Biblical & Historical Prophecy Fulfillments (How do Atheists explain this?) [Archive]

BrianC

11-09-2007, 12:37 PM

Atheists, I'd like to know how you explain these impossibilities historically.

Daniel (written more than 500 years before Christ) said that in 476 years the following things would happen:

A decree would go forth to rebuild Jerusalem, and then 69 weeks of years later (each day equals a year), the Messiah would be killed to make reconciliation for sin. (there are actually 6 prophecies in that 69 weeks, but I'm not getting into all of them that were fulfilled)

69 weeks X 7 days = 483 days (each day = a year, so 483 years)

Hebrew & Babylonian years were 360 days long, so they added an extra month in every few years due to the loss of 5.24 days each year. Let's convert 483 Hebrew years to solar years.

483 x .9857 = 476 solar years.

When did the decree go out to restore Jerusalem? A special decree was granted by Artaxerxes I to Nehemiah in 444BC.

-444BC + 476 years = 32AD (the year Christ was crucified)

There is always a 1-3 year ambiguity with BC dates according to all historians, so this 32AD date could vary slightly.

That's just the start, though. There are 12 other numerical prophecies that all have happened exactly as they were supposed to. And they span over 2700 years and involve many different nations. How does on orchestrate this? Here's another prophecy:

Daniel 12:11
11 And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be 1290 days.

So, we see here that there will be 1290 Hebrew years (day = year) from the time the daily sacrifice is taken away to the time of the abomination of desolation is setup. The abomination of desolation is spoken of in scripture as something that will be setup on the temple mount of God and claim to be above the one true God. Many think it's the antichrist, but I can prove differently.

So, when was the daily sacrifice taken away in Daniel's time? In 583BC when the Jews were led captive into Babylon. No temple mount, no priests, no daily sacrifices.

1290 x .9857 = 1271.533 solar years
-583BC + 1271.533 = 688.533AD

688AD is the year the Muslims started construction of the Dome of the Rock on the temple mount of God. They put it in the court of the Gentiles, thinking it's where the Jewish temple used to be. In it, there are plaques from the Koran that say, "God does not have a son." That's pretty anti-Christ, wouldn't you say? And it is a memorial for Muhommad (the false prophet) and his god Allah, whom, in the plaques inside the Dome of the Rock, is said to be the Most High God. Well, that's what 2 Thess 2:1-4 says will happen concerning the "man of sin." Most think this is the antichrist, but it's not, it's the false prophet. So, we have the "abomination of desolation" setup on the temple mount. Jesus warnded Christians to get the heck out of Dodge when they see this happen in Matthew 24. Sure enough, Christians got out of Israel at that point, but the Jews didn't, because they had no prophecy about getting out. Something like a million Jews were slaughtered by the Muslims, and the rest scattered into the nations.

Here's one last prophecy that goes with this one. It was given to Christians in Revelation.

Revelation 11:1,2
1And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein.
2But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot 42 months.

That outter court is called the court of the Gentiles, and it's where the Dome of the Rock is built and stands today. 42 months is how long it's "given unto the Gentiles (Muslims)." This prophecy was given to John under a solar calendar, so no conversion is needed.

365.24 divided by 12 = 30.44 days in a month
42 months x 30.44 days = 1278.48 days (day = year, so these are solar years)

688.533AD + 1278.48 yrs = 1967AD

1967 was the year that the Jews took back Jerusalem and the temple mount from the Muslims in the Six Day war. Gee, what a coincidence. Prophecied about in 90-95AD, and happens exactly to the year. There are 13 total numerical prophecies, all of which come out right on the dates they should, like 1948 (the year Israel became a nation again), 1967 (Israel gets temple mount back) and 688 (Dome of the Rock built). How do you explain such prophetic accuracy in history? It's statistically impossible for these things to randomly occur by chance (kind of like evolution - :D).

Any atheists want to take a stab at this?

BrianC

11-09-2007, 01:04 PM

Let me give a few more prophecies. I'm not going to go into how you can prove that "time, times and half a time" means 2500 years, but I'll explain the prophecies and their fulfillments.

Dan 7:1
1 In the first year of Belshazzar king of Babylon Daniel had a dream and visions of his head upon his bed

Historically, this year is 552BC. Look it up.

In Daniel 7, We're told about a bunch of secular nations that will rise up against Israel and rule them or their land for "time, times and half a time" (2500 years).

Dan 7:25
25And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time. (2500 solar years).

Daniel didn't understand that "time" meant 1,000 years. Later, in the New Testament, Peter explains it. But again, I'm not discussing that now.

Let's add 2500 years to 552BC

-552BC + 2500 years = 1948AD

In 1948AD, Israel finally became a nation again and was not ruled by any Gentile powers like Rome or Persia. Notice how it says "he will seek to change times and laws?" He, being secular nations, did in fact change times and laws. The calendar was changed under the Roman empire, and when Jesus died, we had the beginning of the AD era. Prophecy was 100% fulfilled

Here's another:

Dan 12:7
7 ...and sware by him that liveth for ever that it shall be for a time, times, and an half; and when he shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people, all these things shall be finished.

In this verse, "he" is the gentile nations again, the "spirit of antichrist." When he has accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people (the Jews), all these things (all of Daniel's prophecies) are finished. The scattering of the Jews was finished when the Jews were no longer scattered and regained their land back. This prophecy was given:

Dan 10:1 In the third year of Cyrus king of Persia a thing
was revealed unto Daniel, whose name was called
Belteshazzar.

3rd year of Cyrus was 533BC. Look it up.

-533BC + 2500 years = 1967AD (the year the Jews regained Jerusalem and their temple mount back in the six day war)

One last 2500yr prophecy:

Revelation 12:14
And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.

I won't go into all the details about the prophecies about Ephraim, but this prophecy is given to the Christians, who are most likely Ephraim. Ephraim (also called Israel) is the 10 tribes of Israel that split from Judah (which includes the tribes Benjamin & Judah).

After the split, Ephraim was lead away captive by Assyria in 724AD and dispersed into the nations, never to be heard from again. Yet, prophecies about Ephraim say that he will be planted in a plesant place, guarded by the waters, and will tremple from the West. You go west from Israel and the U.S. is the only place you can go. It's protected by waters and you go first and you're in the far East again.

This prophecy is about us, and was given to Christians in the book of Revelation. Check this out:

-724AD + 2500 years = 1776AD, the year the United States became a nation by declaring their independence from England on the fourth of July.

How weird is that??

Here are some similarities. The original 12 tribes became 13 tribes when the tribe of Joseph split in two. Joseph's sons, Ephraim and Menasseh were told that the younger son would be a greater people/nation than the older son, and thus, received the blessing. The first born always receives the blessing, so Menasseh was upset and the tribes split. Ephraim became the most powerful tribe and protected all of the other tribes. So, 12 tribes became 13 tribes.

We had 12 original colonies until the Carolinas were deemed too big, and split into North and South Carolina. Those became our original 13 colonies/states. Our flag's stripes symbolize this.

Now, the tribe of Levi was the tribe of priests. They were the only tribe that could give sacrifices at the temple mount, and only the high priest could approach the Holy of Holies (where God himself, the Holy Spirit, resided). God commanded that the Levites be given 48 cities among the tribes.

The United States had 48 states up until 1959 when they added Hawaii and Alaska. Here's what the flag looked like before Alaska & Hawaii:

http://www.usflags.com/productDetail.asp?ItemID=1050

Notice the 13 stripes for the colonies, and that there are only 48 stars. The two similarities we have with Israel's past just HAPPEN to be on our flag from 1912-1959. Coincidence?

These prophecies are a statistical impossibility, unless there is an almighty God in control.

ClockwrkOrangeS4

11-09-2007, 01:33 PM

Atheists, I'd like to know how you explain these impossibilities historically.

Daniel (written more than 500 years before Christ) said that in 476 years the following things would happen:

Any atheists want to take a stab at this?

Who did Daniel tell this to? Is there a copy of it somewhere? Maybe some transcripts, a screenplay or a Podcast or something?

Muffrazr

11-09-2007, 01:48 PM

Who did Daniel tell this to? Is there a copy of it somewhere? Maybe some transcripts, a screenplay or a Podcast or something?

Podcast...That's rich

flashstang04

11-09-2007, 02:11 PM

Brian I am afraid that all you are going to get is snide comments. That usually happens when they get backed into a corner.

Btw, where has Casper been? At least he would give reasons for his thinking instead of falling into sarcasm.

ClockwrkOrangeS4

11-09-2007, 02:18 PM

flashstang04

11-09-2007, 02:37 PM

My first question is quite valid.

..which doesn't make sense. It is obviously old testament writing. LONG before the majority prophecies took place. There is really no way to deny that Daniel was written pre-1967

ClockwrkOrangeS4

11-09-2007, 02:48 PM

..which doesn't make sense. It is obviously old testament writing. LONG before the majority prophecies took place. There is really no way to deny that Daniel was written pre-1967

Probably true.

There is also no way to prove that it actually happened, or is there? That's what I was asking.

BrianC

11-09-2007, 04:32 PM

Probably true.

There is also no way to prove that it actually happened, or is there? That's what I was asking.

I'm confused. What do you want proof of?

ClockwrkOrangeS4

11-09-2007, 04:56 PM

I'm confused. What do you want proof of?

How do we know what Daniel said?

BrianC

11-09-2007, 05:09 PM

How do we know what Daniel said?

Well, it's written in the book of Daniel in the Old Testamet of the Bible. Everything mentioned there is dated back to the correct time period, and there's even archaeological evidence with some of the names of the kingdoms and leaders at Daniel's time, like Belshazzar.

Is that what you mean?

ClockwrkOrangeS4

11-09-2007, 05:30 PM

Well, it's written in the book of Daniel in the Old Testamet of the Bible. Everything mentioned there is dated back to the correct time period, and there's even archaeological evidence with some of the names of the kingdoms and leaders at Daniel's time, like Belshazzar.

Is that what you mean?

I guess so.

BrianC

11-09-2007, 05:35 PM

I guess so.

So, we know that the prophet Daniel in the book of Daniel wrote these things down around 600-500BC. And now, we see how they've all come true just exactly as predicted. How do you explain that away without saying that there must be an allknowing God that foresaw the future and prophesied about it? Have another explanation? How can anyone predict the exactly movements of entire nations upon the Jews up to 2500 years in advance and get it right exactly to the year everytime?

Phillystang

11-09-2007, 06:50 PM

We're having some good discussion in this forum here lately, let's keep it going...

ClockwrkOrangeS4

11-09-2007, 07:28 PM

So, we know that the prophet Daniel in the book of Daniel wrote these things down around 600-500BC. And now, we see how they've all come true just exactly as predicted. How do you explain that away without saying that there must be an allknowing God that foresaw the future and prophesied about it? Have another explanation? How can anyone predict the exactly movements of entire nations upon the Jews up to 2500 years in advance and get it right exactly to the year everytime?

Have you seen the writings?

propellerhead

11-09-2007, 07:32 PM

BrianC

11-10-2007, 09:10 AM

Have you seen the writings?

All I've seen are things like the Dead Sea Scrolls and the 27,000 copies of the original manuscripts.

You have to understand the maticulous nature of how the Jews and early Christians copied scrolls (original manuscripts of the Bible). They would copy them line by line, letter for letter. After words, they would have another person go over them and compare each word and letter per a particular spacing.

So, they would start with the first letter of the scroll, then count 20 letters, and see if the word and letter were the same on the original scroll as they were on the copied scroll. If there was even a one letter mistake, it would cause the letters to be off by the time they finished reading the scroll. If this happened, they burned the scroll in order to make sure no corrupt scrolls survived.

That's why nearly every one of the 27,000 copies of the original manuscript scrolls are almost dead on accurate with one another, except for some minor details, equivalent to a T not crossed or an I not dotted.

So yeah, I've seen dead on, exact copies of the originals. And ALL of the copies look exactly the same as one another, yet different people copied each one. How do you orchestrate that many different copies agreeing with one another, but copied by completely different people in different parts of the land at different times? Some big conspiracy? I don't see that as a possibility. Too complex. That's impossible if you ask me. The copying of the scrolls happened over hundreds and hundreds of years. It takes more faith to believe that these people conspired to do this than it does to say that they used a maticulous copying method.

Kind of like evolution and creation. Takes more faith to believe a little ball of dirt/mass exploded and created everything than it does to believe an all powerful God designed and created everything. But the world chooses to see it the other way, and chooses not to even acknowledge what created the big bang, because that would go beyond the physical realm, and well...we can't test that. Yet, we can't test the big bang theory either, and therefore that should be thrown out, but it's not. That's off-topic, though...

BrianC

11-10-2007, 09:13 AM

If A = B, and B = C, then C = A.

Is that god's will?

I believe in the real world. I think about stuff that matters to me, now, in this life. I don't waste my time on prophecies or who created who. Those topics might be entertaining but that's all it is to me. Entertainment.

For you to believe in the "real world," I find it funny that you don't believe in history. That sounds pretty ironic to me. You've just said, more or less, that all history is not the real world, but only what you see, hear, feel, taste and touch right now is the real world. The past is a waste of time and not the real world. When you were born, was that the real world? When you turned 5 yrs old, was that the real world? The past and history is quite real and took place in the real world. Just because it's the past doesn't mean it's not real... Your logic is a bit lacking there.

propellerhead

11-10-2007, 09:40 AM

For you to believe in the "real world," I find it funny that you don't believe in history. That sounds pretty ironic to me. You've just said, more or less, that all history is not the real world, but only what you see, hear, feel, taste and touch right now is the real world. The past is a waste of time and not the real world. When you were born, was that the real world? When you turned 5 yrs old, was that the real world? The past and history is quite real and took place in the real world. Just because it's the past doesn't mean it's not real... Your logic is a bit lacking there.
You're saying that. I never said history isn't important. I just don't put much weight into some book that said someone said that something is going to happen. I can write a book now, today, that says someone will sign up on DFWstangs by the name of "propellerhead". Guess what? What that book said came true!!! Whoopee shit. Maybe it was god's will, huh?

flashstang04

11-10-2007, 05:15 PM

You're saying that. I never said history isn't important. I just don't put much weight into some book that said someone said that something is going to happen. I can write a book now, today, that says someone will sign up on DFWstangs by the name of "propellerhead". Guess what? What that book said came true!!! Whoopee shit. Maybe it was god's will, huh?

So what is your take on all of the prophecies coming true to the day even.... they weren't written after theevents (i.e. after 1967), so that's not it. So what can we attribute their accuracy to?

propellerhead

11-10-2007, 05:28 PM

flashstang04

11-12-2007, 11:57 AM

I don't care much about them. Like I said earlier, they're good for entertainment factor but I don't worry about it or put much into it. Like believing in an ultimate creator or supreme being, it's pointless. It doesn't do jack for me. Me not having a religion is like a fish not having a bicycle. Having a scientific explanation or believing in a single cause to these prophecies are things I don't need to live my life.

So by definition are you agnostic? Just wondering....

It seems, even if by sheer "wow" factor, much like watching a magician on TV, that prophecies that have come to pass would be interesting to people.

White trash wagon

11-12-2007, 12:32 PM

propellerhead

11-12-2007, 12:37 PM

So by definition are you agnostic? Just wondering....

It seems, even if by sheer "wow" factor, much like watching a magician on TV, that prophecies that have come to pass would be interesting to people.
Those predictions are interesting but only for entertainment value. I go "wow that's cool". But I never attribute them to some higher power or whatever.

Yes, I've been agnostic even before I found out what "agnostic" means.

flashstang04

11-12-2007, 12:37 PM

flashstang04

11-12-2007, 12:38 PM

Those predictions are interesting but only for entertainment value. I go "wow that's cool". But I never attribute them to some higher power or whatever.

Yes, I've been agnostic even before I found out what "agnostic" means.

Thanks, I appreciate your answer

BrianC

11-13-2007, 11:09 AM

It's easy for religious folks, they don't have to prove ANYTHING. It's all based on emotion (otherwide known as faith). All they need is a several thousand year old text, written by men (not god), and the faith that it's all real.

Science, on the other hand demands repeatable, verifiable proof. Yes there are scientific theories, but they remain theories until the scientific method proves or disproves them. Since even old scientific facts are constantly reviewed & subjected to testing, science always self-corrects, albeit not instantly.

Proof that science works? your reading this aren't you? Without science, you would have slept in the grass, hoped you could get your hands on a plant or animal that didn't kill you first, and eventually die from a broken bone or abcessed tooth before you were 30.

Scott

Actually, if you want to get into "verifiable fact" and the "scientific method," my wife is a Ph.D. student about to get a Ph.D. in Cognative Neuroscience and works with kids with tramatic brain injury on a regular basis, testing and locating the parts of their brains that were effected, and also administering therapy. My wife says that Evolutionists basically spit on the scientific method with their untestable theories, because they can never get past step 4:

1. Define the question
2. Gather information and resources (observe)
3. Form hypothesis
4. Perform experiment and collect data
5. Analyze data
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
7. Publish results
8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)

See, testable requires replication during the experiment. However, most of the theory of evolution cannot be tested or replicated, not to mention observed in the natural world. We have never seen a species evolve into a completely new species. Evolutionists had to redefine the steps of the scientific method to cover the fact that they cannot prove a thing so they don't look so stupid. Here's a statement about it from the National Center for Science Education:

“The failure of many students to understand and accept the fact of evolution is often a consequence of the naïve views they hold of the nature of science … According to this naïve view, the key to the unique success of science at producing true knowledge is ‘The Scientific Method’, which, on the standard account, involves formulating hypotheses, making predictions, and then going into the laboratory to perform the crucial experiment. In this parody of scientific methods, if a hypothesis passes the test set up by the crucial experiment, that is, if it is confirmed by direct observation, then it is ‘proven’ and it is considered a fact or a law and it is true for all time.
“In contrast, the work of many evolutionary biologists involves the reconstruction of the past. The methods they use do not conform to the standard view of ‘The Scientific Method’. …”

//www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_content/vol21/1132_the_goal_of_evolution_instruct_12_30_1899.asp

"In the inaugural issue of RNCSE, Alters (1997) proposed that the goal of evolution education should be to teach students to believe in evolution. He argued that educators have resisted teaching evolution with the goal of student belief on the basis of five misconceptions. These are (Alters 1997: 16):

1) “belief” means little more than personal convictions — no empirical evidence;
2) “belief” is never a goal in public education;
3) evolution has little empirical evidence;
4) belief cannot be assessed, therefore it does not belong as an educational goal;
5) teaching evolution with belief as a goal is tantamount to proselytizing students"

So, why are these scientists not conforming to the traditional scientific method like my wife must do every day in her experiements? Because they cannot test their theories. They can only theorize and hypothesize, but can never recreate their hypothesis.

Now, look back at the fathers of science. Most were creationists, actually, and accreditted God with creating science and order and intelligent design, yet they still discovered things like gravity and other laws of physics. Take Sir Isaac Newton for example:

_________________________
He said: "I have a fundamental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by men whoe were inspired. I study the Bible daily."

And also: All my discoveries have been made in answer to prayer. (Perloff, p241.)

His accomplishments were as follows:

He formulated his law of universal gravitation adding mathematical strength to Johannes Kepler's mathematical formulations of planetary motion.
He developed the theory of calculus at the same time as Leibniz.
He discovered that white light was made up of all the colours of the visible spectrum, by passing white light through one prism to form all the colours, and then passing it through another prism to recombine the colours back into white light again.
Using that knowledge of light, he improved the telescope.
He formulated his three famous laws of motion, including the law of inertia. [3]
He summarized a lot of his formulations in his book Philosophiae naturalis principia mathematica (mathematical principles of natural philosophy), and his work made great contributions to mathematics, physics and astronomy even for today.

This great scientist was also a creationist who saw order in the cosmos. He said: "This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent Being."

He also saw the senselessness in atheism, saying: "Atheism is so senseless. When I look at the solar system, I see the earth at the right distance from the sun to receive the proper amounts of heat and light. This did not happen by chance."
_________________________

Here's another quote I came across:

"Many of the world's great scientists have been Christians, and they have followed the example of Johannes Kepler, the founder of physical astronomy who discovered laws of planetary motion and the discipline of celestial mechanics and who demonstrated the heliocentricity of the solar system. Kepler's philosophy of science was to "think God's thoughts after him..."

"When Pasteur declared in a lecture that "science brings man nearer to God," Maury, Newton, Carver and scores of other groundbreaking creation scientists agreed. And they also agreed that science isn't man's greatest pursuit but that he should "seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness" (Matthew 6:33)."
_________________________

So, actually, a lot of the discoveries of science can be attributed to creationists in the past with a high belief of God. It wasn't until the 1800th century when Darwin started proposing the theory of evolution on a larger scale that scientists started to consider other possibilities. And evolution wasn't really taken seriously in broad academia until 1963 when the Supreme Court ruled that it was ok to teach it in schools.

The case was won using a tooth from the Scopes Trial of 1928. The tooth was found in Nevada and it was said to be a prehistorica man (Nevada Man, which can still be found in textbooks dispite its being disproven). They used the tooth in the 1963 trial and won. In 1964, the paleontologists went back to Nevada to dig up the rest of the skeleton in which they found the tooth only to find out that it was a pig's skeleton. Evolution made it into schools by way of a pig's tooth because scientists were SOOOOO sure that it was a prehistoric man's tooth. That tooth went to the Smithsonian where it still resides today, and an entire prehistoric man and his family was built for display around that one single pig's tooth. No prehistoric man bones have ever been found. Each has been either shown to be false or misunderstood in their interpretation. Yet most all of them are still found in textbooks dispite their disproval.

Evolutionists really grasp at things they can hang on to, regardless of their validity. Doesn't sound very scientific to me, especially since they have to redefine the scientific theory. A while back I read how a scientist was showing how Evolution scientists had redefined the scientific method to work for them and their theories. How sad is that. They can't accept that it's just a theory that cannot be tested. They have to make it appear more factual through altering scientific interpretation.

But this topic is not about science, though... don't want to go into that. That's a whole other can of worms. Just wanted to correct your statement a bit.

BrianC

11-13-2007, 11:12 AM

I don't care much about them. Like I said earlier, they're good for entertainment factor but I don't worry about it or put much into it. Like believing in an ultimate creator or supreme being, it's pointless. It doesn't do jack for me. Me not having a religion is like a fish not having a bicycle. Having a scientific explanation or believing in a single cause to these prophecies are things I don't need to live my life.

So, in other words, your life is all about "you you you," and if there's no benefit in it for me, it's pointless, right?

Well, I completely understand why you wouldn't be interested in God then. Point taken.

White trash wagon

11-13-2007, 11:55 AM

propellerhead

11-13-2007, 12:53 PM

So, in other words, your life is all about "you you you," and if there's no benefit in it for me, it's pointless, right?

Well, I completely understand why you wouldn't be interested in God then. Point taken.
Yes it's my life to live. I don't live it for someone else because someone else told me that's what I should do.

BrianC

11-21-2007, 09:28 PM

Yes it's my life to live. I don't live it for someone else because someone else told me that's what I should do.

I don't live it for someone else because I'm told I should. Where do you get that from the Bible? The Bible is telling you how to live YOUR life the way it was meant to be lived, in full joy and peace. It's about making your life so incredibly filled with love that it's overpouring and you have to share it with others.

The Bible is instruction on HOW to live life to the fullest and receive ultimate, true joy and happiness. It just so happens, though, that when you have that type of joy and peace you want to share it with others by helping others. The good life you are given through Jesus is so overflowing with love, you have to give it away.

Do you look at the Bible as if it's a bunch of commandments that say things like, "You better do this because I said so, or you're going to hell." That's just a lack of knowledge if that's your belief. In the Bible, we're told by Paul that, "for us (Christians), all things are permissible, but not all things are beneficial." In other words, since we are free from condemnation of sin, we are allowed to do anything we want, but if we do stupid things, we'll reap the consequences. He's telling Christians to have good judgement so they don't get into trouble and bring a bunch of unnecessary pain and suffering into their lives.

propellerhead

11-21-2007, 09:46 PM

I don't live it for someone else because I'm told I should. Where do you get that from the Bible? The Bible is telling you how to live YOUR life the way it was meant to be lived, in full joy and peace. It's about making your life so incredibly filled with love that it's overpouring and you have to share it with others.

The Bible is instruction on HOW to live life to the fullest and receive ultimate, true joy and happiness. It just so happens, though, that when you have that type of joy and peace you want to share it with others by helping others. The good life you are given through Jesus is so overflowing with love, you have to give it away.

Do you look at the Bible as if it's a bunch of commandments that say things like, "You better do this because I said so, or you're going to hell." That's just a lack of knowledge if that's your belief. In the Bible, we're told by Paul that, "for us (Christians), all things are permissible, but not all things are beneficial." In other words, since we are free from condemnation of sin, we are allowed to do anything we want, but if we do stupid things, we'll reap the consequences. He's telling Christians to have good judgement so they don't get into trouble and bring a bunch of unnecessary pain and suffering into their lives.
Damn! You are pretty extreme. That's entertaining.

I don't need a bible, koran, tao-te-ching, bhagavad gita or whatever to tell me how to do that. How come you do? I've made it through four decades without following some religious text on how to enjoy life and I'm pretty happy. Like you, I am allowed to do anything. If I do stupid things as defined in the laws of man (International law, federal law, Texas law, company policies, customs and courtesies of the culture I live in, etc.) I will suffer the consequences. I have the ability to learn so I don't do stupid things. All that... without some religious text.

