PDA

View Full Version : Creation 6 days or billions of years?



syborg
03-15-2009, 01:38 PM
I am a christian who believes in the literal 6 day creation as written in Genesis. .

Hiow do others feel about it. .
I was having a discussion recently and was given this as an explanation:

Why is everything in the Bible intended to be literal? It isnt feasible that God created everything in 6 days, why couldnt the Bible be speaking metorphorically? Im not sure where, but I believe that somewhere in the Bible it suggests that the Earth is only a few thousand years old which is incorrect

No, I dont believe he could have made it in 6 days, because if we look at all the evidence, it wasnt made in 6 days, it was made over a much longer time, in the Bible, when they talk about the days win which God made the world, it doesnt have to be 6 24 hour days, it could be 6 long periods of time
I argue that it is not literal, because that way, it fits in with what the highly probable way of the Universe and Earth being formed. It did not happen over 6, 24 hour days, it happened over billions of years. Day is the Hebrew translation of the word Yom and "the Hebrew word "yom" represents a period of time, the length of which is determined by its context in the sentence. While it is most often interpreted as a 24-hour day, the word "day" need not be restricted to exactly twenty-four hours. It may be no less than the daylight portion of a day, but it may span many years". I dont believe that God created the Universe in 6 days, because it is not scientifically possible

My response was this:

do you really believe that God gives one hoot about scientific possibilities.

Lets look at some evidence of God not caring about scientific possibilities:

healing the Blind, water to wine, feeding 5000, feeding 4000, lame walking, deaf hearing, demoniacs cured, the Jairius' daughter and lazarus both raised from the dead not to mention jesus himself being ressurected on the 3rd day

But your right the universe being created by an all powerful supreme being in 6 days is proposturous. .


Discuss. . .

Perfect23
03-15-2009, 02:01 PM
"If anybody wants to believe that they are the descendants of a Primate, they are certainly welcome to do it – I don't know how far they will march that back."

Mike Huckabee

PhinPhan1227
03-16-2009, 06:31 PM
I am a christian who believes in the literal 6 day creation as written in Genesis. .

Hiow do others feel about it. .
I was having a discussion recently and was given this as an explanation:

Why is everything in the Bible intended to be literal? It isnt feasible that God created everything in 6 days, why couldnt the Bible be speaking metorphorically? Im not sure where, but I believe that somewhere in the Bible it suggests that the Earth is only a few thousand years old which is incorrect

No, I dont believe he could have made it in 6 days, because if we look at all the evidence, it wasnt made in 6 days, it was made over a much longer time, in the Bible, when they talk about the days win which God made the world, it doesnt have to be 6 24 hour days, it could be 6 long periods of time
I argue that it is not literal, because that way, it fits in with what the highly probable way of the Universe and Earth being formed. It did not happen over 6, 24 hour days, it happened over billions of years. Day is the Hebrew translation of the word Yom and "the Hebrew word "yom" represents a period of time, the length of which is determined by its context in the sentence. While it is most often interpreted as a 24-hour day, the word "day" need not be restricted to exactly twenty-four hours. It may be no less than the daylight portion of a day, but it may span many years". I dont believe that God created the Universe in 6 days, because it is not scientifically possible

My response was this:

do you really believe that God gives one hoot about scientific possibilities.

Lets look at some evidence of God not caring about scientific possibilities:

healing the Blind, water to wine, feeding 5000, feeding 4000, lame walking, deaf hearing, demoniacs cured, the Jairius' daughter and lazarus both raised from the dead not to mention jesus himself being ressurected on the 3rd day

But your right the universe being created by an all powerful supreme being in 6 days is proposturous. .


Discuss. . .

In all of those cases, the miracles were performed to prove a point. To send a message. If the point were to just heal the blind, why not heal every blind person in Israel? Why only those who touched Jesus?

Simple point is, God created a wonderful system of nature, and natural law. Why would he ignore that system in creating the universe? What message does that teach? Bottom line, how does the earth being created in six days impact your faith? How does that matter?

More importantly, how exactly was God supossed to explain a process which takes billions of years to people who have no mathematics, no callenders, no numbers, no written history? Early Aramaics understood days. They didn't understand thousands of years, much less a billion of anything. Consider the audience.

Dolphan7
03-18-2009, 02:30 PM
I am a christian who believes in the literal 6 day creation as written in Genesis. .

Hiow do others feel about it. .
I was having a discussion recently and was given this as an explanation:

Why is everything in the Bible intended to be literal? It isnt feasible that God created everything in 6 days, why couldnt the Bible be speaking metorphorically? Im not sure where, but I believe that somewhere in the Bible it suggests that the Earth is only a few thousand years old which is incorrect

No, I dont believe he could have made it in 6 days, because if we look at all the evidence, it wasnt made in 6 days, it was made over a much longer time, in the Bible, when they talk about the days win which God made the world, it doesnt have to be 6 24 hour days, it could be 6 long periods of time
I argue that it is not literal, because that way, it fits in with what the highly probable way of the Universe and Earth being formed. It did not happen over 6, 24 hour days, it happened over billions of years. Day is the Hebrew translation of the word Yom and "the Hebrew word "yom" represents a period of time, the length of which is determined by its context in the sentence. While it is most often interpreted as a 24-hour day, the word "day" need not be restricted to exactly twenty-four hours. It may be no less than the daylight portion of a day, but it may span many years". I dont believe that God created the Universe in 6 days, because it is not scientifically possible

My response was this:

do you really believe that God gives one hoot about scientific possibilities.

Lets look at some evidence of God not caring about scientific possibilities:

healing the Blind, water to wine, feeding 5000, feeding 4000, lame walking, deaf hearing, demoniacs cured, the Jairius' daughter and lazarus both raised from the dead not to mention jesus himself being ressurected on the 3rd day

But your right the universe being created by an all powerful supreme being in 6 days is proposturous. .


Discuss. . .I am a Christian and I can't find any biblical support for anything BUT the literal 6 days of creation. Sure there is lot's of commentary stating long periods of time , but I question the motivation for such commentary.

Let's put this whole debate in perspective.

Up until the early 19th century, the belief was that the six days of creation were literal 24 hours days. It is only since science, in it's infinite wisdom of constant change, thinks it has figured out how to measure the age of things that this debate ever started. This is a highly debated field, but in the end it is my belief that you can't even begin to test the age of things when your whole premise is based on things being constant in the past, or at a consistent and continual progression. There is no way anyone can make that assumption with any amount of surety. It is a guess, and therefore cannot be considered valid. Think also of the motivation behind the implications of long ages of development that support the gradual evolution of life on this planet. One who subscribes to this view must therefore believe the earth is billions of years old because there is no way this long development of life can happen in less time. Consider the motivation.


So it is only in the last 200 years or so that this debate has taken shape, and it is being driven not by sound biblical exegesis, but by science....which.....to be fair....has gotten things wrong so many times....how can we believe that this isn't the case here?

As to how one views the days of creation as 24 hour days or long ages of time is a concern, because God only meant it to be one or the other, not up to individual interpretation. So it is important for the believer to understand the true intent of the Scripture, and not leave it up to ones own thinking.

What I do know is God can't lie. So if the Jews of Genesis 1 didn't understand long periods of time, and so God spoke to them in terms they could understand (24 hour days), then basically God lied to them, which I know He didn't do, because he can't.

tylerdolphin
03-18-2009, 08:39 PM
The Earth being just a few thousand years old is literally impossible if you look at things logically. I could go on and on here, but Ill just give what I found to be the most puzzling thing about the 6 day creation:
Why can we see stars exploding?

First of all, the stars we have seen exploding are millions and billions of light years away. For regular stars you can just say "God made the starlight in transit". Seems like a logical thing for God to do...why have stars if nobody can see them? But then you have the few we have observed exploding. It takes millions of years for this to happen...and even longer for the light to reach once it does happen. This means one of two things:
1. The universe is a lot older than 6,000 years, and the star ran out its life cycle and died a LONG time ago...and we are just now seeing it

2. God purposely created an exploding star and made the light of this star reach Earth immediately just to make us think the Earth is older than it really is. Think about it...why would God create an exploding star? It doesnt make sense at all. It completely illogical. And it take millions of years for a star to naturally die. Why would God play games with our heads? If the Earth is only 6,000 years old, he is LYING to us, which you said yourself he cant do.

Blackocrates
03-18-2009, 08:48 PM
Do those of you that believe the earth is only a few thousand years old believe that people walked the earth with dinosaurs? The reason I ask is because I was watching one of Lewis Black's old stand-ups and he had a great joke about how some christians watch the Flintstones like it's a documentary. :lol: That joke cracked me up.

Dolphan7
03-18-2009, 09:54 PM
The Earth being just a few thousand years old is literally impossible if you look at things logically. I could go on and on here, but Ill just give what I found to be the most puzzling thing about the 6 day creation:
Why can we see stars exploding?

First of all, the stars we have seen exploding are millions and billions of light years away. For regular stars you can just say "God made the starlight in transit". Seems like a logical thing for God to do...why have stars if nobody can see them? But then you have the few we have observed exploding. It takes millions of years for this to happen...and even longer for the light to reach once it does happen. This means one of two things:
1. The universe is a lot older than 6,000 years, and the star ran out its life cycle and died a LONG time ago...and we are just now seeing it

2. God purposely created an exploding star and made the light of this star reach Earth immediately just to make us think the Earth is older than it really is. Think about it...why would God create an exploding star? It doesnt make sense at all. It completely illogical. And it take millions of years for a star to naturally die. Why would God play games with our heads? If the Earth is only 6,000 years old, he is LYING to us, which you said yourself he cant do.But here is the problem with science. It is limited to the here and now. There is no way science can ever determine what the beginning of the creation of the universe was, or how fast it expanded, how fast light traveled then as compared to now. There is just no way to tell. It is based on what we know today. What we don't know is - is what we see today been the same since the beginning? There is no way to know that, let alone test it. It is all a guess from a scientific standpoint.

There is a good book on the possibility of time and star light being different in the beginning - by Russell Humphries. It is called Starlight and Time:Solving The Puzzle of Distant Starlight In A Young Universe.

http://www.amazon.com/Starlight-Time-Solving-Distant-Universe/dp/0890512027

I am not here to say that Humphries has the right answers, but it does bring up the fact that we simply can't base what we know today and extrapolate it back in time at the same rates of speed and expansion. This book helps to answer your very good question. A question many young earth scientists ask all the time. Humphries at least took a stab at it from a different perspective.

Dolphan7
03-18-2009, 09:57 PM
Do those of you that believe the earth is only a few thousand years old believe that people walked the earth with dinosaurs? The reason I ask is because I was watching one of Lewis Black's old stand-ups and he had a great joke about how some christians watch the Flintstones like it's a documentary. :lol: That joke cracked me up.I believe the bible. The bible says that God created all the creatures first, then man, all within a six day period. It says Adam named all the animals. So based on that, and the fact that the bible does mention what can only be described as dinosaurs in Job 40, yes we did walk with T-Rex.

tylerdolphin
03-18-2009, 10:11 PM
I believe the bible. The bible says that God created all the creatures first, then man, all within a six day period. It says Adam named all the animals. So based on that, and the fact that the bible does mention what can only be described as dinosaurs in Job 40, yes we did walk with T-Rex.
Depends on whether you read Genesis 1 or 2...

25 And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1:25-27#fen-NKJV-26a)] the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%201:25-27;&version=50;


18 And the LORD God said, “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.” 19 Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%202:18-19;&version=50;

Dolphan7
03-19-2009, 12:48 AM
Depends on whether you read Genesis 1 or 2...

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%201:25-27;&version=50;


http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%202:18-19;&version=50;They both say the same thing.

PhinPhan1227
03-19-2009, 12:56 AM
I believe the bible. The bible says that God created all the creatures first, then man, all within a six day period. It says Adam named all the animals. So based on that, and the fact that the bible does mention what can only be described as dinosaurs in Job 40, yes we did walk with T-Rex.


I've never known anyone who could give me a decent answer to this question D7. How exactly was God supposed to get the idea of millennia across to people who had no concept of numbers beyond maybe a few hundred?

tylerdolphin
03-19-2009, 01:27 AM
But here is the problem with science. It is limited to the here and now. There is no way science can ever determine what the beginning of the creation of the universe was, or how fast it expanded, how fast light traveled then as compared to now. There is just no way to tell. It is based on what we know today. What we don't know is - is what we see today been the same since the beginning? There is no way to know that, let alone test it. It is all a guess from a scientific standpoint.

There is a good book on the possibility of time and star light being different in the beginning - by Russell Humphries. It is called Starlight and Time:Solving The Puzzle of Distant Starlight In A Young Universe.

http://www.amazon.com/Starlight-Time-Solving-Distant-Universe/dp/0890512027

I am not here to say that Humphries has the right answers, but it does bring up the fact that we simply can't base what we know today and extrapolate it back in time at the same rates of speed and expansion. This book helps to answer your very good question. A question many young earth scientists ask all the time. Humphries at least took a stab at it from a different perspective.
Its one thing to explain why we see stars. It would make sense for God to accelerate the light down here to us so we could see them. That makes sense. What makes no sense is why we see old stars and dying stars. God would have had to actually make dying stars and then accelerate the light down to Earth all to create the illusion that the Earth is much older than it is. Sounds like a pretty cruel joke.

And its not just the starlight. You have reefs. Theres no way you could have some of the reefs we see in just a few thousand years. You have glaciers a mile thick. When did all of that freeze up? You have dating techniques that have been proven effective that guarantee the Earth is older than 6,000 years...its just too much evidence to explain away.

LouPhinFan
03-19-2009, 10:24 AM
I'll repost what I said over in the Science Forum on this subject:


I believe in creation and God, but I also believe the Earth is much older than 6000 years. I believe that every thing in the Bible is truth, but not necessarily literal.

When Moses wrote Genesis, there was very little science or understanding of time. I'm guessing God reveiled the story of creation to Moses using "days" as the time frame because that's something he would have understood. He would not have understood "millions", much less "billions" of anything.

In the end it doesn't really matter how old the Earth is, 6000 or 6,000,000,000. It only matters that God lovingly created it and us for his glorification.

LouPhinFan
03-19-2009, 10:30 AM
I believe the bible. The bible says that God created all the creatures first, then man, all within a six day period. It says Adam named all the animals. So based on that, and the fact that the bible does mention what can only be described as dinosaurs in Job 40, yes we did walk with T-Rex.

Be careful there brother. That is not necessarily a dinosaur. It very easily could have been an elephant or hippo or another animal other than a dino that is extinct.

syborg
03-19-2009, 11:02 AM
although we cant prove it I believe they could be refering to what we know as Dinosaurs but you are correct those passages could be talking about Elephants or Hippos. . .
I believe there are cave paintings of humans with dinosaurs arent there?
Im sure I heard about this somewhere. .

Dolphan7
03-19-2009, 11:26 AM
Be careful there brother. That is not necessarily a dinosaur. It very easily could have been an elephant or hippo or another animal other than a dino that is extinct.Did you read it?

Do you know what an elephant tail looks like? Or a hippo tail? They are very small.

This passage refers to the tail of this creature as big as a cedar "tree".

I don't think this is referring to an elephant or hippo.

Find one animal that fits this description better than a dinosaur. I'm open to suggestions.


Job 40:15 “Look at the behemoth. It is a huge animal.
I made both of you.
It eats grass like an ox.
Job 40:16 Look at the strength it has in its hips!
What power it has in the muscles of its stomach!
Job 40:17 Its tail sways back and forth like a cedar tree.
The tendons of its thighs are close together.
Job 40:18 Its bones are like tubes made out of bronze.
Its legs are like rods made out of iron.
Job 40:19 It ranks first among my works.
I made it. I can approach it with my sword.
Job 40:20 The hills produce food for it.
All of the other wild animals play near it.
Job 40:21 It lies under lotus plants.
It hides in tall grass in the swamps.
Job 40:22 The lotus plants hide it in their shade.
Poplar trees near streams surround it.
Job 40:23 It is not afraid when the river roars.
It is secure even when the Jordan River rushes against its mouth.
Job 40:24 Can anyone capture it by its eyes?
Can anyone trap it and poke a hole through its nose?

Dolphan7
03-19-2009, 11:56 AM
I've never known anyone who could give me a decent answer to this question D7. How exactly was God supposed to get the idea of millennia across to people who had no concept of numbers beyond maybe a few hundred?
God could very well have used different words to describe longer periods of time, longer than 24 hour days, to describe creation week. To say that God couldn't find a way to explain long periods of time is limiting God, and also you are suggesting that he simply lied to them making them think it was 24 hour days, when it wasn't. Makes no sense.


Ge 7:11 Noah was 600 years old. It was the 17th day of the second month of the year. On that day all of the springs at the bottom of the oceans burst open. God opened the windows of the skies.God describes the years of Noah's life into the hundreds, and then specifies a specific day, all in one verse. So it is possible to to explain longer periods of time to the Jews in Genesis.

Also the actual word for day, Yom, has been used to describe longer periods of time in context. But when it is used with a specific number, like Day 6, and it is used with other clarifying words like evening and morning....it kinda boils it down to a 24 hour day dontcha think?


Ge 1:31 God saw everything he had made. And it was very good. There was evening, and there was morning. It was day six.Also remember what is driving this debate, science. Science clearly has a motivation to support long earth ages. Science cannot support young earth ages or time.

If it turns out in the long run that the 6 days of creation are actually long ages of time....I am ok with that. But I have no reason to believe otherwise at this time.

Dolphan7
03-19-2009, 12:04 PM
Its one thing to explain why we see stars. It would make sense for God to accelerate the light down here to us so we could see them. That makes sense. What makes no sense is why we see old stars and dying stars. God would have had to actually make dying stars and then accelerate the light down to Earth all to create the illusion that the Earth is much older than it is. Sounds like a pretty cruel joke.

And its not just the starlight. You have reefs. Theres no way you could have some of the reefs we see in just a few thousand years. You have glaciers a mile thick. When did all of that freeze up? You have dating techniques that have been proven effective that guarantee the Earth is older than 6,000 years...its just too much evidence to explain away.I can assure you God isn't being cruel, or deceiving.

God created the universe. How he did it only he knows. We are simply trying to explain it basd on what we see today, which is a very narrow window we are looking at.

Reefs and glaciers....could all be caused by a global flood - easily.

To date there is no accurate dating technique that does not rely on assumptions, many assumptions. Go ask any expert on dating if their formula or methodology is 100% completely free from assumptions. Go ahead....I'll wait.

LouPhinFan
03-19-2009, 04:45 PM
Did you read it?

Do you know what an elephant tail looks like? Or a hippo tail? They are very small.

This passage refers to the tail of this creature as big as a cedar "tree".

I don't think this is referring to an elephant or hippo.

Find one animal that fits this description better than a dinosaur. I'm open to suggestions.

But there are other portions of the chapter:


Job 40:15 “Look at the behemoth. It is a huge animal.
I made both of you.
It eats grass like an ox.
Job 40:16 Look at the strength it has in its hips!
What power it has in the muscles of its stomach!
Job 40:17 Its tail sways back and forth like a cedar tree.
The tendons of its thighs are close together.
Job 40:18 Its bones are like tubes made out of bronze.
Its legs are like rods made out of iron.
Job 40:19 It ranks first among my works.
I made it. I can approach it with my sword.
Job 40:20 The hills produce food for it.
All of the other wild animals play near it.
Job 40:21 It lies under lotus plants.
It hides in tall grass in the swamps.
Job 40:22 The lotus plants hide it in their shade.
Poplar trees near streams surround it.
Job 40:23 It is not afraid when the river roars.
It is secure even when the Jordan River rushes against its mouth.
Job 40:24 Can anyone capture it by its eyes?
Can anyone trap it and poke a hole through its nose?

I know of no water-faring large dinosaur than can be hidden under Lotus plants or by their shade. But that sure does sound like the habitat of a Hippo.

The only versus that might lead you to believe it is a dino is verse 17. But that verse could just mean that it hurts when it hits you.

All I'm saying is that it might be a dino, but it might also be a hippo or maybe an elephant. It could be any of those, and not any one more likely than the other. I think its stretching the verse a little bit to say it "most likely" is a dinosaur.

Using logic that is not dependent on evolution, I would doubt seriously that dinosaurs were around during the time of the verse I don't see how man and dinosaurs could co-exsist once the Earth was cursed by sin. Maybe they were around in Eden, I don't know. I don't see any way that man could reproduce and raise population levels while living in a world with dinosaurs.

