into the subset of "the world"?
> 
> Man, even John 3:16 isn't plain language.



John 3:16 is not an invitation, it's a declaration.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 18, 2015)

welderguy said:


> John 3:16 is not an invitation, it's a declaration.



Okay, what is it declaring? Because I think it says that God so loved _the world_ that He gave His only Son. I mean, that's what the text says, but what does it really say?


----------



## drippin' rock (Aug 18, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Then how did your boy Esau get left out of "the age of accountability"?
> God said before he was even born, He hated him.



 So the Bible contradicts itself?


----------



## 660griz (Aug 18, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Okay, what is it declaring? Because I think it says that God so loved _the world_ that He gave His only Son. I mean, that's what the text says, but what does it really say?



Yea. What does it really say? Wasn't God his own Son?
Why is he called Father by us if he only had one son? 
Whoa!
I'll take calculus for $1000 Alex.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 18, 2015)

660griz said:


> Yea. What does it really say? Wasn't God his own Son?
> Why is he called Father if he only had one son?
> Whoa!
> I'll take calculus for $1000 Alex.



I'm no rocket surgeon, but one child is enough to make a man a father, or am I missing something? 

Then there's the whole Trinity thing, and can He be His own Father?


----------



## welderguy (Aug 18, 2015)

drippin' rock said:


> So the Bible contradicts itself?



This is why John 3:16 is not an invitation. 

John 6:37 supports that verse.
"All that the Father giveth me shall come to me, and he that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out."

Then when this verse is put alongside it, watch what happens:
John 6:44
"No man can come to me except the Father, which hath sent me, draw him.And I will raise him up at the last day."


----------



## drippin' rock (Aug 18, 2015)

welderguy said:


> This is why John 3:16 is not an invitation.
> 
> John 6:37 supports that verse.
> "All that the Father giveth me shall come to me, and he that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out."
> ...



Ok, but how does a baby get covered in the blood of Jesus?


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 18, 2015)

660griz said:


> Yea. What does it really say? Wasn't God his own Son?
> Why is he called Father if he only had one son?
> Whoa!
> I'll take calculus for $1000 Alex.



God is called Father to all of us because He created us. He is called Father to the Son of man differently.

He is called the Father to distinguish from God who became the Son of Man.  God was not the Father to Him before He became the Son.

It is like exclusive representation, Jesus, as God in flesh and blood is the only presentation of the God Head to humans


----------



## welderguy (Aug 18, 2015)

drippin' rock said:


> Ok, but how does a baby get covered in the blood of Jesus?



If a baby is covered in the blood of Jesus, it's because it was chosen(elected) to be before the creation of the world.Eph.1
Jesus came to earth to take the penalty for the elect.All sin must be paid for (either at the cross or in eternal he11).Jesus' blood was what paid that price for his people.


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 18, 2015)

babies do not, they do not understand the need for repentance.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 18, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> God is called Father to all of us because He created us. He is called Father to the Son of man differently.
> 
> He is called the Father to distinguish from God who became the Son of Man.  God was not the Father to Him before He became the Son.
> 
> It is like exclusive representation, Jesus, as God in flesh and blood is the only presentation of the God Head to humans



Oh I get it.  Like ice, water and vapor all being the same thing in different states.  (That's how it was explained to me.)


----------



## drippin' rock (Aug 18, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> God is called Father to all of us because He created us. He is called Father to the Son of man differently.
> 
> He is called the Father to distinguish from God who became the Son of Man.  God was not the Father to Him before He became the Son.
> 
> It is like exclusive representation, Jesus, as God in flesh and blood is the only presentation of the God Head to humans



Did you type that with a straight face?


----------



## drippin' rock (Aug 18, 2015)

welderguy said:


> If a baby is covered in the blood of Jesus, it's because it was chosen(elected) to be before the creation of the world.Eph.1
> Jesus came to earth to take the penalty for the elect.All sin must be paid for (either at the cross or in eternal he11).Jesus' blood was what paid that price for his people.



So following that model, babies that died in the flood were not Elect?

How do you feel about the idea of our souls being the angels God kicked out of heaven?


----------



## welderguy (Aug 18, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> babies do not, they do not understand the need for repentance.



The Holy Spirit called John the baptist in his mother's womb(Luke 1:41-44).

Same for David.(Ps.22:9-10)

Jeremiah said in Jer.1:5 " Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, [and] I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations."

Isaiah 49:1b "The LORD hath called me from the womb; from the bowels of my mother hath he made mention of my name."


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 18, 2015)

welderguy said:


> If a baby is covered in the blood of Jesus, it's because it was chosen(elected) to be before the creation of the world.Eph.1
> Jesus came to earth to take the penalty for the elect.All sin must be paid for (either at the cross or in eternal he11).Jesus' blood was what paid that price for his people.


You do know that your interpretation of who the "elect" are is agreed with by a very small minority of scholars and Christians right?
Who is being talked to here -


> But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; who once were not a people but are now the people of God, who had not obtained mercy but now have obtained mercy.





> “For you are a holy people to the Lord your God; the Lord your God has chosen you to be a people for Himself, a special treasure above all the peoples on the face of the earth”



Let me guess it too doesnt mean what it says right?


----------



## welderguy (Aug 18, 2015)

drippin' rock said:


> So following that model, babies that died in the flood were not Elect?



I can't make that judgement.



drippin' rock said:


> How do you feel about the idea of our souls being the angels God kicked out of heaven?



I don't find scripture that backs that idea.


----------



## welderguy (Aug 18, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Who is being talked to here -
> 
> Quote:
> But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; who once were not a people but are now the people of God, who had not obtained mercy but now have obtained mercy.



The elect gentiles.


----------



## welderguy (Aug 18, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Who is being talked to here -
> 
> “For you are a holy people to the Lord your God; the Lord your God has chosen you to be a people for Himself, a special treasure above all the peoples on the face of the earth”



The nation of Israel.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 18, 2015)

welderguy said:


> The elect gentiles.


No I mean before you guys came up with all these interpretations to support your own.
Who was being talked to?

Oh I see you changed your answer.
So yes. And it also specifies that weren't before but are now.
Doesnt that oppose what you are saying? They werent elected "prior to creation".


> that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;





> Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy
> 
> 
> > They werent then they were. Didnt start out that way but became that way.


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 18, 2015)

welderguy said:


> The Holy Spirit called John the baptist in his mother's womb(Luke 1:41-44).
> 
> Same for David.(Ps.22:9-10)
> 
> ...



none of that has anything to do with repentance or salvation. but being called for God's purpose


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 18, 2015)

drippin' rock said:


> Did you type that with a straight face?



It is simple , I back up my statements with quotes.

Heb 1:5
¶
For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, *this day *have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

 Psa 2:7
I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; *this day* have I begotten thee.

etc.


----------



## welderguy (Aug 18, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> none of that has anything to do with repentance or salvation. but being called for God's purpose



Any time the Holy Spirit calls(regenerates)one of His children, that is evidence that they have eternal life(salvation) abiding in them.

And, although you haven't said clearly one way or the other, repentance is not a prerequisite to regeneration. It's the result of it.

because...salvation is by grace, not works.We were dead in sins until He brought us into His marvelous light.


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 18, 2015)

Repentance is certainly is the first and most essential part of receiving a pardon. Do they give pardons who are not guilty?

You do not understand Grace. You do not understand Mercy.

 1Jo 1:9
If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

Is confessing first?


----------



## welderguy (Aug 18, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> Repentance is certainly is the first and most essential part of receiving a pardon. Do they give pardons who are not guilty?
> 
> You do not understand Grace. You do not understand Mercy.
> 
> ...



"For by grace are ye saved, through faith,and that not of yourselves,it is the gift of God:not of works, lest any man should boast."(Eph.2:8-9)

confession comes after you are regenerated by the Holy Spirit.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 18, 2015)

Two hardcore believers that know their Gods thoughts and wants and meanings yet each think the other doesn't  "get it".
Throw a few billion more Christians in the mix that all think they get it but the rest are wrong and it boils down to why I am convinced no actual all-powerful being is involved at all. The man made gods of the bible were written to try to explain what was not understood at the time but what the writers couldn't forsee was the  individual interpretation and even their gods can't compete with that.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 18, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Any time the Holy Spirit calls(regenerates)one of His children, that is evidence that they have eternal life(salvation) abiding in them.
> 
> And, although you haven't said clearly one way or the other, repentance is not a prerequisite to regeneration. It's the result of it.
> 
> because...salvation is by grace, not works.We were dead in sins until He brought us into His marvelous light.



Yet God already knew they were elected before this regeneration. They were elected at creation and regenerated at a way later date.
Therefore they are born saved. They are born with salvation. God will keep them physically alive until the already predetermined time of their regeneration. 
If this is so then all of the elected babies that die did so before regeneration. Actually this would be proof that no babies are elected as they don't have the proof given through regeneration. I guess one might say God regenerated them minutes before their physical death.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 18, 2015)

welderguy said:


> The nation of Israel.



How do we know which verse is referring to Israel, the Church, or the elect individuals?


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 18, 2015)

Act 10:34
Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:

God does not have favorites.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 18, 2015)

welderguy said:


> He's hidden these things from the wise and prudent and revealed them unto babes.Paradoxical, isn't it.
> Like Gris put it so well, mysterious ways.
> 
> BTW I'll try to get those links you wanted when I get home to my computer (phone's too hard)



The paradox is that he has revealed enough that none of us are without excuse. We have no excuse to not worship God. Even if we aren't of the elect we have still been given enough revelation to worship God. We are required to worship a God that never had in his plan a means for our salvation through election. 
In other words all of mankind must worship God even though "all" will not receive salvation through election.
We have been given enough knowledge to worship God but not enough to "see." See salvation through election.
That is the paradox.


----------



## welderguy (Aug 18, 2015)

bullethead said:


> Two hardcore believers that know their Gods thoughts and wants and meanings yet each think the other doesn't  "get it".
> Throw a few billion more Christians in the mix that all think they get it but the rest are wrong and it boils down to why I am convinced no actual all-powerful being is involved at all. God can't compete with individual interpretation.



Let me just say this.Market and I may not see exactly eye to eye on every single point,but I can assure you,we both can agree that we love Jesus and He loves us.From that one mutual bond,we can patiently put up with each other and help each other on each of our weak points.I don't claim to have all the answers and I don't think he does either but we can speak our minds freely and accept the fact that sometimes brothers in Christ have differences.Iron sharpeneth Iron.

I have no problem with disagreements,but there are some that only have intentions of causing strife and contention.That does no one any good whatsoever.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 18, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> Act 10:34
> Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
> 
> God does not have favorites.



The Reformed view is that God doesn't have favorites as whom he chooses yet he chose Jacob and hated Esau.
Actually God doesn't choose, he chose. 
The elect were chosen at creation so God couldn't use men's works as a basis for election.
Well he could use his foreknowledge to look into the future and base election on our actions but that would make him a respecter of man.

We haven't discussed the Potter yet and the fact that everything in the Bible was already in God's word/mind before it happened. The bible is just the revealing of God's plan. When Adam would sin, when he would flood the world, when he would choose Abraham and Israel, when he would send the messiah, when he would blind the Jews to let the Gentile be grafted in to receive salvation, and when Jesus will return. It already was in the mind of God at creation. Everything was created in six days and is revealed as new events. Nothing is new. The New Testament isn't even new.
Adam didn't have a choice. God didn't have a plan B.


----------



## welderguy (Aug 18, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> Act 10:34
> Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
> 
> God does not have favorites.



I don't believe your interpretation of Acts 10:34 is quite right if you think it means:



marketgunner said:


> God does not have favorites.



I say that because:

Romans 9:13
" As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated."


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 18, 2015)

welderguy said:


> I don't believe your interpretation of Acts 10:34 is quite right if you think it means:
> 
> I say that because:
> 
> ...



Seriously without causing strife and contention, why isn't God playing favorites as in choosing  Seth, Noah, Shem, Abraham, Isaac, and to continue on with the Davidic lineage. To also include choosing Mary, Mother of Jesus?

Why isn't playing favorites in choosing Jacob and Mary being "respecters of men?" God even says why he chose Mary because of  her attributes. Unlike Jacob did God choose Mary from her Mother's womb?


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 19, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> The Reformed view is that God doesn't have favorites as whom he chooses yet he chose Jacob and hated Esau.
> Actually God doesn't choose, he chose.
> The elect were chosen at creation so God couldn't use men's works as a basis for election.
> Well he could use his foreknowledge to look into the future and base election on our actions but that would make him a respecter of man.
> ...




Wow.  It took you a while but you finally got there. I told you that there was no way to reconcile freewill with an all powerful, omniscient, omnipotent God.

If He exists we are puppets.  I can see how a person might take comfort in that.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 19, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Let me just say this.Market and I may not see exactly eye to eye on every single point,but I can assure you,we both can agree that we love Jesus and He loves us.From that one mutual bond,we can patiently put up with each other and help each other on each of our weak points.I don't claim to have all the answers and I don't think he does either but we can speak our minds freely and accept the fact that sometimes brothers in Christ have differences.Iron sharpeneth Iron.
> 
> I have no problem with disagreements,but there are some that only have intentions of causing strife and contention.That does no one any good whatsoever.



Yet we non-believers are told that there is ONE universal truth to God and you just admitted that two highly educated men can't even agree to it. We've also been told that it's so simple that any literate child can understand it. 

Is it possible, maybe, that it's not quite so simple?


----------



## smokey30725 (Aug 19, 2015)

I'm a child of God, but do not claim by any means to be a theologian. There are others that are definitely more schooled in the scriptures than I, but to ME, and me alone, the crux of the bible is summed up fairly easily. The Old Testament is viewed through a historic lens, within it lying the history of the Jewish people. The New Testament is the story of Christ and prophecy fulfilled. I may get mocked for this, but I think the children's song "Jesus Loves Me" sums it up quite well. He loves us and desires for us to reciprocate that love. We can debate election and predestination all day long and good men of God will have honest disagreements, but regarding the concept of it being so simple that a child can understand it, I just refer to the song above. "Jesus loves me, this I know. For the bible tells me so. Little ones to Him belong. They are weak, but He is strong." Feel free to jab at me, but that's my admittedly simplistic view of things.


