# Are you an Young Earth or Old Earth Creationist?



## TatnallCountyHunter (Aug 27, 2009)

I have for a long time been an Old Earth Creationist. I simply cannot refuse what science says, after all it helps us, simply because it might possibly contradict a controversial chapter in the Bible.

So, I believe that the 6 days of Creation were not our 24 hour days. I believe they were thousands, millions, or even billions of years long. After all, what is time to the Creator? He made time after all. 

But I just came across a very interesting article that reassured quite a bit of my beliefs and interpretations, and has quite a bit of good information as well:

http://www.answersincreation.org/question.htm


So, what do you believe?


----------



## ddd-shooter (Aug 28, 2009)

Great question...not sure. God did create Adam already aged in years, so he could have just as easily done the same with Earth and the rest of creation. 
Then again, 1000 years is but a day with the Lord...
2 Peter 3:8
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.


----------



## Madman (Aug 28, 2009)

I simply cannot refuse what science says either.  The question is: what supposed science are you unable to ignore?  I look at the same evidence that “old earthers” look at and see something totally different.  I simply cannot agree with mans fallible dating methods over the Word of God.

According to Hebrew scholars the Genesis account of creation gives no room for any translation other than 6-24 hour days.   Nowhere in the Scriptures is millions and millions of years even implied.

Most people do not realize that the majority of the dating methods give dates far younger than evolutionists need for their theories of microbes to man to be viable.

The Gospel is written in the very creation account.  
The wages of sin is death. “For in the day you eat of it you shall die.” Gen2:17b

Then later we read the foreshadowing of the redeemer: “And the Lord God made for Adam and for his wife garments of skins, and clothed them.” Gen 3:21  

Then notice that God drove them from the garden and placed a cherubim to guard the tree of life, so they would not have to live eternally in their sin.

If God would lie to me in Genesis, He would lie to me in the first chapter of Luke.
Old earth, young earth, neither is necessary for salvation; however old earth thinking puts the fallible man above the infallible Word of God.


----------



## Randy (Aug 28, 2009)

What if Genesis is metaphorical, not literal?


----------



## rjcruiser (Aug 28, 2009)

Madman said:


> I simply cannot refuse what science says either.  The question is: what supposed science are you unable to ignore?  I look at the same evidence that “old earthers” look at and see something totally different.  I simply cannot agree with mans fallible dating methods over the Word of God.
> 
> According to Hebrew scholars the Genesis account of creation gives no room for any translation other than 6-24 hour days.   Nowhere in the Scriptures is millions and millions of years even implied.
> 
> ...



Well said




ddd-shooter said:


> Then again, 1000 years is but a day with the Lord...
> 2 Peter 3:8
> But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.



The question then comes, were all 7 days the same time?  I imagine so as the word for day in Hebrew that is used is the same throughout the entire creation account.

So then my next question is this....wasn't Adam & Eve created on the 6th day?  So then, were they millions of years old by the time the 8th day rolled around?  What about later on in Genesis, where it discusses the ages of Adam and his lineage?  

How can you believe in an inspired infallible Bible if you believe in an Old Earth Creation?


----------



## Madman (Aug 28, 2009)

Randy said:


> What if Genesis is metaphorical, not literal?




The language that is being used is not metaphorical.


----------



## Randy (Aug 28, 2009)

Madman said:


> The language that is being used is not metaphorical.



Why not?  It could be?  Can you imagine God telling who ever wrote Genesis............

"Well there is this thing called DNA and each animal has it and I put a cell here and it ..............."

That person would have been lost from the word go!


----------



## Madman (Aug 28, 2009)

Randy said:


> Why not?  It could be?  Can you imagine God telling who ever wrote Genesis............
> 
> "Well there is this thing called DNA and each animal has it and I put a cell here and it ..............."
> 
> That person would have been lost from the word go!



"each according to its own kind"   Not any metaphor there.


----------



## tell sackett (Aug 28, 2009)

What madman and rj said. Is not a God who is capable of creating 350,000,000,000(conservative estimate) galaxies and holding them in place, and at the same time capable of creating something as wondrous as a hummingbird capable of doing it in six days or even a nanosecond if He so desired?


----------



## Randy (Aug 28, 2009)

tell sackett said:


> What madman and rj said. Is not a God who is capable of creating 350,000,000,000(conservative estimate) galaxies and holding them in place, and at the same time capable of creating something as wondrous as a hummingbird capable of doing it in six days or even a nanosecond if He so desired?



Sure he is capable but did He is the question.  I guess He was just trying to trick us or something by putting all those old dinasour bones and stuff in the ground?


----------



## rjcruiser (Aug 28, 2009)

Randy said:


> Sure he is capable but did He is the question.  I guess He was just trying to trick us or something by putting all those old dinasour bones and stuff in the ground?



Old dinasour bones?  Where are they?  I've not seen any old bones that have been discovered.  

Oh...that's right carbon dating.  Yeah...that's real accurate


----------



## Randy (Aug 28, 2009)

rjcruiser said:


> Old dinasour bones?  Where are they?  I've not seen any old bones that have been discovered.
> 
> Oh...that's right carbon dating.  Yeah...that's real accurate



Let's see ...............nope not a one mentioned in the Bible nor on any historical accounts (written or talked about) in the last 6000 years which is how old the world is if you go by the Bible.  And don't quote me that one Laviathon scripture from the Bible.


----------



## tell sackett (Aug 28, 2009)

Randy, please read and think about the last line of rj's post #5.


----------



## NCHillbilly (Aug 28, 2009)

Anybody who tries to tell me that they actually believe that the Earth is only 6,000 years old, I sure ain't going to listen to anything else they have to say. Six thousand years is a drop in the bucket. I have projectile points that are nearly twice that old. I think faith can be a liability as well as an asset if it keeps you from seeing the blatantly obvious.


----------



## Randy (Aug 28, 2009)

tell sackett said:


> Randy, please read and think about the last line of rj's post #5.



I did.  But don't understand the question.  Are you saying if I do not believe that Genesis is literal that I do not believe in an infallable Bible?


----------



## Randy (Aug 28, 2009)

NCHillbilly said:


> Anybody who tries to tell me that they actually believe that the Earth is only 6,000 years old, I sure ain't going to listen to anything else they have to say. Six thousand years is a drop in the bucket. I have projectile points that are nearly twice that old. I think faith can be a liability as well as an asset if it keeps you from seeing the blatantly obvious.


The problems with most Christians is they believe that if they loose that very begining as being literal then somehow the rest of the Bible is also not literal.  Yet for the most part they all accept that Revelations is not literal.  It is the way we have been taught in the last 200 years.  Most Christians today would throw Christians of 200 years ago out of the church for their beliefs.


----------



## tell sackett (Aug 28, 2009)

Randy said:


> I did.  But don't understand the question.  Are you saying if I do not believe that Genesis is literal that I do not believe in an infallable Bible?


I don't want to sound harsh or holier than thou, but it says what it says. Six literal 24 hour days.


----------



## tell sackett (Aug 28, 2009)

NCHillbilly said:


> Anybody who tries to tell me that they actually believe that the Earth is only 6,000 years old, I sure ain't going to listen to anything else they have to say. Six thousand years is a drop in the bucket. I have projectile points that are nearly twice that old. I think faith can be a liability as well as an asset if it keeps you from seeing the blatantly obvious.


You're certainly entitled to your opinion, as we all are. I see it as a choice between believing God or man. I choose God.


----------



## Chemical_Jacket (Aug 28, 2009)

I voted "Young Earth Creationist," but it's a hard decision for me.  I kind of like what someone, I think it was J. P. Moreland, said, "Three days of the week I'm a young earther and four days of the week I'm an old earther."  I'd say it's the other way around for me.

After careful study of Genesis 1-11 in the original language, I cannot help but accept the very clear and simple case that these were 24-hour days.  I think the case for any other interpretation is weak, although still possible.

After careful study of the science of origins and age, I cannot help but say the case for millions of years is stronger than the case for thousands.  I don't think either is the clear victor yet.

So it comes down to, I have a real problem dismissing the strong scientific case, so I don't.  I wait for more understanding to come, and in the meanwhile I have to side with what I see is the plain meaning of Genesis.  But I don't start fights about it, because I don't think any of us is sure.  Besides, anyone debating this from a Christian perspective should be careful to keep it an in-house (in-Church) debate.

In the end, I do have complete confidence in one thing.  God is real, he created reality, and he is consistent with reality.  Whatever he really meant in Genesis, in the end, will be shown to be totally consistent with what is real in our universe.  I assure you of that.


----------



## dawg2 (Aug 28, 2009)

Madman said:


> The language that is being used is not metaphorical.



Go read it again.  There are contradictions in Genesis.  It is not to be taken "literally."

Examples:
Genesis 1:25-27
(Humans were created after the other animals.) 

And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image.... So God created man in his own image.

Genesis 2:18-19 
(Humans were created before the other animals.) 

And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.


----------



## tell sackett (Aug 28, 2009)

dawg2 said:


> Go read it again.  There are contradictions in Genesis.  It is not to be taken "literally."
> 
> Examples:
> Genesis 1:25-27
> ...


Gotta disagree dawg. There is no contradiction, just a retelling of the same event.


----------



## PWalls (Aug 28, 2009)

dawg2 said:


> Genesis 2:18-19
> (Humans were created before the other animals.)
> 
> And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.



Gotta disagree. There is no "order" implied or read into that Scripture.


----------



## THREEJAYS (Aug 28, 2009)

ddd-shooter said:


> Great question...not sure. God did create Adam already aged in years, so he could have just as easily done the same with Earth and the rest of creation.
> Then again, 1000 years is but a day with the Lord...
> 2 Peter 3:8
> But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.



I was also thinking about this and voted that it did not matter to me.Gods in charge and what ever and how ever he does is all right by me


----------



## Madman (Aug 28, 2009)

Everything necessary for salvation is found in the Holy Scriptures, but not everything found in the Holy Scriptures is necessary for salvation.

Believe it or don’t believe it.  IMHO skewing the Scriptures to fit a humanistic world view undermines the Gospel of Christ. 

“So far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Gen. 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s Flood was understood to be worldwide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark.”
Dr. James Barr (Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University), who himself does not believe Genesis is true history.


Jesus believed in the literal meaning of Genesis.  
Matthew 19:3-6  Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"  "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." 


Many look at the evidence and see millions of years but those theories are constantly changing.  I look at the evidence through the Word of God and see a world that is described by the scriptures.


----------



## ddd-shooter (Aug 28, 2009)

Madman said:


> Jesus believed in the literal meaning of Genesis.
> Matthew 19:3-6  Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"  "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."



I believe all this tells us about Jesus was that he believed God, and himself, created man and woman. Where does it say here on what day, or how long it took to create them?


----------



## Madman (Aug 28, 2009)

ddd-shooter said:


> I believe all this tells us about Jesus was that he believed God, and himself, created man and woman. Where does it say here on what day, or how long they created them?



Gen 1:26-31 

Sixth 24 hour day.  See quote by Dr. James Barr.

Perhaps Jesus believed part of the creation story but not all or it, but remember he was there.

Why would you not believe it?  

As I said, believe it or don't believe it, then get back to me on the virgin birth.  Where do you start believing?  I start with Gen 1:1


----------



## Randy (Aug 28, 2009)

Madman said:


> Gen 1:26-31
> 
> Sixth 24 hour day.  See quote by Dr. James Barr.
> 
> ...



So you believe the Bible literally, every word of it?  Jesus spoke in parables why wouldn't God.  Or maybe you don't believe Jesus spoke in parables?


----------



## ddd-shooter (Aug 28, 2009)

Madman said:


> Gen 1:26-31
> 
> Sixth 24 hour day.  See quote by Dr. James Barr.
> 
> ...



I didn't say I believe it or not, I simply pointed out that the quote from Matthew 19 is a poor choice to say that Jesus believed in the literal meaning. 

Let me ask you this, "Where do you STOP believing?" 
Do you believe in the book of revelations as literal?
Do you believe taking communion as literal?
Do you believe speaking in tongues as literal?
Prophecy?
Healing?
Resurrection of the dead?
Biten by snakes and living?
Casting out devils?


----------



## addictedtodeer (Aug 28, 2009)

In Hebrew the phrasing is denoting a short time period (or at least that is what I was taught in my Hebrew classes).
More importantly since I believe there is harmony in the scriptures and it is the infallible word of God, if it took millions of years how do we deal with Romans 5:12?
Scripture states that death (physical) is a result of sin therefore Christ's death conquered both sin and death (see Romans and James). Evolution (Macro) requires death therefore it opposes what scripture teaches. The two are not harmonious, one must be compromised. I prefer for science to do the compromising, just my opinion.

I'm 36 years old and I've watched science change in my life time and have heard of the radical changes in my father's lifetime. What I was taught as I child and college student is no longer taught (dinosaurs are now different, the age of earth and universe now older just for example). Science is man's observation of the known universe and our knowledge is constantly changing. 

Scripture tells me that man is fallible and finite therefore anything we study we will not gain a clear and certain knowledge especially when God is taken out of the equation.


----------



## Madman (Aug 28, 2009)

Randy said:


> So you believe the Bible literally, every word of it?  Jesus spoke in parables why wouldn't God.  Or maybe you don't believe Jesus spoke in parables?



Does the writer of Genesis say it is a parable, or is it a historical account of creation?

I chose the latter, because that is what God says and that is what the scientific evidence supports.


----------



## Madman (Aug 28, 2009)

ddd-shooter said:


> I didn't say I believe it or not, I simply pointed out that the quote from Matthew 19 is a poor choice to say that Jesus believed in the literal meaning.
> 
> Let me ask you this, "Where do you STOP believing?"
> Do you believe in the book of revelations as literal?
> ...




We disagree.  That is ok.  You think it is poor choice, I think it is an excellent point because it gives an example of the creator of the universe stating that he believes in the historical account.

You did not answer my question, where do you start believing?


----------



## ddd-shooter (Aug 28, 2009)

Madman said:


> We disagree.  That is ok.  You think it is poor choice, I think it is an excellent point because it gives an example of the creator of the universe stating that he believes in the historical account.
> 
> You did not answer my question, where do you start believing?



I already stated I am not 100% positive either way. 

You did not answer my questions. Where do you stop believing?


----------



## dawg2 (Aug 28, 2009)

PWalls said:


> Gotta disagree. There is no "order" implied or read into that Scripture.



How about here:

This one says beasts, then man.
Genesis 1:25-27 
And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and the cattle after their kind ... And God said, Let us make man ... So God created man in his own image.

This one says man then beasts.
Genesis 2:18-19 
And the Lord God said it is not good that man should be alone; I will make a help-meet for him. And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them.


----------



## Madman (Aug 28, 2009)

ddd-shooter said:


> I didn't say I believe it or not, I simply pointed out that the quote from Matthew 19 is a poor choice to say that Jesus believed in the literal meaning.
> 
> Let me ask you this, "Where do you STOP believing?"
> Do you believe in the book of revelations as literal?
> ...



Do you believe in the book of revelations as literal?  Some parts, some are allegorical.

Do you believe taking communion as literal? “Whenever you are together do this in remembrance of me”.  Yes I literally believe we should be participating in the Eucharist.

Do you believe speaking in tongues as literal?  Yes the Disciples literally spoke in tongues. According to the Scriptures

Prophecy?  The prophets prophesied.  According to the Scriptures

Healing?  They healed.  According to the Scriptures

Resurrection of the dead?  People have been raised from the dead.  According to the Scriptures

Biten by snakes and living?  If God chose to save them from snake bites he could.  According to the Scriptures

Casting out devils? And devils have been cast out.  According to the Scriptures

Did I pass the test?  

I am 100% certain.  The writers of the account of creation put it in very plain language. As I said, I look at the evidence and it supports the truth of the Scripture.  Let the world believe what it will.  I’ve been studying this topic for 30+ years, God has settled it for me.


----------



## ddd-shooter (Aug 28, 2009)

So God USED to be God. He used to create, used to heal, used to be active, but now he has taken a back seat. Seems contradictory since he sent his Spirit to dwell within us and greater works shall they do...


----------



## ddd-shooter (Aug 28, 2009)

Madman said:


> Do you believe in the book of revelations as literal?  Some parts, some are allegorical.



How do you determine which are allegorical?


----------



## Madman (Aug 28, 2009)

I didn't say that.  
I have not seen Him raise anyone from the dead,  have you, but he could if He chose too.  
I have not seen any devils cast out, have you?
I have not spoken in tongues, have you?
God is able to do what He chooses, just like a literal 6 days of creation 6,000 to 10,000 years ago.


Don't get so defensive about your theology.  

Let's get back on topic.  "Are you a young earth creationist?"  Yes I am because that is what the Scripture says and science supports it.  If it has not been revealed to you that is alright.

P.S. I am not a dispensationalist.


----------



## gordon 2 (Aug 28, 2009)

ddd-shooter said:


> How do you determine which are allegorical?



From several spiritual readings allegories are easily determined.


----------



## ddd-shooter (Aug 28, 2009)

Madman said:


> I didn't say that.
> I have not seen Him raise anyone from the dead,  have you, but he could if He chose too.  There is a video out...
> I have not seen any devils cast out, have you? not personally, but it does happen
> I have not spoken in tongues, have you? no, but I have seen it
> ...



That last bit of yours in blue. Can you elaborate on that for me? I would love to know some more about this. Thanks


----------



## ddd-shooter (Aug 28, 2009)

gordon 2 said:


> From several spiritual readings allegories are easily determined.



Do you mean reading the word with the Spirit as a guide, or a you referring to something else?


----------



## Madman (Aug 28, 2009)

dawg2 said:


> Go read it again.  There are contradictions in Genesis.  It is not to be taken "literally."




The only way you can say a contradiction occured would be to know the intent of the writer.  Was he trying to convey a sequence of events in chapter 2 or was he focusing attention on the people?

From the different language used in chapter 1 and chapter 2 it appears evident that chapter 1 is focusing on the sequence and chapter 2 is focusing on the "people".

I am not a Hebrew scholar.  So I yield to their knowledge on the translation and what was written and the most logical meaning of the translation.

The majority of Christians I speak to about a "literal 6-24 hour days of creation" are more concerned with what the world will think and having all the right answers, mainly because they are afraid people will think they are foolish.

I don't have all the answers, but I do know what God said and I believe it.  This is one aspect of the Scriptures he has chosen to reveal to me and I accept it.

I have been given a reasonalbe faith, and the fallible, old earth science just does not hold up.



IMO


----------



## Madman (Aug 28, 2009)

Some of the science.

1)	Where are all the skeletons?  If homo sapiens have really existed for 150,000 to 200,000, years based on birth and death rates there should be literally billions of skeletons buried and their artifacts but we have only found a few thousand.
2)	Carbon 14 atoms have a 5,700 year half life therefore NO carbon 14 should be older than 250,000 years, yet we find carbon 14 in strata that is supposed to be millions and millions of years old.
3)	The earth’s magnetic field is decaying too fast.  I have not studied up on this one in a few years so I do not have a complete explination.
4)	There are not enough supernova remnants.  According to current observations about 25 supernovas occur each 25 years, these explosions leave gas and dust remnants that supposedly can be measured for millions of years, yet these readings yield only about 200 supernovas which is consistent with approximately 7000 years.
5)	I was reading an article the other day on comets.  Since a comet loses a substantial part of its mass as it orbits the sun, comets could only be thousands of years old not millions.


There are a lot more.  Drop me a PM and I’ll send you some books etc. that are valuable.

Ya’ll have a great weekend.

God’s peace.


----------



## dawg2 (Aug 28, 2009)

In all honesty, if it were that "important" I am pretty sure Jesus would have emphasized it while he was cruising around the 3rd rock from the sun.


----------



## TatnallCountyHunter (Aug 28, 2009)

dawg2 said:


> In all honesty, if it were that "important" I am pretty sure Jesus would have emphasized it while he was cruising around the 3rd rock from the sun.




I agree. No where in the Bible is there ever a mention of the earth's age in the Bible, and whether it matters. If it was very important like a lot of Christians today make it seem to be, so they can perform the battle of "Creation vs. Evolution", it would be mentioned in at least one tiny sentence in the Bible.

The argument that Christians use saying that the earth is only 10,000 or less years old is why many people are dropping Christianity as their religion, most of them becoming atheists... It is simply beyond logic to believe in such a young earth. 100,000 years maybe? A little more believable, but still incorrect.


There also have been theories that Genesis has been "dumbed down". And actually, it makes sense. Making the story more simple and less complex as it really is would allow for more easy remembrance of it, as it was passed down before there was an actual Bible.


----------



## BeenHuntn (Aug 28, 2009)

makes no difference to me at this point... i believe what God believes even if i am totally ignorant of that particular truth...  i'll find out for sure when Jesus welcomes me into heaven and says "well done, good and faithful servant"... thats all i care to focus on at this point... this is the life that decides eternity... you have to get it right this go around...  there is no second chances and there are no do-overs and there are no mulligans...


----------



## earl (Aug 28, 2009)

Change faiths and you can be reincarnated.


----------



## BeenHuntn (Aug 29, 2009)

earl said:


> Change faiths and you can be reincarnated.



why would i want to come back as a deer tick, just to be here....???   

i just assume split helllll wide open and take my punishments,,,, but better yet. study the true word of God, get saved, follow Jesus, die and be received by Christ into heaven !!!!

once i am there, it means no more of    with earl...