Dolphan7
03-19-2009, 07:05 PM
But there are other portions of the chapter:



I know of no water-faring large dinosaur than can be hidden under Lotus plants or by their shade. But that sure does sound like the habitat of a Hippo.

The only versus that might lead you to believe it is a dino is verse 17. But that verse could just mean that it hurts when it hits you.

All I'm saying is that it might be a dino, but it might also be a hippo or maybe an elephant. It could be any of those, and not any one more likely than the other. I think its stretching the verse a little bit to say it "most likely" is a dinosaur.

Using logic that is not dependent on evolution, I would doubt seriously that dinosaurs were around during the time of the verse I don't see how man and dinosaurs could co-exsist once the Earth was cursed by sin. Maybe they were around in Eden, I don't know. I don't see any way that man could reproduce and raise population levels while living in a world with dinosaurs.Like I said, taking "ALL" the verses describing this beast, name one animal that would fit this description. I only highlighted a couple to show that it couldn't be an elephant or hippo. Read the entire thing.

Remember God is telling Job of all his great creations, why wouldn't he pick one of the biggest creatures he made? Why would be pick a small elephant or hippo? Also, this beast is so large that it could stand in the river when it is running at flood stage. Elephants and hippos can't do that. As far as lying under a lotus plant, remember that the creature is laying down, so such plants wouldn't necessarily have to be 3 stories tall. Who knows what an ancient lotus plant looked like. This verse indicates that it is tall enough to hide this creature laying down.

I don't know what to call this beast other than behemoth as it says. Is it a dinosaur? I believe it is. What I do know for sure is what it isn't - and it isn't anything we see alive today.

Why couldn't man live with dinosaurs? Most were omnivores, no threat to mankind. And we don't know if the carnivores were really carnivores, and if they were it probably wasn't for a long period of time. We live today with lot's of wild creatures. They tend to stay in the "wild", and we tend to stay in the safe zone. Why wouldn't that be true back then?

tylerdolphin
03-19-2009, 08:05 PM
Wouldn't your day just totally suck when the T-Rex stepped on the hut you just built...

Dolphan7
03-19-2009, 09:13 PM
Wouldn't your day just totally suck when the T-Rex stepped on the hut you just built...Yep. Sure would have ruined my day. Glad I live in the 21st century.

LouPhinFan
03-19-2009, 11:53 PM
Like I said, taking "ALL" the verses describing this beast, name one animal that would fit this description. I only highlighted a couple to show that it couldn't be an elephant or hippo. Read the entire thing.

Remember God is telling Job of all his great creations, why wouldn't he pick one of the biggest creatures he made? Why would be pick a small elephant or hippo? Also, this beast is so large that it could stand in the river when it is running at flood stage. Elephants and hippos can't do that. As far as lying under a lotus plant, remember that the creature is laying down, so such plants wouldn't necessarily have to be 3 stories tall. Who knows what an ancient lotus plant looked like. This verse indicates that it is tall enough to hide this creature laying down.

I don't consider an elephant and a hippo small. Even a dinosaur lying down is going to be very tall. A lotus plant of 4000 years ago is not going to shade a dinosaur lying down.

Also as far as verse 17 goes, it is describing the tail's movement and not necessarily its size.

I think it might be good to find the literal translation of this chapter from the original. I'm not sure that the English translation is entirely accurate. "Tail" might not even be the correct translation.



Why couldn't man live with dinosaurs? Most were omnivores, no threat to mankind. And we don't know if the carnivores were really carnivores, and if they were it probably wasn't for a long period of time. We live today with lot's of wild creatures. They tend to stay in the "wild", and we tend to stay in the safe zone. Why wouldn't that be true back then?

An animal's teeth most often indicate what it eats. Even in today's nature the teeth of herbivores and carnivores differ greatly. T-Rex, raptors, etc were carnivores, that's what the sharp teeth are for.

I don't think there's much of a comparison between the 2 time periods as far as the "wild" goes. Human population was much smaller 4000 years ago. Not nearly enough people banding together to protect themselves from a T Rex on the hunt. A T Rex was going where ever he wanted and no human was going to stop him at his size. Much different today with lion, tigers, bears (oh my). They stay away because there's so many of us and they aren't incredibly larger than we are, as a T-rex would have been.

I'm sorry, I just can't say that it is "probably a dinosaur". Could it be? Yes. Could it not be? Yes.

Dolphan7
03-20-2009, 12:07 AM
I don't consider an elephant and a hippo small. Even a dinosaur lying down is going to be very tall. A lotus plant of 4000 years ago is not going to shade a dinosaur lying down.

Also as far as verse 17 goes, it is describing the tail's movement and not necessarily its size.

I think it might be good to find the literal translation of this chapter from the original. I'm not sure that the English translation is entirely accurate. "Tail" might not even be the correct translation.



An animal's teeth most often indicate what it eats. Even in today's nature the teeth of herbivores and carnivores differ greatly. T-Rex, raptors, etc were carnivores, that's what the sharp teeth are for.

I don't think there's much of a comparison between the 2 time periods as far as the "wild" goes. Human population was much smaller 4000 years ago. Not nearly enough people banding together to protect themselves from a T Rex on the hunt. A T Rex was going where ever he wanted and no human was going to stop him at his size. Much different today with lion, tigers, bears (oh my). They stay away because there's so many of us and they aren't incredibly larger than we are, as a T-rex would have been.

I'm sorry, I just can't say that it is "probably a dinosaur". Could it be? Yes. Could it not be? Yes.Well....then you really do have a problem then.


Ge 2:19 The LORD God had formed all of the wild animals. He had also formed all of the birds of the air. He had made all of them out of the ground. He brought them to the man to see what names he would give them. And the name the man gave each living creature became its name.
Ge 2:20 So the man gave names to all of the livestock. He gave names to all of the birds of the air. And he gave names to all of the wild animals.

God created the animals, all of them - even T-Rex. He presented them to Adam. Adam named them, all of them - even T-Rex.

Blackocrates
03-20-2009, 12:47 AM
Wouldn't your day just totally suck when the T-Rex stepped on the hut you just built...

Or a Brachiosaurus pooped on it.

garcia420
04-03-2009, 02:31 AM
to me, this is a much better theory then a 6 day creation...




In geologic terms, a plate is a large, rigid slab of solid rock. The word tectonics comes from the Greek root "to build." Putting these two words together, we get the term plate tectonics, which refers to how the Earth's surface is built of plates. The theory of plate tectonics states that the Earth's outermost layer is fragmented into a dozen or more large and small plates that are moving relative to one another as they ride atop hotter, more mobile material. Before the advent of plate tectonics, however, some people already believed that the present-day continents were the fragmented pieces of preexisting larger landmasses ("supercontinents"). The diagrams below show the break-up of the supercontinent Pangaea (meaning "all lands" in Greek), which figured prominently in the theory of continental drift -- the forerunner to the theory of plate
tectonics.
According to the continental drift theory, the supercontinent Pangaea began to break up about 225-200 million years ago, eventually fragmenting into the continents as we know them today.

Plate tectonics is a relatively new scientific concept, introduced some 30 years ago, but it has revolutionized our understanding of the dynamic planet upon which we live. The theory has unified the study of the Earth by drawing together many branches of the earth sciences, from paleontology (the study of fossils) to seismology (the study of earthquakes). It has provided explanations to questions that scientists had speculated upon for centuries -- such as why earthquakes and volcanic eruptions occur in very specific areas around the world, and how and why great mountain ranges like the Alps and Himalayas formed.

Why is the Earth so restless? What causes the ground to shake violently, volcanoes to erupt with explosive force, and great mountain ranges to rise to incredible heights? Scientists, philosophers, and theologians have wrestled with questions such as these for centuries. Until the 1700s, most Europeans thought that a Biblical Flood played a major role in shaping the Earth's surface. This way of thinking was known as "catastrophism," and geology (the study of the Earth) was based on the belief that all earthly changes were sudden and caused by a series of catastrophes. However, by the mid-19th century, catastrophism gave way to "uniformitarianism," a new way of thinking centered around the "Uniformitarian Principle" proposed in 1785 by James Hutton, a Scottish geologist. This principle is commonly stated as follows: The present is the key to the past. Those holding this viewpoint assume that the geologic forces and processes -- gradual as well as catastrophic -- acting on the Earth today are the same as those that have acted in the geologic past.
The belief that continents have not always been fixed in their present positions was suspected long before the 20th century; this notion was first suggested as early as 1596 by the Dutch map maker Abraham Ortelius in his work Thesaurus Geographicus. Ortelius suggested that the Americas were "torn away from Europe and Africa . . . by earthquakes and floods" and went on to say: "The vestiges of the rupture reveal themselves, if someone brings forward a map of the world and considers carefully the coasts of the three [continents]." Ortelius' idea surfaced again in the 19th century. However, it was not until 1912 that the idea of moving continents was seriously considered as a full-blown scientific theory -- called Continental Drift -- introduced in two articles published by a 32-year-old German meteorologist named Alfred Lothar Wegener. He contended that, around 200 million years ago, the supercontinent Pangaea began to split apart. Alexander Du Toit, Professor of Geology at Witwatersrand University and one of Wegener's staunchest supporters, proposed that Pangaea first broke into two large continental landmasses, Laurasia in the northern hemisphere and Gondwanaland in the southern hemisphere. Laurasia and Gondwanaland then continued to break apart into the various smaller continents that exist today.
In 1858, geographer Antonio Snider-Pellegrini made these two maps showing his version of how the American and African continents may once have fit together, then later separated. Left: The formerly joined continents before (avant) their separation. Right: The continents after (aprés) the separation. (Reproductions of the original maps courtesy of University of California, Berkeley.)




Wegener's theory was based in part on what appeared to him to be the remarkable fit of the South American and African continents, first noted by Abraham Ortelius three centuries earlier. Wegener was also intrigued by the occurrences of unusual geologic structures and of plant and animal fossils found on the matching coastlines of South America and Africa, which are now widely separated by the Atlantic Ocean. He reasoned that it was physically impossible for most of these organisms to have swum or have been transported across the vast oceans. To him, the presence of identical fossil species along the coastal parts of Africa and South America was the most compelling evidence that the two continents were once joined.

In Wegener's mind, the drifting of continents after the break-up of Pangaea explained not only the matching fossil occurrences but also the evidence of dramatic climate changes on some continents. For example, the discovery of fossils of tropical plants (in the form of coal deposits) in Antarctica led to the conclusion that this frozen land previously must have been situated closer to the equator, in a more temperate climate where lush, swampy vegetation could grow. Other mismatches of geology and climate included distinctive fossil ferns (Glossopteris) discovered in now-polar regions, and the occurrence of glacial deposits in present-day arid Africa, such as the Vaal River valley of South Africa.

The theory of continental drift would become the spark that ignited a new way of viewing the Earth. But at the time Wegener introduced his theory, the scientific community firmly believed the continents and oceans to be permanent features on the Earth's surface. Not surprisingly, his proposal was not well received, even though it seemed to agree with the scientific information available at the time. A fatal weakness in Wegener's theory was that it could not satisfactorily answer the most fundamental question raised by his critics: What kind of forces could be strong enough to move such large masses of solid rock over such great distances? Wegener suggested that the continents simply plowed through the ocean floor, but Harold Jeffreys, a noted English geophysicist, argued correctly that it was physically impossible for a large mass of solid rock to plow through the ocean floor without breaking up.
Undaunted by rejection, Wegener devoted the rest of his life to doggedly pursuing additional evidence to defend his theory. He froze to death in 1930 during an expedition crossing the Greenland ice cap, but the controversy he spawned raged on. However, after his death, new evidence from ocean floor exploration and other studies rekindled interest in Wegener's theory, ultimately leading to the development of the theory of plate tectonics.

Plate tectonics has proven to be as important to the earth sciences as the discovery of the structure of the atom was to physics and chemistry and the theory of evolution was to the life sciences. Even though the theory of plate tectonics is now widely accepted by the scientific community, aspects of the theory are still being debated today. Ironically, one of the chief outstanding questions is the one Wegener failed to resolve: What is the nature of the forces propelling the plates? Scientists also debate how plate tectonics may have operated (if at all) earlier in the Earth's history and whether similar processes operate, or have ever operated, on other planets in our solar system.

PhinPhan1227
04-03-2009, 10:10 AM
God could very well have used different words to describe longer periods of time, longer than 24 hour days, to describe creation week. To say that God couldn't find a way to explain long periods of time is limiting God, and also you are suggesting that he simply lied to them making them think it was 24 hour days, when it wasn't. Makes no sense.

God describes the years of Noah's life into the hundreds, and then specifies a specific day, all in one verse. So it is possible to to explain longer periods of time to the Jews in Genesis.

Also the actual word for day, Yom, has been used to describe longer periods of time in context. But when it is used with a specific number, like Day 6, and it is used with other clarifying words like evening and morning....it kinda boils it down to a 24 hour day dontcha think?

Also remember what is driving this debate, science. Science clearly has a motivation to support long earth ages. Science cannot support young earth ages or time.

If it turns out in the long run that the 6 days of creation are actually long ages of time....I am ok with that. But I have no reason to believe otherwise at this time.

I'm not limiting God, I'm limiting man. It's no more useful to say that God created the world in 600 years than it would to say that he did so in a day. When you are talking about billions of years, 600 years might as well be a day. Also, consider context. To God, billions of years are the same as a day. He is timeless.

Again D7, it comes down to translation. God has to translate, to our simple, flawed brains, actions he took as GOD. It's hard enough to understand some of the concepts involved in the creation of the universe with the benefit of 21st century science. To men in 6000bc, with no written language, it's impossible. That's not God lying to us anymore than giving an overly simplistic explanation to a child is lying. If I tell my son that he came into this world because his mommy and daddy loved each other and "made" him, have I lied to him?

Dolphan7
04-03-2009, 11:39 AM
I'm not limiting God, I'm limiting man. It's no more useful to say that God created the world in 600 years than it would to say that he did so in a day. When you are talking about billions of years, 600 years might as well be a day. Also, consider context. To God, billions of years are the same as a day. He is timeless.

Again D7, it comes down to translation. God has to translate, to our simple, flawed brains, actions he took as GOD. It's hard enough to understand some of the concepts involved in the creation of the universe with the benefit of 21st century science. To men in 6000bc, with no written language, it's impossible. That's not God lying to us anymore than giving an overly simplistic explanation to a child is lying. If I tell my son that he came into this world because his mommy and daddy loved each other and "made" him, have I lied to him?
All I can tell you is that God had all the tools he needed to communicate exactly what happened. He could have used words that meant long periods of time in the ancient Hebrew language, like Olam and Qedem. But He didn't. He used the word Yom and in so many aspects of how it is written it is against all common sense and reason to think that it is anything but a 24 hour day.

http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/27_eternity.html

As I have stated, I see no valid reason to think these are not 24 hour days. The only opposition to this understanding comes from the last 200 years or so by the scientific community. I question their motivation.

PhinPhan1227
04-03-2009, 12:50 PM
All I can tell you is that God had all the tools he needed to communicate exactly what happened. He could have used words that meant long periods of time in the ancient Hebrew language, like Olam and Qedem. But He didn't. He used the word Yom and in so many aspects of how it is written it is against all common sense and reason to think that it is anything but a 24 hour day.

http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/27_eternity.html

As I have stated, I see no valid reason to think these are not 24 hour days. The only opposition to this understanding comes from the last 200 years or so by the scientific community. I question their motivation.

And I question the need to hang on whether it is 24 hours or not. It changes nothing of the message of the Bible. It changes nothing of the relationship with God. God gave us senses to observe with, and minds to reason with. If those senses conflict with certain words in the bible which are peripheral to the messages within, I trust those senses. Again, god gave us minds to distinguish the important parts of the bible from the parts that aren't that important. I believe he did so in order to protect us from those who would change the message. If we rely on every single word being accurate, no matter its importance, we open ourselves to doubt for the simple reason that people can and have changed the words in the Bible over the centuries. You say we have access to more primary sources now...but what protected man for the centuries when we had no suchj access? The mind is the protection god gave us.

Oh, and here's a dose of irony. You hammer constantly, and rightly on the fact that evolution is a theory, not a fact. But you seem to have forgotten that linguistics is ALSO based on theory. We have no linguists who were THERE when those words were used. We have SOME sources from which they extrapolate what they THINK those words mean. But in reality, they are in a worse situation than paleontologists. They can only go by what they have found. They are going on material which is at BEST 4th or 5th hand. They are interpreting it through their modern eyes, with all that entials. And lastly, and most damning, they are talking about human perceptions. The question of whether a certain dinosaur had feathers or not is pretty absolute. The question of whether all humans during a certain era ascribed the same meaning to certain words is not.

Dolphan7
04-03-2009, 01:32 PM
to me, this is a much better theory then a 6 day creation...




In geologic terms, a plate is a large, rigid slab of solid rock. The word tectonics comes from the Greek root "to build." Putting these two words together, we get the term plate tectonics, which refers to how the Earth's surface is built of plates. The theory of plate tectonics states that the Earth's outermost layer is fragmented into a dozen or more large and small plates that are moving relative to one another as they ride atop hotter, more mobile material. Before the advent of plate tectonics, however, some people already believed that the present-day continents were the fragmented pieces of preexisting larger landmasses ("supercontinents"). The diagrams below show the break-up of the supercontinent Pangaea (meaning "all lands" in Greek), which figured prominently in the theory of continental drift -- the forerunner to the theory of plate
tectonics.
According to the continental drift theory, the supercontinent Pangaea began to break up about 225-200 million years ago, eventually fragmenting into the continents as we know them today.

Plate tectonics is a relatively new scientific concept, introduced some 30 years ago, but it has revolutionized our understanding of the dynamic planet upon which we live. The theory has unified the study of the Earth by drawing together many branches of the earth sciences, from paleontology (the study of fossils) to seismology (the study of earthquakes). It has provided explanations to questions that scientists had speculated upon for centuries -- such as why earthquakes and volcanic eruptions occur in very specific areas around the world, and how and why great mountain ranges like the Alps and Himalayas formed.

Why is the Earth so restless? What causes the ground to shake violently, volcanoes to erupt with explosive force, and great mountain ranges to rise to incredible heights? Scientists, philosophers, and theologians have wrestled with questions such as these for centuries. Until the 1700s, most Europeans thought that a Biblical Flood played a major role in shaping the Earth's surface. This way of thinking was known as "catastrophism," and geology (the study of the Earth) was based on the belief that all earthly changes were sudden and caused by a series of catastrophes. However, by the mid-19th century, catastrophism gave way to "uniformitarianism," a new way of thinking centered around the "Uniformitarian Principle" proposed in 1785 by James Hutton, a Scottish geologist. This principle is commonly stated as follows: The present is the key to the past. Those holding this viewpoint assume that the geologic forces and processes -- gradual as well as catastrophic -- acting on the Earth today are the same as those that have acted in the geologic past.
The belief that continents have not always been fixed in their present positions was suspected long before the 20th century; this notion was first suggested as early as 1596 by the Dutch map maker Abraham Ortelius in his work Thesaurus Geographicus. Ortelius suggested that the Americas were "torn away from Europe and Africa . . . by earthquakes and floods" and went on to say: "The vestiges of the rupture reveal themselves, if someone brings forward a map of the world and considers carefully the coasts of the three [continents]." Ortelius' idea surfaced again in the 19th century. However, it was not until 1912 that the idea of moving continents was seriously considered as a full-blown scientific theory -- called Continental Drift -- introduced in two articles published by a 32-year-old German meteorologist named Alfred Lothar Wegener. He contended that, around 200 million years ago, the supercontinent Pangaea began to split apart. Alexander Du Toit, Professor of Geology at Witwatersrand University and one of Wegener's staunchest supporters, proposed that Pangaea first broke into two large continental landmasses, Laurasia in the northern hemisphere and Gondwanaland in the southern hemisphere. Laurasia and Gondwanaland then continued to break apart into the various smaller continents that exist today.
In 1858, geographer Antonio Snider-Pellegrini made these two maps showing his version of how the American and African continents may once have fit together, then later separated. Left: The formerly joined continents before (avant) their separation. Right: The continents after (aprés) the separation. (Reproductions of the original maps courtesy of University of California, Berkeley.)