----------



## rmp (Aug 19, 2015)

smokey30725 said:


> I may get mocked for this, but I think the children's song "Jesus Loves Me" sums it up quite well. He loves us and desires for us to reciprocate that love. regarding the concept of it being so simple that a child can understand it, I just refer to the song above. "Jesus loves me, this I know. For the bible tells me so. Little ones to Him belong. They are weak, but He is strong." Feel free to jab at me, but that's my admittedly simplistic view of things.



Unless you name is Esau or if you are of the "non-elect" destined for he!! category.


----------



## welderguy (Aug 19, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Yet we non-believers are told that there is ONE universal truth to God and you just admitted that two highly educated men can't even agree to it. We've also been told that it's so simple that any literate child can understand it.
> 
> Is it possible, maybe, that it's not quite so simple?



I believe that's exactly the way God designed it to be.It's genius.He's not only hidden the basics from the wise and prudent and revealed it to the simple, but the deeper golden nuggets have to be mined out through hard labor(study and prayer).He even designed it so that we need preaching by called, Godly men of God.And we build one another up in the most holy faith.He told us we "press" into His kingdom.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 19, 2015)

smokey30725 said:


> I'm a child of God, but do not claim by any means to be a theologian. There are others that are definitely more schooled in the scriptures than I, but to ME, and me alone, the crux of the bible is summed up fairly easily. The Old Testament is viewed through a historic lens, within it lying the history of the Jewish people. The New Testament is the story of Christ and prophecy fulfilled. I may get mocked for this, but I think the children's song "Jesus Loves Me" sums it up quite well. He loves us and desires for us to reciprocate that love. We can debate election and predestination all day long and good men of God will have honest disagreements, but regarding the concept of it being so simple that a child can understand it, I just refer to the song above. "Jesus loves me, this I know. For the bible tells me so. Little ones to Him belong. They are weak, but He is strong." Feel free to jab at me, but that's my admittedly simplistic view of things.



There's no jab. If that's being conveyed then I apologize. I'm only trying to inject a little humor through sarcasm, and text is a horrible means to do that unless I explicitly state it as such. 

Before I became agnostic I took the benevolent father route in my faith. How would a good hearted father react to mistakes his children made? How would he teach them, and how would he treat them? 

I ran into a roadblock when I, and those I loved, began to take metaphoric beatings in our lives for no apparent reason. Yes, there's a time for corporeal punishment, i.e. I do believe in spanking as a form of discipline, but it's never step 1. For that kind of punishment a person has to A) understand the lesson being taught, B) be given attempts at demonstrating internalized knowledge of that lesson, and C) failed at them sufficiently frequently enough so that all other means of re-education are exhausted. 

Not exposing the lesson and jumping straight to corporeal punishment, to me, smacks of an abusive relationship and that's been covered before. 



welderguy said:


> I believe that's exactly the way God designed it to be.It's genius.He's not only hidden the basics from the wise and prudent and revealed it to the simple, but the deeper golden nuggets have to be mined out through hard labor(study and prayer).He even designed it so that we need preaching by called, Godly men of God.And we build one another up in the most holy faith.He told us we "press" into His kingdom.



So it's so simple a kid could understand it, and yet ambiguous enough so as to be hidden from those who would dare use their brains? Brilliant! Another oxymoronic explanation that I'm sure isn't seen as a contradiction to anyone who has the faith. 

A serious question, did you come to that conclusion yourself, or did you have help getting there?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 19, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Wow.  It took you a while but you finally got there. I told you that there was no way to reconcile freewill with an all powerful, omniscient, omnipotent God.
> 
> If He exists we are puppets.  I can see how a person might take comfort in that.



In relation to an all powerful God who predestined everything, I was thinking about the Great Pyramids.
I know I'm not suppose to question God's motives but I can't understand why he would have all of those Kings build those things. Why didn't he just blind them to his revelation enough that they'd just realize they didn't need their physical bodies in the afterlife?

And to think they had enough knowledge about God through his general revelation to worship the correct God. They chose to ignore God and build elaborate tombs.
They were without excuse. If God planned the pyramids in the six days of creation, then these Kings had no other option than to build the Pyramids. Yet they were without excuse.
I think I should have stopped looking years ago, I don't like what I'm seeing and it's scary.


----------



## smokey30725 (Aug 19, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> There's no jab. If that's being conveyed then I apologize. I'm only trying to inject a little humor through sarcasm, and text is a horrible means to do that unless I explicitly state it as such.
> 
> Before I became agnostic I took the benevolent father route in my faith. How would a good hearted father react to mistakes his children made? How would he teach them, and how would he treat them?
> 
> ...



I don't have any answers as to why things happen to us in our earthly lives. I know the bible does reference the fact that it rains on both the just and the unjust. I guess that was the author's way of saying that sometimes bad things in this world just happen due to the fact that it is a fallen world. I may never know why my son was born with some specific developmental issues. I praise God for him nonetheless. I've seen God move in him and give us weeks, if not months, of pleasant days. Then, for whatever reason, we enter a season where it's all my wife and I can do to hang on through his rage, anxiety, and frustration issues. Believe me, I've worn spots in my carpet while on my knees begging the Lord for help. And when He comes by, it's so very evident. My son may never have a "normal" path in this life, but I will never cease to praise God for giving him to us, even during the times that I feel like giving up.


----------



## welderguy (Aug 19, 2015)

smokey30725 said:


> I don't have any answers as to why things happen to us in our earthly lives. I know the bible does reference the fact that it rains on both the just and the unjust. I guess that was the author's way of saying that sometimes bad things in this world just happen due to the fact that it is a fallen world. I may never know why my son was born with some specific developmental issues. I praise God for him nonetheless. I've seen God move in him and give us weeks, if not months, of pleasant days. Then, for whatever reason, we enter a season where it's all my wife and I can do to hang on through his rage, anxiety, and frustration issues. Believe me, I've worn spots in my carpet while on my knees begging the Lord for help. And when He comes by, it's so very evident. My son may never have a "normal" path in this life, but I will never cease to praise God for giving him to us, even during the times that I feel like giving up.



Great post!! Thanks for sharing Smokey.Hang in there.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 19, 2015)

smokey30725 said:


> I don't have any answers as to why things happen to us in our earthly lives. I know the bible does reference the fact that it rains on both the just and the unjust. I guess that was the author's way of saying that sometimes bad things in this world just happen due to the fact that it is a fallen world. I may never know why my son was born with some specific developmental issues. I praise God for him nonetheless. I've seen God move in him and give us weeks, if not months, of pleasant days. Then, for whatever reason, we enter a season where it's all my wife and I can do to hang on through his rage, anxiety, and frustration issues. Believe me, I've worn spots in my carpet while on my knees begging the Lord for help. And when He comes by, it's so very evident. My son may never have a "normal" path in this life, but I will never cease to praise God for giving him to us, even during the times that I feel like giving up.



I am sincerely glad that faith enables you to do what you need to do. Really, I am. 

I reconciled the fact that if faith is a test then it's one I miserably failed, and I'm okay with that. I do have moments where I think I feel something move, but it's never been at the tough times, it's been in the good times and that's too easy to build a faith upon. It would happen quick, but it would also fail quickly. 

I'm sorry that your family is having to deal with the trials it is. I wish there were something better I could say, or do, that could assist. Please know that you can reach out to me anytime you need to talk, I promise I won't try to talk you out of your faith, and I am more than willing to just sit and listen. PM me anytime and we'll go from there.


----------



## smokey30725 (Aug 19, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I am sincerely glad that faith enables you to do what you need to do. Really, I am.
> 
> I reconciled the fact that if faith is a test then it's one I miserably failed, and I'm okay with that. I do have moments where I think I feel something move, but it's never been at the tough times, it's been in the good times and that's too easy to build a faith upon. It would happen quick, but it would also fail quickly.
> 
> I'm sorry that your family is having to deal with the trials it is. I wish there were something better I could say, or do, that could assist. Please know that you can reach out to me anytime you need to talk, I promise I won't try to talk you out of your faith, and I am more than willing to just sit and listen. PM me anytime and we'll go from there.



I sincerely appreciate that. I would encourage you not to look upon faith as a test you have failed. As long as there is breath in us, we still can experience it. I can't give you directions on how exactly to establish a cornerstone on faith that will solidify your belief structure, but I do know that fervent prayer is a good start. I'm in no way saying that in your past experience that you were in any way slack in your perseverance. Some people just seem destined for a difficult path in this life. I've known some people who mirror Job's experiences in the old testament. I've seen some of them break and some of them push through. Some days when things are difficult with my child, giving up sounds like a really good option. Times like that require me to draw on that deep-rooted faith and realize that this life is, as the bible says, like a vapor. My trials and tribulations in this life seem difficult to me, but with the promise of an eternity free from the shackles of this world, I know I can endure.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 19, 2015)

smokey30725 said:


> I sincerely appreciate that. I would encourage you not to look upon faith as a test you have failed. As long as there is breath in us, we still can experience it. I can't give you directions on how exactly to establish a cornerstone on faith that will solidify your belief structure, but I do know that fervent prayer is a good start. I'm in no way saying that in your past experience that you were in any way slack in your perseverance. Some people just seem destined for a difficult path in this life. I've known some people who mirror Job's experiences in the old testament. I've seen some of them break and some of them push through. Some days when things are difficult with my child, giving up sounds like a really good option. Times like that require me to draw on that deep-rooted faith and realize that this life is, as the bible says, like a vapor. My trials and tribulations in this life seem difficult to me, but with the promise of an eternity free from the shackles of this world, I know I can endure.



I've found the explanation that makes sense to me and can predict the future with the same accuracy as any other. I'm okay with that. I won't rule out a faithful experience in the future, and I do wait for it, but I don't go so far as to expect it. I hold myself open to the idea, and I will engage in discussions about it. 

In that lack of expectation is also the belief that it won't likely be anything accurately described in the world's religions. If something were to happen that I suddenly had faith again, I genuinely doubt that I would point to God, or Buddha, or any other of the familiar gods and attribute it to them. But it could happen, too. 

To be totally honest, I'm happier believing that the rough lot that some people get in life is due simply to the randomness of the universe and some people just getting that lottery ticket rather than it being part of a loving God's plan. I can't square love with that kind of suffering, and I've tried. It was the last straw in my faith.


----------



## welderguy (Aug 19, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I can't square love with that kind of suffering, and I've tried.



Not even if you could believe this?:

"For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared to the glory which shall be revealed in us."(Rom.8:18)


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 19, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Not even if you could believe this?:
> 
> "For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared to the glory which shall be revealed in us."(Rom.8:18)



Not even.

What if I told you that I would give you everything your heart ever desired this Christmas morning? What if I also told you that, between now and then, I would be whipping you with razor wire and you had no choice but to accept it? 

Am I benevolent, or cruel, sick and twisted? If you accept does that not make you masochistic?


----------



## welderguy (Aug 19, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Not even.
> 
> What if I told you that I would give you everything your heart ever desired this Christmas morning? What if I also told you that, between now and then, I would be whipping you with razor wire and you had no choice but to accept it?
> 
> Am I benevolent, or cruel, sick and twisted? If you accept does that not make you masochistic?



If "everything my heart ever desired" includes eternal joy and peace with my Lord and Saviour in heaven.Then, yes, I'm all over that deal.

And, you would be very benevolent because the temporary agony cannot compare with the ETERNAL perfectness.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 19, 2015)

welderguy said:


> If "everything my heart ever desired" includes eternal joy and peace with my Lord and Saviour in heaven.Then, yes, I'm all over that deal.
> 
> And, you would be very benevolent because the temporary agony cannot compare with the ETERNAL perfectness.



I've got nothing. If I'm so benevolent, and all-powerful as I would have to be to fulfill the promise, I could also do it without the suffering and still manage to make you appreciate the gift that it is. And yet I've chosen to make you suffer. 

It's plain wrong.


----------



## welderguy (Aug 19, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I've got nothing. If I'm so benevolent, and all-powerful as I would have to be to fulfill the promise, I could also do it without the suffering and still manage to make you appreciate the gift that it is. And yet I've chosen to make you suffer.
> 
> It's plain wrong.



It's the way He designed His plan for His children to have the most intimate fellowship with Him.We are partakers of His sufferings. It grows our faith in the process, drawing us to Himself.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 19, 2015)

welderguy said:


> If "everything my heart ever desired" includes eternal joy and peace with my Lord and Saviour in heaven.Then, yes, I'm all over that deal.
> 
> And, you would be very benevolent because the temporary agony cannot compare with the ETERNAL perfectness.



I'm OK with the temporary agony compared to the eternal perfectness if we all get a chance at the eternal perfectness.

"For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared to the glory which shall be revealed in us."(Rom.8:18)

The sufferings aren't worthy of comparison if one is of the elect.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 19, 2015)

welderguy said:


> It's the way He designed His plan for His children to have the most intimate fellowship with Him.We are partakers of His sufferings. It grows our faith in the process, drawing us to Himself.



It grows your faith, sure. I'm apparently faith defective.


----------



## welderguy (Aug 19, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> It grows your faith, sure. I'm apparently faith defective.



Only God knows that.Not you and not me. (until He reveals it otherwise to you, of course)

If you have the ability to seek Him, you should do it, with all your heart, holding nothing back.If He has given you that, and you come to Him,He promised He will not refuse you.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 19, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Only God knows that.Not you and not me. (until He reveals it otherwise to you, of course)
> 
> If you have the ability to seek Him, you should do it, with all your heart, holding nothing back.If He has given you that, and you come to Him,He promised He will not refuse you.



Given that I am not currently capable of faith in that sense then I would say it's at the very least accurate. 