BrianC

11-21-2007, 09:56 PM

BrianC, I'm impressed with the effort & energy put into your response. However a few counter points:

"1) “belief” means little more than personal convictions — no empirical evidence;
2) “belief” is never a goal in public education;
3) evolution has little empirical evidence;
4) belief cannot be assessed, therefore it does not belong as an educational goal;
5) teaching evolution with belief as a goal is tantamount to proselytizing students"

Religion still has little to no empirical evidence, so you can't even call it a viable theory.

If it has no empirical evidence, then why can you not explain how the prophecies I laid out came to pass exactly to the year they were supposed to happen? There would have to be an all seeing God that could look ahead into the future to prophecy them. Sorry, but it's classic how you completely skip the proof that was clearly given. It cannot be coincidence. It's a statistical impossibility.

You mention Isaac Newton's use of Kepler's law of planetary motion....you do realize that Kepler was BURNED ALIVE by the Church for his assertions that the earth circled the sun? Do you also realize that in the last 15 years most of Newton's law of gravity has been proven flawed, science self corrects, even 300 years old laws. Kepler, Copernicus & Gallileo were all killed , imprisoned or threatened by the Church, those folks were Christians, right?

First of all, I'm no advocate of the idiots in the past who couldn't get their doctrinal truths correct and used those incorrect doctrinal beliefs to torture others. Those people were legalistic religious idiots. That has nothing to do with spirituality and a relationship with God. That has everything to do with killing off those that oppose your views. Where is God in that? I highly doubt those "supposed Christians" were actually born again Christians or had a clue what it was all about. And if they did, they're just plain prideful and self-righteous and murderous. Not my fault. Scientists do stupid things all the time, plus they fabricate things as well to make their theories look better. But I don't attribute that across the board to scientists and use it to say they're all stupid. Your shots at the church as a whole by what actions of some legalistic idiots hundreds of years ago is simply a way to make it seem as if you're making a good point. Sorry, but it proves nothing, except that sometimes idiots take on the title of "Christian."

In that enviroment, can you blame Kepler, Copernicus, Gallileo & even Newtion(ony 200 years removed from the dark ages) for being "religious"? Thier lives depended on it!!

Not everyone was forced into religion. lol In certain areas this would happen, but it was not like everyone was forced into religion. I was only making the point that it is possible to be a scientist and believe in God.

Evolution is a theory, creationism is a belief. Evolution may be proven some day, creationism never will be proven. I guess you think all of the MILLIONS of fossils dug up over the years are all fake? or thier all pig, gorilla or whale bones? You can find evidence of Evolution by digging in your backyard, can you find evidence of the bible in your backyard?

Oh my, how you insult my intelligence. You think I'm stupid enough to say "fossils are fake?" That's ridiculous. No, the Bible explains exactly where those fossils came from. The Bible even talks about dinosaurs in a couple of parts. Everything was larger in the fossil record. The fossil record was the earth as it was before the flood. It was like a perfect environment for plants animals and humans and everything functioned in much larger size. If you give plants, animals and humans the appropriate environment, they will grow even larger than we find them today, due to the attributes of that environment aiding in their growth and longevity.

For instance, you can look at "pre-historic" amber (aka - pre-flood amber), and it has air bubbles in it with twice as much oxygen and twice as much air pressure, and a completely different atmospheric mix of elements. When scientists take these atmospheric readings from amber air bubbles and replicate it in a hyperbaric chamber, the human brain jumps from less than 4% activity to nearly 100% activity (all that means is that at any one given instance, there is never more than 4% of the full capacity of the brain being used due to a lack of oxygen to properly function). In other words, the human brain begins to function properly once it is placed into the environment it was designed to be in. Basically, the brain runs off oxygen. Currently, we have no oxygen in our blood plasma, so the blood hemoglobin carries a maximum of 4 oxygen molecules to your brain, and that's it. But when you're in the pre-flood atmosphere created by a hyperbaric chamber, the added pressure causes your blood plasma to be saturated with tons of oxygen molecules. When this happens, the blook plasma delivers TONS of oxygen to the brain and the brain has what it needs to properly function at nearly 100% activity, the way it was designed to work.

Now, as for animals and plants, if you stick them in an environment like that, it makes them grow extremely large. In fact, dinosaurs required an environment just like what I described in order to grow as large as they did. When the flood came along, it wiped out all plants and animals, and buried them in layers and layers of sediments, which fossilized them extremely quickly (go look up the layers caused by Mount St. Helen's errupting and how it laid "350,000" years worth of sediment layers in a matter of weeks during the erruption back in the 80's I think it was. Also look up how floods and lakes (bodies of water) cause layering, and how moisture, being the key element in fossilization, makes fossilization much faster. You'll find that a flood explains exactly the world we find today. And scientists have proven that humans, under the pre-flood world atmospheric conditions, would live very likely 10 times as long as they do today with the brain working at 100% capacity. They say the body heals itself incredibly fast under those conditions and I have seen many examples of this, even friends of mine who've been healed of things in a matter of weeks that should've taken years and years to heal.

Remember the bible implies the earth is 6000 years old, so dinosaurs never existed millions of years ago. The T-rex & Brontosaurus fossils must be fake since thier hundreds of millions of years old, right?. So where did they come from? Bear in mind that you could never "fake" a T-rex or Brontosaurus skeletion using elephant & whale bones. Also bear in mind these millions of bones are fossils, a process of bone turning into minerals (rocks), and it's known to take longer than 6000 years.

And again, you act as if I haven't a clue about science, and I find it quite entertaining, because I can discuss science all day long and give blatant, obvious scientific evidence that implies my theory is correct, and evolution has tons of evidence and invalidates itself constantly. I find it funny how evolutions' evidences fit neatly into my theory of a 6,000 year old earth, and how I can prove that evolution is simply interpreting the data in a different manner, of which is not the only way to interpret the data, by any means.

Allow me to disprove your understanding of fossilization. Scientists just the other day found a bird they know was buried outside their offices in mud 2 years earlier. They came out in a statement in some magazine or news paper recently and said, "We found this bird that was buried two years ago in mud and it's fossilized exactly like a pteradactyl." Gee, did they not make the connection that added moisture is a HUGE player in fossilization since it's the very mechanism by which fossilization works. Moisture passes through a buried object, and carries part of the mass away and replaces it with mineral deposits. The more moisture, the quicker the fossilization. Pressure helps too. A flood would cause this to happen extremely quickly. Yes, I understand this stuff quite well. I take no offense at your assumption that I don't know science or can't explain this stuff. I just find it entertaining is all. :)

In the next 10-30 years we will find life here in our solar system, possible microbial life on Mars, and maybe even simple vertibrates in the deeps oceans on Europa.

In the next 100-300 years we may establish contact with another intelligent planet, hundreds or thousands of light years away. They may well be be more advanced than humans, and it's doubtfull they will look just like humans. What does that do to your Bible? Since man was created in GOD'S image, he MUST be the most advanced in all the universe, right?

When that day comes, that bible will relegated to the large junkpile of mans' past mistaken beliefs.

Scott

You have fun with those assumptions about what science will or will not find. I'll stick with facts.

Brain_Mach1

11-23-2007, 11:14 AM

You mention Isaac Newton's use of Kepler's law of planetary motion....you do realize that Kepler was BURNED ALIVE by the Church for his assertions that the earth circled the sun?
Inform the history books because they say Johannes Kepler died from illness in Regensburg. His MOTHER was accused twice of being a witch but was always released.

Kepler's religious problem was that he was a Lutheran living in Catholic areas and could not participate in the Catholic Eucharist.

If one item (which you capitalized for emphasis) in your post is so obviously wrong, how would we even begin to discuss the more delicate issues of Copernicus and Galileo?

BrianC

11-23-2007, 02:24 PM

Inform the history books because they say Johannes Kepler died from illness in Regensburg. His MOTHER was accused twice of being a witch but was always released.

Kepler's religious problem was that he was a Lutheran living in Catholic areas and could not participate in the Catholic Eucharist.

If one item (which you capitalized for emphasis) in your post is so obviously wrong, how would we even begin to discuss the more delicate issues of Copernicus and Galileo?

He makes a good point. I don't know that much about historical figures such as these due to lack of study, so I enjoy people correcting me. Sticking to the issues at hand are more important, though, than recanting the past to make a point. (not speaking to anyone in particular here, really...just making a broad comment)

Shorty

11-23-2007, 04:10 PM

if you blindfold me and give me enough darts I can hit the bullseye.

how do believers explain prophecies that don't come true?

flashstang04

11-23-2007, 04:18 PM

if you blindfold me and give me enough darts I can hit the bullseye.

how do believers explain prophecies that don't come true?

Such as?.......

poopnut2

11-23-2007, 07:42 PM

Anyone can look at something, and if they want to badly enough, see something that's not there.

http://cs.anu.edu.au/~bdm/dilugim/moby.html

DarkWolf

11-25-2007, 05:18 PM

All I've seen are things like the Dead Sea Scrolls and the 27,000 copies of the original manuscripts.

Really, you've read all 27,000 of them, have you? And you know the Dead Sea Scrolls have no mention of Jesus, right? They're quite old testament, despite being written shortly before, during, and after the time of christ and his disciples.

As for your "prophecies", why is it you people don't use the search function? These have been discussed several times in the past. The long and short of it, it's convenient for prophecies to be made, and fulfilled within the context of the bible. There has not been any prophecies made, that have been fulfilled outside of the context of the bible.

Yet, prophecies about Ephraim say that he will be planted in a plesant place, guarded by the waters, and will tremple from the West. You go west from Israel and the U.S. is the only place you can go. It's protected by waters and you go first and you're in the far East again.

wha?

If you go west from Israel, you imediately run into Africa, not the US. You might even hit Sicily, or the various islands of Greece. Spain even. But the US is FAR from "the only place you can go", and all the other options before the US are also protected by waters.

How weird is that?!!1

Seriously, check it out!

Oh one more thing, does "a time" really mean 1000 years, or is that just something agreed upon in order to try and make the prophecies work? Seems to be only referenced biblically, as no other works indicate "a time" being 1000 years.

So what is your take on all of the prophecies coming true to the day even.... they weren't written after theevents (i.e. after 1967), so that's not it. So what can we attribute their accuracy to?

The fact that, much like Nostrodamus, they're just vague enough to be applicable to just about anything you want to make them work.

tramatic

What's that?

effected

And that?

However, most of the theory of evolution cannot be tested or replicated, not to mention observed in the natural world.

And this is why you knew little to nothing about evolution before becoming a creationist.

A little research on a subject will keep you from looking like an imbecile.

These statements:
I don't live it for someone else because I'm told I should.
The Bible is telling you how to live YOUR life the way it was meant to be lived, in full joy and peace.

they cannot be reconciled. They're completely contradictory.

That has everything to do with killing off those that oppose your views. Where is God in that?

Exactly! It just so happens this is exactly what the church did for hundreds of year during the early expansion of christianity.

The Bible even talks about dinosaurs in a couple of parts.

A large lizard does not a dinosaur make.

You claim everything was larger before the flood... yet we have no fossil records of pre-flood giant people. We have bones from dinosaurs as small as a robin, and as giant as 10 story building. But we have no giant people.

Let's not forget the fact that we have no geological record of a world-wide flood.

ClockwrkOrangeS4

11-28-2007, 05:55 PM

What I don't get is that this Daniel guy claims to know all this stuff but nobody knows what day christ was born.

Mateo5.0

12-01-2007, 06:23 PM

I think BrianC is full of sh*t....

Sorry, but enough bullsh*t.

I think you're full of sh*t because it takes you about 3-5 sentences just to get your point across... and by that time, I feel that you just like watching yourself type.

BTW: there is no way of knowing when the prophecies were written exactly, and no matter what you think, they did change them from generation to generation as time progressed. (Especially to make them more believable)

Off topic, but what the hell:
Jesus is the most quoted prophet in the Koran. Muslims LIKE jesus, they call him a fellow prophet to their Mohammed, it's the whole "son-of-god" thing that they disagree with.

No offense, but I just smell too much B.S. coming from your posts.

flashstang04

12-01-2007, 07:58 PM

SlowLX

12-02-2007, 12:16 AM

Well then I guess the question that you have to face is what do say to the claims made above in Brian's post that talks about prophecies that have been fulfilled. Not according to emotion or faith, but verifiable proof. If you didn't read above, take a minute to. It is all world history....you do believe in history right?
"Any fool can make history, but it takes a genius to write it."

SlowLX

12-02-2007, 12:33 AM

Let's not forget the fact that we have no geological record of a world-wide flood.

as well as add in that many cultures from that era and region have their own folktales about a massive flood, some of which are dated older then the biblical accounts, and the fact that the Black Sea flooded the entire region early enough to correspond with the early years of the earth as creationists see it.

Mateo5.0

12-02-2007, 04:18 PM

Well, one thing Brian does do is give sources. So I am waiting for yours to verify prophecy changes, etc.

Btw, you can "like" Jesus all you want, if you don't think that He is the son of God, then you have missed it all. That "one small point" is huge.

Man... there's no way of knowing how many times the writings have evolved (forgive the pun).

But one thing is for sure- if it was written by man, then there has got to be some B.S. floating around in it somewhere.
:rolleyes:

BrianC

12-03-2007, 07:53 AM

Man... there's no way of knowing how many times the writings have evolved (forgive the pun).

But one thing is for sure- if it was written by man, then there has got to be some B.S. floating around in it somewhere.
:rolleyes:

Actually, we have, as I pointed out 27,000 manuscript pieces that confirm the accuracy of each other over and over again. In order to confirm those manuscripts, we have the oldest found copies which are the Dead Sea Scrolls and we know that they are dated back to the 2nd century BC:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_Scrolls

They are UNTOUCHED since circa 200BC. In other words, they have not been altered in any form or fashion. And the fact that they make our 27,000 manuscripts we have today, also means that our Old Testament manuscripts have not been changed/altered in the past 2200 years, approximately.

You do a great job at giving completely uninformed opinion with nothing to back it up as if it will actually make a point to someone. You might want to study a little more before you go make absurd remarks like this. Besides, had you actually read the prophecies I laid out, you would see that it's impossible to make these prophecies happen over 2500 year periods. That's just absurd reasoning. It's statistically impossible.

BrianC

12-03-2007, 08:05 AM

BrianC

12-03-2007, 08:08 AM

BrianC

12-03-2007, 09:25 AM

"Any fool can make history, but it takes a genius to write it."

Fools can interpret history too, but it takes a genius to put all the pieces together.

Doesn't take a genius to realize that a prophecy starting 2500 years ago that is accomplished on exactly the right year is not something mankind can orchestrate.

724BC (we know for certain that's the date of Ephraim's dispersal into the world by Assyria).

1776AD (We know that's when the U.S. became a nation).

-724BC + 2500 years = 1776AD

552BC - We know that the Israel was given the order to restore their wall and city(by historical reference and biblical cross reference).

1948AD - We know Israel became a nation because of WWII. Was WWII just a coincidence or was it cleverly orchestrated to fulfill a prophecy?

-552BC + 2500 years = 1948AD

533BC - We know that historical references date the 3rd year of Cyrus back to 533BC, which is when Daniel says he wrote another 2500 year prophecy, and that was the beginning date of it concerning control of Jerusalem and the temple mount.

1967AD - We know is the year that Israel got control of Jerusalem and the temple mount in the Six Day War.

-533BC + 2500 years = 1967AD

Once again, these are statistical impossibilities and there's NO WAY they are "vague" or just shots in the dark that would eventually come true. They involve entire nations of people and the world community. The U.N. was created in 1945, and they are the ones that gave the Jews their homeland back (not including Jerusalem where the temple mount is) in 1948. The Jews don't understand these prophecies, so how could they orchestrate this? Sorry...it's completely impossible unless there's a God that saw it all happen ahead of time... You make irrational arguments so you don't have to believe in a God. That's all there is to it. Or you never really read what I typed or considered it at all.

BrianC

12-03-2007, 09:44 AM

I think you're full of sh*t because it takes you about 3-5 sentences just to get your point across... and by that time, I feel that you just like watching yourself type.

So, does that make a Ph.D. student a completely imbecil since they take an entire 20-500+ pages to get their point across to their committee that decides whether they'll get their Ph.D. or not? Gee, I didn't know the smart people in the world were the ones that can sum up a full understanding of something like how how a cell replicates in a matter of one or two sentences.

The reason I explain things out at length is because I have to assume that people don't understand all of the details of what I'm talking about, which means I need to give some explanation for it to bring them up to speed. Or, in your case, I assume you're an idiot that has no knowledge of what I'm talking about, and in an attempt to fix your ignorance, I give you enough information so that you understand what is being discussed. :) I can't help that you're an uninformed idiot. That's your fault. I'm just sharing information so that you're not so uninformed. The idiot part, well...you have to fix that on your own. :)

What's the saying? Ignorance can be taught, but stupid is forever. Good luck with that...

BTW: there is no way of knowing when the prophecies were written exactly, and no matter what you think, they did change them from generation to generation as time progressed. (Especially to make them more believable)

As I said before, we have 27,000 manuscripts, and the dead sea scrolls were untouched by human hands for nearly 2200 years. The dead sea scrolls show that the 27,000 manuscripts we have today are dead on accurate and unchanged, due to the fact that they are exactly like the untouched scrolls from the Dead Sea, which have been there since the 2nd century BC. Sorry, but once again, your ignorance has bitten you in the @$$. Learn something for a change so you can actually have an INFORMED opinion.

You simply get upset because someone proves a God that you want nothing to do with.

Even if the prophecies were changed, they would've had to have changed them to be more believeable as late as 1776, 1948 and 1967, yet the Jews don't even understand these prophecies. Good luck making that theory work. lol

Off topic, but what the hell:
Jesus is the most quoted prophet in the Koran. Muslims LIKE jesus, they call him a fellow prophet to their Mohammed, it's the whole "son-of-god" thing that they disagree with.

No offense, but I just smell too much B.S. coming from your posts.

Jesus is not the most quoted prophet in the Koran. The Koran is the word of Muhommad himself. He is writing it as if he's the prophet from God sent to write God's book and do God's will (or Allah, if you will). The Koran claims that Jesus is the most important prophet in history, yet all Muslims place the most importance on Muhommad. That's the equivalent of Christians saying Jesus was the most important person in the Bible, but Paul is the one we listen to over Jesus since Paul wrote most of the New Testament; and when we die, we want to meet Paul, not Jesus. How absurd is that?

Jesus Himself said He was God on multiple occasions, and that He was the Son of God. Yet, the Koran says that Allah would not have it that He would have a Son. Gee, wonder who's correct here: Jesus or Allah? Wonder who's correct here: the religion that conquered nearly the entire known world and preaches hate of Christians, Jews then the rest of the world and breeds terrorists, or the religion that breeds peace and love of everyone? Yes, Christians in the past have used God's word completely incorrectly as grounds to kill people. But by-in-large, over time, the true message came out and anyone that reads it now can understand that it does not preach any hate or murder or anything like that. Mankind always screws up what God has given them.

For instance, most of the Bible is God, the prophets and apostles fighting against the religious and legalism. Yet, you won't hear that in a church today, usually. Why? Because most churches are religious (very doctrinally traditional) and legalistic in their interpretation (most is a widely interpretable word, so don't read into it too much). If you ask me, most non-spiritual people are upset with religion and the false impression of this angry God that wants to kill everyone for sinning. That's so incredibly the opposite of the Bible. The Bible is not legalistic at all. It frees you from all of that if you understand it properly. Why else would Paul have said, "For us, ALL things are permissible, but not all things are beneficial." He just gave us a license to do anything we want, due to the fact that we're not condemned by sin anymore. But he warns us that if we do sin, we may make our life harder unnecessarily.

Relationship with God is about freedom to do what you please, in hopes that you will choose right and have the desire to do right. I know from experience that when I read, study the Bible, pray and talk to God on a regular basis, my desire to do the wrong thing goes away. I have the option to do it, but I just don't have a desire anymore...

ClockwrkOrangeS4

12-03-2007, 10:59 AM

By the way, 200+ cultures have a flood story, and most all of them say that they came from 8 survivors on a very large boat (which just happens to be what the Bible says). Also, those 200+ cultures are from ALL around the world, not just the Black Sea area. :) They also mostly date it back to the past few thousand years, just like the Bible does (around 4400-4500 years ago). Gee, is there some big conspiracy where everyone got together and made up this story? Hmmmmm....that's real scientific...

so where's the boat?

BrianC

12-03-2007, 11:09 AM

What I don't get is that this Daniel guy claims to know all this stuff but nobody knows what day christ was born.

The prophecies are to the year, not the day. Who cares what exact day Jesus was born? Jesus said not to celebrate His birth but instead, His death, because His death represents the defeat of sin.

ClockwrkOrangeS4

12-03-2007, 11:13 AM

The prophecies are to the year, not the day. Who cares what exact day Jesus was born? Jesus said not to celebrate His birth but instead, His death, because His death represents the defeat of sin.

what is Christmas then, if "nobody cares"?

BrianC

12-03-2007, 11:19 AM

so where's the boat?

http://www.anchorstone.com/content/blogcategory/28/51/

You can read the newsletters for each month and year to see the progression of what Wyatt Archaeological Research found as they discovered the Ark. It should track the progression of how they found it and how they know it's actually Noah's Ark.

One key thing about this ark is that it has iron ribs. Right before the flood account in the Bible, it says that "Tubal Cain was an ironsmith." So we know they had iron back then. Well, there's one thing that's different about this boat than any other boat on the planet they've found: the iron ribs don't rust.

This is not the only iron we've found from pre-flood times. We've found some hammers that are pre-flood as well, and they are also iron. When you scratch the iron, it does not rust. In fact, it's got a slightly different make-up than the iron we have today. Scientists say that they cannot create this type of iron in our current atmosphere. We know from "pre-historic" air bubbles in amber that the atmosphere was very different back then, and we also know dinosaurs could not have survived in our current atmosphere in the sizes we find them. So, the people pre-flood weren't quite as stupid as you think they were if they were using iron ribs for this boat.

The boat also had "dreg stones" which hang over each side of the boat and WAY below in order to make the center of gravity lower. This causes a boat to steer into waves so they don't capsize with large waves. No boat uses this method, because it's not a method for going somewhere. It's only a method used for staying afloat. Otherwise, the stones would cause the boat to hit the ocean floor constantly and act as an anchor, and the extra weight and drag would cause a much slower journey. This boat is unique. You should read about it. It's exactly the right dimensions as mentioned in the Bible.

BrianC

12-03-2007, 11:24 AM

what is Christmas then, if "nobody cares"?

Christmas is actually a pagan holiday that was mixed with a Christian holiday. You can even read in Malachi or Zechariah (I forget which) about a holiday the pagans celebrate where they get a tree, decorate it and give gifts, and it says not to be a part of it.

However, that was not talking about Christmas. It was talking about the ACTUAL pagan holiday. They were nature worshippers, and they would cut down a tree, put it on a rock slab in a hole to stand it up, then dance around it and have sex. Pretty screwed up.

Celebrating Christmas is all about your motivation and intent. As long as you're doing it for the right reasons, there's nothing wrong with it. But, like Jesus said...it's His death that should be the focus. And like I said before, mankind always screws up what God gives us. Easter is the celebration of the death and resurrection of Jesus, yet Easter is also mixed with a Pagan holiday. Hence the bunnies and eggs (fertility). Easter is originally about a Pagan holiday concerning sex and fertility and stuff like that. I think it was Constantine that mixed these two together? I forget exactly... Give mankind long enough and he'll screw up anything from God. It's just a matter of time...

ClockwrkOrangeS4

12-03-2007, 11:35 AM

http://www.anchorstone.com/content/blogcategory/28/51/

You can read the newsletters for each month and year to see the progression of what Wyatt Archaeological Research found as they discovered the Ark. It should track the progression of how they found it and how they know it's actually Noah's Ark.

One key thing about this ark is that it has iron ribs. Right before the flood account in the Bible, it says that "Tubal Cain was an ironsmith." So we know they had iron back then. Well, there's one thing that's different about this boat than any other boat on the planet they've found: the iron ribs don't rust.

This is not the only iron we've found from pre-flood times. We've found some hammers that are pre-flood as well, and they are also iron. When you scratch the iron, it does not rust. In fact, it's got a slightly different make-up than the iron we have today. Scientists say that they cannot create this type of iron in our current atmosphere. We know from "pre-historic" air bubbles in amber that the atmosphere was very different back then, and we also know dinosaurs could not have survived in our current atmosphere in the sizes we find them. So, the people pre-flood weren't quite as stupid as you think they were if they were using iron ribs for this boat.

The boat also had "dreg stones" which hang over each side of the boat and WAY below in order to make the center of gravity lower. This causes a boat to steer into waves so they don't capsize with large waves. No boat uses this method, because it's not a method for going somewhere. It's only a method used for staying afloat. Otherwise, the stones would cause the boat to hit the ocean floor constantly and act as an anchor, and the extra weight and drag would cause a much slower journey. This boat is unique. You should read about it. It's exactly the right dimensions as mentioned in the Bible.

I'll be damned

BrianC

12-03-2007, 12:31 PM

Really, you've read all 27,000 of them, have you? And you know the Dead Sea Scrolls have no mention of Jesus, right? They're quite old testament, despite being written shortly before, during, and after the time of christ and his disciples.

I've read through a few, and I've seen many compared to one another to show how they're exactly alike with no changes.

You're actually wrong about the Dead Sea Scrolls not mentioning Jesus. Yes, of course they are Old Testament, because they are from the 2nd century BC. Any idiot that does 30 seconds of research can find that out (which I assume is what you probably did). However, Isaiah is contained in the Dead Sea Scrolls, and in Isaiah we see how Jesus is clearly prophecied to come in Isaiah.