Wegener's theory was based in part on what appeared to him to be the remarkable fit of the South American and African continents, first noted by Abraham Ortelius three centuries earlier. Wegener was also intrigued by the occurrences of unusual geologic structures and of plant and animal fossils found on the matching coastlines of South America and Africa, which are now widely separated by the Atlantic Ocean. He reasoned that it was physically impossible for most of these organisms to have swum or have been transported across the vast oceans. To him, the presence of identical fossil species along the coastal parts of Africa and South America was the most compelling evidence that the two continents were once joined.

In Wegener's mind, the drifting of continents after the break-up of Pangaea explained not only the matching fossil occurrences but also the evidence of dramatic climate changes on some continents. For example, the discovery of fossils of tropical plants (in the form of coal deposits) in Antarctica led to the conclusion that this frozen land previously must have been situated closer to the equator, in a more temperate climate where lush, swampy vegetation could grow. Other mismatches of geology and climate included distinctive fossil ferns (Glossopteris) discovered in now-polar regions, and the occurrence of glacial deposits in present-day arid Africa, such as the Vaal River valley of South Africa.

The theory of continental drift would become the spark that ignited a new way of viewing the Earth. But at the time Wegener introduced his theory, the scientific community firmly believed the continents and oceans to be permanent features on the Earth's surface. Not surprisingly, his proposal was not well received, even though it seemed to agree with the scientific information available at the time. A fatal weakness in Wegener's theory was that it could not satisfactorily answer the most fundamental question raised by his critics: What kind of forces could be strong enough to move such large masses of solid rock over such great distances? Wegener suggested that the continents simply plowed through the ocean floor, but Harold Jeffreys, a noted English geophysicist, argued correctly that it was physically impossible for a large mass of solid rock to plow through the ocean floor without breaking up.
Undaunted by rejection, Wegener devoted the rest of his life to doggedly pursuing additional evidence to defend his theory. He froze to death in 1930 during an expedition crossing the Greenland ice cap, but the controversy he spawned raged on. However, after his death, new evidence from ocean floor exploration and other studies rekindled interest in Wegener's theory, ultimately leading to the development of the theory of plate tectonics.

Plate tectonics has proven to be as important to the earth sciences as the discovery of the structure of the atom was to physics and chemistry and the theory of evolution was to the life sciences. Even though the theory of plate tectonics is now widely accepted by the scientific community, aspects of the theory are still being debated today. Ironically, one of the chief outstanding questions is the one Wegener failed to resolve: What is the nature of the forces propelling the plates? Scientists also debate how plate tectonics may have operated (if at all) earlier in the Earth's history and whether similar processes operate, or have ever operated, on other planets in our solar system.Take out the "millions" of years and it matches up with the biblical creation model pretty well. Now if we could only reconcile the time lines!

WISfinfan13
04-03-2009, 02:01 PM
The Earth being just a few thousand years old is literally impossible if you look at things logically. I could go on and on here, but Ill just give what I found to be the most puzzling thing about the 6 day creation:
Why can we see stars exploding?

First of all, the stars we have seen exploding are millions and billions of light years away. For regular stars you can just say "God made the starlight in transit". Seems like a logical thing for God to do...why have stars if nobody can see them? But then you have the few we have observed exploding. It takes millions of years for this to happen...and even longer for the light to reach once it does happen. This means one of two things:
1. The universe is a lot older than 6,000 years, and the star ran out its life cycle and died a LONG time ago...and we are just now seeing it

2. God purposely created an exploding star and made the light of this star reach Earth immediately just to make us think the Earth is older than it really is. Think about it...why would God create an exploding star? It doesnt make sense at all. It completely illogical. And it take millions of years for a star to naturally die. Why would God play games with our heads? If the Earth is only 6,000 years old, he is LYING to us, which you said yourself he cant do.

Jesus did this while he was on earth, and God does this in our daily lives. Why does God let people suffer from cancer when he can simply cure it? Why does God have us come to earth in the first place? He simply is testing our faith. Faith is believeing something that doesnt seem logical or possible for that matter.

Dolphan7
04-03-2009, 02:19 PM
And I question the need to hang on whether it is 24 hours or not. It changes nothing of the message of the Bible. It changes nothing of the relationship with God. God gave us senses to observe with, and minds to reason with. If those senses conflict with certain words in the bible which are peripheral to the messages within, I trust those senses. Again, god gave us minds to distinguish the important parts of the bible from the parts that aren't that important. I believe he did so in order to protect us from those who would change the message. If we rely on every single word being accurate, no matter its importance, we open ourselves to doubt for the simple reason that people can and have changed the words in the Bible over the centuries. You say we have access to more primary sources now...but what protected man for the centuries when we had no suchj access? The mind is the protection god gave us.

Oh, and here's a dose of irony. You hammer constantly, and rightly on the fact that evolution is a theory, not a fact. But you seem to have forgotten that linguistics is ALSO based on theory. We have no linguists who were THERE when those words were used. We have SOME sources from which they extrapolate what they THINK those words mean. But in reality, they are in a worse situation than paleontologists. They can only go by what they have found. They are going on material which is at BEST 4th or 5th hand. They are interpreting it through their modern eyes, with all that entials. And lastly, and most damning, they are talking about human perceptions. The question of whether a certain dinosaur had feathers or not is pretty absolute. The question of whether all humans during a certain era ascribed the same meaning to certain words is not.This is all well and great, but you neglect to mention the God factor. I find it extremely hard to believe that God's longest form of communication to us, His written word, which carries with it everything we know of and about God, and His message and gift of salvation and how we are to relate to him, issues so important and key to Him and His people.....that He would allow His word to get corrupted along the way so that His people would be blind to His message. What kind of a God would that be? Pretty impotent if you ask me. It is His word, and He exerts His power to make sure His word stays in fact... His. Divine Intervention. It has to be in place because you are right....man left to his own foolish and simple devices would butcher the word of God within a few decades if not sooner. You can't forget about the God factor.

PhinPhan1227
04-03-2009, 03:32 PM
[/B]

Jesus did this while he was on earth, and God does this in our daily lives. Why does God let people suffer from cancer when he can simply cure it? Why does God have us come to earth in the first place? He simply is testing our faith. Faith is believeing something that doesnt seem logical or possible for that matter.


Well, that's your interpretation. My interpretation is that we exist on earth to learn. You can't learn without pain. That's just the way people grow. And for God, while the suffering here in earth is terrible, it is also the only way for us to grow as spirits. Compare it with a child. If I never sent my son to school, he wouldn't have to endure classes. He wouldn't have to be punished for misbehaving, basically, he could live a fun, care free life as a child. And that is all he will ever be...a child. Because if I shield him from all pain, he will NEVER grow.

As for your definition of faith, I disagree. Faith is belief without the NEED for proof. It doesn't mean that you fly in the face of logic or reason. That is blind faith, and there is a huge difference. Careful, your prejudice is showing.

PhinPhan1227
04-03-2009, 03:38 PM
This is all well and great, but you neglect to mention the God factor. I find it extremely hard to believe that God's longest form of communication to us, His written word, which carries with it everything we know of and about God, and His message and gift of salvation and how we are to relate to him, issues so important and key to Him and His people.....that He would allow His word to get corrupted along the way so that His people would be blind to His message. What kind of a God would that be? Pretty impotent if you ask me. It is His word, and He exerts His power to make sure His word stays in fact... His. Divine Intervention. It has to be in place because you are right....man left to his own foolish and simple devices would butcher the word of God within a few decades if not sooner. You can't forget about the God factor.

I have pointed out the God factor repeatedly. The message is secure. The rest is just details. If God was worried about us getting the simple words wrong, we would all speak the same language. Heck, we would read minds. Because the simple words shift from era to era, and langauge to language. It is the MESSAGE which is key and core. It is the message which stands the test of time and reason. It is the message which makes sense. The rest is fluff. How does my faith get impacted by the world being created in a day or a billion years? How does it matter if it rained on Noah for 40 days, or 80 days, or not at all? God is concerned with my soul. My relationship mith God is concerned with my soul. Nothing else matters. God keeps the message secure, and allows man to fumble along with the rest, because the rest doesn't matter. I can publish a bible tomorrow that changes everything core to the accepted current Bible. But people in their hearts will know that I am wrong. But if I publish a Bible that only changes days to millenia, how have I changed the message? How is anyones relationship with God altered? How have I impacted your soul?

Dolphan7
04-03-2009, 04:55 PM
I have pointed out the God factor repeatedly. The message is secure. The rest is just details. If God was worried about us getting the simple words wrong, we would all speak the same language. Heck, we would read minds. Because the simple words shift from era to era, and langauge to language. It is the MESSAGE which is key and core. It is the message which stands the test of time and reason. It is the message which makes sense. The rest is fluff. How does my faith get impacted by the world being created in a day or a billion years? How does it matter if it rained on Noah for 40 days, or 80 days, or not at all? God is concerned with my soul. My relationship mith God is concerned with my soul. Nothing else matters. God keeps the message secure, and allows man to fumble along with the rest, because the rest doesn't matter. I can publish a bible tomorrow that changes everything core to the accepted current Bible. But people in their hearts will know that I am wrong. But if I publish a Bible that only changes days to millenia, how have I changed the message? How is anyones relationship with God altered? How have I impacted your soul?What is the message then?

How do you know you have the message?

How do you know the message didn't get screwed up along the way?

Look - I have said this before - either the bible is true, or it isn't. It doesn't lend itself to various interpretations. It was written with one meaning, not several. If we can't trust some parts of it, then we can't trust any of it.

What is God's message of salvation?

PhinPhan1227
04-04-2009, 01:27 AM
What is the message then?

How do you know you have the message?

How do you know the message didn't get screwed up along the way?

Look - I have said this before - either the bible is true, or it isn't. It doesn't lend itself to various interpretations. It was written with one meaning, not several. If we can't trust some parts of it, then we can't trust any of it.

What is God's message of salvation?


The message is to get past yourself, put your life and soul in Jesus' care, and live a life as close to his example as possible. Now, the details of that life are within the book. But they must be tailored to the individuals circumstances. Whether he went to Gallilee first of Jerusalem first really doesn't impact that program.

By your way of thinking however, if someone presented irrefutable evidence tomorrow that half of Genesis was written by some mad hermit in 1500bc as a joke, your faith would be destroyed. That doesn't make sense to me. My relationship with God is not confined within the pages of any physical creation.

MrEd
04-04-2009, 02:52 AM
I am a christian who believes in the literal 6 day creation as written in Genesis. .

Hiow do others feel about it. .
I was having a discussion recently and was given this as an explanation:

Why is everything in the Bible intended to be literal? It isnt feasible that God created everything in 6 days, why couldnt the Bible be speaking metorphorically? Im not sure where, but I believe that somewhere in the Bible it suggests that the Earth is only a few thousand years old which is incorrect

No, I dont believe he could have made it in 6 days, because if we look at all the evidence, it wasnt made in 6 days, it was made over a much longer time, in the Bible, when they talk about the days win which God made the world, it doesnt have to be 6 24 hour days, it could be 6 long periods of time
I argue that it is not literal, because that way, it fits in with what the highly probable way of the Universe and Earth being formed. It did not happen over 6, 24 hour days, it happened over billions of years. Day is the Hebrew translation of the word Yom and "the Hebrew word "yom" represents a period of time, the length of which is determined by its context in the sentence. While it is most often interpreted as a 24-hour day, the word "day" need not be restricted to exactly twenty-four hours. It may be no less than the daylight portion of a day, but it may span many years". I dont believe that God created the Universe in 6 days, because it is not scientifically possible

My response was this:

do you really believe that God gives one hoot about scientific possibilities.

Lets look at some evidence of God not caring about scientific possibilities:

healing the Blind, water to wine, feeding 5000, feeding 4000, lame walking, deaf hearing, demoniacs cured, the Jairius' daughter and lazarus both raised from the dead not to mention jesus himself being ressurected on the 3rd day

But your right the universe being created by an all powerful supreme being in 6 days is proposturous. .


Discuss. . .

Well, if u go by "real" and actual evidence, science reveals that the earth was created in 6 days and is only about 6-10,000 years old.

Those who religiously and blindly refuse to accept this fact are grouped into 1) those who don't know how radiometric dating works, and blindly accept what insincere activists tell them 2) those who use "presupposed" assumptions when making dates 3) those who refuse to accept reality and refuse to acknowledge God and will not look at evidence objectively and will only see what they "want" to see.

Radiometric dating is a hoax. It was proven false and can only be gauged by an object that has a "known" date. Those who blindly go by it are merely using presuppositions that are disproved and mere circular reasoning. All that they base their ideology on is make believe.

Those who were pioneers of the Darwinistic evolution cult...use propoganda, misinformation, and make believe world views in order to mislead children who grow up in schools learning and being indoctrinated by misinformation and therefore can't comprehend when objectivity is brought to the fore because they have been preconditioned to "believe" or accept certain assumptions about the earth and the universe.

Much of what is so called the science community functions this way. Its like global warming...its politics and propoganda. One only needs to look at the facts to see through the fog...

So you're right. Creation is what nature and science reveal...but political activists who fear objective students learning the truth fight to keep evidence of creation and flaws of evolutionary mythology from public schools.

Locke
04-04-2009, 04:11 AM
Well, if u go by "real" and actual evidence, science reveals that the earth was created in 6 days and is only about 6-10,000 years old.

Those who religiously and blindly refuse to accept this fact are grouped into 1) those who don't know how radiometric dating works, and blindly accept what insincere activists tell them 2) those who use "presupposed" assumptions when making dates 3) those who refuse to accept reality and refuse to acknowledge God and will not look at evidence objectively and will only see what they "want" to see.

Radiometric dating is a hoax. It was proven false and can only be gauged by an object that has a "known" date. Those who blindly go by it are merely using presuppositions that are disproved and mere circular reasoning. All that they base their ideology on is make believe.

Those who were pioneers of the Darwinistic evolution cult...use propoganda, misinformation, and make believe world views in order to mislead children who grow up in schools learning and being indoctrinated by misinformation and therefore can't comprehend when objectivity is brought to the fore because they have been preconditioned to "believe" or accept certain assumptions about the earth and the universe.

Much of what is so called the science community functions this way. Its like global warming...its politics and propoganda. One only needs to look at the facts to see through the fog...

So you're right. Creation is what nature and science reveal...but political activists who fear objective students learning the truth fight to keep evidence of creation and flaws of evolutionary mythology from public schools.

You have any proof for this? Or are you just throwing it out there?

Your whole post is contradictory anyways. All you do is say Darwin and Global Warming is a hoax, but you provide no proof. How about some links? Its easy to say "look at the facts". Its harder to provide those "facts". Science is the one thats been proven thus far, not religion. I'm interested in your sources. I can post many that support Darwin......

tylerdolphin
04-04-2009, 07:38 AM
Radiometric dating is basically a fact. There is absolutely no evidence of it being unreliable. None. The ONLY reason anyone doubts it is because it supports the idea of a old Earth, and they refuse to believe it. It has given incorrect dates before...but only because of contaminated samples that can be avoided if proper care is taken.

I found this pretty interesting:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5369-OobM4&feature=PlayList&p=DD2C7B3C76D78158&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=5

ABrownLamp
04-04-2009, 03:46 PM
Well, if u go by "real" and actual evidence, science reveals that the earth was created in 6 days and is only about 6-10,000 years old.

Those who religiously and blindly refuse to accept this fact are grouped into 1) those who don't know how radiometric dating works, and blindly accept what insincere activists tell them 2) those who use "presupposed" assumptions when making dates 3) those who refuse to accept reality and refuse to acknowledge God and will not look at evidence objectively and will only see what they "want" to see.

Radiometric dating is a hoax. It was proven false and can only be gauged by an object that has a "known" date. Those who blindly go by it are merely using presuppositions that are disproved and mere circular reasoning. All that they base their ideology on is make believe.

Those who were pioneers of the Darwinistic evolution cult...use propoganda, misinformation, and make believe world views in order to mislead children who grow up in schools learning and being indoctrinated by misinformation and therefore can't comprehend when objectivity is brought to the fore because they have been preconditioned to "believe" or accept certain assumptions about the earth and the universe.

Much of what is so called the science community functions this way. Its like global warming...its politics and propoganda. One only needs to look at the facts to see through the fog...

So you're right. Creation is what nature and science reveal...but political activists who fear objective students learning the truth fight to keep evidence of creation and flaws of evolutionary mythology from public schools.

I bet you have no scientific examples from which to support your argument about anything here- especially the ineffectiveness of current dating methods. How is analyzing the decay of several elements with a specific half life inaccurate? When youve got dozens of unstable elements producing the exact same data in a fossil, Id like to hear your explanation.

MrEd
04-04-2009, 07:56 PM
[/b]

Jesus did this while he was on earth, and God does this in our daily lives. Why does God let people suffer from cancer when he can simply cure it? Why does God have us come to earth in the first place? He simply is testing our faith. Faith is believeing something that doesnt seem logical or possible for that matter.

Actually, according to the Bible, the reason why God doesn't heal cancers is "not" to test our faith. That was just made up.

According to the BIble the reason why God doesn't cure cancer is for one reason and one reason only....because of our unbelief. THat's Jesus own words.

Now, why does good things happen to good people? SImple.

The Bible tells us that God's will has 3 aspects to it: God's "perfect" will, his "permissive" will, and his "good/just" will.

If u look deep into what those 3 aspects represent you can understand why things happen.

God's "perfect" will, is what He "desires" for us to do and accomplish. Also why the Bible adds that God does "not" desire that "any" perish or suffer.

But it leads to God's "permissive" will. He "allows" things to happen because it involves our free will and choice and then leads to the 3rd aspect...

God's "good/just" will. His "justice" plays into his "good/just" will. Judgement comes to the fray here. Thus why the Apocalypse has all the judgments and some from what He did through Moses to the Pharaoh and the Egyptian empire around 1,500 BC.

Intertwined within the 3 aspects of God's will is His mercy and Christ's redemption. WHich is why Jesus explained about "fasting and prayer" in healing certain diseases.

Paul explains in more detail to the fact that Jesus healed those who were "harrassed/oppressed" by the devil...Paul said we don't fight against flesh and blood, but against "spiritual wickednesses in 'heavenly places".

Paul explains that the devil has a kingdom with thrones and dominions and armies and so forth. Thus why Jesus explained that "certain types of devils" can't be defeated and certain kinds of ailments and conditions (whether physical or spiritual) can't be healed without "fasting and prayer"...because it is an actualy warfare that is taking place and certain demons have minions under them.

Where some diseases and conditions are caused by freelance unclean spirits that are weak and can be dealt with via a simple prayer of exorcism....others are powerful and have much authority and have subjects under them protecting them in the warfare and require "fasting and prayer" from us that can take several weeks to needing several people united in this "fasting and prayer" in order to defeat them one by one and get to what the Bible calls a "strongman".

Paul also mentions "strongholds"...but this could take days to explain...

tylerdolphin
04-04-2009, 08:06 PM
Actually, according to the Bible, the reason why God doesn't heal cancers is "not" to test our faith. That was just made up.

According to the BIble the reason why God doesn't cure cancer is for one reason and one reason only....because of our unbelief. THat's Jesus own words.

Now, why does good things happen to good people? SImple.

The Bible tells us that God's will has 3 aspects to it: God's "perfect" will, his "permissive" will, and his "good/just" will.

If u look deep into what those 3 aspects represent you can understand why things happen.

God's "perfect" will, is what He "desires" for us to do and accomplish. Also why the Bible adds that God does "not" desire that "any" perish or suffer.

But it leads to God's "permissive" will. He "allows" things to happen because it involves our free will and choice and then leads to the 3rd aspect...

God's "good/just" will. His "justice" plays into his "good/just" will. Judgement comes to the fray here. Thus why the Apocalypse has all the judgments and some from what He did through Moses to the Pharaoh and the Egyptian empire around 1,500 BC.

Intertwined within the 3 aspects of God's will is His mercy and Christ's redemption. WHich is why Jesus explained about "fasting and prayer" in healing certain diseases.

Paul explains in more detail to the fact that Jesus healed those who were "harrassed/oppressed" by the devil...Paul said we don't fight against flesh and blood, but against "spiritual wickednesses in 'heavenly places".

Paul explains that the devil has a kingdom with thrones and dominions and armies and so forth. Thus why Jesus explained that "certain types of devils" can't be defeated and certain kinds of ailments and conditions (whether physical or spiritual) can't be healed without "fasting and prayer"...because it is an actualy warfare that is taking place and certain demons have minions under them.

