Evolutionary Theory

[The Punisher]

I would like to know what everyones opinion is of my so many people think the earth is millions of years old?

[speedpro50]

I would like to know to. I feel as though we cannot know for sure from what the Bible tells us. I like to see what others think though!

[DarkWolf]

I really think it's dependant on your interpretation of the Bible (assuming one believes at all in the Bible). You can either interpret it as creation happening in 6 days (our days), or in 6 days (God days) which could very well be millions of years in our time.

I've noticed a lot of Christians will accept the various radiometric dating methods when it pertains to items with a known age, and agrees with the known age of such items. Such as the Dead Sea Scrolls. But when it comes to dating other items (such as Dinosaur bones) Christians fight vehemently that the various forms of radiometric dating are completely inaccurate.

Why they can accept it being accurate for items with a known age, and proving over and over again on items that have a known age that it is accurate ... but not accept its accuracy on items without a definitive known age ... it always caught me as a bit hypocritical.

[Monsoon X]

I believe that the earth is millions of years old.


The Bible deals with God and his dealings with His creations, us.

Creating, interacting and redeeming us through Christ. It throws in a few revelations here and there about creation of life and heaven enough for true seekers to see if to be true. The Bible is not the end all of what happened on this earth and in the universe. The Bible only tells us what we need to know to have true faith in God as our creator.


I tend to believe in Evolution! Not that we came from monkeys but, the fact that things do evolve and adapt to thier environment.

[speedpro50]

JC

I would think that instead of stating you believe in evolution you should change your wording, as it sounds strange. From what I read in your statements, you don't believe in the theory of evolution. You seem to agree with micro-evolution or adaptation. The above are processes in which a species adapts and makes minor changes over the course of many many years. Am I right or wrong?

Lee

[The Punisher]

Originally posted by Monsoon X
I believe that the earth is millions of years old.


The Bible deals with God and his dealings with His creations, us.

Creating, interacting and redeeming us through Christ. It throws in a few revelations here and there about creation of life and heaven enough for true seekers to see if to be true. The Bible is not the end all of what happened on this earth and in the universe. The Bible only tells us what we need to know to have true faith in God as our creator.


I tend to believe in Evolution! Not that we came from monkeys but, the fact that things do evolve and adapt to thier environment.
Ok JC, I think you mean you believe in the definition of Evolution as a word, not the theory. But why do you think the earth is so old?

[The Punisher]

Originally posted by DarkWolf
I really think it's dependant on your interpretation of the Bible (assuming one believes at all in the Bible). You can either interpret it as creation happening in 6 days (our days), or in 6 days (God days) which could very well be millions of years in our time.

I've noticed a lot of Christians will accept the various radiometric dating methods when it pertains to items with a known age, and agrees with the known age of such items. Such as the Dead Sea Scrolls. But when it comes to dating other items (such as Dinosaur bones) Christians fight vehemently that the various forms of radiometric dating are completely inaccurate.

Why they can accept it being accurate for items with a known age, and proving over and over again on items that have a known age that it is accurate ... but not accept its accuracy on items without a definitive known age ... it always caught me as a bit hypocritical.
About the radiometric dating methods. I do not believe all the hype. Most of them are mir speculation and they have flaws. Evolutionist tend to speculate way too much and try to claim it is science. No, its their belief and not science.

[Monsoon X]

Originally posted by speedpro50
JC

I would think that instead of stating you believe in evolution you should change your wording, as it sounds strange. From what I read in your statements, you don't believe in the theory of evolution. You seem to agree with micro-evolution or adaptation. The above are processes in which a species adapts and makes minor changes over the course of many many years. Am I right or wrong?

Lee

Well yes and no. I don't believe in the widely publicized "Theory" of Evolution. But I do believe in the word evolution, especially it's root word evolve. Which is pretty much what you said. :)

[Monsoon X]

Originally posted by 281R

But why do you think the earth is so old?

Because Genesis covers more time than any of the books of the Bible. Especially the first few chapters.


My definition of Science: Humans discovering God's design for and in life.

[The Punisher]

Originally posted by Monsoon X


Because Genesis covers more time than any of the books of the Bible. Especially the first few chapters.


My definition of Science: Humans discovering God's design for and in life.
So are you saying God made the earth in millions of years or humans lived on the earth for millions of years?

[Monsoon X]

Originally posted by 281R

So are you saying God made the earth in millions of years or humans lived on the earth for millions of years?

For now, I believe that God created the heavens and the earth way before he put life on it.

[The Punisher]

read these articles (book) and see if any of this makes you think that maybe the earth isnt that old
Link (http://www.creationism.org/ackerman/index.htm)

[Monsoon X]

Originally posted by 281R
read these articles (book) and see if any of this makes you think that maybe the earth isnt that old
Link (http://www.creationism.org/ackerman/index.htm)

I've visited that site before and it is quite interesting. I was ready to write if off as not possible when It made the point in the "Scriptural evidence" that Adam lived for part of the 6th day and all the 7th got me to thinking.


And DW had a good point about accepting some forms of dating as correct and ignoring when it is used on dino bones. And what not. And until a concensus is given on those methods, I'm gonna have to hold true to my belief that God and Human exist in different time zones. While we only see 24hrs, God works outside of what we perceive as "time".

And remember how you pecieve that also plays into how you view the prophecy of the endtime and whether or not you believe it has happened or shall happen.

[The Punisher]

Originally posted by Monsoon X


I've visited that site before and it is quite interesting. I was ready to write if off as not possible when It made the point in the "Scriptural evidence" that Adam lived for part of the 6th day and all the 7th got me to thinking.


And DW had a good point about accepting some forms of dating as correct and ignoring when it is used on dino bones. And what not. And until a concensus is given on those methods, I'm gonna have to hold true to my belief that God and Human exist in different time zones. While we only see 24hrs, God works outside of what we perceive as "time".