Isaiah 7:14
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Isaiah 9:6
For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us;And the government will rest on His shoulders;And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.

Also, anytime you see the words "My salvation" or "His salvation" or "God's salvation," the original Hebrew word is: Yeshuwah. Yeshuwah is the Hebrew name for Jesus (also called Joshuah). Jesus is how the Greeks pronounced His name. Joshuah was closer to how the Jews said it in Hebrew.

So, there are verses in the Old Testament that no one is sure about, because they aren't sure if it's saying, "My salvation" or if it's saying, "Jesus." They are interchangable in many verses. Check this out:

Psalm 91:14,16
14"Because he has loved Me, therefore I will deliver him;
I will set him securely on high, because he has known My name.
16"With a long life I will satisfy him
And let him see My salvation."

My salvation is: Yeshuwah in Hebrew, so let's change that to Jesus.

Psalm 91:16
16"With a long life I will satisfy him
And let him see Jesus."

God just described a bunch of stuff Jesus does, like delivers us, and then He says He will SHOW us His salvation. Well, how do you "show" salvation? Could mean He will show us heaven and eternal life. Or it could mean, "I will show you Jesus." The Jews in the Bible are said to have been blinded from the truth for a short time, and so they don't "see Jesus" yet. But Christians are not blinded to the truth about Jesus, and so we "see Jesus." This verse could very well mean that, but who knows? Jesus' name, via Yeshuwah, is all over the Old Testament, and sometimes it fits as using Jesus' name in the verse, and sometimes it doesn't. No one really knows for sure. So, your statement about Jesus in the Old Testament is actually wrong. His name's in there quite a bit and He is mentioned by other names He's known by as well, such as Prince of Peace and Immanuel. It's good to have facts to backup statements of opinion so they're not JUST opinion. :)

As for your "prophecies", why is it you people don't use the search function? These have been discussed several times in the past. The long and short of it, it's convenient for prophecies to be made, and fulfilled within the context of the bible. There has not been any prophecies made, that have been fulfilled outside of the context of the bible.

You obviously didn't read my description of the prophecies. They clearly show that the Bible prophecied these things and the Bible is finished in 95-105AD, yet the prophecies end FAR later than that, such as 688AD, 1776AD, 1948AD and 1967AD. Sorry, but your statement here is taken from a bunch of misinformed people who are trying to promote an incorrect view called Preterism.

Preterism holds to the belief that everything was fulfilled by 70AD, during Bible times. They have TONS of problems with this view, though, like, why didn't Armageddon ever happen? Also, you can find the origins of this view stemming from the 1500's with Jesuit preists commissioned by the Catholic church with the mission of throwing the people off the trail of the Catholic church being the whore of Revelation. People were catching on to the Catholic church being identified as the whore of Revelation, and so the Catholics had these two Jesuit preists come up with two views that would throw everyone off in order to devillianize the Catholic church.

One Jesuit priest came up with the Preterist view that everything happened back in Bible times, and the other Jesuit priest came up with the view that it all happens in the future. Both can be sort of fit into the Bible, but will never make sense of the prophecies, because they're not at all accurate and there's always major holes in the theories that don't make sense. Why do you think everyone's so confused about prophecy and no one can really prove their stance? Because they don't have the correct one yet and they're running around like chickens with the heads cut off trying to fit the Bible into their incorrect interpretation instead of trying to figure out the real prophetic fulfillments and then form a proper interpretation. My view is fully proveable, without contest.

Once again, it helps if you actually read things and learn stuff that back it up before you go throwing out uninformed opinions.

If you go west from Israel, you imediately run into Africa, not the US. You might even hit Sicily, or the various islands of Greece. Spain even. But the US is FAR from "the only place you can go", and all the other options before the US are also protected by waters.

Wow, you're really not too bright are you?

Of course if you go to the West, you'll first hit Africa and Spain, but they are not protected by water. The "West" is known as the area where the America's are located. They were one of the biggest discoveries of all time in regard to landmasses. They are protected by water, because they are surrounded on all sides by water, completely separate from the rest of the world. The United States just happened to settle in a large part of North America, where we are protected by water on two sides, and the countries above and below us have basically no military to speak of and are not stupid enough to attack us. So, if you go far enough north or south, you'll find that we are protected by water on all sides from the rest of the world. And, if you keep going West from the United States, eventually you hit China and that is considered the far EAST.

Besides, Ephraim was dispersed into the nations in 724BC, and a prophecy just happened to say that 2500 years later, they would be planted in a pleasant place, guarded by water. Gee, exactly 2500 years later (1776AD) the United States just HAPPENS to claim independence from Britain and fulfills that prophecy 100%. The pilgrams at that time have written their words that say that they felt God was calling them to go there, but for what, they did not know, and they just followed His call. Also, the founders of our country say that our nation was formed out of divine providence from God Himself. None of these people knew about the prophecy of 2500 years, so they did not just "make it happen" either.

Sorry, but you really don't have a leg to stand on here. This is a statistical impossibility...

Oh one more thing, does "a time" really mean 1000 years, or is that just something agreed upon in order to try and make the prophecies work? Seems to be only referenced biblically, as no other works indicate "a time" being 1000 years.

Once again, "a time" would mean nothing if those prophecies didn't happen exactly like they were predicted to happen in the Bible. BUT, they did happen EXACTLY as they were supposed to in the Bible, exactly to the year. Therefore, it's not coincidence. It's obviously structured and planned or foresaw. You simply want to find a reason not to believe in a God, because you don't want to be accountable to Him, or you hate legalistic churches or religion or the idea of God (which I also hate legalism and religion). Who knows? I just know that you're trying REALLY hard to disprove something that's obviously irrefutable. Your reasons are your own... work it out for yourself.

The fact that, much like Nostrodamus, they're just vague enough to be applicable to just about anything you want to make them work.

These prophecies aren't vague at all. LOL One prophecy says that from the time the sacrifices are stopped to the time the abomination of desolation is setup, there will be 1290 days (1271.553 solar years). Well, we find out that the Bible tells exactly the year the sacrifices were stopped in Daniel's time, so we line that up with historical references to find out that the year was 583BC. So, we add 1271.553 solar years to 583BC and it comes out to 688.553AD, which is the year they started building the Dome of the Rock on the temple mount. When your read the other descriptions in the Bible of what the Abomination of Desolation is, it says it is something setup on the temple mount of God, it says it is an abomination to God and it speaks blasphemies against God and the Son of the Most High God. All of these things are exactly done by the Dome of the Rock, in which there are plaques that says, "God would not have it that He would have a son." Clearly denying Jesus is the Son of God, which is anti-christ. Everything is fulfilled to the year.

Next, you have a prophecy that says 42 months (converted to solar years = 1278.48 years) the gentiles will rule there in the outer court. That outer court is also called The Court of the Gentiles. It is the closest a non-Jew could get to the temple. The prophecy said it would be 1278.48 years that they would control that court of the Gentiles. So we take 688.553AD and add 1278.48 years and we get: 1967AD, the year the Jews took back the temple mount and ran out the ruling Muslim authorities.

Please tell me, how is that "vague???" LOL That's dead on accurate. There's not broad interpretation here. It's very specific. Again, you should really read this stuff and do some research before you spout out uninformed opinion that has no backing or solid proof to it.

Oh, and I noticed that you also tried to insult my intelligence due to spelling errors. Please excuse me for typing 80+ words per minute when I'm in a hurry and making typos or misspelling a word here or there. I'm no perfect speller. I see that you had to skin to the level of insulting my spelling since you have nothing else to stand on. Good job!

And this is why you knew little to nothing about evolution before becoming a creationist.

A little research on a subject will keep you from looking like an imbecile.

I knew a TON about evolution before ever hearing a word about creation. And I learned even MORE about evolution AFTER learning about creation. Why? Because I like to be well informed so I can make an educated decision, unlike you apparently.

These statements:
Quote:
I don't live it for someone else because I'm told I should.

Quote:
The Bible is telling you how to live YOUR life the way it was meant to be lived, in full joy and peace.

they cannot be reconciled. They're completely contradictory.

No, no one TOLD me to live my life the way I choose to live it. I read the Bible and saw that I have a choice. Paul says, "For us, ALL THINGS are permissible, but not all things are beneficial." Paul is trying to convince people not to use their freedom from sin to go back into sin again, but he explains right there that we can do ANYTHING we want since we're not condemned by sin anymore, but if we do, we'll pay for the sins we do on this earth and our life will suck unnecessarily because of it, most likely. He's doing exactly what God has always done: he's sharing how IF you choose to follow God's ways, then your life will be really great, but if you choose to go another way, you'll unnecessarily have to deal with a lot of crap. IT'S A CHOICE! We aren't told to do these things or we'll go to hell. We're told that this is the way to live a good life full of happiness and joy and peace. But it is OUR CHOICE. No one chose this for me. I decided to do it myself because I had a desire to live this way. And I've noticed that the more I do the things taught in the Bible, the better my life becomes. That's all there is to it. No one told me to do this. I made a choice to test the things in the Bible, and they just happened to work like He said they would. Therefore, I'm sticking with them. If it didn't work properly, I wouldn't do them.

Quote:
That has everything to do with killing off those that oppose your views. Where is God in that?

Exactly! It just so happens this is exactly what the church did for hundreds of year during the early expansion of christianity.

How many times do I have to point out that MAN SCREWS UP EVERYTHING GOD GIVES THEM?? I have expressed many times (and I think even in this thread) that I do not support religion or legalism, and that the Bible is all about God, the prophets and apostles fighting AGAINST religion and legalism, and instead advocating spirituality through a relationship with God and nothing more. As the relationship grows stronger, you simply lose the desire to want to sin. It's that simple. It's all about love and the relationship with God. That's it. Legalism and religion are completely different from this, though. They are tradition and bondage. Many churches preach them, and many churches preach spirituality and relationship. You have to sort it out on your own through your own study and research.

A large lizard does not a dinosaur make.

I hardly think a "large lizard" has a tail that is as large as a cedar tree as described in Job. I also hardly think a beast that comes out of the ocean on to land and cannot be taken down by the men of that day is a "large lizard." In fact, it says he spits fire (or sparks of fire) out of his mouth. There are a few beetles we have today that can do that out of their butts. lol Look up the bombadeir beetle sometime and read about it. It has a turret on it's butt that can shoot in nearly a 360 arc up and down and nearly that front to back too. It shoots two chemicals that mix and hit air and explode at 212 degrees fahrenheit at a rate of 200+ shots per minute. He has a fire machine gun on his butt for crying out loud! You think evolution did that? And if he can do that, so can a dragon like the one described in Job. It's not impossible. Where did people get the idea from anyway? Why are there so many fire breathing dragon stories in different cultures? Because it actually happened...

Besides, you can prove that dinosaurs existed with men just 4,000 years ago or earlier, because when you look at the walls of Babylon, you can see every dinosaur we know of drawn on the walls. Do you think the Babylonians were digging up fossiles and just taking educated guesses on what the dinosaurs looked like when they drew those pictures? Oh, and where are all of the fossiles they dug up and where are their dig sites? There are none, you say? Gee...imagine that. Once again, you have no leg to stand on...

You claim everything was larger before the flood... yet we have no fossil records of pre-flood giant people. We have bones from dinosaurs as small as a robin, and as giant as 10 story building. But we have no giant people.

Actually, we do. On a TV program back on New Years Eve 1999-2000, we saw the pharoahs under the Great Pyramid (if I'm not mistaken, that was the one) were untombed, and the bones were 11 feet tall. Also, I have seen many pictures of caves they dug into that had been filled with mud which turned to sediments and filled in everything, fossilizing men that were 8 and 9 feet tall. The rulers and people next to the skeletons are quite a bit of proof that the pictures weren't tampered with. These pictures were sometimes from the middle to late part of the 1900's, meaning Photoshop wasn't around during some of these photographs conception dates.

Also, here's where a little knowledge comes in handy. Most humans were NOT underground and covered by sediments when the flood happened (which is required for fossilization). Instead, when people die, there is a phenomenon that happens which makes them float to the surface of the water. The flood would've caused a ton of dead bodies floating around, and afterwords, those bodies would've come to rest on the wet ground and decomposed with no remains left behind. Please, go research this sometime for yourself.

Animals, on the other hand, don't have this phenomenon happen to them. When they die, they sink to the bottom of the ocean and stay there. If there are turbulent waters and sediments coming down on them, you will see that they get covered by the sediments and buried and fossilized VERY quickly, because as we know now, something can be fossilized in a matter of just a couple of years if the ground is moist. Moisture is one of the biggest factors in fossilization. Funny that they don't tell you that in school. Hmmmmm....

Let's not forget the fact that we have no geological record of a world-wide flood.
Let's not forget that you are full of completely incorrect information. :) Yes, there is a huge geological record of a world-wide flood. It's called ocean fossiles found on every mountain on the planet. The scientific community widely agrees that every part of the planet was at one time covered by ocean or water. They just refuse to believe it was a flood.

And secondly, we can see proof of what floods do when we go and look at things like Mount Saint Helens and the erosion of the river that feeds Niagra Falls. With Mount Saint Helens, we find out that during an eruption, only a few years later, 360,000 years worth of sediments settled on the floor of the lakes in the area, causing trees to be trapped in the sediments standing straight up, and sometimes even on their sides or upside down. Now, did those trees get covered in those layers over 360,000 years (which we know is not true, of course), or did those trees lose buoyancy, sink to the bottom, truck first, stick straight up in the sand, then get covered very quickly by the sediments settling down around them? Scientists all KNOW those trees were covered in a matter of less than 15 years and turned to stone (aka - petrification, aka - fossilization). We can see evidence that standing waters from a flood cause layering when there are sediments kicked up. They cover and fossilize things very quickly. It's not hard to do, I promise. I've seen fossilized car keys, which obviously didn't take long to fossilize since cars haven't been around but for a little over 100 years.

Floods cause layering and fossilization. Period. I've completely disproved every one of your misinformed or uninformed opinions or statements. Please, do some research and get some actual knowledge and proof behind your statements before you waste my time again. I take no offense, but you really have to learn that you can't just go looking around the internet for random people's opinions or facts or get the stuff from your friend next door or a Discovery Channel program. You have to learn this stuff for yourself and look at reserach papers and research studies WITH YOUR OWN EYES. Make your own decisions. My wife has access to all the university research she wants from any university in America through her Ph.D. program and membership as a student and employee with the University of Texas at Dallas. You can find the stuff too if you look for it. Somehow, though, I doubt you'll actually go look for this stuff on your own. Have a nice day.

BrianC

12-03-2007, 12:32 PM

I'll be damned

You could be saved instead of damned. lol :p

Yeah, I don't like to say things unless I have proof of them, and Noah's Ark they have proof of. I do my best to let people know when I have no proof of something, because I don't like operating in the world of theory too terribly much. I much prefer facts and things I can see and touch and work with, you know? I like proof. It's quite the opposite of faith, but faith is required anyway, regardless of the proof seen, as has been proven with all of the different interpretations out there.

ClockwrkOrangeS4

12-03-2007, 12:54 PM

You could be saved instead of damned. lol :p

Yeah, I don't like to say things unless I have proof of them, and Noah's Ark they have proof of. I do my best to let people know when I have no proof of something, because I don't like operating in the world of theory too terribly much. I much prefer facts and things I can see and touch and work with, you know? I like proof. It's quite the opposite of faith, but faith is required anyway, regardless of the proof seen, as has been proven with all of the different interpretations out there.

Hard to argue with science, that's why I'm a non-believer

flashstang04

12-03-2007, 12:56 PM

Hard to argue with science, that's why I'm a non-believer

Honestly Clock, I was like that also, but it is good now, because I am like Brian. I like to know what is fact. Some people believe completely on faith and that is all. And that is plenty. The world needs both kinds.

SlowLX

12-03-2007, 02:36 PM

Fools can interpret history too, but it takes a genius to put all the pieces together.

Doesn't take a genius to realize that a prophecy starting 2500 years ago that is accomplished on exactly the right year is not something mankind can orchestrate.

724BC (we know for certain that's the date of Ephraim's dispersal into the world by Assyria).

1776AD (We know that's when the U.S. became a nation).

-724BC + 2500 years = 1776AD

552BC - We know that the Israel was given the order to restore their wall and city(by historical reference and biblical cross reference).

1948AD - We know Israel became a nation because of WWII. Was WWII just a coincidence or was it cleverly orchestrated to fulfill a prophecy?

-552BC + 2500 years = 1948AD

533BC - We know that historical references date the 3rd year of Cyrus back to 533BC, which is when Daniel says he wrote another 2500 year prophecy, and that was the beginning date of it concerning control of Jerusalem and the temple mount.

1967AD - We know is the year that Israel got control of Jerusalem and the temple mount in the Six Day War.

-533BC + 2500 years = 1967AD

Once again, these are statistical impossibilities and there's NO WAY they are "vague" or just shots in the dark that would eventually come true. They involve entire nations of people and the world community. The U.N. was created in 1945, and they are the ones that gave the Jews their homeland back (not including Jerusalem where the temple mount is) in 1948. The Jews don't understand these prophecies, so how could they orchestrate this? Sorry...it's completely impossible unless there's a God that saw it all happen ahead of time... You make irrational arguments so you don't have to believe in a God. That's all there is to it. Or you never really read what I typed or considered it at all.Who said I didnt believe in God, you're choosing what you want to form your own opinions.

But in the interest of conversation going with your geologic view of a world wide flood and correspond it with the biblical timeline. The flood happened what 4500ish years ago.

First explain to me how all these animals just got off the boat in Mt Ararat and got to where they were? A three toed sloth that takes days to move a few centimeters made it all the way to S America. Even disregarding that idea its a well known theory (keep in mind a theory doesnt mean its unproven but that it isn't known well enough to be law, gravity is a theory) by now that the tectonic plates move at speeds ranging .6 cm to 8.5 cm a year. multiply even 8cm's by 4500 years and you have movement of roughly .4 Kilometers so there def. wasn't enough land to make it by walking. This also doesn't explain why different animals went to different continents. Did elephants just decide they didn't want to go to europe or what?

SlowLX

12-03-2007, 02:49 PM

SlowLX

12-03-2007, 04:41 PM

BTW what do you think was catastrophic enough to cause all the water in the world to cover the planet at once?

BrianC

12-04-2007, 09:42 AM

BTW what do you think was catastrophic enough to cause all the water in the world to cover the planet at once?

The water was all underneith the crust to begin with, except maybe one area toward the bottom of the globe, as best anyone can figure out. The Bible says the land came out over the water. So there was TONS of land, and very little water in those days. It's a perfect nuclear reactor:

1. The core heats the mantle
2. The mantle heats the water
3. The water heats the crust
4. The water heat causes pressure, so water pushes toward the surface to water plants at the roots or causes springs to spring up and water plants.
5. If there were a firmament canopy over the atmosphere, as the Bible says, and if it really blocked out heat from the sun, as the theory goes, then it would mean the earth was internally heated. This would explain why we find wooly mammoths standing up, frozen, with green vegitation in their mouths and stomachs at the north and south pole areas.

Now, if the core ever heated up drastically, it would cause the water pressure to rise and burst through the crust, which is where we get the cracks trenches in the ocean floors. Also, it would explain why the ocean floor is sunken, and there are mountains parallel to the oceans and higher land apart from the oceans. Explains a ton, actually.

BrianC

12-04-2007, 09:44 AM

Hard to argue with science, that's why I'm a non-believer

Science actually builds my faith quite a bit. There's nothing wrong with science. There's everything wrong with interpretation of the data, though.

Mr Majestyk

12-04-2007, 10:26 AM

Hard to argue with science, that's why I'm a non-believer

Science is limited to human senses and perceptions, and is a creation of man to attempt to make order out of chaos. While it does a marvelous job of addressing "how", it answers nothing about "why". I have no problem accepting science with its limitations, but do not rely solely on it as a basis for my understanding of life and my role in Creation.

flashstang04

12-04-2007, 10:41 AM

Science is limited to human senses and perceptions, and is a creation of man to attempt to make order out of chaos. While it does a marvelous job of addressing "how", it answers nothing about "why". I have no problem accepting science with its limitations, but do not rely solely on it as a basis for my understanding of life and my role in Creation.

I think you are right...science can take us only so far, and then we must make a choice. Fortunately, science supports biblical events all OVER scriptures.

BrianC

12-04-2007, 10:46 AM

Who said I didnt believe in God, you're choosing what you want to form your own opinions.

No, has nothing to do with that. Some of your statements seemed imply you don't believe in God, that's all. I thought that's what you were saying, so I was going with it. So...do you believe in God?

Oh, and if I implied you were stupid, I was just joking. Just messing around here, having fun. :) Didn't want you to think I actually thought you or anyone else is stupid.

But in the interest of conversation going with your geologic view of a world wide flood and correspond it with the biblical timeline. The flood happened what 4500ish years ago.

First explain to me how all these animals just got off the boat in Mt Ararat and got to where they were?

Well, since Mt. Ararat was lower before the flood, but still a high point on the earth, as the "fountains of the deep broke forth" as the Bible says, the water started to fill the earth and the animals flocked to higher ground. Made it easier for Noah to get them in twos and as juveniles.

Now, you'll find that scientists have found that nearly all animals can be forced into a hybernation state so that they don't eat, drink, or use the bathroom (for a lack of better terms). This would make everything MUCH easier. And in juvenile form, they would take up tons less space. Also, the Ark, if I remember correctly, was around 3 football fields long, which means it was the size of a large cruise ship. That's HUGE. Just went on a cruise for 5 days, and that boat is just massive...

Now, once they were off the boat and the water froze at the caps or receded back under the crust, the earth was fully accessible with not oceans to hinder anything. It took the earth a while before the ice melted and filled in the oceans apparently. 200-400 years (I forget exactly) after the flood, the life span dropped drastically according to the Bible, and the earth was "divided." The life spans were around 200-400 years, but people started dying out much more quickly due to the carbon release from the ice melting. There was hardly any carbon in the atmosphere prior to the flood. Now, it started to grow and an alarming rate as the ice heated and melted. Carbon is shown to cause cancer and it reduces lifespan. Around this time period, there was a man in the Bible around this time named "Peleg" which means "the earth divided" in Hebrew. His brother's name was Joctan, which means "the earth melted."

So, the animals had years and years to travel all around the world, and they probably were much much healthier and faster than they are today with the introduction of far more carbon into the air. Humans could've transported animals all over the place as well. No oceans mean no restrictions for travel on foot. Animals can easily spread out over hundreds or thousands of years.

A three toed sloth that takes days to move a few centimeters made it all the way to S America.

As I said, animals were very different back then. A two toed sloth may not have existed just like he does today. For instance, Noah didn't bring one breed of every dog on the ark, because there was only one breed of dog: wolf. Dogs were specially bred to get different kinds for different uses by mankind over the years. Most dog breeds came out of Britan in the 1800's. A two toed sloth, due to environment, could've been much different back before and after the flood. He would've been a lot bigger, and likely a lot faster. The sloth is the product of hundreds or thousands of years of adaptation to a different environment than it was originally in. It's very different now than it was. You don't see giant two toed sloths in the fossile record, because they were likely very different back then.

Even disregarding that idea its a well known theory (keep in mind a theory doesnt mean its unproven but that it isn't known well enough to be law, gravity is a theory) by now that the tectonic plates move at speeds ranging .6 cm to 8.5 cm a year. multiply even 8cm's by 4500 years and you have movement of roughly .4 Kilometers so there def. wasn't enough land to make it by walking.

No, a theory is a theory because it is unproven BECAUSE it doesn't have the proper data to prove it. Which means it's just a theory; nothing more.

Preflood, there were not plates. Just a solid mass of land with no cracks. Once the water burst through the crust (or as the Bible says, the fountains of the deep broke forth), this caused the crust to break into pieces. Only a few at first, and then as the water displaced and the land had to resettle on an uneven crust bottom, it caused major cracks which is where we get the mountains and fault lines and valcanos. The Bible says the waters underneith the crust (fountains of the deep) started the flood, not the 40 days of rain. The rain came down because those fountains of the deep were spewing water miles and miles into the atmosphere where they cracked that firmament canopy at the top of the atmosphere.

This is where we get the layers and the cracks and the mountains and everything as we see it today. Quick fossilization due to major water pressure (water is extremely heavy) and extreme amounts of moisture. That's perfect for super fast layering and fossilization, all at once. Pangea makes no sense anyway when you look at the ocean floor and continental shelf and how Pangea completely leaves out some countries and shrinks others like Africa, massively. lol It's laughable.

This also doesn't explain why different animals went to different continents. Did elephants just decide they didn't want to go to europe or what?

elephants either were moved by humans, or they spread out over time to more temperate climates. Animals, regardless of what you believe, are very smart and will go to climates they are comfortable in. Elephants used to be real similar to wooly mammoths. It's the whole "common ancestor" thing, but without a change of species; instead, just variations withing the animal species (aka - adaptation).

BrianC

12-04-2007, 12:03 PM

and your mountian question that supposedly can only be answered by a world wide flood it goes like this: As the indo-australian plate, with india firmly embedded, approached the eurasian continent 20 million years ago, its leading edge, comprised of oceanic crust, was first to be crumpled and uplifted. slowly, the himalayas rose and the leading oceanic crust of the indian subcontinent, carrying the fossilized remains of its ancient ocean inhabitants, was thrust up by the crumpling crust in its wake. thus, plate tectonics explains how the majestic peaks of one of the world’s great mountain ranges were once the deep sea-floors of an ancient drifting plate.

the european alps have been formed in similar fashion, starting some 80 million years ago when the outlying continental fragments of the african plate collided with the eurasian plate. pressure between the two plates continues today, resulting in the gradual closing up of the mediterranean sea.