----------



## earl (Aug 29, 2009)

You know you will miss me.


----------



## Lowjack (Aug 29, 2009)

rjcruiser said:


> Well said
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The DAY In Hebrew, is not even a 24 Hour Period but approximate a 12 hour period, A day in Hebrew is from sun up to sunset or the period of daylight ,so in fact God didn't create the world in 6X 24 hours but in 6X12 hour periods or a total of 72 Hours, How do you like them apples ?

5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.


----------



## Lowjack (Aug 29, 2009)

The author, Dr. Walter Veith PhD, used to teach evolution at the university level in South Africa.

Q: How accurate are carbon-dating methods? 

All methods of radioactive dating rely on three assumptions that may not necessarily be true: 

1) Rate of Decay. It is assumed that the rate of radioactive decay and half-lives has remained constant over time. This assumption is backed by numerous scientific studies and is relatively sound. However, conditions may have been different in the past and could have influenced the rate of decay or formation of radioactive elements. 

Evolutionists assume that the rate of cosmic bombardment of the atmosphere has always remained constant and that the rate of decay has remained constant. Scientists place great faith in this dating method and yet more than 50% of radiocarbon dates from geological and archaeological samples of northeastern North America have been deemed unacceptable after investigation.i 

While there is no proof that the rates were different in the past than they are today, there is also no proof that they were the same. Thus radioactive dating relies purely on assumptions. We could put forward the following counter arguments to the constancy of the scientific assumptions: 

a) The constancy of cosmic ray bombardment might be questioned. The current high rate of entry might be a consequence of a disturbed post-flood environment that altered the carbon-14 to carbon-12 ratio. Pre-flood dates would thus have to be discarded. 

b) An increase in the magnetic field of the earth would have shielded the earth from cosmic rays. Some scientists argue that the magnetic field of the earth has declined over time. 

c) Atmospheric carbon forms just 0.0005% of the current carbon reservoir—99.66% of the earth's carbon exists in limestone, 0.31% in oil and gas, and 0.02% in coal. Carbon-14 comes from nitrogen and is independent of the carbon-12 reservoir. If even a small percentage of the limestone deposits were still in the form of living marine organisms at the time of the flood, then the small amount of carbon-14 would have mixed with a much larger carbon-12 reservoir, thus resulting in a drastically reduced ratio. Specimens would then look much older than they actually are. 

d) Even if the rate of decay is constant, without knowledge of the exact ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-14 in the initial sample, the dating technique is subject to question. 

2) Clock Reset. It's assumed that the clock was set to zero when the study material was formed. This requires that only the parent isotope be initially present or that the amount of daughter isotope present at the beginning is known so that it can be subtracted. 

Many examples from literature show that the zero-reset assumption is not always valid. Volcanic ejecta of Mount Rangitoto (Auckland, New Zealand) was found to have a potassium-40 age of 485,000 years, yet trees buried within the volcanic material were dated with the carbon-14 method to be less than 300 years old.ii  

A further example from a lava flow off the coast of Hawaii shows similar discrepancies. If dated with the carbon-14 method, the flow appears to be less than 17,000 years old, but dating with the potassium argon method gives dates of 160,000 to 43 million years. A rock sample from Nigeria was dated at 95 million years by the potassium-argon method, 750 million years by the uranium-helium method, and less than 30 million years by the fission-track method.iii 

If the clock is not set to zero when a deposit forms, then there can be no starting point from which to calculate the age of a deposit. 

3) Closed System. It is assumed that we are dealing with a closed system—no loss of either parent or daughter elements has occurred since the study material formed. 

No scientist can guarantee that any sample can be considered a closed system unless it was isolated from its environment when it was formed. Elements can be transported into a sample or leach out of a sample. 

Scientists will reject theories about the age of the earth that do not conform to the norm. They will argue that the clock was not reset if the age is too old, or that isotopes were selectively removed if the age turns out to be too young. In the study on the Hawaii lava flow cited above, it was argued that entrapment of excessive amounts of argon gas had made the samples appear older than they were. 

Radiometric dating techniques are thus based on sound scientific principles, but rely on so many basic assumptions that Bible believers need not have their faith shattered by data derived from these techniques. 

For more on this subject, see the book The Genesis Conflict by Dr. Walter J. Veith, or the video Bones in Stones/The Fossil Record Speaks. 

Updated January 2009. 

i J. Ogden III, "Annals of the New York Academy of Science," 288 (1977): 167-173. 

ii A. McDougall Polach and J.J. Stipp, "Excess Radiogenic Argon in Young Subaerial Basalts From Auckland Volcanic Field, New Zealand," Geochemica et Cosmochemica Acta 33 (1969): 1485-1520. 

iii E. Fisher, "Excess Rare Gases in a Subaerial Basalt from Nigeria," Nature 232 (1971): 60-61. 




by Professor Walter J. Veith PhD.


----------



## heavymetalhunter (Aug 29, 2009)

TatnallCountyHunter said:


> So, what do you believe?



i believe that if we all stop throwing around the stupid conspiracy theories, realize that life is what it is, stop trying to believe that some spooky incompetent father figure has some big plan, stop living in the past, and just live life for what it is, then the world will be a much better place.


----------



## Diogenes (Aug 29, 2009)

BeenHuntn states: “i believe what God believes even if i am totally ignorant of that particular truth... i'll find out for sure when Jesus welcomes me into heaven and says "well done, good and faithful servant"... thats all i care to focus on at this point...”   Um?  What did that mean?  

Did you really just say that you believe what something unknown and invisible believes, even if you are ignorant of not only the being, but the thoughts of the same reputed being?  Do you realize how close that is to saying, “I believe what the Martians believe, even though there may not be any Martians, and even though, if there were, I have no idea what they might believe – but that’s my belief, and I’m sticking with it . . .”    Does a statement like that actually make sense to you?  Sure doesn’t to me, so I thought I’d put it up there again for some rethinking . . . 

Similarly, are you sure that you would be happy to live your life according to what you might assume the possible Martians might believe, on the sole basis that you have some even odder thought that once you die they will welcome you for having believed in them, even though you are ‘ignorant’ of both their existence and their beliefs?  Sir, that is quite a leap.  Sounds a bit like some fella I found in the archives here, doing my diligence before I signed up.  I’m in no position to ask, but as a student of linguistics and the symbolic uses of language, your style and thought seems unusually familiar, though the name seems to differ slightly . . . 

As for Old Earth v. Young Earth, the Argument from Design is so thoroughly discredited that one might as well be arguing UFO v. Loch Ness Monster.  What seems common and fundamental to the entire thought of ‘intelligent design’ is the tendency to embrace ignorance.  To say that you, personally, do not know what something is, do not know how it works, and find it too complex for you is a long way away from concluding that it is too complicated for anyone else to figure out – and – even if it is too complex for us to figure out, that fact alone still does not posit a God.  It simply points out the limits of our own intellect.  Do you cede the solving of every problem that you do not understand to a non-human entity?  

If so, then I guess I have God to thank and blame for this computer, since I have no idea why it works, and for everything from jet engines to particle accelerators.  Do you teach your children to only pursue questions with easy, Biblical answers?  

Science is a process of discovery and learning.  The Design Argument is a philosophy of ignorance and rationalization.  One cannot build intelligent progress on a foundation of smug assumption, as history has handily demonstrated, and debating the finer points of wholly erroneous assumptions cannot really be seen as anything other than silly . . .  What will we do next?  Have a discussion of whether the Earth is flat, or debate when the world will end?  One might remember that a few decades before Galileo was arrested and found guilty of heresy for daring to suggest that the Earth moved, Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake for having the thought that the Earth might not be the only place in the universe where life might exist.    Nothing personal, folks, but, um – they were right.  Religion was wrong.  Always has been, always will be.

So tell me, did God create this Earthly paradise for his creation, as the centerpiece and culmination of his work in the creation of you, complete with such delightful features as floods you cannot endure; volcanoes and earthquakes to bury you; oceans you cannot either drink or survive; predators, parasites, and bacteria you are unable to defend against; snow to freeze you to death; deserts to dehydrate you to death; insects to devour your crops; and sandstorms and hurricanes to blow apart your towns out of some sense of ‘intelligent’ design?  Benevolent Being, I guess, to put his master-work – mankind--  in an environment that seeks to kill that creation at every turn.  I mean, I like a good challenge as well as the next guy, but I’m not perverse enough to think it might be a good idea to create something, try to kill it at every turn, then ask that it worship me.      

Was it intelligent to design a creature in God’s image that is unable to see most of the electromagnetic spectrum, and so is vulnerable to everything from ultraviolet light to massive gamma-ray bursts in God’s cosmos to X-rays to microwaves that we are unable to perceive and defend against, as we are ‘designed’ to be unable to perceive?  Would you really argue for Design after realizing that you eat, drink, and breathe through the same hole in your head?  That many parts of your body are evolutionary vestiges with no currently useful function?  That three-quarters of the Earth is water, and we are land creatures, unable to survive on that majority of our world?  That things like high blood pressure, diabetes, and colon cancer kill hundreds of thousands in this world, and we were ‘designed’ in such a way that we do not know we have those problems until the coroner’s report?  Even cheap cars have ‘idiot lights’ designed to tell you something is wrong.  So what exactly is so ‘intelligent’ about how humans are configured, or this Earth and our place in it?

Stupid design, all around us.  So back to the OP – is it stupid because it is ‘Old’ design, or is it stupid because it is ‘New’ design?


----------



## ddd-shooter (Aug 30, 2009)

Diogenes said:


> Science is a process of discovery and learning.  The Design Argument is a philosophy of ignorance and rationalization.  One cannot build intelligent progress on a foundation of smug assumption, as history has handily demonstrated, and debating the finer points of wholly erroneous assumptions cannot really be seen as anything other than silly . . .  What will we do next?  Have a discussion of whether the Earth is flat, or debate when the world will end?  One might remember that a few decades before Galileo was arrested and found guilty of heresy for daring to suggest that the Earth moved, Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake for having the thought that the Earth might not be the only place in the universe where life might exist.    Nothing personal, folks, but, um – they were right.  Religion was wrong.  Always has been, always will be.



Wow, chip on your shoulder at all? Please provide proof where life has been discovered on other worlds-I personally believe there could be-but I dare not say there is 'proof' of such a thing... 
Oh, and what of all the times Christians pushed for more scientific education? Can you say enlightenment? How about the founding of education in this country 1636-Harvard. I will agree that sometimes Christians seem to eager to plead ignorance, but this has not always been the case, and is not the case with everyone today. 
If I were to paint Science with a brush as hard as you paint Christianity, I would laugh at its shortcomings as well.




Diogenes said:


> So tell me, did God create this Earthly paradise for his creation, as the centerpiece and culmination of his work in the creation of you, complete with such delightful features as floods you cannot endure; volcanoes and earthquakes to bury you; oceans you cannot either drink or survive; predators, parasites, and bacteria you are unable to defend against; snow to freeze you to death; deserts to dehydrate you to death; insects to devour your crops; and sandstorms and hurricanes to blow apart your towns out of some sense of ‘intelligent’ design?  Benevolent Being, I guess, to put his master-work – mankind--  in an environment that seeks to kill that creation at every turn.  I mean, I like a good challenge as well as the next guy, but I’m not perverse enough to think it might be a good idea to create something, try to kill it at every turn, then ask that it worship me.
> 
> Was it intelligent to design a creature in God’s image that is unable to see most of the electromagnetic spectrum, and so is vulnerable to everything from ultraviolet light to massive gamma-ray bursts in God’s cosmos to X-rays to microwaves that we are unable to perceive and defend against, as we are ‘designed’ to be unable to perceive?  Would you really argue for Design after realizing that you eat, drink, and breathe through the same hole in your head?  That many parts of your body are evolutionary vestiges with no currently useful function?  That three-quarters of the Earth is water, and we are land creatures, unable to survive on that majority of our world?  That things like high blood pressure, diabetes, and colon cancer kill hundreds of thousands in this world, and we were ‘designed’ in such a way that we do not know we have those problems until the coroner’s report?  Even cheap cars have ‘idiot lights’ designed to tell you something is wrong.  So what exactly is so ‘intelligent’ about how humans are configured, or this Earth and our place in it?
> 
> Stupid design, all around us.  So back to the OP – is it stupid because it is ‘Old’ design, or is it stupid because it is ‘New’ design?



Don't darwinian scientists admit that the system we live is balanced so delicately on a scale, that even minute changes in our system would make the whole thing come tumbling down? Isn't that what leading science is telling us now? That we are causing our demise because we have upset the balance? 

Oh, yeah there was this place called Eden...


----------



## BeenHuntn (Aug 30, 2009)

Diogenes said:


> BeenHuntn states: “i believe what God believes even if i am totally ignorant of that particular truth... i'll find out for sure when Jesus welcomes me into heaven and says "well done, good and faithful servant"... thats all i care to focus on at this point...”   Um?  What did that mean?
> 
> Did you really just say that you believe what something unknown and invisible believes, even if you are ignorant of not only the being, but the thoughts of the same reputed being?  Do you realize how close that is to saying, “I believe what the Martians believe, even though there may not be any Martians, and even though, if there were, I have no idea what they might believe – but that’s my belief, and I’m sticking with it . . .”    Does a statement like that actually make sense to you?  Sure doesn’t to me, so I thought I’d put it up there again for some rethinking . . .
> 
> ...


----------



## tell sackett (Aug 30, 2009)

TatnallCountyHunter said:


> I agree. No where in the Bible is there ever a mention of the earth's age in the Bible, and whether it matters. If it was very important like a lot of Christians today make it seem to be, so they can perform the battle of "Creation vs. Evolution", it would be mentioned in at least one tiny sentence in the Bible.
> 
> The argument that Christians use saying that the earth is only 10,000 or less years old is why many people are dropping Christianity as their religion, most of them becoming atheists... It is simply beyond logic to believe in such a young earth. 100,000 years maybe? A little more believable, but still incorrect.
> 
> ...


I keep coming back to this post and re-reading it and then telling myself to let it go, but I just can't do it.

TCH, When did man with his fallible logic gain the ability to explain the works of God? He does many, many things I don't understand, but that's okay with me. He's God and I'm not.

It makes sense to say Genesis has been dumbed down? Please explain to me how it makes sense to dumb down the Word of God. Do you have any suggestions on other parts that we may not like or fully understand or agree with that we should dumb down? As far as it being passed down, my understanding is God passed it down to Moses and he wrote it down. That's a pretty short chain.

One thing for sure though, there's a day coming when all God's children are going to be sitting at His feet(probably with our mouths hanging open) going"Ooohhh".

Peace.


----------



## DCHunter (Aug 30, 2009)

tell sackett said:


> Do you have any suggestions on other parts that we may not like or fully understand or agree with that we should dumb down?
> 
> Peace.



Revelations?


----------



## tell sackett (Aug 30, 2009)

nope


----------



## TatnallCountyHunter (Aug 30, 2009)

tell sackett said:


> It makes sense to say Genesis has been dumbed down? Please explain to me how it makes sense to dumb down the Word of God. Do you have any suggestions on other parts that we may not like or fully understand or agree with that we should dumb down? As far as it being passed down, my understanding is God passed it down to Moses and he wrote it down. That's a pretty short chain.



I did NOT say it _has_ been "dumbed down", I said it _could_ have. Perhaps "dumbed down" is a little to harsh for you, perhaps "Simplifiying Genesis" would be a better name for the hypothesis.

People back in Moses's  time would not have understood anything about DNA, RNA, Protein Chains, Photosynthesis, and the like.


----------



## rjcruiser (Aug 31, 2009)

Lowjack said:


> The DAY In Hebrew, is not even a 24 Hour Period but approximate a 12 hour period, A day in Hebrew is from sun up to sunset or the period of daylight ,so in fact God didn't create the world in 6X 24 hours but in 6X12 hour periods or a total of 72 Hours, How do you like them apples ?.





How can you have a day time period without a night time period?



Kinda like checking in at the resort....4 days/3 nights.  Hmmm....amazing.  We use the word day just like they did in the ancient Hebrew days.


----------



## eric37 (Aug 31, 2009)

*Old Earth vs. New Earth*

I'm not trying to hijack this thread, but the thing that has made me lean towards an Old Earth View is different from the current discussion.  

Although I have not witnessed this firsthand, I learned recently in a Biology class that living whales have remnant bones of hindlimbs inside their bodies.  Now, why would God create a species with a completely unused bone that suggests a descent from an ancestor with hindlimbs? (Somebody please verify or diprove this - I swear I'm not just whistling Dixie)

This has been bugging me for some time.

Two things to mention:

1: I am a Christian who believes that Jesus was exactly who he claimed to be.

2: I am not a naive college student as I already have two accounting degrees from UGA and a CPA license.  I took the Biology class as a requirement for admission to the UGA Pharm. School.


----------



## rjcruiser (Aug 31, 2009)

eric37 said:


> I'm not trying to hijack this thread, but the thing that has made me lean towards an Old Earth View is different from the current discussion.
> 
> Although I have not witnessed this firsthand, I learned recently in a Biology class that living whales have remnant bones of hindlimbs inside their bodies.  Now, why would God create a species with a completely unused bone that suggests a descent from an ancestor with hindlimbs? (Somebody please verify or diprove this - I swear I'm not just whistling Dixie)
> 
> ...




Wow....another CPA from Covington...welcome to the nasty religion forum

I'd say that the bone in the whale is probably much like the appendix in your own body.


----------



## Chemical_Jacket (Aug 31, 2009)

eric37 said:


> I'm not trying to hijack this thread...



I think the thread's dead.  Hijack away!



eric37 said:


> I am not a naive college student



Hey now!  I resemble that remark.


----------



## Madman (Aug 31, 2009)

eric37 said:


> I'm not trying to hijack this thread, but the thing that has made me lean towards an Old Earth View is different from the current discussion.
> 
> Although I have not witnessed this firsthand, I learned recently in a Biology class that living whales have remnant bones of hindlimbs inside their bodies.  Now, why would God create a species with a completely unused bone that suggests a descent from an ancestor with hindlimbs? (Somebody please verify or diprove this - I swear I'm not just whistling Dixie)
> 
> ...



"A bone itself cannot show structural change—that change must be inferred from the assumed ancestors and assumed ancestral function. This is a textbook example of assumption passing as fact."

From AIG  Vestigle Structures


----------



## Diogenes (Aug 31, 2009)

Ddd-shooter asks:  “Don't darwinian scientists admit that the system we live is balanced so delicately on a scale, that even minute changes in our system would make the whole thing come tumbling down? Isn't that what leading science is telling us now? That we are causing our demise because we have upset the balance?”   

Well, popular science, clamoring after government (read: political) grant money has a tendency to say whatever those holding the leash (checkbook) want them to say, but no, actually, real science is saying nothing of the sort.  Thing about it, from a non-scientific point of view – if tiny changes in the delicate balance of the eco-system causes widespread catastrophe and the end of life on the planet, then one might think that rather huge disruptions such as earthquakes, massive volcanic eruptions, meteor strikes, ice ages and the like ought to have wiped us all out long ago.  It is probably not an accident that there was nothing we could have done to cause or prevent those things, so the political ‘science’ of controlling our behavior tends to gloss over the massive events that actually change the balance, and focus on our underarm spray and how we dispose of our newspapers . . . A distinction needs to be made between newspaper science and real science, and once one makes that distinction, and thinks about it for a moment, it comes clear that our choice of ‘paper or plastic’ has just about nothing to do with the actual ‘balance’ of an entire planet which has always been unbalanced.  Truth is, there is no ‘delicate balance,’ and never has been.  

There is only a ‘delicate balance’ if one wishes to choose a single moment in time – this one—and preserve it in the present state indefinitely.  Not only is that a silly thought, but it is one that is well beyond our abilities.  The Universe will continue to do what the Universe does, the Galaxy will continue to do what the Galaxy does, The Solar System will continue to do what the Solar System does, the Sun will continue to get hotter as it works towards burning itself out, the Earth will continue to cool at the core as it slowly burns the fuel available, asteroids and the like will continue to orbit in an eventual collision course, and the magnetic poles of this planet will continue to shift as they have done dozens and perhaps hundreds of times (look up the South Atlantic Magnetic Anomaly if you do not believe that).  There is just about zero chance that we will change any of that by purchasing a Prius instead of a Hummer or believing in one dogma over another.  Honest.  

BeenHuntn:  I have no idea what you just said, or what it relates to, but I expect that one need not know everything about thermodynamics (though we pretty much do), or nuclear energy (though we know enough to either power a computer or destroy it), to conclude that we are able to know more.  Sir, your zeal is well observed, though in my opinion misplaced, and perhaps on your own Birth Certificate, as on my own, there is a slot that says – “Father’s Name.”   On mine, there is a human name.

Then says: “you;re not the first person to compare me to somebody else, so get over it.”   Sir, I merely observed that your thoughts and writing style tend to resonate, and recall to my mind some previous reading I had done while lurking and researching prior to formally joining this forum.  I made no comparison, but simply observed a similarity.  Seems I touched a spot even more sensitive than your dedication to believing those things you believe that your God believes – but what exactly are you asking me to ‘get over’?  A comparison not made, or an observation that is innocently offered?  The similarities are striking, and difficult to overlook.

Chemical Jacket states: “I think the thread's dead.”   A sage observation.  Dead before arrival, IMHO.  The debate seems to be whether Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings was more historically accurate – fictions v. fiction, and fantasy v. fantasy.  A nice distraction, I suppose, but my tin-foil supply is wearing thin here . . .


