# Child dies of cancer



## atlashunter (Jun 13, 2018)

But god is up to something good. I will never understand this logic other than in hard times people grasp for something to say to feel better even if it doesn’t make a bit of sense.

https://ca.yahoo.com/style/lifestyl...g-photo-doesnt-want-leave-side-000905451.html


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 13, 2018)

I'll never understand the logic either.
However I cant really fault them for abandoning logic and going with "mental self preservation" at a time like that.
We pop an aspirin for a headache.
They are popping God for their aches.
Both relieve pain.


----------



## 1eyefishing (Jun 13, 2018)

Sad for Addy and family.
I am continuously seeking faith and knowledge of God. However, sometimes the knowledge of this world gets in the way. How is this good?
My 21 month old granddaughter is an 'Addy' also (Adelyn).
I pray (silently) that God does not test my faith in this manner.
Is it possible to have faith and doubt in God at the same time?
Sometimes I think it is...


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 13, 2018)

1eyefishing said:


> Sad for Addy and family.
> I am continuously seeking faith and knowledge of God. However, sometimes the knowledge of this world gets in the way. How is this good?
> My 21 month old granddaughter is an 'Addy' also (Adelyn).
> I pray (silently) that God does not test my faith in this manner.
> ...





> How is this good?


If they believe she is going to Heaven and they believe Heaven will be glorious/perfect/God has a plan for her...... wouldn't that be "good"?
Painful for them but "good" (the best?) for her?


----------



## 1eyefishing (Jun 13, 2018)

Absolutely.
Good point.


----------



## 1eyefishing (Jun 13, 2018)

But  maybe not best.
Not as good as her going to heaven later.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 13, 2018)

1eyefishing said:


> Absolutely.
> Good point.


The part I question is why would her suffering in a hospital bed with cancer need to be part of the plan? If God's plan for her required her to have some sort of knowledge/experience she would gain from that, he could just "miracle" it into her and save her a whole lot of pain and suffering.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 13, 2018)

1eyefishing said:


> But  maybe not best.
> Not as good as her going to heaven later.


That's because you want every minute you can have with her. And of course she will benefit from having time with you.
But if Heaven exists and is what it is claimed to be I'm not sure there could be anything "better".


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Jun 13, 2018)

1eyefishing said:


> Sad for Addy and family.
> I am continuously seeking faith and knowledge of God. However, sometimes the knowledge of this world gets in the way. How is this good?
> My 21 month old granddaughter is an 'Addy' also (Adelyn).
> I pray (silently) that God does not test my faith in this manner.
> ...



I have an Addy too.  She is 4, Adelyn Marie.  She is full of spunk and vigor, and that child will be a world changer.  The Lord knows I pray for all my grandbabies often, and would hate to travel this path with any of them.  So sad for the parents to experience this.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 13, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> If they believe she is going to Heaven and they believe Heaven will be glorious/perfect/God has a plan for her...... wouldn't that be "good"?
> Painful for them but "good" (the best?) for her?



By that logic ISIS slaughtering a bunch of Christians is also good.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 13, 2018)

atlashunter said:


> By that logic ISIS slaughtering a bunch of Christians is also good.


I'm not sure that's fair/accurate but I do see your point.
I'm thinking the act itself can be considered deplorable and the end result (Heaven) can be considered good.
And I'm not sure we can use logic as the gauge. Its illogical to believe there is a Heaven, that anybodys going there or that God exists and has a plan to begin with.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 14, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> I'm not sure that's fair/accurate but I do see your point.
> I'm thinking the act itself can be considered deplorable and the end result (Heaven) can be considered good.
> And I'm not sure we can use logic as the gauge. Its illogical to believe there is a Heaven, that anybodys going there or that God exists and has a plan to begin with.



I guess the point is that it would apply to all deaths regardless of the suffering or justice of it. But in all cases people believe this all powerful  one is standing there watching with folded arms while people plead for his help in vain.


----------



## goodshot (Jun 14, 2018)

Sickness was never G-d's plan for this world, it is always an attack by the enemy.
 Many of us have not learned how to pray correctly or walk in the way He would have us walk. Peter grew in the knowledge and wisdom of the Lord to the point the local people knew if they laid out their sick along the path he walked to the temple they would be healed.
Our problem now is accessing it, there is plenty for everybody, the problem is never on His end.
As a father and grandfather this story  is heartbreaking.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 14, 2018)

goodshot said:


> Sickness was never G-d's plan for this world, it is always an attack by the enemy.
> Many of us have not learned how to pray correctly or walk in the way He would have us walk. Peter grew in the knowledge and wisdom of the Lord to the point the local people knew if they laid out their sick along the path he walked to the temple they would be healed.
> Our problem now is accessing it, there is plenty for everybody, the problem is never on His end.
> As a father and grandfather this story  is heartbreaking.


There's a whole lot of Christians who are comforted in tragic times by "its all part of God's plan".


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 14, 2018)

goodshot said:


> Sickness was never G-d's plan for this world, it is always an attack by the enemy.
> Many of us have not learned how to pray correctly or walk in the way He would have us walk. Peter grew in the knowledge and wisdom of the Lord to the point the local people knew if they laid out their sick along the path he walked to the temple they would be healed.
> Our problem now is accessing it, there is plenty for everybody, the problem is never on His end.
> As a father and grandfather this story  is heartbreaking.



If it wasn’t part of the plan then why is there disease?


----------



## ky55 (Jun 14, 2018)

atlashunter said:


> If it wasn’t part of the plan then why is there disease?




“It is plain that there is one moral law for heaven and another for the earth. The pulpit assures us that wherever we see suffering and sorrow, which we can relieve and do not, we sin, heavily. There was never yet a case of suffering or sorrow which God could not relieve. Does He sin then?”

Mark Twain


*


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 14, 2018)

ky55 said:


> “It is plain that there is one moral law for heaven and another for the earth. The pulpit assures us that wherever we see suffering and sorrow, which we can relieve and do not, we sin, heavily. There was never yet a case of suffering or sorrow which God could not relieve. Does He sin then?”
> 
> Mark Twain
> 
> ...


----------



## matt79brown (Jun 14, 2018)

''the day you eat of it, you will surely die.'' Gen2:17.  "it is appointed unto man once to die." Heb 9:27. "a time to be born, a time to die.'' Ecc.3:3.         As best as I can figure the death rate is 1:1. We're under a curse. Innocent children and everyone else.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 14, 2018)

matt79brown said:


> ''the day you eat of it, you will surely die.'' Gen2:17.  "it is appointed unto man once to die." Heb 9:27. "a time to be born, a time to die.'' Ecc.3:3.         As best as I can figure the death rate is 1:1. We're under a curse. Innocent children and everyone else.



So a four year old girl is cursed because someone thousands of years ago committed the crime of eating a forbidden fruit.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 14, 2018)

atlashunter said:


> So a four year old girl is cursed because someone thousands of years ago committed the crime of eating a forbidden fruit.



I don’t know how anyone can still stick to this claim when the fossil record proves that death long predates humans.


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Jun 15, 2018)

atlashunter said:


> I don’t know how anyone can still stick to this claim when the fossil record proves that death long predates humans.



does it?  I know the assumptions that are put out by evolutionist say that, but where is the proof?

Just how long does it take to make a fossil?


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jun 15, 2018)

matt79brown said:


> ''the day you eat of it, you will surely die.'' Gen2:17.  "it is appointed unto man once to die." Heb 9:27. "a time to be born, a time to die.'' Ecc.3:3.         As best as I can figure the death rate is 1:1. We're under a curse. Innocent children and everyone else.



weird that god says "on the day that you eat the fruit you will die" but then they lived to be around 900 years old. I know, I know - god meant spiritually dead not actually dead - maybe. Wow the figurative/literal murkiness begins right out of the gate and never lets up!


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jun 15, 2018)

atlashunter said:


> I don’t know how anyone can still stick to this claim when the fossil record proves that death long predates humans.



oh SNAP! But I have play "gotcha" now - physical death always existed in animals but humans have physical and spiritual death. Regardless imagine what a crowded planet earth would be if every living thing didn't experience physical death!


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jun 15, 2018)

NE GA Pappy said:


> does it?  I know the assumptions that are put out by evolutionist say that, but where is the proof?
> 
> Just how long does it take to make a fossil?



56 years so far, but god isn't finished with me yet! When my joints pop it sounds like a pencil snapping in half, so I might be further along in the fossil game than I thought.


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Jun 15, 2018)

well, it helps if you actually read what it says.  I can understand the issue, but that is not what scripture says.

Gen 2:17
but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” 

It doesn't say you will surely die that day, but it says you will reap the reward of sin, and the curse that you will die is put upon you.  
Up until this happened, there was no curse of death.


----------



## Israel (Jun 15, 2018)

NE GA Pappy said:


> well, it helps if you actually read what it says.  I can understand the issue, but that is not what scripture says.
> 
> Gen 2:17
> but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”
> ...



I have often thought about Adam (what else would another "of Adam"...do?).
As you rightly said:



> Up until this happened, there was no curse of death



What would Adam know of this thing..."death"...? Is it a "fair warning"?
Or is it a simple statement of consequence...even if unknowing of the significance of consequence?
The command "don't eat" is not contingent upon knowing the consequence...it _is the _command. The telling of consequence (even if not understood) is a grace in itself...

But how to learn then, the _necessity_ of obedience...unless one _of necessity_ is brought to recognize what happens in consequence of disobedience?

Do we think Adam lost all remembrance of the garden? We might even wonder...was he not very much aware...in that contrast of remembering..."this...is not...that". This is surely "not that" place where fruitfulness all abounded, (my one son just slew the other)...this consequence of death...is horrid. I begin to understand...what was done there...in putting forth my hand to "try" to be...as the One I still remember (but only now) I was ordained to be "like"...without having to do anything "of my own". (How far His being seems to me now!)
I am consumed with "trying to live" instead of...living.
Oh, woe is me? Oh! Woe is me!

But even self pity has an ordained end of comforts. Even (ONLY!) the Seeing One knows...there is an ordained end to it. When death has become, in all its terrible work...known...and self pity is (and the railing against "fortune" (God!) that has ordained it) done. Then comes its release...but through no less than the "mechanism" that, once refused, brought an entrance into something abysmal. (Adam...have you had "enough" yet?)

Command!

One comes preaching a command! The command, which, if heeded, is all of the reversal of the previous consequence. It is more than appeal...it is more than request, it is more than even, instruction. It is COMMAND.

From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

One is brought to a remembering...this voice...this authority, this speaking has a ring to it. It's the same voice. And in no different way...at all...command comes, with the telling of consequence...and consequence truly...no man understands fully. (no less than death as consequence, was known). "For the Kingdom of God is at hand". This is the voice...of the One...in the garden!

When Adam forsakes the comfort of self pity...when he has "had enough" and is ready to cry "uncle"...(but truly Daddy!)..the way back "in" to a something unable to be fully known, or seen...in glory...is provided, by obedience to command.

It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

Every man who has heard, and learned of the Father...(finally...because "He is the Daddy!") comes to Jesus. Everyone whose "whys" are finally exhausted.

Children hear this eventually in all their "whys"?
Because...I am the Daddy.

You don't need to know anything about it, anything of the whys of it... just know the One speaking to you...is your Daddy. It's enough. He speaks nothing...except of what is right and good...and even this "the day you eat of it you shall surely die"...becomes something else now in sight to the thing that has "had enough"...thank you, thank you Daddy...for telling me what to do.

You are right Daddy, I don't know what I do. You are the Daddy...and it is far more than enough that you call me your own.

This is done in Jesus. Look. Go ahead. He means no man harm. And yes, He always speaks for Daddy. Don't despise (I say, DO not despise) the One given in the Son's name to speak now for Him...who speaks...for Daddy.

And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven.


----------



## matt79brown (Jun 15, 2018)

Yes.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 16, 2018)

NE GA Pappy said:


> does it?  I know the assumptions that are put out by evolutionist say that, but where is the proof?
> 
> Just how long does it take to make a fossil?



I assume you accept that dinosaurs lived and died. Is it your belief that humans lived during the time of the dinosaurs? What is your physical evidence that would support that belief?


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 16, 2018)

oldfella1962 said:


> oh SNAP! But I have play "gotcha" now - physical death always existed in animals but humans have physical and spiritual death. Regardless imagine what a crowded planet earth would be if every living thing didn't experience physical death!



Thanks for the acknowledgment that humans didn’t bring death and disease into the world. This is another one of those falsifiable claims Christians make that doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Jun 16, 2018)

atlashunter said:


> But god is up to something good. I will never understand this logic other than in hard times people grasp for something to say to feel better even if it doesn’t make a bit of sense.
> 
> https://ca.yahoo.com/style/lifestyl...g-photo-doesnt-want-leave-side-000905451.html


Are you more incensed that you don't understand God's plan? or are you more upset that, in your mind, there is not God to physically save this child from such suffering and demise? Either way, your angst seems to be against a God you don't believe exists. Sort of like hating the wind that doesn't blow.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 16, 2018)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Are you more incensed that you don't understand God's plan? or are you more upset that, in your mind, there is not God to physically save this child from such suffering and demise? Either way, your angst seems to be against a God you don't believe exists. Sort of like hating the wind that doesn't blow.



No angst here. The world is as we should expect it absent anyone with their thumb in the scale.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Jun 16, 2018)

atlashunter said:


> No angst here. The world is as we should expect it absent anyone with their thumb in the scale.


Yet you persist in attempting to remove that existence of a Christian Faith from your craw with every post you make. One wonders what flicker of light still exist in your sub-conscious to torture you so.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 16, 2018)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Are you more incensed that you don't understand God's plan? or are you more upset that, in your mind, there is not God to physically save this child from such suffering and demise? Either way, your angst seems to be against a God you don't believe exists. Sort of like hating the wind that doesn't blow.


It is more like trying to talk sense to the people who are saying that they are living in, witnessing and feeling the effects of a hurricane .  Those people constantly walk like they are leaning into a gale force. They continually claim the hurricane is happening right outside but when we look out the window there is no hurricane. The wind speed dial is not moving. There is no rain, no debris....nothing actually going on that indicates a hurricane. When we ask them for some proof they give nothing tangible and instead they tell us we are incapable of seeing and feeling the hurricane.