And remember how you pecieve that also plays into how you view the prophecy of the endtime and whether or not you believe it has happened or shall happen. DW had a point at why a lot of Christians accept this dating. Why do a lot of people except it. It is all speculation. A lot of it is nothing but a conjecture. Two true examples. Mt. Saint Helens irrupted in 1980. Some scientist gathered some left over fresh lava rock from the eruption about a year or two ago. They sent the rock into the radiometric dating lab and they came back with the results of 350,000 to 2.8 million years old. It was not that old, it was 20 years old. If it was wrong here (and this same method was used on Pompay and it was wrong too) then why should we trust it. Also, Carbon 14 is only surposed to last at max 50,000 years, and Carbon 14 is being found in Dino bones. Why trust it? Just speculation.

[Monsoon X]

Originally posted by 281R
DW had a point at why a lot of Christians accept this dating. Why do a lot of people except it. It is all speculation. A lot of it is nothing but a conjecture. Two true examples. Mt. Saint Helens irrupted in 1980. Some scientist gathered some left over fresh lava rock from the eruption about a year or two ago. They sent the rock into the radiometric dating lab and they came back with the results of 350,000 to 2.8 million years old. It was not that old, it was 20 years old. If it was wrong here (and this same method was used on Pompay and it was wrong too) then why should we trust it. Also, Carbon 14 is only surposed to last at max 50,000 years, and Carbon 14 is being found in Dino bones. Why trust it? Just speculation.

I'm not trusting it. I said "until a concensus is given" I'll hang onto the Earth being old. Like I said how we perceive this plays into how we view the endtime events. And I make it a habit not to "stretch" the Bible. (not saying you are just in case you take it that way:)

[The Punisher]

Originally posted by Monsoon X


I'm not trusting it. I said "until a concensus is given" I'll hang onto the Earth being old. Like I said how we perceive this plays into how we view the endtime events. And I make it a habit not to "stretch" the Bible. (not saying you are just in case you take it that way:)
<--- I think God is not in our time either, but He created it for us, so I do think the earth could be made in a week. #1(God trying to tell us a day in His term was a million years would seem kind of odd being the sun and moon tell us the opposite which were His creation set up to help us understand day and night) That is just my guess.:D

[Monsoon X]

Originally posted by 281R

<--- I think God is not in our time either, but He created it for us, so I do think the earth could be made in a week. #1(God trying to tell us a day in His term was a million years would seem kind of odd being the sun and moon tell us the opposite which were His creation set up to help us understand day and night) That is just my guess.:D

ahhhh. But either one is just the mystery of God aren't they? :D

Rev 10:7 but in the days when the seventh angel is to blow his trumpet, the mystery of God will be fulfilled, as he announced to his servants the prophets."

[The Punisher]

Originally posted by Monsoon X


ahhhh. But either one is just the mystery of God aren't they? :D

Rev 10:7 but in the days when the seventh angel is to blow his trumpet, the mystery of God will be fulfilled, as he announced to his servants the prophets."
true... true...:D

[DarkWolf]

Originally posted by 281R
DW had a point at why a lot of Christians accept this dating. Why do a lot of people except it. It is all speculation. A lot of it is nothing but a conjecture. Two true examples. Mt. Saint Helens irrupted in 1980. Some scientist gathered some left over fresh lava rock from the eruption about a year or two ago. They sent the rock into the radiometric dating lab and they came back with the results of 350,000 to 2.8 million years old. It was not that old, it was 20 years old. If it was wrong here (and this same method was used on Pompay and it was wrong too) then why should we trust it. Also, Carbon 14 is only surposed to last at max 50,000 years, and Carbon 14 is being found in Dino bones. Why trust it? Just speculation.

There is a wide range of factors involved in why there is this great variation in age of the rock samples. Yes, the eruption is merely 20 years old, but the rock, the sediments, the debris spewed out of this eruption, isn't necissarily all of the same age. The molten rock from the layer of the earth known as the Mantle would have some consistency in it's age, because the mantle is like a furnace, continually recycling it's materials. But the rock within the volcano, and along the chute(s) leading to the crust and to the enevitable eruption of the volcano, it's certainly possible they are of different ages, vast differences in age. You have deep crust near the layer of magma in the mantle, yet is solid rock, that rock would most likely be very old. The rock on the surface would be much younger. The magma as it's rising through the fissures in the earth would certainly loose some of this deep crust rock, some may melt (yet it's materials would not be recycled into the mantle, because they are also being swept up towards the surface, thus giving some portion(s) of the molten rock greater age variation), some may not, and it would all be shoved up towards the surface. And the eruption itself would scatter this rock, old and new, and this magma in all directions (regardless of the final lava flow, the initial explosion goes in all directions).

The inconsistency in the dates does not prove the technique is unreliable. The techniques are certainly not flawless, but they do a pretty good job. Carbon 14 is only acurate to 50,000 years, after that, there is too little left for an accurate measurement to be made, but there are many other ways of radiometric dating. The presense of Carbon 14 in Dinosaur fossils, is not surprising. Carbon 14 is present in all carbon based life forms. 50,000 is it's limit to accuracy ... it doesn't just dissapear entirely after that. Go here (http://www.dc.peachnet.edu/~pgore/geology/geo102/radio.htm) for further explanations of the various forms of radiometric dating.

Anyone interested in my theory of creation explained over 15 billion years of our time (theoretical age of the universe), yet 6 days to God? 2.5 billion of our years per one God day. It's kind of interesting, because it agrees with both the theoretical age of the univers of 15 billion years, and the suspected age of the Earth 4.5 - 5 billion years, and each event in creation would take place very nearly where it would have to for creation to agree with an old Earth. I've got it written in one of my essays, if you're interested I'll post it up here.