I'm seeking something. Whether it's Him or something else, or nothing, I can't say.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 19, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I'm no rocket surgeon, but one child is enough to make a man a father, or am I missing something?



Sorry, I corrected it.
I was referring to folks saying "Our Father, which ...etc"


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 19, 2015)

660griz said:


> Sorry, I corrected it.
> I was referring to folks saying "Our Father, which ...etc"



That makes more sense.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 19, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> In relation to an all powerful God who predestined everything, I was thinking about the Great Pyramids.
> I know I'm not suppose to question God's motives but I can't understand why he would have all of those Kings build those things. Why didn't he just blind them to his revelation enough that they'd just realize they didn't need their physical bodies in the afterlife?
> 
> And to think they had enough knowledge about God through his general revelation to worship the correct God. They chose to ignore God and build elaborate tombs.
> ...





smokey30725 said:


> I don't have any answers as to why things happen to us in our earthly lives. I know the bible does reference the fact that it rains on both the just and the unjust. I guess that was the author's way of saying that sometimes bad things in this world just happen due to the fact that it is a fallen world. I may never know why my son was born with some specific developmental issues. I praise God for him nonetheless. I've seen God move in him and give us weeks, if not months, of pleasant days. Then, for whatever reason, we enter a season where it's all my wife and I can do to hang on through his rage, anxiety, and frustration issues. Believe me, I've worn spots in my carpet while on my knees begging the Lord for help. And when He comes by, it's so very evident. My son may never have a "normal" path in this life, but I will never cease to praise God for giving him to us, even during the times that I feel like giving up.





"If you believe in things that you don't understand then you suffer...."


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 19, 2015)

The universe acting contrary to the Second Law of Thermodynamics is evidence of God.

The atheist acting contrary to their proclamation is evidence of God. 

Morality

Why would an atheist protect their children?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 19, 2015)

Although they knew God by his creation, they chose to worship idols.
They exchanged the truth for a lie. They were without excuse.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 19, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> The universe acting contrary to the Second Law of Thermodynamics is evidence of God.
> 
> The atheist acting contrary to their proclamation is evidence of God.
> 
> ...


Which God? Of all the gods ,please narrow it down by elimination of the others to why the one you so happen to worship is the one responsible .

Morality varies among humans and circumstances. No god needed

Humans protect their children for the same reasons all creatures protect their children. No god needed.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 19, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> The universe acting contrary to the Second Law of Thermodynamics is evidence of God.
> 
> The atheist acting contrary to their proclamation is evidence of God.
> 
> ...


Please explain how the universe acts contrary to the second law of thermodynamics instead of just making the claim.


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 19, 2015)

No, others have moral basis,  even of their own making.

Atheists reject any moral basis.  They have to. Why would man have or need a moral compass? Do they love their children?  Does it make the atheist better?  Why wouldn't they remove the children as a bear might? There would be more food, more resources, more money ,  more time with the spouses?

Why does the atheist act contrary to animals?


----------



## bullethead (Aug 19, 2015)

First off you are in here AGAIN making claims with ZERO basis to back them up. Are you an expert on Atheists now?
Human traits do not need a god.
There are plenty of believers in some god or another that act just as the bear does. Entire cultures have been doing it for tens of thousands of years.
Why does the believer act in accordance with the animals?


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 19, 2015)

I am only asking questions.

Do not atheists have to claim humans are just animals? 
Where do these "human" traits come from?  
Why are they different from animals?

Maybe morality comes from God embedded in humans?


----------



## bullethead (Aug 19, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> I am only asking questions.
> 
> Do not atheists have to claim humans are just animals?
> Where do these "human" traits come from?
> ...


These things have been discussed in here to the tune of multiple threads and thousands of replies. 
It has been shown that Evolution has had the greatest impact on human morality and traits. It can be linked.

No god can be linked to morals let alone any specific god.
I noticed you are avoiding some answers to the questions I have asked you.
Of all the tens of thousands of gods that your humans have worshiped since the beginning of human existence, which god can you narrow  all these traits and morals down to?
For every broad brush claim you make about an Atheist I can show you a Christian that acts the same way. It means nothing.


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 19, 2015)

bullethead said:


> These things have been discussed in here to the tune of multiple threads and thousands of replies.
> It has been shown that Evolution has had the greatest impact on human morality and traits. It can be linked.
> 
> No god can be linked to morals let alone any specific god.
> ...



Anyone, everyone , if the moral bases is correct , should act morally,  The question is why does the atheist act morally when it is against their  doctrine .

It is not the idea of many gods or  ideas of gods but the source of morality.  An atheist must reject ALL moral ideas.


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 19, 2015)

bullethead said:


> Please explain how the universe acts contrary to the second law of thermodynamics instead of just making the claim.



entropy,  a measure of unused energy

The 2nd law says" The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the state of entropy of the entire universe, as an isolated system, will always increase over time. The second law also states that the changes in the entropy in the universe can never be negative."

from order to disorder, 

yet the universe is said to act opposite from disorder to order , from lower level life to more complex,  expanding, yet not slowing down but perhaps increasing.

It cannot happen without interference


----------



## drippin' rock (Aug 19, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> No, others have moral basis,  even of their own making.
> 
> Atheists reject any moral basis.  They have to. Why would man have or need a moral compass? Do they love their children?  Does it make the atheist better?  Why wouldn't they remove the children as a bear might? There would be more food, more resources, more money ,  more time with the spouses?
> 
> Why does the atheist act contrary to animals?



Oh, good lord. Here we go again...


----------



## bullethead (Aug 19, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> Anyone, everyone , if the moral bases is correct , should act morally,  The question is why does the atheist act morally when it is against their  doctrine .
> 
> It is not the idea of many gods or  ideas of gods but the source of morality.  An atheist must reject ALL moral ideas.


Evolution is the source of morality governed by society,culture,situation  and individuals. Show me a source outside of this world.

Please explain to us exactly what the Atheist doctrine is.

Being that an Atheist is human and the fact that morality has been shown to evolve as humans evolved there is no reason for an Atheist to reject any morals.

It is You that is making these claims about Atheists and moral basis yet there are examples of humans of every race,creed and belief or non-belief system that act morally and not morally. But your version of morals differ from others just as theirs differ from more others.
If you were born in certain tribes you would not bat an eye at raping and young girl from another tribe, eating human flesh, giving your own child away or even leaving an infant out in the elements to die because the village cannot support it...and you would do this while you praised your god for giving you the morals to carry out those tasks.

You have your moral basis source wrong and that is why your argument is flawed.
There is no one ultimate source. Morals evolved as humans evolved and worldwide, country wide, locally,...societies  and families and situations govern morals. Morals vary as much as humans do. The world is your example.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 19, 2015)

Would not the Atheist benefit from being made in the image of God even if he doesn't believe in God? Wouldn't he have morals from his general revelation in God even if he exchanged the truth for a lie?

Unless he is totally depraved or has been turned over to a reprobate mind. Either way he is without excuse.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 19, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> entropy,  a measure of unused energy
> 
> The 2nd law says" The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the state of entropy of the entire universe, as an isolated system, will always increase over time. The second law also states that the changes in the entropy in the universe can never be negative."
> 
> ...


Where is the interference?

You skipped over the 1st Law of Thermodynamics.


----------



## drippin' rock (Aug 19, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> Would not the Atheist benefit from being made in the image of God even if he doesn't believe in God? Wouldn't he have morals from his general revelation in God even if he exchanged the truth for a lie?
> 
> Unless he is totally depraved or has been turned over to a reprobate mind. Either way he is without excuse.



But "the image of God" is Christian theory. you state it as fact, when it is really just an idea.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 19, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> Would not the Atheist benefit from being made in the image of God even if he doesn't believe in God? Wouldn't he have morals from his general revelation in God even if he exchanged the truth for a lie?
> 
> Unless he is totally depraved or has been turned over to a reprobate mind. Either way he is without excuse.


If we are dealing in the make believe sure.
But then again using your logic the Atheist could benefit from any of the thousands of gods....IF it could be shown that ANY of these gods actually exist.
What are the morals of Zeus? Mithra?
Doesn't a human have the image of Zeus?


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 19, 2015)

bullethead said:


> Where is the interference?
> 
> You skipped over the 1st Law of Thermodynamics.



What?  The law of conservation of energy? What has that got to do with it?


----------



## bullethead (Aug 19, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> What?  The law of conservation of energy? What has that got to do with it?


If energy can neither be created or destroyed and just changes forms, it has ALWAYS had to have existed and is responsible for the way the Universe was made and acts.


----------



## welderguy (Aug 20, 2015)

bullethead said:


> If energy can neither be created or destroyed and just changes forms, it has ALWAYS had to have existed and is responsible for the way the Universe was made and acts.



God created everything.period.

Collosians 1:16
"For by Him were all things created, that are in heaven,and that are in earth,visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities,or powers:all things were created by Him, and for Him."


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 20, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> No, others have moral basis,  even of their own making.
> *
> Atheists reject any moral basis.  They have to.* Why would man have or need a moral compass? Do they love their children?  Does it make the atheist better?  Why wouldn't they remove the children as a bear might? There would be more food, more resources, more money ,  more time with the spouses?
> 
> Why does the atheist act contrary to animals?



I'd love to see you back that up.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 20, 2015)

welderguy said:


> God created everything.period.
> 
> Collosians 1:16
> "For by Him were all things created, that are in heaven,and that are in earth,visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities,or powers:all things were created by Him, and for Him."


And EVERY religion ever has a passage how their god(s) created everything. Period.
That passage above and a dollar will get you a coffee at Micky Ds. Otherwise it is meaningless.


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 21, 2015)

bullethead said:


> And EVERY religion ever has a passage how their god(s) created everything. Period.
> That passage above and a dollar will get you a coffee at Micky Ds. Otherwise it is meaningless.



What if I said they are all wrong, some more than others?
What would you think?


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 21, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> What if I said they are all wrong, some more than others?
> What would you think?




I'd like you to go through the ones that you have vast or even very good knowledge of and point by point explain the strength or weakness of their claims.

I'll help you.  Start with Buddhism.  How wrong is it?  Don't know about Buddhism?  OK, how about Druids?  How off the mark are they?  Native Americans?  Are they close to understanding?


----------



## bullethead (Aug 21, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> What if I said they are all wrong, some more than others?
> What would you think?


I would say that as long as the religion you worship is included in ALL.. I agree 100%


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 21, 2015)

I am against religion, I have a relationship.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 21, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> I am against religion, I have a relationship.



So do they. Sometimes they feel His presence when they eat whale meat.   You prefer crackers and wine.


----------



## welderguy (Aug 22, 2015)

I will say that all religions that refuse to acknowledge that Jesus Christ is the Son of God,are false.

And then,all that refuse to acknowledge Jesus Christ's resurrection,are false.

If you don't like that,fine.That's just the way I see it and believe.


----------



## East River Guide (Aug 22, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> I have a relationship.



You have a fanciful delusion that society tolerates right up to the time your imaginary friend tells you to kill your children.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 22, 2015)

welderguy said:


> I will say that all religions that refuse to acknowledge that Jesus Christ is the Son of God,are false.
> 
> And then,all that refuse to acknowledge Jesus Christ's resurrection,are false.
> 
> If you don't like that,fine.That's just the way I see it and believe.




And Ford trucks are the best.  If you don't like it, too bad.


----------



## welderguy (Aug 22, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> And Ford trucks are the best.  If you don't like it, too bad.



AMEN!
That may be the truest statement you've ever made on this forum....or ever!


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 22, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> So do they. Sometimes they feel His presence when they eat whale meat.   You prefer crackers and wine.



If YOU do something in order to reach or please God , it is religion. (ie Whale meat)

My relationship is solely based on what GOD has done to reach me, because I can do nothing on my own.

Why do you think I am Catholic?  You misconceptions are your problem.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 23, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> If YOU do something in order to reach or please God , it is religion. (ie Whale meat)
> 
> My relationship is solely based on what GOD has done to reach me, because I can do nothing on my own.



What has he done to reach you?  Share your experience.



marketgunner said:


> Why do you think I am Catholic?  You misconceptions are your problem.



You don't do the Eucharist or do you not use wine and crackers?


----------



## drippin' rock (Aug 23, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> What has he done to reach you?  Share your experience.
> 
> 
> 
> You don't do the Eucharist or do you not use wine and crackers?



I think he means he's southern baptist. No wine. Welch's grape juice.


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 23, 2015)

What do you think the last supper was?


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 23, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> What do you think the last supper was?



Pita bread and fermented grapes. Goat meat, olives, olive oil with garlic, hearts of palm and dates.  Maybe pistachios.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 23, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Pita bread and fermented grapes. Goat meat, olives, olive oil with garlic, hearts of palm and dates.  Maybe pistachios.



No Hummus?


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 23, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Pita bread and fermented grapes. Goat meat, olives, olive oil with garlic, hearts of palm and dates.  Maybe pistachios.



what was its purpose?


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 23, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> No Hummus?



Not this time.


----------



## Terminal Idiot (Aug 26, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> What do you think the last supper was?



Made up


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 26, 2015)

Terminal Idiot said:


> Made up



Do you think the Feast of the Preparation (which was the meal used in the "last Supper"  nor the Passover Seder (as some mistakenly suppose is the meal) is "made up?

The same ceremonial meal that has happen for  about 4000 years is made up?

4000 years and millions of occurrences ,  made up?


----------



## bullethead (Aug 26, 2015)

Why doesn't all current human DNA trace back to Noah and 7 others?


----------



## Terminal Idiot (Aug 26, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> Do you think the Feast of the Preparation (which was the meal used in the "last Supper"  nor the Passover Seder (as some mistakenly suppose is the meal) is "made up?
> 
> The same ceremonial meal that has happen for  about 4000 years is made up?
> 
> 4000 years and millions of occurrences ,  made up?



Are you asking me if 4000 years of occurrences happened? Are you asking me if passover has ever been celebrated? Or if there was a guy, who was the son of God (or was actually god - depending on which church you go to)who was eating his last meal before being put to death? I honestly have no solid evidence that that person lived the time line you think he did - or experienced the things you think he did. The only proof you have is a book that I find excessively flawed.