We don't hate wind. We question the wanna be weathermen that tell us the wind is happening when it isn't. It facinates us to hear them constantly explain a forecast that doesn't happen. We want to hear from them the hows and whys to see if we somehow overlooked something. We like to discuss their findings to see if their claims equal the facts. But despite the claims of the hurricane that is going on in their mind it is sunny and calm everywhere else.

We can't hate a wind that isn't blowing from a storm that doesn't exist. 
We question the weathermen that say its happening.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 16, 2018)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Yet you persist in attempting to remove that existence of a Christian Faith from your craw with every post you make. One wonders what flicker of light still exist in your sub-conscious to torture you so.



I hope you’re better at construction than you are at psycho analysis.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 16, 2018)

bullethead said:


> It is more like trying to talk sense to the people who are saying that they are living in, witnessing and feeling the effects of a hurricane .  Those people constantly walk like they are leaning into a gale force. They continually claim the hurricane is happening right outside but when we look out the window there is no hurricane. The wind speed dial is not moving. There is no rain, no debris....nothing actually going on that indicates a hurricane. When we ask them for some proof they give nothing tangible and instead they tell us we are incapable of seeing and feeling the hurricane.
> 
> We don't hate wind. We question the wanna be weathermen that tell us the wind is happening when it isn't. It facinates us to hear them constantly explain a forecast that doesn't happen. We want to hear from them the hows and whys to see if we somehow overlooked something. We like to discuss their findings to see if their claims equal the facts. But despite the claims of the hurricane that is going on in their mind it is sunny and calm everywhere else.
> 
> ...



The emperor has no clothes.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 16, 2018)

If the child had survived they would have said god was up to good. The child died and they said god was up to good. That’s a no lose proposition that could be applied to any god. One has to wonder what evidence would lead them to conclude god was up to no good?


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 16, 2018)

ky55 said:


> “It is plain that there is one moral law for heaven and another for the earth. The pulpit assures us that wherever we see suffering and sorrow, which we can relieve and do not, we sin, heavily. There was never yet a case of suffering or sorrow which God could not relieve. Does He sin then?”
> 
> Mark Twain
> 
> ...



QFE


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 16, 2018)

bullethead said:


> 1. It is more like trying to talk sense to the people who are saying that they are living in,
> 
> 2. We want to hear from them the hows and whys to see if we somehow overlooked something.


Those are two separate objectives. It usually starts with number 2 but it switches to number 1.

In reality it’s like a high school kid asking another why and how could he like a girl so much and then try to talk since into that kid using the reasons he has for not liking her.


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Jun 16, 2018)

atlashunter said:


> I assume you accept that dinosaurs lived and died. Is it your belief that humans lived during the time of the dinosaurs? What is your physical evidence that would support that belief?



ever heard of Glenrose Tx?


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 16, 2018)

NE GA Pappy said:


> does it?  I know the assumptions that are put out by evolutionist say that, but where is the proof?
> 
> Just how long does it take to make a fossil?


Not sure bout you Pappy, but I was taught that anytime an unknown is there, you can only reasonably assume. And reasonably assuming never makes anything factual. I guess they had something that was already a million years old when they found something else to say this too is a million years old.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 16, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> Those are two separate objectives. It usually starts with number 2 but it switches to number 1.
> 
> In reality it’s like a high school kid asking another why and how could he like a girl so much and then try to talk since into that kid using the reasons he has for not liking her.


Yeah, sure ,similar if the high school kid lived lets say on planet earth, and the girl....Who he has never seen in person, never met, never snapchatted with, never saw a pic of, never talked to in person or on the telephone or face timed .. who was written about by a culture 2000 years ago and lived beyond the Universe.
If your kid came to you and wanted to marry THAT girl,  would you want to see what is going on in his mind first ? Maybe hear his explanation and discuss ANYTHING that might bring up a red flag in your mind?


----------



## bullethead (Jun 16, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> Not sure bout you Pappy, but I was taught that anytime an unknown is there, you can only reasonably assume. And reasonably assuming never makes anything factual. I guess they had something that was already a million years old when they found something else to say this too is a million years old.


You and I can reasonably assume. Science uses methods that produce results that lead up to conclusions that are based off of a preponderance of evidence.  The results point to a more likely than not best probable explanation that is agreed upon by the majority of the scientific community.

If you think that they look at an object and take a guess, yeah sure, your explanatiin makes more sense.


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 16, 2018)

bullethead said:


> would you want to see what is going on in his mind


Ahhhh the core of the issue always sticks it’s head up in the air. It’s never been about what and how a person believes in what they do. There’s an assumption by the non believers that they’re intellectually superior because they believe in nothing.


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 16, 2018)

bullethead said:


> You and I can reasonably assume. Science uses methods that produce results that lead up to conclusions that are based off of a preponderance of evidence.  The results point to a more likely than not best probable explanation that is agreed upon by the majority of the scientific community.
> 
> If you think that they look at an object and take a guess, yeah sure, your explanatiin makes more sense.


They had zero knowledge of the first thing they measured. Since then, it’s assumed off those results and passed on to the next generation. Think about what you’re presenting, what evidence and where did it come from?


----------



## bullethead (Jun 16, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> Ahhhh the core of the issue always sticks it’s head up in the air. It’s never been about what and how a person believes in what they do. There’s an assumption by the non believers that they’re intellectually superior because they believe in nothing.


That is your excuse. Not mine.
I have said many times that I discuss it to see if I've missed something and to hear a persons view and reasons.

I take it that you do not have a problem with the analogy I used though, just your assertion of why.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 16, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> Ahhhh the core of the issue always sticks it’s head up in the air. It’s never been about what and how a person believes in what they do. There’s an assumption by the non believers that they’re intellectually superior because they believe in nothing.


That is your excuse. Not mine.
I have said many times that I discuss it to see if I've missed something and to hear a persons view and reasons.

I take it that you do not have a problem with the analogy I used though, just your assertion of why


Spotlite said:


> They had zero knowledge of the first thing they measured. Since then, it’s assumed off those results and passed on to the next generation. Think about what you’re presenting, what evidence and where did it come from?


Not so.
They are able to determine the depth and decay rate of the soil around fossils. They are able to determine how long it takes plant life to compress and turn into coal and turn into diamonds or oil. They can use that info and a thousand other checks and balances to determine an estimate of the age of the other items that is found in the soil. The first guess is just that, as understanding and technology grows the guesses become more accurate.


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 16, 2018)

bullethead said:


> That is your excuse. Not mine.
> I have said many times that I discuss it to see if I've missed something and to hear a persons view and reasons.
> 
> I take it that you do not have a problem with the analogy I used though, just your assertion of why.


 Discussion is one thing. It means you discuss what you do and don’t believe and provide your reasons and what they’re based on. 
Debate is trying to prove something is either right or wrong.


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Jun 16, 2018)

bullethead said:


> That is your excuse. Not mine.
> I have said many times that I discuss it to see if I've missed something and to hear a persons view and reasons.
> 
> I take it that you do not have a problem with the analogy I used though, just your assertion of why
> ...



how long does it take to make coal?  you might want to read up on Mt.St Helens before you assume an answer


----------



## bullethead (Jun 16, 2018)

NE GA Pappy said:


> how long does it take to make coal?  you might want to read up on Mt.St Helens before you assume an answer


Mt St Helens is the gold standard by which all others are judged by.
Or not


----------



## bullethead (Jun 16, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> Discussion is one thing. It means you discuss what you do and don’t believe and provide your reasons and what they’re based on.
> Debate is trying to prove something is either right or wrong.


When someone asserts something and hopes no one will call them on it...debate is inevitable.


----------



## K80 (Jun 16, 2018)

So what exactly is it you want to know about a child dying from cancer?

The Lord blessed my family with 14 more months than the doctors expected my son to live because we allowed Him to use us to glorify Him.  We didn't find out the extra 14 months until after he died and one of our nurses told us.

The power of prayer is real.

People were changed,  marriages were saved,  some people became open to the discussion of the being a God, people that that would never entertain the thought before hand,  and much more.

I'm content knowing I had my son only for 3.5 years and his life was used to glorify God to millions and I'll get to spend eternity with him as compared to having a son for 60+ years whom turned everyone he met away from the Lord and spends eternity in ****.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 16, 2018)

NE GA Pappy said:


> how long does it take to make coal?  you might want to read up on Mt.St Helens before you assume an answer


http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mtsthelens.html


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Jun 16, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Mt St Helens is the gold standard by which all others are judged by.
> Or not



Mt St Helens is current, documented and studied.  So, did you find out how long it takes to make coal?  or how long it takes to make a fossil?

And btw,  What was the state of decay in that soil when the bone was placed there to fossilize?  Was it old then, or new?  did it have decayed isotopes in there already, or were they all new?  Assumptions are there from the beginning.


On another thought..... how long were the legs on the lunar lander, and why were they that long?


----------



## bullethead (Jun 16, 2018)

NE GA Pappy said:


> Mt St Helens is current, documented and studied.  So, did you find out how long it takes to make coal?  or how long it takes to make a fossil?
> 
> And btw,  What was the state of decay in that soil when the bone was placed there to fossilize?  Was it old then, or new?  did it have decayed isotopes in there already, or were they all new?  Assumptions are there from the beginning.
> 
> ...


The creationist studies greatly differ from the rest.
Coal takes several hundred years to several thousand years to several million years depending on depth(amount of coal in vein) abd type of coal.

I live in the heart of Pennsylvania Anthracite Coal region.


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Jun 16, 2018)

bullethead said:


> The creationist studies greatly differ from the rest.
> Coal takes several hundred years to several thousand years to several million years depending on depth(amount of coal in vein) abd type of coal.
> 
> I live in the heart of Pennsylvania Anthracite Coal region.



congratulations.  I live in the Appalachian mountains.

What does either have to do with how long it takes to make coal?


----------



## bullethead (Jun 16, 2018)

NE GA Pappy said:


> Mt St Helens is current, documented and studied.  So, did you find out how long it takes to make coal?  or how long it takes to make a fossil?
> 
> And btw,  What was the state of decay in that soil when the bone was placed there to fossilize?  Was it old then, or new?  did it have decayed isotopes in there already, or were they all new?  Assumptions are there from the beginning.
> 
> ...


I am not familiar with the Lunar Lander legs.
A thoughtful guess would have me think that the legs would have to be long enough with wide pads to support the lander in dust type soil and adaptable to terrain all the while short enough to fit inside the capsule. 

Enlighten me on why you bring it up.


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Jun 16, 2018)

bullethead said:


> I am not familiar with the Lunar Lander legs.
> A thoughtful guess would have me think that the legs would have to be long enough with wide pads to support the lander in dust type soil and adaptable to terrain all the while short enough to fit inside the capsule.
> 
> Enlighten me on why you bring it up.



for transportation purposes, the shorter the better, so why did NASA design the lunar lander with legs that were over 6ft long, IIRC.  Why all the weight and height?  What advantage would 6ft legs have over 5ft legs, or 3ft legs for that matter?  We know that weight savings was the ultimate goal of the designers, so if 2ft long legs would have  been deemed long enough, they would have made them that length.  

So, just what could have made engineers think that needed legs 6 ft long?


----------



## bullethead (Jun 16, 2018)

NE GA Pappy said:


> congratulations.  I live in the Appalachian mountains.
> 
> What does either have to do with how long it takes to make coal?


I gave you the answers regarding how long it takes.
I am fairly knowledgeable about Coal because of where I live, the role it has played in my area and the impact it has had family members who spent their lives mining it.

In my case where I live has allowed me to gain knowledge about Coal from it being the #1 commodity in my area for a couple hundred years.
Admittedly others who live here couldnt give a darn about it.
I do not know where you stand.


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Jun 17, 2018)

If you have studied the happenings at Mt St Helens, you know that certain types of coal can be made in just a couple of decades.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 17, 2018)

NE GA Pappy said:


> for transportation purposes, the shorter the better, so why did NASA design the lunar lander with legs that were over 6ft long, IIRC.  Why all the weight and height?  What advantage would 6ft legs have over 5ft legs, or 3ft legs for that matter?  We know that weight savings was the ultimate goal of the designers, so if 2ft long legs would have  been deemed long enough, they would have made them that length.
> 
> So, just what could have made engineers think that needed legs 6 ft long?


Was 6ft legs before or after landing?
The honeycomb shock absorbers crushed to cushion the landing.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 17, 2018)

NE GA Pappy said:


> If you have studied the happenings at Mt St Helens, you know that certain types of coal can be made in just a couple of decades.


I have not studied it before doing a quick search when you brought it up.
What I have found is that the creationist sites say what you are trying to say...the coal can be made in just a couple decades.
And
That the type of "coal" which is made from treebark and peat in Pa instead of the type found in Mt St Helens is the type that takes thousands and millions of years to make.
The link I provided tells you that.


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Jun 17, 2018)

let me know when you have pondered the lunar lander over for a bit and figured out why NASA took the astronauts seats out of it, rather than shorten the legs to save weight.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 17, 2018)

NE GA Pappy said:


> let me know when you have pondered the lunar lander over for a bit and figured out why NASA took the astronauts seats out of it, rather than shorten the legs to save weight.


I'm gonna be honest with you, I'll probably not give it much thought.


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Jun 17, 2018)

bullethead said:


> I'm gonna be honest with you, I'll probably not give it much thought.



OK... what ever you decide.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 17, 2018)

NE GA Pappy said:


> ever heard of Glenrose Tx?



I’ve been there. Those tracks have been studied and are widely believed to be dinosaur tracks. How about something more conclusive like human fossils found in Jurassic period rock?


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 17, 2018)

NE GA Pappy said:


> let me know when you have pondered the lunar lander over for a bit and figured out why NASA took the astronauts seats out of it, rather than shorten the legs to save weight.