I started doing the math on that idea too. Obviously with creation ending on the 6th day, and God resting on the 7th, we're currently very early into the 7th day. Something like only 38 minutes past midnight on the 7th day. 65 million years of human evolution, is only 38 minutes. Whether you believe in an old or young Earth, let's suppose for a moment that you believe in an old Earth. Now, in God's account of creation, he's not lying when he says it took 6 days ... he was merely speaking in context to himself. And in doing so, was speaking in a way that man could comprehend. Think about it. 15 billion years is hard enough to comprehend in this day and age ... it would blow the minds of man 6000 years ago, who thought the Earth was flat, and sun traveled aroundn the Earth. I think God knew man would not be able to grasp such a concept (at least not at the time), and so in giving his account of creation, he specifically put it into terms we could understand. Which would also explain the absence of Dinosaurs in the Bible. (And don't go quoting Genesis 6:4/5. Giants in the earth then and after, clearly is referring to either very tall men, or very great men, as these 'giants' had children with the daughters of man, and their sons were men of great renown. I'm pretty sure that's not saying that women had half human, half dinosaur children :) ).

[DarkWolf]

Also, to add to the evolution discussion, what we (me and JC) call evolution, is what is defined as micro-evolution ... which is true evolution. What is macro-evolution, or what Darwin's theorys were largely based upon, I've always referred to as Spontaneous Evolution, or Spontaneous Life, which is not true evolution. Evolution is change, not creation.

[The Punisher]

Originally posted by DarkWolf


There is a wide range of factors involved in why there is this great variation in age of the rock samples. Yes, the eruption is merely 20 years old, but the rock, the sediments, the debris spewed out of this eruption, isn't necissarily all of the same age. The molten rock from the layer of the earth known as the Mantle would have some consistency in it's age, because the mantle is like a furnace, continually recycling it's materials. But the rock within the volcano, and along the chute(s) leading to the crust and to the enevitable eruption of the volcano, it's certainly possible they are of different ages, vast differences in age. You have deep crust near the layer of magma in the mantle, yet is solid rock, that rock would most likely be very old. The rock on the surface would be much younger. The magma as it's rising through the fissures in the earth would certainly loose some of this deep crust rock, some may melt (yet it's materials would not be recycled into the mantle, because they are also being swept up towards the surface, thus giving some portion(s) of the molten rock greater age variation), some may not, and it would all be shoved up towards the surface. And the eruption itself would scatter this rock, old and new, and this magma in all directions (regardless of the final lava flow, the initial explosion goes in all directions). speculation, conjecture

The inconsistency in the dates does not prove the technique is unreliable. Irony here?

The techniques are certainly not flawless, but they do a pretty good job. Carbon 14 is only acurate to 50,000 years, after that, there is too little left for an accurate measurement to be made, but there are many other ways of radiometric dating. The presense of Carbon 14 in Dinosaur fossils, is not surprising. Carbon 14 is present in all carbon based life forms. 50,000 is it's limit to accuracy ... it doesn't just dissapear entirely after that. Go here (http://www.dc.peachnet.edu/~pgore/geology/geo102/radio.htm) for further explanations of the various forms of radiometric dating.

Anyone interested in my theory of creation explained over 15 billion years of our time (theoretical age of the universe), yet 6 days to God? 2.5 billion of our years per one God day. It's kind of interesting, because it agrees with both the theoretical age of the univers of 15 billion years, and the suspected age of the Earth 4.5 - 5 billion years, and each event in creation would take place very nearly where it would have to for creation to agree with an old Earth. I've got it written in one of my essays, if you're interested I'll post it up here.

I started doing the math on that idea too. Obviously with creation ending on the 6th day, and God resting on the 7th, we're currently very early into the 7th day. Something like only 38 minutes past midnight on the 7th day. 65 million years of human evolution, is only 38 minutes. Whether you believe in an old or young Earth, let's suppose for a moment that you believe in an old Earth. Now, in God's account of creation, he's not lying when he says it took 6 days ... he was merely speaking in context to himself. And in doing so, was speaking in a way that man could comprehend. Think about it. 15 billion years is hard enough to comprehend in this day and age ... it would blow the minds of man 6000 years ago, who thought the Earth was flat, and sun traveled aroundn the Earth. I think God knew man would not be able to grasp such a concept (at least not at the time), and so in giving his account of creation, he specifically put it into terms we could understand. Which would also explain the absence of Dinosaurs in the Bible. (And don't go quoting Genesis 6:4/5. Giants in the earth then and after, clearly is referring to either very tall men, or very great men, as these 'giants' had children with the daughters of man, and their sons were men of great renown. I'm pretty sure that's not saying that women had half human, half dinosaur children :) ).
One Biblical Explanation (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/2452.asp)
Im not saying that your theory isnt right, but there are no hard facts that the earth is that old. Its just a theory. :)

[Monsoon X]

Originally posted by DarkWolf

Which would also explain the absence of Dinosaurs in the Bible. (And don't go quoting Genesis 6:4/5. Giants in the earth then and after, clearly is referring to either very tall men, or very great men, as these 'giants' had children with the daughters of man, and their sons were men of great renown. I'm pretty sure that's not saying that women had half human, half dinosaur children :) ).

Actually Job 40:15 is thought to make mention of a Dinosaur.

Which has taken me on another Theological/Scientific thought pattern.

Man and Dinosaur living together? :)

[speedpro50]

Job 40:15 sounds more like a giant lizard to me not a brontosaurus. What do you think, JC?

[DarkWolf]

Originally posted by 281R
speculation, conjecture

Irony here?


One Biblical Explanation (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/2452.asp)
Im not saying that your theory isnt right, but there are no hard facts that the earth is that old. Its just a theory. :)

Speculation? No, not really. Melt some rocks of varying age, combine them together, and see if you don't get new rock with mixed properties, and varying age ranges within the same slab once it cools and hardens.

Irony? No, as explained above.

And about a young Earth, that's just a theory too :)

Originally posted by Monsoon X
Actually Job 40:15 is thought to make mention of a Dinosaur.