Where some diseases and conditions are caused by freelance unclean spirits that are weak and can be dealt with via a simple prayer of exorcism....others are powerful and have much authority and have subjects under them protecting them in the warfare and require "fasting and prayer" from us that can take several weeks to needing several people united in this "fasting and prayer" in order to defeat them one by one and get to what the Bible calls a "strongman".

Paul also mentions "strongholds"...but this could take days to explain...
huh?
So our diseases are the fault of demons that possess us?

MrEd
04-04-2009, 08:41 PM
I bet you have no scientific examples from which to support your argument about anything here- especially the ineffectiveness of current dating methods. How is analyzing the decay of several elements with a specific half life inaccurate? When youve got dozens of unstable elements producing the exact same data in a fossil, Id like to hear your explanation.

Well, by betting will you give me your CC# so to transfer funds after you lose? Really, are you seriously thinking things through when you make such statements?

If u studied radiometric datings and their flaws, you would not have made that statement. I'll show you.

It is quite simple. This is how it works...

You take a rock, for instance...wait, let me go back a little. C14 dating has such a half life of less than 6,000 years, so they 'theorize' by how many times you can split the half lives into a 'potential' 40,000 years possibility. C14 is found in bones, plants, and only in "living" or previously "living" things. You don't find C14 on rocks. This is very important, because of what you are hearing when an activist scientist is telling you a date of a particular "living" or previously "living" thing, you must understand what he is actually telling you.....or "NOT" telling you.

Because a dinosaur for example is/was a "living" thing, it would have had C14 in it. Pay close attention: C14's half life is LESS THAN 6,000 years. It begins to decay at the ratio that gives us this half life...are you with me so far?

So, the part they don't tell you...if an animal is "less than 6,000 years old" IT WOULD STILL HAVE C14 IN IT! *BREAKING NEWS* DINOSAUR BONES (and now carcasses have been found) STILL HAVE C14 IN THEM! :confused:

So what are Neo-Darwinist activists doing? WHy are they still saying Dinosaurs lived millions and millions of years ago, if the C14 in their bones "prove" they are less than 6,000 years old, due to the FACT that C14 decays at a rate that it lasts no longer than less than 6,000 years?

Remember, the half life is such that it can only be broken down mathematically to allow a theoritic 'potetnial' of no more than 40,000 potential years....but an actual less than 6,000 year half life.

Since this is evidence that proves that dinosaurs are not millions of year old reptiles, but less than 6,000 year old monsters/dragons (dragons because before the first dinosaur bone was discovered civilizations already knew about these monsters and wrote about them, so how is this? :foundout:)...

Neo-darwinist activists choose "not" to use the C14 test on dinosaurs....because they have already made their minds up ahead of time that they BELIEVE dinosaurs are millions of years old. So they choose "not" to use C14. But ignore that C14 is actually there. In fact, DNA has a decay rate that is similiar to C14 and will be gone from an animal/person in less than a few thousand years according to experts. Same thing with red blood cells. *BREAKING NEWS* Dinosaur bones have both DNA "and"red blood cells still in them. :confused:

So what do Neo-Darwinists do? They do one of two things. They either use circular reasoning: They use a man-made up "geologic column" as the basis for calculating what era the animal is from...wow!

I repeat. A man "made up" a geologic column as part of the theory or 'myth" as we are seeing of how "he believes" the earth's age is. They use this "man made up" chart as the gauge to gauge how to discard the next method of dating...radiometric dating on "rocks". Not the dinosaur or animals or human it/himself....but the rocks "around" it and gauge the discrepancy with the "man made" chart called the 'geologic column'!!!

Circular reasoning? What do you mean? I'll show you.

They don't date the actual bones...they date the rocks around the bones and base the date on the "man made up" chart! Wow!

They don't date the bones (even though it still has C14, DNA, and/or red blood cells still in them) but insist on dating the rocks around it as the determining factor tell misinform the students in school or the viewers at home about how old an animal actually is!

Now let's get to how they date the ROCKS.

They use parent to daughter elements progression as the radiometric dating method for rocks. But why? C14 is not in nonliving matter.

But, this is what they don't tell you...

Potassium will decay and form argon right? Or K to Argon and so forth, right?

But wait, this is what they don't tell you...

As the parent element decays at an observable "decay rate"....the rate is used with the amount of the parent element and the amount of the daughter element...right?

Well, they tested this in Helen's volcano eruptions. They used the "known" dates of the 1975 volcano eruptions and others to be the gauge. Well, the dates varied from millions of years to billions of years when it was only a few decades old! So what was their response?

Um, well, there are many factors here. Water, gas, touch, and any other type of contamination causes the "amount" of parent and daughter element to be affected. So? So, um, well, that means we can't know what it is that was the contaminant....so we need to use a "KNOWN" date to gauge the era and "calibrate" the discrepancy! Did you see what happened there?

Since we "know" the date when the eruption happened, we gauge the amount of parent and daughter elements by calibrating the amount to come up with what is discrepancy and what isn't. This way we can discard the rocks whose dates will show millions and billions of years throw off by the "known date" of 1975, for example.

So here we go. How do we know which date to accept from a rock which we DO NOT KNOW THE DATE OF???? :err:

You ready? They use the "man made up" chart called the GEOLOGIC COLUMN as the calibrator!!! :confused: Huh?

Do you see? They don't know the age. They "DISCARD" the rocks whose dates don't fit the "dates they are looking for based on the man made geologic column" and viola! they have the date they are "LOOKING FOR"! Wow! Talk about circular reasoning. You date the bones by the rocks and the rocks by the bones? :foundout:

Remember, what happens first. They "choose" NOT to date the bones themselves, because they DON'T "BELIEVE" THAT THE ANIMAL IS YOUNG.

So you see? It's all cultish and political.

Every year, we find out after investigations that in our public school books they still have outdated and know "hoaxes" and they still teach and indoctrinate us in "KINDERGARTEN" and "FIRST GRADE" such things when the kid knows no better to debate or even question what he/she is being taught. :(

tylerdolphin
04-04-2009, 09:23 PM
You are just making stuff up as you go along...
Carbon-14 dating is basically indisputable. It can and has been verified MANY times against things with known ages. This is a fact and its not even arguable. C-14 has a known half-life that has been proven correct on numerous occasions. I have no idea why people even argue this. The half life of C-14 is so short that it can be easily observed. Obviously, being so short, it is not useful for any date over 10,000 years or so...

As for the dinosaur with C-14 thing, do you have a source for that? I have searched and can't find one. My guess is that you don't have a source at all, and if you do its an obscure creationist website with an obvious agenda. You know, the kind that have about 300 incorrect statements on the front page.

And no...they dont not test the bones because they have made up their minds already. They do it because they have tested many fossils and all have showed NO C-14...this happened over and over and over. Knowing this, why the hell would you test a dinosaur for C-14? It makes no sense. If it is not present in any of the fossils found in the same layer, why would it be in another one?

Lastly, why do Potassium/Argon and Argon/Argon dating (and many others) all give the same data? I mean, we are assuming that they are all completely useless, so what are the odds that they all give the same results on a fossil? Do you believe in Atomic Theory? You can't. How can you say you believe it and yet deny one of its big principles? One that can be tested in the lab at that. I'd love to see a real, scientific reason why radiometric dating is invalid.

Locke
04-04-2009, 09:24 PM
Well, by betting will you give me your CC# so to transfer funds after you lose? Really, are you seriously thinking things through when you make such statements?

If u studied radiometric datings and their flaws, you would not have made that statement. I'll show you.

It is quite simple. This is how it works...

You take a rock, for instance...wait, let me go back a little. C14 dating has such a half life of less than 6,000 years, so they 'theorize' by how many times you can split the half lives into a 'potential' 40,000 years possibility. C14 is found in bones, plants, and only in "living" or previously "living" things. You don't find C14 on rocks. This is very important, because of what you are hearing when an activist scientist is telling you a date of a particular "living" or previously "living" thing, you must understand what he is actually telling you.....or "NOT" telling you.

Because a dinosaur for example is/was a "living" thing, it would have had C14 in it. Pay close attention: C14's half life is LESS THAN 6,000 years. It begins to decay at the ratio that gives us this half life...are you with me so far?

So, the part they don't tell you...if an animal is "less than 6,000 years old" IT WOULD STILL HAVE C14 IN IT! *BREAKING NEWS* DINOSAUR BONES (and now carcasses have been found) STILL HAVE C14 IN THEM! :confused:

So what are Neo-Darwinist activists doing? WHy are they still saying Dinosaurs lived millions and millions of years ago, if the C14 in their bones "prove" they are less than 6,000 years old, due to the FACT that C14 decays at a rate that it lasts no longer than less than 6,000 years?

Remember, the half life is such that it can only be broken down mathematically to allow a theoritic 'potetnial' of no more than 40,000 potential years....but an actual less than 6,000 year half life.

Since this is evidence that proves that dinosaurs are not millions of year old reptiles, but less than 6,000 year old monsters/dragons (dragons because before the first dinosaur bone was discovered civilizations already knew about these monsters and wrote about them, so how is this? :foundout:)...

Neo-darwinist activists choose "not" to use the C14 test on dinosaurs....because they have already made their minds up ahead of time that they BELIEVE dinosaurs are millions of years old. So they choose "not" to use C14. But ignore that C14 is actually there. In fact, DNA has a decay rate that is similiar to C14 and will be gone from an animal/person in less than a few thousand years according to experts. Same thing with red blood cells. *BREAKING NEWS* Dinosaur bones have both DNA "and"red blood cells still in them. :confused:

So what do Neo-Darwinists do? They do one of two things. They either use circular reasoning: They use a man-made up "geologic column" as the basis for calculating what era the animal is from...wow!

I repeat. A man "made up" a geologic column as part of the theory or 'myth" as we are seeing of how "he believes" the earth's age is. They use this "man made up" chart as the gauge to gauge how to discard the next method of dating...radiometric dating on "rocks". Not the dinosaur or animals or human it/himself....but the rocks "around" it and gauge the discrepancy with the "man made" chart called the 'geologic column'!!!

Circular reasoning? What do you mean? I'll show you.

They don't date the actual bones...they date the rocks around the bones and base the date on the "man made up" chart! Wow!

They don't date the bones (even though it still has C14, DNA, and/or red blood cells still in them) but insist on dating the rocks around it as the determining factor tell misinform the students in school or the viewers at home about how old an animal actually is!

Now let's get to how they date the ROCKS.

They use parent to daughter elements progression as the radiometric dating method for rocks. But why? C14 is not in nonliving matter.

But, this is what they don't tell you...

Potassium will decay and form argon right? Or K to Argon and so forth, right?

But wait, this is what they don't tell you...

As the parent element decays at an observable "decay rate"....the rate is used with the amount of the parent element and the amount of the daughter element...right?

Well, they tested this in Helen's volcano eruptions. They used the "known" dates of the 1975 volcano eruptions and others to be the gauge. Well, the dates varied from millions of years to billions of years when it was only a few decades old! So what was their response?

Um, well, there are many factors here. Water, gas, touch, and any other type of contamination causes the "amount" of parent and daughter element to be affected. So? So, um, well, that means we can't know what it is that was the contaminant....so we need to use a "KNOWN" date to gauge the era and "calibrate" the discrepancy! Did you see what happened there?

Since we "know" the date when the eruption happened, we gauge the amount of parent and daughter elements by calibrating the amount to come up with what is discrepancy and what isn't. This way we can discard the rocks whose dates will show millions and billions of years throw off by the "known date" of 1975, for example.

So here we go. How do we know which date to accept from a rock which we DO NOT KNOW THE DATE OF???? :err:

You ready? They use the "man made up" chart called the GEOLOGIC COLUMN as the calibrator!!! :confused: Huh?

Do you see? They don't know the age. They "DISCARD" the rocks whose dates don't fit the "dates they are looking for based on the man made geologic column" and viola! they have the date they are "LOOKING FOR"! Wow! Talk about circular reasoning. You date the bones by the rocks and the rocks by the bones? :foundout:

Remember, what happens first. They "choose" NOT to date the bones themselves, because they DON'T "BELIEVE" THAT THE ANIMAL IS YOUNG.

So you see? It's all cultish and political.

Every year, we find out after investigations that in our public school books they still have outdated and know "hoaxes" and they still teach and indoctrinate us in "KINDERGARTEN" and "FIRST GRADE" such things when the kid knows no better to debate or even question what he/she is being taught. :(

Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

That quote from Billy Madison seemed appropriate after that crap you just posted. They found a dinosaur carcass? Bullsh*t. Post a link. Public school books are full of hoaxes? You've been asked for links or proof by 3 different posters already, and you keep dodging the request. You need to post a link or some sort of proof. There is ZERO evidence that dinosaurs are less than 6000 years old.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-14

Read that please. Carbon 14 is completely different than the way you tried to explain. You are trying to fit evidence to meet your explanation, and when it doesn't, you purposely twist it in a way that makes it fit. Thats not how science works. Thats not how anything works. You can't just change something because it doesn't fit your beliefs....

Locke
04-04-2009, 09:30 PM
You are just making stuff up as you go along...
Carbon-14 dating is basically indisputable. It can and has been verified MANY times against things with known ages. This is a fact and its not even arguable. C-14 has a known half-life that has been proven correct on numerous occasions. I have no idea why people even argue this. The half life of C-14 is so short that it can be easily observed. Obviously, being so short, it is not useful for any date over 10,000 years or so...

As for the dinosaur with C-14 thing, do you have a source for that? I have searched and can't find one. My guess is that you don't have a source at all, and if you do its an obscure creationist website with an obvious agenda. You know, the kind that have about 300 incorrect statements on the front page.

And no...they dont not test the bones because they have made up their minds already. They do it because they have tested many fossils and all have showed NO C-14...this happened over and over and over. Knowing this, why the hell would you test a dinosaur for C-14? It makes no sense. If it is not present in any of the fossils found in the same layer, why would it be in another one?

Lastly, why do Potassium/Argon and Argon/Argon dating (and many others) all give the same data? I mean, we are assuming that they are all completely useless, so what are the odds that they all give the same results on a fossil? Do you believe in Atomic Theory? You can't. How can you say you believe it and yet deny one of its big principles? One that can be tested in the lab at that. I'd love to see a real, scientific reason why radiometric dating is invalid.

Theres a reason he refuses to post links, sources, or anything that can be verified. He doesn't have anything to back up this crazy crap I'm reading. It's all his opinion, which is being posted as "fact"....

MrEd
04-05-2009, 05:05 AM
huh?
So our diseases are the fault of demons that possess us?

See this is where lack of education in the Bible causes a lack of understanding to statements.

Possession is apples and oranges about what we are talking about. Diseases are caused by demons, yes. But "causing" disease has nothing to do with possession. Possession takes place when either through "channeling" a demon, which is an unclean disembodied spirit. Or from yielding to a demons harrassment and accepting its control. This usually takes place from unforgiveness and anger or sadness or even happiness that is not dealt with. Another whole seminar, if you will.

Let's stick with the subject. Diseases are caused by unclean spirits. God explained to Israel that our obedience, holiness, and OBEDIENCE played a crucial role/factor in us being free from disease.

Demons are harrassers and they possess germs and are looking for a host. Jesus touched upon this when He explained to the people what happens in the spirit world.

A demon is an unclean 'disembodied' spirit. Many incorrectly call demons "fallen" angels. In fact, fallen angels are the "parents" of demons. Demons are the disembodied spirits of beings who were the offspring of fallen angels having sex with humans.

This offspring was a mutant race of supernatural beings. They were unclean. God, as more touched upon in the Book of Enoch and the Book of Jasher...as well as in the Bible in Genesis 6, 2 Peter, and Jude. Also in the Gospels...God, caused the world wide flood where He warned and protected Noah and his family about and the "Nephilim", which is what the Bible calls them were killed or disembodied at the flood.

These Nephilim or (Neanderthals, as neo-darwinists incorrectly call them) were disembodied and their "unclean" spirits were left to roam the earth until Judgment Day.

These "unclean" spirits are ruled by Satan and the "fallen" angels. Now the specific fallen angels that commited the sexual acts with the humans were thrown into hell, according to the Bible account. These are bound in hell waiting for the time appointed for them to be released.

But satan/lucifer rules, along with his fallen angels, the unclean spirits, who are roaming the earth as unclean spirits who hate mankind and long for bodies to possess or live in.

Jesus would rebuke a disease when He healed people. In fact, at one time even rebuked a fever.

He didn't always do this...but it showed that he viewed some as 'personalities'. So, with diseases all being different cases of course, many are germ related.

In the Gospels you can see an example of a demon or an army of demons should I say...was cast out by Jesus and they went into a herd of pigs.

So demons can go from wandering to humans, to animals...etc. So it is no wonder why Jesus would rebuke a disease as if addressing a personality. The germs can be possessed as well. So that is where the correlation is.

MrEd
04-05-2009, 05:09 AM
Theres a reason he refuses to post links, sources, or anything that can be verified. He doesn't have anything to back up this crazy crap I'm reading. It's all his opinion, which is being posted as "fact"....


Yea, when you make an assumption, as you and tyler dude are doing...what happens? You know.

Instead of just letting truth and knowledge just come in one ear and out the next..."ask" for a link. Hello?

No, no opinions were stated. All factual and verifiable facts. If you can't do the research yourself...you can ask for help...and I can direct you to some links. If you want.

But if you are not interested in knowledge and actually knowing something objectively. I won't waste my time. Your inquiry must be sincere, or I'm talking to one ear and it goes out the other...

MrEd
04-05-2009, 05:25 AM
You have any proof for this? Or are you just throwing it out there?

Your whole post is contradictory anyways. All you do is say Darwin and Global Warming is a hoax, but you provide no proof. How about some links? Its easy to say "look at the facts". Its harder to provide those "facts". Science is the one thats been proven thus far, not religion. I'm interested in your sources. I can post many that support Darwin......

First, let me stop right there. You are making an incorrect statement. Science is the study of something. In this case, the science would be biological sciences. WHo mentioned religion? Religion is anybelief system? You are now talking about something apples and oranges to what we are talking about. Religion is intertwined with any and everyone's world view. So stay with the topic at hand.

Then, you mention a "matter of fact" statement about science being proven and complain that I did without providing any links. Double standard, anyone?

Now, if you have a problem with anything I stated, ask what do you object to that you need a link about? C'mon, dude. Be clear when making indirect assertations about what I wrote. It is all factual. So how am I supposed to know what you think isn't? Be specific, since you seem to think it isn't.

Marino613
04-05-2009, 08:19 AM
I think I posted this before, but I don't recall where.

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/other-links.html

I find this a very useful website. It is definitely not creationist, but this is an incredibly comprehensive list of links to both pro-evolution and pro-creationist sites (also make sure you follow the links to the "unabridged" creationist list which is huge and has plenty of pro-creationist sites).

As a side note: One thing I will say for your POV MrEd - your avatar is a great argument that there is a God. [Although I think certain parts of her were "designed" in a less divine environment]

Locke
04-05-2009, 02:15 PM
As a side note: One thing I will say for your POV MrEd - your avatar is a great argument that there is a God. [Although I think certain parts of her were "designed" in a less divine environment]

:lol2:

Locke
04-05-2009, 02:18 PM
Yea, when you make an assumption, as you and tyler dude are doing...what happens? You know.

Instead of just letting truth and knowledge just come in one ear and out the next..."ask" for a link. Hello?

No, no opinions were stated. All factual and verifiable facts. If you can't do the research yourself...you can ask for help...and I can direct you to some links. If you want.

But if you are not interested in knowledge and actually knowing something objectively. I won't waste my time. Your inquiry must be sincere, or I'm talking to one ear and it goes out the other...

:rolleyes2:

I'm not going to go searching for links that don't exist. You're making this up, you don't have any resources to back it up, and this is you trying to dodge that fact. Since this is "fact", you should have no problems finding a few links that support your position. I mean, everything else that is considered fact has over 100,000 hits on google, so this should prove to be no problem for you, am I right...?

tylerdolphin
04-05-2009, 02:31 PM
First, let me stop right there. You are making an incorrect statement. Science is the study of something. In this case, the science would be biological sciences. WHo mentioned religion? Religion is anybelief system? You are now talking about something apples and oranges to what we are talking about. Religion is intertwined with any and everyone's world view. So stay with the topic at hand.

Then, you mention a "matter of fact" statement about science being proven and complain that I did without providing any links. Double standard, anyone?