Wow. You must be reading from a creationist book from the 80’s. Was it the one that explained ancient people moved huge stone blocks with the sound of their trumpets and that may explain how they brought down the walls of Jericho? If so, I had that book too. It also had this argument about the moon dust. One that even creationists have since abandoned. Guess you didn’t get the memo.

https://answersingenesis.org/kids/astronomy/moon-dust-argument-no-longer-useful/


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 17, 2018)

atlashunter said:


> Wow. You must be reading from a creationist book from the 80’s. Was it the one that explained ancient people moved huge stone blocks with the sound of their trumpets and that may explain how they brought down the walls of Jericho? If so, I had that book too. It also had this argument about the moon dust. One that even creationists have since abandoned. Guess you didn’t get the memo.
> 
> https://answersingenesis.org/kids/astronomy/moon-dust-argument-no-longer-useful/




Holy cow.

What is all this you're referencing?  It sounds fantastic.  Where can I find out more about it?


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 17, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> Holy cow.
> 
> What is all this you're referencing?  It sounds fantastic.  Where can I find out more about it?



I wish I still had that book or could remember the name. It would be interesting to look through now. Would have been published in the late 80s I think or possibly as late as 90/91. Trying to recall now when it was given to me and I think it was around 1990. Had all kinds of good stuff. The Nephilim human/angel hybrid giants. The evidence of Noah’s ark including the firmament of water that used to exist in the upper atmosphere which was split and fell to earth to create the flood. Ancient people using sound waves to levitate objects. The Paluxy River beds in Glenrose. The dozens of feet of moon dust that NASA expected to encounter but instead they found less than 10,000 years worth of dust accumulation! Lots of gems in that book.


----------



## matt79brown (Jun 17, 2018)

I've heard the argument from believers who say  ''I don't have enough faith to be an Atheist.''  I just plain ain't smart nuff to be an Atheist. Guess I'll put my head back in the wonderful sand from which it was made so long ago.


----------



## ky55 (Jun 17, 2018)

atlashunter said:


> I wish I still had that book or could remember the name. It would be interesting to look through now. Would have been published in the late 80s I think or possibly as late as 90/91. Trying to recall now when it was given to me and I think it was around 1990. Had all kinds of good stuff. The Nephilim human/angel hybrid giants. The evidence of Noah’s ark including the firmament of water that used to exist in the upper atmosphere which was split and fell to earth to create the flood. Ancient people using sound waves to levitate objects. The Paluxy River beds in Glenrose. The dozens of feet of moon dust that NASA expected to encounter but instead they found less than 10,000 years worth of dust accumulation! Lots of gems in that book.



Ken Ham is the guy who is currently wielding the shovel. 

https://answersingenesis.org/


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 17, 2018)

NE GA Pappy said:


> Assumptions are there from the beginning


 There is a huge message in that statement that will go right over.

I completed a course of training several years ago that had 40 hours dedicated to facts, evidence, and conclusions.  The class was broken into several small groups and the assignment was for each group to prove to the entire class that the color red, was actually red, based on the facts, evidence, conclusions and its relationship to an assumption.

The result was;
1. Assumption - the shade of color is red

2. Fact - Identified properties that result in that shade of color.

3. Evidence - Test those properties result in that shade of color.

3. Conclusion -  We reasonably assume that we can identify this shade of color as red.

The moral of the exercise - you may be able to prove how you determined your conclusion, but your conclusion doesn’t necessarily prove that your assumption is correct.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 17, 2018)

NE GA Pappy said:


> OK... what ever you decide.


You are using the creationist playbook as your basis and Science just does not back it up.


----------



## matt79brown (Jun 19, 2018)

Funny how these scientist know beyond a shadow of a doubt what was going on a million years ago yet most of them can't tell you their very own great great grandfather's name or where he lived! What we ''know'' verses what we think we ''know'' is often two different things.


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Jun 20, 2018)

bullethead said:


> You are using the creationist playbook as your basis and Science just does not back it up.





bullethead said:


> You are using the creationist playbook as your basis and Science just does not back it up.



how would you know?  you said you weren't going to look at the facts, so it is surprising to me that you know what the actual science is in this case.

why were those lunar lander legs so long?  at the cost of other useful items they could have taken?  inquiring minds want to know.  Closed minds thinks science doesn't back it up


----------



## bullethead (Jun 20, 2018)

NE GA Pappy said:


> how would you know?  you said you weren't going to look at the facts, so it is surprising to me that you know what the actual science is in this case.
> 
> why were those lunar lander legs so long?  at the cost of other useful items they could have taken?  inquiring minds want to know.  Closed minds thinks science doesn't back it up


I was just trying to avoid a derailment convo. A quick search shows all that came up about lunar lander leg specific length was creationist websites that made the same claims almost word for word.
The nasa and .gov didn't even address the length of legs for moon dust, they talk about the many ideas for the legs to fit in the craft, deploy and how they used a crushable honeycomb design for impact instead of shock absorbers
The length of legs wouldn't matter. The size of the pads would make up for any soft soil..
They wouldn't be so concerned about designing shock absorbers if the surface was a soft powder and they were worried about sinking. 

At your claim of needing 6ft legs to stay above the moon dust, the astronauts would find it hard to walk in 3,4, 5ft of powder yet the pics show footprints that are maybe a half inch. And the lander pads clearly on top of the surface not sunken.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 20, 2018)

matt79brown said:


> I've heard the argument from believers who say  ''I don't have enough faith to be an Atheist.''  I just plain ain't smart nuff to be an Atheist. Guess I'll put my head back in the wonderful sand from which it was made so long ago.


I bet you are.
No gods have been proven to exist.
Therefore Atheists don't believe gods exist.
It doesn't require one to be a brainiac to understand that


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Jun 20, 2018)

bullethead said:


> yet the pics show footprints that are maybe a half inch. And the lander pads clearly on top of the surface not sunken.



that is the issue, we know the rate of deposition of dust on the moon.  The moon is a undisturbed place, either by man or atmosphere.  what dust lands there stays there.  If the earth and moon were 4.6 billion years old, then the dust should have been much,much deeper.  BUT IT AIN'T!


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 20, 2018)

> NE GA Pappy said:
> how would you know?  you said you weren't going to look at the facts, so it is surprising to me that you know what the actual science is in this case.
> 
> why were those lunar lander legs so long?  at the cost of other useful items they could have taken?  inquiring minds want to know.  Closed minds thinks science doesn't back it up





bullethead said:


> I was just trying to avoid a derailment convo. A quick search shows all that came up about lunar lander leg specific length was creationist websites that made the same claims almost word for word.
> The nasa and .gov didn't even address the length of legs for moon dust, they talk about the many ideas for the legs to fit in the craft, deploy and how they used a crushable honeycomb design for impact instead of shock absorbers
> The length of legs wouldn't matter. The size of the pads would make up for any soft soil..
> They wouldn't be so concerned about designing shock absorbers if the surface was a soft powder and they were worried about sinking.
> ...


Is this what you guys are talking about?
Seems to me the length of the legs would be determined by how high it had to sit so that "stuff" underneath it/between the legs wouldn't get crushed.
And it seems to me those legs would be a whole lot longer if they expected it to sink 3/4/5 however many feet.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 20, 2018)

NE GA Pappy said:


> that is the issue, we know the rate of deposition of dust on the moon.  The moon is a undisturbed place, either by man or atmosphere.  what dust lands there stays there.  If the earth and moon were 4.6 billion years old, then the dust should have been much,much deeper.  BUT IT AIN'T!


http://don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/moondust.html


----------



## bullethead (Jun 20, 2018)

NE GA Pappy said:


> that is the issue, we know the rate of deposition of dust on the moon.  The moon is a undisturbed place, either by man or atmosphere.  what dust lands there stays there.  If the earth and moon were 4.6 billion years old, then the dust should have been much,much deeper.  BUT IT AIN'T!


The rate creationists THINK it should be and what it really is are two different things. It does not get get anywhere near the dust per year that creationists claim. 
The link addresses that.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 20, 2018)

NE GA Pappy said:


> that is the issue, we know the rate of deposition of dust on the moon.  The moon is a undisturbed place, either by man or *atmosphere.*  what dust lands there stays there.  If the earth and moon were 4.6 billion years old, then the dust should have been much,much deeper.  BUT IT AIN'T!





> To make matters worse, lunar dust suffers from a terrible case of static cling. UV rays drive electrons out of lunar dust by day, while the* solar wind* bombards it with electrons by night.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 20, 2018)

> To make matters worse, lunar dust suffers from a terrible case of static cling. UV rays drive electrons out of lunar dust by day, while the* solar wind* bombards it with electrons by night.


Dust with static cling.
Clinging to itself.
That static cling being recharged every night further bonding the dust together.
Would form what?
A. Loose dust?
B. A crust/solid type surface?


----------



## bullethead (Jun 20, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> Dust with static cling.
> Clinging to itself.
> That static cling being recharged every night further bonding the dust together.
> Would form what?
> ...


What Pappy is arguing for was disproven back in the late 60s. Even a few mainstream creationists have abandoned it, but some still hang on to it despite the evidence


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 20, 2018)

bullethead said:


> What Pappy is arguing for was disproven back in the late 60s. Even a few mainstream creationists have abandoned it, but some still hang on to it despite the evidence


I have never heard this particular argument before.
Darn science always screwing up these wacky claims


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 20, 2018)

atlashunter said:


> I will never understand this logic...



To be honest it would be an easier task to explain the love of a mothers embrace or the beauty of a sunrise to an unborn child.  Understanding this is not something you can do as an unbeliever.  No one should expect you to.  It's a dimension you can't see.[/QUOTE]


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 20, 2018)

atlashunter said:


> No angst here. The world is as we should expect it absent anyone with their thumb in the scale.



I’m gonna regret asking this, I know, but if the above is true where does ones sense of injustice, any injustice, come from?


----------



## blood on the ground (Jun 20, 2018)

Who has all the answers? I sure dont! Life in general can be very cruel!


----------



## bullethead (Jun 20, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I’m gonna regret asking this, I know, but if the above is true where does ones sense of injustice, any injustice, come from?


It evolved as our species evolved. They are learned traits.
Good, bad, right, wrong, justice, injustice all have taken on different meanings and levels from our earliest form and still do depending upon individual, family, society, culture, country or nation. There are so many factors that play into it that it cannot be narrowed down to a single source.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 20, 2018)

bullethead said:


> That is your excuse. Not mine.
> I have said many times that I discuss it to see if I've missed something and to hear a persons view and reasons.
> 
> I take it that you do not have a problem with the analogy I used though, just your assertion of why
> ...



In all truth, much of geology is based on assumptions based on linear equations.  Example:  We know x much water flow  over y time causes z amount of erosion so based on that given any two variables we can determine the other.  That type of stuff.


But, given the Biblical account of the flood all models go out the window.  A model is very specific and very limited.  The further one ventures outside of that scope the less reliable  and less credible the results become.
Regardless of whether one believes in the flood or not, it’s fools errand to assume models based on today’s geology could either prove or disprove the account.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 20, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> In all truth, much of geology is based on assumptions based on linear equations.  Example:  We know x much water flow  over y time causes z amount of erosion so based on that given any two variables we can determine the other.  That type of stuff.
> 
> 
> But, given the Biblical account of the flood all models go out the window.  A model is very specific and very limited.  The further one ventures outside of that scope the less reliable  and less credible the results become.
> Regardless of whether one believes in the flood or not, it’s fools errand to assume models based on today’s geology could either prove or disprove the account.


If there was a world wide flood that had to have a level amount of water globally in order to cover the highest point, where did all the water recede to if everything is already covered?
There is nowhere for it to go, unless there are places where there is no water.


----------



## ky55 (Jun 20, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> In all truth, much of geology is based on assumptions based on linear equations.  Example:  We know x much water flow  over y time causes z amount of erosion so based on that given any two variables we can determine the other.  That type of stuff.
> 
> 
> But, given the Biblical account of the flood all models go out the window.  A model is very specific and very limited.  The further one ventures outside of that scope the less reliable  and less credible the results become.
> Regardless of whether one believes in the flood or not, it’s fools errand to assume models based on today’s geology could either prove or disprove the account.



https://www.britannica.com/science/uniformitarianism


“Uniformitarianism, in geology, the doctrine suggesting that Earth’sgeologic processes acted in the same manner and with essentially the same intensity in the past as they do in the present and that such uniformity is sufficient to account for all geologic change. This principle is fundamental to geologic thinking and underlies the whole development of the science of geology.
When William Whewell, a University of Cambridge scholar, introduced the term in 1832, the prevailing view (called catastrophism) was that Earth had originated through supernatural means and had been affected by a series of catastrophic events such as the biblical Flood. In contrast to catastrophism, uniformitarianism postulates that phenomena displayed in rocks may be entirely accounted for by geologic processes that continue to operate—in other words, the present is the key to the past.
The expression _uniformitarianism_, however, has passed into history, because the argument between catastrophists and uniformitarians has largely died. Geology as an applied science draws on the other sciences, but in the early 19th century, geologic discovery had outrun the physics and chemistry of the day. As geologic phenomena became understandable in terms of advancing physics, chemistry, and biology, the reality of the principle of uniformity as a major philosophical tenet of geology became established, and the controversy between catastrophists and uniformitarians largely ended.”

*


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 20, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> To be honest it would be an easier task to explain the love of a mothers embrace or the beauty of a sunrise to an unborn child.  Understanding this is not something you can do as an unbeliever.  No one should expect you to.  It's a dimension you can't see.


The majority of us were believers.
Do you think we forget what we use to believe?
Wait let me guess...... we were never really believers so we never really understood blah blah blah...........


----------



## bullethead (Jun 20, 2018)

The majority of us were believers.
Do you think we forget what we use to believe?
Wait let me guess...... we were never really believers so we never really understood blah blah blah...........[/QUOTE]
Big difference between what a person wants to see....which is often what a person Needs to see...and what is really going on.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 20, 2018)

bullethead said:


> It evolved as our species evolved. They are learned traits.
> Good, bad, right, wrong, justice, injustice all have taken on different meanings and levels from our earliest form and still do depending upon individual, family, society, culture, country or nation. There are so many factors that play into it that it cannot be narrowed down to a single source.