Could you provide the verse? I'm at work, and don't have my Bible handy. From what speedpro says, if it is refering to a giant lizard, there's nothing to special about that ... we've got giant lizards now :) Alligators, Crocodiles, Komodo Dragons oh my! :D

[Monsoon X]

"Look now at the behemoth, which I made along with you; He eats grass like an ox.
40:16
See now, his strength is in his hips, And his power is in his stomach muscles.
40:17
He moves his tail like a cedar; The sinews of his thighs are tightly knit.
40:18
His bones are like beams of bronze, His ribs like bars of iron.


Another translation calls it a Hippo. Who knows?

[DarkWolf]

Originally posted by Monsoon X
"Look now at the behemoth, which I made along with you; He eats grass like an ox.
40:16
See now, his strength is in his hips, And his power is in his stomach muscles.
40:17
He moves his tail like a cedar; The sinews of his thighs are tightly knit.
40:18
His bones are like beams of bronze, His ribs like bars of iron.


Another translation calls it a Hippo. Who knows?

Don't know of any Hippos with a tail like a cedar :) But I can certainly see it referring to a lizard.

[The Punisher]

Originally posted by DarkWolf


Speculation? No, not really. Melt some rocks of varying age, combine them together, and see if you don't get new rock with mixed properties, and varying age ranges within the same slab once it cools and hardens.

Irony? No, as explained above.

And about a young Earth, that's just a theory too :)

mmkay? so how are you saying you have newer rocks and older rocks? They are all made out of matter that God created in the begining. How do you say one rock is newer than the other if you are stating the matter mixes and it still reads old? Didnt know rocks reproduce?:D Thus, making rock dating very unreliable. It cannot be proven b/c not one of us here were living in the beginning. Theory.... For thousands of years a lot of scientist thought the earth was the center of the universe, but they were proven wrong. Could it end like this, for a thousand years scientist thought the earth was millions of years old, but they were proven wrong. It was thousands of years old. Point being that the radiometric dating methods are too inconsistent and not even proven effective that I dont put my belief in them. Now the Bible has been proven consistent and effective that I do put my Faith in God's word. :cool:

[Larius]

According to the stars, it takes billions of years for the light to travel from the star to where we are, thus making it appear that the universe is that old, however, I believe that if God can create man mature and grown, he can create a universe that appears old as well. As far as the earth, I think that it is literal time, so I would have to say about 6 thousand years old.

[DarkWolf]

Why would he? Why create the laws of physics, only to rewrite them after creation? Why make stars that are millions of light years away, send their light to us in mere seconds during the 6 literal days of creation ... but new stars that are formed take millions of years for the light to reach us? Why change the chemical properties of radioactive materials, such as Carbon 14, or Uranium 238?

To confuse us?

What sense does that make? Surely God would know that we would discover radiometric dating, and physics ... among other scientific discoveries ... to say otherwise is to say that God is not all knowing. Since he knew we would discover these things, why not stick with current formulas? Why would Carbon 14 decay faster 6000 years ago, than it does today? Why would light travel the vast reaches of space faster 6000 years ago than it does today? Or if he did stick with the current formulas, why would he place bones in the ground that date back 50,000 years or more, or place stars with their light already spread to the far reaches of space? (Remember, you can't agree with radiometric dating only when it's convenient ... if you're going to accept it's accuracy when dating materials of a known age, then you have to accept it's accuracy when dating materials of an unknown age. You being a generic term.)

The question isn't whether or not he can do it, but why he would do it? I can't imagine that he would do it just to confuse us when we did discover them. That he's up in heaven laughing at our simplemindedness. That all of this is some sort of cosmic joke at our expense.

[The Punisher]

First you are assuming that radioisotope dateing works, which it dosent. See here (http://www.creationism.org/articles/swenson1.htm)
And here is some evidence from space that finds the earth being that old hard to believe.
Evidence from Space

1)The shrinking sun limits the earth-sun relationship to less than "billions of years." The sun is losing both mass and diameter. Changing the mass would upset the fine gravitational balance that keeps the earth at just the right distance for life to survive.

2)The 0.5 inch layer of cosmic dust on the moon indicates the moon has not been accumulating dust for billions of years. *Insufficient evidence to be positive (almost all estimates before the lunar landing anticipated great quantities of dust.)

3)The existence of short-period comets indicates the universe is less than billions of years old.

4)Fossil meteorites are very rare in layers other than the top layers of the earth. This indicates that the layers were not exposed for millions of years as is currently being taught in school textbooks.

5)The moon is receding a few inches each year. Billions of years ago the moon would have been so close that the tides would have been much higher, eroding away the continents.

6)The moon contains considerable quantities of U-236 and Th-230, both short-lived isotopes that would have been long gone if the moon were billions of years old.

7)The existence of great quantities of space dust, which by the Pointing-Robertson effect would have been vacuumed out of our solar system in a few thousand years, indicates the solar system is young.

8)At the rate many star clusters are expanding, they could not have been traveling for billions of years.

9)Saturn’s rings are still unstable, indicating they are not billions of years old.

10)Jupiter and Saturn are cooling off rather rapidly. They are losing heat twice as fast as they gain it from the sun. They cannot be billions of years old. Jupiter’s moon, Io, is losing matter to Jupiter. It cannot be billions of years old.

11)Among other factors to consider is that all the ancient
astronomers from 2000 years ago recorded that Sirius was a red star—today it is a white dwarf star. Since today’s textbooks in astronomy state that one hundred thousand years are required for a star to "evolve" from a red giant to a white dwarf, obviously this view needs to be restudied.

[Monsoon X]

Good info!

[DarkWolf]

Originally posted by 281R
First you are assuming that radioisotope dateing works, which it dosent. See here (http://www.creationism.org/articles/swenson1.htm)
And here is some evidence from space that finds the earth being that old hard to believe.
Evidence from Space

1)The shrinking sun limits the earth-sun relationship to less than "billions of years." The sun is losing both mass and diameter. Changing the mass would upset the fine gravitational balance that keeps the earth at just the right distance for life to survive.