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 27, 2015)

Terminal Idiot said:


> Are you asking me if 4000 years of occurrences happened? Are you asking me if passover has ever been celebrated? Or if there was a guy, who was the son of God (or was actually god - depending on which church you go to)who was eating his last meal before being put to death? I honestly have no solid evidence that that person lived the time line you think he did - or experienced the things you think he did. The only proof you have is a book that I find excessively flawed.



you said it was made up, so what was made up?

even Jesus's contemporary enemies agree he existed.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 27, 2015)

Terminal Idiot said:


> Are you asking me if 4000 years of occurrences happened? Are you asking me if passover has ever been celebrated? Or if there was a guy, who was the son of God (or was actually god - depending on which church you go to)who was eating his last meal before being put to death? I honestly have no solid evidence that that person lived the time line you think he did - or experienced the things you think he did. The only proof you have is a book that I find excessively flawed.


#256 and #257 has em thinking.
Like you said the common occurrences are not is what is miraculous or signs of a god.
It is the embellishments that take the normal and try to convince the reader it was much more. Every culture has similar stories that are dismissed as crazy folklore by the same people trying to convince everyone else that their crazy folklore is somehow more true.


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 27, 2015)

check out the other forum , Is Jesus a fictional character?

even those that dismissed Jesus as a leader of a jewish cult recorded that he existed.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 27, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> you said it was made up, so what was made up?
> 
> even Jesus's contemporary enemies agree he existed.


Few think there was never a charismatic guy named Yeshoua who rebelled against the religious authorities that the story of Jesus is based off of. It is the lack of these miraculous deeds talked about and written about while he was alive that are notable.
Only after his death and decades after his death was anything written about him. 
There are meticulous records about births,deaths, taxes, wars, leaders and even other "messiah"types that are more accurate and were written by witnesses AS they happened. Nobody, literally no one, recorded Jesus in his prime. Nobody that saw water turned into wine or feeding 500 or flying up into the heavens thought enough to write it down...yet at the same time many other things were recorded by multiple sources.
To me it speaks loudly that there was nothing miraculous going on while he did his preaching.  He didn't stand out right then right there. He was no more or no less until he ticked off the religious authority. Then, like many others , was killed for making trouble.
30,40,50,60,70+ years later guys that never knew him, never witnessed him, never were present when it was Jesus and one other person wrote and embellished stories about him. One story was written and others used that story as a base to write off of. The stories contradict. They are inaccurate in geography,science and customs. They differ on specific details about what was said. Who was present at events. Etc etc etc etc. 
It is all hokey embellishments to some real places, some real people and some real events in order to make "their beliefs" stand out from the tons of other beliefs in the regions during those times.

Like I said earlier...for the time these writers were incredibly talented. But they did not account for the advancements in human knowledge.
DNA is very accurate. Lineages have been traced back to the first humans in Africa.
None of it comes back to any of the 8 people on a boat floating around a flooded world.


----------



## welderguy (Aug 27, 2015)

Do you believe in ghosts? Maybe? Maybe not?

either way, check this out:

http://www.theknightshift.com/2005/10/top-ten-best-ghost-photographs-ever.html


----------



## bullethead (Aug 27, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Do you believe in ghosts? Maybe? Maybe not?
> 
> either way, check this out:
> 
> http://www.theknightshift.com/2005/10/top-ten-best-ghost-photographs-ever.html



I have a few weird/unexplainable  experiences.
It makes some sense to me that energy rules the roost and there could be some residual energy left after death.
That being said...I cannot understand how any ghost is anything other than in their birthday suit because I have a hard time wrapping my mind around why clothing and inanimate objects and sounds have an afterlife.
Why a hat,  clothes, sword, gun ,cannon fire, gun shots, clanking bottles or jingling spurs would also be seen and heard is beyond my rational thinking.


----------



## rmp (Aug 27, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Do you believe in ghosts?


No. Nor do I believe in psychics, spirits, Bigfoot, unicorns, leprechauns, or fairys. 
One of the first comments in the link summed it up.
"Ghosts = hogwash + gullible people."

James Randi has one million dollars waiting on anyone who can prove otherwise.


James Randi


----------



## welderguy (Aug 27, 2015)

What about the psychics that help the police solve cases with uncanny accuracy? 

Believe that?


----------



## bullethead (Aug 27, 2015)

rmp said:


> No. Nor do I believe in spirits, Bigfoot, unicorns, leprechauns, or fairys.
> One of the first comments in the link summed it up.
> "Ghosts = hogwash + gullible people."
> 
> ...


The mind has a way of interpreting things that it doesn't understand into things it can relate to.
Look at all the fuss over the images coming from Mars. Natural objects that humans think look like familiar objects.

People ask what are the odds that random items combine to create something yet they totally dismiss the random way a toaster will leave burn marks on a slice of bread that just so happens to look like the Virgin Mary. The burn pattern is close enough that the brain sees it for what it thinks it should be rather than what it is.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 27, 2015)

welderguy said:


> What about the psychics that help the police solve cases with uncanny accuracy?
> 
> Believe that?


No not really.
Dead people never seem to be specific. If a psychic is talking to my Gram i doubt my gram is showing her a mailbox or the letter Q or a word with a Emm sound.
The psychic always says "who here in the audience knows someone that has passed whos name starts with (insert ANY letter of the alphabet here) and goes into the most random stuff and process of elimination until someone bites.

Ones that help the police....id have to see just how many times they are wrong compared to right. You only ever hear about the ones that pan out.


----------



## rmp (Aug 27, 2015)

bullethead said:


> The mind has a way of interpreting things that it doesn't understand into things it can relate to.
> Look at all the fuss over the images coming from Mars. Natural objects that humans think look like familiar objects.



Exactly. I saw a pretty interesting show a while back on just that subject. Thinking it was called "your bleeped up brain".


----------



## welderguy (Aug 27, 2015)

bullethead said:


> The mind has a way of interpreting things that it doesn't understand into things it can relate to.
> Look at all the fuss over the images coming from Mars. Natural objects that humans think look like familiar objects.
> 
> People ask what are the odds that random items combine to create something yet they totally dismiss the random way a toaster will leave burn marks on a slice of bread that just so happens to look like the Virgin Mary. The burn pattern is close enough that the brain sees it for what it thinks it should be rather than what it is.



So are you suggesting that the photos of the "ghosts" are just figments of everyone's imagination that look at it?
Or are you saying that they are fabricated falsely?


----------



## bullethead (Aug 27, 2015)

welderguy said:


> So are you suggesting that the photos of the "ghosts" are just figments of everyone's imagination that look at it?
> Or are you saying that they are fabricated falsely?



What I am saying is that I do not know what they are.
Some could be fabricated. 
Some could have things in there that look like familiar things to us.
Some just might be "real".

Let me ask you... How does the undead fit in with your religious beliefs? How does a ghost get to bypass your gods system?


----------



## rmp (Aug 27, 2015)

welderguy said:


> What about the psychics that help the police solve cases with uncanny accuracy?
> 
> Believe that?



No sir. I'd be curious to see said psychics failure rate just to prove the point.


----------



## welderguy (Aug 27, 2015)

bullethead said:


> What I am saying is that I do not know what they are.
> Some could be fabricated.
> Some could have things in there that look like familiar things to us.
> Some just might be "real".
> ...



Looks like you've got all your bases covered,without comitting to believing any of them.Thats fine.I didn't expect you to.

As far as my beliefs,you already know exactly what I believe.Everything the bible says about ghosts and psychics.And I know what you think about my beliefs as well.You and I don't have a very good history of conversing well about our beliefs.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 27, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Looks like you've got all your bases covered,without comitting to believing any of them.Thats fine.I didn't expect you to.
> 
> As far as my beliefs,you already know exactly what I believe.Everything the bible says about ghosts and psychics.And I know what you think about my beliefs as well.You and I don't have a very good history of conversing well about our beliefs.


What should I do..make something up or be honest? 

Funny how when our conversation is civil you don't want to talk in depth.
I can't find the passage where god says ghost pics are real.


----------



## welderguy (Aug 27, 2015)

bullethead said:


> What should I do..make something up or be honest?
> 
> Funny how when our conversation is civil you don't want to talk in depth.
> I can't find the passage where god says ghost pics are real.



I've been burned too many times.I'm kinda over it.

The bible is full of ghost talk.Pictures,no,obviously.
And there's also scripture validating psychic phenomenon.


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 27, 2015)

bullethead said:


> Few think there was never a charismatic guy named Yeshoua who rebelled against the religious authorities that the story of Jesus is based off of. It is the lack of these miraculous deeds talked about and written about while he was alive that are notable.
> Only after his death and decades after his death was anything written about him.
> There are meticulous records about births,deaths, taxes, wars, leaders and even other "messiah"types that are more accurate and were written by witnesses AS they happened. Nobody, literally no one, recorded Jesus in his prime. Nobody that saw water turned into wine or feeding 500 or flying up into the heavens thought enough to write it down...yet at the same time many other things were recorded by multiple sources.
> To me it speaks loudly that there was nothing miraculous going on while he did his preaching.  He didn't stand out right then right there. He was no more or no less until he ticked off the religious authority. Then, like many others , was killed for making trouble.
> ...




I thought you were talking about Jesus, not Noah.

Are you questioning that different points of view of Jesus life  from different writers are not the same?  

Why should they be the same? 


even His enemies record He exists

Gittin 57a. Says Jesus is in CensoredCensoredCensoredCensored, being boiled in "hot excrement."


----------



## bullethead (Aug 27, 2015)

welderguy said:


> I've been burned too many times.I'm kinda over it.
> 
> The bible is full of ghost talk.Pictures,no,obviously.
> And there's also scripture validating psychic phenomenon.


What does the bible say about human dna not being confined to the original Jewish tribe?
Why doesn't all dna trace back to Adam and Eve through Noah and instead trace back to human ancestors over a million years ago and in Africa?


----------



## welderguy (Aug 27, 2015)

bullethead said:


> What does the bible say about human dna not being confined to the original Jewish tribe?
> Why doesn't all dna trace back to Adam and Eve through Noah and instead trace back to human ancestors over a million years ago and in Africa?



Don't know.But it's pretty irrelevant to the subject of the existence of ghosts,don't you think?


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 27, 2015)

bullethead said:


> What does the bible say about human dna not being confined to the original Jewish tribe?
> Why doesn't all dna trace back to Adam and Eve through Noah and instead trace back to human ancestors over a million years ago and in Africa?




The "Jewish tribe " didn't start till much later. Abraham was from present day Iraq.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 28, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Don't know.But it's pretty irrelevant to the subject of the existence of ghosts,don't you think?


We discussed the ghosts as far as it was going to go. You sent the convo off track when you brought up the ghosts. I am trying to get it back on course of Gods presence in a physical world.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 28, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> The "Jewish tribe " didn't start till much later. Abraham was from present day Iraq.


I am with you on where Abraham was from but we have to start somewhere and go forward. At some point Adam and Eve's descendants had to become Jews and the chosen people because the bible tries to connect them all from Adam and Eve all the way to Jesus. I am trying to simplify it a bit. You are dodging the question either on purpose or because you misunderstood. I will try again.
I'll start from the flood.
If the entire population of the world was wiped out from a flood except for 8 survivors, why doesn't everyone that was born after that have the DNA to match up with those 8 people? 
According to the bible those 8 had to repopulate the world. They had to be the seeds to start the human population all over yet the geneology of modern man does not trace back to them at all.
Noah was a descendant of Adam. Abraham a descendant of Noah.
Jesus (tho supposed to be god) a descendant of Abraham.
Noah had 3 sons Ham,Shem,Japheth to repopulate the world. If everyone else was dead except for those men and their mates then the only bloodline left and all DNA would have to be from Noah's family. Basically EVERYONE since the flood would have to be related to Noah.
Yet modern human DNA does not trace back to Noah.
Why?
If it did it could be the presence of a god in a physical world.
The stories do not match the reality.
The supposed word of god is trumped by science.
The starting point of humans is nowhere near what the bible tells us.
What excuse could be made to atone for that?
Personally I think it would stand to reason that these stories written over the span of 1600years were a cultures attempt to explain how they got there and who they were to the best of their knowledge and ability and they do a fairly descent job of connecting THEIR dots. It all falls apart rather quickly when they decide to make themselves the starting point of life not only once,twice, but three times.
Truth has caught up with their claims.


----------



## welderguy (Aug 28, 2015)

bullethead said:


> We discussed the ghosts as far as it was going to go. You sent the convo off track when you brought up the ghosts. I am trying to get it back on course of Gods presence in a physical world.



For the record, I don't believe in ghosts either, as far as them walking around on earth after dying.I believe all spirits return to God upon the death of the physical body.

Eccl.12:7
"Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was:and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it."

I believe any most of the "ghostly" phenomenon that has been witnessed is the working of the demonic world, which is going on all around us.That, to me, is far more sobering than any silly ghost story.But I find comfort in this verse:
1 John 4:4
"Ye are of God, little children,and have overcome them, because greater is He that is in you than he that is in the world."


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 28, 2015)

welderguy said:


> For the record, I don't believe in ghosts either, as far as them walking around on earth after dying.I believe all spirits return to God upon the death of the physical body.
> 
> Eccl.12:7
> "Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was:and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it."
> ...




....A full grown man talking about demons......


----------



## JimD (Aug 28, 2015)

In my experiences, most Christians I've known do not believe in ghosts. They say people go to heaven or h_ll and that's it. The Book of Enoch makes it sound like there is a purgatory-like place, as the Catholics believe. I've never seen a ghost but know honest people who have experienced them. Once again I know we don't know everything so I cannot say that everyone seeing a ghost is a nutt job.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 28, 2015)

JimD said:


> In my experiences, most Christians I've known do not believe in ghosts. They say people go to heaven or h_ll and that's it. The Book of Enoch makes it sound like there is a purgatory-like place, as the Catholics believe. I've never seen a ghost but know honest people who have experienced them. Once again I know we don't know everything so I cannot say that everyone seeing a ghost is a nutt job.