If as
The majority of us were believers.
Do you think we forget what we use to believe?
Wait let me guess...... we were never really believers so we never really understood blah blah blah...........[/QUOTE]

Lot of people believe Nazis existed.  Doesn’t make you one of them.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 20, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> If as
> 
> The majority of us were believers.
> Do you think we forget what we use to believe?
> Wait let me guess...... we were never really believers so we never really understood blah blah blah...........



Lot of people believe Nazis existed.  Doesn’t make you one of them.[/QUOTE]
Sfd, if you were raised as a Nazi. Joined the Nazi party. Attended Nazi rallies. And did all things Nazi....you were a Nazi.
Same goes for being a Christian or being a former Christian.

You stating that simply believing something existed does not make a person a part of it is not a good example or analogy. It would elsewhere in a different conversation, but not here.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 20, 2018)

bullethead said:


> If there was a world wide flood that had to have a level amount of water globally in order to cover the highest point, where did all the water recede to if everything is already covered?
> There is nowhere for it to go, unless there are places where there is no water.



https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ne...er-in-earths-mantle-as-in-all-the-oceans/amp/

Wanna guess what ancient book actually stated this fact 2000 years ago?  Give you a hint: Title of the chapter is Genesis.  The more we know, the more we see science aligns with the Biblical Account.   No surprise to any believer here.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 20, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ne...er-in-earths-mantle-as-in-all-the-oceans/amp/
> 
> Wanna guess what ancient book actually stated this fact 2000 years ago?  Give you a hint: Title of the chapter is Genesis.  The more we know, the more we see science aligns with the Biblical Account.   No surprise to any believer here.


If that Mantle is filled with water now, it was filled with water then, and it was filled with water before the flood. Again...nowhere for the flood waters to recede to.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 20, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I’m gonna regret asking this, I know, but if the above is true where does ones sense of injustice, any injustice, come from?



From your brain.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 20, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ne...er-in-earths-mantle-as-in-all-the-oceans/amp/
> 
> Wanna guess what ancient book actually stated this fact 2000 years ago?  Give you a hint: Title of the chapter is Genesis.  The more we know, the more we see science aligns with the Biblical Account.   No surprise to any believer here.



No. See the following:

"Noah's Flood" was not world-wide

Where did all of this water come from to cover all the mountains on the planet? About 97.2% of all the water on earth, according to the United States Geological Survey, currently resides in the oceans. The remainder of the earth's water is in the lakes, rivers, glaciers, polar ice caps, underground water, and atmospheric moisture. All of this water could not cover the face of the earth.
If all the atmospheric moisture fell abruptly in a continuous worldwide rainfall, the level of the oceans would rise less than five centimetres; and if, at the same time, all the glaciers (and polar caps) in the world melted (as they did many times in the past), sea level would rise only about sixty meters, barely enough to drown low coastal plains.
There thus does not exist the water for a universal flood to occur. The total volume of water that exists on earth (and has for millions of years) is 1,359,843,000 cubic kilometres. If all of this water were to abruptly fall in a continuous worldwide rainfall, the level of the oceans would rise only about 75 meters (206 feet). It would take about 3½ times this amount of water (4,441,800,000 cubic kilometres) to completely cover the earth's surface.
It can be easily seen that it is impossible for a worldwide flood to exist since the water does not exist to accomplish the job. But creationists like to envision a mysterious water canopy in space and great reservoirs of water underground which contributed to the Flood. Yet they also say that these two water sources now make up "the present oceanic systems.” For this to mean anything the earth would have to be flooded today. So the question still remains, where did all the water come from to completely flood the earth?
This leads us to the other side of the equation, that being where did all the flood waters go to? The Genesis account states that after the flooding stopped (Gen. 8:1-2), the Ark rested in the 17th day of the 7th month. Then the "waters decreased continually until the tenth month," at which time some land could be seen (Gen. 8:5). This covers about 74 days. After another 54 days "the waters were abated from off the earth" (Gen. 8:11), and in another 36 days "the face of the ground was dry" (Gen. 8:13). It thus took only 164 days from the time the flooding ended for the water to recede and the ground to become dry. Clearly the waters of Noah's Flood could only recede or "abate from off the earth" if it were a localized flood on the earth.
Here we have all the evidence needed to prove that a universal flood did not occur, for if water covered the globe so that all of its mountains were covered, then where did the waters recede to? Did all of this water just evaporate into outer space? Water covering the entire planet could never drain off anywhere and give us dry ground in only 164 days. Not even in 100 years or 1000 years could this have happened. If such a worldwide flood did exist the water could never have drained off or evaporated—the earth would forever be water-covered, or a frozen ball of ice. The only reason the waters were able to recede from the land is because the Flood was confined to a limited area. Thus, the Flood was not of the worldwide magnitude creationists claim it was.​


----------



## bullethead (Jun 20, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ne...er-in-earths-mantle-as-in-all-the-oceans/amp/
> 
> Wanna guess what ancient book actually stated this fact 2000 years ago?  Give you a hint: Title of the chapter is Genesis.  The more we know, the more we see science aligns with the Biblical Account.   No surprise to any believer here.


Here is a source that is Bible friendly, yet says there was no global flood.
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/localflood.html


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 20, 2018)

bullethead said:


> If that Mantle is filled with water now, it was filled with water then, and it was filled with water before the flood. Again...nowhere for the flood waters to recede to.



Sniff.  Sniff.  I smell a biased opinion. You got any peer reviewed data to back that up?


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 20, 2018)

The creationist moon dust argument was disproven a long time ago. Anyone who uses it is just showing their own ignorance.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 20, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ne...er-in-earths-mantle-as-in-all-the-oceans/amp/
> 
> Wanna guess what ancient book actually stated this fact 2000 years ago?  Give you a hint: Title of the chapter is Genesis.  The more we know, the more we see science aligns with the Biblical Account.   No surprise to any believer here.





> The deep Earth holds about the same amount of water as our oceans. That’s the conclusion from experiments on rocks typical of those in the mantle transition zone, a global buffer layer 410 to 660 kilometres beneath us that separates the upper from the lower mantle.
> “If our estimation is correct, it means there’s a large amount of water in the deep Earth,” says Hongzhan Fei at the University of Bayreuth in Germany. “The total amount of water in the deep Earth is nearly the same as the mass of all the world’s ocean water.”
> The results add to mounting evidence that there is much more water than expected beneath us, mostly locked up within the crystals of minerals as ions rather than liquid water.



And your evidence that all of that water got locked up within those crystallized minerals in a short time span is... what exactly?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 20, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Here is a source that is Bible friendly, yet says there was no global flood.
> http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/localflood.html




I see this is new info to you and has sent you into a straw man frenzy.  
‘Bible friendly source that denies the flood’ huh.  Talk about contradictions.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 20, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I see this is new info to you and has sent you into a straw man frenzy.
> ‘Bible friendly source that denies the flood’ huh.  Talk about contradictions.



When the bible contradicts the facts christians will often retreat into metaphor. We see it all the time on this forum.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 20, 2018)

atlashunter said:


> The creationist moon dust argument was disproven a long time ago. Anyone who uses it is just showing their own ignorance.


Wow!
Even answersingenesis gave up on it.


> on September 1, 1993
> Originally published in Creation 15, no 4 (September 1993): 22.
> 
> The moon-dust argument was easy to understand and explain. Nevertheless, it has been found to be an invalid argument for creationists.
> ...


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 20, 2018)

atlashunter said:


> And your evidence that all of that water got locked up within those crystallized minerals in a short time span is... what exactly?



Hasn’t been studied as far as I know. Never implied it had, but again it answers the question of where the additional water came from and went, the latter which is an answer to bullets question.  Not to mention , the presence of this water is alluded to several times in Genesis alone and something Athiest and Athiestic scientist have long used it to ridicule “gullible” believers over.   Now lookie here what we found.


----------



## j_seph (Jun 20, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Here is a source that is Bible friendly, yet says there was no global flood.
> http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/localflood.html



I may have asked once, how ould petrified palm tree end up in the middle of no where in the Tennessee Mountains?


----------



## ky55 (Jun 20, 2018)

j_seph said:


> I may have asked once, how ould petrified palm tree end up in the middle of no where in the Tennessee Mountains?



Well, if we use Pappy’s short-term fossilization theory, it could have fallen off a landscaper’s truck last month.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 20, 2018)

atlashunter said:


> When the bible contradicts the facts christians will often retreat into metaphor. We see it all the time on this forum.



I get that, now are you going to reply to my question in 86


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 20, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Lot of people believe Nazis existed.  Doesn’t make you one of them.


Sfd, if you were raised as a Nazi. Joined the Nazi party. Attended Nazi rallies. And did all things Nazi....you were a Nazi.
Same goes for being a Christian or being a former Christian.

You stating that simply believing something existed does not make a person a part of it is not a good example or analogy. It would elsewhere in a different conversation, but not here.[/QUOTE]

Really! So you were actually saved by the Blood of Christ, filled by the Holy Spirit, made it a point to dedicate your life to Christ after your life changing conversion and not just a nominal Christian who grew up in church and attended because his parents/wife did?

BTW I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who this new format is taking some adjusting to.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 20, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Hasn’t been studied as far as I know. Never implied it had, but again it answers the question of where the additional water came from and went, the latter which is an answer to bullets question.  Not to mention , the presence of this water is alluded to several times in Genesis alone and something Athiest and Athiestic scientist have long used it to ridicule “gullible” believers over.   Now lookie here what we found.



It's been studied enough for us to know those deep layers of rock are millions of years old. If you're going to suggest that the water from a worldwide flood that supposedly happened within the past 5 or 6 thousand years is now encased in that rock I'd like to know how you think the water got there in such a short time span. Otherwise your theory doesn't hold water.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 20, 2018)

ky55 said:


> Well, if we use Pappy’s short-term fossilization theory, it could have fallen off a landscaper’s truck last month.



  That's funny, but Pappy has a point.  It's commonly accepted that increased heat/pressure speeds many chemical reactions.  Might even be a law or two in physics regarding this.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 20, 2018)

ky55 said:


> Well, if we use Pappy’s short-term fossilization theory, it could have fallen off a landscaper’s truck last month.


----------



## Tmpr111 (Jun 20, 2018)

...curious to know OP's thoughts here.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="



" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>


----------



## bullethead (Jun 20, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I see this is new info to you and has sent you into a straw man frenzy.
> ‘Bible friendly source that denies the flood’ huh.  Talk about contradictions.


Straw Man Frenzy .. 

That source in this instance uses the bible, in it's original text to correct the mistranslations that has you woefully underinformed.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 20, 2018)

atlashunter said:


> It's been studied enough for us to know those deep layers of rock are millions of years old. If you're going to suggest that the water from a worldwide flood that supposedly happened within the past 5 or 6 thousand years is now encased in that rock I'd like to know how you think the water got there in such a short time span. Otherwise your theory doesn't hold water.



Nice pun.  See above post.  Again, are you going to respond to my question in 86?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 20, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Straw Man Frenzy ..
> 
> That source in this instance uses the bible, in it's original text to correct the mistranslations that has you woefully underinformed.



I would suggest it doesn't.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 20, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Nice pun.  See above post.  Again, are you going to respond to my question in 86?



Already did in post 98.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 20, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Nice pun.  See above post.  Again, are you going to respond to my question in 86?



Notice that sfd responded to bullets issue with the missing water by suggesting it’s deep in the earth but no explanation nor even a shred of concern with how it would have gone from the surface to deep in the earth in such a short time. This is what we get with people who start with their conclusion and try to cherry pick facts to support their conclusion without the least bit concern of whether their conclusion is true or curiosity as to why so many facts don’t comport with their conclusion.

Do Christians really genuinely care if their beliefs are true? If they weren’t true would they want to know? Would they have the honesty to change their view in light of the facts. More often than not the answer to those questions is a resounding “No”.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 20, 2018)

atlashunter said:


> Already did in post 98.



That wasn’t a response.  It was a dodge that Athiest use when their philosophy can’t provide an answer to rational questions.  We see it a lot on here.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 20, 2018)

> ="SemperFiDawg, post:
> 
> Really! So you were actually saved by the Blood of Christ, filled by the Holy Spirit, made it a point to dedicate your life to Christ after your life changing conversion and not just a nominal Christian who grew up in church and attended because his parents/wife did?
> 
> BTW I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who this new format is taking some adjusting to.


For those years I thought I was all that and a bag of doughnuts. Regarding religion, if someone thinks something should happen to them it eventually does.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 20, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> That wasn’t a response.  It was a dodge that Athiest use when their philosophy can’t provide an answer to rational questions.  We see it a lot on here.



Was an accurate answer for most of us in here. Perhaps not for you.


----------



## Israel (Jun 20, 2018)

bullethead said:


> For those years I thought I was all that and a bag of doughnuts. Regarding religion, if someone thinks something should happen to them it eventually does.



Me too.
I don't know when precisely it appeared to me... (and still does, and I have a strong sense will continue as necessary) but somehow something got through and still does...
Now I get that it might not be "enough" for others, this "thing" that tells me "I am not all that and a bag of doughnuts".

I remember this sweet brother telling me one time "I hate people like you, that think they know it all". He had been thrashed rather soundly in his own religious adventures...and no doubt saw in me a vein of whatever it was he saw in the thing that so easily oppressed him for a time. So, although it didn't seem at the time a welcome thing to hear from someone I called brother, I can little doubt he saw it in me. How much may remain God knows.

I am not convinced the bent toward a religious rectitude (which I see now is not the righteousness of Christ) is a trifling thing.
I am convinced it will take an advantage whenever and wherever it finds a lawful opportunity, though convinced ultimately (call it a confirmation bias if you must)...that the _law of love_ must prevail. I say _lawful _because attitudes that give birth to words and deeds always have a consequence.

The putrid stink of self righteousness, when shown its source, is not easily forgotten. Do I still stumble and fail? Well isn't _that_ silly to ask?