----------



## Diogenes (Sep 1, 2009)

Madman, in the passing along of classic logical fallacy, repeats something: "A bone itself cannot show structural change—that change must be inferred from the assumed ancestors and assumed ancestral function. This is a textbook example of assumption passing as fact." 

This, of course, is a textbook example of denial passing as argument in support of a fact.  What exactly do you presume to demonstrate by the assertion that well-researched and well-documented inference, which, you might notice is the entire basis of human progress, cannot claim 100% certainty?  Does this observation, that I hear time and again, invalidate all of human progress, and assert that God must have built nuclear submarines, because sometimes they crash?  They are not 100% reliable, and so, according to this line of reasoning, are only an assumption made by men in defiance of the Biblical Strictures?

Sir, your own body contains vestigial traces of your evolution that belie your creation as a whole and perfect being made in the image of your God, and the design flaws in your body, compared even to the rest of what some might describe as ‘God’s Creatures’ are rife.  What use would the Creator have of providing you with toenails?  A tailbone?  An appendix?  Why would you, a reflection of a singular Creation, have worse eyesight than most birds, poorer hearing than your dog, and a worse sense of smell than even a shark?  Why would you be unable to endure the cold or the heat, fend off predators without weapons, endure invisible bacteria, heal from small wounds without infection, suffer progressive blindness, be susceptible to drowning, lose your teeth, or be unable to grow back a lost body part as even many simple reptiles are able?  Do you believe that your very poor ‘design,’ even compared to the creatures around you, marks you as somehow ‘Chosen’?

Would you believe that our singular advantage – our highly developed brain – marks the difference when you know that we actually use less than ten percent of it?  What sort of ‘Creator’ would give that advantage, then restrict the use of it?  Mysterious, huh?

I might propose that the energy devoted to denial of readily available, empirical, and easily proven facts might better be devoted to moving progress along, rather than insisting that it be stopped somewhere around Leviticus.  Much has happened since then, and unlike the deniers, we can prove that  . . .


----------



## thedeacon (Sep 1, 2009)

You get nowhere when you try to answer questions that are not revealed.

I am just glad "for noah's sake" all the dennysores were gone before the flood or noah would have needed a few more gopher trees.


----------



## Diogenes (Sep 1, 2009)

thedeacon states:  “You get nowhere when you try to answer questions that are not revealed.” 

Are you sure what you said, sir?  What exactly is a question that is not revealed, other than a phrase made out of nonsensical mealy-mouthed rhetoric?  A question is merely a question, and can scarcely stand unrevealed – only answers can be hidden.  

And not for long.  Questions are both revealed by their nature, and revealing by the asking – I might, for example, ask if you have stopped beating your wife?   Is the question not revealed, or will you hide the answer?  

And in the abstract I doubt highly if anything in your experience of the questions that are not revealed led to a Mars landing.  The Bible forgot to tell us that Mars was there – I checked – so landing a space probe on it was probably one of those examples of getting ‘nowhere’ when trying to ‘answer’ questions that are not revealed . . .   

I’m thinking you might wish to rephrase the thought, is all . . . 

Not sure about the gopher trees thing, but speaking in tongues has always given me a bad case of the screaming heebie-jeebies, so I'll let that one alone . . .


----------



## ddd-shooter (Sep 1, 2009)

Diogenes said:


> Ddd-shooter asks:  “Don't darwinian scientists admit that the system we live is balanced so delicately on a scale, that even minute changes in our system would make the whole thing come tumbling down? Isn't that what leading science is telling us now? That we are causing our demise because we have upset the balance?”
> 
> Well, popular science, clamoring after government (read: political) grant money has a tendency to say whatever those holding the leash (checkbook) want them to say, but no, actually, real science is saying nothing of the sort.  Thing about it, from a non-scientific point of view – if tiny changes in the delicate balance of the eco-system causes widespread catastrophe and the end of life on the planet, then one might think that rather huge disruptions such as earthquakes, massive volcanic eruptions, meteor strikes, ice ages and the like ought to have wiped us all out long ago.  It is probably not an accident that there was nothing we could have done to cause or prevent those things, so the political ‘science’ of controlling our behavior tends to gloss over the massive events that actually change the balance, and focus on our underarm spray and how we dispose of our newspapers . . . A distinction needs to be made between newspaper science and real science, and once one makes that distinction, and thinks about it for a moment, it comes clear that our choice of ‘paper or plastic’ has just about nothing to do with the actual ‘balance’ of an entire planet which has always been unbalanced.  Truth is, there is no ‘delicate balance,’ and never has been.
> 
> There is only a ‘delicate balance’ if one wishes to choose a single moment in time – this one—and preserve it in the present state indefinitely.  Not only is that a silly thought, but it is one that is well beyond our abilities.  The Universe will continue to do what the Universe does, the Galaxy will continue to do what the Galaxy does, The Solar System will continue to do what the Solar System does, the Sun will continue to get hotter as it works towards burning itself out, the Earth will continue to cool at the core as it slowly burns the fuel available, asteroids and the like will continue to orbit in an eventual collision course, and the magnetic poles of this planet will continue to shift as they have done dozens and perhaps hundreds of times (look up the South Atlantic Magnetic Anomaly if you do not believe that).  There is just about zero chance that we will change any of that by purchasing a Prius instead of a Hummer or believing in one dogma over another.  Honest.



Ahh...how refreshing. 'Real' Science vs. 'Popular Science' vs. 'Political Science'

Gee, its getting to be clear as mud. If it's such a clear-cut truth, why are there no real clear cut voices?  
There are those 'real' scientists-those who are in it for the 'right' reasons-and those who give those a bad name. Seems to me I recall you posting about how ridiculous it is to believe something when those who espouse the very same system cannot even agree on the implications of that system. 
Not to mention the absolute absurdity of claiming to have the monopoly on 'truth' when even those within your system argue over the validity of your claims.


----------



## thedeacon (Sep 1, 2009)

Diogenes said:


> thedeacon states:  “You get nowhere when you try to answer questions that are not revealed.”
> 
> Are you sure what you said, sir?  What exactly is a question that is not revealed, other than a phrase made out of nonsensical mealy-mouthed rhetoric?  A question is merely a question, and can scarcely stand unrevealed – only answers can be hidden.
> 
> ...




Gave it some thought and---wellllll----nope don't want to change it but thanks for your advice. I don't doubt what the bible says at all and for all the unfortunant's that has disappeared over the years I have no explination for and so far science has not satisfied my mind on the subject. The answer has not been revealed. (In my bible anyhow


----------



## mtnwoman (Sep 1, 2009)

Old here, too.

I started to put it doesn't matter, because to me it really doesn't, well  in eternity.  But for debate with an unbeliever it does matter to have some answers.

As far as dna...God says in the OT, life is in the blood and He was right 
Speaking of dumbed down..took us long enough to figure that out...that's what we get for only using 10% of our brain...LOL


----------



## Madman (Sep 2, 2009)

> Sir, your own body contains vestigial traces of your evolution



It is humorous how, in a futile attempt to make a point, debaters will throw out arguments or words that appear to have relevance when in reality they are merely irrelevant words such as logical fallacy.  The argument was simple, you cannot look at a single bone and KNOW that it evolved or was left over from some other purpose; you must see a progression in the evolution back to its origin for the statement that these are vestigial bones to be proven. 
 The true fallacy is in the quote above, it is a prime example of a material fallacy which draws an irrelevant conclusion.  

Here was the argument:  Since the human body contains vestigial traces that proves the whale has vestigial bones and that proves my point.

Here is the fallacy: The fact is that very well could be a false assumption.  Simply because science has not figured out the purpose of an organ does not make it vestigial, and even if there are vestigial organs in humans that does not mean they also exist in whales. 

Even the presentation is waning.

Presentation --- 4 points
Argument and facts --- 0 Points


----------



## Diogenes (Sep 4, 2009)

Ddd-shooter asks, “If it's such a clear-cut truth, why are there no real clear cut voices?”    

Sir, in that question alone hangs a Doctoral dissertation, and I congratulate you for asking it.  

Unfortunately, humanity has no shortage of folks who claim to have ‘clear-cut voices,’ and never has in all of recorded history.  Equally unfortunately, nearly all of those ‘clear-cut voices’ have represented little more than authority figures making impositions for their own gain, and nearly all of them have been wrong.  

For my own part, I’m automatically suspicious of anyone who would claim that any matter at all is fully settled, though I lean towards the demonstrated abilities of the empirical sciences.  Landing a spaceship on an asteroid was one darned tricky bit of work; and stuff like virtually eradicating Polio, Black Plague, and Smallpox, among many other killers of humans; providing electrical power and nearly instantaneous communications planet-wide; developing techniques for feeding an ever-growing world on ever-shrinking arable land; and the whole host of wonders from microwave ovens to this computer I’m using tends to place my vote squarely on the value of empiricism and the scientific method.  Looking around, honestly and with an open mind, then looking at the Bible, tends to cause me to think that there is quite a lot the Bible forgot to mention.  

Science, by definition, is the process of discovery, and very few credible scientists will ever say that anything is fully known or fully beyond additional learning.  But to put forth an argument that simply because something is not fully known to you then it is unknowable is to say that the limits of your own knowledge define the limits of knowledge itself.  And to say that if ‘X’ is not fully known, then the answer must be your own is absurd.  Competing theories and competing voices in the sciences represent the quest for additional, provable, understanding.  Some are crackpot ideas, and go nowhere – others are profoundly counter-intuitive but quite correct, and led to radio and television broadcasts sent through nothing more than the air.  Even those things we know fairly well are subject to constant refinements and improvements, as scientists test more ideas to see if they will work.

Religion, on the other hand, relies entirely on a set of untestable ‘beliefs,’ which tend to advance no more or less than a compilation of superstitions that each religion demands be taken on face value, and never questioned, else a vague and threatened ‘punishment’ may result somewhere over the rainbow, and compliance with which promises everything from Paradise to 72 Virgins, but still over that rainbow someplace undefined and undefinable . . .  Out of the bargain, each religion contends that they alone represent the one, true ‘clear-cut voice.’  So, actually, there isn’t a single thing that any thinking person can genuinely gain from religion other than membership in a faction that believes it is wholly right but has no possible means of demonstrating it.

So, if there is to be a clash of ideas, and there will always be, I’ll take the competition between the ones that are actually accomplishing something useful.  

(And, as an aside to Madman – I have no idea what you just tried to say.  I don’t remember mentioning whales at all, so I’m not sure where that came from by way of you ‘proving’ a point you invented.  I’m pretty sure you need to look up the word ‘fallacy’ itself, and perhaps look into the use of the word in logical argument.  And a false assumption would be to ascribe a mysterious purpose that only you and your myths can possibly understand and compare that ‘purpose’ to well documented and perfectly useless features of your own body that clearly were not ‘created’ out of whole cloth for any purpose whatsoever.  One might think that positing a purpose behind our physical frailties, shortcomings, and genuinely pointless features is a rough beginning to an argument for having been ‘Created’ in the ‘Image’ of your Perfect God.  But if that is the argument, by all means – have at it.  Just explain the whale thing . . . I enjoy the idea of scoring, as well, but you ought to be careful with that sort of mockery, since facts tend to weigh much more than smug certainty . . . )


----------



## christianhunter (Sep 4, 2009)

Randy said:


> Let's see ...............nope not a one mentioned in the Bible nor on any historical accounts (written or talked about) in the last 6000 years which is how old the world is if you go by the Bible.  And don't quote me that one Laviathon scripture from the Bible.



I will not quote you the lavaithon Scripture.I will tell you of the Behemoth,with a tail like the cedars of Lebanon(an average of 30').Behemoth in modern language,describes something huge.The day's in my understanding are 1,000 years long.As it says in THE WORD Of GOD,a day is like a thousand years with THE LORD.Behemoth is in the Bible,you will not see dinosaur.Man was created in the sixth day,we still may be in that day.The first six days could have been 24 hour days or 1,000 year days,but at the end of the 6th day time forward could have stopped,as far as recorded time in creation.This is speculation,with some theory behind it,as I heard a pastor preach it once.Lets suppose literal 24 hour or 1,000 year days,up until the 6th day.Creation time stands still so to speak,on the 6th day,the number for man is the number 6.Then at the end is the 7th day,7 is the number for completion.The 1,000 year Reign of our LORD JESUS.Then the 8th day,infinity or eternity,but before eternity a 24 hour day until day 9,The Day of Judgment,9 meaning Judgment.The GREAT WHITE THRONE JUDGMENT.This is speculation,1,000,000,000 year days,1,000,000 year days are speculatory too.24 hour days are literal and factual,1,000 year days are literal and factual as recorded in THE WORD OF GOD.Speculation for the most part leads to confusion.We can speculate until THE LORD returns.HIS ways are not our ways,nor our ways HIS.How do we pretend to comprehend GOD,WHO spoke everything into existance?WHO is not confined to this realm we are in called time.The fact is HIS Arch-angel will have one foot on land,and one in the sea,and will proclaim,"Time will be no more."
Speculation is theory,or guess work at best.Fact is fact,and Faith is Faith.In the end I choose Faith.I don't know the ages,nor was it recorded for me to know, other than THE LORD Created The Heavens and earth in 6 days.Then HE rested on The 7th.That is what I know,and what I believe.THE LORD will Reign 1,000 years,Then THE GREAT WHITE THRONE JUDGMENT,Then Eternity with no more time.It will be in HIS way,and in HIS understanding.There will be no more speculation then.


----------



## mtnwoman (Sep 4, 2009)

Science says there is NO purpose for the hymen in women....but to God it is a blood covenant regarding marriage between a husband and wife.


----------



## WTM45 (Sep 4, 2009)

mtnwoman said:


> Science says there is NO purpose for the hymen in women....but to God it is a blood covenant regarding marriage between a husband and wife.



Good gracious!


----------



## WTM45 (Sep 4, 2009)

Diogenes said:


> Religion, on the other hand, relies entirely on a set of untestable ‘beliefs,’ which tend to advance no more or less than a compilation of superstitions that each religion demands be taken on face value, and never questioned, else a vague and threatened ‘punishment’ may result somewhere over the rainbow, and compliance with which promises everything from Paradise to 72 Virgins, but still over that rainbow someplace undefined and undefinable . . .  Out of the bargain, each religion contends that they alone represent the one, true ‘clear-cut voice.’  So, actually, there isn’t a single thing that any thinking person can genuinely gain from religion other than membership in a faction that believes it is wholly right but has no possible means of demonstrating it.



It does give some "thinking people" a "peace" or a sense of security over things they are worried over or terrified of, and gives them an excuse to stop thinking.

But wait.  It is that same religious belief system that introduced the worry and terror.

Hmmmmmmm........


----------



## eric37 (Sep 4, 2009)

*Vestigial Bones of Whales*



Madman said:


> The argument was simple, you cannot look at a single bone and KNOW that it evolved or was left over from some other purpose; you must see a progression in the evolution back to its origin for the statement that these are vestigial bones to be proven.
> 
> Madman,
> 
> ...


----------



## Madman (Sep 4, 2009)

> If God made animals perfect and changeless in form, I don't think he would have given whales femur and tibia bones that serve no purpose.



Nowhere does the scripture say that God made animals perfect and changeless.  We all know that "in kind" evolution exists.  Finches’ beaks have changed lengths, etc. but finches are still bird kinds and whales are still whale kinds.  Bones with an unknown purpose are sometimes assumed to have served other functions in the past.  There was a time when several human organs were thought to serve no purpose but with advances in science their design function was discovered.  Since I believe the Scriptures to be true and each animal reproduced after its own kind I know that the whale was created as a whale kind, there probably has been some evolution over the 6,000 to 10,000 years since its creation but it has always been a whale “kind”.



> And given the ability of DNA to change with addition, deletions and duplications in the DNA code, it is not surprising to see changes in the fossil record over time.



This was an interesting statment.  Are you inplying that dog DNA can turn into cat DNA or that monkey DNA can turn into man DNA?

I would like to see some proof of that.  And exactly what is the "changes seen in the fossil record over time"?  
I have not seen any monkeys to man changes.  Have you ever been to the Darwin museum in England?  When you walk in the front door you see dogs, cats, finches, turtles, etc.  When you walk out the exit you see dogs, cats, finches, turtles, etc.    No evidence of monkeys to man there either.



> "like a defense attorney claiming that even though his defendent was found with bloody clothes and the murder weapon, you can't prove your case since you didn't see him commit the crime."



I pray you stay in your current line of study and do not move into practicing law.  Assuming the blood is from the murder victim, the only thing you may be able to prove is that my client was at the scene of the crime.  What if he came home and found a man his stabbing his wife, he over powered the man, who ran off, and then he tried to render first aid to his dying wife?
It is very important how you look at the evidence.

I look at the evidence through the truth of the Scriptures.

As I said, salvation is not dependant upon anyones belief on this topic but I believe "old earth" undermines the Gospel.

Peace


----------



## mtnwoman (Sep 4, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> Good gracious!



What???


----------



## StriperAddict (Sep 4, 2009)

Madman said:


> As I said, salvation is not dependant upon anyones belief on this topic but I believe "old earth" undermines the Gospel.


 
I do too.  I believe Moses was inspired to pen the ages (in years) of the first men after creation for historic and scientific reasons.  
Nuff said, and I've not enough time to banter thru this one.


----------



## Diogenes (Sep 4, 2009)

Madman states:  “ . . . there probably has been some evolution over the 6,000 to 10,000 years since its creation . . . “   

So, um, about 6,000 years ago the Sumerians were writing on clay tablets; the Egyptians were using copper alloys and smelting gold and silver; and Cretan ships dominated the Mediterranean – so clearly that wasn’t all created whole with Adam and Eve, leading one to conclude that it might have been closer to 10,000 years ago . . . 

But, um, about 10,000 years ago somewhere around 190,000 years would have already passed since anatomically modern humans appeared, and about 40,000 years since the spread of homo sapiens began displacing and replacing the Neanderthals (though, clearly, not all of them to this day . . . ), and, not to be too exact about it, but about 340 million years would have already passed since sharks appeared in the oceans – so clearly quite a lot of stuff was here on earth, and pretty well going about its business a mere 10,000 years ago.  

But, yes, your statement that, “ . . . "old earth" undermines the Gospel,” is completely correct . . .


----------



## mtnwoman (Sep 4, 2009)

Diogenes said:


> But, yes, your statement that, “ . . . "old earth" undermines the Gospel,” is completely correct . . .



I disagree with that.
However for me, how old the earth is or how long we've been here or how we got here, spaceship, evolution, poofed into existance or even whether there were really other gods, or whether creation was dumbeddown, etc etc etc. Nothing changes the gospel for me, I believe it and accept it as the truth from God in the Highest.  I may not understand the entire Bible or the entire history of the world, but I understand the gospel and that's all I gotta know....Hallelujah!!

EL-ELYON..............Genesis 14:17-20,Isaiah 14:13-14 
meaning "The most high God"


----------



## Indian Arrowhead Man (Sep 6, 2009)

I think what a lot of folks who take the Bible "literal" -as in every word must be interpreted "literally"- fail to realize is that it was translated and retranslated several times.  Unless you're reading biblical verse in the original ancient Greek, ancient Aramaic, ancient Latin, etc. then you're reading what imperfect humans TRANSLATED those texts into...and in many cases, RETRANSLATED several times.  

In addition, "The Bible" as it exists today is a compilation of many different writings that were SELECTED by men as "appropriate" for inclusion.  There are many other writings from the same time periods that were rejected by those men.  Most of the New Testament was selected by Athenasius, the Bishop of Alexandria (Egypt) in the year 315 AD...almost 300 years after the death of Jesus.

In other words, "THE Bible" really isn't "THE Bible".  God did not send it down in a complete version.  That's why there are so many contradictions in the Bible:  different men wrote about different things and in many cases, about the same things...but each wrote according to what HE had heard, what HE had been told, what HE remembered, what HE believed had happened.  Dismissing those contradictions by saying _"I don't understand everything in the Bible"_ is ignoring the fact that the Bible was written by imperfect men just like us.  If you believe that the Biblical writings are divinely inspired, that's fine.  But they were not written 'by the hand of God'.


----------



## gtparts (Sep 7, 2009)

My dear co-GONers,

Much of what has been offered in the last 83 posts is just so much "coating" on the rungs of a chicken ladder. 

The truth is quite simple (as it usually is). With that in mind, I voted for option #3,... mostly to avoid breaking the 15-15 tie.

We have a great propensity for choking on gnats when, in fact, gnat consumption is one of the more easily accomplished feats.

The Bible was penned by many different men over many hundreds of years. The assemblage includes many various literary types of writing for numerous purposes.

All this squabbling about literal and figurative just makes my head ache. Both types of writing are included. To recognize one passage as literal does not necessitate the belief that the Bible is literal from cover to cover, nor does it work in the same fashion for the figurative portions. If one accepts Psalms as the proper literary model for all Scripture, then one would have to throw out most of the Bible as not being in poetic form, for not having lyrical content.

Genesis is NOT a science book...... never was intended for that use. As such, it cannot be held to the standards of science. 

It (Genesis) is part (and I emphasize "PART") of a written and oral revelation of God, an historical record of His relationship with a certain people group, an instructional piece on how to live a life that is pleasing to Him and in harmony with ones fellow earthlings, and how each of us can be reconciled to God for eternity. 