2)The 0.5 inch layer of cosmic dust on the moon indicates the moon has not been accumulating dust for billions of years. *Insufficient evidence to be positive (almost all estimates before the lunar landing anticipated great quantities of dust.)

3)The existence of short-period comets indicates the universe is less than billions of years old.

4)Fossil meteorites are very rare in layers other than the top layers of the earth. This indicates that the layers were not exposed for millions of years as is currently being taught in school textbooks.

5)The moon is receding a few inches each year. Billions of years ago the moon would have been so close that the tides would have been much higher, eroding away the continents.

6)The moon contains considerable quantities of U-236 and Th-230, both short-lived isotopes that would have been long gone if the moon were billions of years old.

7)The existence of great quantities of space dust, which by the Pointing-Robertson effect would have been vacuumed out of our solar system in a few thousand years, indicates the solar system is young.

8)At the rate many star clusters are expanding, they could not have been traveling for billions of years.

9)Saturn’s rings are still unstable, indicating they are not billions of years old.

10)Jupiter and Saturn are cooling off rather rapidly. They are losing heat twice as fast as they gain it from the sun. They cannot be billions of years old. Jupiter’s moon, Io, is losing matter to Jupiter. It cannot be billions of years old.

11)Among other factors to consider is that all the ancient
astronomers from 2000 years ago recorded that Sirius was a red star—today it is a white dwarf star. Since today’s textbooks in astronomy state that one hundred thousand years are required for a star to "evolve" from a red giant to a white dwarf, obviously this view needs to be restudied.

Already been in numerous debates concerning just these arguments for a young Earth.

1)As for radiometric dating, it has been proven, time and time again using objects of known age. In each and every case where an object with a known date was dated with radiometric dating techniques, the radiometric dating agreed fully with the known age. If it's accurate there, why not on objects without a known date?

2)The "shrinking sun" theory is a young Earth theorist wet dream. The fact is, however, about 30 years ago, scientist took a closer look at the data, and did new observations with more powerful and accurate equipment, and found that the "shrinking sun" isn't shrinking quite as fast as originally thought. So slow, actually, that it is possible that the Earth is as old as scientists suspect. You know what they've also discovered? That the sun isn't constantly shrinking, but it expands as well. It more or less strikes an equilibrium.

3)Cosmic dust on the moon, again, the dust doesn't collect in great mass, because the moons surface, if you've ever noticed, is littered with craters from meteors striking the surface. Take some talcum powder, and pile it up on a rock. Place the rock on a table, and then slam your fist down on the table. See if that talcum powder doesn't shake off. This is an argument people use to suggest that we never landed on the moon in the late 60's. The dust, because there is no atmosphere, isn't going to be trapped in the atmosphere. Large masses of dust will come back down due to gravity, but lighter masses of dust will leave the surface, and drift off into space. Even now, the surface of the moon is battered with meteors regularly.

4)How does the existence of short period comets suggest a young universe? A comet is merely space debris (be it rock, ice, dust, whatever), that becomes caught in the gravitational pull of a large star (in our case, the Sun), and instead of being pulled straight into it, it's pulled around it and slingshot back out. It continues to come back around because it's still caught in that gravitational pull.

5)A great majority of meteorites are burnt up in the atmosphere, because they are too small to survive the intense heat. The small ones that we find were rather large when entering the atmosphere. They're also found to be more prone to errosion, because their much less dense than rocks on Earth. The metels in them survive, but the rock doesn't. Ancient meteorites aren't going to be found in early layers, becuase they've eroded away, and only left behind the metals contained within, if there was metal. I hope you're not going to suggest that we're not finding metals in early layers of the Earth.

6)The moon receding? Not sure where you read that from. The moon is getting closer. Slowly, true. It's caught in the Earth's magnetic pull. Pull, not push. The Earth is gradually drawing the moon in.

7)I don't see how the existence of space dust in conclusive of anything. In space, obejects are constantly colliding with each other. We've seen meteors slam into the surface of moons, and planets alike ... sending massive clouds of dust into the atmosphere's, and out into space. We've seen asteroids collide and explode. Why wouldn't there be space dust?

8)Many, but not all. Not even a majority. Did it ever cross your mind that these faster expanding clusters of stars are new star clusters being propelled by the massive explosion of gasses and debris that's been collecting over time, compressing, and finally exploding in the birth of a new galaxy?

9)And how exactly does Saturns rings being unstable prove it's not billions of years old? Jupiters rings aren't stable, neither are Uranus'. How does this prove anything? They're a collection of rock and debris, caught in the gravitational pull of the planet. They're colliding with each other, while circling around the planet, and gradually being pulled into the planet. Why would you think they would ever become stable?

10)Yes, they're loosing heat. Why wouldn't they? They're more than twice the distance from the sun as Earth. Hell, Jupiter is nearly 3 times the distance, and Saturn is almost twice that. We're in a unique place in the solar system. Mercury and Venus are both too hot, because they are too close. Jupiter and Saturn are thousands of times larger than Earth, it's going to take a while for them to cool completely as Pluto, and Neptune have, and Uranus is near to completely being cooled off. They're too far from the heat of the sun, so they are cooling off.

Here's a little tid bit on Io: "Io's volcanoes are apparently due to heating of the satellite by tidal pumping. Io is perturbed in its orbit by Europa and Ganymede, two other large satellites nearby, then pulled back again into its regular orbit by Jupiter. This tug-of-war results in tidal bulging as great as 100 meters (330 feet) on Io's surface." You don't think that might result in the moon gradually breaking apart?

11)Which Sirius are you referring to? Sirius A, B, or C? Because A and B are both White Dwarves, and have been since they were first discovered in the 1800's (Ancient astronomers from 2000 years ago? Maybe 200 years ago.) Sirius C was only just discovered (or I should say, confirmed) in 1995. And it's a Red Giant. A small one, but it's still in it's Red Giant phase.