Some seem to conquer, or have conquered this thing...to a better completeness.
I admire that victory. Can even say at times I fall envious to it. But I have learned, and am, that admission to that very weak thing, _envy_, is better confessed than dealt with by _my more comfortable_ passive aggressive manipulations. There's a price to double dealing that I have, and am learning, I am insufficient to requite. Someone...sees. All my machinations and trigger points. But, He always has. And having never been subject to such rebuke from which He left me in an irrecoverable estate; therefore I cling, as best I understand, to Him.

I cannot, as one so previously given to "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" find the fault in Him, at all. Indeed, I would say He has been patient to expending a considerable amount of time in that patience toward me. Me, who would much prefer the dirt I see _as belonging _to "the others" and all that hinders me from walking in a (_my_) pristine state of perfection. Ahhh, the folly of it. "If only there were not such resistance..._to me..."_
Oh, that a christian would feel this way. It is the polar opposite to "but be of good cheer, _for I have_ overcome..."
It's all of what is not _the faith_.
Nevertheless it would be the greater folly for me to deny it.
And yes, a benefit to its confession that is...liberating.


----------



## ky55 (Jun 20, 2018)

atlashunter said:


> Was an accurate answer for most of us in here. Perhaps not for you.






SemperFiDawg said:


> That wasn’t a response.  It was a dodge that Athiest use when their philosophy can’t provide an answer to rational questions.  We see it a lot on here.





Where does our sense of injustice, or anything else, come from if not from our brains?

*


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 21, 2018)

atlashunter said:


> Was an accurate answer for most of us in here. Perhaps not for you.



Like I said, we see it a lot on here


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 21, 2018)

j_seph said:


> I may have asked once, how ould petrified palm tree end up in the middle of no where in the Tennessee Mountains?





> Tennessee was not always a land environment. About four billion years ago the area which is now Tennessee was completely covered with water. The inhabitants of our state during this time were creatures like algae and jellyfish.
> Several billion years later, land began to emerge from the water as a result of mountain building.   Limestone and sediments from volcanic activity were deposited across the area. Different plants and animals began to appear. These included trilobites, corals, sponges, and crinoids. [The longest trilobite fossil found in Tennessee was 12 inches long and found in Hardin County.]
> About 300 million years ago, as underwater volcanoes continued, lagoons, barrier islands, tidal pools, swamps, and beaches began to emerge from the water. Land plants become more prevalent and trees and ferns begin to accumulate.
> The last major mountain-building that affected Tennessee happened about 250 million years ago. The movement of the Earth’s plates caused a collision with Africa and the North American-European continents. This collision caused the formation of several of the valleys and ridges of Tennessee.


www.tn4me.org/article.cfm/a_id/323/minor_id/100/major_id/27/era_id/1


----------



## j_seph (Jun 21, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> www.tn4me.org/article.cfm/a_id/323/minor_id/100/major_id/27/era_id/1


So where did all that water go and how did all that water get there above the mountains?


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 21, 2018)

j_seph said:


> So where did all that water go and how did all that water get there above the mountains?


1. Not sure what you mean by "water above the mountains".
2. I provided you a link. Click it. Read the last sentence for a partial answer.
3. Your original question was "how could a petrified palm tree be on a mountain in Tennessee"?
Was your question answered?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 21, 2018)

bullethead said:


> For those years I thought I was all that and a bag of doughnuts.



Pride is antithetical to a true Christian walk.  That, and the fact you “thought” ,not “knew”  you were a Christian leaves no doubt you never were.  True Christians have no doubt.  Do you know why?


----------



## bullethead (Jun 21, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Pride is antithetical to a true Christian walk.  That, and the fact you “thought” ,not “knew”  you were a Christian leaves no doubt you never were.  True Christians have no doubt.  Do you know why?


Atta boy. I was never as good as you think yourself to be.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 21, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Atta boy. I was never as good as you think yourself to be.


 
Way to put words in my mouth and dodge the question.  Sad because if you actually knew the answer to the question you would have never made that statement, or maybe you would have.  Either way no point in continuing.


----------



## Tmpr111 (Jun 21, 2018)

....didn’t think I’d get a response.  Although I’d be interested to hear those thoughts.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 21, 2018)

Tmpr111 said:


> ....didn’t think I’d get a response.  Although I’d be interested to hear those thoughts.


I'm not the OP but I love Ravi.  Don't know how much time you spend down here, but these AAs typically don't respond well to well reasoned responses, hence they are not very fond of him.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 21, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Way to put words in my mouth and dodge the question.  Sad because if you actually knew the answer to the question you would have never made that statement, or maybe you would have.  Either way no point in continuing.


You have absolutely Zero clue as to how I led my life while I was a Christian. Literally Zero. I've given some insight about it in the forums over the years and you have not picked up on it in any way.
By all means, continue on in your world. That is the only place you seem to be happy.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 21, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I'm not the OP but I love Ravi.  Don't know how much time you spend down here, but these AAs typically don't respond well to well reasoned responses, hence they are not very fond of him.


Yes, well reasoned responces are so rare to us in here that it takes us an entire 5 minutes to refute someone like Ravi...when whatever he says is worth taking the 5 minutes.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 21, 2018)

Tmpr111 said:


> ....didn’t think I’d get a response.  Although I’d be interested to hear those thoughts.


He was asked a specific question. "Why didn't God stop the trigger from being pulled"?
His response was too expound on "the ethic of love".
I think they call that an "end around" in football.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 21, 2018)

bullethead said:


> You have absolutely Zero clue as to how I led my life while I was a Christian. Literally Zero. I've given some insight about it in the forums over the years and you have not picked up on it in any way.
> By all means, continue on in your world. That is the only place you seem to be happy.


Come on Bullet, when you were a Christian you weren't a Christian. So anything you thought knew or did as a Christian doesn't count because you weren't a Christian when you were a Christian.
You just aren't responding well to a well reasoned argument like that


----------



## drippin' rock (Jun 21, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I'm not the OP but I love Ravi.  Don't know how much time you spend down here, but these AAs typically don't respond well to well reasoned responses, hence they are not very fond of him.




Well reasoned responses!  What a hoot!


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 21, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I'm not the OP but I love Ravi.  Don't know how much time you spend down here, but these AAs typically don't respond well to well reasoned responses, hence they are not very fond of him.



Do you like Ravi's belief that the Universe is made of consciousness?


----------



## bullethead (Jun 21, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> Come on Bullet, when you were a Christian you weren't a Christian. So anything you thought knew or did as a Christian doesn't count because you weren't a Christian when you were a Christian.
> You just aren't responding well to a well reasoned argument like that


Yeah Walt, I dont want to put words in anyone's mouth, but I just couldn't compete with the REAL Christians.


----------



## ky55 (Jun 21, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Understanding this is not something you can do as an unbeliever.  No one should expect you to.  It's a dimension you can't see.





bullethead said:


> Yeah Walt, I dont want to put words in anyone's mouth, but I just couldn't compete with the REAL Christians.



bullet,
you must have access to the invisible dimension to be bona fide. 

*


----------



## bullethead (Jun 21, 2018)

ky55 said:


> bullet,
> you must have access to the invisible dimension to be bona fide.
> 
> *


While I cannot see the invisible dimension, it smells a lot like a cow pasture in the summer.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 21, 2018)

bullethead said:


> You have absolutely Zero clue as to how I led my life while I was a Christian.



You think being a Christian is defined by what you did or did not do?  Yes or no.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 21, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> You think being a Christian is defined by what you did or did not do?  Yes or no.


Nope.
I was a Christian because of how I felt, by what I believed, by who I followed. I lived my life accordingly.


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 22, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> You think being a Christian is defined by what you did or did not do?  Yes or no.



I am reminded of a statement that my Grandmother made to me when my first was born. "You think you understand all there is about love until you hold your fist child"   

They think being Christian is all about joining a church and following the do`s and don'ts while waiting on a magic show to start. You and I along with many others know that there is one thing that science has absolutely zero explanation for and it is because they themselves don't even have a clue of what it is.

They cant see the forest for the trees. They'll spend their entire life focusing on evolution to debunk creation. Evolution is nothing but something living reproducing something living.......they`re basically explaining reproduction. They have no idea of how life began.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 22, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> I am reminded of a statement that my Grandmother made to me when my first was born. "You think you understand all there is about love until you hold your fist child"
> 
> They think being Christian is all about joining a church and following the do`s and don'ts while waiting on a magic show to start. You and I along with many others know that there is one thing that science has absolutely zero explanation for and it is because they themselves don't even have a clue of what it is.
> 
> They cant see the forest for the trees. They'll spend their entire life focusing on evolution to debunk creation. Evolution is nothing but something living reproducing something living.......they`re basically explaining reproduction. They have no idea of how life began.



Evolution makes no claims concerning how life began. It does explain speciation in a way the Bible doesn’t.

No one is better suited to critique a cult than those who were once in it and got out. They are the ones who had the courage to ask the hard questions and follow wherever the facts may lead. Those who remain in it who often have been indoctrinated to believe since early childhood are the ones lacking a much needed perspective.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 22, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> I am reminded of a statement that my Grandmother made to me when my first was born. "You think you understand all there is about love until you hold your fist child"
> 
> They think being Christian is all about joining a church and following the do`s and don'ts while waiting on a magic show to start. You and I along with many others know that there is one thing that science has absolutely zero explanation for and it is because they themselves don't even have a clue of what it is.
> 
> They cant see the forest for the trees. They'll spend their entire life focusing on evolution to debunk creation. Evolution is nothing but something living reproducing something living.......they`re basically explaining reproduction. They have no idea of how life began.


The answer I gave directly above yours says the opposite of what you purposely choose to continually stereotype 
Is it because you cannot comprehend that there were people just like you, just as religious as you, just as special as you, who felt something wasn't right and questioned it? You disregard direcct testimony that is the opposite of what you say.
You holier than thou Christians send a message that says Good Christians don't question, they just obey.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 22, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> I am reminded of a statement that my Grandmother made to me when my first was born. "You think you understand all there is about love until you hold your fist child"
> 
> They think being Christian is all about joining a church and following the do`s and don'ts while waiting on a magic show to start. You and I along with many others know that there is one thing that science has absolutely zero explanation for and it is because they themselves don't even have a clue of what it is.
> 
> They cant see the forest for the trees. They'll spend their entire life focusing on evolution to debunk creation. Evolution is nothing but something living reproducing something living.......they`re basically explaining reproduction. They have no idea of how life began.





> They think being Christian is all about joining a church and following the do`s and don'ts while waiting on a magic show to start.


You guys seem to have a real difficulty dealing with the fact that we used to believe exactly the same things you do.
Why is that?
I think the only way you can understand how someone could believe before and not believe now is to make up all these wacky excuses.
You change your mind on a daily basis based on new information about a lot of things. You just cant comprehend someone changing their mind about religion.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 22, 2018)

atlashunter said:


> Evolution makes no claims concerning how life began. It does explain speciation in a way the Bible doesn’t.
> 
> No one is better suited to critique a cult than those who were once in it and got out. They are the ones who had the courage to ask the hard questions and follow wherever the facts may lead. Those who remain in it who often have been indoctrinated to believe since early childhood are the ones lacking a much needed perspective.


That's their point.
It wasn't courage that led you.
It was the fact that if ANYTHING led you.... it was because you didn't really believe/didn't believe enough/didn't believe right.
Asking hard questions seems to be ok as long as you only allow yourself one particular answer.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 22, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> That's their point.
> It wasn't courage that led you.
> It was the fact that if ANYTHING led you.... it was because you didn't really believe/didn't believe enough/didn't believe right.
> Asking hard questions seems to be ok as long as you only allow yourself one particular answer.


In between building pedestals for themselves and giving credit for everything to their god, they willingly skip over the possibility that if their god is truly responsible for everything then the non believers are a product of its works too. They got too caught upnin the circular run around that is used for explanation.


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 22, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> You guys seem to have a real difficulty dealing with the fact that we used to believe exactly the same things you do.
> Why is that?
> .


 It’s not that you once believed, anyone can do that.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 22, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> It’s not that you once believed, anyone can do that.


So apparently your claim is -
If you once believed, which anyone can do and you don't believe anymore, you now think this -


> They think being Christian is all about joining a church and following the do`s and don'ts while waiting on a magic show to start.


Insert Jim Carry doing "Allllrrrrrrrrrighty then" here.
Look, its really simple to break down -
If you never believed you don't know what its like to believe.
If you always believed you don't know what its like not to believe.
If you used to believe and now you don't you know what its like to believe and not to believe.
If you didn't used to believe and now you do.......
All this you didn't really believe/believe enough/good enough/whatever enough is just filler.


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 22, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> So apparently your claim is -
> If you once believed, which anyone can do and you don't believe anymore, you now think this -
> 
> Insert Jim Carry doing "Allllrrrrrrrrrighty then" here.
> ...


No. That`s what I am not talking about. It is not about just believing or believing enough or any of the rest of the fillers. Believing is the starting point. 

There is something that takes place that science has no explanation for.


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 22, 2018)

bullethead said:


> The answer I gave directly above yours says the opposite of what you purposely choose to continually stereotype
> Is it because you cannot comprehend that there were people just like you, just as religious as you, just as special as you, who felt something wasn't right and questioned it? You disregard direcct testimony that is the opposite of what you say.
> You holier than thou Christians send a message that says Good Christians don't question, they just obey.


I am not sure if you are aware or even think about what you actually post. You accuse me of stereotyping in one sentence, then turn right around and............stereotype. Obviously, if what I am talking about is not what you did, then it does not apply to you, and me not questioning you about it should illustrate that. But no, it has nothing to do with how you "felt" when you were a "Christian".    


atlashunter said:


> Evolution makes no claims concerning how life began. It does explain speciation in a way the Bible doesn’t.
> 
> No one is better suited to critique a cult than those who were once in it and got out. They are the ones who had the courage to ask the hard questions and follow wherever the facts may lead. Those who remain in it who often have been indoctrinated to believe since early childhood are the ones lacking a much needed perspective.


The long battled argument has been evolution verses creationism. The hard questions science answers with "probably".  