To erroneously attribute some other intent is mere foolishness on our part.

Perhaps what this thread needs most is a few more people who have committed to a more scholarly study of the subject matter rather than "sportsmen" who major in "chasing rabbits" and propagating "red herring".

Just my buck and a quarter. (Inflation, being what it is, it is probably worth considerably less than $ .02.)


Peace.


----------



## duals (Sep 8, 2009)

It would be simple if we had all the answers everyone would go right to heaven.Is believing supose to be that easy. Does satan get to play games and find ways to stop you. Sex,drugs, greed, egos,and lots more and sometimes maybe man can be to smart and he does't need a little thing called faith. I don't care how old the dirt is. whenever god put it here was fine with me.


----------



## Bitteroot (Sep 8, 2009)

I though some of you might enjoy this.


As the Mississippi River flows down towards the Gulf ofMexico, it picks
up dirt and sediment from the riverbank along the way. Approximately 300
million cubic yards of sediment are deposited into the Gulf of Mexico by the
Mississippi River each year. If the Earth really has been around as long as
evolutionists say it has, then the sediments deposited from the Mississippi River
would have filled the Gulf ofMexico long ago! 

American humorist Mark Twain
commentedonthis typeof reasoning in his classic work, Lifeonthe Mississippi:
In the space of one hundred and seventy six years the Lower Mississippi
has shortened itself two hundred and forty-two miles. That is an
average of a trifle over a mile and a third per year. Therefore, any calm
person, who is not blind or idiotic, can see that in the Old Oölitic SilurianPeriod,
just a million years ago next November, the Lower Mississippiwas
upwards of one million three hundred thousand miles long,
and stuck out over the Gulf ofMexico like a fishing-pole. And by the
same token, any person can see that seven hundred and forty-two
years from now the Lower Mississippi will be only a mile and threequarters
long, and Cairo [Illinois] andNewOrleans will have joined
their streets together and be plodding comfortably along under a singlemayorandamutualboardof
aldermen.There issomethingfascinating
about science. One gets such wholesale returns of
conjecture out ofsuchatrifling investment of fact (1883, p.156,
emp.added).


Evolutionists believe that the GrandCanyonwas formedby the Colorado
River (a small amount of water) over a long period of time. The problem
with this theory is that there are over 900 cubic miles of dirt missing from
the end of the river. If the small Colorado River formedthe canyon, what happened
to the 900 cubic miles of dirt? Could this have been the result of a catastrophe
like the Flood? Clearly the evolutionary timescale prescribed for the
Earth does not fit the facts.
While evolutionists frequently appeal to the geologic column in their attempts
to document an old Earth, and to substantiate the theory of evolution,
the actual facts of that column do not support either an ancient Earth or
an evolutionary interpretation of lifeonthe Earth.

Ref:

http://www.apologeticspress.org/pdfs/courses_pdf/hsc0304.pdf


----------



## CRT (Sep 8, 2009)

But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned. 
(Titus 3:9-11)


----------



## tomkiller (Sep 8, 2009)

I go with the Word of God over and above what science believes or says.


----------



## earl (Sep 8, 2009)

5pointCal said:


> But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned.
> (Titus 3:9-11)



The Troll scriptures.


----------



## CRT (Sep 8, 2009)

LOL @ earl.


----------



## tomkiller (Sep 8, 2009)

5pointCal said:


> But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned.
> (Titus 3:9-11)



Great Scripture post.


----------



## TatnallCountyHunter (Sep 10, 2009)

tomkiller said:


> I go with the Word of God over and above what science believes or says.



You do realize that science is the study of God's Creation, right? 

So if the many-times-translated Bible was to say that the reason for your stomach is so you can breathe, then science comes along and proves that your lungs are what you breath with, would you still hold the Bible over the Study of God's Creation?


----------



## farmasis (Sep 10, 2009)

TatnallCountyHunter said:


> You do realize that science is the study of God's Creation, right?
> 
> So if the many-times-translated Bible was to say that the reason for your stomach is so you can breathe, then science comes along and proves that your lungs are what you breath with, would you still hold the Bible over the Study of God's Creation?


 
But, the Bible doesn't say that, right?


----------



## gtparts (Sep 10, 2009)

TatnallCountyHunter said:


> You do realize that science is the study of God's Creation, right?
> 
> So if the many-times-translated Bible was to say that the reason for your stomach is so you can breathe, then science comes along and proves that your lungs are what you breath with, would you still hold the Bible over the Study of God's Creation?




If? Did you type "if"?  Just curious, but what does ANY answer to that question have to do with the truth of what is?


----------



## TatnallCountyHunter (Sep 10, 2009)

Jeeze people, it is a "WHAT IF" statement used to make a point!


----------



## stevo15 (Oct 20, 2009)

The fact of the matter is this...You can't prove what happened at the beginning of time.  You have to make a decision based on the things you have read and studied personally.  Whether you believe in evolution or creation, new earth or old earth, it still takes faith.  We can't all be right about this subject, but you can try and find the truth however you may.  I believe in what is called Mature Creation.  I beleive that when God created man, plants, and animals that he did not create them as babies.  I don't believe that the trees were made from seeds in the ground, I believe that he made full grown trees.  i believe that the animals were adult animals, not babies.  That being said, I believe the earth was the same way.  The earth was made as a mature planet that had the characteristics of a planet that had been lived on for years.  

That is my belief.  You can argue until your blue in the face, but science can't prove the big bang happened and I can't prove that mature creation happened.  Choose to believe what you may.


----------



## rjcruiser (Oct 20, 2009)

TatnallCountyHunter said:


> Jeeze people, it is a "WHAT IF" statement used to make a point!



the point it made was dull at best.


----------



## Diogenes (Oct 22, 2009)

Actually, I thought Tatnall’s point was well made, if only because of GT’s automatic knee-jerk response – “If? Did you type "if"? Just curious, but what does ANY answer to that question have to do with the truth of what is?”  

Um?  Did you just type, “the truth of what is?”

Do any of you folks have that truth at hand?  Are you really so ready and willing to challenge an ‘If,’ when 100% of your own position is based on speculations and superstitions; and nearly your entire argument is that we’ll all be sorry ‘IF’ your particular God turns out to exist?  What sort of hubris turns your speculation – undemonstrated and unproven and unsupported by anything other than a book of words – into a ‘truth?’  

Explain this ‘truth’ to me, can you?  In intelligent, defensible terms.  Someone here actually said that the Earth is 6,000 to 10,000 years old.  Do they have schools around this fella’s house, or are they prevented from teaching anything other than denial and acceptance of ancient dogma?  Does anyone pay attention?  Is there even a High School graduate in the house?  6,000 years ago folks were already pretty well established.

Geological evidence is overwhelming, species have arisen and gone extinct with alacrity, ice ages have come and gone and we are still very much involved in one – around 20,000 years ago about 30% of the planet was ice.  Ten percent still is, and about another 14 or 15 percent is permafrost.  Three-quarters of all the fresh water on Earth is currently locked up in ice, and we have ice caps on both poles, which may be unique, and there are glaciers even in New Zealand.  For most of history, until relatively recently the Earth was hot, with no permanent ice anywhere, and the current ice age, which is finally dwindling a bit, began about 40 million years ago – a blink of an eye on a planet that is a bit over 4 billion years old.  The fact that you, personally, were not around 40 million years ago and neither was the author of your myth, does not mean that all of history began the day someone began writing your particular book.  

Get over yourselves.  The only point you have is a “What If.”  Based on nothing whatsoever.  Actually intelligent folks keep trying to find out the actual truth, and they are making remarkable progress in that area while you choose to cling to fairy-stories while, perversely, taking advantage of those discoveries.  So which is it?  Is your ‘truth’ entirely Biblical?  

Anyone want to venture a guess as to how long it took for ancient organic matter to compress into oil?  Carbon into diamonds? Galactic gasses to form a star (Sun)?  We are astoundingly, radiantly, remarkably ignorant of the truth, but some manage to try to put it together with an industriousness that ‘Believers’ dismiss with a wave of a hand, while reaping the benefits.  So, do us a favor – choose.

If you dismiss science in favor of God, and argue that since science doesn’t have all of the answers then you certainly do, then tell me the answers you alone possess.

Tell me why the dinosaurs appear to have quite abruptly vanished about 65 million years ago.  Explain neutron activation analysis, chemosynthesis, quantum mechanics, Stone-Cech compactification, spectrum analysis, chaos theory, string analysis, contained nuclear reactions, magmatic differentiation, and Happy Hour.  In Biblical terms.  

The assertion is that science does not know everything, and therefore the Bible does.  

Don’t keep saying it over and over.  Prove it.


----------



## stevo15 (Oct 22, 2009)

Have you proved anything?  I don't see any proof in your post.  I see you putting down everything and using words, but not displaying any proof of the earth being 4 billion years old.  you will never prove that, just like creationist will never prove it to be a fact.  It's going to take faith however you may believe.


----------



## gtparts (Oct 24, 2009)

OK.

Been outta town this week and got back early, early this a.m. to find we are flogging a deceased equine again.


1. The Bible is NOT a science book. It was never intended to be such.

This begs the question, then: "What is (are) the intended purpose(s) of this literary collection?"

The primary purpose of the Bible was and is to reveal God and His plan for His creation.

While there are secondary and even tertiary  reasons, this is the one thing that decides this particular issue for me.

  The Bible's central character is God,............ not science, not you, and (God forbid) certainly not me.

 You have lost perspective when you agonize over the "how?" and fail to concentrate on the "Who?"!

Just my  $.02, from one who has looked at the squabbling here for too long.

Peace!


----------



## earl (Oct 24, 2009)

gtparts said:


> OK.
> 
> Been outta town this week and got back early, early this a.m. to find we are flogging a deceased equine again.
> 
> ...





Just curious. For one who has '' looked at the squabbling here for too long.'' ,what in the world made you post and kick it back up to the top ?


----------



## ted_BSR (Oct 25, 2009)

Old or New? Here is a big fat "I don't know", and neither do you.  I think this is the third time that I have written about this in other posts, but it is still true.  *Scienece does not answer any questions, or reveal any truths.  It is simply a language used to describe things.*  The entire scientific method is centered around hypotheses (guesses).  Look to science for answers, and find more questions.  As an example, we used to think the smallest particles were molecules, and then atoms, and then sub atomic particles (protons, neutrons, and electrons), and then quarks (they have flavors instead of names, because we ran out of names), and now string theory.  How about gravity?  Gravitational pull is extremely dependant on factors such as geology and latitude.  The gravity of Georgia is highly variable.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 People who look to science for answers about the truth, have more faith than anyone who banks on a religion.  Dinosaurs, primitive man, carbon dating, I can't explain them, but neither can science.


----------



## earl (Oct 25, 2009)

The HUGE difference between science and religion is that science is constantly correcting itself as new evidence is discovered. Just like your smallest particle example . 
Religion on the other hand not only discourages new ideas and thoughts ,but ignores common sense proudly.


----------



## ddd-shooter (Oct 25, 2009)

earl said:


> Religion on the other hand not only discourages new ideas and thoughts ,but ignores common sense proudly.



While I am not religious, I do take some offense to that statement. There are lots of educated believers, its just the really stupid ones who grab all the headlines...Find me a passage in the Bible that discourages knowledge. 
I do not think you can find a book full of more common sense wisdom than Proverbs. 

Proverbs 4
5Get wisdom, get understanding: forget it not; neither decline from the words of my mouth. 

   6Forsake her not, and she shall preserve thee: love her, and she shall keep thee. 

   7Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 25, 2009)

ddd-shooter said:


> While I am not religious, I do take some offense to that statement. There are lots of educated believers, its just the really stupid ones who grab all the headlines...Find me a passage in the Bible that discourages knowledge.
> I do not think you can find a book full of more common sense wisdom than Proverbs.
> 
> Proverbs 4
> ...



I seem to recall something about "Wise men and eyes of needles"?


----------



## ddd-shooter (Oct 25, 2009)

ted_BSR said:


> Look to science for answers, and find more questions.



What is wrong with this? Nothing. Its called the learning process.


----------



## ddd-shooter (Oct 25, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> I seem to recall something about "Wise men and eyes of needles"?



I think you mean a rich man 

What did Jesus say about the wise?
Matthew 10:16
Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.


----------



## earl (Oct 25, 2009)

I said nothing about wise men and my common sense didn't come across as I intended. What I meant to convey was the type of things in the bible that you have to take on faith. Life after death being one. Revelation pretty much in it's entirety. That sort of thing.


----------



## ddd-shooter (Oct 25, 2009)

earl said:


> I said nothing about wise men and my common sense didn't come across as I intended. What I meant to convey was the type of things in the bible that you have to take on faith. Life after death being one. Revelation pretty much in it's entirety. That sort of thing.



So accepting 'unknowns' on faith is showing a lack of common sense?


----------



## Diogenes (Oct 26, 2009)

“So accepting 'unknowns' on faith is showing a lack of common sense? “

Um?   Yeah.  

If not, then I have a bridge for sale, and I can give you a really good deal on it, but you have to act now . . .


----------



## stevo15 (Oct 26, 2009)

Well said


----------



## earl (Oct 26, 2009)

ddd-shooter said:


> So accepting 'unknowns' on faith is showing a lack of common sense?



Accepting unknowns without some proof or basis for their existence is. The best example I can think of is the wind. You cannot see it or touch it ,but you know it exists because you can see it's effect ,measure it, and use it's power.


----------



## rjcruiser (Oct 26, 2009)

earl said:


> Accepting unknowns without some proof or basis for their existence is. The best example I can think of is the wind. You cannot see it or touch it ,but you know it exists because you can see it's effect ,measure it, and use it's power.



c'mon earl...you know that every Christian has experiences that prove God's existence.

That is an argument that neither of us will win.  I can prove He exists through my experiences and you can prove He doesn't based on yours.


----------



## CRT (Oct 26, 2009)

rjcruiser said:


> c'mon earl...you know that every Christian has experiences that prove God's existence.
> 
> That is an argument that neither of us will win.  I can prove He exists through my experiences and you can prove He doesn't based on yours.




That is why this debate still forges on today.


----------



## earl (Oct 26, 2009)

Any one want to take a shot at life after death since neither side uses common sense ?


----------



## stevo15 (Oct 27, 2009)

That would make for an interesting conversation.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 27, 2009)

earl said:


> Any one want to take a shot at life after death since neither side uses common sense ?



Never been documented by a reliable source.


----------



## gtparts (Oct 27, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> Never been documented by a reliable source.



Opinion. Just your opinion.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 27, 2009)

gtparts said:


> Opinion. Just your opinion.



"Its true because it says its true" is hardly reliable.


----------



## Diogenes (Oct 28, 2009)

ddd-shooter: “Find me a passage in the Bible that discourages knowledge. “

Okay.  To start: Ecclesiastes 1:18:  choose a version –

NIV: For with much wisdom comes much sorrow; the more knowledge, the more grief.
NAS:  Because in much wisdom there is much grief, and increasing knowledge results in increasing pain.
GWT:  With a lot of wisdom [comes] a lot of heartache. The greater [your] knowledge, the greater [your] pain.
KJV: For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.
AKJ: For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increases knowledge increases sorrow.

You get the idea . . .


----------



## Diogenes (Oct 28, 2009)

And by the way, you might recall that the ‘Original Sin’ was daring to eat of the fruit of knowledge . . .


----------



## Diogenes (Oct 28, 2009)

You might also recall how many times your God admonishes that thou shalt have no other Gods – jealous sort of a God, huh?  So clearly this one knew that there were others, but forbade that knowledge . . . 

But God didn’t stop with just discouraging knowledge.  Not by a long shot. All forms of enlightenment, progress, tolerance, and acceptance were not only discouraged but forbidden.  

Try this one out: from Leviticus:  A bit more Fun:
God can't stand the sight of handicapped people:

21:16 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,  
21:17 Speak unto Aaron, saying, Whosoever he be of thy seed in their generations that hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God.      
21:18 For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous,  
21:19 Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded,  
21:20 Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken;  
21:21 No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the LORD made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God.  
21:22 He shall eat the bread of his God, both of the most holy, and of the holy.  
21:23 Only he shall not go in unto the vail, nor come nigh unto the altar, because he hath a blemish; that he profane not my sanctuaries: for I the LORD do sanctify them.  
21:24 And Moses told it unto Aaron, and to his sons, and unto all the children of Israel.

And, y’know, I just read the Americans with Disabilities Act?  And I couldn’t find a darned thing about this in there.  The LORD seems to be making some harsh distinctions between his own creations here, and just doesn’t want the ugly ones in his house.  Clearly the LORD was anticipating Hollywood productions.   But at least now I know why churches are specifically exempted from having to comply with this Act . . . God doesn’t like the handicapped . . . Or men with broken stones . . .  And said so, breaking a few stones by the saying . . .

And this God isn’t much for Art Museums either: Deuteronomy: 
"When thou ... make a graven image, or the likeness of any thing ... ye shall utterly be destroyed."

If someone makes an image of anything (like a bird or flower) then God will destroy the entire nation.   No wonder most artists are atheists, huh?

4:24 For the LORD thy God is a consuming fire, even a jealous God.  
4:25 When thou shalt beget children, and children's children, and ye shall have remained long in the land, and shall corrupt yourselves, and make a graven image, or the likeness of any thing, and shall do evil in the sight of the LORD thy God, to provoke him to anger:   
4:26 I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that ye shall soon utterly perish from off the land whereunto ye go over Jordan to possess it; ye shall not prolong your days upon it, but shall utterly be destroyed.  
4:27 And the LORD shall scatter you among the nations, and ye shall be left few in number among the heathen, whither the LORD shall lead you.

So I guess those Taliban folks had it right . . . paint a picture, get beheaded.  The LORD has decreed that it must be so . . . but still, that bit in 4:26 about calling heaven and earth to witness against you this day is a bit of rhetoric that can’t go unnoticed:  I mean, presumably, at this point in the story, heaven is pretty much just God, and the earth is presumably just a few lucky folks that didn’t get wiped out a few chapters back.  So . . . what need would God have for witnesses anyway?  Is this a jury trial?  And just what significance did this day have that it needed to be mentioned in Scripture?  Was it a holiday?  Is that why He was so upset?  I mean, if somebody bothers me in the middle of eating hot dogs and pitching horseshoes, I might get similarly cheesed off, and yell something like, “Hey, huh, it’s the  Fourth of July, alright, so don’t bug me, or you will be utterly destroyed  . . And your little dog too . . .”

Hey . . . it’s your Book . . . I’m just reading it to you . . .


----------



## Diogenes (Oct 28, 2009)

And, while I’m here, how about we get back to that Creation thing?  

Let’s try this out -- Genesis:
God is angry. He decides to destroy all humans, beasts, creeping things, fowls, and "all flesh wherein there is breath of life." He plans, in a convincingly premeditated fashion, to drown them all:

6:5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
  ( Here, God decides to kill all living things because the human imagination is evil.  Later (8:21) after     he kills everything, he promises never to do it again because the human imagination is evil.  Um? )  
6:6   And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.       ("It repented the Lord that he had made man."   Does God repent?  Is that possible inside of theology?  Can God make a bad decision?  It seems so, and he thought creating man was one of those bad ideas.)  
6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

Darn.  Harsh stuff.  And this is only Chapter One.  Seems like God is having second thoughts . . .   But . . . hey . . . wait a minute . . . how can God have failed to anticipate that his creation might be less than he had in mind?    “Darn it.  Missed again.  (Heavy Sigh)  Guess I’ll kill them all, and try it again . . .”   This is not encouraging, for those who might want to see God as infallible.  Clearly God didn’t have that high of an opinion of Himself, nor of His creation, here in the Beginning.  But then, looking around, if I was responsible for this mess, I’d be having a bit of Creator’s Remorse myself . . . 

Then we get: Exodus:
God sends plagues so that people can get to know him better.  Who else but God could be so cruel?:  

9:14 For I will at this time send all my plagues upon thine heart, and upon thy servants, and upon thy people; that thou mayest know that there is none like me in all the earth.    
9:15 For now I will stretch out my hand, that I may smite thee and thy people with pestilence; and thou shalt be cut off from the earth.  
9:16 And in very deed for this cause have I raised thee up, for to shew in thee my power; and that my name may be declared throughout all the earth.

Um?  I mean, geez.  Even the Mafia is a bit more subtle than that.  Going around smiting everyone with plagues and pestilence is one lousy way of gaining respect . . . and that bit about stretching out His hand?   God has hands?    Darn.  Who knew?

And yet More Exodus:
The mass murder of innocent children by God (see 12:29-30) was similarly premeditated.  God was pretty bigoted against the Egyptians, it seems:  

11:4 And Moses said, Thus saith the LORD, About midnight will I go out into the midst of Egypt:   
11:5 And all the firstborn in the land of Egypt shall die, from the first born of Pharaoh that sitteth upon his throne, even unto the firstborn of the maidservant that is behind the mill; and all the firstborn of beasts.  
11:6 And there shall be a great cry throughout all the land of Egypt, such as there was none like it, nor shall be like it any more.  
11:7 But against any of the children of Israel shall not a dog move his tongue, against man or beast: that ye may know how that the LORD doth put a difference between the Egyptians and Israel.