12)Whoops, forgot to address you're #6. Th-230 is a byproduct of U-238 decay. As long as U-238 is decaying, new Th-230 is made. U-238's halflife is about 4.5 billion years. U-236 occurs very rarely in nature "U-236 is rare but is produced by nuclear reactions in some uranium ores where sufficient slow neutrons are available." Which means as long as that uranium ore is present, U-236 will be present.

[Monsoon X]

Good info!

[The Punisher]

According to the Bible, the creation week lasted seven literal days and occurred a few thousand years ago. However, many Christians today accept the teaching of science that life has existed on earth for millions, even billions, of years. This millions of years time scale is based on radiometric dating of fossil-bearing layers of rock. This teaching of long ages for life on earth has led some Christians to question and even abandon their belief in the Bible, since a literal reading of Scripture is not consistent with the belief that life has existed on earth for millions of years. I believe that many educated Christians are especially doubting the Bible because of the supposed evidence from radiometric dating that life has existed on earth for very long periods of time.
In fact, I believe that the question of how long life has existed on earth is even more important than the question of whether life was created or evolved. You see, the theory of evolution has so many problems that most people find evolution hard to accept, and I don't think many people are led to question their faith because of it. It just doesn't seem reasonable that life could develop on its own by chance, and the evidence that this actually happened is missing. It's also not a problem that geologists say that the sedimentary layers of rock took millions of years to form, since there are many evidences that the great geological formations on earth were formed rapidly and catastropically, as in the Biblical flood or subsequent catastrophic events. For example, there is too little erosion between the geological layers for them to have taken millions of years to form. But it is a serious problem when geologists say that they can measure the ages of these rocks by reliable methods, and that these ages turn out to be in the millions and billions of years range. So I believe that this question of radiometric, or isotopic dating, is one of the most important questions in the creation-evolution controversy, and one which Christians have to respond to.

In fact, I believe that the evidence does not permit the long ages given by radiometric dates, so there must be a problem with them somewhere, even on scientific grounds. The geological column has too little erosion to allow for such long time periods. Also, there is too little sediment on the sea floor for the oceans to have existed for hundreds of millions of years, and the continents would have worn away many times in this time period at current rates of erosion. Just the fact that there are so many fossils shows that the great sedimentary deposits on earth had to have formed rapidly, because well-preserved fossils do not form under conditions of gradual sedimentation. So what exactly is wrong with radiometric dating? How can we explain the fact that these dating methods do, in fact, yield dates in the hundreds of millions of years? Why is it that so many museums and textbooks confidently give ages for fossils in the hundreds of millions of years?

This conflict has at times been difficult for me personally. It has been a struggle for me to try to understand the evidences and to learn enough about them to find the answers to these questions.

I was initially involved in some internet discussions where the subject of radiometric dating was brought up, and the arguments in favor of life existing for millions of years seemed almost overpowering. It was claimed that many different dating methods all agree to within a few percent on the ages of the fossils, and that there is no way to explain this except that these methods are giving the true ages. Otherwise, why would they all agree? These different dating methods involve different decay processes, and it is not reasonable to assume that chance or some other process would make them all speed up or slow down by the same amount.

At the time I could find few answers to these questions. There were some creation web pages and books that discussed radiometric dating, but most of them could not really answer the questions of the evolutionists. I ordered one book by John Woodmorappe which did contain some material that was helpful to me.

As a result of these discussions and a considerable amount of research that I did, I wrote a couple of fairly long articles on radiometric dating and put them on my creation web page. One of them was copied to another frequently-visited creation web page. Now many people have seen and read these articles on the web and have been strengthened in their faith in the Bible as a result. From time to time I receive messages from them expressing their appreciation for these articles. Also, these articles are among the most frequently visited articles on my web site.

Here are some of the books I have studied in order to learn more about this subject: This book by Faure, written in 1986, is one of the main textbooks on radiometric dating. This book, by Dickin, written in 1995, is another popular textbook. Here is a book by Harland and others which gives the geological time scale, telling how many millions of years each period is believed to have lasted, and the evidence for this. This book by Dalrymple uses data from radiometric dating to attempt to argue that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old. This book is the proceedings of a conference in which geologists and others attempt to refute creationist teaching. I also have some creationist books. This is a book by Slusher in which he criticizes radiometric dating. This is a new book by John Woodmorappe, published this year, with many quotations from geologists themselves about problems with radiometric dating.

What I want to do today is to present what I have learned about this subject. This may seem like an area that is too technical for a sermon, but I think that the importance of the area justifies it. I don't have all the answers, but I think that you will be strengthened and reassured in your faith in the Bible as a result of what I have learned. We need to pray that the Lord will give spirit-led scientists the knowledge they need to deal with this subject, so that the truth will be revealed, because the conflict is beyond human wisdom. This area is a key support for the theory of evolution, which is undermining Christian values all over the world.

First I want to make a few comments about the geological time scale, then consider several methods in detail, and then discuss some other issues.

The geological time scale, described in this book by Harland and others, is based on less than 800 dates obtained by various methods on rocks from different geological layers. These dates tend to agree with each other, but there are hundreds of thousands of other dates that have been measured and were not listed. Many of these other dates disagree with one another, so it is not clear what the significance of these 800 dates is.

The great majority of the dates on which the geological time scale is based, are measured using one method, the potassium-argon (K-Ar) method. In order to explain the fact that older dates tend to be found deeper down (if this is true), we really only need to explain why this shouuld be true for K-Ar dating, and then we have explained much of the geological time scale.

K-Ar dating is based on the decay of potassium 40 to argon 40. When lava is hot, argon escapes from it, so it starts out with potassium but no argon. Over time, potassium gradually decays to argon, and the rate at which this occurs can be measured in the laboratory. By measuring how much potassium and argon is in a rock, and knowing how fast potassium decays, one can compute how old the rock is. The more argon, the older the rock is. The more potassium, the younger the rock is, since a larger amount of potassium would produce argon faster.