Now they're called spirits. Many Christians believe we go to a holding place perhaps called Paradise for saints and somewhere else for sinners. We'll wait until the judgment before heading to our final destination.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 28, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> Now they're called spirits. Many Christians believe we go to a holding place perhaps called Paradise for saints and somewhere else for sinners. We'll wait until the judgment before heading to our final destination.



Listen to yourself.  I still can't understand how anyone could believe in this stuff.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 28, 2015)

​


welderguy said:


> For the record, I don't believe in ghosts either, as far as them walking around on earth after dying.I believe all spirits return to God upon the death of the physical body.
> 
> Eccl.12:7
> "Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was:and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it."
> ...


For the record, what does the bible say pertaining to my DNA questions above? 
Why doesn't human bloodline match up with what the word of god says?


----------



## bullethead (Aug 28, 2015)

welderguy said:


> For the record, I don't believe in ghosts either, as far as them walking around on earth after dying.I believe all spirits return to God upon the death of the physical body.
> 
> Eccl.12:7
> "Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was:and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it."
> ...


So you do not believe in ghosts but you believe in ghostly phenomenon?
What is your explanations for the ghost pictures you used as examples?
And if people think their dead grandma is still roaming the house doing nice things...are you saying to them it is not grandma...it's  a demon?
But first, please explain why all current living humans and everyone that was born post flood DNA does not trace back through and to the flood survivors.


----------



## welderguy (Aug 28, 2015)

bullethead said:


> ​For the record, what does the bible say pertaining to my DNA questions above?
> Why doesn't human bloodline match up with what the word of god says?



As I already stated, I don't know.I have not researched said DNA tests to form an educated view on the subject.I know some of what the bible says about it but you won't like that.If you would like to inform me on these tests, I'm all ears.


----------



## welderguy (Aug 28, 2015)

bullethead said:


> So you do not believe in ghosts but you believe in ghostly phenomenon?
> What is your explanations for the ghost pictures you used as examples?
> And if people think their dead grandma is still roaming the house doing nice things...are you saying to them it is not grandma...it's  a demon?
> But first, please explain why all current living humans and everyone that was born post flood DNA does not trace back through and to the flood survivors.



Didn't say that.read it again.(and note the quotation marks)
I do believe in ghosts (spirits).But when the body dies, they return to God.They don't stay here on earth to haunt or pose for pictures or any of that nonsense.

There is a demonic world of darkness at work, however.Not to be confused with human spirits.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 28, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Didn't say that.read it again.(and note the quotation marks)
> I do believe in ghosts (spirits).But when the body dies, they return to God.They don't stay here on earth to haunt or pose for pictures or any of that nonsense.
> 
> There is a demonic world of darkness at work, however.Not to be confused with human spirits.


You state this demonic world at work as if it is fact. We are all ears anytime you want to back that up.
Leave the scripture verses out of it this time and give us some real facts.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 28, 2015)

welderguy said:


> As I already stated, I don't know.I have not researched said DNA tests to form an educated view on the subject.I know some of what the bible says about it but you won't like that.If you would like to inform me on these tests, I'm all ears.


Read until your heart is content. https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search...hs-att_001&type=att_smartphone_homerun_portal


----------



## welderguy (Aug 28, 2015)

bullethead said:


> Read until your heart is content. https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search...hs-att_001&type=att_smartphone_homerun_portal



Oh I forgot to tell you, since you said I can't use scripture verses,then you are not allowed to use internet sites.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 28, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Oh I forgot to tell you, since you said I can't use scripture verses,then you are not allowed to use internet sites.


Difference is that I have already read the scripture and am able to provide the sources that directly counter that scripture and prove it wrong. 

But I understand the position you are in. You have nothing besides a fictional book and ignore the findings of modern science because it totally negates the scripture you rely on and it disproves your beliefs.
I get it, I really do. But I have no tolerance for ignorance over honesty. I can,have and will admit when I am wrong. You stick your fingers in your ears,close your eyes and recite scripture so you can't  hear, see and learn the facts when they are presented to you when you ask for them to be presented to you.
I am glad you get by your way.
Take care.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 28, 2015)

welderguy said:


> As I already stated, I don't know.I have not researched said DNA tests to form an educated view on the subject.I know some of what the bible says about it but you won't like that.If you would like to inform me on these tests, I'm all ears.


You confuse me Welder. I read your posts here and upstairs. You can discuss the Bible, God etc in a very "scholarly" manner. Its obvious the reading and thought and time and effort you put into educating your self about it.
But anything that may oppose that, whether it be dating methods or the above DNA information all of a sudden its like you cant perform a search.
Its as though you want US to tell you so that you can deny it or say I dont know or discredit it because its coming from a non-believer.
Its very odd to me. I can only guess its a "self protection" type thing 
And Im not insulting, Im just observing.


----------



## welderguy (Aug 28, 2015)

It's real simple.I believe the bible is fact.You don't. You demand something from man as your proof.I don't rely on that for my proof as you do.Your agenda is to try to disprove the bible and I get that.But don't expect me to join you in it.If man ever thinks he's found something that proves God's word is false, then man is wrong or his interpretation of the Word is wrong.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 28, 2015)

welderguy said:


> If man ever thinks he's found something that proves God's word is false, then man is wrong or his interpretation of the Word is wrong.



That creaking sound you hear is your mind closing.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 28, 2015)

welderguy said:


> It's real simple.I believe the bible is fact.You don't. You demand something from man as your proof.I don't rely on that for my proof as you do.Your agenda is to try to disprove the bible and I get that.But don't expect me to join you in it.If man ever thinks he's found something that proves God's word is false, then man is wrong or his interpretation of the Word is wrong.


I have no agenda other than to take all the information available to me and make an informed decision based off of as many sources as I can.
I demand something from any God for my proof.  Not a single one has or can step up to provide it.
My main reason for my disbelief in the bible is because what I had always thought to be true in scripture flat out is not. Since man wrote the bible man has also proven it incorrect because if the same advancements we have made in every other aspect of human knowledge and advancement. If a god had a hand in it and a god is constantly proven wrong by mere mankind...it is not any god worthy of my worship. There is no interpretation needed. Something either is true or it is not true. Facts back up truth. Where there is facts there is evidence. 
If your book says you and I are descendants of Noah and our DNA says we are not then one is wrong. Not kinda wrong or interpreted wrong. I doesn't matter what you and I believe, it matters what is true.


----------



## welderguy (Aug 28, 2015)

bullethead said:


> I have no agenda other than to take all the information available to me and make an informed decision based off of as many sources as I can.
> I demand something from any God for my proof.  Not a single one has or can step up to provide it.
> My main reason for my disbelief in the bible is because what I had always thought to be true in scripture flat out is not. Since man wrote the bible man has also proven it incorrect because if the same advancements we have made in every other aspect of human knowledge and advancement. If a god had a hand in it and a god is constantly proven wrong by mere mankind...it is not any god worthy of my worship. There is no interpretation needed. Something either is true or it is not true. Facts back up truth. Where there is facts there is evidence.
> If your book says you and I are descendants of Noah and our DNA says we are not then one is wrong. Not kinda wrong or interpreted wrong. I doesn't matter what you and I believe, it matters what is true.



That's the problem.You put your faith in what man says is truth.As if man could not be mistaken or flawed or evil.Even things that man "thinks" he's proven beyond a doubt can still be lacking.There's only one who is perfect, God, and I'll take His word for it over man's every time.

What gets me is that you won't even tolerate hearing the verses that I post.
It seems to me that our conversations would work better if, when I post a verse, you would say "I don't believe that's true because....so and so said such and such on this particular website."
Instead of you just always saying "the bible is false".

You think it's just me with the closed mind but you're the same way.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 28, 2015)

welderguy said:


> That's the problem.You put your faith in what man says is truth.As if man could not be mistaken or flawed or evil.Even things that man "thinks" he's proven beyond a doubt can still be lacking.There's only one who is perfect, God, and I'll take His word for it over man's every time.
> 
> What gets me is that you won't even tolerate hearing the verses that I post.
> It seems to me that our conversations would work better if, when I post a verse, you would say "I don't believe that's true because....so and so said such and such on this particular website."
> ...



I know the verses already. I lived the verses as you do for 20+ years. I have since found those verses to be wrong.  I have taken your verses and have given direct provable knowledge based off of fact,not faith, that counters those verses and proves they are incorrect.
I listen to the verses,I provide information that proves them wrong and you ignore it. Basically we have gotten beyond the verses to where I require more information because the verses are proof of nothing.  Just as you cannot counter modern DNA findings so you try to deflect and dodge the facts that without a doubt prove modern mans lineage does not trace back to Noah.
Man and his knowledge has gotten me through 46 years on this planet. The knowledge of man has kept me healthy,allowed me to travel,allows me to converse with you hundreds of miles away and is responsible for everything that involves me.
1600 years of anonymous authors guessing what they think happened does not cut it. If anything those verses have given me the confidence that no god whatsoever is involved in anything that entire book has to offer.


----------



## welderguy (Aug 28, 2015)

bullethead said:


> I know the verses already. I lived the verses as you do for 20+ years. I have since found those verses to be wrong.  I have taken your verses and have given direct provable knowledge based off of fact,not faith, that counters those verses and proves they are incorrect.
> I listen to the verses,I provide information that proves them wrong and you ignore it. Basically we have gotten beyond the verses to where I require more information because the verses are proof of nothing.  Just as you cannot counter modern DNA findings so you try to deflect and dodge the facts that without a doubt prove modern mans lineage does not trace back to Noah.
> Man and his knowledge has gotten me through 46 years on this planet. The knowledge of man has kept me healthy,allowed me to travel,allows me to converse with you hundreds of miles away and is responsible for everything that involves me.
> 1600 years of anonymous authors guessing what they think happened does not cut it. If anything those verses have given me the confidence that no god whatsoever is involved in anything that entire book has to offer.



I guess there's nothing else to be said.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 28, 2015)

welderguy said:


> That's the problem.You put your faith in what man says is truth.As if man could not be mistaken or flawed or evil.Even things that man "thinks" he's proven beyond a doubt can still be lacking.There's only one who is perfect, God, and I'll take His word for it over man's every time.
> 
> What gets me is that you won't even tolerate hearing the verses that I post.
> It seems to me that our conversations would work better if, when I post a verse, you would say "I don't believe that's true because....so and so said such and such on this particular website."
> ...


But lets be honest, when the doctor says you need this medicine you take his word for it, when the dentists says you have a cavity that needs filling you take his word for it, theres a bazillion things you take mans word for. But when man says this dinasour has been dead for millions of years....... man doesnt have a clue what he's talking about.
Man says the Bible is God's word. Man all of a sudden goes back to knowing what he's talking about.
Very selective reasoning.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 28, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> But lets be honest, when the doctor says you need this medicine you take his word for it, when the dentists says you have a cavity that needs filling you take his word for it, theres a bazillion things you take mans word for. But when man says this dinasour has been dead for millions of years....... man doesnt have a clue what he's talking about.
> Man says the Bible is God's word. Man all of a sudden goes back to knowing what he's talking about.
> Very selective reasoning.


That is EXACTLY it.
Humans, especially in the good ol USA ,not only use the knowledge of man but thrive on it because they use it and literally must rely on it in every aspect of their lives. To deny it is total dishonesty.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 28, 2015)

welderguy said:


> I guess there's nothing else to be said.


Hopefully now you can see why simply using scripture is not actually proof of anything in this part of the forums. If you are able to take the claims of scripture and back it up with evidence then the conversations can move forward.


----------



## East River Guide (Aug 28, 2015)

welderguy said:


> You put your faith in what man says is truth.As if man could not be mistaken or flawed or evil.Even things that man "thinks" he's proven beyond a doubt can still be lacking.There's only one who is perfect, God, and I'll take His word for it over man's every time.



If a god ever shows up to tell me something (and I mean directly, not in an "inner voice" that could just as easily be indigestion) I'm with you.  But maybe the only thing worse that what man says is what man says God says.   

We don't have god saying anything.   We have some men saying something with evidence to back it up, and other men with nothing but claims about supernatural tales.  Plenty of people claim to speak for God.  Back to the old standard about us all being atheists, we all reject 1000, some of us 1001.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 28, 2015)

welderguy said:


> That's the problem.You put your faith in what man says is truth.As if man could not be mistaken or flawed or evil.Even things that man "thinks" he's proven beyond a doubt can still be lacking.There's only one who is perfect, God, and I'll take His word for it over man's every time.


This^ coming from the *man who totally relies on a collection of writings that took 1600 years to do, that were written by anonymous men, collected by man, translated by man, re-translated by man numerous times and are taught by man. But "we" shouldn't trust man because the only word that is to be believed is from a god that is nowhere but in those man made stories.
 Man has you believing that a god made an entire Universe and everything in it in 6 days yet not only cannot write a book by himself but needs mistaken,flawed and evil men to convey HIS message.!!???
It seems you are victim of same men you want to warn us about.


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 28, 2015)

bullethead said:


> I am with you on where Abraham was from but we have to start somewhere and go forward. At some point Adam and Eve's descendants had to become Jews and the chosen people because the bible tries to connect them all from Adam and Eve all the way to Jesus. I am trying to simplify it a bit. You are dodging the question either on purpose or because you misunderstood. I will try again.
> I'll start from the flood.
> If the entire population of the world was wiped out from a flood except for 8 survivors, why doesn't everyone that was born after that have the DNA to match up with those 8 people?
> According to the bible those 8 had to repopulate the world. They had to be the seeds to start the human population all over yet the geneology of modern man does not trace back to them at all.
> ...



but you saying you do or do not accept what you have been told by two different group,  you have no indication ,no desire to research either, your biased position has forced your result.  The mitochondrial eve was all the rage, then dismissed a few years later. In the same respect, the Noah narrative  is just as controversial in the "church". 