Well . . . I guess.   Probably the LORD just decided that He didn’t like those pesky Egyptians that he had created in His infinite wisdom and mercy . . .  Fickle sort of a fella, huh?  I bet it had something to do with that brat Zipporah, back earlier in Exodus.  But still, the folks in Israel weren’t going to take any chances, so they kept up that foreskin slicing bit, just to be safe . . .  But still . . . the firstborn of the  beasts too?  That just seems a little vindictive.  I’m not even sure that the beasts all had foreskins to begin with . . . And they certainly didn’t know how to use sharp stones just to keep this God fella happy . . . And this after the first mass murder back in Genesis . . . God is sort of portrayed as something of a recidivist where wiping folks out is concerned.

But even after sort of tolerating his Creation, God seems a bit undecided about letting them actually be fruitful and multiply . . . Leviticus:
 After a woman gives birth, a priest must kill one of God’s creatures as a sin offering. This is because having children is sinful and God seems to like it when His things are killed in his honor.
Is childbearing sinful, requiring atonement?  It appears to be:

12:6 And when the days of her purifying are fulfilled, for a son, or for a daughter, she shall bring a lamb of the first year for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon, or dove, for a sin offering, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, unto the priest:    
12:7 Who shall offer it before the LORD, and make an atonement for her; and she shall be cleansed from the issue of her blood. This is the law for her that hath born a male or a female.  
12:8 And if she be not able to bring a lamb, then she shall bring two turtles, or two young pigeons; the one for the burnt offering, and the other for a sin offering: and the priest shall make an atonement for her, and she shall be clean.

Just guessing here – but it looks like the priests needed free food . . .  I mean . . . bearing a child requires a sin offering?   To the LORD?   The all loving, all knowing creator requires that you kill one of His creations as a sacrifice, to atone for the sin of bringing a child into His world?  Darn.  That’s pretty harsh.  Seems that the creator did not see this ‘Blessed Event’ as being all that blessed after all . . .  And, by the way, since this is a recurring theme – what sort of God is gratified by having His creations killed in His honor?  (“And if she be not able to bring two turtles, or two young pigeons, then she must bring me a shrubbery . . . “)

One might think that a God that is infallible by definition, might not have changed His mind so frequently . . . and in his own Book besides . . . I mean geez . . . You’d think the Editors would have caught that sort of stuff . . .


----------



## stevo15 (Oct 29, 2009)

God is definitely a jealous God and I am thankful for that.  If not then he wouldn't have reached out and tried to rescue some from themselves.  I am also a jealous husband.  I think that's a good thing.  It means that you loves something so much that you don't want them to go astray and get hurt or do something that's not right for them.  Doesn't sound like a bad thing to me.

If you have kids, I am assuming there are times that you have wanted to kill your kids for doing something dumb.  As the creator I am sure he was upset by choices that they made, but knew that eventually they would make a poor choice.  He gave them the right to choose what they wanted and knew it wouldn't last forever.  I want my children to be perfect one day, but that doesn't mean they won't mess up and I won't get mad.  

About the killing animals part...Didn't know we were dealing with PETA now.  Animals were brought as offerings to show their thanks and to prove that they are willing to give things up to receive his blessings.

I am glad that you are reading the Bible though...maybe it would help if you would actually read more of it instead of just looking for parts that you can nit pick and find things to argue about.

Try the rest of the book sometime...You might enjoy other portions.  Or you could just sit in your own world and look for ways to bash Christianity from behind your computer screen.  Either way, be respectful of others.


----------



## Diogenes (Oct 31, 2009)

Stevo15:  “God is definitely a jealous God and I am thankful for that. If not then he wouldn't have reached out and tried to rescue some from themselves.”      Um?  Hang on a sec.  What on Earth could a God have to be jealous of?  Does that make any sense?  And if in his jealousy he reached out to rescue some from themselves, then that is hardly jealousy, is it?  And if this God Created all things, then what exactly could he have rescued anyone from other than from what He Created in the first place?  

That would be an odd sort of thinking – To create a situation where one can then rescue your creations from other bits of your creations?  So we are just players in God’s video game, or what?        

 Then: “I am also a jealous husband. I think that's a good thing. It means that you loves something so much that you don't want them to go astray and get hurt or do something that's not right for them. Doesn't sound like a bad thing to me.”    Um?   And, presumably, this means that you alone get to define what ‘going astray’ might mean.  Let me guess – does it mean doing anything other than what you want them to do?  Yes, it sounds like a bad thing to me unless you are somehow provided with a perfect perspective and know in and of yourself what is ‘right for them.’  

Then: “If you have kids, I am assuming there are times that you have wanted to kill your kids for doing something dumb.”    Yes, I do have kids.  And yes, since they are kids, they have done dumb stuff.  And no, I haven’t killed them for it.  Rather, I have considered their ‘dumb’ acts to be a failure in my raising of them, and have sought to correct my own mistakes rather than blaming those mistakes on my children.

More: “He gave them the right to choose what they wanted and knew it wouldn't last forever.”  No, no, no . . . we are not talking about a parent/child relationship here – If God Created all things, then the only choices available were the ones He also Created.  Nobody gets to choose what they want if the only things to choose from were Created by a perfect and infallible God.  You can’t have it both ways here.  If God is the Creator, and gave you the free-will to make your own choices, He would also have needed to Create the things to choose among.  The poor choices available could not have arisen independently, outside of this same Creation.       

And! : “About the killing animals part...Didn't know we were dealing with PETA now. Animals were brought as offerings to show their thanks and to prove that they are willing to give things up to receive his blessings.”    Um?  Really now.  Where does it say that?  Armadillos, alligators, porcupines, butterflies, sharks, cockroaches, rats, mosquitoes, and jellyfish were all created as offerings, to show their thanks?   Huh?  I can’t remember any of the Biblical folks demanding anything inedible as an offering, and they certainly never asked for anything really hard to do, like, “Bring me back a lion” or anything like that . . .  Still seems to me that writing a bit of Scripture that requires that every time a child is born the woman needed to bring food to a Priest to atone for her sin and cleanse herself by the offering is a little transparent . . . (Cynical, even, one might observe) . . . And they were pretty specific about the food they preferred be brought . . .  God’s shopping list here, eh?  

Further: “I am glad that you are reading the Bible though...maybe it would help if you would actually read more of it instead of just looking for parts that you can nit pick and find things to argue about.”   Indeed.  The problem is that I have read all of it in several different versions (and the fact that there are several versions is a problem unto itself), and I tend to find that the opposite of your contention tends to apply – True Believers tend to leave out the parts they do not like, which, in an honest reading, would be most of them.

Finally: “Try the rest of the book sometime...You might enjoy other portions. Or you could just sit in your own world and look for ways to bash Christianity from behind your computer screen. Either way, be respectful of others.”   Or, you could sit behind your own computer screen, having read and examined and understood only a small percentage of your own Book, and look for ways to bash people who have actually read and studied the entire work.  

Being respectful of others fairly requires holding them to intellectual honesty, and if your own world is limited to what you have heard from the local pulpit, then woe unto you.  Not only is the world itself broader than that view, but even your own religion is far more complex.  I notice, most pointedly, that there is no denial of the verses.  Nor any refutation of the meaning of them.

So, if one believes the Book to be the Word of God, then am I looking for parts to argue over, or are you denying those parts?  Will one speak of the story of Lot’s wife if one believes the Bible?  Can one defend the literal truth of even a word of the entire Book?  And if not, then just who is cherry-picking, and choosing the ‘parts’ they wish?


----------



## ted_BSR (Oct 31, 2009)

ddd-shooter said:


> What is wrong with this? Nothing. Its called the learning process.



The describing process.


----------



## ted_BSR (Oct 31, 2009)

earl said:


> Accepting unknowns without some proof or basis for their existence is. The best example I can think of is the wind. You cannot see it or touch it ,but you know it exists because you can see it's effect ,measure it, and use it's power.




Sounds like you are catching on.


----------



## ted_BSR (Oct 31, 2009)

Diogenes said:


> “So accepting 'unknowns' on faith is showing a lack of common sense? “
> 
> Um?   Yeah.
> 
> If not, then I have a bridge for sale, and I can give you a really good deal on it, but you have to act now . . .



I don't have or need "common sense".  I need "extraordinary sense".  Common sense is just that, common and easy to come by.


----------



## ted_BSR (Oct 31, 2009)

earl said:


> The HUGE difference between science and religion is that science is constantly correcting itself as new evidence is discovered. Just like your smallest particle example .
> Religion on the other hand not only discourages new ideas and thoughts ,but ignores common sense proudly.



See post #128


----------



## ted_BSR (Oct 31, 2009)

Diogenes said:


> Stevo15:  “God is definitely a jealous God and I am thankful for that. If not then he wouldn't have reached out and tried to rescue some from themselves.”      Um?  Hang on a sec.  What on Earth could a God have to be jealous of?  Does that make any sense?  And if in his jealousy he reached out to rescue some from themselves, then that is hardly jealousy, is it?  And if this God Created all things, then what exactly could he have rescued anyone from other than from what He Created in the first place?
> 
> That would be an odd sort of thinking – To create a situation where one can then rescue your creations from other bits of your creations?  So we are just players in God’s video game, or what?
> 
> ...



You are wordy.  Profound statements are usually short.


----------



## earl (Nov 1, 2009)

ted_BSR said:


> See post #128






Short enuf ?


----------



## creation's_cause (Nov 1, 2009)

New (Young) Earth for sure!!! Won't be long now before we can find out from the builder's own words (2nd time's a charm) ....keep your eyes on the Eastern skies!!  Copenhagen Treaty, Iran vs Israel, Battle over the Temple Mount....after a couple prophets show up and are raised after the world has seen them dead in the streets for three days, maybe the scoffers will think differently....maybe....(think too long though, and you'll go wrong).   I love you folks, especially those who disagree.  I invite you to hear a prophetic teacher of these and other subjects at Second Baptist Church in Warner Robins....the Holy Spirit has been showing up and many are getting saved.  Repent while you still have the opportunity, and see that the Lord is GOOD!!


----------



## Diogenes (Nov 1, 2009)

Ted BSR states: “You are wordy. Profound statements are usually short.”

Indeed.  (Good thing the Bible is short, and to the point, huh?)  Let us try this short statement out, from the profound sage Ted BSR: “ Scienece does not answer any questions, or reveal any truths. It is simply a language used to describe things.”

Short, compact, revealing and truly profound.  Well, profoundly wrong, anyway.  

If science didn’t answer any questions, then one must take it on faith that the electricity, satellites, refined metals, microchips, plastics, and the like operating your computer, as well as the myriad technologies involved in living and working indoors, eating, driving, being free of headaches and plagues, eating food one neither grew nor killed oneself, putting some of that food in the freezer, turning the thermostat up or down, wearing woven fabrics and rubber soled shoes, and even something as prosaic as sleeping on a mattress are all things that are God-Given.

Science, after all, is simply a language used to describe these things, right? 

God handed us nuclear power plants, aircraft carriers, GPS, jet airliners, and Viagra.  Science merely describes these objects of God to us.  Right?  It says so, right there in Denial: 1:26.

And it is further proven in Collection Plate: 2:2 through 86.  

After all, “People who look to science for answers about the truth, have more faith than anyone who banks on a religion.”  Yea verily!  Religion is the way to go.  See: Vaccines: 3:7; Heart Surgery: 6.6.6; Oil Refining: 2.49.9; Pasteurization: 2%; NASA: 19:69; Winchester: 30.30; Microwaves: 27; Adhesives: 3M; and Pesticides: 10.47.  It is all right there in the Book of Religion.

Wait.  Somebody left those chapters out of my copy . . . Darn it.  I’m going to need to have a chat with the author . . .


----------



## stevo15 (Nov 3, 2009)

Diogenes...Indeed. (Good thing the Bible is short, and to the point, huh?) Let us try this short statement out, from the profound sage Ted BSR: “ *Scienece* does not answer any questions, or reveal any truths. It is simply a language used to describe things.

Don't really know why I would argue with a guy about science when he can't spell the word himself...

God created a perfect world, but with free will, he gave them the choice to choose right or wrong.  It means God created them and let them decide if they wanted to worship him or not.  Satan was also created perfectly...I am sure you have read all of that, so I won't bore you to sleep like you do in your post.

Going astray means doing something that is not a good thing, not what I feel is good for me.  We all know what right and wrong is correct?  Don't try and turn everything around.

I have seen the best parents in the world turn out to have terrible kids that do crazy things.  It's not always a reflection of your parenting.  Society can really have an effect on kids lives.  They spend more time awake with their classmates and teachers then they do at home on a normal day.  Maybe you have failed, but that's not always the case.

I love that you point out free will as a bad thing.  If God were to create a world with no choices, you would then blame him for giving no freedom.  He did create a world with options...something wrong with that?  It was a perfect world until Satan entered the world...once again, God gave his creation a choice and an option to do what was right or wrong.

God's shopping list??  You are really making me laugh.  I never said that all animals were created to be offerings.  You are reading in and trying to put words in my mouth.  I said that sacrifices were made as offerings of thanks.  Didn't say that's what all animals were for.  I can't tell you why he chose one animal over another as an offering...I have no idea!  

The Bible is full of things I don't understand...and even though you don't think so, you don't understand everything either.  There are parts that confuse me very much so, but I have faith and believe in what I believe because of what I have read and what I feel.

By the way...I have read the book.  You aren't talking to someone that you believe to be a Christian...That's your problem, you have met too many people that claim to know the truth, but in reality have never read the Bible or ever tried to answer the questions in it.  Those are the people that give Christianity a bad name.


----------



## Glock Master (Nov 3, 2009)

TatnallCountyHunter said:


> I have for a long time been an Old Earth Creationist. I simply cannot refuse what science says, after all it helps us, simply because it might possibly contradict a controversial chapter in the Bible.
> 
> So, I believe that the 6 days of Creation were not our 24 hour days. I believe they were thousands, millions, or even billions of years long. After all, what is time to the Creator? He made time after all.
> 
> ...





If God crated Plants and vegetation before he created animals (who polinate them) How would they have survived for 1000's of years?

Also the hebrew word used is Yam. Meaning day literally. every time it is used elseware in the bible, it means an actual day.

P.S. Scientists are not studing from an unbiased prospective. They look through the scope of evolution.


----------



## Diogenes (Nov 4, 2009)

Yikes!  

Stevo15: “God created a perfect world, but with free will, he gave them the choice to choose right or wrong. It means God created them and let them decide if they wanted to worship him or not. Satan was also created perfectly...”

Okay – Um, what???   If God created a perfect world, and God is the Creator of all things, then I have a few questions – First, if everything was perfect, then what possible need could there have been for free-will?  What else could God have created that one might choose from?  Everything He created was already perfect, right?  

And if God created everything, then what could He have possibly had in mind by creating Satan perfectly?  

Then: “Going astray means doing something that is not a good thing, not what I feel is good for me. We all know what right and wrong is correct?”   Um, no, not really.  That is why we Created prisons.  But you beg off the question again – how can anyone go astray if everything was Created already perfect?  There could be no path available that was not the correct one in a perfect Creation.

More: “It was a perfect world until Satan entered the world...”  Um?   Now how did that come about?  You can’t have it both ways.  Does it not bother you to argue that God Created a perfect world, then mucked it up by Creating a perfect Satan, then further muddied the water by not tipping off his creations that it was a game from the get go?  Adam and Eve were cast out for eating from the tree of knowledge, according to that Book, so what does that say?  

Further: “God's shopping list?? You are really making me laugh. I never said that all animals were created to be offerings.”   Really?   So when you said: “Animals were brought as offerings to show their thanks and to prove that they are willing to give things up to receive his blessings,”  you didn’t really mean that animals ‘were brought as offerings’?   Then why on Earth did you say that?  Just so that I could make you laugh over something you didn’t say?

“You are reading in and trying to put words in my mouth.”  Yes indeed.  Your own words.

“Those are the people that give Christianity a bad name.”  Yeah.  For wont of a better term, we call those people ‘Christians,’ since that is how they persist in describing themselves.

(Sorry, but this one from Glock Master is tough to pass up – “If God crated Plants and vegetation before he created animals (who polinate them) How would they have survived for 1000's of years?”    Wow!   Animals pollinate plants?  Who knew . . . ?  Wow!  Anybody?  Bueller?)


----------



## stevo15 (Nov 4, 2009)

Ok, I can see your argument will stay the same regardless.  Quickly I will point out some things that you obviously didn't read correct in my last post.  

First off...we all know what right and wrong is.  Idiots are in prison for choosing to do the wrong thing...not because they didn't know it was right.  You won't win that argument.

Adam and Eve were told that there was one tree that they were not to eat from.  God gave them the option to eat but told them you will surely die.  You will have the same argument again....  That means that they knew that a perfect world would be perfect no more if they chose to eat from that tree.  I know I know...if it was created perfect then how could something not perfect come from it.  The creator chose to make choices that could ruin the perfection he created.  We can argue till we are blue in the face, but I don't see the point.  We will disagree on this for sure.    

Speaking of animals...you were talking about certain animals being used and certain others not used.  You have read the Bible...you should know that only certain animals were used for sacrifices.  I shouldn't have to explain that.


You are correct...people that call themselves Christians, yet don't live a lifestyle that follows God's word are not Christians.  They call themselves that though.  I can call myself a professional athlete all I want to, but everyone around me knows that I'm not.  Their are people in this world that fake things...Christianity does have a big problem, but the people that are faking it are not Christians.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 4, 2009)

stevo15 said:


> Ok, I can see your argument will stay the same regardless.  Quickly I will point out some things that you obviously didn't read correct in my last post.
> 
> First off...we all know what right and wrong is.  Idiots are in prison for choosing to do the wrong thing...not because they didn't know it was right.  You won't win that argument.
> 
> ...



So, God is looking down at Adam and Eve saying to himself "Gee, I wonder what they will do next.  Oh my Me!!!!  They actually ate that thing I told them not to eat!!!  After I told them it would kill them.  Wow!! That was a surprise."

Then he makes Satan and one day Satan decides to become evil incarnate.  God must have said to himself "Wow!  didn't see that coming!  He was my favorite.  Oh well.  I guess I could turn him into a cute little bunny rabbit but I'll keep him around, just like he is instead, and let him torment my humans."

I don't like that guy.


----------



## Madman (Nov 4, 2009)

Diogenes said:


> And by the way, you might recall that the ‘Original Sin’ was daring to eat of the fruit of knowledge . . .



....... Of Good and Evil.

Nothing like changing God's word to fit what one wants it to say.  Satan did exactly the same thing to Eve.


----------



## gtparts (Nov 4, 2009)

Diogenes said:


> Ted BSR states: “You are wordy. Profound statements are usually short.”
> 
> Indeed.  (Good thing the Bible is short, and to the point, huh?)  Let us try this short statement out, from the profound sage Ted BSR: “ Scienece does not answer any questions, or reveal any truths. It is simply a language used to describe things.”
> 
> ...



Sarcasm and "witty" fabrications make pitiful arguments to support any position. I am really surprised that you even posted this.


----------



## stevo15 (Nov 4, 2009)

Ambush...nothing came out of your post except for the fact that you are a blatant disbeliever.  That's fine, but you didn't add anything to the conversation with your comments.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 4, 2009)

stevo15 said:


> Ambush...nothing came out of your post except for the fact that you are a blatant disbeliever.  That's fine, but you didn't add anything to the conversation with your comments.




Kindly explain to me why I'm wrong in my interpretation.

Make it make sense to me as if I were a 6 year old.


----------



## Madman (Nov 4, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> I don't like that guy.



That is not God.

If someone did explain it to you like a 6 year old would you change your mind?

You may not like the false being you set up but the one true God loves you enough to put on flesh and die for you.


----------



## earl (Nov 4, 2009)

Madman said:


> That is not God.
> 
> If someone did explain it to you like a 6 year old would you change your mind?
> 
> You may not like the false being you set up but the one true God loves you enough to put on flesh and die for you.





Good to see you out and about again. Where ya been ?


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 4, 2009)

Madman said:


> That is not God.
> 
> If someone did explain it to you like a 6 year old would you change your mind?
> 
> You may not like the false being you set up but the one true God loves you enough to put on flesh and die for you.



Explain to me how the scenario I described is different than the one described in Genesis.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Nov 4, 2009)

....for one thing, Satan was in the beginning BEFORE man's creation according to the bible....i forget where it's written...as I'm typing from memory....and it's late...and I'm hoping the Phillies can pull out game #6.   

Jesus also said that he saw Satan cast down.... (just food for thought here)

also, according to the bible, God was not alone when he created Adam and Eve....

Bandy


----------



## earl (Nov 4, 2009)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> ....for one thing, Satan was in the beginning BEFORE man's creation according to the bible....i forget where it's written...as I'm typing from memory....and it's late...and I'm hoping the Phillies can pull out game #6.
> 
> Jesus also said that he saw Satan cast down.... (just food for thought here)
> 
> ...



Discounting angels,seraphim's , and their ilk, who was with him ? I thought it was ''In the beginning was God...'' I am going from memory also.


----------



## Diogenes (Nov 4, 2009)

Stevo15: “First off...we all know what right and wrong is. Idiots are in prison for choosing to do the wrong thing...not because they didn't know it was right. You won't win that argument.”   Well, the argument was that if your previous statement ( Stevo15: “God created a perfect world, but with free will, he gave them the choice to choose right or wrong.”) is an accurate representation, then God clearly considered ‘wrong’ to be a vital part of a perfect Creation, since nothing can exist that He didn’t create.  So the argument was, and is, that if ‘wrong’ was a part of God’s perfect creation, then it can’t really be wrong, can it?  And if ‘wrong,’ and ‘evil,’ and ‘Satan’ were not part of God’s perfect Creation, them just who Created those parts?