Now, if you have a problem with anything I stated, ask what do you object to that you need a link about? C'mon, dude. Be clear when making indirect assertations about what I wrote. It is all factual. So how am I supposed to know what you think isn't? Be specific, since you seem to think it isn't.
I made a specific request about what I would like to see a link for. Did you even read my post? I know you are quoting Locke here, but I'm assuming this is more or less directed at me too. I tried doing some research, but there is nothing about any dinosaur bones with C-14.

And there is a reason we ask for links. I myself have never once in my life seen a creationist use a real scientific source to support their claims. Its all psuedo-science websites and creationist websites with glaring issues as far as credibility. Dont you think that a huge discovery like finding out that dinosaur bones contained C-14 would at least be worth mentioning on ONE site other that a creationist website or blog??? That claim of yours is so absurd that:
1. I can't find a crationist website that claims it
2. I can't find a scientific site that mentions it or tries to argue it.

As for the bolded part, I can provide many links. I have already linked to a useful youtube video, which I would bet a good amount of money you never even watched. Not saying youtube is the authority on all things science, but it was full of verifiable facts. Im not sure how you come to the conclusion that your post is based on fact. What it IS based on is taking evidence and warping it to a pre-concieved idea.

Ill give you a few facts:
1. We know the half-lifes and parent-daughter rates of the radio isotopes of certain elements
2. We can test this against objects of known ages with great accuracy.
3. Knowing this, we can test objects as old as the half-life of the element will allow us.

As for your claims that it has been wrong before...whats your point? Radiometric dating is inaccurate about 3% of the time, which is really irrelevant because even if it was wrong 80% of the time, it still disproves a young Earth. Do you believe in DNA testing? You are a hypocrite if you do because samples have been contaminated and it has given false results before. By your logic, we have to throw it out the wondow as useless. And who cares if the decay rates were a little faster back in the day. Do you honestly think this account for objects testing 4 BILLION years old instead of 6,000???? Thats utterly ridiculous.

Why does radiometric dating line up perfectly with the different layers of the Earth? I mean, we know radiometric dating is one big hoax, so why does it give reliable, predictable results to things like this? And why are there layers in the first place. If all the animals lived together 6,000 years ago we should see very few layers. You know, ones that dont date out predictably older the the next.

You are the one making huge claims against established scientific fact. The burden is on YOU to provide evidence supporting it. There is overwhelming evidence that the Earth is over 6,000 years old or even a millions of years old for that matter. The fact is, radiometric dating would never be questioned in the general public if not for young Earthers. Any time you have people molding evidence to fit fit their pre-concieved, dogmatic ideas about the way the world is, it is not good.

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton.html

(This site is really great. Its a debate and it is interesting)
http://www.debate.org/debates/Radiometric-Dating-is-Accurate/2/

Great video explaining radiometric dating and other methods of dating
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5369-OobM4

Locke
04-05-2009, 02:31 PM
First, let me stop right there. You are making an incorrect statement. Science is the study of something. In this case, the science would be biological sciences. WHo mentioned religion? Religion is anybelief system? You are now talking about something apples and oranges to what we are talking about. Religion is intertwined with any and everyone's world view. So stay with the topic at hand.

Then, you mention a "matter of fact" statement about science being proven and complain that I did without providing any links. Double standard, anyone?

Now, if you have a problem with anything I stated, ask what do you object to that you need a link about? C'mon, dude. Be clear when making indirect assertations about what I wrote. It is all factual. So how am I supposed to know what you think isn't? Be specific, since you seem to think it isn't.

You want links showing that these are proven? You should have asked earlier.

Global Warming

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ - straight from the EPA.

http://www.climatehotmap.org/

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/ - The Union of Concerned Scientists

Darwinism/Evolution

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=46 - University of California, Berkeley's resources on evolution. I gave you the link to their "evidence for evolution" page

http://necsi.org/projects/evolution/evidence/evidence_intro.html

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html (http://www.gate.net/%7Erwms/EvoEvidence.html)

There's three of each. If you want more, I can keep on posting. :up:

I held up my end. It's your turn. 3 credible links to support what you're saying would be satisfactory. If you noticed, I posted no personal websites. These are all either government, university, or organization's official websites. I'd expect the same from you. If you post the link to some creationist or evangelical website, that proves nothing....

Locke
04-05-2009, 02:34 PM
I made a specific request about what I would like to see a link for. Did you even read my post? I know you are quoting Locke here, but I'm assuming this is more or less directed at me too. I tried doing some research, but there is nothing about any dinosaur bones with C-14.

And there is a reason we ask for links. I myself have never once in my life seen a creationist use a real scientific source to support their claims. Its all psuedo-science websites and creationist websites with glaring issues as far as credibility. Dont you think that a huge discovery like finding out that dinosaur bones contained C-14 would at least be worth mentioning on ONE site other that a creationist website or blog??? That claim of yours is so absurd that:
1. I can't find a crationist website that claims it
2. I can't find a scientific site that mentions it or tries to argue it.

As for the bolded part, I can provide many links. I have already linked to a useful youtube video, which I would bet a good amount of money you never even watched. Not saying youtube is the authority on all things science, but it was full of verifiable facts. Im not sure how you come to the conclusion that your post is based on fact. What it IS based on is taking evidence and warping it to a pre-concieved idea.

Ill give you a few facts:
1. We know the half-lifes and part-daughter rates of the radio isotopes of certain elements
2. We can test this against objects of known ages with great accuracy.
3. Knowing this, we can test objects as old as the half-life of the element will allow us.

As for your claims that it has been wrong before...whats your point? Radiometric dating is inaccurate about 3% of the time, which is really irrelevant because even if it was wrong 80% of the time, it still disproves a young Earth. Do you believe in DNA testing? You are a hypocrite if you do because samples have been contaminated and it has given false results before. By your logic, we have to throw it out the wondow as useless. And who cares if the decay rates were a little faster back in the day. Do you honestly think this account for objects testing 4 BILLION years old instead of 6,000???? Thats utterly ridiculous.

Why does radiometric dating line up perfectly with the different layers of the Earth? I mean, we know radiometric dating is one big hoax, so why does it give reliable, predictable results to things like this? And why are there layers in the first place. If all the animals lived together 6,000 years ago we should see very few layers. You know, ones that dont date out predictably older the the next.

You are the one making huge claims against established scientific fact. The burden is on YOU to provide evidence supporting it. There is overwhelming evidence that the Earth is over 6,000 years old or even a millions of years old for that matter. The fact is, radiometric dating would never be questioned in the general public if not for young Earthers. Any time you have people molding evidence to fit fit their pre-concieved, dogmatic ideas about the way the world is, it is not good.

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton.html

(This site is really great. Its a debate and it is interesting)
http://www.debate.org/debates/Radiometric-Dating-is-Accurate/2/

Great video explaining radiometric dating and other methods of dating
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5369-OobM4

Damn man, that is one impressive post. Kudos...

tylerdolphin
04-05-2009, 02:47 PM
Damn man, that is one impressive post. Kudos...
Every once in a while I let my brain out its box :lol:

Dolphan7
04-06-2009, 03:20 PM
All these posts demanding proof. It is getting rather funny. Show me proof, but....don't show me any religious websites. Don't show me any creation web sites. Don't show me any thing from anyone I have discredited because they believe in creation. Hmmm? So by this definition the only proof of creation one would accept is from the mainstream science crowd, who by the way, don't believe in creation, but they are the only ones one would accept proof of creation from. Doesn't make sense to me.

Look, there is much evidence from religious and creationists websites, who are also degreed scientists who publish their findings in peer reviewed publications, which is the definition of what is deemed acceptable and credible these days. Discarding them and their research is closing your mind off to the truth about our origins.

Check out the research done by Professor Robert L Whitelaw on c14 dating on living things, if you can find it. He published his findings in the journal Radiocarbon in the 70's. Google is no help, I tried. Wonder why? Wikipedia? No luck there. But he did test things and found young dates for things that sceince says should be millions of years old.

Dating techniques assume things. Uniformitarianism states that the present is the key to the past, and that what we see today, happened at the same rate and the same percentages as in the past....Huge assumptions that undermine the validity of every known and available technique we have. There is no way to determine the past rates of decay. None. Yet, the assumptions are made, and taken as fact. One big assumption, that the half life of the daughter elements starts at zero at the time the organism died. This is an assumption.

Look - there are no known 100% accurate dating techniques. The closest, c14, is really only good for a few thousand years. Dating organisms that should be millions of years old using this technique that result in thousands of years should give one reason to doubt and question what one has been taught and told. But that is up to each individual.

Check out the research done by the R.A.T.E. project. Fascinating stuff.

All I can say is that for some, there is no amount of proof that will convince them otherwise. Jesus lived and breathed, performed many miracles, died, and rose again....and they still didn't believe him.

If one is looking for proof on a football message board, good grief. But there has been many good posts pointing anyone who is really interested in the truth to lots of research and studies. And trust me, they are not all dumb idiots who make stuff up just to support their belief system. If one really honestly believes that, there is no point to discuss further. Do your own research, because unless you do, you won't take anyone else's word for it.

People demand proof, but are incapable or unwilling to do the research for themselves, and evaluate it with nuetral glasses.

I believed in evolution for the longest time. I didn't just wake up one day and say - it is false. I didn't listen to people who told me it was false, because I didn't believe them. I did my own research and found out that evolution really isn't all what it has been promoted as, and there were alternative views that made sense, and more sense when adding in the God factor of creation and the incredible amount of design we see ...everywhere. To me that is the most logical and intellectual reason for our existance. But that is me, and I ain't no dimwit, and it ain't no blind faith.

To each his own I guess. Let him who has an ear hear.

tylerdolphin
04-06-2009, 07:44 PM
All these posts demanding proof. It is getting rather funny. Show me proof, but....don't show me any religious websites. Don't show me any creation web sites. Don't show me any thing from anyone I have discredited because they believe in creation. Hmmm? So by this definition the only proof of creation one would accept is from the mainstream science crowd, who by the way, don't believe in creation, but they are the only ones one would accept proof of creation from. Doesn't make sense to me.

Look, there is much evidence from religious and creationists websites, who are also degreed scientists who publish their findings in peer reviewed publications, which is the definition of what is deemed acceptable and credible these days. Discarding them and their research is closing your mind off to the truth about our origins.

Check out the research done by Professor Robert L Whitelaw on c14 dating on living things, if you can find it. He published his findings in the journal Radiocarbon in the 70's. Google is no help, I tried. Wonder why? Wikipedia? No luck there. But he did test things and found young dates for things that sceince says should be millions of years old.

Dating techniques assume things. Uniformitarianism states that the present is the key to the past, and that what we see today, happened at the same rate and the same percentages as in the past....Huge assumptions that undermine the validity of every known and available technique we have. There is no way to determine the past rates of decay. None. Yet, the assumptions are made, and taken as fact. One big assumption, that the half life of the daughter elements starts at zero at the time the organism died. This is an assumption.

Look - there are no known 100% accurate dating techniques. The closest, c14, is really only good for a few thousand years. Dating organisms that should be millions of years old using this technique that result in thousands of years should give one reason to doubt and question what one has been taught and told. But that is up to each individual.

Check out the research done by the R.A.T.E. project. Fascinating stuff.

All I can say is that for some, there is no amount of proof that will convince them otherwise. Jesus lived and breathed, performed many miracles, died, and rose again....and they still didn't believe him.

If one is looking for proof on a football message board, good grief. But there has been many good posts pointing anyone who is really interested in the truth to lots of research and studies. And trust me, they are not all dumb idiots who make stuff up just to support their belief system. If one really honestly believes that, there is no point to discuss further. Do your own research, because unless you do, you won't take anyone else's word for it.

People demand proof, but are incapable or unwilling to do the research for themselves, and evaluate it with nuetral glasses.

I believed in evolution for the longest time. I didn't just wake up one day and say - it is false. I didn't listen to people who told me it was false, because I didn't believe them. I did my own research and found out that evolution really isn't all what it has been promoted as, and there were alternative views that made sense, and more sense when adding in the God factor of creation and the incredible amount of design we see ...everywhere. To me that is the most logical and intellectual reason for our existance. But that is me, and I ain't no dimwit, and it ain't no blind faith.

To each his own I guess. Let him who has an ear hear.
I have done a LOT of research. I was brought up believing creationist stuff. I didnt want to not believe it for a while, but to be the evidence is just overwhelming against it. There is a very good reason that the mainstream science crowd doesnt believe it, and if there was so much proof on your side there should be some evidence on secular websites. And every creationist site I have seen has royally butchered facts beyond recognition. It undermines the credibility of anything they say. Even you yourself admit C-14 dating is accurate...so why wouldnt other forms of dating be? They have been verified the same way. And of course C-14 gives weird dates for really old objects...why wouldnt it? It is not meant to be used for anything older than 10,000 years or so.

Anyhow, to each his own. I think Ive about said all I can ever say in this thread. In the grand scheme of things it really does not matter much who is right. The world has far bigger issues that how old the Earth is :lol:.

Dolphan7
04-06-2009, 08:40 PM
I have done a LOT of research. I was brought up believing creationist stuff. I didnt want to not believe it for a while, but to be the evidence is just overwhelming against it. There is a very good reason that the mainstream science crowd doesnt believe it, and if there was so much proof on your side there should be some evidence on secular websites. And every creationist site I have seen has royally butchered facts beyond recognition. It undermines the credibility of anything they say. Even you yourself admit C-14 dating is accurate...so why wouldnt other forms of dating be? They have been verified the same way. And of course C-14 gives weird dates for really old objects...why wouldnt it? It is not meant to be used for anything older than 10,000 years or so.

Anyhow, to each his own. I think Ive about said all I can ever say in this thread. In the grand scheme of things it really does not matter much who is right. The world has far bigger issues that how old the Earth is :lol:.I didn't say c14 is accurate. It is the most accurate of all the techniques, but is only good for a few thousand years, not millions and billions. So....if it is accepted in secular scientific circles to be valid within a few thousand years, then dating organic material thought to be millions of years old shouldn't even give a valid result using c14, but it does...and that is the point. It shouldn't but it does. So either the technique is flawed, or......dinosaurs really aren't 70 million years old.

Debating the age of the earth may seem harmless and yes there are more life saving things to worry about these days like energy, food, finances, job security etc.....but......those who promote the old earth ideology also promote that we all came from nothing and that there is no intelligent designer, no supreme being that made everything, no God. Now that is a point of concern for me because it has eternal implications. If it was just the age of the earth we probably wouldn't be having this discussion. It is a lot more than just the age of the earth. For me it is anyway.:up:

tylerdolphin
04-07-2009, 12:23 AM
I see what youre saying, but I never could understand why total Biblical literalism is so important to so many believers. Is it OK to ignore the OT references to a flat Earth and slavery and such, but not OK to see Genesis as metaphorical?

Dolphan7
04-07-2009, 01:53 AM
I see what youre saying, but I never could understand why total Biblical literalism is so important to so many believers. Is it OK to ignore the OT references to a flat Earth and slavery and such, but not OK to see Genesis as metaphorical?I don't consider it biblical literalism, but biblical contextualism. I think I just made up a word.... I don't know. We understand the bible in context. We try to understand the original authors intent, what God was telling the writer to write, what God was telling His people, what the cultural and societal significance was and the difference between then and now. Using sound biblical exegesis and what is called hermaneutics, we understand the context of the scripture. Sometimes it is literal, sometimes it is metaphorical. Jesus used parables. We understand that. He wasn't referring to real people in his parables (unless mentioned by name as in Lazarus), but there was an earthly story with a heavenly meaning.

So it isn't about taking everything in the bible literally because that would make no sense. We take the bible as the truthful and inerrant word of God - in context.

As far as the literal Genesis and the 6 day creation week, there really is no reason to take this as nothing other than what is written - which is 6 24 hour days. I see nothing that says I shouldn't believe that. In fact I question the motivation behind anyone who would suggest it is anything other than 24 hour days as this debate only began a couple centuries ago and is fueled by the Darwinian Marco Evolution crowd who desperately need the earth to be billions of years old - How else can they even put forth a valid explanation without lots of time to evolve?

Flat earth may have been interpreted from the bible, but it isn't what God meant. It has been a while since I did research on it, but I do remember a verse that refers to the earth as a sphere, or a circle. If God created the earth round, he wouldn't have told us it was flat. Makes no sense. So if people were getting it from the bible, it was a misinterpretation.

Slavery isn't ignored either, I would put forth to you that God would not approve of the abuse of slavery that we witnessed in our early history as a country. Slavery in biblical times was a cultural normality, many times involving volunteering oneself as a bondservant in order to pay off debt. We see the Jews slaves in Egypt, of which that was an abuse....and we see that God took care of His people and got them out of there. Obviously the world has come a long way since then and slavery is a thing of the past. I don't think God would ever say that slavery is good, but He understands it is going to happen. Thanks to our constitution we can say that we have raised the standard of human rights across the world and I think God would applaud us for that - however with that freedom comes the freedom to sin in an open and blatant way....which I think God would not approve of. The way it's going God probably is cursing our constitution right about now. I feel sorry for the nation that turns it's back on God.

PhinPhan1227
04-07-2009, 02:53 AM
I don't consider it biblical literalism, but biblical contextualism. I think I just made up a word.... I don't know. We understand the bible in context. We try to understand the original authors intent, what God was telling the writer to write, what God was telling His people, what the cultural and societal significance was and the difference between then and now. Using sound biblical exegesis and what is called hermaneutics, we understand the context of the scripture. Sometimes it is literal, sometimes it is metaphorical. Jesus used parables. We understand that. He wasn't referring to real people in his parables (unless mentioned by name as in Lazarus), but there was an earthly story with a heavenly meaning.

.


I would argue that you BELIEVE you understand the context. But you are working on theories just as much as any paleontologist. Because when push comes to shove, nobody alive today grew up speaking the language of the early Jews. There is only the context we THINK we know. It is an act of faith, which is as it should be. But it's a bit silly to attack people for the assumptions they make in the science of evolution and then ignore the assumptions made in the science of linguistics.

Dolphan7
04-07-2009, 03:13 AM
I would argue that you BELIEVE you understand the context. But you are working on theories just as much as any paleontologist. Because when push comes to shove, nobody alive today grew up speaking the language of the early Jews. There is only the context we THINK we know. It is an act of faith, which is as it should be. But it's a bit silly to attack people for the assumptions they make in the science of evolution and then ignore the assumptions made in the science of linguistics.You can go on believing that if you want, but there are thousands of better qualified scholars who disagree. I'm with them. You have been around here long enough to have seen many posts showing the authenticity and accuracy of the scriptures.


When one continually and consistently attempts to negate these two qualities of the bible, it appears that it isn't anything more than pure and simple rebellion...and probably a little pride too.

I mean think about it....if your wrong, and you realize it....you would have to ...I don't know....change your life...your views......your values.....You might actually have to be a Christian......Oh shudder at the thought!!!:up:

garcia420
04-07-2009, 02:10 PM
"We see the Jews slaves in Egypt, of which that was an abuse....and we see that God took care of His people and got them out of there. Obviously the world has come a long way since then and slavery is a thing of the past. "

Your so called God must of loved the Holocaust. Oh wait, that didnt happen either.

Dolphan7
04-07-2009, 02:44 PM
"We see the Jews slaves in Egypt, of which that was an abuse....and we see that God took care of His people and got them out of there. Obviously the world has come a long way since then and slavery is a thing of the past. "

Your so called God must of loved the Holocaust. Oh wait, that didnt happen either.What is your point?

PhinPhan1227
04-08-2009, 01:17 AM
You can go on believing that if you want, but there are thousands of better qualified scholars who disagree. I'm with them. You have been around here long enough to have seen many posts showing the authenticity and accuracy of the scriptures.


When one continually and consistently attempts to negate these two qualities of the bible, it appears that it isn't anything more than pure and simple rebellion...and probably a little pride too.

I mean think about it....if your wrong, and you realize it....you would have to ...I don't know....change your life...your views......your values.....You might actually have to be a Christian......Oh shudder at the thought!!!:up:


Congrats D7, you have just made the exact same argument you have railed against for so long. A bunch of guys who know a lot more than you and me say it is so, therefore it is so. By that logic, the folks you are arguing against are right, and you are wrong. The folks who say that the universe is billions of years old have the vast majority of "better qualified scholars" on their side. Heck, the Catholic Church has the best biblical scholars in the world, and they say that your personal interpretation of the Bible is wrong too. So if we're going by numbers, you lose on two counts.