It wasn't a question I asked because I didn't know the theory. It's a question I asked to see if you knew the theory, so I could show the ridiculousness of the theory. :)

Well, I sort of all ready did that, I guess...

not to mention glacial dams like the black sea flood also help explain massive quick rise in sea level. as glaciers reached their southernmost points at areas they blocked multiple rivers without freezing them causing huge dam lakes to be formed. lake missoula in the north west covered a good portion of montanna. when the dam broke a massive flood of water made its way to the pacific coast raising the sea level massively and eroding the rock quickly such as a world wide flood enthusiast my expect. but if it happened on a world wide scale we'd have features around the ENTIRE world that resemble eastern washinton

No, that's how it would be in YOUR theory. But things didn't necessarily happen that way (hense the title "theory"). We have glacier trenches down as far as the middle of the United States where glaciers were melting in the north and pulling the southerly glaciers up from the south. We know that happened. But we don't know if things like what you described happened often, or at all back in those days. We just know that glaciers covered a large majority of the north and south of the globe, with only a middle area of the globe that wasn't frozen by glaciers. I don't pretend to know exactly how it went down back then, but I have a theory, and that's all it is....a theory. I wouldn't dare say it's fact or that it just hasn't bee proven fully yet. It's almost impossible to prove things fully from the past. I take it as the best possible explanation. That's a reasonably scientific mindset.

SlowLX

12-04-2007, 01:37 PM

The water was all underneith the crust to begin with, except maybe one area toward the bottom of the globe, as best anyone can figure out. The Bible says the land came out over the water. So there was TONS of land, and very little water in those days. It's a perfect nuclear reactor:

1. The core heats the mantle
2. The mantle heats the water
3. The water heats the crust
4. The water heat causes pressure, so water pushes toward the surface to water plants at the roots or causes springs to spring up and water plants.
5. If there were a firmament canopy over the atmosphere, as the Bible says, and if it really blocked out heat from the sun, as the theory goes, then it would mean the earth was internally heated. This would explain why we find wooly mammoths standing up, frozen, with green vegitation in their mouths and stomachs at the north and south pole areas.

Now, if the core ever heated up drastically, it would cause the water pressure to rise and burst through the crust, which is where we get the cracks trenches in the ocean floors. Also, it would explain why the ocean floor is sunken, and there are mountains parallel to the oceans and higher land apart from the oceans. Explains a ton, actually.
And you call the mountain building/ocean fossil theory rediculus....

How'd water get below the crust? And that theory going out of its way to be the cause of plate tectonics is just WOW when plate tectonics is pretty much one of the most proven theories of geology now.

BTW Even though in the bible the ANCIENTS had greater knowledge and so on and so forth, Im willing to bet their comprehension and scientific reasoning was on the level of say a 3rd grader. So why do many young earth creationist take stock in a word for word translation of scientific things in there?

SlowLX

12-04-2007, 01:51 PM

No, a theory is a theory because it is unproven BECAUSE it doesn't have the proper data to prove it. Which means it's just a theory; nothing more.

Preflood, there were not plates. Just a solid mass of land with no cracks. Once the water burst through the crust (or as the Bible says, the fountains of the deep broke forth), this caused the crust to break into pieces. Only a few at first, and then as the water displaced and the land had to resettle on an uneven crust bottom, it caused major cracks which is where we get the mountains and fault lines and valcanos. The Bible says the waters underneith the crust (fountains of the deep) started the flood, not the 40 days of rain. The rain came down because those fountains of the deep were spewing water miles and miles into the atmosphere where they cracked that firmament canopy at the top of the atmosphere.

This is where we get the layers and the cracks and the mountains and everything as we see it today. Quick fossilization due to major water pressure (water is extremely heavy) and extreme amounts of moisture. That's perfect for super fast layering and fossilization, all at once. Pangea makes no sense anyway when you look at the ocean floor and continental shelf and how Pangea completely leaves out some countries and shrinks others like Africa, massively. lol It's laughable.

A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers.

IF there were no plates how can we track atlantic seafloor back way past 10000 years? Magnetic reversals, seafloor spreading, radio carbon dating?

http://geology.com/pangea-continental-drift.gif

It looks pretty normal to me :confused: Are thinking of the old continental drift maps from the 30's before geologist took into a acount the continental shelfs? :confused:

SlowLX

12-04-2007, 02:04 PM

It wasn't a question I asked because I didn't know the theory. It's a question I asked to see if you knew the theory, so I could show the ridiculousness of the theory. :)

Well, I sort of all ready did that, I guess...

No, that's how it would be in YOUR theory. But things didn't necessarily happen that way (hense the title "theory"). We have glacier trenches down as far as the middle of the United States where glaciers were melting in the north and pulling the southerly glaciers up from the south. We know that happened. But we don't know if things like what you described happened often, or at all back in those days. We just know that glaciers covered a large majority of the north and south of the globe, with only a middle area of the globe that wasn't frozen by glaciers. I don't pretend to know exactly how it went down back then, but I have a theory, and that's all it is....a theory. I wouldn't dare say it's fact or that it just hasn't bee proven fully yet. It's almost impossible to prove things fully from the past. I take it as the best possible explanation. That's a reasonably scientific mindset.
YES we do know they happened often!

we know from all the glacial features and profiles that these things happened often. The hudson bay was formed from a glacier, Washington st was flooded multiple times because of a glacial dam, we can track the outwash planes and varnes just to see how far and how fast the glacier moved thousands of years ago. We know that S africa used to be covered in glaciers and very near the old S pole. Glaciers are one of the most proven geologic features on earth.

Since the last Ice age ended around 10,000 years ago allowing civilizations to form rather than small groups live for survival...is it so hard for you to believe the Jewish people were a group to come out of this? If your religion didnt by happenstance come to the forfront of society 1800 to 1900 years ago we might be having this conversation of the pagan roman gods.

Mateo5.0

12-04-2007, 07:33 PM

So, does that make a Ph.D. student a completely imbecil since they take an entire 20-500+ pages to get their point across to their committee that decides whether they'll get their Ph.D. or not?

No, but you're not applying for a PHD. Your posting an opinion.

As I said before, we have 27,000 manuscripts, and the dead sea scrolls were untouched by human hands for nearly 2200 years.

You would be laughed out of every credible institution. Please prove that they weren't altered by anyone in any way.

You simply get upset because someone proves a God that you want nothing to do with.

I'm not upset, I just said that you are full of B.S.

Even if the prophecies were changed, they would've had to have changed them to be more believeable as late as 1776, 1948 and 1967, yet the Jews don't even understand these prophecies. Good luck making that theory work. lol

No, you wouldn't. If you could just change the meanings of the words written in the prophecies to mean whatever you want, that can be done after the fact. That's what has been done to the Bible, the Constitution, the Qur'an- you name it. If it is in ancient text, then many of the same words could have different meanings. If you translate it into new words, the old ones lose their meaning- even if it is bit by bit. I don't recall any of our religious leaders harping about this until after all the aforementioned events took place.

I would like for you to compare those three exhilarating examples to the many, many unproven ones.

Jesus is not the most quoted prophet in the Koran. The Koran is the word of Muhommad himself. He is writing it as if he's the prophet from God sent to write God's book and do God's will (or Allah, if you will). The Koran claims that Jesus is the most important prophet in history, yet all Muslims place the most importance on Muhommad.

Jesus is the most quoted prophet in the Qur'an, and I'll add that Muhammad (spelling corrected) was speaking the word of God, with his followers writing down the words of God, not of himself. But you would already know that if you simply searched the internet first. Putz.

No offense but I couldn't resist calling B.S. on you. Forgive me. :p

Mateo5.0

12-04-2007, 08:01 PM

Preflood, there were not plates. Just a solid mass of land with no cracks. Once the water burst through the crust (or as the Bible says, the fountains of the deep broke forth), this caused the crust to break into pieces. Only a few at first, and then as the water displaced and the land had to resettle on an uneven crust bottom, it caused major cracks which is where we get the mountains and fault lines and valcanos. The Bible says the waters underneith the crust (fountains of the deep) started the flood, not the 40 days of rain. The rain came down because those fountains of the deep were spewing water miles and miles into the atmosphere where they cracked that firmament canopy at the top of the atmosphere.

This is where we get the layers and the cracks and the mountains and everything as we see it today. Quick fossilization due to major water pressure (water is extremely heavy) and extreme amounts of moisture. That's perfect for super fast layering and fossilization, all at once. Pangea makes no sense anyway when you look at the ocean floor and continental shelf and how Pangea completely leaves out some countries and shrinks others like Africa, massively. lol It's laughable.
elephants either were moved by humans, or they spread out over time to more temperate climates. Animals, regardless of what you believe, are very smart and will go to climates they are comfortable in. Elephants used to be real similar to wooly mammoths. It's the whole "common ancestor" thing, but without a change of species; instead, just variations withing the animal species (aka - adaptation).

Brian....... are you on drugs? If you honestly put ANY mental weight on this at all, I suggest you back off before you give yourself a hemorrhage..
You obviously haven't been in school in a long time. Any grade school geology teacher would laugh you right back into your Ford.

You claim to be educated, and intelligent- and even open minded. I don't find any of it in your posts. Again, Forgive me.

Mateo5.0

12-05-2007, 12:10 AM

ClockwrkOrangeS4

12-05-2007, 07:20 AM

Religion is limited to human senses and perceptions, and is a creation of man to attempt to make order out of chaos. While it does a marvelous job of addressing "who", it answers nothing about "why". I have no problem accepting religion with its limitations, but do not rely solely on it as a basis for my understanding of life and my role in Creation.

fixed

Mr Majestyk

12-05-2007, 01:04 PM

ClockwrkOrangeS4

12-05-2007, 01:23 PM

"why" is answered thus:

.....God saw that it was good (Genesis1)

the bible was written by man, so a man wrote:

.....God saw it was good

Mr Majestyk

12-05-2007, 01:48 PM

Actually the Old Testament is rooted in oral history, so a more correct statement on your part might be man passed on to all the generations...."God saw it was good".

ClockwrkOrangeS4

12-05-2007, 02:18 PM

Actually the Old Testament is rooted in oral history, so a more correct statement on your part might be man passed on to all the generations...."God saw it was good".

the quote was from a man, and written by a man

flashstang04

12-05-2007, 02:23 PM

Well that is the million dollar question isn't it....either it is God breathed or not.. Of course a man put it to paper (scrolls), but if it is not God inspired, then how can the many accuracies and foreknowledge of dated events be explained.

Mr Majestyk

12-05-2007, 02:42 PM

the quote was from a man, and written by a man

Genesis was/is used (inspired) by God to proclaim the the account of Creation in a manner humans could comprehend and reveal to the rest of humankind. Jesus was also a man, and the Son of God, and likewise taught in a manner humans could comprehend and reveal to the rest of humankind.

BrianC

12-05-2007, 11:29 PM

And you call the mountain building/ocean fossil theory rediculus....

How'd water get below the crust? And that theory going out of its way to be the cause of plate tectonics is just WOW when plate tectonics is pretty much one of the most proven theories of geology now.

BTW Even though in the bible the ANCIENTS had greater knowledge and so on and so forth, Im willing to bet their comprehension and scientific reasoning was on the level of say a 3rd grader. So why do many young earth creationist take stock in a word for word translation of scientific things in there?

I have no problem with plate tectonics. PANGEA, though, is a completely different theory.

You ask how the water got under the crust. Why don't you ask how it got on top of the crust? Because you either have to assume it started out below or above the crust, but you can't know for sure.

And, as I said, if the crust was one solid mass with no cracks or tectonic plates to begin with, that would mean that the water was housed underneith the crust until it heated up and burst forth due to water pressure from the rise in temperature.

If you think it's a crazy theory, I didn't explain it well. Most people I tell about it say, "Wow, that makes a lot of sense." I must've screwed up the explanation... It's easier in person... visuals help too... It's a perfectly viable theory. It just explains what the earth was like prior to the plates, and how the plates came about. Also explain oceans and mountains, etc...

BrianC

12-05-2007, 11:32 PM

Genesis was/is used (inspired) by God to proclaim the the account of Creation in a manner humans could comprehend and reveal to the rest of humankind. Jesus was also a man, and the Son of God, and likewise taught in a manner humans could comprehend and reveal to the rest of humankind.

Some believe Genesis is literal, and others believe it's figurative. I opt for literal, because there's a lot of scientific stuff in there that makes up a perfect model for a perfect world. Also, scientists proved how their "theoretical pre-flood world" described in the Bible would have air pressure and oxygen in a configuration that causes the human brain to jump from its current 4% activity max at any one given time to nearly 100% brain activity, which causes a super-fast healing rate. Ever heard of hyperbarics? Cool stuff.

BrianC

12-05-2007, 11:35 PM

Brian....... are you on drugs? If you honestly put ANY mental weight on this at all, I suggest you back off before you give yourself a hemorrhage..
You obviously haven't been in school in a long time. Any grade school geology teacher would laugh you right back into your Ford.

You claim to be educated, and intelligent- and even open minded. I don't find any of it in your posts. Again, Forgive me.

Actually, when I've explained this to geology majors, they think it's completely possible and that it's a very interesting theory. Physics teachers think it's pretty interesting too.

Like I said, I may not have explained it well. Everything I just said it 100% possible, and actually explains a lot more than Pangea explains.

BrianC

12-05-2007, 11:51 PM

No, you wouldn't. If you could just change the meanings of the words written in the prophecies to mean whatever you want, that can be done after the fact. That's what has been done to the Bible, the Constitution, the Qur'an- you name it. If it is in ancient text, then many of the same words could have different meanings. If you translate it into new words, the old ones lose their meaning- even if it is bit by bit. I don't recall any of our religious leaders harping about this until after all the aforementioned events took place.

I would like for you to compare those three exhilarating examples to the many, many unproven ones.

There's nothing I can do about all of the incorrect interpretations of prophecies. But there are 13 numerical prophecies that span 2700 years, ending in 1967AD. Therefore, I ask you, how did the people in 1611 that translated the King James Version know to change the words of the prophecies written in the 500BC and 95AD eras to fit into the context of the world of 1967AD to make the prophecies come out the way they wanted?

You're grasping at straws trying to make these prophetic fulfillments of no use, because you don't want to accept a higher power. 13 prophetic fulfillments that span thousands of years don't get modified by people nearly 400 years in advance to make them come to pass properly. That makes not sense and is not possible. Besides, you don't have to ask me to prove no one changed the scrolls. Just go check out all of the archaeologists and researchers and scholars. They will show you how it is impossible for all of the scrolls found in different places around the world to be all modified at the same time as history went on. You are one of the most illogical people I've ever met... And it would seem you're the one that's full of it.

Jesus is the most quoted prophet in the Qur'an, and I'll add that Muhammad (spelling corrected) was speaking the word of God, with his followers writing down the words of God, not of himself. But you would already know that if you simply searched the internet first. Putz.

No offense but I couldn't resist calling B.S. on you. Forgive me. :p

Corrected spelling, eh? Actually, Arabic does not have a direct alphabetic translation to english, just like Hebrew, and therefore, the English version of Arabic words is phonetically formed. So, I can spell it Koran, because phonetically, that's correct. It can be spelled multiple wells, just like Hebrew words can be spelled different ways in Enlgish. I hate typing "Qur'an" out, and a lot of people don't recognize the word. Most do recognize Koran, though. Putz.

The Koran comes mainly from Muhammad and his words, as if they were from God. The question is, who is this god he was speaking for? When you look back in Islamic history, Allah was the moon god. Hense Islam's symbol being a crescent moon with a star and sword. The Jesus they are portraying in the Koran is much different than the real Jesus. Putz.

I can call you names, too, but it doesn't make my case any more factual. And I don't just look crap up on the internet, because there's so much B.S. on the interenet, as you've displayed just now. Good job, interenet boy. I sincerely hope you don't get your knowledge from the internet. But I guess that would explain why you're full of it, though. :)

Mateo5.0

12-06-2007, 01:41 AM

Phillystang

12-06-2007, 03:02 AM

I admire your devotion to the faith, but I think you have taken the scriptures a bit too literally. The Bible was meant to be used as a metaphor, a guide to living a wholesome, respectable life. A lot of which was not meant to be taken as historical fact, but rather to an show an example that we can relate it to our own modern lives.

Can you substantiate this claim Mateo, or is this simply your educated opinion?

SlowLX

12-06-2007, 04:16 AM

I have no problem with plate tectonics. PANGEA, though, is a completely different theory.

You ask how the water got under the crust. Why don't you ask how it got on top of the crust? Because you either have to assume it started out below or above the crust, but you can't know for sure.

And, as I said, if the crust was one solid mass with no cracks or tectonic plates to begin with, that would mean that the water was housed underneith the crust until it heated up and burst forth due to water pressure from the rise in temperature.

If you think it's a crazy theory, I didn't explain it well. Most people I tell about it say, "Wow, that makes a lot of sense." I must've screwed up the explanation... It's easier in person... visuals help too... It's a perfectly viable theory. It just explains what the earth was like prior to the plates, and how the plates came about. Also explain oceans and mountains, etc...
it actually doesn't make sense, if there were no plates at one point that would mean the interior of the earth were not moving... IE dead planet. A dead planet can't make itself come to life just like the metaphysics argument ya'll cling to that something cant create itself. For your theory to be true that would have to happen.

There would be molten rock with no movement a layer of water vapor, and solid rock bed. a massive earthquake or something cracked the surface of the earth and spewed water forth causing a flood. If there were no movement(there would have to be no movement for no plates, mathmatically impossible any other way) what caused ur fissures? It wasnt interior movement becuase if there were interior movement there would be moving plates thus bypassing your theory. The canopy theory some creationist cling too honestly holds more merrit than that one.

Mateo5.0

12-06-2007, 12:34 PM

Can you substantiate this claim Mateo, or is this simply your educated opinion?

It is a widely held view among many on this Earth. Obviously the stories were written with a higher purpose in mind, not just to record historical data. And the last time I checked, the Bible wasn't used as a very accurate historical text-book (with regards to mass education- we can understand why we can't us the Bible as an accurate historical record). Again, we can test rocks, soil, artifacts, fossils, all of the above and more with accurate scientific dating in most cases. We can't test the Bible like that, we can attach events that took place with stories in the Bible, but it isn't a newspaper, it is has a purpose- to teach a way of life. The only thing I don't agree with is that because of the absolution of sin, we are told that we can do what ever we want, with no fear of after-worldly effects, as long as we accept Jesus as our savior and attend church and give unto thee. That is something so easy to be drawn to, that a lot of terrible things slipped in under the radar (or Godar, if you will) because of that loophole. That is one fundamental Christian belief that I could never accept. I know that everyone gets theirs' one day, and Karma is a bitch (do good unto others...). Everyone simply reaches a point in their education where they have to choose whether to believe one, the other, both, or nothing. I believe in both religion and science- because neither one explains it all.

Phillystang

12-06-2007, 01:43 PM

The only thing I don't agree with is that because of the absolution of sin, we are told that we can do what ever we want, with no fear of after-worldly effects, as long as we accept Jesus as our savior and attend church and give unto thee. That is something so easy to be drawn to, that a lot of terrible things slipped in under the radar (or Godar, if you will) because of that loophole. That is one fundamental Christian belief that I could never accept.
It sounds as though you don't understand the Gospel. Accepting Jesus doesn't give anyone free reign to live in sin and take comfort that they are saved because of a prayer they said when they were little. That is the gospel of 20th & 21st century Christianity but it's not the biblical Gospel. Perhaps you should rethink that understanding, this subject is dealt with many times in the Bible.

Accepting Christ will result in obedience or it is not genuine faith.
No one is saved by any merit of his own, but true genuine faith and repentence results in a lifestyle that seeks to be obedient to the Word of God because they have been given a new nature that is no longer at enmity with God.

John 14:23
Jesus replied, "If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.

Romans 6:15
What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means!

1 John:5
This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all. 6If we claim to have fellowship with him yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live by the truth.

Phillystang

12-06-2007, 01:54 PM

Mateo5.0

12-06-2007, 02:19 PM

flashstang04

12-06-2007, 04:39 PM

Mateo5.0

12-06-2007, 05:57 PM

It sounds like you are macro-generalizing the Christian population based on personal experiences..that's dangerous.

and by the way, darkness is not the opposite of light, it is the ABSENCE of light. (God is complete light)
-Interpretation noted, point taken-

I may be. But what else do I have to go on besides personal experiences and what I read/see in the news? (God help me if I only relied on the news). I used to belong to a Christian church, the people were nice, but I got the overwhelming feeling that a lot of them were merely there to keep up appearances and save face in front of the neighbors. In most cases, I don't believe that people care anymore, a loss of spiritual connectivity (with relation to the Christian church). And that's sad.

MichaelsLilGray

12-06-2007, 06:57 PM

what is Christmas then, if "nobody cares"?

I know im late on a lot of this stuff but i would like to put my two cents in here... and now. First off im going to hit you on this one... Christmas is the "Close as we can get" Date of Jesus's birth. Nobody knows.. honestly nobody ever really cared... Secondly, i can put numbers together all day long to make them equal what i really want them to equal. if you havnt ever had that fun little game.. try it.. take this number add it to the current year divide it by this number mulitply it by this number.. bull shit.. your number is 3. Wow im holy now....

Third most.. The bible i dont give a damn what anyone says.. It was man made. Man made means mistakes. Translation mistakes. We have people who say "oh this dead language is ledgable" ... Its a dead language.. nobody speaks in it, writes in it, or for my opinion.. really understands it. 1st of. batter number 2, if the bible was really that acurate... why do we have like.. 20 different versions of it.. not only into different languages... but different religions spawned off the bible... Chatholic, Jews, Muslims, (christians)Church of god, church of christ, babtist.. i mean if its all 1 freakin book wouldnt you think that everyone would believe in that ONE BOOK THE SAME! Not have it scattered about? Answerme that one.

BrianC

12-06-2007, 08:45 PM

BrainC... I find it difficult to take you seriously when you so obviously lack any formal education. Please, take a college level geology class- yes, the one the freshmen take. It will answer most, if not all of your ponderings on how the earth was formed- from tested hypothesis to proven fact. It is easier to have blind faith, than to use your God-given mind for yourself. And for the record, I believe in Life BEFORE Death. That being said, I'm probably one of the most logical people you've ever met.

Holy crap, are you serious? No, your lack of logic astounds me. You have no ability to reason out the statistical impossibilities of the 13 numerical prophetic fulfillments spanning thousands of years. You act as if you actually know something about them and that they can easily be interpreted differently. I showed conclusively how they are EXTREMELY specific and accurate as to what events are their beginning and end, and how they span an exact amount of time. Then I showed how they start and end exactly on the prophecied events and in the prophecied amount of time, right to the year, everytime. You like to talk big, like you know something, but you're simply trying to talk circles around the facts to make me look as if I'm not logical. Let's get some real facts here. You want to argue on a logical and factual level? Let's go. Let's get into science. We'll see who knows more about science and has more data and facts. Please, pick a subject besides plate tectonics, since you clearly keep showing how you've completely misunderstood what I've explained and keep coming up with the argument, "You have no formal education, so I can't accept anything you say." lol

I admire your devotion to the faith, but I think you have taken the scriptures a bit too literally. The Bible was meant to be used as a metaphor, a guide to living a wholesome, respectable life. A lot of which was not meant to be taken as historical fact, but rather to an show an example that we can relate it to our own modern lives. A lot of horrible things have been done in the name of God and in the literal translation of the scripture to justify it, no matter what religion you choose. Granted, to you they probably weren't "truly" devoted, but to those around them- they were considered so.

I definitely don't need you (who seems to have almost no knowledge of the Bible and what it says) to tell me what the Bible says and what it is for and how it's meant to be taken. You tell me about the Bible would be like a guy with a plumber giving financial advice to a financial counselor. So, to use similar words that someone once told me: You don't have a Masters of Divinity, so I can't take anything you say seriously.

I find that while you do have an argument with regards to the historical dates of the prophecies, it is however poorly contended. They have many different meanings to them, not to mention that there are a number of prophecies to choose from when the time comes. Vague Prophecy + Coincidental Event + Human Involvement = Believable Prophecy. They are also more vague than they are accurate, and in the majority of cases, they never came true. The same could be said of the prophecies of Nostradamus and the other atheists/pagans. It's a numbers game, and you bought it.

Once again, these are not vague prophecies. They're incredibly specific. You have absolutely no case and no leg to stand on. Your argument against this is basically a completely uninformed, uneducated, and highly ignorant argument. Makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Once again, lack of reason and logic.

It is no secret that the religions are competitive, and vying for the power of mass control. It is also no secret that The Catholic Church is the richest organization on the planet. Even our biggest U.S. corporations don't have their own country (the Vatican). I'm no conspiracy theorist, but I'm willing to bet that religion served a purpose when we were lost as a people- trapped in the dark/middle ages in stinking Europe. Some say we are still lost. I say that we have evolved to the next level of global understanding, and a lot of good-natured people don't comprehend that yet. The internet has reached across the globe like a nerve center, awakening a global entity- us humans. We are still a very long way from achieving something worth bragging about, but at least we've made this far and haven't nuked ourselves to death.