However, the reality is much more complicated than this. The argon does not always escape when the lava is hot. The potassium can be removed later on, invalidating the calculation. Also, rocks absorb argon very easily from the environment. In fact, geologists have to take considerable precautions to get rid of the argon that accumulates on their lab equipment so that they can accurately measure K-Ar ages. Rocks can absorb a considerable amount of argon in this way, so all of the argon in a rock did not necessarily come from the potassium it contains. Atmospheric argon absorbed in this way can be corrected for, because it has a certain amount of argon 36 which can be measured. However, argon also comes up from the interior of the earth, and this argon has very little argon 36 in it, and cannot be detected. So we can explain the old K-Ar dates just by the fact that rocks absorb so much argon that comes up from the interior of the earth. Older rocks would have more time to absorb argon, and there was probably more argon coming through the earth at the time of the Flood and shortly thereafter than there is today. In fact, a number of geologists themselves now say that K-Ar dating is not very reliable, or mainly of historical importance. This is quite an admission, since most of the geological time scale is based on K-Ar dating.

Another problem with K-Ar dating is that many volcanoes that we know erupted in the past several hundred years give K-Ar dates in the hundreds of thousands or millions of years.

A large number of K-Ar dates on which the geological time scale is based, are dates from a mineral called glaucony. However, many geologists say that this mineral is highly unreliable for dating. So here we have a large part of the geological time scale based on a mineral which geologists themselves say is highly unreliable.

So I guess we'll have to discard K-Ar dating as a reliable dating method.

Now let's consider another method that some textbooks say is reliable. This is the dating of zircons by uranium-lead (U-Pb) dating and some other related methods. Zircon is a gemstone, a mineral that can have a considerable amount of uranium in it. However, when zircons form, they exclude lead. Over time, uranium decays to lead. By measuring the amount of uranium and lead in a zircon and knowing the rate of decay, we can measure the age of the zircon. Lead is somewhat mobile, however, as is uranium, and so other methods have been devised that can date zircons even if some lead leaves the rock.

The problem with this method is that zircons can include lead when they form, throwing off the date. They can also lose uranium. In addition, they can travel through lava without melting, so the date computed for a zircon may be measuring a much older event than the lava flow itself. Even geologists recognize that ages given by zircons are often much too old, even for them. Furthermore, a batch of zircons from the same place will often yield widely different ages.

So I guess we'll have to discard zircons as a reliable dating method.

The next candidate dating method is fission track dating. Some minerals contain uranium 238 which decays by fission. It splits in two, and the pieces fly apart through the mineral, creating fission tracks. These tracks can be made visible by etching with an acid solution, and then counted. By knowing how much uranium 238 there is in a rock and by counting the number of fission tracks, one can measure the age of the rock.

There are a number of problems with this method, and even geologists have had intense disagreements about its reliability. The ages often do not agree with what geologists expect. One problem is that certain constants involved in this method are not known or are hard to estimate, so they are calibrated based on the "known" ages of other rocks. If these other "known" ages are in error, then fission track dates are in error by the same amount.

Another problem is that fission tracks fade at high temperatures. So if there are too few tracks, the geologist can always say that most of them faded away. To get a fission track date, one has to know something about the temperature history of a rock.

Another problem is that uranium 238 can be removed from a rock by water. If a sample loses 99 percent of its uranium, then the fission track date will be 100 times too old. In fact, if a rock loses only about 1/350 of its uranium each year, then in 4000 years only one part in one hundred thousand of the uranium will remain, meaning that the date can approach a hundred thousand times too old. Now, 1/350 of the uranium each year is not much, especially when you consider that water occurs practically everywhere in the earth below a few hundred feet, and rocks shallower than this also become wet due to rainfall filtering down through the soil.

Another problem is knowing what is a fission track and what is just an imperfection in the rock. Geologists themselves suggest that imperfections are at times mistaken for fission tracks, and admit that fission tracks are not always easy to recognize. Textbooks have beautiful, clean pictures of fission tracks, but I doubt that these illustrations correspond to reality.

Along this line, it is interesting to note that for every fission of uranium 238, there are over a million decays by a process called alpha decay, in which a helium nucleus is ejected from the nucleus of uranium. The alpha particle creates a long, thin trail of damage, and the former uranium nucleus recoils in the other direction, creating a short, wide track about one thousandth as long as a fission track. Not only this, but what's left of the uranium nucleus (having lost the helium nucleus) decays by thirteen more steps until it becomes lead, so there are over fourteen million other decays for every fission track. Over four million of these occur within a few days. All of these decays emit particles that damage the crystal structure. Some of these decays emit alpha particles, and some emit beta particles, which are energetic electrons. In addition, many millions of gamma rays are emitted, which are high-energy electromagnetic radiation like X rays, and also damage the crystal structure. Perhaps the damage created by all this radiation can be increased by chemical action and be etched by acid to appear like fission tracks. Or if two alpha particle trails are close enough together, perhaps they can damage the crystal enough so that their combined trail will be etched away by acid like a fission track.

Minerals are also subject to alteration by water, which may contain chemicals that react with the rock. Over long periods of time, all of these processes can damage the crystal structure, and it may be that when the mineral is etched with acid, track-like formations appear as a result.

Another problem is that fission tracks in some minerals, like zircons, can survive in lava, so the fission track date can be measuring an older event than the lava flow. Thus we cannot necessarily use this method to date the age of the fossils.

I think fission track dating has more potential than the other methods, but in view of all of these problems, I think we'll have to discard fission track dating as a reliable method.

There are still other methods, such as rubidium-strontium dating, which are based on the decay of a parent substance (in this case rubidium) to its daughter product (strontium). These methods all depend on knowing how much daughter product was initially present, which we cannot know. So we'll have to discard rubidium-strontium dating and similar methods as reliable dating methods

There is also the so-called "isochron" method, which is a clever way to estimate the amount of daughter product present initially, so that one can then use rubidium-strontium dating and other methods to get reliable dates. Unfortunately, isochrons can also be caused by mixing processes that have nothing to do with true dates. One study indicated that nearly all published isochrons have properties suggesting that they result from mixings, and thus are not giving true dates. Another study indicated that nearly all isochrons published have poor statistical quality. Geologists often make excuses to reject isochrons, anyway, when they don't like the dates.