As to the rest, my Christianity is between God and me. Your opinion of it is immaterial. But it's always interesting to see just how quickly you are ready to judge those around you

Dolphan7
04-08-2009, 03:04 AM
Congrats D7, you have just made the exact same argument you have railed against for so long. A bunch of guys who know a lot more than you and me say it is so, therefore it is so. By that logic, the folks you are arguing against are right, and you are wrong. The folks who say that the universe is billions of years old have the vast majority of "better qualified scholars" on their side. Heck, the Catholic Church has the best biblical scholars in the world, and they say that your personal interpretation of the Bible is wrong too. So if we're going by numbers, you lose on two counts.

As to the rest, my Christianity is between God and me. Your opinion of it is immaterial. But it's always interesting to see just how quickly you are ready to judge those around youOnly difference is the scholars have actual manuscripts and such.....science has a goose egg. But you believe what you want. You have free will.

Judging? I leave that to God my friend. I can and do make observations, but I don't condemn anyone though. I respect your opinions, or at the very least your ability and freedom to form an opinion. I just don't agree with it. That ain't judging.

Jimi
04-08-2009, 05:19 AM
Just want to throw this out there guys, considering were humans and we find out how were wrong about things all the time, of course both sides of this arguments are working off assumptions. I see science more based on believing strongly in what we think we know now, religion usually more deals with what we dont know but can logically decide makes sense without need for sciences backing. Both sides have there fundamental flaws that are there simply because were humans and were so limited. Thats why incorporating the two is such a great mix. You can learn so much about God through science as well as scripture.

But I had a question pertaining to origin. I always wondered, why did it take God 6 days (the length of that day is not important) to create Earth? Being all powerful wouldnt everything he does be instant? Maybe im thinking too much into that.

tylerdolphin
04-08-2009, 09:56 AM
Only difference is the scholars have actual manuscripts and such.....science has a goose egg.
I dont even know what to say to that. The sad part is that way too many people think that way.

Dolphan7
04-08-2009, 11:44 AM
Just want to throw this out there guys, considering were humans and we find out how were wrong about things all the time, of course both sides of this arguments are working off assumptions. I see science more based on believing strongly in what we think we know now, religion usually more deals with what we dont know but can logically decide makes sense without need for sciences backing. Both sides have there fundamental flaws that are there simply because were humans and were so limited. Thats why incorporating the two is such a great mix. You can learn so much about God through science as well as scripture.

But I had a question pertaining to origin. I always wondered, why did it take God 6 days (the length of that day is not important) to create Earth? Being all powerful wouldnt everything he does be instant? Maybe im thinking too much into that.

He could have made it all in one day for sure being an all powerful God, so my guess is, and what I have read from many sources is that he purposely took 6 days and rested on the 7th to give us an example of our standard work week. He used it as a model as in Exodus 31:12-17.


EX 31:12 The LORD spoke to Moses, saying,
EX 31:13 “But as for you, speak to the sons of Israel, saying, ‘ You shall surely observe My sabbaths; for this is a sign between Me and you throughout your generations, that you may know that I am the LORD who sanctifies you.
EX 31:14 ‘Therefore you are to observe the sabbath, for it is holy to you. Everyone who profanes it shall surely be put to death; for whoever does any work on it, that person shall be cut off from among his people.
EX 31:15 ‘ For six days work may be done, but on the seventh day there is a sabbath of complete rest, holy to the LORD; whoever does any work on the sabbath day shall surely be put to death.
EX 31:16 ‘So the sons of Israel shall observe the sabbath, to celebrate the sabbath throughout their generations as a perpetual covenant.’
EX 31:17 “ It is a sign between Me and the sons of Israel forever; for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, but on the seventh day He ceased from labor, and was refreshed.”

MrEd
04-09-2009, 08:24 PM
:rolleyes2:

I'm not going to go searching for links that don't exist. You're making this up, you don't have any resources to back it up, and this is you trying to dodge that fact. Since this is "fact", you should have no problems finding a few links that support your position. I mean, everything else that is considered fact has over 100,000 hits on google, so this should prove to be no problem for you, am I right...?

Yeah, normally educated people already know about the facts I've presented. THe fact that you didn't go research yourself shows that you are not sincere in what you are stating. THus, why I shouldn't have to waste my time.

If you were sincere, which I don't believe you are, then you would be lazy. WHich explains why you have been duped. Because the only way to get duped is to have a gullible mind that is only willing to "believe" what you want to believe...so you just "accept" whatever someone says that says something you "want" to believe.

It is very VERY easy to study the "OBJECTIVE" truth about science and its community. You just don't "WANT" to. You are acting as more of an ostrich with his head in the sand.

HOw do I know this? By the fact that you have access to books and the INTERNET and are able yourself, "again, if you were sincerely interested to see if the widely known facts of what I stated" and would find out. But thus, you haven't. Revealing to me, why I shouldn't have to waste my time providing, what you insincerely have asked for.

*What I have stated are known facts and, watch this...COMMON SENSE*

But since apparently some do lack such a thing, I'll provide you with some. To test your sincerity. If you are sincere, you will search through ALL of these:

http://www.icr.org/
http://answersingenesis.org/
http://rae.org/
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/
http://drdino.com/
http://creation.com/
http://www.answersincreation.org/
http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/
http://crossexamined.org/
http://www.creationism.org/
http://www.parentcompany.com/csrc/
http://objectiveministries.org/creation/

All of this websites not only cover all that I've covered...but they cover a whole lot of other evidences you would need. :hi5:

Locke
04-09-2009, 09:28 PM
Yeah, normally educated people already know about the facts I've presented. THe fact that you didn't go research yourself shows that you are not sincere in what you are stating. THus, why I shouldn't have to waste my time.

If you were sincere, which I don't believe you are, then you would be lazy. WHich explains why you have been duped. Because the only way to get duped is to have a gullible mind that is only willing to "believe" what you want to believe...so you just "accept" whatever someone says that says something you "want" to believe.

It is very VERY easy to study the "OBJECTIVE" truth about science and its community. You just don't "WANT" to. You are acting as more of an ostrich with his head in the sand.

HOw do I know this? By the fact that you have access to books and the INTERNET and are able yourself, "again, if you were sincerely interested to see if the widely known facts of what I stated" and would find out. But thus, you haven't. Revealing to me, why I shouldn't have to waste my time providing, what you insincerely have asked for.

*What I have stated are known facts and, watch this...COMMON SENSE*

But since apparently some do lack such a thing, I'll provide you with some. To test your sincerity. If you are sincere, you will search through ALL of these:

http://www.icr.org/
http://answersingenesis.org/
http://rae.org/
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/
http://drdino.com/
http://creation.com/
http://www.answersincreation.org/
http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/
http://crossexamined.org/
http://www.creationism.org/
http://www.parentcompany.com/csrc/
http://objectiveministries.org/creation/

All of this websites not only cover all that I've covered...but they cover a whole lot of other evidences you would need. :hi5:

:lol:

This might be the biggest case of pot calling the kettle black that I've seen in my life. I went through most of your links, and they are pretty much like everything else I've seen regarding creationism. They either blatantly skew information to fit your model, or have no real proof at all, and call opinion evidence.

As far as common sense goes, the Bible just EXUDES that, doesn't it? I mean, its COMMON SENSE that a talking snake tricked Adam and Eve into taking the forbidden apple. A talking snake. Common Sense.

Oh, how about living in the belly of a whale. A human being living inside another animal. Common sense.

Oh, my favorite one. A flood that covered the world, killing everything but two of each animal. A phantom amount of water appeared, killed everything, and then disappeared. Like magic. 2 of each animal lived on an ark without killing each other or dying. Common sense.

Don't talk to me about common sense when you were claiming that they found an actual dinosaur carcass earlier in this thread. An actual dinosaur carcass. Common sense. Do I need to go further?

Most people who come out with a condescending tone normally at least have a leg to stand on. I guess its respectable that you have enough blind faith to ignore EVERYTHING that points towards creationism being incorrect, and blindly follow your cute little story....

PhinPhan1227
04-09-2009, 11:29 PM
Yeah, normally educated people already know about the facts I've presented. THe fact that you didn't go research yourself shows that you are not sincere in what you are stating. THus, why I shouldn't have to waste my time.

If you were sincere, which I don't believe you are, then you would be lazy. WHich explains why you have been duped. Because the only way to get duped is to have a gullible mind that is only willing to "believe" what you want to believe...so you just "accept" whatever someone says that says something you "want" to believe.

It is very VERY easy to study the "OBJECTIVE" truth about science and its community. You just don't "WANT" to. You are acting as more of an ostrich with his head in the sand.

HOw do I know this? By the fact that you have access to books and the INTERNET and are able yourself, "again, if you were sincerely interested to see if the widely known facts of what I stated" and would find out. But thus, you haven't. Revealing to me, why I shouldn't have to waste my time providing, what you insincerely have asked for.

*What I have stated are known facts and, watch this...COMMON SENSE*

But since apparently some do lack such a thing, I'll provide you with some. To test your sincerity. If you are sincere, you will search through ALL of these:

http://www.icr.org/
http://answersingenesis.org/
http://rae.org/
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/
http://drdino.com/
http://creation.com/
http://www.answersincreation.org/
http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/
http://crossexamined.org/
http://www.creationism.org/
http://www.parentcompany.com/csrc/
http://objectiveministries.org/creation/

All of this websites not only cover all that I've covered...but they cover a whole lot of other evidences you would need. :hi5:

Does a degree in History count as "normally educated"? Because I have one of those, and I don 't know the "facts" you have presented. Actually, I think the idea that demons cause disease is heresy. God created all things. That includes bacteria and virus'. They are created to do what God intended them to do. All things in HEaven and Earth are according to his plan. Blaming demons is just silly.

Dolphan7
04-10-2009, 01:02 AM
:lol:

This might be the biggest case of pot calling the kettle black that I've seen in my life. I went through most of your links, and they are pretty much like everything else I've seen regarding creationism. They either blatantly skew information to fit your model, or have no real proof at all, and call opinion evidence.

As far as common sense goes, the Bible just EXUDES that, doesn't it? I mean, its COMMON SENSE that a talking snake tricked Adam and Eve into taking the forbidden apple. A talking snake. Common Sense.

Oh, how about living in the belly of a whale. A human being living inside another animal. Common sense.

Oh, my favorite one. A flood that covered the world, killing everything but two of each animal. A phantom amount of water appeared, killed everything, and then disappeared. Like magic. 2 of each animal lived on an ark without killing each other or dying. Common sense.

Don't talk to me about common sense when you were claiming that they found an actual dinosaur carcass earlier in this thread. An actual dinosaur carcass. Common sense. Do I need to go further?

Most people who come out with a condescending tone normally at least have a leg to stand on. I guess its respectable that you have enough blind faith to ignore EVERYTHING that points towards creationism being incorrect, and blindly follow your cute little story....Locke, Please. I have taken considerable time in this forum in answering many of the difficulties you propose. The links Ed provided also give solid explanations of the biblical model. Far fetched? Maybe...without God - definitely. But you ignore that God can do almost anything ( he can't lie or sin). No one is saying that once you read this info you will believe, or someone will miraculously appear at you door and seek to baptize you. What we are asking you to consider is this: Is is plausible?

Do you think that as an Atheist I believed any of this stuff? I didn't. It took me a while to learn the truth about the world I lived in. Trust me, things are not as they appear. You make it sound as if anyone who believes in God and Jesus and the bible, and creation, are somehow some sort of deranged individuals, less than human, less intelligent. That isn't true, nor fair if that is indeed how you feel. I don't know.

Look if you really take a hard look at the two opposing views on our origins you really do have to doubt one over the other, and the one that lacks the proof verses the one that shows a plausible and logical and understandable explanation, and has valid science to back it up.....is the one I would doubt.

You can believe all you want that evolution is provable. You can get a million scientists who swear by their research that it is provable. But the data and the science doesn't support that claim. Look at the data. Look at what they are telling you. Every article I read uses words like, could be, possible, maybe, supposedly, thought to have. Look at all the retractions of findings once thought to be true today, is recanted tomorrow. Dates of evolution keep being changed and pushed back or forward. If it is true today, tomorrow it won't be, so it isn't true today. I know , I know you will say well that is how science works. Well fine and dandy then, if science of our origins works like that - I would tell science - Let me know when you have it all figured out, until then stop telling me this is true today, and then change it tomorrow. But this is just me.

Let me ask just one question - Do you remember the soft tissue they found in a dinosaur bone a few years ago? Soft tissue! In bones 70 million years old! How can you explain that? Wouldn't common sense tell you that maybe that dinosaur isn't as old as they think? Plausible?

Locke
04-10-2009, 01:31 AM
Locke, Please. I have taken considerable time in this forum in answering many of the difficulties you propose. The links Ed provided also give solid explanations of the biblical model. Far fetched? Maybe...without God - definitely. But you ignore that God can do almost anything ( he can't lie or sin). No one is saying that once you read this info you will believe, or someone will miraculously appear at you door and seek to baptize you. What we are asking you to consider is this: Is is plausible?

Do you think that as an Atheist I believed any of this stuff? I didn't. It took me a while to learn the truth about the world I lived in. Trust me, things are not as they appear. You make it sound as if anyone who believes in God and Jesus and the bible, and creation, are somehow some sort of deranged individuals, less than human, less intelligent. That isn't true, nor fair if that is indeed how you feel. I don't know.

Look if you really take a hard look at the two opposing views on our origins you really do have to doubt one over the other, and the one that lacks the proof verses the one that shows a plausible and logical and understandable explanation, and has valid science to back it up.....is the one I would doubt.

You can believe all you want that evolution is provable. You can get a million scientists who swear by their research that it is provable. But the data and the science doesn't support that claim. Look at the data. Look at what they are telling you. Every article I read uses words like, could be, possible, maybe, supposedly, thought to have. Look at all the retractions of findings once thought to be true today, is recanted tomorrow. Dates of evolution keep being changed and pushed back or forward. If it is true today, tomorrow it won't be, so it isn't true today. I know , I know you will say well that is how science works. Well fine and dandy then, if science of our origins works like that - I would tell science - Let me know when you have it all figured out, until then stop telling me this is true today, and then change it tomorrow. But this is just me.

Let me ask just one question - Do you remember the soft tissue they found in a dinosaur bone a few years ago? Soft tissue! In bones 70 million years old! How can you explain that? Wouldn't common sense tell you that maybe that dinosaur isn't as old as they think? Plausible?

I've looked very carefully at both sides of the argument, which seems to be the opposite of what most people assume. My fiance is what she jokingly calls a "recovering christian". She comes from an extremely religious family, and was raised with everything we've been debating about. I've talked with her countless times about it, in detail. Not about Christianity in general. but about specific things like creationism and other things that conflict with science. I don't have the cover-to-cover knowledge that you have D7, but I have enough knowledge to know what the opposing viewpoint is.

I apologize for the attacking tone of the previous post, but my patience is non-existent when I'm talked down to, which seems to be the only way MrEd seems to know how to communicate. I'm aware of the explanations given for most of the points I raised. I just found his tone extremely condescending and rude, which is why most Christians get a bad reputation.....

Edit: I forgot one point. Your initial sentence about God making all things possible, doesn't that seem like a bit of a cop out? Anything religion can't logically explain is then attributed to God being all-powerful. Can't explain an amount of water large enough to cover the globe? Well, its God, he can make the water appear out of nowhere, then take it away again. Where are all these acts of God since then....?

syborg
04-10-2009, 09:54 AM
I don't consider it biblical literalism, but biblical contextualism. I think I just made up a word.... I don't know. We understand the bible in context. We try to understand the original authors intent, what God was telling the writer to write, what God was telling His people, what the cultural and societal significance was and the difference between then and now. Using sound biblical exegesis and what is called hermaneutics, we understand the context of the scripture. Sometimes it is literal, sometimes it is metaphorical. Jesus used parables. We understand that. He wasn't referring to real people in his parables (unless mentioned by name as in Lazarus), but there was an earthly story with a heavenly meaning.

So it isn't about taking everything in the bible literally because that would make no sense. We take the bible as the truthful and inerrant word of God - in context.

As far as the literal Genesis and the 6 day creation week, there really is no reason to take this as nothing other than what is written - which is 6 24 hour days. I see nothing that says I shouldn't believe that. In fact I question the motivation behind anyone who would suggest it is anything other than 24 hour days as this debate only began a couple centuries ago and is fueled by the Darwinian Marco Evolution crowd who desperately need the earth to be billions of years old - How else can they even put forth a valid explanation without lots of time to evolve?

Flat earth may have been interpreted from the bible, but it isn't what God meant. It has been a while since I did research on it, but I do remember a verse that refers to the earth as a sphere, or a circle. If God created the earth round, he wouldn't have told us it was flat. Makes no sense. So if people were getting it from the bible, it was a misinterpretation.

Slavery isn't ignored either, I would put forth to you that God would not approve of the abuse of slavery that we witnessed in our early history as a country. Slavery in biblical times was a cultural normality, many times involving volunteering oneself as a bondservant in order to pay off debt. We see the Jews slaves in Egypt, of which that was an abuse....and we see that God took care of His people and got them out of there. Obviously the world has come a long way since then and slavery is a thing of the past. I don't think God would ever say that slavery is good, but He understands it is going to happen. Thanks to our constitution we can say that we have raised the standard of human rights across the world and I think God would applaud us for that - however with that freedom comes the freedom to sin in an open and blatant way....which I think God would not approve of. The way it's going God probably is cursing our constitution right about now. I feel sorry for the nation that turns it's back on God.


Scientific biblical teachings:

1. Only in recent years has science discovered that everything we see is composed of invisible atoms. Here, Scripture tells us that the "things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."



2. Medical science has only recently discovered that blood-clotting in a newborn reaches its peak on the eighth day, then drops. The Bible consistently says that a baby must be circumcised on the eighth day.



3. At a time when it was believed that the earth sat on a large animal or a giant (1500 B.C.), the Bible spoke of the earth’s free float in space: "He...hangs the earth upon nothing" (Job 26:7).


4. The prophet Isaiah also tells us that the earth is round: "It is he that sits upon the circle of the earth" (Isaiah 40:22). This is not a reference to a flat disk, as some skeptic maintain, but to a sphere. Secular man discovered this 2,400 years later. At a time when science believed that the earth was flat, is was the Scriptures that inspired Christopher Columbus to sail around the world.



5. God told Job in 1500 B.C.: "Can you send lightnings, that they may go, and say to you, Here we are?" (Job 38:35). The Bible here is making what appears to be a scientifically ludicrous statement—that light can be sent, and then manifest itself in speech. But did you know that radio waves travel at the speed of light? This is why you can have instantaneous wireless communication with someone on the other side of the earth. Science didn’t discover this until 1864 when "British scientist James Clerk Maxwell suggested that electricity and light waves were two forms of the same thing" (Modern Century Illustrated Encyclopedia).


6. Job 38:19 asks, "Where is the way where light dwells?" Modern man has only recently discovered that light (electromagnetic radiation) has a "way," traveling at 186,000 miles per second.


7. Science has discovered that stars emit radio waves, which are received on earth as a high pitch. God mentioned this in Job 38:7: "When the morning stars sang together..."



8. "Most cosmologists (scientists who study the structures and evolution of the universe) agree that the Genesis account of creation, in imagining an initial void, may be uncannily close to the truth" (Time, Dec. 1976).



9. Solomon described a "cycle" of air currents two thousand years before scientists "discovered" them. "The wind goes toward the south, and turns about unto the north; it whirls about continually, and the wind returns again according to his circuits" (Ecclesiastes 1:6).



10. Science expresses the universe in five terms: time, space, matter, power, and motion. Genesis 1:1,2 revealed such truths to the Hebrews in 1450 B.C.: "In the beginning [time] God created [power] the heaven [space] and the earth [matter] . . . And the Spirit of God moved [motion] upon the face of the waters." The first thing God tells man is that He controls of all aspects of the universe.



11. The great biological truth concerning the importance of blood in our body’s mechanism has been fully comprehended only in recent years. Up until 120 years ago, sick people were "bled," and many died because of the practice. If you lose your blood, you lose your life. Yet Leviticus 17:11, written 3,000 years ago, declared that blood is the source of life: "For the life of the flesh is in the blood."