I agree that the Vatican and protestant religions have completely taken advantage of the people over the years. What most people don't understand is that one of the biggest subjects of the Bible is God, His prophets and apostles fighting against the religious and legalistic people in the Jewish community, and then in the Christian community after Jesus died. I am not an advocate of religion or legalism. If I had to sum up my beliefs, it would be very simple. I follow the Triune God of the Bible, of which the body is Jesus Christ. The Bible frees you from legalism and religion and "rules to measure up or achieve" salvation or retain it.

Paul tells Christians, "For us, ALL things are permissible, but not all things are beneficial." In other words, we are not condemned by sin anymore, we are free to do as we please, but if we choose to sin, it'll only serve to make our lives worse while we still live on this earth. So, sin is not beneficial. Paul discourages against enslaving yourself to sin again when you're free from it, and expressed the blessings that come along with a life lead apart from sin. But we are never required to do anything except receive salvation from sins as a gift from our Lord Jesus Christ. It's pretty simple. But a lot of churches and religions would have you believe you must work for it or achieve it. I vehemently oppose this message and can readily disprove it biblically.

I feel that this thread has been hijacked a little bit, and in an effort to cause a little turbulence:

Do you think the year 2012 is significant, and should we be nervous about the possible prophecies/outcomes that are associated with it?

I know the Mayan calendar ends there, and I've researched it for fun. The way they come up with 2012 is on a supposed female fertility cycle that they somehow measure out to being 2523 years (or something like that). Maybe it was 5,253 years...I forget. Either way, 2012 is the end of one of those time periods, and a completely new age and dimension is supposed to be ushered in and the world AS WE KNOW IT will end (new world begins). I think that's completely bogus, but at the same time, I know God has a really mischevious sense of humor.

For instance, Mormon's believe they're supposed to take over the United States and rule it as a theocracy in a time of trouble, and only then will Jesus come back. It would crack me up if Mitt Romney were to become president and then Jesus comes back and pimp slaps the Mormon church. hehehehe Mitt Romney seems like a decent guy and has good morals. But I'm reading a book about Mormons right now and wow... pretty crazy stuff. They're very pagan in their beliefs. Interesting stuff. Didn't realize all the stuff that goes on in Utah under their control. If you ever want an interesting read, read The God Makers.

(Btw: underneith is spelled underneath. the 1st time i saw it, i disregarded it. the 2nd time i saw it, i thought you might have a spelling problem :o )

Yeah, I always spell that one wrong. I'll have to work on fixing it.

So, we both agree that Jesus is the most quoted prophet in the Koran/Qur'an? And have you read the Koran, and can give examples of how He is mis portrayed?

Again, it has been fun talking to you. And I am interested in what comes next.
:)

Please excuse my challenges to your intelligence, but I generally only deal out either what is displayed blatantly, or what is dealt out my way. You challenge my intelligence and say that I'm full of it, so I will continue to show the same of what you are displaying as your logical arguments and assessments. I am an extremely analytical and logical person. I don't blindly believe things. I constantly seek proof and verification and facts. I don't buy into most unexplained, unproveable things.

I believed in evolution for many many years. I studied all kinds of sciences and I knew quite a bit about many fields of study. I understood those things very well. But it never fit together into a big picture senario very well. When I learned the Creation model and Creation theory, suddenly, all of the science I had learned over the years made perfect sense and it fit together into a full picture of how things work and how things got to be the way they are. I fully believe that unless an evolutionists actually learns the entire creation model that he cannot properly debate it. And after one learns this model, they start to see the incredible logic to it and how it explains far more than evolution and big bang ever tried to explain. And it makes them look downright stupid.

See, one cool thing about creationists is they get into the guts of evolution and evolution research. They show the methods behind how the research is done and what is involved. They break down how it happens and show the steps and the interpretations. They expose all of the holes and all of the things the public never really sees. I've heard a couple of quotes from leading evolution scientists where they say, "We don't want creation taught along side evolution in schools, because if kids had to choose between the two, they'll almost always choose creation, because it is a far superior theory." Now, imagine that. Evolutionists that know the Creation theory flat out admit that it is superior in design to the evolution theory. And that's mainly because evolution has so many holes and unanswered questions, and it's constantly changing due to new data that comes out from research. But Creation theory has no holes in it, and it never changes, because all of the data that comes out of research always fits perfectly into the theory.

I chose creation over evolution simply on the foundation that not only did I see the scientific studies and experiments that backed up everything they were explaining about the model/theory, but I also saw that there there were no holes, and everything made perfect sense.

You, not being a degreed geologist, say that my theory is ridiculous. And, in your wonderful words, since you don't have a degree, I can't take what you say serious. But when this theory is presented to geologists, they actually don't see a problem with it. They think it's very different than anything they've heard before, but they are always willing to look at it and consider it, because it is not impossible. Geologists understand the earth on a large scale and they understand that what is being presented is possible and could likely be the case. And there's plenty of evidence to back up the theory. When I say evidence, what I mean is that we can compare flood and sediment and fossilization all over the world to the theory, and it fits perfectly. Evolution, an old earth, and plate tectonics, though, have lots of holes in the theories. I go with what makes more sense, has less holes, and answers more questions. I'm logical. I don't blindly believe stuff. I have to have proof, and quite a bit of it.

You want a scientific debate on the facts? By all means, let's do it. Let's see what you think you know.

BrianC

12-06-2007, 09:04 PM

I know im late on a lot of this stuff but i would like to put my two cents in here... and now. First off im going to hit you on this one... Christmas is the "Close as we can get" Date of Jesus's birth. Nobody knows.. honestly nobody ever really cared... Secondly, i can put numbers together all day long to make them equal what i really want them to equal. if you havnt ever had that fun little game.. try it.. take this number add it to the current year divide it by this number mulitply it by this number.. bull shit.. your number is 3. Wow im holy now....

Obviously, you didn't read my full explanation of these prophecies or you'd see that these prophecies are not vague and cannot be misinterpreted or fenagled to fit into the framework of history, as you claim they can.

One prophecy states exactly the beginning of the prophecy, then end, and exactly how many years will be from beginning to end. The beginning of the prophecy in historical record, started in 583BC, when the daily sacrifice was stopped as the exile of the Jews. Then, you count 1271.553 solar years later, and you come out to 688.553AD, the year the Dome of the Rock is being built on the temple mount. The prophecy saws that the abomination of desolation will be setup. When you read more about what the Abomination of Desolation is, the Bible defines it as an "it" that is "setup" on the temple mount, and is apparently in the "outer court" also called the "Court of the Gentiles," which is exactly where the Dome of the Rock is built. Then, we get another prophecy that says it starts when the Gentiles rule this temple mount, and they will rule for 1278.48 solar years. Well, wouldn't you know it, when you add 1278.48 years to 688.553AD, you get 1967AD, which is exactly the year the Jews finally ran the "gentiles" (Muslims, in this case) out of Jerusalem and got their temple mount back for the first time in 1278 years. There's no vagueness about these prophecies. They are dead on accurate and specific. They cannot be twisted to mean something else. They are what they are, regardless of how you translate them.

Third most.. The bible i dont give a damn what anyone says.. It was man made. Man made means mistakes. Translation mistakes. We have people who say "oh this dead language is ledgable" ... Its a dead language.. nobody speaks in it, writes in it, or for my opinion.. really understands it. 1st of. batter number 2, if the bible was really that acurate... why do we have like.. 20 different versions of it.. not only into different languages... but different religions spawned off the bible... Chatholic, Jews, Muslims, (christians)Church of god, church of christ, babtist.. i mean if its all 1 freakin book wouldnt you think that everyone would believe in that ONE BOOK THE SAME! Not have it scattered about? Answerme that one.

Ok, so explain this then: If the Bible was written over thousands of years by many different men, and is EXTREMELY complicated, why does the Bible never once contradict itself, and why is the writing style always basically the same throughout the entire thing? Also, why have all 13 of the numerical prophecies come to pass exactly as they were prophecied to over thousands of years with the impossibility of mankind orchestrating them in advance?

Your lack of understanding on the Bible and translation and denomination is astounding. First of all, the 27,000 Hebrew manuscripts of the Biblical books are all the same (no modification), and even if every church had the same translation of the Bible, you would still get lots of different beliefs and denominations out of it. The translation doesn't cause this split in beliefs. Also, the translation is dependent on the beliefs of the person translating. It's not a simple task of translating the word "Yeshuwah" to "God's salvation" everytime, or the word "Elohim" to "God." There's so much more involved, and there are so many different ways words can be translated and meanings can come across that you get tons of different translations.

Now, if you go back to the original Greek and Hebrew dictionaries for the ancient languages, you can find that the words really do generally have just one definition for translation, and it becomes very simple to translate MOST of the words. However, the sentence structures and pronouns and things like that become very mixed up. So you have to figure out how to forumlate them properly. That's when your beliefs come into play, because you can really switch stuff around depending on your beliefs. But, in general, no matter what the translation, the message of Christ comes through in the big picture while reading it. It remains no matter how badly it's translated. If mankind wrote the Bible with no divine inspiriation, those prophecies would've have come true like they did, and there would be tons of contradictions.

Look at the book of Mormon. It was written by mankind, and it has been modified over 6,000 times due to these mistakes and their changing things to meet more modern beliefs. The Bible never changes, though. The original manuscripts are always the same. You really have no factual basis for your claims.

BrianC

12-06-2007, 09:11 PM

-Interpretation noted, point taken-

I may be. But what else do I have to go on besides personal experiences and what I read/see in the news? (God help me if I only relied on the news). I used to belong to a Christian church, the people were nice, but I got the overwhelming feeling that a lot of them were merely there to keep up appearances and save face in front of the neighbors. In most cases, I don't believe that people care anymore, a loss of spiritual connectivity (with relation to the Christian church). And that's sad.

I think the church is one of the worst places to learn about Christians. Churches nowadays are full of Christians that don't even realize they haven't been born again. You can go to any church and find people who are not saved. In fact, in many churches, you can find tons that aren't saved for whatever reasons. So if you get your impression of what a Christian is from a church, you're basically taking a VERY VERY small experience of what a Christian is and then blanketing it over every Christian.

Truth be told, we can only make determinations on things by our own very limited experiences in life. We are as we see the world. Or, the world is as we see it. Everyone has a view of the world that is limited to their own experiences. Therefore, it is very hard for anyone to get a really good impression of the world because you can only experience so much in your lifetime.
I think very few people exhibit what a true Christian is today...

BrianC

12-06-2007, 09:22 PM

it actually doesn't make sense, if there were no plates at one point that would mean the interior of the earth were not moving... IE dead planet. A dead planet can't make itself come to life just like the metaphysics argument ya'll cling to that something cant create itself. For your theory to be true that would have to happen.

What the hell? LOL You misunderstood the theory...

I never said the interior of the earth never moved. And no, this would not be the case. If you have core, mantle, WATER then crust, the crust is floating on the water and cannot touch the mantle due to the fact that the water separates the crust. Water does not compress. Therefore, the crust would float on the water layer. The mantle and crust could both move if they needed to do so.

There would be molten rock with no movement a layer of water vapor, and solid rock bed. a massive earthquake or something cracked the surface of the earth and spewed water forth causing a flood. If there were no movement(there would have to be no movement for no plates, mathmatically impossible any other way) what caused ur fissures? It wasnt interior movement becuase if there were interior movement there would be moving plates thus bypassing your theory. The canopy theory some creationist cling too honestly holds more merrit than that one.

No, you've got my theory all wrong. Draw it out on paper and you'll see what I am talking about. There was NO LAVA AT ALL. You have a core, a mantle, water, then a solid, unbroken crust. There were rivers, and possibly an ocean at the bottom of the globe, if I understand the landmass and creation model correctly. We have underground rivers right now, so that's no stretch. Lava came about a while AFTER the water burst out of the crust. The water, under much heat, which caused pressure, burst through the crust at two weakpoints (the areas where we presently have mid-ocean trenches). When this happened, the weight of the crust pressed down on the water, forcing it out from underneath the crust. The crust settled on a very hot mantle, and as this happened, the rock of the crust began to melt, creating lava.

BrianC

12-06-2007, 09:33 PM

You're right, it's not Biblical anymore- however it is what it is now. I'm not saying that you're one of them. But this is how people act in America these days, with distrust of others based on religion.

1 John:5
This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all. 6If we claim to have fellowship with him yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live by the truth.

The truth represents your faith or belief in Christianity, and your willingness to accept it- it is not necessarily truth until you believe in it. Darkness is the opposite of light, again reiterating a "with us or against us" (Saved or Be Damned) mentality.

Once again, this is your limited experience using your church experience and what is shown on TV or news or newspapers or on the net as your gauge for what a Christian is. As I said before, though, there are TONS of Christians in churches that are not really saved. They have never come to the realization of accepting Jesus and receiving salvation. It's strange, but it happens A LOT. A lot of people don't make the connection that the tranditions and the church going and the rules are not what save you. Those are simply the guidelines for living a good life of blessings, but are not required for salvation. These people never realize that and have this false security in their church-going and living a good life as a good person. Many get trapped by religion.

What Phillystang is saying is that when you're born again (saved), your heart completely changes and you do not have a desire to sin anymore. Now, that's not to say that many born again Christians don't go back to doing sinful things. I was born again when I was 16, and immediately I had no desire to do anything wrong. I suddenly knew right from wrong and saw the world in a whole new light. Everything made sense all in a split second. Where I couldn't got to sleep for 2-4 hours each night before, I could now fall asleep as soon as my head hit the pillow. Now, this lasted for 1-2 years. I slowly got back into little sins here and there. Those sins grew. Pride rose up in me. Over the next few years I got into some stupid sins and my life was really crappy (I was reaping what I sowed by sinning when I shouldn't do so). So, I realized what was going on and started eliminating sins out of my life one at a time. As I did, slowly, my life got better. Over a few years, finally, I got back to a place where I had stability and joy in my life again. I've noticed, through no conscious effort, that as sin is eliminated from my life, my life is better all around and more blessed.

Philly has a slightly different belief on this stuff than I do, but that's fine. You get the idea...

BrianC

12-06-2007, 09:58 PM

It is a widely held view among many on this Earth. Obviously the stories were written with a higher purpose in mind, not just to record historical data. And the last time I checked, the Bible wasn't used as a very accurate historical text-book (with regards to mass education- we can understand why we can't us the Bible as an accurate historical record).

Actually, there are courses at many secular colleges that teach Bible history, because it is such a good historical record. It is one of the best historical records we have spanning such a large amount of time, and it has never once been proven to be historically inaccurate. Do some research on this before making such statements to save us some trouble of refutation and correction.

Again, we can test rocks, soil, artifacts, fossils, all of the above and more with accurate scientific dating in most cases.

You're showing your lack of knowledge here, man. We have absolutely NO working or accurate dating methods, period. Carbon dating is based on unitarianism, which has been proven time and time again to be one of the most horrible ways to conduct scientific research. It is dependent upon carbon levels being the same over the past 45,000 years (which is the limit for carbon dating). However, scientists have proven many times that carbon levels vary significantly in the atomsphere, and carbon levels generally are on an upward rise as they have been since the ice age.

We can't test the Bible like that, we can attach events that took place with stories in the Bible, but it isn't a newspaper, it is has a purpose- to teach a way of life.

Actually, we find quite a bit of archeological evidence that proves the Bible and the times in which each book took place. We have historical markers we find on the earth, and the Bible is very good about making statements as to which year things happened in. You can look at the books of Kings and Chronicals to see full histories of the lineage of kings, which can be found in historical record and show the dates of when those kings existed. We can crossreference historical record, archeological finds and the Bible to easily date events of the Bible and events in history.

The only thing I don't agree with is that because of the absolution of sin, we are told that we can do what ever we want, with no fear of after-worldly effects, as long as we accept Jesus as our savior and attend church and give unto thee. That is something so easy to be drawn to, that a lot of terrible things slipped in under the radar (or Godar, if you will) because of that loophole. That is one fundamental Christian belief that I could never accept. I know that everyone gets theirs' one day, and Karma is a bitch (do good unto others...). Everyone simply reaches a point in their education where they have to choose whether to believe one, the other, both, or nothing. I believe in both religion and science- because neither one explains it all.

The Bible teaches that salvation is a gift, and all you have to do is receive it SINCERELY in your heart and you are saved. But, never are you told you MUST attend church and you MUST give money to the church. Not once is that preached in the New Testament. In the Old Testament, people brought food to the temple (tithe in the Old Testament and New Testament is ALWAYS talking about food...look up the word tithe for yourself and you'll find out this is true...it's really easy to do).

Many people use this ridiculous argument that people's food was their currency back then. That's just absurd. Then the Israelites left Egypt, the Egyptians PAID them to leave. The Israelites were possibly the richest people on the planet, because the Egyptians wanted them gone SOOOOO badly that they gave them all their money and treasure to leave. lol And if you look at the Law, you find that shekels are mentioned (money).

And the verse that every tithe teaching preacher uses to lock people into giving money is Malachi 3:10 that says, "Will you rob God? How? In tithes and offerings" (that was probably a horrible paraphrase, but I'm too lazy to look up the verse and paste it in here). What no preacher seems to ever want to tell you is that this book, Malachi, was written TO THE PRIESTS! It was written to the tribe of Levi, and that tribe was the tribe of priests. God was telling the priests to stop robbing Him of the tithe (food). You know this quickly when you read it in context, because it says to bring ALL of the tithe into the storehouse. Well, who brings the tithe into the storehouse? The priests. The people just bring it to the temple.

At this time in Jewish history, the preists were taking TONS of the food and I guess eating and selling it for profit. The original rule was that the priests only take what they need, and the rest goes into the storehouse, and would be distributed to take care of the homeless and widows. God shows that it's food by telling the priests that if they'll just do what He told them to do with the tithe, he would "open the floodgates of heaven and rain down a blessing so much so that the storehouse will not be able to hold it all" (again, really bad paraphrase). So, God would send rain, the crops would flourish, and the storehouse would overflow with food. It defines tithe as food EVERYTIME in the Bible, without variance.

The New Testament never teaches tithing, but instead teaches free will giving, and that's it. Paul says that he is a tent maker and never took a dime from anyone, but earned his own way. Paul also even sent a letter ahead of time to the Corinthians I think it was, asking them to set aside some money in advance so that he didn't have to ask them for it when he came into town. In other words, Paul felt bad for asking for money, even though the cause was good. He said the money was going to be taken back to the Christians in Jerusalem who were being persecuted. Apparently, it's not a good idea to ask for money in church. If you want to pass around an offering plate, that's fine, but it would seem Paul hated asking for money and made sure he made his own money.

Preachers back in the 1800's used to do this. They'd work a job (usually a farmer), and preach on Sundays. The congregation would bring food for the pastor's family. That's pretty close to the early church after Jesus.

Once you step out of the realm of what you learned from the religious and step into the realm of learning truth for yourself apart from your current conceptions of Christianity, then you start to find the real truths of the Bible. But you'll only find them with a sincere heart searching for truth, open to the fact that God could be real and can reveal truth to you.

Before I was born again, the Bible made little sense to me and had little meaning. The day I was born again, that all changed. I read the Bible and it made complete sense and I got SOOOOO much out of it. That's a God thing, not a human thing.

SlowLX

12-06-2007, 10:16 PM

What the hell? LOL You misunderstood the theory...

I never said the interior of the earth never moved. And no, this would not be the case. If you have core, mantle, WATER then crust, the crust is floating on the water and cannot touch the mantle due to the fact that the water separates the crust. Water does not compress. Therefore, the crust would float on the water layer. The mantle and crust could both move if they needed to do so.

No, you've got my theory all wrong. Draw it out on paper and you'll see what I am talking about. There was NO LAVA AT ALL. You have a core, a mantle, water, then a solid, unbroken crust. There were rivers, and possibly an ocean at the bottom of the globe, if I understand the landmass and creation model correctly. We have underground rivers right now, so that's no stretch. Lava came about a while AFTER the water burst out of the crust. The water, under much heat, which caused pressure, burst through the crust at two weakpoints (the areas where we presently have mid-ocean trenches). When this happened, the weight of the crust pressed down on the water, forcing it out from underneath the crust. The crust settled on a very hot mantle, and as this happened, the rock of the crust began to melt, creating lava.
You thought this up while sitting through mass no? Becuase no accredited geologist would lend his name to this. The planet could not form like that unless it formed "dead". And once again a "dead" planet can not be otherwise there is no reversing. The molten core and mantle have been moving with gravity since the earth was formed and will continure to do so until the velocity ceases to be enough to propel the earth. The lava cycle beneath the earth will stop killing the plate movement and pretty much killing the earth. Your theory is not a theory it is a wacky hypothosis.

Mateo5.0

12-06-2007, 10:31 PM

Once again, this is your limited experience using your church experience and what is shown on TV or news or newspapers or on the net as your gauge for what a Christian is. As I said before, though, there are TONS of Christians in churches that are not really saved. They have never come to the realization of accepting Jesus and receiving salvation. It's strange, but it happens A LOT. A lot of people don't make the connection that the tranditions and the church going and the rules are not what save you. Those are simply the guidelines for living a good life of blessings, but are not required for salvation. These people never realize that and have this false security in their church-going and living a good life as a good person. Many get trapped by religion.

What Phillystang is saying is that when you're born again (saved), your heart completely changes and you do not have a desire to sin anymore. Now, that's not to say that many born again Christians don't go back to doing sinful things. I was born again when I was 16, and immediately I had no desire to do anything wrong. I suddenly knew right from wrong and saw the world in a whole new light. Everything made sense all in a split second. Where I couldn't got to sleep for 2-4 hours each night before, I could now fall asleep as soon as my head hit the pillow. Now, this lasted for 1-2 years. I slowly got back into little sins here and there. Those sins grew. Pride rose up in me. Over the next few years I got into some stupid sins and my life was really crappy (I was reaping what I sowed by sinning when I shouldn't do so). So, I realized what was going on and started eliminating sins out of my life one at a time. As I did, slowly, my life got better. Over a few years, finally, I got back to a place where I had stability and joy in my life again. I've noticed, through no conscious effort, that as sin is eliminated from my life, my life is better all around and more blessed.

Philly has a slightly different belief on this stuff than I do, but that's fine. You get the idea...

The main difference b/w you and me is that we judge sin differently.

Most of us know what's right and wrong because of common sense (- minus the chemical imbalance cases...).

But why is the word salvation thrown around like it's a life vest and you are cursed if you don't follow the guide exactly?

BrianC

12-07-2007, 05:30 AM

You thought this up while sitting through mass no? Becuase no accredited geologist would lend his name to this. The planet could not form like that unless it formed "dead". And once again a "dead" planet can not be otherwise there is no reversing. The molten core and mantle have been moving with gravity since the earth was formed and will continure to do so until the velocity ceases to be enough to propel the earth. The lava cycle beneath the earth will stop killing the plate movement and pretty much killing the earth. Your theory is not a theory it is a wacky hypothosis.

Wow...you may be more dense than the core of the planet. :)

The core was been and always will be molten. The mantel has never been, nor ever will be molten. The mantel is hot as hell due to the core, and melts the crust, causing lava. Go ask any geologist and they'll tell you that's how lava is formed, smartguy. I didn't just make this up. And I've never been to a mass. I'm obviously not Catholic.

In the next post, I'll show you can prove the earth has experienced a reduction in diameter, slightly, and an increase in the speed at which it spins due to this event of mass being pulled closer to the center.

BrianC

12-07-2007, 05:39 AM

The main difference b/w you and me is that we judge sin differently.

Most of us know what's right and wrong because of common sense (- minus the chemical imbalance cases...).

Everyone does not know right from wrong. That knowledge is taught or acquired. You can prove this a few different ways. I have met people from other countries who were not raised in any religion, and they believe that all kinds of sins are perfectly ok, and didn't even know they were sins. Why? Because it was never taught to them as right and wrong.

Also, I can prove children are not born knowing right and wrong...instead it is learned. Children are born, as the Bible says, into the fallen sin nature, knowing only evil. Children don't have to be taught to be bad. They know how and are good at getting in trouble. It's easy because it's their true nature. However, being GOOD is taught to them, and they have to conform to it and it's hard...not easy, because it's against their sin nature. Also, look at children raised in terrorist camps. They full well believe that killing the way they do is completely justifiable and there's nothing wrong with it. Morals are learned, not inherantly known from brith or from common sense.

But why is the word salvation thrown around like it's a life vest and you are cursed if you don't follow the guide exactly?

Yes, salvation is thrown around like it's a life vest. But you're only condemned if you don't accept the free gift of salvation that Jesus offers. It's just a decision you wake with a repentent heart. In fact, for me, I didn't even have to make the decision. I didn't even know what was happening to me when I was saved, because it happened completely apart from any church or religious traditionalism or anything like that. God knew I would accept it, and therefore gave it to me at exactly the right time. I wasn't looking or asking for it by any means. I just wanted to read a simple, unimportant Bible verse to figure out the meaning of it because I was so incredibly bored. When I read the verse, it had no meaning to me and even had I understood the verse 100%, which I did, it made no difference and spoke nothing of salvation. Yet, when I read it and someone said, "The Saints are us," my guilt, sin and shame all fell off at the same time, in a split second, and was replaced with true joy, happiness, unconditional love and peace. Absolutely amazing experience. The experience of being clean and pure and free of sin caused an emotional high of extreme happiness for 1-2 years. That's how strong it was. This kind of happiness you only wish you could get apart from God, because it's like a major high ALL the time and a feeling you never felt before. Can't explain it really. Didn't know what had happened to me till a few weeks or months later when someone explained what "born again" is.

BrianC

12-07-2007, 05:45 AM

The Hebrews and the Babylonians had a 360 day per year calendar up till the AD era. They would simply add a month of less days every few years to account for the time lost in their calendar. Preflood, we see a verse that shows they had 30 days months (I don't recall it right now, nor do I have time to find it).