Then: “The creator chose to make choices that could ruin the perfection he created.”   That seems terribly odd on so many levels, but okay – if the Creator chose to booby-trap His own perfect design, thus rendering it imperfect by definition, then why describe it as perfect?  And just out of curiosity, did someone ask this Creator if putting these flaws in his own work was purposeful and deliberate, or are you making this part up?  

I mean, if some engineer at Lockheed-Martin did that we’d put the fool in jail, not build cathedrals to him . . . 

Then, backing away from a blanket statement: “. . . you should know that only certain animals were used for sacrifices.”   Indeed.  That was my observation to begin with – for some odd reason the Priests only demanded that the tasty ones be sacrificed . . . go figure . . . 

Madman opines: “....... Of Good and Evil.”   Well, now, that depends – God still would have had to Create that evil in the first place, else there would be no choice available – but that isn’t what it says – it is a pretty clear statement: Genesis 2:17 “But of the tree of the KNOWLEDGE of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it . . . “   So who, exactly, is changing the words?

Genesis 1:1 “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.”  I must have missed the prequel  . . .


----------



## ddd-shooter (Nov 4, 2009)

earl said:


> Discounting angels,seraphim's , and their ilk, who was with him ? I thought it was ''In the beginning was God...'' I am going from memory also.



Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. 

John 1
 1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 

   2The same was in the beginning with God. 

   3All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 

   4In him was life; and the life was the light of men. 

   5And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. 

Genesis 1
2626And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:


----------



## stevo15 (Nov 5, 2009)

I am sure you will continue saying the same thing, but I will try this anyways.  God created a perfect world.  There were choices given...some would lead to perfection and some would lead to a world of sin.  The first sin was disobedience, not some flaw that God made on the earth.  The world was perfect...all man had to do was follow the guidelines set forth.

It could be that the animals chosen were tasty...but more likely because that was an animal that was very common at that time...Obviously you don't think like that because you are trying to discount God and his word.


----------



## SarahFair (Nov 5, 2009)

I voted old-earth.

There is no mention of Dinos in the bible.
They were here far before man. Just because the bible says he did it in 7 days does not mean it was 7 of our days. God could put a halt on a day. His working days could have taken millions of years. When it says 'and he saw that it was good' doesnt mean he watched them for a few hours. He probly studied them for long lengths of time. 
I do not know though. Honestly no one will till we have passed over and even then we still might not ever find out.


----------



## rjcruiser (Nov 5, 2009)

SarahFair said:


> I voted old-earth.
> 
> There is no mention of Dinos in the bible.
> They were here far before man. Just because the bible says he did it in 7 days does not mean it was 7 of our days. God could put a halt on a day. His working days could have taken millions of years. When it says 'and he saw that it was good' doesnt mean he watched them for a few hours. He probly studied them for long lengths of time.
> I do not know though. Honestly no one will till we have passed over and even then we still might not ever find out.



Just curious....why is the same word used for all of the days of creation if one would be a longer time period than another?

How many times did God cause the Sun to stand still in the Bible?  I believe just once....and it was when Gideon slayed many (the Bible specifically noted that the sun stood still).

If all of the days were millions of years, then why when Adam and Eve were created on day 6, God rested day 7, but Adam still only lived until 900 something years old.  Had each day been millions of years, wouldn't Adam have been Millions of years + 900?


----------



## SarahFair (Nov 5, 2009)

rjcruiser said:


> Just curious....why is the same word used for all of the days of creation if one would be a longer time period than another?
> 
> How many times did God cause the Sun to stand still in the Bible?  I believe just once....and it was when Gideon slayed many (the Bible specifically noted that the sun stood still).
> 
> If all of the days were millions of years, then why when Adam and Eve were created on day 6, God rested day 7, but Adam still only lived until 900 something years old.  Had each day been millions of years, wouldn't Adam have been Millions of years + 900?



I dont know exactly but I wonder...
If a human body ages like it does in our time and at 100 years old the skin sags the eyes cant see well and the joints crack and pop..

What is the human body like at 900 years of age? 



And another question...

Who did God himself speak to and told them that he made the world in just 7 days? I honestly dont know..


----------



## rjcruiser (Nov 5, 2009)

SarahFair said:


> I dont know exactly but I wonder...
> If a human body ages like it does in our time and at 100 years old the skin sags the eyes cant see well and the joints crack and pop..
> 
> What is the human body like at 900 years of age?
> ...



Several reasons as to the 900 years.  Look at the first several chapters of Genesis and you see the life span in the 900s for everyone.  Then it slowly gets less and less as the people get further and further away from creation/garden of eden.

First reason, after the flood, the expanse or water like o-zone layer was gone.  This would allow much more harmful rays from the sun to penetrate and cause more rapid aging.

Second reason, our bodies were created to last forever.  Only after Adam & Eve sinned, did our bodies start to degenerate.  I imagine that as the perfected bodies started to waste away, then it got worse and worse.

By the time Moses was around, people were living only 120 or so years.  Moses was around that age when he died...40 years in Egypt, 40 years in Midian(?), 40 years in the desert wandering with the freed Israelites.


As far as Genesis and God speaking to Himself....well, he spoke these words to Moses and Moses under the guidance of the Holy Spirit wrote Genesis.  God wanted us to have a history of where we came from.  I think it is important to know why we are here and how we got here and why God sent His Son to save us.


----------



## SarahFair (Nov 5, 2009)

So why did Moses wonder the desert for 40 years? I think in 40 years he could walk very very very very far.. Not just through the desert..

and why didnt God say anything to Moses about the dinosaurs?
How are they explained?


----------



## Madman (Nov 5, 2009)

earl said:


> Good to see you out and about again. Where ya been ?



children, work, etc.  All is well hope it is for everyone here too.


----------



## rjcruiser (Nov 5, 2009)

SarahFair said:


> So why did Moses wonder the desert for 40 years? I think in 40 years he could walk very very very very far.. Not just through the desert..
> 
> and why didnt God say anything to Moses about the dinosaurs?
> How are they explained?



I'm sure he wondered while he wandered 

They wandered around in the desert for 40 years because the poeple of Israel didn't have faith that God could deliver the inhabitants of the land into their hands.  12 spies were sent out to view the land of promise (land flowing with Milk & Honey).  Only 2 spies out of the 12 said that with God's help, they could conquer the land (Joshua and Caleb).  The other 10 said there were giants in the land and that the cities were too strong.  

Because of that, God said that the people would not be able to make the journey and that they would die in the desert.  Only Joshua and Caleb were allowed to make it from that generation.   As for Moses, he hit the rock to make water when God told him to speak to it.  For that, Moses was not allowed to make it across the Jordan river and into the Promise Land.

Sarah, you really should read Genesis and Exodus.  They are amazing books that are full of History.  There aren't many "boring" parts in them and it will give you a lot of background on some of these questions you are asking.

As far as dinasours...not sure about them.  Why do you think they should be in the Bible?  They were probably just like normal things of the day...normal animals of the day.  I don't think the Bible points out anything about the huge 24 point whitetail deer that Esau took when hunting out in the woods either.  Does that mean it didn't ever exist?  Nope....not at all.


----------



## Madman (Nov 5, 2009)

Diogenes said:


> Madman opines: “....... Of Good and Evil.”   Well, now, that depends – God still would have had to Create that evil in the first place, else there would be no choice available – but that isn’t what it says – it is a pretty clear statement: Genesis 2:17 “But of the tree of the KNOWLEDGE of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it . . . “   So who, exactly, is changing the words?
> 
> The tree was not of knowledge, it was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, hence you changed the words.
> 
> ...


----------



## SarahFair (Nov 5, 2009)

rjcruiser said:


> I'm sure he wondered while he wandered
> 
> They wandered around in the desert for 40 years because the poeple of Israel didn't have faith that God could deliver the inhabitants of the land into their hands.  12 spies were sent out to view the land of promise (land flowing with Milk & Honey).  Only 2 spies out of the 12 said that with God's help, they could conquer the land (Joshua and Caleb).  The other 10 said there were giants in the land and that the cities were too strong.
> 
> ...




I found an interesting read that honestly left me scratching my head.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/1999/11/05/dinosaurs-and-the-bible


----------



## rjcruiser (Nov 5, 2009)

SarahFair said:


> I found an interesting read that honestly left me scratching my head.
> http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/1999/11/05/dinosaurs-and-the-bible



Why did it leave you scratching your head?  

It is an article based on what the Bible says, not based on what evolution says.


----------



## SarahFair (Nov 5, 2009)

What about Pangea? I mean does it just happen to be that the continents seem like they fit together in a pattern?

How did different races get to the other contintents? How do we have red and yellow black and white races if we did not evolve in some way? If we all come from 2 people then the human race gets wiped out and leaves only 4 couples how did these 4 couples offspring  turn into native americans that were here in the US long before europeans?


----------



## ddd-shooter (Nov 5, 2009)

SarahFair said:


> What about Pangea? I mean does it just happen to be that the continents seem like they fit together in a pattern?
> 
> How did different races get to the other contintents? How do we have red and yellow black and white races if we did not evolve in some way? If we all come from 2 people then the human race gets wiped out and leaves only 4 couples how did these 4 couples offspring  turn into native americans that were here in the US long before europeans?



I'll take Tower of Babel for 1000, Alex.


----------



## SarahFair (Nov 5, 2009)

ddd-shooter said:


> I'll take Tower of Babel for 1000, Alex.



ok I see but HOW did God scatter them? Did he just beam this invisable force feild and shoot them out to North America? Why are there no records saying 'Ya.. God just dropped me off here in this unknown land.' 
Did the people just move on their own? If so HOW did they cross the sea? I mean yes there is boat but how would they know how much supplies to take? How long they were going to be out there? What the weather conditions were going to be..?

And if God did send these people to different parts of the earth they would have to be inbred. I dont understand how we are all inbred and seem to not have problems?

Some people say that God gave Adam and Eve the genes to produce white, black, brown, etc people to have a diverse race and then God kept only 8 of those people (noahs wife and his sons and wives) and that possibly they were all of a different race. Why do some people make it seem such sin to mix races?


----------



## rjcruiser (Nov 5, 2009)

SarahFair said:


> ok I see but HOW did God scatter them? Did he just beam this invisable force feild and shoot them out to North America? Why are there no records saying 'Ya.. God just dropped me off here in this unknown land.'
> Did the people just move on their own? If so HOW did they cross the sea? I mean yes there is boat but how would they know how much supplies to take? How long they were going to be out there? What the weather conditions were going to be..?
> 
> And if God did send these people to different parts of the earth they would have to be inbred. I dont understand how we are all inbred and seem to not have problems?
> ...



I think archeological finds show that the native americans came from asia across the alaskan ice bridge and then down into the americas.

Again...as far as inbred and not having problems...you don't see problems really until you inbreed several times.  I think Dawg2 posted on a chicken thread that you'll start to see issues in 2 or 3 generations of inbreeding.  Same with humans.  Lastly, as our genetic pool degrades further and further, you'll have more mutations.  As such, early on, they probably didn't have these issues.

About the black/white/color thing.  Some religious systems believe that black people are the descendants of Cain (ultimately saying that being black was a curse from sin).  As God put a mark on him so that people would know that he was protected by God.  Obviously, I don't believe this.  

Think about this...when you go to the beach, does your skin get tan?  Generations of this, and the skin adapts to its climate.  There are genetic mutations.  I believe it is called microevolution.  There is always going to be genetic abnormalities and genetic advances from these abnormalities.  But that doesn't mean that a monkey can become a human.  Or a fish a mammel etc etc.


----------



## ddd-shooter (Nov 5, 2009)

Do not underestimate the intelligence of people simply because they lived hundreds or thousands of years before you...


----------



## rjcruiser (Nov 5, 2009)

ddd-shooter said:


> Do not underestimate the intelligence of people simply because they lived hundreds or thousands of years before you...





And I will add, based on who we have as elected officials, we're the biggest group of un-educated people running around this planet in a long time


----------



## Madman (Nov 5, 2009)

SarahFair said:


> I found an interesting read that honestly left me scratching my head.
> http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/1999/11/05/dinosaurs-and-the-bible



Good questions.

Might I recommend that you stick to one question, dinosaurs, or language or, melanin content, and get it settled before moving on?  It can become daunting if too much gets to spinning around.

Answers in Genesis has some great articles.


----------



## SarahFair (Nov 5, 2009)

Madman said:


> Good questions.
> 
> Might I recommend that you stick to one question, dinosaurs, or language or, melanin content, and get it settled before moving on?  It can become daunting if too much gets to spinning around.
> 
> Answers in Genesis has some great articles.



I know but the Dinos, land moving, and people getting to these contents are all kinda one thing 

To undstand one question I feel I must ask 100 more..
awful cycle it is.. 


I would have started reading Genesis instead of hounding yall with questions but I do not own a bible. ...Well I should say I do not have one at this house. I have had many bibles in the past they have just gotten lost in my movings. 
My Grandma would not be please having put me through 6 years of Christian school..

I feel Im doing better than some though. My SO didnt even know the story of Noah or who he was..


----------



## rjcruiser (Nov 5, 2009)

SarahFair said:


> I know but the Dinos, land moving, and people getting to these contents are all kinda one thing
> 
> To undstand one question I feel I must ask 100 more..
> awful cycle it is..



land moving....the grand canyon....where did all the ice at the North & South Poles come from.  Hmmm....all can be explained by the flood.

Just like fossils of sea creatures @ 10,000 ft above sea level.  Amazing.


----------



## SarahFair (Nov 5, 2009)

rjcruiser said:


> land moving....the grand canyon....where did all the ice at the North & South Poles come from.  Hmmm....all can be explained by the flood.
> 
> Just like fossils of sea creatures @ 10,000 ft above sea level.  Amazing.



So how old is the Young Earth suppose to be? 6000 years?


----------



## rjcruiser (Nov 5, 2009)

SarahFair said:


> So how old is the Young Earth suppose to be? 6000 years?



Somewhere around that time frame.  Definitely less than 10,000.

The 6000 year mark comes from historians using the geneologies in the Bible and the ages in the Bible to work there way back to Adam & Eve.

Really a fascinating way of dating things, but the historical time lines in the Bible match up to other historical events that are mentioned out of the Bible very well.  Even though Pnome will tell you it ain't true, the archeological finds that have been made in the past 100 years support the historical events written about in the Bible.  On a side note, it was these archeological finds that blew the cover off of Mormon faith.


----------



## ddd-shooter (Nov 5, 2009)

SarahFair said:


> I would have started reading Genesis instead of hounding yall with questions but I do not own a bible. ...Well I should say I do not have one at this house. I have had many bibles in the past they have just gotten lost in my movings.
> My Grandma would not be please having put me through 6 years of Christian school..



www.bible.com 

You can pick your translation, search for specific keywords, and look up passages. All for free. 

You can ask all the questions you want. We wil try to help the best we can. I am just glad you are wanting to learn.


----------



## Madman (Nov 6, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> Explain to me how the scenario I described is different than the one described in Genesis.



I will ask again.  If someone did explain it in a manner that a 6 year old could understand would it change your mind?


----------



## pnome (Nov 6, 2009)

rjcruiser said:


> Somewhere around that time frame.  Definitely less than 10,000.
> 
> The 6000 year mark comes from historians using the geneologies in the Bible and the ages in the Bible to work there way back to Adam & Eve.
> 
> Really a fascinating way of dating things, but the historical time lines in the Bible match up to other historical events that are mentioned out of the Bible very well.  Even though Pnome will tell you it ain't true, the archeological finds that have been made in the past 100 years support the historical events written about in the Bible.  On a side note, it was these archeological finds that blew the cover off of Mormon faith.



I wont dispute that the bible records actual historical events.  Which can be confirmed through archeology. 

What I will dispute is that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old.


----------



## Madman (Nov 6, 2009)

SarahFair said:


> I know but the Dinos, land moving, and people getting to these contents are all kinda one thing



Start w/ dinos.  lay down the land moving, people groups etc.

What does the Bible say about dinos?  Since the word had not been coined when the Bible was written does it mention other land animals that are similar to dinos?

Jog 40:15
"Look at the behemoth, [a] 
       which I made along with you 
       and which feeds on grass like an ox. 

 16 What strength he has in his loins, 
       what power in the muscles of his belly! 

 17 His tail * sways like a cedar; 
       the sinews of his thighs are close-knit. 

 18 His bones are tubes of bronze, 
       his limbs like rods of iron. 





			I would have started reading Genesis instead of hounding yall with questions but I do not own a bible. ...I feel Im doing better than some though. My SO didnt even know the story of Noah or who he was.. 

Click to expand...


No one has taught your SO.  Maybe that could be you.

PM me on where you would like a Bible shipped and you will have one.  The Bible is also available online at various places.  www.biblegateway.com is one place.

Ask questions, read the Bible, ask the Holy Spirit to reveal the truth to you.*


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 7, 2009)

Madman said:


> Start w/ dinos.  lay down the land moving, people groups etc.
> 
> What does the Bible say about dinos?  Since the word had not been coined when the Bible was written does it mention other land animals that are similar to dinos?
> 
> ...


*

Seems like he reveals the truth differently to different people, according to the poll.*


----------



## ted_BSR (Nov 8, 2009)

stevo15 said:


> Diogenes...Indeed. (Good thing the Bible is short, and to the point, huh?) Let us try this short statement out, from the profound sage Ted BSR: “ *Scienece* does not answer any questions, or reveal any truths. It is simply a language used to describe things.
> 
> Don't really know why I would argue with a guy about science when he can't spell the word himself...



Don't hate because I have fat fingers.  I spell better than I type.  And I practice science better than that!  I make a living as a scientist.  Science is all smoke and mirrors.  Any scientist worth his salt would agree.  The rest are confused (probably engineers).


----------



## gordon 2 (Nov 8, 2009)

ted_BSR said:


> Don't hate because I have fat fingers.  I spell better than I type.  And I practice science better than that!  I make a living as a scientist.  Science is all smoke and mirrors.  Any scientist worth his salt would agree.  The rest are confused (probably engineers).



LOL ( I knew a house painter on a university campus who use to say that architecs were all abused by their parents and architecture was their pay back. LOL.)

Do not expect athiests to believe as you state. The fact that you are a scientist will not budge them a bit off there perch. Their religion is science and their muscles the unreliable synaptic clefs in their corpus closum.


Regards the movement of people on the globe. One must remember that the climate changes. It is my understanding that near the ice edge their is good and reletively easy food during an ice age. Perhaps that is why ancient hunting arthifacts are brougth up from the depts up to 50 miles out from present shores.

Perhaps people moved around because they had to for survival. While today it takes four hours to fly to Florida, to vacation, from my home, 10,000 years ago it took perhaps 2-3 generations of rowers with the odd stop here and there to drink beer and have babies. Sometimes, I suppose, some folk were left behind for getting lost and others, on purpose.


----------



## Diogenes (Nov 9, 2009)

This just in – A new study just published by the Center For Credible Studies establishes without a shred of doubt that the Earth came into being on October 22 in the galactic year 523 at exactly 627:15 o’clock Betelgeuse Time, and was the result of a tragic gardening accident involving two trumpets, a 1948 Mercury, L. Ron Hubbard, a poorly refrigerated can of whipped cream, the original mold for Dolly Parton, and a faulty microwave oven.  All they were trying to do, it appears, was to reserve a bowling lane for next Thursday night, but it all went horribly wrong.  

We apologize for all of the stories to the contrary, but in all of the confusion the administrative assistants were a little overwhelmed, and the original records were accidentally misfiled.  Finally released after the mandatory 10,000 year waiting period on FOI requests, the authors of the study found that the Earth was originally designed to be level and quite warm, but due to some inattention and the aforementioned filing error it turned out not to be flat, and is colder than Al Gore, especially in the northern and southern parts.  The newly released data indicates that only Iceland and Macon, Georgia turned out to be true to the original plans.

Footnotes and appendices to the Study reveal that the perpetrators tried to cover their tracks by falsifying documents and by quickly inventing Wild Turkey, Budweiser, large-mouthed bass, Tater Tots, and thong underwear.  It should be noted that Velveeta, Democrats, rap music, nose piercing, Rhode Island, the bassoon, and Daylight Saving Time were our own ideas, as was Cleveland, so the blame needs to be shared.

Also, on the original engineering documents, the Earth was actually meant to be the center of the Universe, and without all of that pesky revolving-around-the-Sun nonsense a year was meant to be measured any way one saw fit.  After all, time is a function of motion, so what possible need would the fixed center of all things have for such a concept?  Again, it was just a simple filing accident, and we apologize for any inconvenience.

But still, being tossed out into the backwaters of the highly unfashionable eastern spiral arm of the Milky Way galaxy is far less insulting than being instantly consumed by a Black Hole, incinerated by a pulsar, or pulverized by a stray asteroid, so it isn’t all bad news  . . .


----------



## stevo15 (Nov 9, 2009)

I have no idea what to say.  That's funny.  Don't know where you got in from or how you made it up, but anytime you can work Dolly Parton into this conversation makes it funny.