You assume we don't ask questions and research.  One fallacy of thinking that you are "omniscient" is building on a false assumption.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 22, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> I am not sure if you are aware or even think about what you actually post. You accuse me of stereotyping in one sentence, then turn right around and............stereotype. Obviously, if what I am talking about is not what you did, then it does not apply to you, and me not questioning you about it should illustrate that. But no, it has nothing to do with how you "felt" when you were a "Christian".
> 
> The long battled argument has been evolution verses creationism. The hard questions science answers with "probably".
> 
> You assume we don't ask questions and research.  One fallacy of thinking that you are "omniscient" is building on a false assumption.


I don't think you understand the definition of the words that you use.

I am talking about the Christians who are always pointing fingers at others without looking in the mirror first.
I did not say ALL Christians. I said the holier than thou Christians. That is not stereotyping. That is being specific.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 22, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> The long battled argument has been evolution verses creationism. The hard questions science answers with "probably".
> 
> You assume we don't ask questions and research.  One fallacy of thinking that you are "omniscient" is building on a false assumption.



Hasn't been much of a battle really. The only folks that still think the battle is raging are those who can't bring themselves to admit they lost a long time ago.

Not much point in asking questions and doing research if you're not going to let the facts give you the answers and change your mind accordingly. Christians already have their answers the facts be d***ed.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 22, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> No. That`s what I am not talking about. It is not about just believing or believing enough or any of the rest of the fillers. Believing is the starting point.
> 
> There is something that takes place that science has no explanation for.


Its statements like that ^ that fuel this  -


> You assume we don't ask questions and research


There are libraries full of studies/theories about why people believe in gods, the super natural etc etc.
I understand you want to believe that something magical and special and unexplainable happens that only applies to a belief in God but that's all it is ........ what you want to believe.
And that's fine.
But to contend that science has no idea why we do things like that is simply false.


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 22, 2018)

So lets analyze this.

This question was asked - _"You think being a Christian is defined by what you did or did not do?"_

The portion of the comment that I made concerning that question_ - "They think being Christian is all about joining a church and following the do`s and don'ts while waiting on a magic show to start. You and I along with many others know that there is one thing that science has absolutely zero explanation for and it is because they themselves don't even have a clue of what it is"._

My comment to SFD is in agreement that there is a lot more to it than that and there is a thing called "salvation" and those of us who have experienced that are the ones that I am referring to with the underscored. It has absolutely zero, nothing to do with being a better Christian or anyone doing it wrong or me claiming that I am a better Christian.     

I broke your little rant up into 4 pieces.


> The answer I gave...............*1. you purposely choose to continually stereotype*
> * 2. you cannot comprehend that there were people just like you, just as religious as you, just as special as you 3. you disregard direcct testimony *
> *4. You holier than thou Christians...*.........[/QUOTE]
> 
> ...


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 22, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> Its statements like that ^ that fuel this  -
> 
> There are libraries full of studies/theories about why people believe in gods, the super natural etc etc.
> I understand you want to believe that something magical and special and unexplainable happens that only applies to a belief in God but that's all it is ........ what you want to believe.
> ...


I agree that libraries and science can tell others what we believe, but that is not the point. Unless they experience the salvation part, they cant explain it, and they have explained it yet as we have experienced it so the proof is in the pudding.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 22, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> I am reminded of a statement that my Grandmother made to me when my first was born. "You think you understand all there is about love until you hold your fist child"
> 
> They think being Christian is all about joining a church and following the do`s and don'ts while waiting on a magic show to start. You and I along with many others know that there is one thing that science has absolutely zero explanation for and it is because they themselves don't even have a clue of what it is.
> 
> They cant see the forest for the trees. They'll spend their entire life focusing on evolution to debunk creation. Evolution is nothing but something living reproducing something living.......they`re basically explaining reproduction. They have no idea of how life began.



If what you say is true in post #159, WHO exactly are the THEY you are talking about to SFD in the post above since he was specifically talking about me and us in here?
You conveniently left out all the times you specifically used THEY when addressing SFD.

My 4 comments were not rants. They were made in direct responce to your use of the multiple times you used THEY.

You seem to conveniently leave out certain words that do not help your claims and reply as if you didn't use them. That is what will not be tolerated and why I called you on it.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 22, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> I agree that libraries and science can tell others what we believe, but that is not the point. Unless they experience the salvation part, they cant explain it, and they have explained it yet as we have experienced it so the proof is in the pudding.


Proof of what?
Proof that you had an experience?
David Berkowitz experienced a dog telling him to kill people.
That's the experience he had so the proof is in the pudding right?


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 22, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> Proof of what?
> Proof that you had an experience?
> David Berkowitz experienced a dog telling him to kill people.
> That's the experience he had so the proof is in the pudding right?


If one wants to believe that he talked to a dog, I guess so. I’ve never gotten one to answer me so I don’t know if the dog just didn’t like me or I wasn’t saying anything he was interested in. Who am I to tell he didn’t talk to one. But that’s not what we are taking about, the salvation process. It’s more than just saying you believe. There’s a change that takes place that science can’t properly describe. Their lack of explaining it properly is proof that they haven’t experienced it. It’s not an argument about if it’s real or not, it’s a statement that one can’t argue for or against something that he knows nothing about.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 22, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> If one wants to believe that he talked to a dog, I guess so. I’ve never gotten one to answer me so I don’t know if the dog just didn’t like me or I wasn’t saying anything he was interested in. Who am I to tell he didn’t talk to one. But that’s not what we are taking about, the salvation process. It’s more than just saying you believe. There’s a change that takes place that science can’t properly describe. Their lack of explaining it properly is proof that they haven’t experienced it. It’s not an argument about if it’s real or not, it’s a statement that one can’t argue for or against something that he knows nothing about.


My friend, with all due respect, you gotta find a new argument 
"Science" is comprised of scientists. Its the combined knowledge of all the scientists that is "science"
A number of those scientists are Christians. Assuming they have experienced salvation, then what they "know"/think/believe about it are a part of scientific knowledge.
Science can tell you what we have learned about why people believe in gods, the super natural, how some peoples brains react to those subjects and some people's don't etc.
Are you really expecting science to be able to explain every thought that YOU have in YOUR head?


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 22, 2018)

bullethead said:


> If what you say is true in post #159, WHO exactly are the THEY you are talking about to SFD in the post above since he was specifically talking about me and us in here?
> You conveniently left out all the times you specifically used THEY when addressing SFD.
> 
> My 4 comments were not rants. They were made in direct responce to your use of the multiple times you used THEY.
> ...



“They” means in general to those that think that that is what Christianity is about. If it does not quote you or state bullethead, or represent how you felt when you were a Christian, then it does not apply to you and no way disregards your direct testimony.

Such as below, you make a statement that you are not saying "all Christians" and then make this one?? Who is "they" when you conveniently leave out certain words for you claims? 

Regardless, I felt no need to respond to this because it does not represent me.  

I don't care who you are referring to below since it did not quote me. 


bullethead said:


> In between building pedestals for themselves and giving credit for everything to their god, they willingly skip over the possibility that if their god is truly responsible for everything then the non believers are a product of its works too. They got too caught upnin the circular run around that is used for explanation.


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 22, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> My friend, with all due respect, you gotta find a new argument
> "Science" is comprised of scientists. Its the combined knowledge of all the scientists that is "science"
> A number of those scientists are Christians. Assuming they have experienced salvation, then what they "know"/think/believe about it are a part of scientific knowledge.
> Science can tell you what we have learned about why people believe in gods, the super natural, how some peoples brains react to those subjects and some people's don't etc.
> Are you really expecting science to be able to explain every thought that YOU have in YOUR head?


Ok..............I will make note of this the next time the "chemical reaction" from the brain is given as an explanation 

But no, I don`t look to science for any of that.


----------



## matt79brown (Jun 22, 2018)

"Had that happen once, but it was chemically induced."  ~Steve Earl


----------



## Tmpr111 (Jun 23, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> He was asked a specific question. "Why didn't God stop the trigger from being pulled"?
> His response was too expound on "the ethic of love".
> I think they call that an "end around" in football.



I think it was a great response and made perfect sense.  Glad I stumbled upon it.


----------



## Israel (Jun 23, 2018)

In one sense, and because of that one sense, in which I find a great _likeness, _I find _no need _of antipathy to what is commonly called science.
Any compulsion to be "anti" anything, or retain a stance of_ anti _anything is wearying as any battle _against_...must become. Being anti...simply wears down the soul.

But it is not simply the wearing down of the soul that is manifest proof of the worthiness of finding remission to _anti-ness, _unless a something to _be for _can be demonstrated to the mind.

The call to battle is easily heard and ubiquitous, to every soul. No soul _needs to be informed_ it has in it the sense to know there is resident a_ mechanism _for the_ sensing _of opposition. The soul _knows _it can sense opposition, even if its assumptions as to source that triggered its sense of opposition are later shown not as assumed. Alarm bells are on a hair trigger, here.

Fight or flight in the dark woods at night are initiated equally by rustling bush, no matter if it be bear or fawn. The soul...which has in itself as fundamental source the desire to continue...to live, to exist, to be...also has within, as fundamental source...the _need _to know. This is inextricably paired with, or to, its need to exist, and be. The soul is _as much_ driven to acquisition as it is to preservation.

Yes, I over simplify. And I speak of the soul's sojourn "in the world".

I don't think one has to be very clever to see where this easily promotes conflict _in the soul_. The extension into_ the unknown _to the end of making it known to the soul, is fraught with threats of invitation to non being to the soul. Conflict. The soul, of itself, can never resolve this. Need to know is always at loggerheads with preservation.

I also don't think one need be very clever to see the exponential increase of conflict of potential when souls are multiplied to one another. And conflict, _in fact_.

And conflict...which invariably leads to the assumption of an "anti" stance in the soul to whatever it senses opposes it...is also as invariably wearying and depleting of soul's strictly limited resource of self...limited precisely to _a perfect wash _by the already present conflict within. The compulsion to "have and be" in conflict with "to have more and be more".


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 23, 2018)

Tmpr111 said:


> I think it was a great response and made perfect sense.  Glad I stumbled upon it.


Its great you were satisfied with his answer.
Personally, when I ask a specific question and the response given is to go off on a tangent about something else............ I know a shiny object is being waved in front of me in an attempt to cause me to concentrate on it instead of noticing that my specific question is being dodged.
And here was the warning sign -
He repeated the question and started his response with....... "here is what I would say to you".......
That's "end around" lingo for "I cant really answer your specific question but here is what I would say to you......... shiny object, shiny object"........


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Jun 23, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Here is a source that is Bible friendly, yet says there was no global flood.
> http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/localflood.html


Either Scientist are credible or they are not. 
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/01/comet-new-years-eve-newton-flood-bible-gravity-science/


----------



## Israel (Jun 23, 2018)

Fudging the data is as common to man as breathing.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 23, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> If one wants to believe that he talked to a dog, I guess so. I’ve never gotten one to answer me so I don’t know if the dog just didn’t like me or I wasn’t saying anything he was interested in. Who am I to tell he didn’t talk to one. But that’s not what we are taking about, the salvation process. It’s more than just saying you believe. There’s a change that takes place that science can’t properly describe. Their lack of explaining it properly is proof that they haven’t experienced it. It’s not an argument about if it’s real or not, it’s a statement that one can’t argue for or against something that he knows nothing about.



Yours is not the only religion whose followers claim to be changed or claim special experiences.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 23, 2018)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Either Scientist are credible or they are not.
> https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/01/comet-new-years-eve-newton-flood-bible-gravity-science/



False dichotomy.


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 23, 2018)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Either Scientist are credible or they are not.
> https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/01/comet-new-years-eve-newton-flood-bible-gravity-science/


Yup. Some people - that means “some” people (have to clarify who I’m addressing   ) are going to be smart enough to know which scientists are credible and when.


----------



## 1eyefishing (Jun 23, 2018)

I like Whiston's theories.
I am more theory-ological than theological.
I don't understand, much less know what is beyond our universe. Or what caused our universe.
I have faith, but not knowledge of what happens to our soul after death.
Without some faith and some hope, I can only believe that will it will be exactly like before I was born. I believe that there may have been some previous soul (of mine) and previous actions of such that have brought me to the place where I am in this life.
I believe I am an agnostic, dyslexic, insomniac. I lie awake at night wondering if the dog is real.
Given the connections I make with dogs, I believe I could have been one in a former life. So I don't believe that only humans have souls. But I am human, these are things that humans simply cannot know. But without faith and hope, I have nothing. But I will never have the knowledge. Not in this lifetime. And probably not in the next.
Everybody believes what they believe. No sense arguing about what you cannot know.
Peace, love, and Dixie to all...


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 23, 2018)

atlashunter said:


> Yours is not the only religion whose followers claim to be changed or claim special experiences.


And???????


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 23, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> And???????


And...… if experiences are the proof in the pudding (your words) then their pudding is proof too.
Or neither one of your puddings is proof of anything at all.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 23, 2018)

1eyefishing said:


> I like Whiston's theories.
> I am more theory-ological than theological.
> I don't understand, much less know what is beyond our universe. Or what caused our universe.
> I have faith, but not knowledge of what happens to our soul after death.
> ...





> I believe that there may have been some previous soul (of mine) and previous actions of such that have brought me to the place where I am in this life.
> I believe I am an agnostic, dyslexic, insomniac.


Sounds like you are part Hindu too


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 23, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> And...… if experiences are the proof in the pudding (your words) then their pudding is proof too.
> Or neither one of your puddings is proof of anything at all.


Not exactly what that is saying. When you asked “proof of what” my explanation to that was - “Their lack of explaining it properly is proof that they haven’t experienced it. It’s not an argument about if it’s real or not, it’s a statement that one can’t argue for or against something that he knows nothing about”


----------



## bullethead (Jun 23, 2018)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Either Scientist are credible or they are not.
> https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/01/comet-new-years-eve-newton-flood-bible-gravity-science/


There are a lot of them so the range of credibility varies.
When the majority of them agree with something that is backed up by tests and constant retesting then they go with the best available evidence at the time. They do not stop. They continue to challenge the best available answers and look for new ones and are willing to accept any changes that may occur during the exhaustive continual process.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 23, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> Not exactly what that is saying. When you asked “proof of what” my explanation to that was - “Their lack of explaining it properly is proof that they haven’t experienced it. It’s not an argument about if it’s real or not, it’s a statement that one can’t argue for or against something that he knows nothing about”


Remember those libraries full of scientific books about why people believe in gods, miracles etc....
That's not "knowing nothing about it".
You can disagree with the libraries that are full but you cant claim science doesn't know anything about it.