If you look at the 365.24 day per year calendar we have now, you'll notice that it doesn't measure up to our body cycle. The body cycle called the circadian rythm is exactly 24 hours and 21 minutes, or 24.35 minutes, I think it is. Look it up to be sure if you want to do the math. Plants, animals and humans all have the exactly same circadian rythm of 24 hours and 21 minutes. If you do the math, when you have a 360 day year, a day lasts 24 hours and 21 minutes exactly, which matches the circadian rythm. Light is what resets the body clock everyday, so we are basically getting a reset everyday due to the sun.

Cultures base their calendar on the span of time it takes to round the sun. The Hebrews and Babylonians used to have a 360 day year, but now have a 365.24 day year. Why? Becaues the water displaced from underneith the crust, causing the heavy mass of crust to come closer to the center of the earth which caused it to spin faster, enough to add 5.24 days per year. When an ice skater spins, as she pulls her arms closer to her body, she spins faster. Same thing happened with the earth. The circadian rythm never changed though. Look it up sometime...

flashstang04

12-07-2007, 08:43 AM

BrianC

12-07-2007, 09:13 AM

Soon after this coffee was invented to offset the damage...

Just joking..I am really tired this morning and when I read this post I thought...hmm I need 5 days sleep! :D

I'm surprized more people don't just fall asleep right on the keyboard like a narcoleptic while reading my posts. I'm sure I would if I ever reread one.

Sleep aid = read one of my posts :)

slow99

12-07-2007, 01:06 PM

Many financial applications use a 360 day year!

BrianC

12-07-2007, 03:20 PM

Many financial applications use a 360 day year!

Those financial applications must have been created before the flood, or in ancient Babylon. :D

Mateo5.0

12-07-2007, 04:35 PM

BrianC

12-07-2007, 05:40 PM

FACT: The Earth is slowing down in rotation.

Did you know that when compared to plant life from millions of years ago to those of today, we can tell that the Earth actually has been slowing down. When the moon was farther away than it is now, we used to have a 440 day year (not calendar, calendars weren't around millions of years ago). As the earth's gravity pulls the moon closer to us, it in turn slows us down. We have actually been slowing down- not speeding up as you would have us believe with your water under the crust and then bursting forth theory. So maybe man's calendars got lengthened, but our actual day light years are getting slower. :D

What you're suggesting is a theory. I've heard heard the earth is slowing down, speeding up and all a mirad of theories, though I haven't seen the proof yet. It could be out there, but I just haven't come across it yet. And the theory that the earth is slowing down requires millions of years. If you go back just about 300,000 year, the moon would've been super close to the earth, and the tides would've been insane.

Now, in the last 4,500 years, the earth would not have slowed down enough to even notice it, really. That theory doesn't negate anything I've said though.

What I said is that the crust pulled in closer to the center, speeding the earth's rotation up due to the mass displacement, and we got 5.24 extra days a year. That doesn't mean the earth sped up or slowed down by simple laws of thermodynamics (energy disipating over time causing a slowing of the rotation). What I'm talking about is a one time event that caused the earth to adjust its configuratoin so that it sped up one time, 5.24 days per year. Now, give it a million years, and sure, it will slow down assuming the earth is slowing down. But give it a few thousand years and you'll see no noticeable change.

The fact that humans, plants and animals all have the same circadian rythm that is dependent on a day being 24 hours and 21 minutes would imply that they were all created at the same time and share the same rythm for a 24:21 length day. There is a bogus theory out there that says the first cell developed while the earth had a 24hr 21min day, so it carried that time length as it's rythm. That makes no sense, though, since we're talking about how the body cycles in a rythm, not a cell's cycle. Bogus theory...

My theory is backed up by the 360 day calendars of the Hebrews and Babylonias, whom had figured out a 360 day year with 30 day months...until the flood changed the length of a day and number of days in a year. My theory is something that doesn't have anything to do with the slowing of the earth's rotation and is compatible with it...

DarkWolf

12-09-2007, 03:23 PM

as well as add in that many cultures from that era and region have their own folktales about a massive flood, some of which are dated older then the biblical accounts, and the fact that the Black Sea flooded the entire region early enough to correspond with the early years of the earth as creationists see it.

Exactly. There is a geological record of a mediterranean flood. Consequently the hundreds of flood stories are by and large concentrated in the cultures that envelop the mediterranean basin. No surprise there. The one surprise is the american (north, south, and central) flood legends. But looking back, these are easily reconciled when you remember that americans actually weren't. They crossed over a land bridge between russia and alaska during the last great ice age. They were mostly asian, but culturally we also see a lot of early middle eastern shamanic influence. They simply carried the flood stories with them.

They are UNTOUCHED since circa 200BC.

Except for the ones that were written through the 1st century AD, right?

Scientists agree that ALL of the world has been covered by water at one time or another. They just refuse to believe that ALL of the world was covered with water at the same time, because the Bible says it, and they choose to believe it's impossible.

No they don't. Mountains rising due to continental shifts and volcanic activity does not in any way indicate the Earth at one point was completely covered in water. It just indicates the land was at one point much flatter than it is today.

The prophecies are to the year, not the day. Who cares what exact day Jesus was born? Jesus said not to celebrate His birth but instead, His death, because His death represents the defeat of sin.

And yet, you still celebrate Christmas. Odd, that.

It's exactly the right dimensions as mentioned in the Bible.

There were many large boats at the time. Egyptian pharaoh's loved them. They were the ancient equivalent of our modern day party barges. They were not meant to travel, just float.

The size of your boat, however, is still FAR too small to house two of every species of animal that walked the Earth. Even in the likely event of a flood only happening in the Mediterranean basin, there were still far too many local species to fit in a boat that was in all dimensions about half the size of the Titanic.

Once again, "a time" would mean nothing if those prophecies didn't happen exactly like they were predicted to happen in the Bible. BUT, they did happen EXACTLY as they were supposed to in the Bible, exactly to the year. Therefore, it's not coincidence.

Precisely. "A time" is defined by whatever amount of time is needed to make events fit the vague biblical prophecies. Thank you for confirming they're just made up.

One prophecy says that from the time the sacrifices are stopped to the time the abomination of desolation is setup, there will be 1290 days (1271.553 solar years).

I thought you young earth types stuck to the literal meaning of a day. The whole genesis account of 6 days. So why are days now solar years? Oh, that's right, because it helps a vague prophecy.

So it's ok to fudge the definition of days, and "time", when it's convenient for you, but not when it comes to recounting the story of genesis. Nice double standard you got going there.

Please excuse me for typing 80+ words per minute when I'm in a hurry and making typos or misspelling a word here or there. I'm no perfect speller. I see that you had to skin to the level of insulting my spelling since you have nothing else to stand on. Good job!

I average about 95wpm, but when I'm typing really fast and usually riddled with typos like you're having, it's somewhere around 120wpm.

I'm no perfect speller either. But we have this awesome thing called a spell check. You should look it up.

And I think you meant "sink" not "skin". But no, I wasn't insulting your spelling because I have nothing else to stand on. I just did that because I found it amusing.

and that the Bible is all about God, the prophets and apostles fighting AGAINST religion and legalism,

The New Testament is, at least. The Old Testament is very deeply seated in the old ways. But it is true, Jesus was no fan of religion. And his body barely had a chance to cool before his disciples completely mangled his teachings, and formed a religion around them.

I hardly think a "large lizard" has a tail that is as large as a cedar tree as described in Job.

Perhaps you're not aware of the giant monitor lizards in Australia that had sightings reported as recent as the 1980's, but actual documented sightings as recent 1890 when a 30' lizard trampled through a village in Victoria.

I'd venture to say that things tail is probably at least as large as a cedar, if not larger.

There are a few beetles we have today that can do that out of their butts. lol Look up the bombadeir beetle sometime and read about it.

I'm quite aware of the bombardier beetle.

It shoots two chemicals that mix and hit air and explode at 212 degrees fahrenheit at a rate of 200+ shots per minute.

Actually it's 70 shots.

It's not impossible.

I never said it was. But we have yet to find any fossil remains of any large lizard that contains the chambers necessary to house the fluids used in a chemical reaction that would produce sparks. Much less jets of flame, as is the traditional dragon mythology.

What is more likely to have happened in these accounts in Job, the people in terror of this giant lizard, imagined things that didn't actually occur. You should do some research on the effects of fear and how it can make you see and hear things that aren't really there.

Besides, you can prove that dinosaurs existed with men just 4,000 years ago or earlier, because when you look at the walls of Babylon, you can see every dinosaur we know of drawn on the walls.

It's not "every known dinosaur", it's the "dragon", also depicted in Job.

But you bring up an interesting point of dinosaurs and man coexisting. While it's not likely for man to have existed during the reign of the dinosaurs, it is possible for dinosaur descendants to have survived. With all the "Nessie" sightings, and Mokele-mbembe sightings, giant monitor lizards in Australia... hell, alligators we know for sure are direct descendants of dinosaurs.

Dinosaur means terrible lizard. Giant monitors and alligators fit that bill rather well. But when the term was coined, all we knew of were the giant lizards. Now we know there were aquarian, amphibian, avian, and even mammalian "dinosaurs".

Instead, when people die, there is a phenomenon that happens which makes them float to the surface of the water. The flood would've caused a ton of dead bodies floating around, and afterwords, those bodies would've come to rest on the wet ground and decomposed with no remains left behind. Please, go research this sometime for yourself.

Animals, on the other hand, don't have this phenomenon happen to them. When they die, they sink to the bottom of the ocean and stay there.

The "phenomenon" you refer to is bacteria in the body releasing gasses as the body decomposes. The gasses cause the body to float. If the body continues to float the gasses will be expelled, and the body will sink again. Decomposition continues, more gasses, and the body may rise again. Forensic scientists refer to these as "refloats". They too will eventually sink again as the gasses are expelled. In otherwords, people don't float forever, and the ~7 months that the waters of the flood were supposedly over the Earth, would have been far more than is needed for the bodies to sink permanently.

Animals DO have this same "phenomenon". How do you think beached whales occur? Go to any lake and you'll occasionally see dead fish floating on the surface. After Hurricanes Floyd and Katrina (and probably more, but these are the more "famous" ones) there were dead animals floating on the surface.

Let's not forget that you are full of completely incorrect information. images/smilies/smile.gif Yes, there is a huge geological record of a world-wide flood. It's called ocean fossiles found on every mountain on the planet.

I already countered this earlier.

With Mount Saint Helens, we find out that during an eruption, only a few years later, 360,000 years worth of sediments settled on the floor of the lakes in the area, causing trees to be trapped in the sediments standing straight up, and sometimes even on their sides or upside down.

I don't know why you keep trying to use this as some sort of irrefutable proof. I tore this pet theory of yours apart long ago when you first tried to use it.

The short version of it is that in fact Volcano's eject tons of sediment from within and around the volcano. The sediment, depending on how violent the eruption, can be anywhere from right on the surface and maybe only a few decades old, to those found as the rock is ripped away from the mouth and exposing centuries and millennia old rock and sediment.

Take a look at some before and after pictures of Mt. Saint Helens. There is now missing a MASSIVE amount of rock from the volcano. It reduced the elevation of the volcano by ~1300 feet. The crater is about a mile wide, and about half that deep.

And 360,000 years is far from accurate. Mt. Saint Helens is known to be around 40,000 years old. But I suspect your getting your 360,000 year guestimate from the amount of layering produced by the sediments.

And that's precisely why we don't rely on the layering alone to determine age. Because we know cataclysmic events like these can produce layering that would appear to be far far older than it actually is.

The water was all underneith the crust to begin with,

Under the crust? Where all the molten rock is? Forgive me while I take a moment to laugh hysterically.

Now, if the core ever heated up drastically, it would cause the water pressure to rise and burst through the crust, which is where we get the cracks trenches in the ocean floors.

No, the cracks and trenches on the ocean floor are caused by the plates moving. Either colliding or separating.

Your theory relies a lot on supposition. You ignore actual geological facts, in favor of a fantastical world with water encasing the core instead of molten rock, and a pink sky due to the firmament blocking the suns rays from heating the Earth.

Carbon is shown to cause cancer and it reduces lifespan.

You do realize, surely, that we are carbon based lifeforms, correct? One of the primary elements of all life is carbon.

Perhaps you're thinking of carbon dioxide?

The rain came down because those fountains of the deep were spewing water miles and miles into the atmosphere where they cracked that firmament canopy at the top of the atmosphere.

Seriously, this stuff cracks me up. We had an egg shell surrounding the Earth! Brilliant!

Well that is the million dollar question isn't it....either it is God breathed or not.. Of course a man put it to paper (scrolls), but if it is not God inspired, then how can the many accuracies and foreknowledge of dated events be explained.

Pay attention. Seriously, we've been over this already. The length of time assigned to "a time" is completely made up, in order to fit prophecy. Even the prophecies speaking of a specific number of days between events, have been re-interpreted to a number of "solar years" in order to make them fit.

The prophecies are vague enough to be applicable to just about anything, as long as you inject your own interpretation of the time/dates/events being described.

Genesis was/is used (inspired) by God to proclaim the the account of Creation in a manner humans could comprehend and reveal to the rest of humankind. Jesus was also a man, and the Son of God, and likewise taught in a manner humans could comprehend and reveal to the rest of humankind.

So sayeth the bible. Written by man. And the circular logic train keeps a rollin'.

Some believe Genesis is literal, and others believe it's figurative. I opt for literal, because there's a lot of scientific stuff in there that makes up a perfect model for a perfect world.

And yet, you're ok with prophesied days being solar years, rather than literal days. Again, nice double standard you've got going there.

Christmas is the "Close as we can get" Date of Jesus's birth.

No, the closest we can get is sometime in late September or early October. The cattle were still in the fields, so this suggests a pre-winter date.

Then, you count 1271.553 solar years later, and you come out to 688.553AD, the year the Dome of the Rock is being built on the temple mount.

Except the actual prophecy was for 1290 days. But because you're ok with the double standard, you can interpret 1290 days into 1271.5 years.

Nice and convenient.

What it really boils down to is these prophecies didn't actually come to pass. So now we take world events that could conceivably apply in some way, figure out the math needed to re-interpret the prophesied dates, and viola! We have prophecy fulfillment!

why does the Bible never once contradict itself,

WOW... I'm glad I wasn't taking a drink when I read this.

And no, this would not be the case. If you have core, mantle, WATER then crust, the crust is floating on the water and cannot touch the mantle due to the fact that the water separates the crust.

Except the mantle is MOLTEN ROCK. The water in your theory would be vaporized, and vapor cannot support a solid mass, which would cause the entire crust to come crashing down into the mantle, and as fluid dynamics go, would then submerge within the mantle to be melted and recycled into a new crust.

There was NO LAVA AT ALL. You have a core, a mantle, water, then a solid, unbroken crust.

Dude, seriously... WTF do you think lava is?

We have underground rivers right now, so that's no stretch.

Underground yes, but these rivers do not go under the crust. They are within the crust.

The crust settled on a very hot mantle, and as this happened, the rock of the crust began to melt, creating lava.

The mantle IS MOLTEN ROCK. It's the molten rock that surrounds the core. It's the molten rock that LAVA comes from. The crust floats on top of the mantle. Water resides on top of and within the crust in the form of oceans, lakes and rivers.

You're showing your lack of knowledge here, man. We have absolutely NO working or accurate dating methods, period. Carbon dating is based on unitarianism, which has been proven time and time again to be one of the most horrible ways to conduct scientific research. It is dependent upon carbon levels being the same over the past 45,000 years (which is the limit for carbon dating). However, scientists have proven many times that carbon levels vary significantly in the atomsphere, and carbon levels generally are on an upward rise as they have been since the ice age.

No, it is dependent on the rate of carbon DECAY being constant. It doesn't matter how light or dense carbon was in the atmosphere. Carbon is carbon, and unless God changed things mid play just to fuck with us, carbon decays radiometrically at the same rate now as it always has. Carbon dating is measuring the rate of decay, to determine a relative age, not the amount of carbon present.

The core was been and always will be molten. The mantel has never been, nor ever will be molten. The mantel is hot as hell due to the core, and melts the crust, causing lava. Go ask any geologist and they'll tell you that's how lava is formed, smartguy. I didn't just make this up.

You obviously did just make this up, because the mantle flows. It's molten rock. Always has been. Any geologist would laugh in your face if you tried to argue this "theory" scientifically.

The fact that humans, plants and animals all have the same circadian rythm that is dependent on a day being 24 hours and 21 minutes

it's like you only skim certain things to gather talking points, and neglect to do any actual research on them.

The circadian rhythm is reset with the introduction of light. Travel across time zones, and your body's internal clock resets itself. It is by no means a constant.

Oh yeah, and it has everything to do with cells. What exactly do you think the body consists of?

BrianC

12-10-2007, 07:42 AM

Exactly. There is a geological record of a mediterranean flood. Consequently the hundreds of flood stories are by and large concentrated in the cultures that envelop the mediterranean basin. No surprise there. The one surprise is the american (north, south, and central) flood legends. But looking back, these are easily reconciled when you remember that americans actually weren't. They crossed over a land bridge between russia and alaska during the last great ice age. They were mostly asian, but culturally we also see a lot of early middle eastern shamanic influence. They simply carried the flood stories with them.

Yes, exactly. Everyone carried the flood stories with them from the original flood. Good observation. That's the point I was making with the 200+ cultures having flood stories. In other words, they all came from Noah's family. There are a few cultures that have forgotten this flood story and don't have it anymore, but most have this same story.

The key here is the evidence that the entire world was under water at one time. But the problem is that the interpretation of Pangea has horrible flaws and is not possible. But Pangea had to be the case for scientists' theories to be right. If Pangea is incorrect, scientists have no other theory except the Creation model theory and global flood. Pangea completely sets aside the continental shelf all around the world and leaves out entire countries, and also makes Africa much smaller and I think south america much bigger. I forget the specifics. I can look it up if you like... It's a bogus theory.

BrianC

12-10-2007, 07:58 AM

[QUOTE=DarkWolf]Except for the ones that were written through the 1st century AD, right?

You obviously know nothing about carbon dating. The 100AD dates were procured via carbon dating which is completely inaccurate and works on a horribly faulty basis that carbon levels have always been the same as we are now. Yet, we know carbon levels constantly vary, and the carbon levels have been rising for years as the ice melts releasing more carbond into the air.

As ocean water gets warmer, it lets off more carbon. As it gets colder it takes in more carbon. Carbon intake due to the amount of it that is in the atmosphere is what determines how much will be in your body and how much is in your body when you die is what determines how old you will be dated. We don't even know if our carbon half life is 100% correct.

You should've looked into this before posting this comment. We have absolutely NO accurate dating method. I mean, not even REMOTELY accurate dating method.

BrianC

12-10-2007, 08:04 AM

No they don't. Mountains rising due to continental shifts and volcanic activity does not in any way indicate the Earth at one point was completely covered in water. It just indicates the land was at one point much flatter than it is today.

You must not have read all of the posts. Every mountain on the planet has ocean life fossils on them. Therefore, water was either over the top of that mountain, or that mountain was really low at one time and covered by ocean water. For things to fossilize, they must be covered by mud at some point. So yes, the entire planet has evidence of ocean life fossilized in it, and this means that every part of the world was covered with water either at the same time or every part at one time or another was covered by water.

Look it up. All scientists agree that this must be true, because they're not idiots. You don't say, "Oh, those fossils got there because man took them on mountains and buried them all over the world." Logically, water covered the planet in all places at one time. The question is did it cover it all at once, or in separate parts at separate times. Do some research before you post this stuff...

Oh, and by the way, if it indicates the earth was much flatter than it is today, that means the circumfrence of the earth was larger. This is what creation scientists believe, actually, not what secular scientists believe. They don't have a solution for how the earth was flater with a larger circumfrence. The creation model does, though, because the water is underneath the crust. Very simple... Explains the 360 day years, the circadian rythm of man, plants and animals, explains where the flood waters came from, the mountains, the ocean trenches, the fossilization...everything is explained by this with no holes in the theory.

BrianC

12-10-2007, 08:22 AM

[QUOTE=DarkWolf]And yet, you still celebrate Christmas. Odd, that.

Actually, I didn't celebrate Christmas from age 7 to 16. And the only reason I celebrated it after that is because it can be done for the right reasons and not for the pagan things that have been mixed into it like the tree. I celebrate it because it gives me an excuse to spend time with family members and give away stuff and have fun with everyone. If it's done with the idea that it is Jesus' birthday, then that's fine. We will worship the Lord on that day as well, which is another great reason. Jesus was simply trying to show that His birth isn't what's important. His death is what's important.

BrianC

12-10-2007, 08:38 AM

There were many large boats at the time. Egyptian pharaoh's loved them. They were the ancient equivalent of our modern day party barges. They were not meant to travel, just float.

The size of your boat, however, is still FAR too small to house two of every species of animal that walked the Earth. Even in the likely event of a flood only happening in the Mediterranean basin, there were still far too many local species to fit in a boat that was in all dimensions about half the size of the Titanic.

First of all, you can take a male and female wolf on board, and that covers ALL dogs. Most dog breeds come from Britain in the 1800's. There were very very few dog breeds before this.

Now, if you take into account that there were probably far fewer types of animals (not species but types), the space needed is much smaller. Also, if you take into account that Noah probably loaded the animals on in infant form, it would also reduce the space heavily as well.

Finally, scientists have found that you can force pretty much any animal into hibernation. Meaning they will not eat and will not crap. This also makes animals living on a huge boat MUCH easier and more possible.

Have you ever been on a really large cruise ship and seen all of the decks and how huge it is? Believe me...you can fit TONS AND TONS AND TONS of animals on a cruise ship that's three football fields long and many many decks high. And that just happens to be real similar to the dimensions of the ark. Again...learn something about this stuff before you make uninformed comments.

By the way, Egyptian "party barges" weren't the size or cruise ships....

BrianC

12-10-2007, 08:45 AM

Precisely. "A time" is defined by whatever amount of time is needed to make events fit the vague biblical prophecies. Thank you for confirming they're just made up.

Once again, it would appear you didn't read my explanations. NO one translated the passage of "a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years is like a day" as day = time. No one was doing that. And no one defined "a thousand years." That part of the translation never changed. It's always been a thousand years. It's the word "time" that changed. It was incorrectly translated as day but actually should've been translated as time, like it is in many other passages in the New Testament Greek.

No one altered or changed anything.

Now, take into account that the last really accurate translation was done in 1611 (the King James) before all of these prophecies came to pass in 1776, 1948 and 1967. Therefore, these translators didn't know they needed to translate "a thousand years" any differently than they translated it. All Bibles say "a thousand years" as well as the original Greek. Therefore, no change has occured to fit any events. No one even understood these prophecies until after 1967, and we didn't go back and change anything afterwords.

Sorry, but that makes no sense. Also, THREE prophecies happened each dealing with an exact 2,500 year period. HOW ON EARTH would 1776, 1948 and 1967 JUST HAPPEN to be exactly 2,500 years after each of those prophecies was said to have started? How would time just happen to mean a thousand years in all of those cases? How COULD someone modify it to mean anything other than what it really means to fit prophecy? It's impossible... You have no case...

BrianC

12-10-2007, 08:49 AM

I thought you young earth types stuck to the literal meaning of a day. The whole genesis account of 6 days. So why are days now solar years? Oh, that's right, because it helps a vague prophecy.

Really whippin' those accusations out today aren't ya'? Again, you didn't read what I wrote about this stuff...

In the Bible, God prophecies twice and He gives the prophecies in days, then says that He gives each day for a year. Then, when we see those prophecies fulfilled, the number of days equalled exactly the number of years that went by for that prophecy to be fulfilled in the Bible. And historical record confirms this as well. We know that those prophecies which happened in the Old Testament regarding 390 and 40 years happened way back then exactly as they were said to have happened. So, we assume from then on that when someone is prophesying in "days," each day means a year.

Now, in Genesis, it is not a prophecy at all, and a day = a year has not been established at all. No prophecies had been given. Also, each day is defined by, "The morning and the evening, the first day," in Genesis. Therefore, we know they were 24 hour periods. Again, you don't have an argument here...

So it's ok to fudge the definition of days, and "time", when it's convenient for you, but not when it comes to recounting the story of genesis. Nice double standard you got going there.

By the way, theres are not vague prophecies, they are VERY specific to when they start and end and how many years between the start and end. That's not vague at all. It's 100% specific and detailed.

I just explained "days" and "time." Nothing was "fudged on." It's completely accurate and nothing has been changed.

BrianC

12-10-2007, 08:54 AM

The New Testament is, at least. The Old Testament is very deeply seated in the old ways. But it is true, Jesus was no fan of religion. And his body barely had a chance to cool before his disciples completely mangled his teachings, and formed a religion around them.

Ummmm....yeah, I think I'll take my Bible interpretation and knowledge from you from now on. You sound so knowledgeable. :)

No, the Old Testament was riddled with events where the Jews kept getting religious and legalistic and they thought keeping the law would save them. That wasn't what saved them. God said that loving and obeying Him was what saved them and sin would not be counted against them. It's that simple. They didn't understand that. They kept going to false religions as well and worshipping false gods. Seriously, read a little before you make these claims...

BrianC

12-10-2007, 08:57 AM

Perhaps you're not aware of the giant monitor lizards in Australia that had sightings reported as recent as the 1980's, but actual documented sightings as recent 1890 when a 30' lizard trampled through a village in Victoria.

Not to say that they don't exist, because it's very likely they do exist, but has anyone ever gotten a picture of them?