----------



## eric37 (Nov 9, 2009)

*How old is coal?*

One thing that I cannot reconcile with a young Earth theory is the presence of coal seams up to 1,000 ft underground in the Appalachian mtns.  I would like someone to check out the following link and explain how this is wrong:

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/kids/energy.cfm?page=coal_home-basics

I would also like a plausible explanation for the 1,000 ft of overburden covering some Appalachian coal seams.  Great Flood? Not likely.  Glaciers from Canada?  Takes too long for a young Earth.

Also,  It seems reasonable from an inductive reasoning standpoint to conclude that the Andes mountains were raised over a long period of time at the meeting of continental plates.  Even 10K years of history can't seem to cover this gradual process, and a six-day creation does not seem like a very plausible explanation at all.  

Old Earther, still.  And it does not diminish the sovereignty or power of God one bit.


----------



## stevo15 (Nov 9, 2009)

Have you ever heard of mature creation?  Not saying this as a smart comment, but you should look into it.  It is the thought that when the earth was created, it was created as a mature planet...no baby trees, animals, and humans, but totally mature like it had been here for years.  Just saying that is thought and a theory to look into.


----------



## Madman (Nov 9, 2009)

eric37 said:


> I would also like a plausible explanation for the 1,000 ft of overburden covering some Appalachian coal seams.  Great Flood? Not likely.  Glaciers from Canada?  Takes too long for a young Earth.



Impossible or just Not likely?


----------



## SarahFair (Nov 9, 2009)

If the WHOLE earth flooded..
Where did all the water go?


----------



## pnome (Nov 9, 2009)

stevo15 said:


> Have you ever heard of mature creation?  Not saying this as a smart comment, but you should look into it.  It is the thought that when the earth was created, it was created as a mature planet...no baby trees, animals, and humans, but totally mature like it had been here for years.  Just saying that is thought and a theory to look into.



Is there any way to test this theory?  What conditions would falsify it?

If not, it's not a theory at all.  

When you use an omnipotent deity for an explanation, _anything_ is possible and nothing is impossible.


----------



## stevo15 (Nov 9, 2009)

Explain evolution for me...seriously, you can't tell me for sure that any of it happened.  Can you test the big bang...if not, then it's not a theory.  You don't know what conditions were present when it happened, so I can't see it being able to be tested either.  I guess we are all screwed in your eyes.


----------



## Madman (Nov 9, 2009)

SarahFair said:


> If the WHOLE earth flooded..
> Where did all the water go?



The Oceans.


----------



## pnome (Nov 9, 2009)

stevo15 said:


> Explain evolution for me...seriously, you can't tell me for sure that any of it happened.  Can you test the big bang...if not, then it's not a theory.  You don't know what conditions were present when it happened, so I can't see it being able to be tested either.  I guess we are all screwed in your eyes.



Evolution can be falsified.  Find a rabbit fossil in the Precambrian sedimentary layer, and you've done it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precambrian_rabbit

As for the Bing Bang...  It's a long explanation but read if you are interested: http://www.gravityresearchfoundation.org/pdf/awarded/1997/barrow_liddle.pdf


----------



## NightOwl (Nov 9, 2009)

Madman said:


> If God would lie to me in Genesis, He would lie to me in the first chapter of Luke.
> Old earth, young earth, neither is necessary for salvation; however old earth thinking puts the fallible man above the infallible Word of God.


I agree.  Although I have tried to explain how science could be so wrong I have come to the conclusion that my finite mind cannot possibly understand the infinite mind of our loving and true God.  I shall believe what the bible tells me whether I can comprehend it or not.


----------



## stevo15 (Nov 9, 2009)

pnome said:


> Evolution can be falsified.  Find a rabbit fossil in the Precambrian sedimentary layer, and you've done it.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precambrian_rabbit
> 
> As for the Bing Bang...  It's a long explanation but read if you are interested: http://www.gravityresearchfoundation.org/pdf/awarded/1997/barrow_liddle.pdf




So 2 websites is where you get info from if I am asking you to tell me something?  I understand it's long.  I also understand what is said about the big bang.  I am telling you that if no one was there to know what was in existence then no one can really test to see if it were possible because we don't know what was here.  They didn't collect data before time so that we could test theories after it was all said and done.  We could go round and round and neither of us ever please each other with an answer.  You and I both can't prove 100 percent what happened.  I am ok with that because of my faith.


----------



## SarahFair (Nov 9, 2009)

Madman said:


> The Oceans.



So there were no oceans?
I dont see where all this water that rose some 8 meters (I think..) above mountains went. I know it took months to dry out but all of it couldnt have just flowed into the oceans.
If the whole world flooded wouldnt it just be one big ocean and all the fresh water be salt?


----------



## pnome (Nov 9, 2009)

stevo15 said:


> So 2 websites is where you get info from if I am asking you to tell me something?  I understand it's long.  I also understand what is said about the big bang.  I am telling you that if no one was there to know what was in existence then no one can really test to see if it were possible because we don't know what was here.  They didn't collect data before time so that we could test theories after it was all said and done.  We could go round and round and neither of us ever please each other with an answer.  You and I both can't prove 100 percent what happened.  I am ok with that because of my faith.



Well...  There is something we can observe from that time.  Light.  When you look up at the stars, the light you see is old.   You are looking back in time.  This is very important for cosmological understanding.  

Next is the concept of red shift.  It is this that Edwin Hubble used to prove inflation.

These things are all testable and have indeed been tested.

How do you test God?


----------



## pnome (Nov 9, 2009)

SarahFair said:


> So there were no oceans?
> I dont see where all this water that rose some 8 meters (I think..) above mountains went. I know it took months to dry out but all of it couldnt have just flowed into the oceans.
> If the whole world flooded wouldnt it just be one big ocean and all the fresh water be salt?



Omnipotent deity Sarah.   God could have, with relative ease, simply made the extra water disappear.


----------



## Madman (Nov 9, 2009)

SarahFair said:


> So there were no oceans?
> I dont see where all this water that rose some 8 meters (I think..) above mountains went. I know it took months to dry out but all of it couldnt have just flowed into the oceans.
> If the whole world flooded wouldnt it just be one big ocean and all the fresh water be salt?



If the earth was flat there would not have been any oceans.  

The book of Genesis tells us that the “fountains of the deep broke open”  and the whole world was flooded, one big ocean.
The “continental shift” occurred because of the great stress of water on the earth, some land rose, some land fell.  That is why sea shells are found on mountain tops.  The water ran off and pooled in the low places, the oceans, leaving something close to what we have now.

Silt covered dead animals, forming fossils, trees etc. Piled up and were covered by silt while the heat from volcanoes supplied the temperature to form the coal.

That is a pretty simplistic answer.  I look at the same evidence the agnostics look at and see a worldwide flood.  They must keep updating their results with each new find whereas the evidence shows that what the Holy Scripture tells us about the history of the earth is true.


----------



## Madman (Nov 9, 2009)

pnome said:


> Omnipotent deity Sarah.   God could have, with relative ease, simply made the extra water disappear.



He could have but He didn't.  The evidence is clear where the water came from and where it went.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 9, 2009)

stevo15 said:


> Have you ever heard of mature creation?  Not saying this as a smart comment, but you should look into it.  It is the thought that when the earth was created, it was created as a mature planet...no baby trees, animals, and humans, but totally mature like it had been here for years.  Just saying that is thought and a theory to look into.





SarahFair said:


> If the WHOLE earth flooded..
> Where did all the water go?





pnome said:


> Omnipotent deity Sarah.   God could have, with relative ease, simply made the extra water disappear.



POOF! just like that!   Did you ever see the TV show Bewitched?  She wrinkled her nose and her husband would turn into a gorilla.   Same kind of thing.


----------



## NightOwl (Nov 9, 2009)

A very good resource is answers in Genesis.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/


----------



## ddd-shooter (Nov 9, 2009)

Don't forget those polar ice caps....lots of water there too.


----------



## stevo15 (Nov 10, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> POOF! just like that!   Did you ever see the TV show Bewitched?  She wrinkled her nose and her husband would turn into a gorilla.   Same kind of thing.




Poof!!!  Cosmic chemicals and all matter explode and a perfect earth with animals that can learn how to adapt to situations and that are made for their environment.  Sounds kind of like bewitched to me there also.  

I believe mature creation.  The stars thing doesn't work for me.  You can say it all you want and say it's been proven, but no one was here when those stars were by themselves so I don't think you can test that.  We can go round and round with that.


----------



## pnome (Nov 10, 2009)

stevo15 said:


> Poof!!!  Cosmic chemicals and all matter explode and a perfect earth with animals that can learn how to adapt to situations and that are made for their environment.



Sure, if by "Poof!!!" you mean "over the course of 14,000,000,000 years"


----------



## stevo15 (Nov 10, 2009)

14,000,000 years ago.  For people that like to discredit God so much, I really can't see the other side of this argument being a good one.  I understand how it is hard to believe what I believe.  I am more than ok with my faith in what happened.  The "proof" is not in either one of these.  No one was here 14,000,000 years ago just like you say that there was no creator.  Your faith is in scientists that could be telling you whatever they want to tell you.  You believing in them is like me believing in God.  Don't say but scientists are humans.  That's not my point.  I am saying that you believe in a person...that you don't know...that wrote all about what he believes is true.  Sounds like believing in the Bible is the same concept seeing as you don't know these people and are reaching with the same blind faith that I am.


----------



## ddd-shooter (Nov 10, 2009)

Does anyone here know the odds of a sequence of DNA forming from the base chemicals by chance?


----------



## SarahFair (Nov 10, 2009)

stevo15 said:


> 14,000,000 years ago.  For people that like to discredit God so much, I really can't see the other side of this argument being a good one.  I understand how it is hard to believe what I believe.  I am more than ok with my faith in what happened.  The "proof" is not in either one of these.  No one was here 14,000,000 years ago just like you say that there was no creator.  Your faith is in scientists that could be telling you whatever they want to tell you.  You believing in them is like me believing in God.  Don't say but scientists are humans.  That's not my point.  I am saying that you believe in a person...that you don't know...that wrote all about what he believes is true.  Sounds like believing in the Bible is the same concept seeing as you don't know these people and are reaching with the same blind faith that I am.



Thats what I wonder. Maybe some of the stories happend in some of the ways they are told but what if the bible was written by men on power trips? How do you control huge masses of people? Write a book telling them they will burn in Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ---- if they dont act right..




ddd-shooter said:


> Does anyone here know the odds of a sequence of DNA forming from the base chemicals by chance?



What if we are all just by chance.
The earth just happens to be far enough from the sun to sustain life just by chance? 
Chances are good of it happening somewhere in the universe.. We could possibly be that chance.



About the flood..
Anyone heard of the theary of the oort cloud?


----------



## gtparts (Nov 10, 2009)

ddd-shooter said:


> Does anyone here know the odds of a sequence of DNA forming from the base chemicals by chance?



ddd,

I don't have that info (wish I did) but I suspect that if it was a random process that had a frequency of once a day and given the "billions of years" scenario, the origin of pond scum would still be billions of years in the future. 


For hominids, well, I just don't have the time to work out the calculation.


----------



## pnome (Nov 10, 2009)

ddd-shooter said:


> Does anyone here know the odds of a sequence of DNA forming from the base chemicals by chance?



You are hinting at the Teleological argument. 

Tell me, what are the odds of randomly getting 13 hearts in a game of bridge?  hint: about 1 in 600 billion.  

Now, I've gotten such a hand before, does that mean the cards were not dealt randomly?


----------



## stevo15 (Nov 10, 2009)

SarahFair said:


> Thats what I wonder. Maybe some of the stories happend in some of the ways they are told but what if the bible was written by men on power trips? How do you control huge masses of people? Write a book telling them they will burn in Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ---- if they dont act right..
> 
> That is possible I guess.  I have never heard of anyone trying to control the masses with the Bible.  That didn't work if that was the case.  I guess we won't know until the day we die.  Faith is a hard thing for most people to use when it comes to God, but we use it in every other aspect of life.  This is one of those discussions that has probably been going on since the early ages.


----------



## ddd-shooter (Nov 10, 2009)

Something on the order of 10^400,000 power? 
But this equation is skewed, and many scientists point to the Bartel and Szostak experiment to prove otherwise. It is an interesting read that I haven't done since college...lol
pnome, I am familiar with al the traditional arguments, and I do like the watch analogy, but was simply trying to spark some discussion...


Sarah, have you read the Beatitudes-Mathew chapter 5? 
Not exactly not a lot of world-domination thoughts going on in the teachings of Jesus. Just repent from your evil ways, trust in the Lord, believe Jesus gave his life for you, and live a full life as a member of the Kingdom of God.


----------



## moyehow (Nov 10, 2009)

Madman said:


> I simply cannot refuse what science says either.  The question is: what supposed science are you unable to ignore?  I look at the same evidence that “old earthers” look at and see something totally different.  I simply cannot agree with mans fallible dating methods over the Word of God.
> 
> According to Hebrew scholars the Genesis account of creation gives no room for any translation other than 6-24 hour days.   Nowhere in the Scriptures is millions and millions of years even implied.
> 
> ...




I agree with this person.  

Carbon dating is based on a scale created by the theory of men.  If you are going to question God's Word, you also have to question the theories of man's science.
Man cannot and will not ever be able to phathom the true extent of all of God's power.  We are not called to understand it, but to believe in it.  It's called faith, not science, and it's what we are saved by.


----------



## rjcruiser (Nov 10, 2009)

SarahFair said:


> Thats what I wonder. Maybe some of the stories happend in some of the ways they are told but what if the bible was written by men on power trips? How do you control huge masses of people? Write a book telling them they will burn in he11 if they dont act right..



Interesting that the negative is always pointed out.

We all act wrong.  It is called sin.  All sin.

If you are taught a gospel that says if you act a certain way you are going to not spend eternity in he11, you're being fed a false gospel.

Sure, our actions will show a positive change, but it isn't our actions that save.

Think of it this way.  You tell your SO that you love him.  Is telling him enough?  How does he know you truly love him?  Not by what you say, but by what you do.


----------



## SarahFair (Nov 10, 2009)

rjcruiser said:


> Interesting that the negative is always pointed out.
> 
> We all act wrong.  It is called sin.  All sin.
> 
> ...



I went to Camp Maranatha once when I was younger. I remember there was the preacher man whod get up every morning and evening service and preach. In his loud raspy and very scary voice hed tell us children how we would burn in Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ---- for all eternity if we sinned.

My mom came for parents day and said that she would have ripped both my cousin and I out if I hadnt begged her to stay so I could ride the horses..  


This is why I wonder about controling with fear. 
I wonder about a lot of things
Cant help it. Im on a path spiritual discovery right now.


----------



## rjcruiser (Nov 10, 2009)

SarahFair said:


> I went to Camp Maranatha once when I was younger. I remember there was the preacher man whod get up every morning and evening service and preach. In his loud raspy and very scary voice hed tell us children how we would burn in he11 for all eternity if we sinned.
> 
> My mom came for parents day and said that she would have ripped both my cousin and I out if I hadnt begged her to stay so I could ride the horses..
> 
> ...




It is sad how many do this.  "Scare people into the kingdom."  Something that many in the old Southern Baptist churches do.

What good does it do?  Fear is a motivator.  But it is less of a motivator than love.  I wonder how many made "professions" so that they'd please this old man or soothe their conscience.  Why I question some of these "tribulation trails" and other things that some churches put on.

Why should you make Jesus Christ your Lord and Savior?  Not to escape an eternity of seperation from Him, but so that you can enjoy His presence for eternity.  

Christ told us to follow Him not because we'd burn in He11 if we didn't, but because His "yoke is easy and His burden is light."

May God give you the answers to your questions on your search.


----------



## pnome (Nov 10, 2009)

SarahFair said:


> This is why I wonder about controling with fear.



Don't wonder any longer.  

"Worship Jesus, or be tortured for eternity" is the central message.   John 14:6 lays it all out for you.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 10, 2009)

SarahFair said:


> I went to Camp Maranatha once when I was younger. I remember there was the preacher man whod get up every morning and evening service and preach. In his loud raspy and very scary voice hed tell us children how we would burn in Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ---- for all eternity if we sinned.
> 
> My mom came for parents day and said that she would have ripped both my cousin and I out if I hadnt begged her to stay so I could ride the horses..
> 
> ...



I was maybe 10 when a Sunday School teacher asked me: "Do you know what fire feels like when it burns you?   If you don't believe in the Bible you will go to a lake made of fire and it will burn your whole body, even in your eye balls and you will stay there for eternity.  Do you know what eternity is?"

I guess that's a pretty good way to get kids to behave.  When you get older, you should act right because you realize it's the best thing to do, not because you are afraid of Fire Lake.


----------



## rjcruiser (Nov 10, 2009)

pnome said:


> Don't wonder any longer.
> 
> "Worship Jesus, or be tortured for eternity" is the central message.   John 14:6 lays it all out for you.



How does that verse point out eternal torture?



			
				John 14:6 said:
			
		

> Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.


----------



## SarahFair (Nov 10, 2009)

So what if someone was to believe in God and Jesus's teachings but maybe not so much the bible. They will not be sent in the lake of fire?


----------



## rjcruiser (Nov 10, 2009)

SarahFair said:


> So what if someone was to believe in God and Jesus's teachings but maybe not so much the bible. They will not be sent in the lake of fire?



I don't think you can separate the two.

God/Jesus' teachings are the Bible.


----------



## gtparts (Nov 10, 2009)

pnome said:


> Don't wonder any longer.
> 
> "Worship Jesus, or be tortured for eternity" is the central message.   John 14:6 lays it all out for you.





rjcruiser said:


> How does that verse point out eternal torture?



Strange how twisted things get sometimes. As pnome and others seem to like the concept of "default positions", it might be useful to understand that "that eternally hot locale" is the "default" destination of all mankind, based on our disobedience of God (sin).

What the Gospel of Jesus Christ offers is the certain hope of changing that eternal destination, as well as the opportunity to live out this life in a manner that glorifies God. Most reasonable folks would welcome the chance to alter their default destination.

Wow!   That means it isn't God threatening, but God making a way of escape.


----------



## Diogenes (Nov 11, 2009)

Yikes!  “I am saying that you believe in a person...that you don't know...that wrote all about what he believes is true. Sounds like believing in the Bible is the same concept seeing as you don't know these people and are reaching with the same blind faith that I am.”

Um?  Nuclear power (the knowledge and uses of, specifically) is blind belief in the writings of someone I don’t know?  Sir, the actual, true, proven, tested applications of science are as close as your keyboard (no mentions of keyboards in the Book – I checked).  This is not ‘belief’ nor is it ‘faith.’   It is truth.  Science neither asks nor requires any belief.  Science is your Chevrolet, the fuel it runs on and the highways on which you drive.  Science is jet aircraft, fire trucks, clean water, hospitals, and indoor plumbing.  No belief involved, and certainly no faith in the ‘writings’ of what someone ‘believes is true.’  It is true.  All of the results of science are tangible.

The continuous arguments that doubts can be raised, or that nobody knows for sure, or that nobody was there to witness can be used much more effectively to debunk religions and belief systems than it can be used to falsify what you already know to be true.  The Hubble Space Telescope, particle accelerators, induction coils, Chevrolets, and even silly stuff like toothpaste, soap, and bubble wrap can all be seen, and all are the products of science.  The products of religious belief are purely intangible.  

One might think that using the reasoning that because something is unknown to you or is beyond your personal education and understanding it must therefore be false is the sort of thing that works against any argument in favor of a belief in an omnipotent deity.  Folks who make purely laughable assertions, such as: “The evidence is clear where the water came from and where it went,” reveal only that they have no idea what they are talking about, nor a clear concept of the logic they employ.  

How, one might ask, can science (the ongoing process of discovery) be held up to a standard that it must clearly answer all things to all people about all things, regardless of their willingness to learn, or it is clearly false, while at the same time religion, which answers nothing, can demonstrate nothing, stands up to no inquiry, shows no tangible results, argues with and against itself, and says aloud that it is the proof of itself be held in any way to be true?  Do you not ask the same questions of yourself, and demand the same answers you ask of others?  (And if not, why not?)


----------



## pnome (Nov 11, 2009)

gtparts said:


> Strange how twisted things get sometimes. As pnome and others seem to like the concept of "default positions", it might be useful to understand that "that eternally hot locale" is the "default" destination of all mankind, based on our disobedience of God (sin).
> 
> What the Gospel of Jesus Christ offers is the certain hope of changing that eternal destination, as well as the opportunity to live out this life in a manner that glorifies God. Most reasonable folks would welcome the chance to alter their default destination.
> 
> Wow!   That means it isn't God threatening, but God making a way of escape.



The end result is still the same.  Worship Jesus, or suffer for eternity.


----------



## gtparts (Nov 11, 2009)

pnome said:


> The end result is still the same.  Worship Jesus, or suffer for eternity.



Perhaps from the eternal perspective, the Christian's glass is full to the point of overflowing, the agnostic is unsure whether he has a glass and, if so, how much it holds, and the atheist believes no one has a glass.

I hold a "glass" that you cannot see (but I see it) and drink from it and am not thirsty.


"The end result is still the same" only if you choose that end. The wise will choose life!

I would urge you to make that choice.