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 23, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> Remember those libraries full of scientific books about why people believe in gods, miracles etc....
> That's not "knowing nothing about it".
> You can disagree with the libraries that are full but you cant claim science doesn't know anything about it.


Yes I can disagree with them. I can also agree that they might know a portion, at least enough to know the “whys” 

 I think we are closer on this than it appears, just looking at two separate issues. 

They may indeed give a legitimate explanation of “something”......... but that something is not what we have. 

So let me sum it up this way, it is my opinion that unless they know exactly what this is, they are not capable of having an explanation for it.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 23, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> Yes I can disagree with them. I can also agree that they might know a portion, at least enough to know the “whys”
> 
> I think we are closer on this than it appears, just looking at two separate issues.
> 
> ...


They use the evidence to produce a scenario that is more likely than not. It is isn't a guess. 

How does your opinion statement coincide with a person explaning a spiritual entity that nobody has ever seen or talked to? Why are they capable of providing explanations  of absolute unknowns?


----------



## 1eyefishing (Jun 23, 2018)

Walt, I've never studied organized religion or other cultures enough to know much about them. I think the Hindus like dogs too but I know I eat too much beef to fit in with them.
And I do disagree with mostly all that I've learned about Islam.
At the other end of the spectrum, I have trouble believing that one can be 'saved' by having some mortal man splash some holy water on you that he has blessed (baptism), or that being born again (I was born okay the first time) will forever save you from all your mortal sin.
I guess I believe that I am somewhat of the Methodist persuasion. If there is a good or a bad afterlife to be had, you will get there through your method of living, not whether you have the knowledge of formal religion or are one of the 'true believers' that believe only 'they' will get to enjoy heaven. Or were once dunked or splashed in holy water.
I am an educated scientist. I know science.
And I am a seeker. I seek to have faith and hope in the fact that there is something beyond this mortal life. And that living a good life and being good and fair to others is in my own best interest.
And I figure if THAT is not going to be of any use in an afterlife, it is still in my own best interest during this life.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 23, 2018)

1eyefishing said:


> Walt, I've never studied organized religion or other cultures enough to know much about them. I think the Hindus like dogs too but I know I eat too much beef to fit in with them.
> And I do disagree with mostly all that I've learned about Islam.
> At the other end of the spectrum, I have trouble believing that one can be 'saved' by having some mortal man splash some holy water on you that he has blessed (baptism), or that being born again (I was born okay the first time) will forever save you from all your mortal sin.
> I guess I believe that I am somewhat of the Methodist persuasion. If there is a good or a bad afterlife to be had, you will get there through your method of living, not whether you have the knowledge of formal religion or are one of the 'true believers' that believe only 'they' will get to enjoy heaven. Or were once dunked or splashed in holy water.
> ...



As a scientist would you accept a personal revelation story as a good enough evidence of what really happened?  It seems to me that the discussion between Bullet and Spotlight is based on evidence; what constitutes evidence and how we should properly gather and interpret it.  At this point, Spotlite seems to be saying "There is a type of phenomena  or experience that's impossible to describe scientifically.  Therefore, it is immune to scientific inquiry".  If that's incorrect or lacking nuance please correct me.

If my analysis of Spotlite's position is correct, I would ask that he describe the proper method of analyzing that particular kind phenomena or experience.


----------



## ky55 (Jun 23, 2018)

1eyefishing said:


> And I am a seeker. I seek to have faith and hope in the fact that there is something beyond this mortal life. And that living a good life and being good and fair to others is in my own best interest.
> And I figure if THAT is not going to be of any use in an afterlife, it is still in my own best interest during this life.


----------



## 1eyefishing (Jun 23, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> As a scientist would you accept a personal revelation story as a good enough evidence of what really happened?  It seems to me that the discussion between Bullet and Spotlight is based on evidence; what constitutes evidence and how we should properly gather and interpret it.  At this point, Spotlite seems to be saying "There is a type of phenomena  or experience that's impossible to describe scientifically.  Therefore, it is immune to scientific inquiry".  If that's incorrect or lacking nuance please correct me.
> 
> If my analysis of Spotlite's position is correct, I would ask that he describe the proper method of analyzing that particular kind phenomena or experience.


I couldn't quite keep up with the discussion between bullethead and spotlight. Well having complete respect for both of their positions, I cannot quite wrap my mind around the extremes of either end of the spectrum.
I believe that a personal revelation story may be good enough to make that one person believe, but not enough to convince others.
I have always sought my own personal revelation to me, but have not found anything concrete or scientific.
I guess I do feel blessed to be on my ninth life. I have been knocked off my bicycle as a kid by a work truck on a rural route, inexplicably saved in huge surf from drowning when I thought for sure if I went ahead and breathed in some of that seafoam that there would be enough air in it for me to survive, I've had a high-powered rifle bullet intended for a deer go through the brim of my baseball cap about 1 inch from my forehead. Yet here I am. I graduated from a rough, rough, rough adolescence with no parental influence, yet made it to this point in my life that I am loving. Something has gotten me through, I have a hard time believing it is pure luck.
But, if I had a personal revelation, I don't think I could use that as evidence to try to convince others.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 23, 2018)

1eyefishing said:


> I couldn't quite keep up with the discussion between bullethead and spotlight. Well having complete respect for both of their positions, I cannot quite wrap my mind around the extremes of either end of the spectrum.
> I believe that a personal revelation story may be good enough to make that one person believe, but not enough to convince others.
> I have always sought my own personal revelation to me, but have not found anything concrete or scientific.
> I guess I do feel blessed to be on my ninth life. I have been knocked off my bicycle as a kid by a work truck on a rural route, inexplicably saved in huge surf from drowning when I thought for sure if I went ahead and breathed in some of that seafoam that there would be enough air in it for me to survive, I've had a high-powered rifle bullet intended for a deer go through the brim of my baseball cap about 1 inch from my forehead. Yet here I am. I graduated from a rough, rough, rough adolescence with no parental influence, yet made it to this point in my life that I am loving. Something has gotten me through, I have a hard time believing it is pure luck.
> But, if I had a personal revelation, I don't think I could use that as evidence to try to convince others.



Why?  Just think of all the people who aren't as lucky every second.  Did you know that the chances of the Powerball coming out 1,2,3,4,5,6 are the same chances of any other combination?  When someone wins is it "meant to be"?  If someone wins because they picked 1-6 does that show that they were "REALLY supposed to win"?  What if they win with 1-6 because the computer randomly printed those numbers on their ticket?  Would that show that they were "REALLY, REALLY supposed to win?"  As a scientist what would you say about that happening?   How would a superstitious person interpret that kind of thing?


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 23, 2018)

1eyefishing said:


> I couldn't quite keep up with the discussion between bullethead and spotlight. Well having complete respect for both of their positions, I cannot quite wrap my mind around the extremes of either end of the spectrum.
> I believe that a personal revelation story may be good enough to make that one person believe, but not enough to convince others.
> I have always sought my own personal revelation to me, but have not found anything concrete or scientific.
> I guess I do feel blessed to be on my ninth life. I have been knocked off my bicycle as a kid by a work truck on a rural route, inexplicably saved in huge surf from drowning when I thought for sure if I went ahead and breathed in some of that seafoam that there would be enough air in it for me to survive, I've had a high-powered rifle bullet intended for a deer go through the brim of my baseball cap about 1 inch from my forehead. Yet here I am. I graduated from a rough, rough, rough adolescence with no parental influence, yet made it to this point in my life that I am loving. Something has gotten me through, I have a hard time believing it is pure luck.
> But, if I had a personal revelation, I don't think I could use that as evidence to try to convince others.



Why?  You just said that personal revelation isn't enough to persuade you.


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 23, 2018)

bullethead said:


> They use the evidence to produce a scenario that is more likely than not. It is isn't a guess.
> 
> How does your opinion statement coincide with a person explaning a spiritual entity that nobody has ever seen or talked to? Why are they capable of providing explanations  of absolute unknowns?






> evidence to produce a scenario


That is my point. You can produce it. See ambush`s comment below. Although it is not "immune" to scientific inquiry, it is impossible to describe scientifically. They have hit around the nail some but failed to hit the head. 



ambush80 said:


> At this point, Spotlite seems to be saying "There is a type of phenomena  or experience that's impossible to describe scientifically.  Therefore, it is immune to scientific inquiry".  If that's incorrect or lacking nuance please correct me.
> 
> If my analysis of Spotlite's position is correct, I would ask that he describe the proper method of analyzing that particular kind phenomena or experience.





> How does your opinion statement coincide with a person explaning a spiritual entity that nobody has ever seen or talked to? Why are they capable of providing explanations  of absolute unknowns?


 


> I would ask that he describe the proper method of analyzing that particular kind phenomena or experience.....................There is a type of phenomena  or experience that's impossible to describe scientifically.



See below.  


1eyefishing said:


> I believe that a personal revelation story may be good enough to make that one person believe, but not enough to convince others........I don't think I could use that as evidence to try to convince others.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 23, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> That is my point. You can produce it. See ambush`s comment below. Although it is not "immune" to scientific inquiry, it is impossible to describe scientifically. They have hit around the nail some but failed to hit the head.
> 
> See below.



What is "the head of the nail" to you?  How do you know and how would you know if you hit it?


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 23, 2018)

matt79brown said:


> "Had that happen once, but it was chemically induced."  ~Steve Earl



My wife asked me if I have transcendent experiences and by the typical definition of transcendent I answered "Most readily when I'm chemically altered".  And it's true.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 23, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> That is my point. You can produce it. See ambush`s comment below. Although it is not "immune" to scientific inquiry, it is impossible to describe scientifically. They have hit around the nail some but failed to hit the head.
> it is impossible to describe scientifically.



WHAT is impossible to describe scientifically?
You keep saying science cant describe IT.
What is IT?
Joy? Happiness? Satisfaction? A feeling? Those are all emotions. Science can show you how emotions are produced.
If its not an emotion what is it?

I really get the feeling that you cant describe what it is yet you want science to tell you what it is.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 23, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> That is my point. You can produce it. See ambush`s comment below. Although it is not "immune" to scientific inquiry, it is impossible to describe scientifically. They have hit around the nail some but failed to hit the head.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


But again, you dismiss the personal testimony of others who say their interaction was with a different god by stating that you do not belive their gods exist.
Can you not see the hypocrisy in that?


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 23, 2018)

bullethead said:


> But again, you dismiss the personal testimony of others who say their interaction was with a different god by stating that you do not believe their gods exist.
> Can you not see the hypocrisy in that?



One can believe in the healing power of rabbit's feet while not believing in the fortune telling power of chicken feet.


----------



## 1eyefishing (Jun 23, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> Why?  You just said that personal revelation isn't enough to persuade you.


Someone else's personal revelation isn't enough to convince me, but I'm sure it is enough to convince them. I can't argue with what somebody else believes.
A personal revelation of my own would be enough to convince me but I wouldn't try to use that to convince others.
As far as the previous why question, I'm not exactly sure I understand your question. I think it was why do I have a hard time believing it is just luck.
I guess it could be luck, just as much as it could be divinity.
You are asking me questions that I rarely ask myself, and I can appreciate that. Not knocking it.
Maybe since I'm holding out hope that there is something for us other than this life on Earth that maybe somebody is watching out for me. Maybe I'm just wishing it wasn't luck. But I have to admit I'm one heck of a lucky guy.
My point is that there are Eternal questions that humankind  CANNOT regarding what is beyond this life and beyond our physical universe.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 23, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> One can believe in the healing power of rabbit's feet while not believing in the fortune telling power of chicken feet.


Sure they can believe one over the other but it does not stop the hypocrisy when they dismiss the other for the same reasons they themselves believe.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 23, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> WHAT is impossible to describe scientifically?
> You keep saying science cant describe IT.
> What is IT?
> Joy? Happiness? Satisfaction? A feeling? Those are all emotions. Science can show you how emotions are produced.
> ...




I don't think so, Walt.  I'm thoroughly convinced that believers think that there's a "realm" or "dimension" that they access that's not been discovered or defined by science. It's the same thing as people who believe in Karma or "The Force".  If I decided to believe in mental telepathy, if I believed I could do it, I'm sure I would see examples of my ability manifested left and right.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 23, 2018)

1eyefishing said:


> Someone else's personal revelation isn't enough to convince me, but I'm sure it is enough to convince them. I can't argue with what somebody else believes.
> A personal revelation of my own would be enough to convince me but I wouldn't try to use that to convince others.
> As far as the previous why question, I'm not exactly sure I understand your question. I think it was why do I have a hard time believing it is just luck.
> I guess it could be luck, just as much as it could be divinity.
> ...



You can and should argue with someone's personal convictions if they affect you negatively.  There are plenty of threads that show the negative impacts of people believing in Christianity. My biggest problem is when they say things like "Physics has nothing to do with resurrection".  I've gotten pretty deep into that one many times.  It's a demonstration to me that people are willing to believe things without good proof.  Things that they know contradict EVERYTHING else about reality as they understand it. 

The previous question had to do with probability. As a scientist you understand probablity and how what I described with the Powerball example is absolutely, mathematically correct.  What's interesting is how people interpret probabilistic outcomes that only seem strange but are in fact regular everyday stuff.   Powerball coming up 1-6 is statistically everyday stuff, it just doesn't "seem" like it.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 23, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> I don't think so, Walt.  I'm thoroughly convinced that believers think that there's a "realm" or "dimension" that they access that's not been discovered or defined by science. It's the same thing as people who believe in Karma or "The Force".  If I decided to believe in mental telepathy, if I believed I could do it, I'm sure I would see examples of my ability manifested left and right.