Evidence of God in a physical world can not include man's opinions of what might have been, in translation or physical science.  The narrative nor man's latest opinion may not be truth.  Just as we only see the results of  spiritual in the physical, we cannot dismiss the spiritual solely from physical evidence. It is like trying to measure temperature with a ruler.

This is a search for truth is not an opinion from either side.

The narrative is dealing with one family one lineage one people,  the translators added to the narrative,  many adjectives that are not in the Hebrew. Study the Hebrew or if you prefer try the Young's Literal Translation, compare both to the traditional story you just repeated. You can see the additions.

But let's be honest, would you be an Atheist if the DNA did trace to Noah?


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 28, 2015)

East River Guide said:


> If a god ever shows up to tell me something (and I mean directly, not in an "inner voice" that could just as easily be indigestion) I'm with you.  But maybe the only thing worse that what man says is what man says God says.
> 
> We don't have god saying anything.   We have some men saying something with evidence to back it up, and other men with nothing but claims about supernatural tales.  Plenty of people claim to speak for God.  Back to the old standard about us all being atheists, we all reject 1000, some of us 1001.



That small still voice might be God,  rather the Holy Spirit, to be doctrinally correct.
You know the difference from indigestion,  but the voice does repeat as does the indigestion.  

What are some examples of what the "inner voice "  has said to you?


----------



## bullethead (Aug 29, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> but you saying you do or do not accept what you have been told by two different group,  you have no indication ,no desire to research either, your biased position has forced your result.  The mitochondrial eve was all the rage, then dismissed a few years later. In the same respect, the Noah narrative  is just as controversial in the "church".
> 
> Evidence of God in a physical world can not include man's opinions of what might have been, in translation or physical science.  The narrative nor man's latest opinion may not be truth.  Just as we only see the results of  spiritual in the physical, we cannot dismiss the spiritual solely from physical evidence. It is like trying to measure temperature with a ruler.
> 
> ...


Again, I am not an Atheist.
I'd certainly be more inclined to believe in the god of the bible if things like DNA was traced back to Noah.
I am honest and admit that I do not know if there is no god, a god or ten thousand gods.
I am confident that the God as portrayed in the bible is not likely.

Mitochondrial Eve has certainly not been dismissed. I have read more about tracing humans back to Africa in the last few years than I ever have.

And I know much was changed and added with translation but if a god needed men and 1600 years to write his book which tells us the same god made everything in the Universe in 6 days...I just do not find that particular god worthy of my worship.

Thinking more about it over night....how come a god needs apologists to explain and make excuses for him? As a god his work/word should be crystal clear to all. Any god worth their thunder would know the potential snags of having man write his handbook. Is it too much to think that a god would foresee all of these problems with translations and interpretations and have it settled before it happened?
The entire system has the stench of man throughout and the only thing missing is a god.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 29, 2015)

welderguy said:


> I guess there's nothing else to be said.



Another one bites the dust.....


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 29, 2015)

welderguy said:


> It's real simple.I believe the bible is fact.You don't. You demand something from man as your proof.I don't rely on that for my proof as you do.Your agenda is to try to disprove the bible and I get that.But don't expect me to join you in it.If man ever thinks he's found something that proves God's word is false, then man is wrong or his interpretation of the Word is wrong.


You left out the third and based on the evidence most legitimate option -
The Bible is man's word and current man is proving ancient man's word wrong.
The only reason you go into this self protection mode is because you believe the Bible is God's word.
And why do you believe it?
Because man (the Church) says it is.


> As if man could not be mistaken or flawed or evil.


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 29, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> You left out the third and based on the evidence most legitimate option -
> The Bible is man's word and current man is proving ancient man's word wrong.
> The only reason you go into this self protection mode is because you believe the Bible is God's word.
> And why do you believe it?
> Because man (the Church) says it is.



yes, we have to "prove" scripture as much as we have to "believe" science.  An opinion from a theist  or theistic scientist or an opinion from an atheistic scientist are opinions. 
Take the evidence fairly without bias.


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 29, 2015)

bullethead said:


> Again, I am not an Atheist.
> I'd certainly be more inclined to believe in the god of the bible if things like DNA was traced back to Noah.
> I am honest and admit that I do not know if there is no god, a god or ten thousand gods.
> I am confident that the God as portrayed in the bible is not likely.
> ...



you too dismissed a mitochondrial eve, when you suggest there wasn't a single ancestor.  

http://www.trueorigin.org/mitochondrialeve01.php

This suggests two assumptions made were wrong and proven to be wrong,  Constant rate of change and all mtDNA comes from the mother.

so , once again, we are not testing God nor truth but man's opinions and mistakes

The 6 day question has been listed before, The Hebrew word is yown, It means "period of time", it is used for partial day, full day, year or an event to mark differences in time. So if you denounce the day as a 24hr day, you are not   showing the scripture to be wrong, but the translator.  The should have used "period of time" instead of "day" to help with your confusion.

Remember though , measuring from a single point of origin, "time" would be measured differently; from the point expanding at incredible rates of speed away from the origin, well according to Einstein, anyway.

Wait realize , translations are NOT considered "inspired scripture", just opinions of what the "inspired scripture" means.


Do our stretch in imagination has to overcome man's errors and assumptions. 

I wonder who might benefit from confusion.

! Cor 14:33 For God is not the author of †confusion,


----------



## Terminal Idiot (Aug 29, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> That small still voice might be God,  rather the Holy Spirit, to be doctrinally correct.
> You know the difference from indigestion,  but the voice does repeat as does the indigestion.
> 
> What are some examples of what the "inner voice "  has said to you?



I have had this thought myself - is that God in my head? - and it doesn't sound like I am the only one that has raised the question with themselves. I came to realize, though, that the voice in my head is not that smart. Not that wise. Certainly not as wise and smart as a god must be. It has no answers that I didn't have yesterday. Next time you are speaking to that voice in your head, try and get answers to questions that you don't already know. It won't happen.


----------



## JimD (Aug 29, 2015)

I and thousands have received answers to questions pop into my mind that the conscious mind could not answer. Many thousands also have received insight or "hunches" that have saved their lives. Those are indeed facts. The question is did those answers come from God or from our own minds. Those of us who believe in God attribute it to God. Of course there is no way to prove that but when it happens to you it is really amazing.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 29, 2015)

JimD said:


> I and thousands have received answers to questions pop into my mind that the conscious mind could not answer. Many thousands also have received insight or "hunches" that have saved their lives. Those are indeed facts. The question is did those answers come from God or from our own minds. Those of us who believe in God attribute it to God. Of course there is no way to prove that but when it happens to you it is really amazing.





> I and thousands have received answers to questions pop into my mind that the conscious mind could not answer. Many thousands also have received insight or "hunches" that have saved their lives. Those are indeed facts. The question is did those answers come from God or from our own minds


The subconscious mind: 
Think of the subconscious mind as the storage room of everything that is currently not in your conscious mind.The subconscious mind stores all of your previous life experiences, your beliefs, your memories, you skills, all situations you've been through and all images you've ever seen.


----------



## JimD (Aug 29, 2015)

Walt, yea I agree, but through prayer or meditation, certain explainable things can happen. Ive heard it said prayer is talking to God and intuition is God talking to you. Obviously, you wouldnt say that, but either way, the unconscious/quiet/unthinking mind can do some amazing things. To quiet the mind is an Eastern thing and is very hard to do.


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 29, 2015)

Terminal Idiot said:


> I have had this thought myself - is that God in my head? - and it doesn't sound like I am the only one that has raised the question with themselves. I came to realize, though, that the voice in my head is not that smart. Not that wise. Certainly not as wise and smart as a god must be. It has no answers that I didn't have yesterday. Next time you are speaking to that voice in your head, try and get answers to questions that you don't already know. It won't happen.



so maybe your voice is not God, what is it then, do you have a conscience? a moral compass?


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 29, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> The subconscious mind:
> Think of the subconscious mind as the storage room of everything that is currently not in your conscious mind.The subconscious mind stores all of your previous life experiences, your beliefs, your memories, you skills, all situations you've been through and all images you've ever seen.



Previous life experiences?  a self proclaimed atheist and reincarnation?   

Would you explain how those two beliefs coincide?


----------



## Terminal Idiot (Aug 29, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> Previous life experiences?  a self proclaimed atheist and reincarnation?
> 
> Would you explain how those two beliefs coincide?



Wow. Surely you don't believe he meant a previous life. Certainly you understand he meant all the life experiences he has had since birth. 

Please tell us you didn't mean what you said.


----------



## Terminal Idiot (Aug 29, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> you said it was made up, so what was made up?
> 
> even Jesus's contemporary enemies agree he existed.



I don't mean to be rude, I am sure it will sound as such, but you have reading comprehension issues. I didn't say he didn't exist.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 29, 2015)

JimD said:


> Walt, yea I agree, but through prayer or meditation, certain explainable things can happen. Ive heard it said prayer is talking to God and intuition is God talking to you. Obviously, you wouldnt say that, but either way, the unconscious/quiet/unthinking mind can do some amazing things. To quiet the mind is an Eastern thing and is very hard to do.


I'll definitely agree with that. Ive seriously tried. At the very least my mind keeps thinking about how I am trying to quiet it


----------



## Terminal Idiot (Aug 29, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> so maybe your voice is not God, what is it then, do you have a conscience? a moral compass?



Yes and yes. I just don't believe god is the answer. Being a parent of an 11 y.o. and a 10 y.o. I can tell you they are not born with it.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 29, 2015)

JimD said:


> I and thousands have received answers to questions pop into my mind that the conscious mind could not answer. Many thousands also have received insight or "hunches" that have saved their lives. Those are indeed facts. The question is did those answers come from God or from our own minds. Those of us who believe in God attribute it to God. Of course there is no way to prove that but when it happens to you it is really amazing.


And still others swear god told them to drown their children or kill their spouse or burn down a building full of people. Those are also indeed facts. 
Now consider how real you think god talked to you, is it possible their experience is just as real?
At what point do you draw your line in the sand with god talks? Do you hesitate for a split second instead of stepping  off the curb because a voice told you to? Do you smash a neighbor over the head with a shovel because that same voice tells you to?


----------



## Terminal Idiot (Aug 29, 2015)

JimD said:


> I and thousands have received answers to questions pop into my mind that the conscious mind could not answer. Many thousands also have received insight or "hunches" that have saved their lives. Those are indeed facts. The question is did those answers come from God or from our own minds. Those of us who believe in God attribute it to God. Of course there is no way to prove that but when it happens to you it is really amazing.



I would be more willing to accept your answer if I knew you credited the bad things to god as well.  Surely you have had bad thoughts cross your mind - some acted upon, most not. Is he responsible for those? What about  the bad insight? Is he responsible for that as well? I can't imagine that you have only had 100% awesome and righteous dialogs with yourself. All the insight turned out for the best? Never led astray by yourself? That little voice in your head has always been accurate? I would bet not - but will you admit it?


----------



## Terminal Idiot (Aug 29, 2015)

Sorry bullet. I think we were going the same place at the same time. Didn't mean to be, more or less, redundant.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 29, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> you too dismissed a mitochondrial eve, when you suggest there wasn't a single ancestor.
> 
> http://www.trueorigin.org/mitochondrialeve01.php
> 
> ...


Hold on there big fella...I only suggest,because of fact, that Noah is not the single ancestor.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 29, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> I wonder who might benefit from confusion.
> 
> ! Cor 14:33 For God is not the author of †confusion,



Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech..... Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth. Genesis 11:7-9

God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise. 1 Corinthians 1:27


----------



## bullethead (Aug 29, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> http://www.trueorigin.org/mitochondrialeve01.php


This website is an absolute joke.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 30, 2015)

bullethead said:


> This website is an absolute joke.


When its got "Exposing the Myth of Evolution" in the banner you cant expect much


----------



## JimD (Aug 30, 2015)

Bullet and Terminal,

I said I attribute the "voice" to God, but understand you and others would say it is not God. I will honestly say that when my conscience/God has spoken to me, its always been right in the end. I have heard that "voice" and done the opposite many times and it always turns out wrong. As far as "voices" that tell people to do evil things, of course I wouldnt say God would tell us those things. I know you can come up with many examples where people have said that or even in the Bible where things are done that I dont understand either such as God commanding the Israelite's to go into cities and kill every living thing. I dont have all the answers for sure and dont post anything to convince you or anyone of anything. I just enjoy the discussion.


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 30, 2015)

Terminal Idiot said:


> Wow. Surely you don't believe he meant a previous life. Certainly you understand he meant all the life experiences he has had since birth.
> 
> Please tell us you didn't mean what you said.



I guess the adjective Previous refers to experiences rather than life. It is just a term used by those who do believe in reincarnation.  
  Why would   not he just say "previous experiences"?  We might expect the same "life"?


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 30, 2015)

bullethead said:


> This website is an absolute joke.



maybe , but you agree with it, Mitochondrial eve does not exist.  They have reason, you gave your reasons.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 30, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> maybe , but you agree with it, Mitochondrial eve does not exist.  They have reason, you gave your reasons.


Listen, knock your nonsense off. You are always trying to put words in the mouths of others. I did not ever say mitochondrial eve does not exist. To be perfectly clear,I said that the stories in the Bible do not match science. Specifically the flood. If everyone on the planet was killed in a flood except Noah, his three Sons and their wives, every person born since the flood would share their dna and be traceable back to them. Fact is everyone born since the flood does not trace back to Noah. I said nothing about mitochondrial eve. I specifically and purposely pointed out dna NOT tracing back to Noah. And I made it clear multiple times. 
I don't know if your reading comprehension is that lacking or if you are one of those guys that reads what you want to hear instead of what is actually said because you cannot refute what is actually said OR if you purposely disregard what is actually said and purposely try to change what others say and hope no one notices , but between you constantly doing this and your ignorant personal insults to Walt I have had more than enough of it.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 31, 2015)

JimD said:


> Bullet and Terminal,
> 
> I said I attribute the "voice" to God, but understand you and others would say it is not God. I will honestly say that when my conscience/God has spoken to me, its always been right in the end. I have heard that "voice" and done the opposite many times and it always turns out wrong. As far as "voices" that tell people to do evil things, of course I wouldnt say God would tell us those things. I know you can come up with many examples where people have said that or even in the Bible where things are done that I dont understand either such as God commanding the Israelite's to go into cities and kill every living thing. I dont have all the answers for sure and dont post anything to convince you or anyone of anything. I just enjoy the discussion.