12. All things were made by Him (see John 1:3), including dinosaurs. Why then did the dinosaur disappear? The answer may be in Job 40:15–24. In this passage, God speaks about a great creature called "behemoth." Some commentators think this was a hippopotamus. However, the hippo’s tail isn’t like a large tree, but a small twig. Following are the characteristics of this huge animal: It was the largest of all the creatures God made; was plant-eating (herbivorous); had its strength in its hips and a tail like a large tree. It had very strong bones, lived among the trees, drank massive amounts of water, and was not disturbed by a raging river. He appears impervious to attack because his nose could pierce through snares, but Scripture says, "He that made him can make his sword to approach unto him." In other words, God caused this, the largest of all the creatures He had made, to become extinct.



13. Encyclopedia Britannica documents that in 1845, a young doctor in Vienna named Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis was horrified at the terrible death rate of women who gave birth in hospitals. As many as 30 percent died after giving birth. Semmelweis noted that doctors would examine the bodies of patients who died, then, without washing their hands, go straight to the next ward and examine expectant mothers. This was their normal practice, because the presence of microscopic diseases was unknown. Semmelweis insisted that doctors wash their hands before examinations, and the death rate immediately dropped to 2 percent. Look at the specific instructions God gave His people for when they encounter disease: "And when he that has an issue is cleansed of his issue; then he shall number to himself even days for his cleansing, and wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in running water, and shall be clean" (Leviticus 15:13). Until recent years, doctors washed their hands in a bowl of water, leaving invisible germs on their hands. However, the Bible says specifically to wash hands under "running water."



14. Luke 17:34–36 says the Second Coming of Jesus Christ will occur while some are asleep at night and others are working at daytime activities in the field. This is a clear indication of a revolving earth, with day and night at the same time.


15. "During the devastating Black Death of the fourteenth century, patients who were sick or dead were kept in the same rooms as the rest of the family. People often wondered why the disease was affecting so many people at one time. They attributed these epidemics to ‘bad air’ or ‘evil spirits.’ However, careful attention to the medical commands of God as revealed in Leviticus would have saved untold millions of lives. Arturo Castiglione wrote about the overwhelming importance of this biblical medical law: ‘The laws against leprosyin Leviticus 13 may be regarded as the first model of sanitary legislation’ (A History of Medicine)." Grant R. Jeffery, The Signature of God With all these truths revealed in Scripture,how could a thinking person deny that the Bible is supernatural in origin? There is no other book in any of the world’s religions (Vedas, Bhagavad-Gita, Koran, Book of Mormon, etc.) that contains scientific truth. In fact, they contain statements that are clearly unscientific. Hank Hanegraaff said, "Faith in Christ is not some blind leap into a dark chasm, but a faith based on established evidence."

Dolphan7
04-10-2009, 11:19 AM
I've looked very carefully at both sides of the argument, which seems to be the opposite of what most people assume. My fiance is what she jokingly calls a "recovering christian". She comes from an extremely religious family, and was raised with everything we've been debating about. I've talked with her countless times about it, in detail. Not about Christianity in general. but about specific things like creationism and other things that conflict with science. I don't have the cover-to-cover knowledge that you have D7, but I have enough knowledge to know what the opposing viewpoint is.

I apologize for the attacking tone of the previous post, but my patience is non-existent when I'm talked down to, which seems to be the only way MrEd seems to know how to communicate. I'm aware of the explanations given for most of the points I raised. I just found his tone extremely condescending and rude, which is why most Christians get a bad reputation.....

Edit: I forgot one point. Your initial sentence about God making all things possible, doesn't that seem like a bit of a cop out? Anything religion can't logically explain is then attributed to God being all-powerful. Can't explain an amount of water large enough to cover the globe? Well, its God, he can make the water appear out of nowhere, then take it away again. Where are all these acts of God since then....?I can't speak for no one but myself, but I try not to talk down to anyone. And I hope I don't come off that way. I do know that others do , and it comes from all sides unfortunately. I know what you are referring to.

I get really bummed out when I hear the term "recovering christian". I really do. Then I remember Jesus parable of the 4 soils, and then I understand that people will believe and understand, and then fall away.


MT 13:18 “ Hear then the parable of the sower.
MT 13:19 “When anyone hears the word of the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what has been sown in his heart. This is the one on whom seed was sown beside the road.
MT 13:20 “The one on whom seed was sown on the rocky places, this is the man who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy;
MT 13:21 yet he has no firm root in himself, but is only temporary, and when affliction or persecution arises because of the word, immediately he falls away.
MT 13:22 “And the one on whom seed was sown among the thorns, this is the man who hears the word, and the worry of the world and the deceitfulness of wealth choke the word, and it becomes unfruitful.
MT 13:23 “And the one on whom seed was sown on the good soil, this is the man who hears the word and understands it; who indeed bears fruit and brings forth, some a hundredfold, some sixty, and some thirty.”When I hear that someone used to be a christian, it just raises more questions. What made them not believe? Did they ever really believe to begin with? Whatever the reason - it is of eternal significance.

Is God a cop out? No, it is an explanation. God gives us the answers to our origins and our beginnings. We are left to discover the "how". Looking for those "how" answers can't stop at the natural level that secular humanism sets as the ceiling, but also the super natural. Attempting to apply natural law to a God that sits outside the very laws he created makes no sense logically. It is futile for one to apply natural laws and explanations to supernatural events. It is impossible to do that, so why try? Why deny God because of that impossibility? That makes no sense either.

The water for the flood is easily explained. You need to stop looking at the earth as it is today, and apply what the bible says happened. From that we can easily create the scenario that was the great flood of Noah. The earth was a very different place back then, and modern science speculates the exact same thing. If you are really stumbling with where did all that water come from I can present the explanation.

Where has God been since Jesus? Exactly where he has always been. Since Jesus is the final link to complete restoration of man with God, there is no need for God to present himself on the world stage until the time that only He knows about. We will hear from God again, someday. When... no one knows. God has his own time table. But God does work in and within peoples lives on a one to one relationship. He also gives us the Holy Spirit to reside within us when we choose to get right with him through belief, repentance, confession and baptism. There is more work to be done. God gave us the gift of salvation, for those who choose to believe, but there is a world currently in the power of the evil one, Satan. He is the ruler of this world, and that won't last long. God has some unfinished business to attend to. One day Satan will be bound, all those who reject God will be judged and punished, and a new world will be created with Jesus as Lord. That's the general plan. That could happen tomorrow, it could be another 1000 years. I am ready now.

What do you think of the soft tissue in 70 million year old dino bones?

PhinPhan1227
04-10-2009, 12:17 PM
Scientific biblical teachings:

1. Only in recent years has science discovered that everything we see is composed of invisible atoms. Here, Scripture tells us that the "things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."



2. Medical science has only recently discovered that blood-clotting in a newborn reaches its peak on the eighth day, then drops. The Bible consistently says that a baby must be circumcised on the eighth day.



3. At a time when it was believed that the earth sat on a large animal or a giant (1500 B.C.), the Bible spoke of the earth’s free float in space: "He...hangs the earth upon nothing" (Job 26:7).


4. The prophet Isaiah also tells us that the earth is round: "It is he that sits upon the circle of the earth" (Isaiah 40:22). This is not a reference to a flat disk, as some skeptic maintain, but to a sphere. Secular man discovered this 2,400 years later. At a time when science believed that the earth was flat, is was the Scriptures that inspired Christopher Columbus to sail around the world.



5. God told Job in 1500 B.C.: "Can you send lightnings, that they may go, and say to you, Here we are?" (Job 38:35). The Bible here is making what appears to be a scientifically ludicrous statement—that light can be sent, and then manifest itself in speech. But did you know that radio waves travel at the speed of light? This is why you can have instantaneous wireless communication with someone on the other side of the earth. Science didn’t discover this until 1864 when "British scientist James Clerk Maxwell suggested that electricity and light waves were two forms of the same thing" (Modern Century Illustrated Encyclopedia).


6. Job 38:19 asks, "Where is the way where light dwells?" Modern man has only recently discovered that light (electromagnetic radiation) has a "way," traveling at 186,000 miles per second.


7. Science has discovered that stars emit radio waves, which are received on earth as a high pitch. God mentioned this in Job 38:7: "When the morning stars sang together..."



8. "Most cosmologists (scientists who study the structures and evolution of the universe) agree that the Genesis account of creation, in imagining an initial void, may be uncannily close to the truth" (Time, Dec. 1976).



9. Solomon described a "cycle" of air currents two thousand years before scientists "discovered" them. "The wind goes toward the south, and turns about unto the north; it whirls about continually, and the wind returns again according to his circuits" (Ecclesiastes 1:6).



10. Science expresses the universe in five terms: time, space, matter, power, and motion. Genesis 1:1,2 revealed such truths to the Hebrews in 1450 B.C.: "In the beginning [time] God created [power] the heaven [space] and the earth [matter] . . . And the Spirit of God moved [motion] upon the face of the waters." The first thing God tells man is that He controls of all aspects of the universe.



11. The great biological truth concerning the importance of blood in our body’s mechanism has been fully comprehended only in recent years. Up until 120 years ago, sick people were "bled," and many died because of the practice. If you lose your blood, you lose your life. Yet Leviticus 17:11, written 3,000 years ago, declared that blood is the source of life: "For the life of the flesh is in the blood."



12. All things were made by Him (see John 1:3), including dinosaurs. Why then did the dinosaur disappear? The answer may be in Job 40:15–24. In this passage, God speaks about a great creature called "behemoth." Some commentators think this was a hippopotamus. However, the hippo’s tail isn’t like a large tree, but a small twig. Following are the characteristics of this huge animal: It was the largest of all the creatures God made; was plant-eating (herbivorous); had its strength in its hips and a tail like a large tree. It had very strong bones, lived among the trees, drank massive amounts of water, and was not disturbed by a raging river. He appears impervious to attack because his nose could pierce through snares, but Scripture says, "He that made him can make his sword to approach unto him." In other words, God caused this, the largest of all the creatures He had made, to become extinct.



13. Encyclopedia Britannica documents that in 1845, a young doctor in Vienna named Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis was horrified at the terrible death rate of women who gave birth in hospitals. As many as 30 percent died after giving birth. Semmelweis noted that doctors would examine the bodies of patients who died, then, without washing their hands, go straight to the next ward and examine expectant mothers. This was their normal practice, because the presence of microscopic diseases was unknown. Semmelweis insisted that doctors wash their hands before examinations, and the death rate immediately dropped to 2 percent. Look at the specific instructions God gave His people for when they encounter disease: "And when he that has an issue is cleansed of his issue; then he shall number to himself even days for his cleansing, and wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in running water, and shall be clean" (Leviticus 15:13). Until recent years, doctors washed their hands in a bowl of water, leaving invisible germs on their hands. However, the Bible says specifically to wash hands under "running water."



14. Luke 17:34–36 says the Second Coming of Jesus Christ will occur while some are asleep at night and others are working at daytime activities in the field. This is a clear indication of a revolving earth, with day and night at the same time.


15. "During the devastating Black Death of the fourteenth century, patients who were sick or dead were kept in the same rooms as the rest of the family. People often wondered why the disease was affecting so many people at one time. They attributed these epidemics to ‘bad air’ or ‘evil spirits.’ However, careful attention to the medical commands of God as revealed in Leviticus would have saved untold millions of lives. Arturo Castiglione wrote about the overwhelming importance of this biblical medical law: ‘The laws against leprosyin Leviticus 13 may be regarded as the first model of sanitary legislation’ (A History of Medicine)." Grant R. Jeffery, The Signature of God With all these truths revealed in Scripture,how could a thinking person deny that the Bible is supernatural in origin? There is no other book in any of the world’s religions (Vedas, Bhagavad-Gita, Koran, Book of Mormon, etc.) that contains scientific truth. In fact, they contain statements that are clearly unscientific. Hank Hanegraaff said, "Faith in Christ is not some blind leap into a dark chasm, but a faith based on established evidence."


1. MMQBing is great when reading things like scripture and prophecy. "Oh THAT is what it meant".

2. Medical science knew about blood clotting in 8 days. Mohels who had been perfoming ircumsicions for hundreds of years already knew that babies bleed a lot more in the first week. The Bible set it into law, that doesn't mean it wasn't something the pro's already knew about.

3. It was believed in certain religions that the earth was sitting on a giant or animal. Other religions had different views.

4. The Greeks and Egyptians knew the Earth was round about the same time the Old Testament was put on a scroll. That's well established. And FYI, the Spanish knew the Earth was round when Columbus set sail. But they knew that if there was nothing between Europe and Asia heading west but a big stretch of water Columbus would run out of food and water well before hitting China. Basically, Columbus was an idiot who ignored the math and got lucky.

5. God also talked to Moses from a flaming bush. Care to link fire to fiber optics? Again MMQBing to find a link where none exists.

6. Ibid

7. Ibid

8. "Before there was anything there was nothing." Yes, that is a shocking revelation.

9. See #2. Just because science didn't codify a thing doesn't mean that sailors and farmers didin't already know it. Do a Google search some time on the Farmers Almanac. There was stuff in there for decades if not centuries which science didn't "discover" until way later.

10. HORRIBLE MMQBing. You should slap yourself for that one.

11. Again, smack yourself in the head for that one. People have known that blood was vital since the first human could conceptualize why Grunk wasn't moving after that leopard tore his thoat out. In fact, that is why "bleeding" was done. People knew that blood carried all the vital requirements as WELL as the bad chemicals. We have in fact re-adopted bleeding for some illnesses.

12. Dinosaurs were the largest creatures made by God? Really? The biggest dinosaur ever to walk the earth was just a bit heavier than a Blue Whales TONGUE. The largest creature ever made by God either still exists in the Blue Whale, or there was once an even bigger whale. But under NO circumstances were dino's the biggewst critters God ever made.

13. Again, see #2. It is well documented that Egyptian doctors could perform proceedures which modern medicine only now can repeat. And even then, Jewish doctors were considered better. Just because modern western science didn't know a thing doesn't mean that through practice and observation experts in the time before Christ didn't already know it.

14. Again, DUH. When the OT was written men had travelled quite a ways around the earth and had observed the movements of the planets.

15. This may be the best one of them all. You are touting the bible for it's laws concerning the isolation of lepers. The fact is that 95% of all people are immune from leprosy and those who contract it may only transmit it for a few days afterwards. So there is NO reason to isolate lepers into their own communities. The bible got it WRONG about lepers, and is probably responsible for thousands of people being isolated and expelled over the centuries. Damn, I'm so glad you included that one, it wraps things up so nicely.

Locke
04-10-2009, 05:09 PM
I can't speak for no one but myself, but I try not to talk down to anyone. And I hope I don't come off that way. I do know that others do , and it comes from all sides unfortunately. I know what you are referring to.

I get really bummed out when I hear the term "recovering christian". I really do. Then I remember Jesus parable of the 4 soils, and then I understand that people will believe and understand, and then fall away.

When I hear that someone used to be a christian, it just raises more questions. What made them not believe? Did they ever really believe to begin with? Whatever the reason - it is of eternal significance.

Is God a cop out? No, it is an explanation. God gives us the answers to our origins and our beginnings. We are left to discover the "how". Looking for those "how" answers can't stop at the natural level that secular humanism sets as the ceiling, but also the super natural. Attempting to apply natural law to a God that sits outside the very laws he created makes no sense logically. It is futile for one to apply natural laws and explanations to supernatural events. It is impossible to do that, so why try? Why deny God because of that impossibility? That makes no sense either.

The water for the flood is easily explained. You need to stop looking at the earth as it is today, and apply what the bible says happened. From that we can easily create the scenario that was the great flood of Noah. The earth was a very different place back then, and modern science speculates the exact same thing. If you are really stumbling with where did all that water come from I can present the explanation.

Where has God been since Jesus? Exactly where he has always been. Since Jesus is the final link to complete restoration of man with God, there is no need for God to present himself on the world stage until the time that only He knows about. We will hear from God again, someday. When... no one knows. God has his own time table. But God does work in and within peoples lives on a one to one relationship. He also gives us the Holy Spirit to reside within us when we choose to get right with him through belief, repentance, confession and baptism. There is more work to be done. God gave us the gift of salvation, for those who choose to believe, but there is a world currently in the power of the evil one, Satan. He is the ruler of this world, and that won't last long. God has some unfinished business to attend to. One day Satan will be bound, all those who reject God will be judged and punished, and a new world will be created with Jesus as Lord. That's the general plan. That could happen tomorrow, it could be another 1000 years. I am ready now.

What do you think of the soft tissue in 70 million year old dino bones?

She said there's quite a few factors that contributed to her leaving Christianity, not just one. She said it started while she was in High School, and watching members of her church being extremely judgmental towards non-Christians. She was not allowed to spend time with her best friend because her parents were Atheist. I guess that was the first red flag. She also said her church seemed way too motivated by money, and less interested in the actual reason they were there than a church should be. The final straw came when she started college. First, she joined a Christian organization on campus, and found the other members to be much like her church members; judgmental and condescending towards non-Christians. This was a pretty stark contrast to other students she knew around campus apparently. Her freshman roommate was agnostic, and was apparently one of the nicest people she had met. She started hanging around her and other non-Christians and apparently liked the more relaxed atmosphere. She finally made her decision after a few semesters of classes, which highlighted directed contradictions between what the bible taught and what science says. Apparently she found the evidence from the science side to be much more compelling.

Long-winded, I know, but that's what happened. She is the best person I've ever met, in any way you can look at it. I don't know how she was as a practicing Christian, but as an agnostic, she is amazing. I have no doubt some of her Christian values while being raised played into that. On a personal note, I'm fully aware that a large number of Christians are not like the ones she experienced. Its a shame that she had bad encounters with other Christians, bad enough to rob her of her faith. I'm not too sorry though, I don't think we'd be engaged if she was still a Christian. Her dad is a nice enough guy, far less judgmental than I was led to believe. I found him quite pleasant actually. He isn't aware of my tattoos or piercings though, so that could change once he finds out.

As for the dinosaur flesh, I have no idea. That's the beauty of science in my opinion; it doesn't have all the answers, and is fully aware of that. I'm sure they'll find a reasonable explanation for it, but for now, I honestly don't know....

Dolphan7
04-10-2009, 07:00 PM
She said there's quite a few factors that contributed to her leaving Christianity, not just one. She said it started while she was in High School, and watching members of her church being extremely judgmental towards non-Christians. She was not allowed to spend time with her best friend because her parents were Atheist. I guess that was the first red flag. She also said her church seemed way too motivated by money, and less interested in the actual reason they were there than a church should be. The final straw came when she started college. First, she joined a Christian organization on campus, and found the other members to be much like her church members; judgmental and condescending towards non-Christians. This was a pretty stark contrast to other students she knew around campus apparently. Her freshman roommate was agnostic, and was apparently one of the nicest people she had met. She started hanging around her and other non-Christians and apparently liked the more relaxed atmosphere. She finally made her decision after a few semesters of classes, which highlighted directed contradictions between what the bible taught and what science says. Apparently she found the evidence from the science side to be much more compelling.

Long-winded, I know, but that's what happened. She is the best person I've ever met, in any way you can look at it. I don't know how she was as a practicing Christian, but as an agnostic, she is amazing. I have no doubt some of her Christian values while being raised played into that. On a personal note, I'm fully aware that a large number of Christians are not like the ones she experienced. Its a shame that she had bad encounters with other Christians, bad enough to rob her of her faith. I'm not too sorry though, I don't think we'd be engaged if she was still a Christian. Her dad is a nice enough guy, far less judgmental than I was led to believe. I found him quite pleasant actually. He isn't aware of my tattoos or piercings though, so that could change once he finds out.

As for the dinosaur flesh, I have no idea. That's the beauty of science in my opinion; it doesn't have all the answers, and is fully aware of that. I'm sure they'll find a reasonable explanation for it, but for now, I honestly don't know....That is a sad story to hear. I know that some christians are like that, but that isn't how it is supposed to be. But...that doesn't take away the reality of God. God doesn't exist and then not exist based on the actions of flawed human subjects. God exists no matter how his followers behave, or misbehave. Please ask her to not throw away her salvation, but instead go find those christians who really do get it, and hang out with them. No one should have to give up their friends simply because they don't believe. How else would people become saved unless someone along the way took the time to have a positive effect on their life?