That's fine.
So in that case, they want science to explain to them the "realm" that they believe is there?
Ok, I believe there are 9 headed insert something that cant be proven to exist here that wear suspenders.
Science should be able to tell me how they reproduce right?


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 23, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> That's fine.
> So in that case, they want science to explain to them the "realm" that they believe is there?
> Ok, I believe there are 9 headed insert something that cant be proven to exist here that wear suspenders.
> Science should be able to tell me how they reproduce right?



I don't think so. They don't think science CAN explain the "The Force"; ever.  That's fine with me as well, until they start making claims about how The Force affects physical matter.  In that case it better be describable by Physics.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 23, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> I don't think so. They don't think science CAN explain the "The Force"; ever.  That's fine with me as well, until they start making claims about how The Force affects physical matter.  In that case it better be describable by Physics.


That's fine with me too.
As long as they understand that science can not be expected to explain something that they "believe" exists or happened. Or faulted for not being to explain whatever they dream up or think they experienced.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 23, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> That's fine with me too.
> As long as they understand that science can not be expected to explain something that they "believe" exists or happened. Or faulted for not being to explain whatever they dream up or think they experienced.



Yeah, but then who would we play with in here?


----------



## ky55 (Jun 23, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> I don't think so, Walt.  I'm thoroughly convinced that believers think that there's a "realm" or "dimension" that they access that's not been discovered or defined by science.



I think SFD actually referred to it as a “dimension” in another thread.
Edit:
It was post #85 in this thread..

“It's a dimension you can't see.”

*


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 23, 2018)

bullethead said:


> But again, you dismiss the personal testimony of others who say their interaction was with a different god by stating that you do not belive their gods exist.
> Can you not see the hypocrisy in that?


I’m not following how “hypocrisy” is tying into this. In short,  Hypocrisy is claiming to have a certain standard or belief but your actions and behavior do not conform to that.

Since this is a hunting forum, a hypocrite will tell you he doesn’t hunt deer over feed but will pile it up at his own stand.  

Two guys debating on which feed is the right one makes neither a hypocrite.


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 23, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> That's fine with me too.
> As long as they understand that science can not be expected to explain something that they "believe" exists or happened. Or faulted for not being to explain whatever they dream up or think they experienced.


It was not the intent to look to science for an explanation, or fault science. The intent was to point out the reason we don’t look to science with everything. A lot people are under the impression that the Christian doesn’t research, fact is, we do a lot.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 23, 2018)

ky55 said:


> I think SFD actually referred to it as a “dimension” in another thread.
> Edit:
> It was post #85 in this thread..
> 
> ...


<iframe width="560" height="315" src="



" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>


----------



## ky55 (Jun 23, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> <iframe width="560" height="315" src="
> 
> 
> 
> " frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>


----------



## bullethead (Jun 23, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> I’m not following how “hypocrisy” is tying into this. In short,  Hypocrisy is claiming to have a certain standard or belief but your actions and behavior do not conform to that.
> 
> Since this is a hunting forum, a hypocrite will tell you he doesn’t hunt deer over feed but will pile it up at his own stand.
> 
> Two guys debating on which feed is the right one makes neither a hypocrite.


And a hypocrite will tell another person their god doesn't exist while they use the same excuses to prove their own.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 23, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> I’m not following how “hypocrisy” is tying into this. In short,  Hypocrisy is claiming to have a certain standard or belief but your actions and behavior do not conform to that.
> 
> Since this is a hunting forum, a hypocrite will tell you he doesn’t hunt deer over feed but will pile it up at his own stand.
> 
> Two guys debating on which feed is the right one makes neither a hypocrite.


Sticking to a hunting forum analogy, you are saying that you don't believe in mid western jackalopes saying that they cannot exist, all the while you are bragging about Georgia antlered swamp bunnies that you never shot, never saw, never trapped or hit with your truck...but you "feel" their existence when you are in the woods.


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 23, 2018)

bullethead said:


> And a hypocrite will tell another person their god doesn't exist while they use the same excuses to prove their own.


If you are content on trying to make that stick .............ok...........but I am not getting into a play on words.

"doesn't exist" and "don't believe" are not the same.  

I believe it was one of the A/A`s here that asked this question "why cant I believe in something bigger than me and not believe in God"

Hypocrisy? Why and why not?


----------



## bullethead (Jun 23, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> If you are content on trying to make that stick .............ok...........but I am not getting into a play on words.
> 
> "doesn't exist" and "don't believe" are not the same.
> 
> ...


You are the one that told us that you do not believe other gods exist. Change whatever you want to sound good to you.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 23, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> If you are content on trying to make that stick .............ok...........but I am not getting into a play on words.
> 
> "doesn't exist" and "don't believe" are not the same.
> 
> ...


Not hypocritical.
The Universe is much bigger, yet no need to think it is a god or need to believe in a god to try to comprehend how small we are within the Universe.


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 23, 2018)

bullethead said:


> You are the one that told us that you do not believe other gods exist. Change whatever you want to sound good to you.



Yea I can not believe in anything I want. That does not require proving anything. Now, I am a hypocrite because according to you I use the very same reasons to prove my God that I dismiss the others with.

List those reasons..


----------



## bullethead (Jun 23, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> Yea I can not believe in anything I want. That does not require proving anything. Now, I am a hypocrite because according to you I use the very same reasons to prove my God that I dismiss the others with.
> 
> List those reasons..


Feelings
Answered prayers
Personal Testimony
Phenomena and Experience that is impossible to be explained by science.
To name a few.


There are people all over the world that claim these same things who worship other gods.

If those reasons you use are examples that somehow provides evidence of the existence of your god and you acknowledge and believe in your god because of those examples, wouldn't they also be evidence of other gods and worthy to be at least acknowledged and believed in even if never considered for worship?

If you say they are evidence of your god but deny those same examples as used by others for evidence of their gods, isn't that hypocritical?


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 24, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Not hypocritical.
> The Universe is much bigger, yet no need to think it is a god or need to believe in a god to try to comprehend how small we are within the Universe.



Right............the "no need" to think or believe it is a god...........wasn`t the context. Believing in the universe because you can see the very small percentage of observable matter is one thing, but the fact that you go beyond that with reason to believe those things that are "unseen, undetectable and unexplainable" are there just waiting to be discovered ............. while dismissing my reasons differs from your definition of hypocrite........how?     


bullethead said:


> Feelings
> Answered prayers
> Personal Testimony
> Phenomena and Experience that is impossible to be explained by science.
> ...



Do you see these two the same or different? 
1. I don't believe 
2. It doesn't exist 

And what about these -
1. I don't believe
2. Lack of belief


----------



## bullethead (Jun 24, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> Right............the "no need" to think or believe it is a god...........wasn`t the context. Believing in the universe because you can see the very small percentage of observable matter is one thing, but the fact that you go beyond that with reason to believe those things that are "unseen, undetectable and unexplainable" are there just waiting to be discovered ............. while dismissing my reasons differs from your definition of hypocrite........how?
> 
> 
> Do you see these two the same or different?
> ...



3. When combined as in : I don't believe other gods exist.

Religiously speaking,
If you say, "I believe in Jesus"' you are saying that you believe he exists.

If you say, "I don't believe in Allah", you are saying that you do not believe he exists.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Jun 24, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> That's fine.
> So in that case, they want science to explain to them the "realm" that they believe is there?


No.


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 24, 2018)

bullethead said:


> 3. When combined as in : I don't believe other gods exist.
> 
> Religiously speaking,
> If you say, "I believe in Jesus"' you are saying that you believe he exists.
> ...


Allah is Arabic for the "God" of the Abrahamic religions. 

Islam believes in the same God as I do.  We fall under the  "Abrahamic monotheistic" religions that worship the God of Abraham, Creator of the Universe. . We are separated by "religions" (Muslim and Christianity) that each have their own teachings.

Muslims , "messenger" or "prophet" Muhammad 

Christianity, "messenger" or "prophet" Jesus.  

I don`t believe in Muhammad. I don't believe in Obama either. That's not saying they are not real.  Religiously speaking, to believe requires faith in it or the practice of..


----------



## bullethead (Jun 24, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> Allah is Arabic for the "God" of the Abrahamic religions.
> 
> Islam believes in the same God as I do.  We fall under the  "Abrahamic monotheistic" religions that worship the God of Abraham, Creator of the Universe. . We are separated by "religions" (Muslim and Christianity) that each have their own teachings.
> 
> ...


So explain that you don't believe in Obama.

Do you believe that other gods(besides the god of Abraham) exist?

If yes, why
If no, why.


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 24, 2018)

bullethead said:


> So explain that you don't believe in Obama


Let`s see if we can get this plane landed............a very small percentage of the Universe is observable...........why do you believe that the "undetectable" - just waiting to be discovered things that science has no explanation for are really there............if you stand on "it doesn't exist until it is proven to exist" ?  

The explanations that I could give as to why I don't believe in Obama as a fit President would take hours to read





bullethead said:


> Do you believe that other gods(besides the god of Abraham) exist?
> 
> If yes, why
> If no, why.



Yes. Exodus 20:3


----------



## bullethead (Jun 24, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> Let`s see if we can get this plane landed............a very small percentage of the Universe is observable...........why do you believe that the "undetectable" - just waiting to be discovered things that science has no explanation for are really there............if you stand on "it doesn't exist until it is proven to exist" ?


I do not stand on "it doesn't exist until it is proven to exist"
Science takes what is observable within the Universe and can come up with more likely than not scenarios. Some things it admits that may never be known and I agree.
No need to just slip something in there to sleep better.



> The explanations that I could give as to why I don't believe in Obama as a fit President would take hours to read


Ohh no no no no.
You never said that you do not believe in Obama as a fit President.

You said that you Do Not Believe in Obama.
I asked you to explain that.








> Yes. Exodus 20:3


So you are saying that you do believe in others gods existing,  you just do not put them before the god you worship.
This cans of worms should be a good one.


----------



## Israel (Jun 24, 2018)

For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) 1 Cor. 8:5.
(what they completely lack in patience they are more than willing to try and make up for by fighting a battle in a war they have already lost. Ya ever see the activity of chicken with its head cut off? It's brief. But attention getting.)

And as to scientists, I got a great affinity for the one who says "I got a sense nothing is as it seems..." said the talking mud.


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 24, 2018)

bullethead said:


> I do not stand on "it doesn't exist until it is proven to exist"


Ok so we can safely say that we haven`t heard that in here multiple times.




bullethead said:


> Ohh no no no no.
> You never said that you do not believe in Obama as a fit President.
> 
> You said that you Do Not Believe in Obama.
> I asked you to explain that."


Ok.............I do not believe in Obama.............what does it mean when a person says "believe in yourself"? What is that telling you if your boss said believe in yourself.....................or believe in the guy taking the trash out??

Hint...........trusting and confidence are a couple.   



bullethead said:


> So you are saying that you do believe in others gods existing,  you just do not put them before the god you worship.
> This cans of worms should be a good one.


Well...............scripture sort of acknowledged it..............and even though you keep stating that I am denying their existence by saying I don't believe in them.........I have said all along that my faith is to have no other god before mine................ 

But................it would be interesting to see what you think is a god.


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 24, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Science takes what is observable within the Universe and can come up with more likely than not scenarios. Some things it admits that may never be known and I agree.


This does not answer the question concerning the unobservable.


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Jun 24, 2018)

This discussion, like all the discussions held in the AAA forum has taken several turns down various pig trails and has accomplished nothing.  

There is no need to hold these discussions, and it is quite the waste of time and talent.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 24, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> This does not answer the question concerning the unobservable.


Yes. Agreed. They have no difinitve answers for the unobservable.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 24, 2018)

NE GA Pappy said:


> This discussion, like all the discussions held in the AAA forum has taken several turns down various pig trails and has accomplished nothing.
> 
> There is no need to hold these discussions, and it is quite the waste of time and talent.


We are doing fine. 
I am enjoying it.
Life is complex and strays off path, no reason these conversations shouldn't either.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 24, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> And???????



And what makes yours so special?


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 24, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> And...… if experiences are the proof in the pudding (your words) then their pudding is proof too.
> Or neither one of your puddings is proof of anything at all.



^This. Relying on personal experience  is a sign of the weakness of your position. It’s a retreat to an area others can’t put to the test and is typically a refuge of last resort.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 24, 2018)

NE GA Pappy said:


> This discussion, like all the discussions held in the AAA forum has taken several turns down various pig trails and has accomplished nothing.
> 
> There is no need to hold these discussions, and it is quite the waste of time and talent.


I don't think anybody expects to "accomplish" anything. Its a subject with no definitive answer.
Its a subject that affects the entire world and a gigantic part of our history.
For some its not a waste of time to discuss/debate our history.
Im assuming you wont waste any more time here so......… insert tearful goodbye here.


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 24, 2018)

atlashunter said:


> And what makes yours so special?



It’s mine.


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 24, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Yes. Agreed. They have no difinitve answers for the unobservable.


And that’s why I asked the reason you put belief in that but nothing else without definitive answers. 

But fair enough.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 24, 2018)

> atlashunter said:
> And what makes yours so special?





Spotlite said:


> It’s mine.



<iframe width="560" height="315" src="



" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 24, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> It’s mine.



And theirs is theirs. So what.


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 24, 2018)

atlashunter said:


> And theirs is theirs. So what.


You asked.


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 24, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> <iframe width="560" height="315" src="
> 
> 
> 
> " frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>


That was a good spot for that video!


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 24, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> I don't think anybody expects to "accomplish" anything. Its a subject with no definitive answer.
> Its a subject that affects the entire world and a gigantic part of our history.
> For some its not a waste of time to discuss/debate our history.


In a sense, sometimes it does seem like a waste of time because it gets off on cow trails to no end............and I think where the cow trails start is when the information that can be researched doesn't completely correspond to what is heard. It`s not that the information is wrong, but it seems that it covers it in general and the only way to get both ends of the spectrum is through discussion. Not only does it help me understand more about the gap between us, history in any subject has always been interesting to me.


----------