Assuming they do exist, what would that prove? What environment do they live in? The Bible says what environment Behemoth lives in and it's that similar to what a brontosaurus would live in. Either way, I have seen 20+ foot aligators with tails that didn't even look close to a cedar tree. A 30 foot lizard probably wouldn't quite measure up either. Let's see a picture of one and a tree next to his tail to compare.

BrianC

12-10-2007, 09:24 AM

I'm quite aware of the bombardier beetle.

Oh, that's good. You're aware of something, I see. That's always good. :)

Actually it's 70 shots.

Different researchers have given different numbers, actually. 70 is what wikipedia says, because the work that is referenced said it was 70. But kids can even put up stuff on Wikipedia. Anyone can. Better to reference actual research that's out there.

I never said it was. But we have yet to find any fossil remains of any large lizard that contains the chambers necessary to house the fluids used in a chemical reaction that would produce sparks. Much less jets of flame, as is the traditional dragon mythology.

What is more likely to have happened in these accounts in Job, the people in terror of this giant lizard, imagined things that didn't actually occur. You should do some research on the effects of fear and how it can make you see and hear things that aren't really there.

LOL You crack me up. If you haven't noticed, fossilized remains don't exactly show much about the animal. It's basically just bones, and sometimes you get an impression of some of the other parts of the animal, but VERY rarely. I would find it entirely accurate to say that paleontologists haven't found these "pouches" you say they should've found, because that kind of stuff doesn't survive fossilization.

It's not "every known dinosaur", it's the "dragon", also depicted in Job.

But you bring up an interesting point of dinosaurs and man coexisting. While it's not likely for man to have existed during the reign of the dinosaurs, it is possible for dinosaur descendants to have survived. With all the "Nessie" sightings, and Mokele-mbembe sightings, giant monitor lizards in Australia... hell, alligators we know for sure are direct descendants of dinosaurs.

Dinosaur means terrible lizard. Giant monitors and alligators fit that bill rather well. But when the term was coined, all we knew of were the giant lizards. Now we know there were aquarian, amphibian, avian, and even mammalian "dinosaurs".

I'm impressed that you actually even consider this part about some dinosaurs surviving down through the years.

But once again, you've crushed my hopes of your research abilities. You really should go look at the pictures of ancient Babylon before you make completely unfounded claims like "it's the dragon depicted in Job." I've seen the drawings on the walls. EVERY KNOWN DINOSAUR. I'm not making this stuff up. Go look it up for yourself. There were also stones found in South America that have drawings of most of the dinosaurs we've found on them. Those drawings were produced by a human unless there were some REALLY talented dinosaurs back then. :)

The "phenomenon" you refer to is bacteria in the body releasing gasses as the body decomposes. The gasses cause the body to float. If the body continues to float the gasses will be expelled, and the body will sink again. Decomposition continues, more gasses, and the body may rise again. Forensic scientists refer to these as "refloats". They too will eventually sink again as the gasses are expelled. In otherwords, people don't float forever, and the ~7 months that the waters of the flood were supposedly over the Earth, would have been far more than is needed for the bodies to sink permanently.

You have to know the theory before this makes sense. The sediments were falling only for the first 40 days and nights. After that, the sediments had settled mostly and it wasn't raining anymore and the waters weren't as turbulent, and the sediments basically had already covered everything they were going to cover and layer out.

I had forgotten about this till you mentioned the possibility of it. The bodies back then were different. Bigger. It would've taken longer than seven months for the gases to be expelled. Even so, if humans did sink, they would not be covered at the bottom of the ocean since the sediments were already settled. Gotta' learn the theory to figure all of this out...

Animals DO have this same "phenomenon". How do you think beached whales occur? Go to any lake and you'll occasionally see dead fish floating on the surface. After Hurricanes Floyd and Katrina (and probably more, but these are the more "famous" ones) there were dead animals floating on the surface.

Those are fish, actually, not mammals or reptiles...nothing like that. Fish have much more buoyancy than humans. Also, fish are smaller and the gases would expell much more quickly. They could sink and get covered by sediments more quickly.

I already countered this earlier.

You may have countered, but you gave no evidence of your claims nor claims that make a difference to the theory.

I don't know why you keep trying to use this as some sort of irrefutable proof. I tore this pet theory of yours apart long ago when you first tried to use it.

The short version of it is that in fact Volcano's eject tons of sediment from within and around the volcano. The sediment, depending on how violent the eruption, can be anywhere from right on the surface and maybe only a few decades old, to those found as the rock is ripped away from the mouth and exposing centuries and millennia old rock and sediment.

Take a look at some before and after pictures of Mt. Saint Helens. There is now missing a MASSIVE amount of rock from the volcano. It reduced the elevation of the volcano by ~1300 feet. The crater is about a mile wide, and about half that deep.

And 360,000 years is far from accurate. Mt. Saint Helens is known to be around 40,000 years old. But I suspect your getting your 360,000 year guestimate from the amount of layering produced by the sediments.

And that's precisely why we don't rely on the layering alone to determine age. Because we know cataclysmic events like these can produce layering that would appear to be far far older than it actually is.

Thank you for proving my point, but you completely misunderstood something I said. The sediments caused by the eruption in the 80's caused 360,000 years worth of layering to build up on lake floors. In other words, what appears to be 360,000 years worth of layers can drop in a matter of weeks or years when there are eruptions. We see the effects of what happens when sediments settle in water; they layer themselves out just like we find the layers of sediments all over the world, indicating that they were under water and that's what caused the layering. You're missing my points here, I think...

Under the crust? Where all the molten rock is? Forgive me while I take a moment to laugh hysterically.

As I said, there was no molten rock when there was water under there. The earth was most likely cooler, or the water wasn't hot enough to melt the crust. But as the core heated up, the water burst forth from the crust and the crust settled down on the mantle, causing the crust to melt under the extreme heat it was not under by being pushed against the superhot mantle. This is where we get molten rock from. There was none before the flood due to the water being underneath the crust, and the crust never touching the mantle. Seriously, LEARN THE THEORY FIRST. It'll save me a lot of time.

No, the cracks and trenches on the ocean floor are caused by the plates moving. Either colliding or separating.

Exactly, because when the land was flatter (no big mountains), the circumfrence of the crust was larger (meaning it would be lifted up off of the mantel providing a place for the water to be housed underneath). You said it yourself, the crust was flatter back in the past. So you just proved my theory by your logical deduction. Good job! Once the water broke through the crust, THEN the singular land mass was broken into multiple plates. Presto! Plate tectonics.

Your theory relies a lot on supposition. You ignore actual geological facts, in favor of a fantastical world with water encasing the core instead of molten rock, and a pink sky due to the firmament blocking the suns rays from heating the Earth.

Tell me this...why on earth can I go up to the last layer of our atmosphere called the heatsink, which is full of ice crystals, and on this side of it I would freeze to death in a matter of seconds... but the second I step on the other side of it, if the sun's showing, then I will burn to a crisp. Does that not sound fantastical to you? Does that not sound unlikely? Does that not sound like our outer layer has some extremely strange properties that block the heat of the sun right now? That's regardless of the fact that I believe there was a firmament there that was created of the same elements as ice (and we see ice crystals there). Gee, what a coincidence... I'm ignoring nothing logical.

BrianC

12-10-2007, 09:33 AM

You do realize, surely, that we are carbon based lifeforms, correct? One of the primary elements of all life is carbon.

Perhaps you're thinking of carbon dioxide?

Yes, but I'm just speaking of carbon here. Not bothering with the oxygen portion of this.

When they find dinosaur bones, they have no carbon in them whatsoever. So they cannot carbon date them. Either the carbon broke down so far that there is no carbon left (which was the original assumption), or these dinosaurs somehow did not update carbon somehow from the air.

Carbon has always existed for plant to take in and convert. Carbon dioxide, I mean. But it doesn't mean that the living animals back then had bodies that took it in, necessarily. Our lungs take in air, uptake only oxygen, and breath out carbon dioxide. So, our lungs filter. But some carbon still gets into our bodies today. Back then, it's possible that we never took in carbon at all. If I said that there was no carbon in the air, that was actually a stupid statement on my part. We find carbon in the air in "prehistoric amber" air bubbles. We know it was present pre-flood.

Seriously, this stuff cracks me up. We had an egg shell surrounding the Earth! Brilliant!

Your evolutionists have said that the only way dinosaurs could've survived in the sizes they did would be if there was something on top of the atmosphere pressing down to cause the double air pressure found in the amber air bubbles. Otherwise, they would not have survived in our current air pressure. But they dismiss that idea, because it's way too much like the creation model. Oh, and by the way, if you haven't noticed, we have ice crystals in our outer most layer. It's very possible something was on top of the atmosphere, and it's not an impossible theory by any stretch. How do you explain the added air pressure?

Pay attention. Seriously, we've been over this already. The length of time assigned to "a time" is completely made up, in order to fit prophecy. Even the prophecies speaking of a specific number of days between events, have been re-interpreted to a number of "solar years" in order to make them fit.

The prophecies are vague enough to be applicable to just about anything, as long as you inject your own interpretation of the time/dates/events being described.

Once again, I've completely disproved your accusations that "a time" is made up or adjusted to fit prophecy. Sorry, but you have no case here. And the prophecies, as I showed, are not vague at all, but very very specific.

flashstang04

12-10-2007, 09:34 AM

Most herpetologists will tell you that a "giant "lizard like we have today are going to have long tails, but not necessarily giant, thick tails. Most in fact, have longer, thinner tails. The weight from the front causes a need for balance in the rear. The most effective way to balance the rest of the body is not a large heavy tail (as most of these lizards rely on speed to catch prey), but a longer, thinner one. It is not efficient either. Fat is stored in the tail for extended time periods where food is not available. Having a tail that is too thick would rob the other reptiles bodily functions of nutritious fat. This of course means that a lizard with a tree trunk tail would have to be enormous. A 30 ft monitor would not meet the requirements. When lizards are measured, it is not nose to cloaca, it is nose to tip of the tail. An alligator or crocodile is an exception because most of their life is spent in water aside from mating and laying eggs. In this case the tails are thicker and shorter to allow buoyancy and controlled high speed bursts. This again is no where near tree trunk size.

BrianC

12-10-2007, 10:05 AM

I should apologize. I am being extremely vile and condescending here. Don't know what it is, but sometimes the disrespect and condescension of other people get to me and it just draws it out of me. It's pride. I'm trying to get over it, but it's taking a lot of time to get rid of pride. I shouldn't respond the way I did and I apologize for that. I'll be civil and not get mean. I don't think anyone here is stupid. I do wish people would do more research before making completely unfounded comments, though. It would save so much time an explanation. But you don't always get what you want, so oh well... It's nothing I haven't done before...

BrianC

12-10-2007, 12:19 PM

And yet, you're ok with prophesied days being solar years, rather than literal days. Again, nice double standard you've got going there.
[quote]
Once again, prophetic days have been defined as a day equalling a year in a few prophecies and in two verses which define them as such. There's no double standard. There's a difference between recording history and prophesying the future. You don't have an argument here.

[quote]
No, the closest we can get is sometime in late September or early October. The cattle were still in the fields, so this suggests a pre-winter date.

No one really takes into consideration that they live in a desert over there. What is fall to us may be winter to them. Not that it really matters...

Except the actual prophecy was for 1290 days. But because you're ok with the double standard, you can interpret 1290 days into 1271.5 years.

Nice and convenient.

What it really boils down to is these prophecies didn't actually come to pass. So now we take world events that could conceivably apply in some way, figure out the math needed to re-interpret the prophesied dates, and viola! We have prophecy fulfillment!

Did you really just try to use that as an argument? Wow...

Alright, here's the fact: We KNOW FOR CERTAIN that Daniel was under a 360 day per year Hebrew/Babylonian calendar. So, 1290 Hebrew years is .9857 times longer than a 365.24 day year. You MUST convert from a 360 day year into a 365.24 day year, because history is recorded in 365.24 day solar years. It's not "convenient." It's a must. Historians MUST do this. IT IS REQUIRED! Does that make sense? There's no other way to do it. And remember, when you convert ALL of these prophecies in Daniel into solar years, they work out perfectly like they're supposed to. In other words, the conversion is correct, and always the same. There's no trick here, man. This stuff is required and it's accurate. No changes. We know those prophecies didn't change, because of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

WOW... I'm glad I wasn't taking a drink when I read this.

You think the Bible contradicts itself? Then prove it. I guarantee I can refute and explain PROPERLY every supposed contradiction you will bring up. Everytime it seems like there is a contradition, it's simply taken out of context or a huge misunderstanding of what the Bible says. There is not one contradiction in the Bible. Prove me wrong.

Mr Majestyk

12-10-2007, 12:54 PM

......the Old Testament was riddled with events where the Jews kept getting religious and legalistic and they thought keeping the law would save them. That wasn't what saved them. God said that loving and obeying Him was what saved them and sin would not be counted against them. It's that simple. They didn't understand that. They kept going to false religions as well and worshipping false gods.

As I understand the covenant made between God and Israel as written in the Old Testament, keeping the instructions God gave to Moses would bring about a multitude of blessings for Israel, and such blessings would be betowed upon the chosen people during their lifetimes. Therefore, although keeping the laws would indeed have saved the chosen people from harm and misfortune, they continually broke the Commandments and ultimately suffered the consequences.

FSON

12-10-2007, 12:57 PM

[QUOTE=DarkWolf]
And yet, you're ok with prophesied days being solar years, rather than literal days. Again, nice double standard you've got going there.
[quote]
Once again, prophetic days have been defined as a day equalling a year in a few prophecies and in two verses which define them as such. There's no double standard. There's a difference between recording history and prophesying the future. You don't have an argument here.

No one really takes into consideration that they live in a desert over there. What is fall to us may be winter to them. Not that it really matters...

Did you really just try to use that as an argument? Wow...

Alright, here's the fact: We KNOW FOR CERTAIN that Daniel was under a 360 day per year Hebrew/Babylonian calendar. So, 1290 Hebrew years is .9857 times longer than a 365.24 day year. You MUST convert from a 360 day year into a 365.24 day year, because history is recorded in 365.24 day solar years. It's not "convenient." It's a must. Historians MUST do this. IT IS REQUIRED! Does that make sense? There's no other way to do it. And remember, when you convert ALL of these prophecies in Daniel into solar years, they work out perfectly like they're supposed to. In other words, the conversion is correct, and always the same. There's no trick here, man. This stuff is required and it's accurate. No changes. We know those prophecies didn't change, because of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

You think the Bible contradicts itself? Then prove it. I guarantee I can refute and explain PROPERLY every supposed contradiction you will bring up. Everytime it seems like there is a contradition, it's simply taken out of context or a huge misunderstanding of what the Bible says. There is not one contradiction in the Bible. Prove me wrong.

1:1 In the beginning God created heaven and earth.
So G#d has not always been in heaven, he has been someplace else. Earth and heaven were formed at the same time? What about the galaxies that are older than our own? Do they have their own heaven, is this where G#d was before he made our earth and heaven?
1:2 The earth was without form and empty, with darkness on the face of the depths, but God's spirit moved on the water's surface. Water is more primordial than light? Isn't water made by a "spark", H and O.

Mr Majestyk

12-10-2007, 01:08 PM

FSON

12-10-2007, 01:34 PM

Mr Majestyk

12-10-2007, 01:44 PM

Since I, and many others, consider the Bible to be the inspired Word of God, my understanding of it is what God intended for me to learn from it. If that differs from what someone else learns from it, that is between that person and God and therefore does not make my interpretation any more or less valid.

BrianC

12-10-2007, 11:46 PM

"Heaven" is referring to the sky, or "firmament", not God's "house"

Water is often used throughout the Bible to represent life.

Note: this is simply my understanding from my own reading of the Bible.

No offense to your view on this, but actually, the Bible says otherwise about what "heaven" means.

You'll notice that the firmament was placed in the "midst" of the heavens (aka - between the sky and space). The sky is spoken of as the first heaven, and that would make space the second heaven. Paul says he was caught up into the third heaven when God is. So, we have the three heavens right there. The third is the spiritual world.

If I had to guess, my theory is this: heaven is place where man cannot go in his natural state without the help of others. For instance, flight is required to reach into the heights of the sky, which is unachievable for man in his natural state. Space is also unacheivable for us in our natural state (without a rocket). Heaven is also unacheivable for man to go to in his natural physical body, but his spirit body can go there because it lives there. When God takes people to heaven "in the spirit" as the prophets say, they mean they are in their spirit man. God has to do this for them, though. It's not something they do on their own (unless you have multiple personality disorder, of course, but that's a whole other subject).

So, I think the word heaven refers to things which man cannot achieve in his natural body without outside help.

BrianC

12-10-2007, 11:55 PM

God exists in eternity. He created the third heaven in eternity with no such thing as time. He created the physical world and universe in the confines of time, though. But, in the end, God brings perfection to the earth, and since nothing dies anymore, time ceases to exist, because there is nothing to measure at that point. That's my concept of it anyway.

We do not know that any galaxy is older than ours. It is an assumption or theory. We do not know how light traveled her or how quickly it got here. We don't know a TON about space. Light slows down as it travels through space, for instance, and has a red shift once reaches its slowest speed. That means galaxies aren't as far away as we think they are. There is so much we don't understand about space, and so theories are basically pointless, because we cannot prove hardly anything.

Heaven is an alternate dimension. I think you've read my posts about multiple personality disorder and the spiritual world. They prove that there is another dimension because their alters live in it, and they go between dimensions. It's very strange. So no, other galaxies don't have their own third heaven like we do. They have the same one, because it's a completely alternate dimension. The first and second heavens are the sky and space. The third is an alternate dimesion where time doesn't exist, built inside of eternity with the absense of time, I'm guessing. Heaven could have time, though. I know after the seventh trumpet, it says that there was "time no more" here on earth. That's when death is taken away and nothing dies, if I'm not mistaken. Weird subject...

1:2 The earth was without form and empty, with darkness on the face of the depths, but God's spirit moved on the water's surface. Water is more primordial than light? Isn't water made by a "spark", H and O.

Water can be made or separated by electricity, but no science experiment has ever been able to produce life like this. Once, in a completely messed up atmosphere created by a scientists in an enclosed environment, he managed to create some sort of something that could be called "life" I suppose, but the atmosphere was horridly different from our own, and so he proved absolutely nothing with this experiment. The life that was created died off quickly if I remember correctly.

BrianC

12-11-2007, 12:06 AM

Dude, seriously... WTF do you think lava is?

Lava comes from either the mantle melting the crust, or the very top layer of the mantle melting. The rest of the mantle is solid. Originally, though, the water kept the top of the mantle cool enough to where it was completely solid and no lava was produced. The core was cooler at that time too, if I'm not mistaken.

Underground yes, but these rivers do not go under the crust. They are within the crust.

Right, but prior to the flood, the rivers had a source deep down and the crust was not quite the same as it is today. It didn't have the layers it has. It's thickness was more equal all the way around. The rivers had an original source underneath the crust. The rivers we have today, underground, are not originating underneath the crust. Well, some may, but I'm not certain about that.

The mantle IS MOLTEN ROCK. It's the molten rock that surrounds the core. It's the molten rock that LAVA comes from. The crust floats on top of the mantle. Water resides on top of and within the crust in the form of oceans, lakes and rivers.

Look this up on Wikipedia. Only the outer layer of the mantle is molten if I read it correctly. I don't claim to be an expert on the mantle and core. But like I said, if I read it correctly, it says the mantle is mostly solid and only molten on the outer portion. Regardless, it doesn't change any theories.

No, it is dependent on the rate of carbon DECAY being constant. It doesn't matter how light or dense carbon was in the atmosphere. Carbon is carbon, and unless God changed things mid play just to fuck with us, carbon decays radiometrically at the same rate now as it always has. Carbon dating is measuring the rate of decay, to determine a relative age, not the amount of carbon present.

Please, please, please don't just throw this stuff out there without any knowledge of it. If you go read ANY explanation of how carbon dating works, they'll tell you that the amount of carbon IN AN OBJECT being carbon dated completely effects the date it gives. And that's wholely dependent upon how much carbon that object took in during its lifetime, and that is dependent upon how much carbon is in the air. Why don't you go find an explanation for carbon dating and post it here. You'll see I'm correct. If you don't want to learn about carbon dating, so be it.

If I must, I can go find an explanation and post it here for you. I assure you I know exactly what I'm talking about on this one. Carbon dating is WHOLELY dependent upon the amount of carbon in the atmosphere during the animal's life which will determine how much carbon he took in, which will determine how much is lodged in him, which will effect the carbon dating. Really, man...go learn this stuff before you talk about it as if you know something about it.

BrianC

12-11-2007, 12:23 AM

You obviously did just make this up, because the mantle flows. It's molten rock. Always has been. Any geologist would laugh in your face if you tried to argue this "theory" scientifically.

My mistake. I did mess this one up. The outer later of the mantle is molten rock. I screwed that one up. I have not studied the mantle much at all. But again, it doesn't change any theories... and if I understand it correctly, the mantle melts the crust turning it to lava as well. Because we can create lava by melting our own crust sediments.

it's like you only skim certain things to gather talking points, and neglect to do any actual research on them.

That's funny, because I have been saying the same thing about you. Granted, on one or two subjects, I have not studied them much at all, like the mantle. But on most of the subjects at hand, I've displayed tons more knolwedge than you. And I can produce links to research or write-ups if necessary. I am just too lazy to do it everytime, because it would take forever.

The circadian rhythm is reset with the introduction of light. Travel across time zones, and your body's internal clock resets itself. It is by no means a constant.

I know how the circadian rhythm works. Light resets it daily, because the body produces melatonin to reset the rhythm due to the presence of light. However, the way they found the circadian rhythm is by putting plants, animals and humans in complete darkness for many days and weeks. The absense of light causes the circadian rhythm to go back to its original length, which is 24 hours and 21 minutes. This means that most likely the earth used to rotate at 360 rotations per year, and that would mean that light would've worked WITH the rhythm, and would ONLY be used for timezone travel adjustment. But, in today's world with a 365.24 day year, sunlight resets the circadian rhythm every day 21 minutes early. Why?

We were not created in a 365.24 day year. The earth is spinning faster now for SOME reason, and as early as 3,000 years ago, humans had calendars with 360 day years, indicating that not long before 3,000 years ago, they had a 360 day solar year. However, due to SOME event, the earth sped up and the year acquired 5.24 more days due to this, but mankind didn't pick up on it for a while. Eventually, they started adding a month every few years to their year to make up for the addition of the 5.24 days. Look up the Hebrew and Babylonian calendars and how they worked. No idiot makes up a calendar that's not accurate to the year. And other cultures had this 360 day calendar also. And the circadian rhythm just happens to be exactly the right length of a day if the earth spun round 360 times a year. Coincidence? I think not.

Oh yeah, and it has everything to do with cells. What exactly do you think the body consists of?

Yes, but the first living cells would've had to have acquired this rhythm when they first came about millions of years ago. If the earth is slowing down, then that would mean the rotation of the earth was much faster in the past. MUCH MUCH faster, far more than just 5.24 days faster. Doesn't make any sense. The theory is bogus. However, if the earth has only been around 6,000 years and is only SLIGHTLY slower than it was 4,000 years ago, then we would see no effect from a slowing rotation. But, 4,500 years ago, we would see some enomoly that changed the configuration of the earth and caused it to sped up to acquire 5.24 more days a year. Sure enough, 4,500 years ago is where scientists track the beginning of the wobble of the earth's axis to. There's a formula to calculate that. You should look it up sometime. Oh, and by the way...historians place the flood at approximately 4,500 years ago.

So yeah...my theory works exceptionally well and is backed up by lots of little evidences. Your theory has no evidences, really.

Mateo5.0

12-11-2007, 12:21 PM

My mistake. I did mess this one up.

So yeah...my theory works exceptionally well and is backed up by lots of little evidences. Your theory has no evidences, really.

I just grabbed the first line and the last line from your post and things are beginning to make perfect sense.

The earth is actually 4.54 billion years old. We can test rocks to do so.

"Rock minerals naturally contain certain elements and not others. By the process of radioactive decay of radioactive isotopes occurring in a rock, exotic elements can be introduced over time. By measuring the concentration of the stable end product of the decay, coupled with knowledge of the half life and initial concentration of the decaying element, the age of the rock can be calculated. Typical radioactive end products are argon from potassium-40 and lead from uranium and thorium decay. If the rock becomes molten, as happens in the Earth's mantle, such non radioactive end products typically escape or are redistributed. Thus the age of the oldest terrestrial rock gives a minimum for the age of the Earth assuming that a rock cannot have been in existence for longer than the Earth itself."

^Quote from Wikipedia^

Do you know what I love about the Bible? The creation of the Earth 6,000-10,000 years ago was a simply metaphor for the creation of our current civilization. Before that there were other civilizations, other religions, other technologies (albeit much less advanced than ours), in which they suffered a huge flood across the board- destroying many, transplanting some, and a few surviving which began our history.

Did you know that the South American Incans have the same word for Hurrican as do the Ancient Greeks? Hurakan. Coincidence?

There are huge stone faces in the jungles of East South America in which there is evidence of African exploration thousands of years before Cristobal Colon (Christopher Columbus)? Can you say trans-atlantic/pacific ocean navigation? Even the Vikings were here before Cristobal C..

I honestly think that you mean well Brian, but I sense that your past education has betrayed you on this one. You see, the Bible is a metaphorical guide to living life well, not a literal text that needs to be painstakingly proven. You start doing that, then you start stepping on everyone else's toes.