Have you tried to answer the questions from the starting point of "The Bible might not be true?", just to be a good scientist?


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 31, 2015)

bullethead said:


> Listen, knock your nonsense off. You are always trying to put words in the mouths of others. I did not ever say mitochondrial eve does not exist. To be perfectly clear,I said that the stories in the Bible do not match science. Specifically the flood. If everyone on the planet was killed in a flood except Noah, his three Sons and their wives, every person born since the flood would share their dna and be traceable back to them. Fact is everyone born since the flood does not trace back to Noah. I said nothing about mitochondrial eve. I specifically and purposely pointed out dna NOT tracing back to Noah. And I made it clear multiple times.
> I don't know if your reading comprehension is that lacking or if you are one of those guys that reads what you want to hear instead of what is actually said because you cannot refute what is actually said OR if you purposely disregard what is actually said and purposely try to change what others say and hope no one notices , but between you constantly doing this and your ignorant personal insults to Walt I have had more than enough of it.



Well, I admit, I do not read the nonsense posts in much detail.

 I brought up "Eve" and dismissed it, you rejected the dismissal and emphasized the theorey is strong. 
If you reject a single mother in Naamah , you also reject a single mother in Mitochondrial eve? 
Didn't you provide multiple source origins?, Then you reject "eve" or any single "mother"

The scientist have to make assumption of the  how often mutation occur by generations, If the rate change is slow, the time elapsed is longer, faster mutation rate fewer generations and thus shorter time.   They were comparing human and chimpanzee dna for differences, assuming a common ancestor. If there was no common ancestor the difference is meaningless.
They first used 200,00 years. 
Later research with single populations suggest the rate of change is far faster than expected.  Thus the large number of generations is wrong. If the generations are wrong, the time is wrong.

Remember Noah's wife was the mother of the three sons, not the wives . So the MtDNA would not come from a single woman but from 4 (if Noah's wife had further children) .  So to assume a single eve at the flood is error.

However , Noah did provide the Y chromosome to the sons. The single source DNA "Adam"  is thought to have lived much later than "eve".  Thus corresponds wit the Flood account , but of course the time estimate  "is subject to future revisions" , as they say


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 31, 2015)

welderguy said:


> "For by grace are ye saved, through faith,and that not of yourselves,it is the gift of God:not of works, lest any man should boast."(Eph.2:8-9)
> 
> confession comes after you are regenerated by the Holy Spirit.



so you have to the Holy Spirit( to know of being a sinner and needing a Saviour) before you get the Holy Spirit


----------



## bullethead (Aug 31, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> Well, I admit, I do not read the nonsense posts in much detail.
> I brought up "Eve" and dismissed it, you rejected the dismissal and emphasized the theorey is strong.
> If you reject a single mother in Naamah , you also reject a single mother in Mitochondrial eve? Didn't you provide multiple source origins, Then you reject "eve" or any single "mother"


Maybe you come up with the above in your skewed thought process.
I proved our DNA is not linked to Noah. That is as far as I have taken it and my point is made.


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 31, 2015)

bullethead said:


> Maybe you come up with the above in your skewed thought process.
> I proved our DNA is not linked to Noah. That is as far as I have taken it and my point is made.



I am sorry, I hit submit early and edited the my last post ,

Sorry for the confusion


----------



## bullethead (Aug 31, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> I am sorry, I hit submit early and edited the my last post ,
> 
> Sorry for the confusion


Glad you added more. That true origins site is really helpful to you huh.
It makes it even easier to see that all current DNA does not even trace back to that region of the world let alone those four "eves", yet it can and has been traced to a region in Africa.
Flat out the flood story is just that...a story.


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 31, 2015)

There were not four eves, it would trace back to their common ancestor.

We do not know where Noah was from nor where they went, only where they might have landed.

The flood is in many traditions, all over the world

United States
The Ojibwe natives who have lived in Minnesota USA since approximately 1400AD also have a creation and flood story that closely parallels the Biblical account. "There came a time when the harmonious way of life did not continue. Men and women disrespected each other, families quarreled and soon villages began arguing back and forth. This saddened Gitchie Manido [the Creator] greatly, but he waited. Finally, when it seemed there was no hope left, Creator decided to purify Mother Earth through the use of water. The water came, flooding the Earth, catching all of creation off guard. All but a few of each living thing survived." Then it tells how Waynaboozhoo survived by floating on a log in the water with various animals.
Ojibwe - Ancient native American creation story tells of world wide flood.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 31, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> It wouldn't trace to 4 eves, but back to their common ancestor.
> 
> You do not know what region what region of the world they were from,  nor where they went. We only think we know  where they landed.
> 
> ...


Wow! No Way! 1400AD too!
The people of New Orleans also speak of a flood in 2005AD.
The SuperDome is a safe haven that saved a few species. It has GOT to be evidence of a worldwide flood.

There is just no scenario,especially localized flooding thousands of years before mass communication,where cultures thought the "entire world" consisted of a few hundred or thousand square miles. 

All these cultures worldwide have had hundreds of thousands of years to experience a "Katrina" type of event. OF COURSE they are going to have a flood story.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 31, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> There were not four eves, it would trace back to their common ancestor.
> 
> We do not know where Noah was from nor where they went, only where they might have landed.
> 
> ...



You mentioned that not every human has a pre-exisiting eternal spirit. Do these humans come from other Eve's or the Eve of the bible's contemporaries?


----------



## welderguy (Sep 1, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> so you have to the Holy Spirit( to know of being a sinner and needing a Saviour) before you get the Holy Spirit



"Blessed is the man whom Thou choosest and causest to approach unto Thee."


----------



## marketgunner (Sep 3, 2015)

bullethead said:


> Wow! No Way! 1400AD too!
> The people of New Orleans also speak of a flood in 2005AD.
> The SuperDome is a safe haven that saved a few species. It has GOT to be evidence of a worldwide flood.
> 
> ...



1400 is not the date of the flood but how long the tribe has been in Minnesota,  It is in there tradition,  As it is many others allover the globe,  It might not have been a global flood but it might have come from the same people long ago and been repeated all over the world.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 3, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> 1400 is not the date of the flood but how long the tribe has been in Minnesota,  It is in there tradition,  As it is many others allover the globe,  It might not have been a global flood but it might have come from the same people long ago and been repeated all over the world.



Now you're getting somewhere.


----------



## marketgunner (Sep 3, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> You mentioned that not every human has a pre-exisiting eternal spirit. Do these humans come from other Eve's or the Eve of the bible's contemporaries?



I get this from the application of Salvation to those who have not been given a chance to know about Jesus, and the fact that "hath the Son, hath life, hath not the Son hath not life"  and God said "All souls are mine."

The point is,  If souls preexist the body, where are they and what are they?

If God puts me here in a place and time and circumstances, He would not hold be responsible to know Jesus and yet prevent me from doing so.
An example, my non Jewish ancestors that live at the time of Christ in Northern Europe and America, could not know about Jesus., If , as some do, suggest good behavior is sufficient for salvation then Jesus was not required, 

If God puts me in a place and time to be saved perhaps, those that did not have a chance to hear did not have an eternal being attached with the bodies.

To your point, is there a line of Humans who are souls and a line who are not.? There is a verse that says Eve is the mother of all living.   literally  Eve mother living or alive,    so it could mean "spiritually alive" or who the line where God places a soul.

that is a opinion, anyway


----------



## bullethead (Sep 3, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> 1400 is not the date of the flood but how long the tribe has been in Minnesota,  It is in there tradition,  As it is many others allover the globe,  It might not have been a global flood but it might have come from the same people long ago and been repeated all over the world.


If not global then the bible is wrong. If the bible is wrong it is unreliable. If the bible is unreliable it is not the work of anything worthy if being called a god.
If you want to research the history of the  North American Continent you will see that parts of it,  especially around the Great Lakes was definitely flooded. I have no doubt the story was passed down from a people of long ago but not the same people you think it is. 
There has been much flooding worldwide. So much so that many cultures have flood stories of survivors. Many cultures borrow stories from neighbors too. That is why many scholars and historians believe "NOAH" was Sumerian and his tale of survival has been incorporated into the surrounding regions over a thousand years until the Jews decided they needed a flood story for their tales too.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 3, 2015)

bullethead said:


> If not global then the bible is wrong. If the bible is wrong it is unreliable. If the bible is unreliable it is not the work of anything worthy if being called a god.
> If you want to research the history of the  North American Continent you will see that parts of it,  especially around the Great Lakes was definitely flooded. I have no doubt the story was passed down from a people of long ago but not the same people you think it is.
> There has been much flooding worldwide. So much so that many cultures have flood stories of survivors. Many cultures borrow stories from neighbors too. That is why many scholars and historians believe "NOAH" was Sumerian and his tale of survival has been incorporated into the surrounding regions over a thousand years until the Jews decided they needed a flood story for their tales too.



Marketgunner,

Please look into what He's referring to.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 3, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Marketgunner,
> 
> Please look into what He's referring to.



Marketgunner,  do not be surprised when you find out that the Sumerian story "Epic of Gilgamesh" was also about a world wide flood. ..but it predates the bible story by over a thousand years.


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 3, 2015)

bullethead said:


> Marketgunner,  do not be surprised when you find out that the Sumerian story "Epic of Gilgamesh" was also about a world wide flood. ..but it predates the bible story by over a thousand years.


And......
1.Flood occurs in the Mesopotamian plain.
2.Main character is warned to build a boat to escape the flood
3.Main character is told to save himself, his family, and a sampling of animals
4.The boats were sealed with tar
5.The boats came to rest on a mountain
6.Birds were released to determine if the waters receded
7.Main character sacrificed an offering


----------



## bullethead (Sep 3, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> And......
> 1.Flood occurs in the Mesopotamian plain.
> 2.Main character is warned to build a boat to escape the flood
> 3.Main character is told to save himself, his family, and a sampling of animals
> ...


But but but but Walt......look out the window, can you see a neighbors house? Look at the vinyl siding...THAT is god, THAT is proof you have a soul. Pay no nevermind to the facts you provided above..it doesn't matter that the biblical flood story along with most others are not true...abandon the facts and marvel at the mystical unprovable borderline insane distractions and outlandish claims that will be presented in it's place.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 3, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> And......
> 1.Flood occurs in the Mesopotamian plain.
> 2.Main character is warned to build a boat to escape the flood
> 3.Main character is told to save himself, his family, and a sampling of animals
> ...



It's a miracle


----------



## drippin' rock (Sep 3, 2015)

bullethead said:


> If not global then the bible is wrong. If the bible is wrong it is unreliable. If the bible is unreliable it is not the work of anything worthy if being called a god.
> If you want to research the history of the  North American Continent you will see that parts of it,  especially around the Great Lakes was definitely flooded. I have no doubt the story was passed down from a people of long ago but not the same people you think it is.
> There has been much flooding worldwide. So much so that many cultures have flood stories of survivors. Many cultures borrow stories from neighbors too. That is why many scholars and historians believe "NOAH" was Sumerian and his tale of survival has been incorporated into the surrounding regions over a thousand years until the Jews decided they needed a flood story for their tales too.



And it is not hard to understand why so many different cultures had a flood story.  The majority of peoples lived next to water.  Still do today.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 4, 2015)

drippin' rock said:


> And it is not hard to understand why so many different cultures had a flood story.  The majority of peoples lived next to water.  Still do today.


Truth


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 4, 2015)

bullethead said:


> But but but but Walt......look out the window, can you see a neighbors house? Look at the vinyl siding...THAT is god, THAT is proof you have a soul. Pay no nevermind to the facts you provided above..it doesn't matter that the biblical flood story along with most others are not true...abandon the facts and marvel at the mystical unprovable borderline insane distractions and outlandish claims that will be presented in it's place.



You almost had me convinced until I remembered the neighbors have brick and not vinyl.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 4, 2015)

Do you think Marketgunner is doing research?


----------



## bullethead (Sep 4, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Do you think Marketgunner is doing research?



No. Most of these guys do not know or want to know the history of their own religion. 
Excuses work better than facts for them.


----------



## drippin' rock (Sep 4, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Do you think Marketgunner is doing research?



If he is, he's not very good at it.


----------



## marketgunner (Sep 5, 2015)

bullethead said:


> If not global then the bible is wrong. If the bible is wrong it is unreliable. If the bible is unreliable it is not the work of anything worthy if being called a god.
> If you want to research the history of the  North American Continent you will see that parts of it,  especially around the Great Lakes was definitely flooded. I have no doubt the story was passed down from a people of long ago but not the same people you think it is.
> There has been much flooding worldwide. So much so that many cultures have flood stories of survivors. Many cultures borrow stories from neighbors too. That is why many scholars and historians believe "NOAH" was Sumerian and his tale of survival has been incorporated into the surrounding regions over a thousand years until the Jews decided they needed a flood story for their tales too.



just go here and count the narratives, from High Mountains and Pacific Islands, Austrailia outback,  then explain it away

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


----------



## marketgunner (Sep 5, 2015)

Did anyone know about this Brass bell found inside a coal rock in 1944,  

The rock was dated millions of years old and the bell was tested to be not modern metallurgy.

What about the human leg that had changed into coal found in West Virginia?

What about the iron hammer in bedded in  the rock and the wooden handle had partially petrified?


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 5, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> Did anyone know about this Brass bell found inside a coal rock in 1944,
> 
> The rock was dated millions of years old and the bell was tested to be not modern metallurgy.
> 
> ...