----------



## gtparts (Nov 11, 2009)

Diogenes said:


> Yikes!  “I am saying that you believe in a person...that you don't know...that wrote all about what he believes is true. Sounds like believing in the Bible is the same concept seeing as you don't know these people and are reaching with the same blind faith that I am.”
> 
> Um?  Nuclear power (the knowledge and uses of, specifically) is blind belief in the writings of someone I don’t know?  Sir, the actual, true, proven, tested applications of science are as close as your keyboard (no mentions of keyboards in the Book – I checked).  This is not ‘belief’ nor is it ‘faith.’   It is truth.  Science neither asks nor requires any belief.  Science is your Chevrolet, the fuel it runs on and the highways on which you drive.  Science is jet aircraft, fire trucks, clean water, hospitals, and indoor plumbing.  No belief involved, and certainly no faith in the ‘writings’ of what someone ‘believes is true.’  It is true.  All of the results of science are tangible.
> 
> ...



One might question, on the other hand, the wisdom on relying in science for the definitive answers to the questions of life. 

"Who am I?"
"Where did I come from?"
"What is my purpose?"
"Where am I going?"

After all, for all its efforts, science answers a question only to create a myriad of new questions. The only reasonable conclusion is that upon your final analysis you will have infinitely more questions than answers. So, while the known facts keep accumulating in linear fashion, the unknown increases exponentially. I find that to be completely unsatisfying. You seem to place your faith in the ability of man, through science, to answer those questions. I wish you "good luck" on that happening.


----------



## Madman (Nov 11, 2009)

pnome said:


> The end result is still the same.  Worship Jesus, or suffer for eternity.



Again it is odd how agnostics and Satan twist the Words of God.

I am looking for "Worship Jesus, or suffer for eternity" and am unable to find it.


----------



## pnome (Nov 11, 2009)

Madman said:


> Again it is odd how agnostics and Satan twist the Words of God.
> 
> I am looking for "Worship Jesus, or suffer for eternity" and am unable to find it.



What happens to people who reject Jesus after they die?


----------



## NightOwl (Nov 11, 2009)

pnome said:


> What happens to people who reject Jesus after they die?


They will spend eternity seperated from God.  I think we should look back to see what this thread was about.  How did we end up on toothpaste and Chevys?


----------



## Diogenes (Nov 11, 2009)

Gtparts states:  "Who am I?"
"Where did I come from?"
"What is my purpose?"
"Where am I going?"

I like that bit.  Abstract questions demand abstract answers, after all.  “What color is air?”
“What is the temperature of green?”
“Where is here?”
“When is then?”

Then: “So, while the known facts keep accumulating in linear fashion, the unknown increases exponentially.”  Really?   Who knew?  So, by this reasoning (false, spurious and delusory), every time something is discovered the number of undiscovered things actually increases?  Wow!  Boy does my Third Grade teacher have some egg on her face . . . 

Then Madman states: “I am looking for "Worship Jesus, or suffer for eternity" and am unable to find it.”  Um?  Did you look for that exact phrase, or forget to read the whole Book?  2 Thessalonians 1:8, 9 “In flaming fire take vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.”  See also – Revelation 20:15 “And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.”   C’mon dude – it’s your Book fer cryin’ out loud – at least read the darned thing . . .


----------



## ddd-shooter (Nov 12, 2009)

You ask for an eternity without God, he gives you what you want.


----------



## Diogenes (Nov 12, 2009)

Darn.  I can’t remember asking for an eternity at all . . . Which is probably a good thing, since the only eternities I know of are the DMV and that darned ‘Relationship’ conversation after she watches Oprah . . .


----------



## pnome (Nov 12, 2009)

NightOwl said:


> They will spend eternity seperated from God.



Would that be a bad thing or a good thing?  In your opinion.


----------



## gtparts (Nov 12, 2009)

Diogenes said:


> Gtparts states:  "Who am I?"
> "Where did I come from?"
> "What is my purpose?"
> "Where am I going?"
> ...



Thanks, dio, but just because someone frames a question does not mean it makes sense or that it has an answer.... or that it holds any significant interest for even a small portion of the world's population. It would appear you may have given up on the answers to my list of questions and moved on to the ones you find more interesting. Good luck with the answers.

Or, maybe you don't really want to know the answers to the questions I posed.


----------



## Madman (Nov 12, 2009)

Diogenes said:


> Then Madman states: “I am looking for "Worship Jesus, or suffer for eternity" and am unable to find it.”  Um?  Did you look for that exact phrase, or forget to read the whole Book?  2 Thessalonians 1:8, 9 “In flaming fire take vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.”  See also – Revelation 20:15 “And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.”   C’mon dude – it’s your Book fer cryin’ out loud – at least read the darned thing . . .



So once again you twist the Word of God.  It is not about worshiping Him it is about knowing Him and admitting who he is and accepting what He has done on your behalf.

If you don't accept the gift then you spend eternity without it.

This is too easy and too much fun.

Your scores continue to fall.

Argument - 0
presentation - 1
Sarcasim (New catagory)- 6


----------



## Madman (Nov 12, 2009)

pnome said:


> What happens to people who reject Jesus after they die?



They get to spend eternity outside of His presence.


----------



## Madman (Nov 12, 2009)

stevo15 said:


> Good in my opinion, but you get to make your own choice.  I hope that yours is a good one.



How sad to desire to spend eternity outside the presence of the all caring, loving, creator of the universe.

Be very careful what you wish for.


----------



## gtparts (Nov 12, 2009)

Madman said:


> So once again you twist the Word of God.  It is not about worshiping Him it is about knowing Him and admitting who he is and accepting what He has done on your behalf.
> 
> If you don't accept the gift then you spend eternity without it.
> 
> ...



On this one point dio loses all credibility with me: A gift has been offered him, which he rejects, asserting that the giver and gift do not exist. (Next, he will be complaining because he doesn't possess the gift.)
Who in their right mind would pass up the opportunity to be in a personal relationship with the true and living God? Those, who accept it by faith, find it to be true. Those, who don't accept it by faith, can't find it at all.


----------



## pnome (Nov 12, 2009)

Madman said:


> They get to spend eternity outside of His presence.



That doesn't sound so bad.  It's not like I'm living in his presence right now.


----------



## Madman (Nov 12, 2009)

pnome said:


> That doesn't sound so bad.  It's not like I'm living in his presence right now.



I am truely sorry to hear that.  You are incorrect about not living in His presence.  Just because you refuse to acknowledge Him does not mean He is not there.

"Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him, and he with Me."
Rev. 3:20


----------



## stevo15 (Nov 12, 2009)

Madman said:


> How sad to desire to spend eternity outside the presence of the all caring, loving, creator of the universe.
> 
> Be very careful what you wish for.



I read that wrong obviously...look at my other posts.  I am a firm believer in Christ and a believer that I will spend eternity in his presence


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Nov 12, 2009)

SarahFair said:


> So what if someone was to believe in God and Jesus's teachings but maybe not so much the bible. They will not be sent in the lake of fire?



Romans 10:9  For if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.

Most people throughout history have not had a 'bible'.   Preaching won most people...as is described in Acts and the other epistles.

Bandy


----------



## pnome (Nov 12, 2009)

Madman said:


> I am truely sorry to hear that.  You are incorrect about not living in His presence.  Just because you refuse to acknowledge Him does not mean He is not there.
> 
> "Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him, and he with Me."
> Rev. 3:20



Ok, let's say you are correct and I am indeed currently living in His presence.  

So, you are saying that I will be worse off if I'm not in His presence right?

ergo, I will spend eternity in some sort of a bad place, that is not as good as life on Earth.  

I.e. hades.

How is "not in the presence of God" different than the Lake of Fire?


----------



## stevo15 (Nov 12, 2009)

The options are Heaven or H-E-L-L(Sorry this is considered profanity if just typed)


----------



## earl (Nov 12, 2009)

stevo15 said:


> The options are Heaven or H-E-L-L(Sorry this is considered profanity if just typed)



Only for those who believe it. Before you say what I know you are going to say,back it up with irrefutable proof.


----------



## NightOwl (Nov 12, 2009)

pnome said:


> Would that be a bad thing or a good thing? In your opinion.


 Worst thing imaginable imo.


----------



## NightOwl (Nov 12, 2009)

earl said:


> Only for those who believe it. Before you say what I know you are going to say,back it up with irrefutable proof.


 You have all the proof in the bible you will ever need.  If that doesnt convince you then that is your choice.  It doesnt make me think bad of someone who doesnt believe, I am sad for them though.  There is no proof of the big bang theory either but look how many believe that.  They are convinced of complex life starting from a boom billions of years ago.  I am convinced God created earth 10,000 years ago.  If I am wrong then when I die I rot and its over but I lived a much happier life striving to be what the bible tells me to be.  Win win either way.  If they are wrong then when they die they will go to hades for refusing Christ and spend eternity there.  Pretty simple choice for me.  I will live my life awaiting my judgement by me creator.


----------



## Diogenes (Nov 13, 2009)

Gtparts opines: “It would appear you may have given up on the answers to my list of questions and moved on to the ones you find more interesting.”   Well, actually,  yeah.  All of humanity has.  Those are not questions, to begin with, and are certainly not questions you posed.  Those questions are philosophical musings that have been around since the beginnings of human thought, and you can easily find them in any actual studying.  Those ‘questions’ are carefully framed along guidelines that make them unanswerable by the very phrasing of the ‘question,’ and are designed entirely to create the debate and exchange of ideas that the folks who tend to bandy them about seek to avoid.  As a question, framed properly, they fall under the old journalistic canard – “Have you stopped beating your wife?”  

Ask real questions, instead of chumming the water with ancient philosophical nonsense, huh?

Madman reacts: “So once again you twist the Word of God.”  Um?  Which of the quotes from the Book did I get wrong?  You clearly said, ““I am looking for "Worship Jesus, or suffer for eternity" and am unable to find it.”  And all I did was open your own Book of the Word of God, and found it for you . . . Is your Book so inconvenient that reading the whole thing is a bother?

This bit is too good to pass up, from gtparts: “A gift has been offered him, which he rejects, asserting that the giver and gift do not exist. (Next, he will be complaining because he doesn't possess the gift.)”   Wow!!!  So you were given a gift that the rest of us were not?  How very lucky you must have felt!  Was it your Birthday?  Was it nicely wrapped, with a big bow and your name on the tag that said ‘To: gtparts; From: God’?  Or was it one of those ‘gifts’ that psychics claim to have while they are cluttering up our mental hospitals?

Then more from Madman: “You are incorrect about not living in His presence. Just because you refuse to acknowledge Him does not mean He is not there.”  But wait a minute . . . If I am already living in His presence, then that is that, right?  How can I be living outside of that presence?  Can I live inside my house and outside of it at the same time?  How can one live in the presence of something and outside the presence of that same thing, and at the same time?  (Spoiler alert: the forthcoming rationalization promises to be hysterical . . . )

Then it gets funnier:  NightOwl – “If I am wrong then when I die I rot and its over but I lived a much happier life striving to be what the bible tells me to be.”   Um?  The bible tells you to beat children, stone sinners to death, bear children by your daughters, be fruitful and multiply while observing celibacy, circumcise your children and yourself, sacrifice tasty animals to the priests, shun the crippled, eat with your loins girded and your sandals on your feet and your staff in your hand, do not shave your beard, and an exhausting host of other things that one needs to do . . . Do you do all those things, in order to live a ‘happier life’?  And if not, then how can you say that you are living according to the ‘teachings’ of the Bible?


----------



## NightOwl (Nov 13, 2009)

Diogenes said:


> Gtparts opines: “It would appear you may have given up on the answers to my list of questions and moved on to the ones you find more interesting.”


 I think that your post has got to be the BIGGEST twisting of scripture I have seen ANYWHERE in my life.  If that what make you feel better brother, then go ahead.  I wont even waste my time argueing the obvious ignorance of your understanding of the bible and its teachings.  But please do us a favor, When you are not familiar with the ACTUAL teachings of someone (namely Christ) have the wisdom to research the teachings before entering into an arguement or debat over them.


----------



## Madman (Nov 13, 2009)

pnome said:


> Ok, let's say you are correct and I am indeed currently living in His presence.
> 
> So, you are saying that I will be worse off if I'm not in His presence right?
> 
> ...



Call it what you want.  Hades, lake of fire, that seems to be a fitting description for living outside the presence of God.  No matter the true conditions it is a place of unbelievalbe discomfort.

CS Lewis described it as a void between the soul and God.  The point was based on your remark of “worship Jesus or burn”,  that is incorrect.  The true message is "accept the Gospel, i.e. the gift God offered in Christ  Jesus or spend eternity separated from Him."


----------



## pnome (Nov 13, 2009)

Madman said:


> CS Lewis described it as a void between the soul and God.  The point was based on your remark of “worship Jesus or burn”,  that is incorrect.  The true message is "accept the Gospel, i.e. the gift God offered in Christ  Jesus or spend eternity separated from Him."



My point is that "separated from Him" is just a euphemism for hades.   Spin.  Pure and simple.


----------



## stevo15 (Nov 13, 2009)

DIOGENES..."Then it gets funnier:  NightOwl – “If I am wrong then when I die I rot and its over but I lived a much happier life striving to be what the bible tells me to be.”   Um?  The bible tells you to beat children, stone sinners to death, bear children by your daughters, be fruitful and multiply while observing celibacy, circumcise your children and yourself, sacrifice tasty animals to the priests, shun the crippled, eat with your loins girded and your sandals on your feet and your staff in your hand, do not shave your beard, and an exhausting host of other things that one needs to do . . . Do you do all those things, in order to live a ‘happier life’?  And if not, then how can you say that you are living according to the ‘teachings’ of the Bible?[/QUOTE]"

A lot of the things that you discuss are from the Old Testament Law.  This law was i place because there had been nothing to take the place of sin.  Christ came to earth and died as flesh and blood to take our sins as a sacrifice for us.  Old Testament Law was no more.  Are the ten commandments still law...sure!!  The laws that I am talking about are the ones that have to do with what will happen when you sin...like you say, stone sinners, beat your children(I assume you don't punish your children with spankings...not beatings).  New testament is not full of priests sacrificing animals.  That's because Christ made a way for people to access him without sacrifices and without priest by giving his body for us.

Before you quote the Bible, put it in the right context.  Some things were used in NT that were not used in OT.


----------



## Diogenes (Nov 14, 2009)

steveo15 asks: “Before you quote the Bible, put it in the right context. Some things were used in NT that were not used in OT.”   

Fair enough, and purely correct.  I have repeatedly observed that religions – all of them – can and have been put to good uses, if properly understood.  The Bible contains quite a lot of decent lessons, as books go, and it would be ignorant to reject those messages wholesale.  But every religious ‘Book’ contains good advice, and so do most of the books at Barnes and Noble.  In context, if you will, the Bible is a book of common mythology, no different than the ancient Greek and Roman mythologies which were offered honestly as the Word of the various pantheon of Gods they observed, but are now taken as useful parables meant to teach a lesson.

The problem arises here when certain zealots insist that their book (the ‘Bible’), is wholly and literally the truth of all things, and bears no disbelief.  A reasonable man would observe as you did – ‘things changed.’  Yes they did, though probably not for the reasons you cite.  Yet, it cannot be argued that anything at all can have changed if one posits a perfect and omnipotent being whose works and words are simply documented literally.  If there is a stark difference between the literal words of the God of the OT, and the words of that same God in the NT, then something doesn’t add up.  

First of all, why are both the OT and the NT contained in the same Holy Book if one is not meant to read them both as the Word of God?  Which is it?  One book?  Both books?  Bits of each?  You see – the zealots pick and choose from each as suits the position of the day, and refuse to make such a stark dividing line.  Yet they seek, at the same time, to draw that line when rationalizing their position of the moment.  Look – either the whole Book is the literal Word of God, in which case every problem, contradiction, and internal inconsistency I point out requires some serious thought, or it is a collection of parables meant to enlighten rather than to be taken literally.  It is an either/or sort of proposition, and too many wish it to be both.  That cannot be.

So, asking someone to put Bible quotes ‘in context’ when there is no context other than the one the interpreter wishes to project is a rather pointless exercise.  To be honest, the only ‘context’ is that of humans writing stories to explain things to themselves.

Next, if the book is to be taken literally, or even if only some parts are and other not as the mood strikes the zealots, then it is difficult to read the thing without seeing that God changed his mind quite a lot.  I mean, be serious.  You cannot put forward a contention that some invisible being is so powerful, perfect, and omnipotent, then tell folks that he repented of the perfect creation he made in his own image, and sent a flood to wipe them all out.  Similarly, you cannot contend that this same God sent down a representative to die in order to redeem our sins without asking where these ‘sins’ came from to begin with in the ‘context’ of a ‘perfect’ creation, and without also asking how come this Sacred event that was supposed to redeem our sins still left those sins unredeemed.  If Christ died for our sins, to redeem us in the eyes of his own creator (the Father), then that ought to have been the end of sin, and now we all have a ‘Get Out of Jail Free’ card.  We can’t possibly, under any amount of weaseling rationalization, have been saved by this ‘Sacrifice’ while retaining our imperfection.  The whole thought argues against itself.

And, for extra points on this quiz – How come there isn’t even a short Chapter called the Book of Jesus?  Did the Father create a Son who couldn’t write?  If the fella was sent here to teach, why is it that he seems to have done so little of it?  I mean, being created for the sole purpose of being tortured and killed is probably quite enough stress to put on a guy, and being asked to save all of humanity, worldwide, when you get plunked down in the center of the a desert in the Middle East (where most of humanity didn’t live) is quite an obstacle as well – but then you don’t even enable the poor fella to write anything down?  That just seems wrong on so many levels . . .


----------



## gtparts (Nov 14, 2009)

pnome said:


> My point is that "separated from Him" is just a euphemism for hades.   Spin.  Pure and simple.



Actually, you kinda got it backwards. The right and just results of unrepentant disobedience of God is eternal separation from Him. Now, out of that arises the problem of man having no real point of reference that would allow him to comprehend quite what that means. The use of "hades" is not appropriate to this discussion. The word rendered as "Hades" refers to a repository for souls prior to judgment and involves no punishment. In order to communicate the concept and seriousness of such separation, the picture used is one of the trash dump of Jerusalem (called Gehenna or the valley of....). This is where all refuse, including dead animals, garbage, etc was disposed of (down wind, as it were). This dump was set on fire to reduce the volume and smell and burned day and night, 24/7. The picture is of the largest and most unpleasant place that Jews would certainly understand.  

As I understand it, the separation from God is far worse than camping out in the city dump for eternity.

I will give you that the two concepts have been tied together for centuries for illustrative purposes.


----------



## stevo15 (Nov 14, 2009)

In the OT he is talking to a different group of people than he is in the New Testament.  People change...Most parents talk to their children differently than their great grandparents did.  

The main reason for the drastic change is that Christ came as a sacrifice.  Things were made accessible through him when in the OT there had been no sacrifice made.

I understand that you don't agree that there is an omnipotent God...I respect your opinion...but it doesn't change mine.


----------



## earl (Nov 14, 2009)

stevo15 said:


> In the OT he is talking to a different group of people than he is in the New Testament.  People change...Most parents talk to their children differently than their great grandparents did.
> 
> The main reason for the drastic change is that Christ came as a sacrifice.  Things were made accessible through him when in the OT there had been no sacrifice made.
> 
> I understand that you don't agree that there is an omnipotent God...I respect your opinion...but it doesn't change mine.



You might want to touch base with Lowjack on this one. If what you say is correct and was written  to a different people, what possible use is it now unless you are still in that same group ? By different people ,do you mean Jews ?


----------



## stevo15 (Nov 16, 2009)

You may want to read my other posts.  By different people, I mean a different generation of believers.  

I have also stated that things changed after Christ was sacrificed and risen that made a way for all believers from then on to approach him in the same way.  The Bible is written explaining how believers from then on should act, what laws we should abide by, and what will happen if we don't do what is expected.

It is written in a language for that period to understand him, but it is also still understood by modern believers.


----------



## CRANEMAN (Dec 13, 2009)

Diogenes said:


> BeenHuntn states: “i believe what God believes even if i am totally ignorant of that particular truth... i'll find out for sure when Jesus welcomes me into heaven and says "well done, good and faithful servant"... thats all i care to focus on at this point...”   Um?  What did that mean?
> 
> Did you really just say that you believe what something unknown and invisible believes, even if you are ignorant of not only the being, but the thoughts of the same reputed being?  Do you realize how close that is to saying, “I believe what the Martians believe, even though there may not be any Martians, and even though, if there were, I have no idea what they might believe – but that’s my belief, and I’m sticking with it . . .”    Does a statement like that actually make sense to you?  Sure doesn’t to me, so I thought I’d put it up there again for some rethinking . . .
> 
> ...


----------



## Diogenes (Dec 14, 2009)

Sir, I’ll concede that point.  I need to read many more books.  

I’ve already read yours – but only twelve of the versions.  Have you read the whole of even one version?  Is your point that your learning is done?

Be very careful who you call stupid.  And be prepared, if you wish to make that accusation, to demonstrate your superior knowledge – because you will need to do so beginning right now – 

Please expand on Anselm’s ontological argument for the existence of God for me --  if you will?  Anselm defined God as the greatest and most perfect possible being.  He assumed, further, that this most perfect being must possess all possible characteristics of perfection.  Makes sense so far, huh?  Since it is better to exist than not to exist, Anselm argued, existence in and of itself is a characteristic of perfection.  Presto!  God must exist!

C’mon.  Bring me your intellect.  I’m stupid, after all . . . Explain that to me . . . Oh wise and smart  person . . .


----------



## Diogenes (Dec 14, 2009)

(Hint:  That is also called the 'abracadabra' Argument, and it is really all you have . . .)


----------