BrianC

12-11-2007, 01:59 PM

I just grabbed the first line and the last line from your post and things are beginning to make perfect sense.

The earth is actually 4.54 billion years old. We can test rocks to do so.

"Rock minerals naturally contain certain elements and not others. By the process of radioactive decay of radioactive isotopes occurring in a rock, exotic elements can be introduced over time. By measuring the concentration of the stable end product of the decay, coupled with knowledge of the half life and initial concentration of the decaying element, the age of the rock can be calculated. Typical radioactive end products are argon from potassium-40 and lead from uranium and thorium decay. If the rock becomes molten, as happens in the Earth's mantle, such non radioactive end products typically escape or are redistributed. Thus the age of the oldest terrestrial rock gives a minimum for the age of the Earth assuming that a rock cannot have been in existence for longer than the Earth itself."

Read this link:
http://www.answersincreation.org/bookreview/tnb/thousands_not_billions_chapter5.htm

It completely explains how radio isotopes work and completely disproves what you just said. Nice try, though. :)

BrianC

12-11-2007, 02:04 PM

I honestly think that you mean well Brian, but I sense that your past education has betrayed you on this one. You see, the Bible is a metaphorical guide to living life well, not a literal text that needs to be painstakingly proven. You start doing that, then you start stepping on everyone else's toes.

I don't think you know anything about my past education. I just showed you how what you just stated has been disproven for a dating method. No, rocks cannot be dated. In order to get an accurate date on the elements in rocks, you have to assume that the rock has not been altered in any shape or form, and scientists prove that basically every rock has undergone tons of atleration from outside sources throughout the years. And you also have to know how much of an element was in the rock to begin with, which no one knows either. No way TO know. Radio isotope dating is completely bogus.

And what's funny is that your explanation said that they can date these rocks with the radio isotopes, but if the date of the rock goes back past the 4.54 million year point, then scientists don't accept that. So wait... that would mean some rocks are dating back past 4.54 million years. Well, wouldn't that mean the earth is older than 4.54 million years? Wait... somethings off here. What they're saying is that if the dating method doesn't fit into their THEORY, then they don't accept the date they get off of the rock's radio isotopes. That's completely illogical and shows the complete inaccuracy of radio isotope dating.

DarkWolf

12-11-2007, 05:22 PM

The key here is the evidence that the entire world was under water at one time.

If by "entire world" you mean the mediterranean basin, then we are in agreement.

You obviously know nothing about carbon dating. The 100AD dates were procured via carbon dating which is completely inaccurate and works on a horribly faulty basis that carbon levels have always been the same as we are now.

Again you show your ignorance of how carbon dating works. And I even explained it in the simplest of terms in the post you're quoting.

Do some research. Please.

We don't even know if our carbon half life is 100% correct.

Yes, we do. The half life does not change*. This has been tested extensively for ~60 years. Carbon dating is acurate up to about 50,000 - 60,000 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating

* The half life has not changed in the ~60 years we've measured it, and we've pumped exponentially more carbon into the atmosphere since then. Thereby proving the amount of carbon present has no bearing on the rate of decay.

Oh, and by the way, if it indicates the earth was much flatter than it is today, that means the circumfrence of the earth was larger.

Beyond your whacked out "theory", this doesn't compute. As mountains rise, the circumference of the Earth expands.

You would have us believe it started out bigger, and shrank as the mythical water separating the crust from the mantle came spewing out. But then you'd also have us believe the waters receded back under the crust without re-increasing the circumference.

It's quite the flight of fancy.

Look it up. All scientists agree that this must be true, because they're not idiots.

I have looked it up. Outside of creation "scientists", there is not ONE scientist that even suggests such a ridiculous hypothesis.

Care to prove me wrong? Provide some links. If you can find me one link to one legitimate scientist that suggests the Earth was ever completely covered in water, I'll concede the point.

Have you ever been on a really large cruise ship and seen all of the decks and how huge it is? Believe me...you can fit TONS AND TONS AND TONS of animals on a cruise ship that's three football fields long and many many decks high.

Yes, I have. And yes, you can. But you cannot fit two of EVERY animal. Even if you have to break it down by type, rather than species. Forced hybernation or not. Baby animal or not. It's not physically possible.

Especially if you believe at that time that man walked among the dinosaurs. Now you're just adding a whole slew of additional giant (even in baby form) creatures.

But perhaps if you only go by type, there may be enough room for the local fauna of the mediterranean basin to fit. A tight fit, but it might just work. But if you want to keep insisting on a global flood, you're going to have to accept that it's just not possible.

By the way, Egyptian "party barges" weren't the size or cruise ships....

I beg to differ. I caught a discovery channel special a few months ago on a recently unearthed "party barge", that rivaled most of our modern cruise ships in size. You have to remember, these boats were made to house an entire pharaoh's court. We're not talking 5 or 10 people. We're talking hundreds, or thousands of people.

It's the word "time" that changed. It was incorrectly translated as day but actually should've been translated as time, like it is in many other passages in the New Testament Greek.

How convenient.

"Ooops! We mistranslated! Yeah, that's it. Sorry! We'll fix that right up."

Not to say that they don't exist, because it's very likely they do exist, but has anyone ever gotten a picture of them?

Has anyone ever gotten a picture of a dinosaur? We have sketches, we have foot prints, and we have bones.

LOL You crack me up. If you haven't noticed, fossilized remains don't exactly show much about the animal. It's basically just bones, and sometimes you get an impression of some of the other parts of the animal, but VERY rarely. I would find it entirely accurate to say that paleontologists haven't found these "pouches" you say they should've found, because that kind of stuff doesn't survive fossilization.

These chambers would need to be secured within the skeletal structure. Or didn't you realize that? All you'd have to do is look at our own nasal and sinus passages to glean that information.

I've seen the drawings on the walls. EVERY KNOWN DINOSAUR. I'm not making this stuff up. Go look it up for yourself.

I did. Lots of lions and bulls. And a dragon. Not every known dinosaur.

I had forgotten about this till you mentioned the possibility of it. The bodies back then were different. Bigger. It would've taken longer than seven months for the gases to be expelled. Even so, if humans did sink, they would not be covered at the bottom of the ocean since the sediments were already settled.

These bigger people you talk of, bones of a man 11 feet tall. You do realize these weren't the norm, but were actually anomalies, correct? Crack open a Guinness Book of World Records, and check out the worlds tallest man and woman. It's not a race of giants, it's genetic anomalies. They're rare, but they do happen.

Now, further on your theory here, actually the larger the creature/man the longer the gasses would take to build up enough to cause the body to rise in the first place. And because of the larger mass, once it reaches the surface, the gasses would be expelled more rapidly, causing the body to re-sink sooner.

A typical body today, will rise after a day or two if it is not weighted down. It can take up to a week though. If left to it's own devices, it will re-sink after another day or two. The next rise will be more than a week away, as a decomposing body has more surface area for the gasses to escape before they can build up enough to re-float.

So if you have constant rain and sediment deposits for 40 days and 40 nights, if the bodies weren't buried initially, they'd certainly get buried in the week or more before getting an opportunity to re-float.

Gotta' learn the theory to figure all of this out...

What I need to do is stop arguing with fools too clueless to actually learn something.

Those are fish, actually, not mammals or reptiles...nothing like that.

Seriously? What exactly do you think a whale is? I'll give you a hint: it's not a fish, and it's not a reptile.

In other words, what appears to be 360,000 years worth of layers can drop in a matter of weeks or years when there are eruptions.

Exactly. That's why we don't rely on the layering alone to determine age. Which of course, I already said.

As I said, there was no molten rock when there was water under there. The earth was most likely cooler, or the water wasn't hot enough to melt the crust. But as the core heated up, the water burst forth from the crust and the crust settled down on the mantle, causing the crust to melt under the extreme heat it was not under by being pushed against the superhot mantle. This is where we get molten rock from. There was none before the flood due to the water being underneath the crust, and the crust never touching the mantle. Seriously, LEARN THE THEORY FIRST. It'll save me a lot of time.

You can shout "LEARN THE THEORY FIRST" all you want. I see your theory, and I call it bullshit. LEARN GEOLOGY FIRST. It'll save me a lot of time.

What you're suggesting is the Earth during it's creation, started out cool, and then rapidly heated up WITH PEOPLE LIVING ON IT. The only possible way to quantify your fantasy, is if the Earth started out as a ball of ice, which would be completely uninhabitable to all but the most stout bacteria. Certainly no person could exist in such an environment.

You said it yourself, the crust was flatter back in the past. So you just proved my theory by your logical deduction. Good job!

Flatter, before plates collide to create mountains. Or mountains build up via volcanoes. This process expands the circumference. Your theory remains bunk.

Tell me this...why on earth can I go up to the last layer of our atmosphere called the heatsink, which is full of ice crystals, and on this side of it I would freeze to death in a matter of seconds... but the second I step on the other side of it, if the sun's showing, then I will burn to a crisp.

The higher you go, the thinner the atmosphere. There's no magical line to cross between freezing instantly, or burning to a crisp. You'd freeze long before you reached a point the atmosphere was thin enough to allow enough of the sun to burn you to a crisp.

Back then, it's possible that we never took in carbon at all.

No, it's not. WE ARE CARBON BASED LIFE FORMS. One of the primary elements required for not just our existence, but all life on this planet, is carbon.

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

The absence of carbon in dinosaur bones, is precisely due to them being too old to date via C14 dating. That method is only good through about 50,000 - 60,000 years, beyond that the isotope has decayed beyond our ability to accurately measure.

Which is why we don't rely solely on C14 dating either. There's also U234, U238, and Potassium-Argon dating (K40 decays into Ar40).

Your evolutionists have said that the only way dinosaurs could've survived in the sizes they did would be if there was something on top of the atmosphere pressing down to cause the double air pressure found in the amber air bubbles. Otherwise, they would not have survived in our current air pressure.

It's not "something pressing down" to raise the pressure. It's a direct result of the naturally flatter land, and decreased sea levels (because it was pulled into and frozen as more ice at the poles, which eventually triggered the great ice age). Everything was closer to the surface and below our current sea level.

All you have to do is go about 33 feet below our current sea level, and you've already doubled the atmospheric pressure. Atmospheric pressure doubles every 33 to 34 feet below sea level. Meaning at 66-68 feet, the atmospheric pressure is about 4 times that of sea level.

How do you explain the added air pressure?

Quite logically, I'd say.

No one really takes into consideration that they live in a desert over there. What is fall to us may be winter to them. Not that it really matters...

No. The area of the middle east is in the northern hemisphere, just like us. They have the same seasons we have. You'd have a point if they were in the southern hemisphere, where the seasons happen at opposite times from us.

It's also important to note that it was not always desert over there. The area between the Tigris and Euphrates, and extending down to the Nile is known as the fertile crescent. It's the supposed location of the garden of eden. It was once quite lush and green, until it was over-cropped with non-sustainable cropping methods, leaching the soil of nutrients and eventually turning it into a desert. Salination didn't help matters either.

You think the Bible contradicts itself? Then prove it. I guarantee I can refute and explain PROPERLY every supposed contradiction you will bring up. Everytime it seems like there is a contradition, it's simply taken out of context or a huge misunderstanding of what the Bible says. There is not one contradiction in the Bible. Prove me wrong.

Too many to bother listing. Fortunately someone else has already done the leg work.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html

Have at it.

Did you really just try to use that as an argument? Wow...

I surely did. The prophecies are all over the place. In Daniel 4:32 it states: "And they shall drive thee from men, and thy dwelling shall be with the beasts of the field: they shall make thee to eat grass as oxen, and seven times shall pass over thee, until thou know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will."

So, if we accept your interpretation of "a time" being 1000 years, then that must mean Nebuchadnezzar dwelled in the fields for 7000 years.

Oops.

Clearly "a time" is any arbitrary amount of time applied to a prophecy, in order to make it "work".

He also specifically calls for days and weeks, and even years at some parts. So, if you're suggesting a day is a year, a week is seven years, and a year is 365 years. When Daniel figures out that the desolation of Jerusalem would last 70 years, that really means 25,550 years? That's quite a bit longer than the entire span of history covered in the bible, much less starting from the time of Daniel. Even if you use 360 years (based on the 360 days in a year of the Jewish calendar), that's still 25,200 years.

Or was that literally 70 years? And if that was literally 70 years, why should we trust that other specifically referred time periods are to be interpreted and not taken literally?

Of course, Michael informs Daniel that he's got 70 weeks to rebuild Jerusalem. 490 days... er years?

And all this time Nebuchadnezzar is out chewing cud with his cattle homies.

Light slows down as it travels through space, for instance, and has a red shift once reaches its slowest speed. That means galaxies aren't as far away as we think they are.

Wow, the lack of any comprehension of the laws of physics astounds me.

We see these distant galaxies, by the light that comes to us from them. If light were to slow down in space (which it clearly doesn't. The speed of light is constant within a vaccum), that would require the galaxies to actually be FARTHER from us than is measured by a linear speed of light.

Lava comes from either the mantle melting the crust, or the very top layer of the mantle melting. The rest of the mantle is solid. Originally, though, the water kept the top of the mantle cool enough to where it was completely solid and no lava was produced.

Seriously, the circular argument is getting tiresome. The mantle is molten rock. From crust to core. It's cooler near the crust, naturally, but it is still molten rock. Sludge-like, if you will. It doesn't become solid rock, until you get into the crust.

The core was cooler at that time too, if I'm not mistaken.

You are.

The core was hottest during the Earth's formation, and has been cooling since. This is evidenced by the gradual slowing of the Earth's rotation. A cooler core, results in a solidifying mantle. When the mantle solidifies, plate tectonics cease. When the plates stop moving, the planet dies.

Right now, it's pretty much a race to see what happens first. A: Plate tectonics cease, planet dies. Or B: Earth is engulfed by the sun.

Look this up on Wikipedia. Only the outer layer of the mantle is molten if I read it correctly. I don't claim to be an expert on the mantle and core. But like I said, if I read it correctly, it says the mantle is mostly solid and only molten on the outer portion. Regardless, it doesn't change any theories.

Sure it does. A molten mantle vaporizes your supposed layer of water between the mantle and the crust.

Your theory REQUIRES a solid mantle to sustain the water in a liquid state until such time God deems necessary to heat it up and burst it through the crust.

But if you knew anything about geology, you'd know that a solid mantle = dead planet, thus your theory is quite impossible.

Please, please, please don't just throw this stuff out there without any knowledge of it. If you go read ANY explanation of how carbon dating works, they'll tell you that the amount of carbon IN AN OBJECT being carbon dated completely effects the date it gives.

Practice what you preach, bub. The amount of carbon present helps in gathering a sample to accurately measure the isotope's rate of decay. It does not indicate the age of a subject.

And you also have to know how much of an element was in the rock to begin with, which no one knows either. No way TO know. Radio isotope dating is completely bogus.

GODDAMNIT! For the last time, NO YOU DON'T. The amount of an element present has no bearing on the dating method. It is only useful in collecting a large enough sample in order to accurately measure the isotopes rate of decay.

And what's funny is that your explanation said that they can date these rocks with the radio isotopes, but if the date of the rock goes back past the 4.54 million year point, then scientists don't accept that. So wait... that would mean some rocks are dating back past 4.54 million years. Well, wouldn't that mean the earth is older than 4.54 million years?

Actually, he specifically said the oldest terrestrial rock gives a MINIMUM age of the Earth, because one must assume the rock cannot be older than the Earth from which it came.

Mateo5.0

12-11-2007, 11:57 PM

^I'd say that about does it.^

DarkWolf

12-12-2007, 01:38 AM

Read this link:
http://www.answersincreation.org/bookreview/tnb/thousands_not_billions_chapter5.htm

It completely explains how radio isotopes work and completely disproves what you just said. Nice try, though. :)

Um, you need to choose your links better, if you're pushing the whole young earth theory.

From your link (emphasis is mine):

"Review by Greg Neyman (http://www.answersincreation.org/biogneyman.htm)
© 2006, Answers In Creation (Old Earth Ministries)
First Published May 2006
Answers In Creation Science website"

"RATE RADIOHALO RESEARCH

The original polonium halo research was conducted by young earth creationist Robert Gentry. His claims have been fully rebutted and shown to not be evidence of a young earth."

"To answer this question, the RATE group set out to collect rock samples from each of these three rock groups. Unfortunately, their divisions of what is a Flood rocks itself is an untenable scientific position,"

" In this section DeYoung gives the total count of halos discovered in the samples, based on the supposed ages of the rocks. They noted a low number of halos in Precambrian rocks, which they attribute to heating/tectonic uplift during the Flood. However, DeYoung clearly states that some of the slides revealed no halos at all, which clearly indicates there are no radioactive isotopes in these samples. The statement about the Flood has no basis in fact. For the flood rocks, they had a great number of halos, which DeYoung claims is from the year of the Flood. Again, this is a wild guess, as there is no scientific basis for making this claim. And, of course, the post-flood rocks have very little halos.

At this point, it is important to note that they found what they were looking for. In other words, if one wanted this pattern, one could easily seek out rocks during the Paleozoic/Mesozoic which are known to be high in radioactive isotopes. Also, one could easily seek out Precambrian and Cenozoic rocks which have little or no radioactive isotopes. Just on the basis of sample selection, you could prove your point. If RATE wants to be taken seriously they need to be more forthcoming in the locations of the samples taken, and also they need to show the levels of radioactive isotopes in the samples. With what DeYoung has presented here, it only makes one suspicious of the methods employed."

"He also notes that the polonium halos are located along cleavages, cracks, or crystal defects, which can serve as the conduit for moving the gas. However, he then makes an unfounded assumption. He says "The isotope transport activity would take place during the latter stages of crystallization and cooling of the granite magmas." Actually, one must cool the magma, then allow time for the parent Uranium 238 to decay into uranium-234, then allow it to decay into thorium-230, then allow that to decay into radium-226, and finally this decays into radon-222. Only then can this radon migrate, and after its short half-life of only 3.8 days, it decays into polonium-218. This is unworkable, as this model would seem to require the magma to have a cooling period of billions of years.

In reality, the radon being a gas, as DeYoung noted earlier, freely migrates outward, even in a solid granite rock. There is no scientific evidence for DeYoung to claim that this happens during the cooling period.

DeYoung suggests that the polonium formed in the newly-cooled magma, and then left the halos. This forces him to accept the unproved theory of accelerated nuclear decay. With this, the uranium halos are destroyed as the melt is still hot enough to be above the annealing temperature. After this rapid decay, the rock cools, and the polonium halos form. This all requires a very strict timeline. The rock must have accelerated decay, all the way from uranium-238 to polonium-218. With polonium-218's half life of 3.1 minutes, the rock must cool from a melt to below annealing temperature (~150 C) prior to polonium-218 decay."

"Given that it must cool in under three minutes, this is an extreme understatement! Readers are told bits and pieces, but not a coherent picture." (ie: it must cool from 1600+ degrees to ~150 degrees, in under 3 minutes. Not possible.)

"Another problem exists. As previously discussed, the young earth scientist does not deny that this radiation occurred. Therefore, since you condense billions of years radiation into one week (or one year of the flood), you also condense billions of years of heat from this radiation into the same time frame, which essentially would melt the entire earth. Since you are reading this, your very existence testifies that this accelerated decay did not happen."

"However, this argument does not prove that the rocks were created only 4,500 years ago during the flood, nor 6,000 years ago during creation. It only means that polonium was delivered to the rocks via hydrothermal fluids. Nothing can be inferred about the ages of these rocks. The rocks themselves could be a billion years old, and the polonium could have been brought in by fluid a year ago. Or, the rocks could be a billion years old, and the fluid brought them in 500 million years ago. This argument is useless to the young earth creationist."

And the cherry on top:

"For a more thorough refutation of this topic, see the references below."

Hell, the sidebar that follows you as you scroll down to read that article clearly states: "False young Earth claims"

Do you even bother to read these sites you link beforehand? I sincerely hope not, because right now you just look like a lazy fool. But if you actually read them and still proceed to cite them in your posts, then you're an imbecile.

BrianC

12-12-2007, 09:29 AM

Um, you need to choose your links better, if you're pushing the whole young earth theory.

From your link (emphasis is mine):

"Review by Greg Neyman (http://www.answersincreation.org/biogneyman.htm)
© 2006, Answers In Creation (Old Earth Ministries)
First Published May 2006
Answers In Creation Science website"

"RATE RADIOHALO RESEARCH

The original polonium halo research was conducted by young earth creationist Robert Gentry. His claims have been fully rebutted and shown to not be evidence of a young earth."

"To answer this question, the RATE group set out to collect rock samples from each of these three rock groups. Unfortunately, their divisions of what is a Flood rocks itself is an untenable scientific position,"

" In this section DeYoung gives the total count of halos discovered in the samples, based on the supposed ages of the rocks. They noted a low number of halos in Precambrian rocks, which they attribute to heating/tectonic uplift during the Flood. However, DeYoung clearly states that some of the slides revealed no halos at all, which clearly indicates there are no radioactive isotopes in these samples. The statement about the Flood has no basis in fact. For the flood rocks, they had a great number of halos, which DeYoung claims is from the year of the Flood. Again, this is a wild guess, as there is no scientific basis for making this claim. And, of course, the post-flood rocks have very little halos.

At this point, it is important to note that they found what they were looking for. In other words, if one wanted this pattern, one could easily seek out rocks during the Paleozoic/Mesozoic which are known to be high in radioactive isotopes. Also, one could easily seek out Precambrian and Cenozoic rocks which have little or no radioactive isotopes. Just on the basis of sample selection, you could prove your point. If RATE wants to be taken seriously they need to be more forthcoming in the locations of the samples taken, and also they need to show the levels of radioactive isotopes in the samples. With what DeYoung has presented here, it only makes one suspicious of the methods employed."

"He also notes that the polonium halos are located along cleavages, cracks, or crystal defects, which can serve as the conduit for moving the gas. However, he then makes an unfounded assumption. He says "The isotope transport activity would take place during the latter stages of crystallization and cooling of the granite magmas." Actually, one must cool the magma, then allow time for the parent Uranium 238 to decay into uranium-234, then allow it to decay into thorium-230, then allow that to decay into radium-226, and finally this decays into radon-222. Only then can this radon migrate, and after its short half-life of only 3.8 days, it decays into polonium-218. This is unworkable, as this model would seem to require the magma to have a cooling period of billions of years.

In reality, the radon being a gas, as DeYoung noted earlier, freely migrates outward, even in a solid granite rock. There is no scientific evidence for DeYoung to claim that this happens during the cooling period.

DeYoung suggests that the polonium formed in the newly-cooled magma, and then left the halos. This forces him to accept the unproved theory of accelerated nuclear decay. With this, the uranium halos are destroyed as the melt is still hot enough to be above the annealing temperature. After this rapid decay, the rock cools, and the polonium halos form. This all requires a very strict timeline. The rock must have accelerated decay, all the way from uranium-238 to polonium-218. With polonium-218's half life of 3.1 minutes, the rock must cool from a melt to below annealing temperature (~150 C) prior to polonium-218 decay."

"Given that it must cool in under three minutes, this is an extreme understatement! Readers are told bits and pieces, but not a coherent picture." (ie: it must cool from 1600+ degrees to ~150 degrees, in under 3 minutes. Not possible.)

"Another problem exists. As previously discussed, the young earth scientist does not deny that this radiation occurred. Therefore, since you condense billions of years radiation into one week (or one year of the flood), you also condense billions of years of heat from this radiation into the same time frame, which essentially would melt the entire earth. Since you are reading this, your very existence testifies that this accelerated decay did not happen."

"However, this argument does not prove that the rocks were created only 4,500 years ago during the flood, nor 6,000 years ago during creation. It only means that polonium was delivered to the rocks via hydrothermal fluids. Nothing can be inferred about the ages of these rocks. The rocks themselves could be a billion years old, and the polonium could have been brought in by fluid a year ago. Or, the rocks could be a billion years old, and the fluid brought them in 500 million years ago. This argument is useless to the young earth creationist."

And the cherry on top:

"For a more thorough refutation of this topic, see the references below."

Hell, the sidebar that follows you as you scroll down to read that article clearly states: "False young Earth claims"

Do you even bother to read these sites you link beforehand? I sincerely hope not, because right now you just look like a lazy fool. But if you actually read them and still proceed to cite them in your posts, then you're an imbecile.

I told you I didn't read this article all the way through, but only looked at a few parts of it that explain halos and radio isotope dating.

Did I read the wrong part of it and it's actually refurting it? Did you link to something else on the page? I'm confused...

The page you're citing doesn't look like the one I linked you to.

The guy didn't cite anything disproving a young earth, but showed the weaknesses of DeYoung's work. Was it DeYoung's work I was citing? If so, I apologize. As I said, I didn't read the entire article I posted to you. All I read was the second that was explaining how halo and radio isotope dating works, and how it is not an accurate dating method. If DeYoung was trying to use radio isotopes to say that these rocks were only 4500-6000 years old, then that's just absurd. He should know that there's no accurate dating method for rocks.

Also, cooling lava is subject to many different environmental possibilities such as rain, ice, snow and all sorts of things. The outside influences can be very strong or very weak, and so there is no way to tell what has happened to a rock over the years or how the elements progressed due to the outside forces at place that interfere with natural processes that would be otherwise uninhibited.

Yes, I was in a hurry when I posted that article, and if what you posted is the same thing I linked you to, then I apologize for linking that.

I'm beginning to think what happened was that I was looking through pages and I saved the link to the wrong page. Because what you just posted to me doesn't look familiar. I haven't read that before. The page I posted for you was completely different. I'll have to check the link out...