\

What about the blue whale that was embedded in prehistoric rock or the human footprints inside dinosaur footprints?


----------



## bullethead (Sep 5, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> Did anyone know about this Brass bell found inside a coal rock in 1944,
> 
> The rock was dated millions of years old and the bell was tested to be not modern metallurgy.
> 
> ...


Did you bother to research these things any farther than the creationists website you got them from?

But just keep dodging and deflecting the Sumerian Flood Evidence that was written about a thousand plus years before someone wrote about Noah making a similar journey.
There are so many worldwide floods in the writings of man that you better wear arm floaties everywhere you go.


----------



## marketgunner (Sep 6, 2015)

Did you bother to read the , non Christian, Myths of the Flood on Wikipedia?

So when did Noah live? or when was the narrative written?

What is your point?


----------



## bullethead (Sep 6, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> Did you bother to read the , non Christian, Myths of the Flood on Wikipedia?
> 
> So when did Noah live? or when was the narrative written?
> 
> What is your point?



Where's the beef?


----------



## marketgunner (Sep 7, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Do you think Marketgunner is doing research?



NO , just talking,


----------



## marketgunner (Sep 7, 2015)

bullethead said:


> No. Most of these guys do not know or want to know the history of their own religion.
> Excuses work better than facts for them.



I do not have a religion


----------



## welderguy (Sep 8, 2015)

The fact that the little nation of Israel has not been wiped off the map is evidence to me that God is protecting them.All the well-documented events of the Six day War in June 1967 especially. Eye witness accounts from the enemy proclaiming supernatural occurances in battle seem very hard to deny.You'd have to be deaf, dumb, blind and plain stupid to refute that piece of history.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Sep 8, 2015)

welderguy said:


> The fact that the little nation of Israel has not been wiped off the map is evidence to me that God is protecting them.All the well-documented events of the Six day War in June 1967 especially. Eye witness accounts from the enemy proclaiming supernatural occurances in battle seem very hard to deny.You'd have to be deaf, dumb, blind and plain stupid to refute that piece of history.



I'm not equating them, but I personally know a guy who had a mortar land and bury its nose at his feet, not 6 inches away, and not detonate. I, myself, had one skitter across concrete I was walking on so close to me that sparks went over my feet and it didn't detonate. 

The point is that supernatural anecdotes abound on fields of battle. Especially for those looking for them. 

Then there's the question of where this protective God is at while atrocities are being committed, both during war and after. Where was He when the ovens of Auschwitz were running full steam? Where was He before the war even got started? Why didn't he just reach down into Egypt, and the others, and stop them before they started?


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 8, 2015)

welderguy said:


> The fact that the little nation of Israel has not been wiped off the map is evidence to me that God is protecting them.All the well-documented events of the Six day War in June 1967 especially. Eye witness accounts from the enemy proclaiming supernatural occurances in battle seem very hard to deny.You'd have to be deaf, dumb, blind and plain stupid to refute that piece of history.


A series of tactical mistakes and a couple of lucky circumstances (that happen in every war) allowed a victory where on paper it didnt seem possible.
Read about our own history for a similar story.

If you want believe the "huge strange beings with flaming swords" and the "appearance of angels" thats ok too.


----------



## 660griz (Sep 8, 2015)

welderguy said:


> The fact that the little nation of Israel has not been wiped off the map is evidence to me that God is protecting them.



I guess you could say the U.S.A. is their God. 
Without our technology and protection...


----------



## welderguy (Sep 8, 2015)

welderguy said:


> The fact that the little nation of Israel has not been wiped off the map is evidence to me that God is protecting them.All the well-documented events of the Six day War in June 1967 especially. Eye witness accounts from the enemy proclaiming supernatural occurances in battle seem very hard to deny.You'd have to be deaf, dumb, blind and plain stupid to refute that piece of history.



The fact that it was prophecied to happen makes it even more believable.


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 8, 2015)

welderguy said:


> The fact that it was prophecied to happen makes it even more believable.


You can read pages and pages of scholars who disagree with that interpretation.
You can read pages and pages on the what the Muslims have to say about it.
You can, but you wont.


----------



## welderguy (Sep 8, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> You can read pages and pages of scholars who disagree with that interpretation.
> You can read pages and pages on the what the Muslims have to say about it.
> You can, but you wont.



These scholars and muslims you speak of have also been prophecied of:
2Thess.2:11-12.

...but you won't believe it.


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 8, 2015)

welderguy said:


> These scholars and muslims you speak of have also been prophecied of:
> 2Thess.2:11-12.
> 
> ...but you won't believe it.


Thats one sure fire way to avoid thinking.
Which of course is its purpose.


----------



## welderguy (Sep 8, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Thats one sure fire way to avoid thinking.
> Which of course is its purpose.



I'm not the one here who has the most closed mind.
Believe me, I read and I think plenty.

BTW, have your scholars mentioned anything about the significance of the blood moons?


----------



## Canis latrans (Sep 8, 2015)

welderguy said:


> The fact that it was prophecied to happen makes it even more believable.



Coincidences _happen_ in this world, absolutely constantly.

And when they _happen_, and _happen_ to coincide with someone praying for something, that person _happens_ to believe that it _happened_ just because he/she _happened_ to pray for it.  And if what they prayed for didn't _happen_, then they _happen_ to believe that their God didn't _happen_ to want it to _happen_.

Gee, do we notice a relation between the words _happen_ and _random_?  Or perhaps _arbitrary_?


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 8, 2015)

welderguy said:


> I'm not the one here who has the most closed mind.
> Believe me, I read and I think plenty.
> 
> BTW, have your scholars mentioned anything about the significance of the blood moons?


First they arent "my" scholars.
Again, just like in the other thread, you confuse pointing out opposing information and disagreement even among Christian "experts" as me claiming they are right.
You claim a interpretation says this and I point out that there are knowledgable people who disagree. You say alot of things as though they are proven facts. Pointing out that opinions are not facts is how it goes.
Thats whats called discussion/debate.
Personally, there is overwhelming evidence that the Bible is entirely man made and man inspired so two scholars with differing opinions about what it says doesnt amout to a hill of beans to me.
And yes I know what the significance of blood moons means to SOME people.


----------



## 660griz (Sep 8, 2015)

welderguy said:


> I'm not the one here who has the most closed mind.
> Believe me, I read and I think plenty.
> 
> BTW, have your scholars mentioned anything about the significance of the blood moons?



Same significance as a blue sky, yellow sun, red dawn, etc.
Rayleigh scattering


----------



## welderguy (Sep 8, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> If you want to believe the "huge strange beings with flaming swords" and the "appearance of angels" thats ok too.



What's so intriguing to me about this account is the fact that the Israeli soldiers did not see the angels.It was the Egyptian soldiers who saw them and surrendered to the outnumbered Israelis.The numerous eyewitness testimonies of these Egyptian soldiers were recorded and are part of history.


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 8, 2015)

welderguy said:


> What's so intriguing to me about this account is the fact that the Israeli soldiers did not see the angels.It was the Egyptian soldiers who saw them and surrendered to the outnumbered Israelis.The numerous eyewitness testimonies of these Egyptian soldiers were recorded and are part of history.


Im assuming this is the story you are talking about -


> During the Yom Kippur War, a lone Israeli soldier in the Sinai led a captured Egyptian column back to Israeli lines.
> When the Egyptian officer was asked why he surrendered an entire tank column to a single Israeli soldier, the Egyptian officer replied, "One soldier? There were thousands of them".
> The officer said the rest of the 'soldiers' had melted away as they approached the Israeli lines. The Israeli soldier reported that he was alone when the Egyptian commander surrendered to him. He didn't see the army of angelic warriors. The Egyptians did.


So note there is no mention of "numerous" eye witness accounts. One officer said this. Its also not been substantiated by any of the other tankers. So what is a "part of history" is this unsubstantiated story told by a lone officer who surrendered his tank column.

Did he actually see these thousands of angels? 
Couldnt tell you. He certainly thinks he did. Nobody else did but he surrendered for some reason and this is the reason he gave.


----------



## drippin' rock (Sep 8, 2015)

welderguy said:


> The fact that the little nation of Israel has not been wiped off the map is evidence to me that God is protecting them.All the well-documented events of the Six day War in June 1967 especially. Eye witness accounts from the enemy proclaiming supernatural occurances in battle seem very hard to deny.You'd have to be deaf, dumb, blind and plain stupid to refute that piece of history.



Can you link the non Christian websites?


----------



## drippin' rock (Sep 8, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Im assuming this is the story you are talking about -
> 
> So note there is no mention of "numerous" eye witness accounts. One officer said this. Its also not been substantiated by any of the other tankers. So what is a "part of history" is this unsubstantiated story told by a lone officer who surrendered his tank column.
> 
> ...



I think the obvious answer is Israel is sitting on hologram technology and they're not sharing.


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 8, 2015)

drippin' rock said:


> I think the obvious answer is Israel is sitting on hologram technology and they're not sharing.


----------



## welderguy (Sep 8, 2015)

There's another account where an entire armed infantry was captured by two Israeli soldiers.When asked why they surrendered, they replied "Our arms were paralyzed."

Another account where Israeli tank brigade was caught in a buried mine field.All of a sudden, a very strong wind began to blow.So hard, it rocked the tanks.When the wind finally ceased, the entire minefield was exposed.The tanks were able to maneuver through to safety.


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 8, 2015)

welderguy said:


> There's another account where an entire armed infantry was captured by two Israeli soldiers.When asked why they surrendered, they replied "Our arms were paralyzed."
> 
> Another account where Israeli tank brigade was caught in a buried mine field.All of a sudden, a very strong wind began to blow.So hard, it rocked the tanks.When the wind finally ceased, the entire minefield was exposed.The tanks were able to maneuver through to safety.


Oh theres more stories than that.
Interestingly enough if you go the military historical sites you'll find numerous tactical errors, miscommunications, lack of communications and warnings, blunders etc that led to the victory.
No mention of these stories though.
I personally cant help but wonder why are these cases of isolated stories? Why were any Isralies killed at all? If God can make thousands of angels make 1 tank commander surrender why couldnt he just make all the armies stay home so nobody was killed? Why did thousands of soldiers on all sides, women, children get killed, maimed and scarred forever?
Just to make it look good?

Its also interesting that Israel attacked first, lied about it and then had to admit it later.
It was them attacking first that played a huge role in them being able to beat a superior force.


----------



## welderguy (Sep 9, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Oh theres more stories than that.
> Interestingly enough if you go the military historical sites you'll find numerous tactical errors, miscommunications, lack of communications and warnings, blunders etc that led to the victory.
> No mention of these stories though.
> I personally cant help but wonder why are these cases of isolated stories? Why were any Isralies killed at all? If God can make thousands of angels make 1 tank commander surrender why couldnt he just make all the armies stay home so nobody was killed? Why did thousands of soldiers on all sides, women, children get killed, maimed and scarred forever?
> ...



Israel was forced to attack because the Arab forces were starving them out by cutting off their shipping lanes, which was an act of war btw.


----------



## 660griz (Sep 9, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Israel was forced to attack because the Arab forces were starving them out by cutting off their shipping lanes, which was an act of war btw.



Where was a bread and meatball rain storm when they needed it?


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 9, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Israel was forced to attack because the Arab forces were starving them out by cutting off their shipping lanes, which was an act of war btw.


Lets forego the dramatics and stick to the facts.
First, nobody, not one person, was starving due to the blockade. Was it a provocation? Absolutely. Was war the only choice? No. In fact the United States and the UN advised Israel not go to war over it that it could be handled politically. Did Israel have to listen the US and the UN? Nope and they didnt. 
So Israel was not "forced" to attack. They decided the blockade (and the threats) justified going to war so they CHOSE to.
Note they did not attack the blockade to get food to their starving to death people. They attacked an airfield. You attack an airfield to destroy the airplanes to deny ground troops air support. So the plan was a ground war. Not the ships blocking their trade rights.
Am I saying Israel wasnt justified? No Im not. But lets skip the drama. They had been dared and double dog dared to start a war. And they did. 
Why did they lie about starting it? Probably because they had been advised not to. Because they had other options. Because they werent forced to. Because nobody was "starving".
Fortunately for them Egypt and Syria werent ready when Israel called their bluff and a series of mistakes, blunders and chance circumstances allowed Israel to win when on paper they shouldnt have.
So now go ahead and insert God into it wherever you want.
And you never addressed why any Israelis at all had to die. With God on their side a twich of his nose or a wiggle of his little finger and the ships in the blockade all sink, the airplanes dont start, the tanks have dead batteries and the enemy ground troops all keel over dead.
Instead thousands died including civilians. Doesnt make much sense to me.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 9, 2015)

660griz said:


> Where was a bread and meatball rain storm when they needed it?


1. Hysterical


----------



## bullethead (Sep 9, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Lets forego the dramatics and stick to the facts.
> First, nobody, not one person, was starving due to the blockade. Was it a provocation? Absolutely. Was war the only choice? No. In fact the United States and the UN advised Israel not go to war over it that it could be handled politically. Did Israel have to listen the US and the UN? Nope and they didnt.
> So Israel was not "forced" to attack. They decided the blockade (and the threats) justified going to war so they CHOSE to.
> Note they did not attack the blockade to get food to their starving to death people. They attacked an airfield. You attack an airfield to destroy the airplanes to deny ground troops air support. So the plan was a ground war. Not the ships blocking their trade rights.
> ...


2. Spot on


----------



## bullethead (Sep 9, 2015)

In each and every case that welder posts and responds to in here and especially regarding the bible, it is always based off of his personal interpretation instead of facts.


----------



## welderguy (Sep 9, 2015)

bullethead said:


> In each and every case that welder posts and responds to in here and especially regarding the bible, it is always based off of his personal interpretation instead of facts.





That makes me all sad inside.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 9, 2015)

welderguy said:


> That makes me all sad inside.


Don't beat yourself up over it,you probably misinterpreted it anyway.


----------