We just had this discussion in my small group that I lead. Judging people with condemnation is wrong. That is what Jesus warned us about. God does the judging. We are not to shun those who don't believe, or the ones who do believe that stumble every now and then. That is not a natural concept for us as humans to grasp. We have to work at it. Sometimes we fail. Now this doesn't mean that we go hang out in bars and with unscrupulous people and contribute to continual sinning and bad behavior. God says not to let those influences effect you. One way is to not put yourself in those situations where you may be tempted in a weak moment. God wants to to hang with those of like mind to sharpen one another and grow stronger in our faith, especially young believers who need milk before they can digest meat. But that doesn't mean that you can't talk to people, smile at them, wish them a great day, work along side them, allow your kids to play on the same soccer team, etc....Maybe through that connection with them your light will shine on them, or your salt will make their life better. We have neighbors who don't believe, yet we talk to them, we borrow things from each other, we invite them to our weddings and anniversaries and birthday parties etc.....

You think science is beautiful because it doesn't have all the answers, I think God is beautiful because he DOES!

The soft tissue in a 70 million year old dinosaur does raise some eyebrows does it not? Could one possible explanation be that maybe that bone isn't that old? Possible? That is all I am asking is if it is possible.

Locke
04-10-2009, 07:11 PM
That is a sad story to hear. I know that some christians are like that, but that isn't how it is supposed to be. But...that doesn't take away the reality of God. God doesn't exist and then not exist based on the actions of flawed human subjects. God exists no matter how his followers behave, or misbehave. Please ask her to not throw away her salvation, but instead go find those christians who really do get it, and hang out with them. No one should have to give up their friends simply because they don't believe. How else would people become saved unless someone along the way took the time to have a positive effect on their life?

We just had this discussion in my small group that I lead. Judging people with condemnation is wrong. That is what Jesus warned us about. God does the judging. We are not to shun those who don't believe, or the ones who do believe that stumble every now and then. That is not a natural concept for us as humans to grasp. We have to work at it. Sometimes we fail. Now this doesn't mean that we go hang out in bars and with unscrupulous people and contribute to continual sinning and bad behavior. God says not to let those influences effect you. One way is to not put yourself in those situations where you may be tempted in a weak moment. God wants to to hang with those of like mind to sharpen one another and grow stronger in our faith, especially young believers who need milk before they can digest meat. But that doesn't mean that you can't talk to people, smile at them, wish them a great day, work along side them, allow your kids to play on the same soccer team, etc....Maybe through that connection with them your light will shine on them, or your salt will make their life better. We have neighbors who don't believe, yet we talk to them, we borrow things from each other, we invite them to our weddings and anniversaries and birthday parties etc.....

You think science is beautiful because it doesn't have all the answers, I think God is beautiful because he DOES!

The soft tissue in a 70 million year old dinosaur does raise some eyebrows does it not? Could one possible explanation be that maybe that bone isn't that old? Possible? That is all I am asking is if it is possible.

She is still a very spiritual person. She believes in a higher power still, whether that be God or something else. Maybe she'll find her way back to Christianity as she gets older, who knows. I certainly would never stand in the way of that if its what she chooses to do. She told me she might register here to talk to you about herself D7. So that ought to be an interesting exchange.

As for the dinosaur soft tissue, the one thing that stands out to me is that all flesh decays within a few years. I'd say a reasonable estimate is that in a normal environment, within 50 years a dead animal would be nothing but bones. Definitely less than that I'm sure, I'm no biologist. So if whatever happened to this particular dinosaur to preserve the soft tissue was able to preserve it for 6,000 years, why wouldn't it do the same over 70 million years? I don't know nearly enough about this process to give more information than that, but maybe someone else does....

Dolphan7
04-10-2009, 07:44 PM
She is still a very spiritual person. She believes in a higher power still, whether that be God or something else. Maybe she'll find her way back to Christianity as she gets older, who knows. I certainly would never stand in the way of that if its what she chooses to do. She told me she might register here to talk to you about herself D7. So that ought to be an interesting exchange.

As for the dinosaur soft tissue, the one thing that stands out to me is that all flesh decays within a few years. I'd say a reasonable estimate is that in a normal environment, within 50 years a dead animal would be nothing but bones. Definitely less than that I'm sure, I'm no biologist. So if whatever happened to this particular dinosaur to preserve the soft tissue was able to preserve it for 6,000 years, why wouldn't it do the same over 70 million years? I don't know nearly enough about this process to give more information than that, but maybe someone else does....Is she a Miami Dolphins Fan? :d-day: I would be happy to discuss things with her. Give her a cool username!!

I see your point on the soft tissue, but 70 million years? That is an awfully long time. 70 million years. Keep saying that over and over. It takes a great deal more faith to believe that than it does to believe it is only a few thousand years old.

Cassiopeia
04-11-2009, 02:53 PM
Is she a Miami Dolphins Fan? :d-day: I would be happy to discuss things with her. Give her a cool username!!

I see your point on the soft tissue, but 70 million years? That is an awfully long time. 70 million years. Keep saying that over and over. It takes a great deal more faith to believe that than it does to believe it is only a few thousand years old.

no i'm not a sports fan. :) i did enjoy watching the games with nick and his friends though. not so much for the game, but any excuse for a beer at noon is a good one!

Dolphan7
04-11-2009, 04:02 PM
no i'm not a sports fan. :) i did enjoy watching the games with nick and his friends though. not so much for the game, but any excuse for a beer at noon is a good one!
Love it when a woman looks at the practical aspects of having a sports junkie husband!:lol:

Locke
04-11-2009, 06:58 PM
Love it when a woman looks at the practical aspects of having a sports junkie husband!:lol:

Haha, don't be fooled. She always roots for the other team just to bust my chops....

Cassiopeia
04-11-2009, 07:55 PM
That is a sad story to hear. I know that some christians are like that, but that isn't how it is supposed to be. But...that doesn't take away the reality of God. God doesn't exist and then not exist based on the actions of flawed human subjects. God exists no matter how his followers behave, or misbehave. Please ask her to not throw away her salvation, but instead go find those christians who really do get it, and hang out with them. No one should have to give up their friends simply because they don't believe. How else would people become saved unless someone along the way took the time to have a positive effect on their life?

We just had this discussion in my small group that I lead. Judging people with condemnation is wrong. That is what Jesus warned us about. God does the judging. We are not to shun those who don't believe, or the ones who do believe that stumble every now and then. That is not a natural concept for us as humans to grasp. We have to work at it. Sometimes we fail. Now this doesn't mean that we go hang out in bars and with unscrupulous people and contribute to continual sinning and bad behavior. God says not to let those influences effect you. One way is to not put yourself in those situations where you may be tempted in a weak moment. God wants to to hang with those of like mind to sharpen one another and grow stronger in our faith, especially young believers who need milk before they can digest meat. But that doesn't mean that you can't talk to people, smile at them, wish them a great day, work along side them, allow your kids to play on the same soccer team, etc....Maybe through that connection with them your light will shine on them, or your salt will make their life better. We have neighbors who don't believe, yet we talk to them, we borrow things from each other, we invite them to our weddings and anniversaries and birthday parties etc.....

You think science is beautiful because it doesn't have all the answers, I think God is beautiful because he DOES!

The soft tissue in a 70 million year old dinosaur does raise some eyebrows does it not? Could one possible explanation be that maybe that bone isn't that old? Possible? That is all I am asking is if it is possible.

now that he left, i can actually use the computer and explain myself!

he explained what happened to me pretty simplisticly. he has the gist of it right, but without getting into boring details, there was a lot more to it. the biggest thing for me was how judgemental everyone was. even as a kid, i remember being taught that non-christians were going to hell. the attitudes towards gays i witnessed from the church was crazy. i was a teenager at the time, and it was the first time i really started to question things. how could my church hate people they don't even know so much? what made it even worse is that i'm bisexual, so it made me feel like i was being persecuted too.

it was always believed that people chose to be gay in my church, which was the basis of it being wrong. i remember thinking that i'm not choosing to be attracted to other girls, i just was. that was the first time i seriously questioned it. i was scared to death of someone finding out about it, which would have led to me being shunned, or even worse, sent to some camp or something that tries to "cure" people of their gayness. i felt like a prisoner to my religion until i went to college.

i felt much better about myself once i got to college and away from it all. i joined a christian group on campus right away, but they were as bad as my church members were. my non-christian friends were amazing people though. i felt like i could be myself around them. when i finally came out about being bisexual, i got kicked out of my christian group. everyone else was very supportive, and didn't mind at all.

i know i've rambled a lot, but it was a pretty big change for me. once my dad found out i had tattoos and piercings, he didn't talk to me for almost a year. he has since come to terms with it, and is much more open to things like that. i still don't think he has forgiven me for becoming agnostic. i feel bad for nick because he can't really be himself around my family. he always wears long-sleeve shirts to cover his tattoos, and has to bite his tongue repeatedly during conversations. they get along pretty well now, but i'm not sure how well they would if it was known how tattood and pierced nick is.

i still believe in a higher power. i'd say i'm more spiritual than i am religious. i don't renounce god or anything like that. i just think god would be ashamed of the hate and ignorance i've seen so many christians have....

PhinPhan1227
04-12-2009, 12:27 AM
About the soft tissue in dino bones, I read a few articles. There is still a good deal of debate. Firstly, it's not 100% sure that the soft tissue is from the dino's, or is a bacterial film which has been found in other places. If the tissue is from a dino, the assumption is that since it came from deep within the massive bone, it may have been preserved considerably longer since it was not exposed to air while it was trapped there. Then again, there's always the possibility that the "experts" don't know as much as they thought about how proteans break down. It's not like they found a rump roast intact. They think it is a collagen-like material, and that may just break down much more slowly under the right circumstances. Afterall, before they found frozen mastadons which still were still edible fifteen or twenty thousand years after they died, science had assumed that flesh would have decomposed over such a long period.

In a nutshell, the idea that scientists got the decay rate of deeply buried collagen wrong is much more likely than the idea that just prior to the civilization of babylon man was dodging T-Rex. The artists certainly forgot to put those Brontosaurus drawings on the cave walls at Lascaux ten thousand years ago.

Locke
04-12-2009, 02:37 PM
i feel bad for nick because he can't really be himself around my family. he always wears long-sleeve shirts to cover his tattoos, and has to bite his tongue repeatedly during conversations. they get along pretty well now, but i'm not sure how well they would if it was known how tattood and pierced nick is.


Its not a big deal really :) I have to do the exact same thing when I'm lecturing at school anyways. I'd much rather portray myself as someone else than cause a major fight between you and your family...

PhinPhan1227
04-13-2009, 08:42 AM
Its not a big deal really :) I have to do the exact same thing when I'm lecturing at school anyways. I'd much rather portray myself as someone else than cause a major fight between you and your family...

Yeah, but it must be a pain in the butt at airports. I haven't the slightest inclination to know where all the peircings are, but I have several friends who have a lot of piercings and they have a devil of a time in airport security.

Locke
04-13-2009, 01:56 PM
Yeah, but it must be a pain in the butt at airports. I haven't the slightest inclination to know where all the peircings are, but I have several friends who have a lot of piercings and they have a devil of a time in airport security.

I'll save you the graphic details, but none of them show. I don't have much of a problem really. I haven't had to fly much really, but the few times I've had to, I only set off the detector once. I just told them I had some piercings, they ran their thing over me, and that was it. I'm not sure if that was common procedure, or if the guy just didn't feel like taking me and stripping me down....

Dolphan7
04-14-2009, 01:21 AM
now that he left, i can actually use the computer and explain myself!

he explained what happened to me pretty simplisticly. he has the gist of it right, but without getting into boring details, there was a lot more to it. the biggest thing for me was how judgemental everyone was. even as a kid, i remember being taught that non-christians were going to hell. the attitudes towards gays i witnessed from the church was crazy. i was a teenager at the time, and it was the first time i really started to question things. how could my church hate people they don't even know so much? what made it even worse is that i'm bisexual, so it made me feel like i was being persecuted too.

it was always believed that people chose to be gay in my church, which was the basis of it being wrong. i remember thinking that i'm not choosing to be attracted to other girls, i just was. that was the first time i seriously questioned it. i was scared to death of someone finding out about it, which would have led to me being shunned, or even worse, sent to some camp or something that tries to "cure" people of their gayness. i felt like a prisoner to my religion until i went to college.

i felt much better about myself once i got to college and away from it all. i joined a christian group on campus right away, but they were as bad as my church members were. my non-christian friends were amazing people though. i felt like i could be myself around them. when i finally came out about being bisexual, i got kicked out of my christian group. everyone else was very supportive, and didn't mind at all.

i know i've rambled a lot, but it was a pretty big change for me. once my dad found out i had tattoos and piercings, he didn't talk to me for almost a year. he has since come to terms with it, and is much more open to things like that. i still don't think he has forgiven me for becoming agnostic. i feel bad for nick because he can't really be himself around my family. he always wears long-sleeve shirts to cover his tattoos, and has to bite his tongue repeatedly during conversations. they get along pretty well now, but i'm not sure how well they would if it was known how tattood and pierced nick is.

i still believe in a higher power. i'd say i'm more spiritual than i am religious. i don't renounce god or anything like that. i just think god would be ashamed of the hate and ignorance i've seen so many christians have....

It is true that christians do behave badly towards those that are not believers. Not all of them, but many. It isn't supposed to be like that. I have children too that are not believers. It is my goal to get them all saved, but it has to be on their terms, not mine. What they do with their lives is up to them. I may not approve of the things they do, and I may not approve that they don't go to church and try to understand that that is what is best for their kids and their marriages, but I am also an earthly father. I feel that shunning my own children because they are sinners makes no sense at all, and I have heard many stories of parents who have disowned their kids for not believing. I feel that through me and my life they may one day see the light, and I pray for that to happen and to take advantage of every opportunity to talk to them about God and how their life is a reflection of the mistakes they make and that by following God, those decisions they make will eventually turn out good, not bad.

Now my son is saved, although he struggles with sin all the time, more than others. I have told him that I will disown him if he continues down the path he is on, which is lukewarm christianity. He wants to live in both worlds, the world and the christian. He has blown it many times and is now on the last phase of christian discipline. I do that because he is a believer, or claims to be, and I am called to hold him accountable to that which he believes. I do that to remind him how serious his walk is, that it isn't something to mess around with, to not take seriously. I hope I never have to follow through. It appears to be working. God is just like that too. Poop or get off the pot, don't just sit there and do nothing.

Christians need to understand that they can't apply their values and their God to those who don't believe in that God. Christian discipline applies to believers, not non-believers. Christians are called to be the salt of the earth. Something to make the world taste better. We are called to be the light of the world, so that by us people can see the light. We do that by living our life for Christ as best we can. Doesn't mean we won't stumble from time to time. But hopefully people will be drawn to God because of our relationship and life with God. It is sad that the Christian group you joined at college were so judgmental. Of course I don't know their side of the story either. But once you came out of the closet they had some decisions to make. Clearly the bible considers any sex outside a marriage between one man and one woman to be a sin. If you are openly bi-sexual and unrepentant of that sin, then your christian friends could not in all conscience allow you to continue in their group. Part of christian discipline. So I can understand them kicking you out after you made your announcement. That doesn't mean that you couldn't still be friends, that you couldn't talk to them, ask questions etc....And that is where I think Christians fail miserably - and that is - how they react to people involved in sin. Jesus said not to judge. What he means is not to condemn people, shun them, because we are all sinners. They only difference in God's eyes is people who believe in Him and those who don't. That is as simple as it gets. So even though I believe that you are involved in what the bible considers sin, I don't reject you. I will still continue to discuss things with you in hopes that one day you will come back to the fold. Jesus considers you very important. In fact so important that he will leave the 99 to go find the lost 1 if you remember the parable. And if you don't, then that is one point we will have to agree to disagree and move on.

You may feel you have not renounced God, but by your actions you in effect have. You have rejected the God of the bible for a God that you feel is more sympathetic to your beliefs and lifestyle. I encourage you to rethink that position. Remember it isn't how the believers of God react or how they make you feel...it is that God does indeed exist no matter what people think say or do or how they behave. There can be only one God. Or there can be no God. But there can't be many Gods of deferring values and characteristics and attributes, with many different ways to salvation. Choose wisely.

I would rather live my life as if there is a God, and die to find out there isn't,
than live my life as if there isn't, and die to find out there is.

tylerdolphin
04-14-2009, 01:34 AM
I would rather live my life as if there is a God, and die to find out there isn't,
than live my life as if there isn't, and die to find out there is.

But you are assuming that the God you worship is the true God ;)

Dolphan7
04-14-2009, 01:37 AM
But you are assuming that the God you worship is the true God ;)It is more than an assumption. But consider the alternatives. Outside the God of Christianity/Judaism/Islam.....what other religion will send unbelievers to eternal suffering in Hell? Hmmmm?

tylerdolphin
04-14-2009, 01:48 AM
It is more than an assumption. But consider the alternatives. Outside the God of Christianity/Judaism/Islam.....what other religion will send unbelievers to eternal suffering in Hell? Hmmmm?
A lot of Jews don't believe in an afterlife so your chances are looking pretty good I guess :lol:. Im only messing with ya. I wish more Christians were like you and able to live around people with other viewpoints. Too many Christians I know just want to gossip and talk about anyone they don't agree with.

Dolphan7
04-14-2009, 12:20 PM
A lot of Jews don't believe in an afterlife so your chances are looking pretty good I guess :lol:. Im only messing with ya. I wish more Christians were like you and able to live around people with other viewpoints. Too many Christians I know just want to gossip and talk about anyone they don't agree with.What you have to understand is that christians are human too. We are not perfect. We make mistakes. For one to reject God based on His human and flawed subjects would be like rejecting a Lambourghini because it is painted purple. Don't reject the message because of the messenger.

garcia420
04-16-2009, 09:39 PM
Please don't post the entire article, and always post a source link. Thanks!

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/04/16/microbes.antarctic.discovery/index.html


(CNN) -- Beneath an Antarctic glacier in a cold, airless pool that never sees the sun seems like an unusual place to search for life.


Scientists find surprising evidence of bacterial life beneath the Antarctic ice near Blood Falls, seen here.

But under the Taylor Glacier on the East Antarctic Ice Sheet, near a place called Blood Falls, scientists have discovered a time capsule of bacterial activity.

At chilling temperatures, with no oxygen or sunlight, these newly found microbes have survived for the past 1.5 million years using an "iron-breathing" technique, which may show how life could exist on other planets.

tylerdolphin
04-16-2009, 10:19 PM
I suppose these never existed in the pre-flood world seeing as the entire world was a tropical climate. They must have just poofed into existence after the ice caps froze in place a few thousand years ago

Dolphan7
04-17-2009, 12:41 AM
I suppose these never existed in the pre-flood world seeing as the entire world was a tropical climate. They must have just poofed into existence after the ice caps froze in place a few thousand years agoWhy couldn't they exist pre-flood? Because these survived in sub-zero temps, they must have always been in sub-zero temps? That is uniformitarian thinking. Bacteria is very good at adapting, we can see that today. This is not surprizing news really. No more than soft tissue in 70 million year old dino bones. What I want to know is how did they date it.

tylerdolphin
04-17-2009, 12:56 AM
Why couldn't they exist pre-flood? Because these survived in sub-zero temps, they must have always been in sub-zero temps? That is uniformitarian thinking. Bacteria is very good at adapting, we can see that today. This is not surprizing news really. No more than soft tissue in 70 million year old dino bones. What I want to know is how did they date it.
These bacteria require a very specific diet/environment that could never be duplicated on a wooden ark surrounded by every other animal on Earth. They surely would have died out...and for those types of bacteria to speciate again would be marco-evolution.

Dolphan7
04-17-2009, 10:36 AM
These bacteria require a very specific diet/environment that could never be duplicated on a wooden ark surrounded by every other animal on Earth. They surely would have died out...and for those types of bacteria to speciate again would be marco-evolution.They require a specific diet/environment..... today.....and you are assuming that this has always been the case. This is the problem with uniformitarian thinking - it assumes everything is constant...in the past as it is today, and today as it was in the past. This is speculation. Just like you are speculating that bacteria couldn't survive a global flood. If bacteria could survive sub-zero temps isolated from sun and other living things.....it certainly could survive a global flood. What is interesting about this article is this:



Genetic tests suggest that the microbes are similar to ones found in marine environments today, which the researchers think are a remnant of a larger population of microbes that once lived in a fjord or sea that was cut off when sea levels fell and left the pool behind. The pool was eventually capped off by the flowing glacier. http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20090416/sc_livescience/15millionyearoldantarcticmicrobecommunitydiscovered

Sounds a lot like a global flood.