So I guess we'll have to discard the isochron method as a reliable dating method.

The problem is that now there is nothing left! It's also interesting that geologists frequently admit that these different methods usually don't agree with one another. So the next time you see a museum exhhibit with a sign saying that some fossil is so many tens or hundreds of millions of years old, I hope you'll take that with a large grain of salt.

If there is real evidence that these fossils are hundreds of millions of years old, then I want to know about it. But so far I haven't found it.

Could it be that all the old K-Ar dates for fossil bearing layers of rock are due to argon added to the rock and not to the decay of potassium? Could it be that all the old zircon dates are due to inherited lead or inherited zircons, and not to decay of uranium over long time periods? Could it be that all the old fission track dates can be explained by the leaching of most of the uranium out of a rock, or by a mistaken calibration, or by radiation damage, and do not give a true age? Could it be that all of these fossil-bearing rocks are very young?

From all the study I've done so far, nothing would exclude this possibility.

In addition to the fact that these methods all have problems, there are additional problems with radiometric dating. For example, there may be choices of methods to use for dating a rock, and choices of which minerals to date, and geologists choose methods and rocks that give dates that tend to agree with one another. They may treat a rock with an acid, or purify it using a magnetic separator, to get the dates to agree. Then they use this agreement between methods as evidence that radiometric dating is correct.

I've also been bewildered by contradictory statements by different geologists. One source says that low uranium zircons always give dates that agree with one another, while another source says that the amount of uranium has no effect on the fequency with which the dates agree. One source says that zircons have little inherited lead, and another source says that this is a common problem. One source says that historic lava flows rarely give old K-Ar ages, and another source says that they often do. Often I've tried to figure out how some evidence could be true, only later to find out that it's not so.

Now, there are some cases where radiometric dating does appear to be measuring a true age, where many methods agree, such as dating of meteorites, and certain very old rocks on the earth. If these dates are correct, then this material would have to originate from before the creation week. However, radiometric dating is based on the assumption that decay rates are constant. If decay rates have varied, then all methods can be in error, even when they agree.

Along this line, it is interesting that a number of scientists recently have suggested that the speed of light was much faster in the past. Now, the speed of light is a constant, so if this constant can change, maybe other constants, such as decay constants, which measure the rate of decay, can change as well. Here is the article:


Source: University Of Toronto (http://www.utoronto.ca)
Contact: Steven De Sousa , News Services Officer
Phone: (416) 978-6949; Email: steven.desousa@utoronto.ca
Date: Posted 10/6/99

Speed Of Light May Not Be Constant, Physicist Suggests

A University of Toronto professor believes that one of the most sacrosanct rules of 20th-century science -- that the speed of light has always been the same - is wrong. Ever since Einstein proposed his special theory of relativity in 1905, physicists have accepted as fundamental principle that the speed of light -- 300 million metres per second -- is a constant and that nothing has, or can, travel faster. John Moffat of the physics department disagrees - light once travelled much faster than it does today, he believes.

Recent theory and observations about the origins of the universe would appear to back up his belief. For instance, theories of the origin of the universe -- the "Big Bang"- suggest that very early in the universe's development, its edges were farther apart than light, moving at a constant speed, could possibly have travelled in that time. To explain this, scientists have focused on strange, unknown and as-yet-undiscovered forms of matter that produce gravity that repulses objects.

Moffat's theory - that the speed of light at the beginning of time was much faster than it is now - provides an answer to some of these cosmology problems. "It is easier for me to question Einstein's theory than it is to assume there is some kind of strange, exotic matter around me in my kitchen." His theory could also help explain astronomers' discovery last year that the universe's expansion is accelerating. Moffat's paper, co-authored with former U of T researcher Michael Clayton, appeared in a recent edition of the journal Physics Letters.

Copyright (c) 1995-99 ScienceDaily Magazine | Email: editor@sciencedaily.com

Another possibility is that decay rates were increased by some astronomical catastrophe about the time of the flood. It is believed that a huge supernova exploded recently about 1000 light years away from the earth. This produced the Gum Nebula, which covers about 40 degrees in the southern hemisphere, a huge formation. The estimated time for this is 11,000 years ago, but this could be in error, and it could be 5,000 years ago or less, or about the time of the flood. Such a supernova would have showered the earth with many different kinds of radiation that could have excited the nucleii of atoms and led them to decay much faster. This could have even caused the flood, by generating terrific quantities of heat and causing volcanoes to erupt and water to spurt out of the earth. These excited nucleii may have taken a while to go back to their normal states, so decay rates may have been elevated for some time after the flood. I can imagine the terror the antediluvians felt as they saw this huge light erupt in the southern sky, followed by a shower of radiation, the shaking of the earth, and terrific quantities of water gushing out of the earth.
There is a lesson for us in these past events. The Bible says that just as the earth was destroyed by a flood in ancient times, it will be destroyed again when Jesus returns. Then the refuge of lies will be swept away, and the truth will be known, that God is the creator and man owes his allegiance to Him alone. And just as the Lord provided an escape then for those who were willing to obey Him, so He provides salvation for His people today.

Human reason is imperfect, and limited. All these books about radiometric dating were written by men who did their best to understand nature using the scientific method. Their conclusions are subject to change as new evidence is found. But the Bible was inspired by One who is infinite in wisdom, power, and love, who created all things in the beginning by His Word of power. He knows the answers to the questions that we cannot answer, and gives us enough evidence to believe in Him. Even more, the Bible tells us of the love of God, and how we can live better lives here and find salvation in eternity. This book shows us how we can come to know Jesus as our friend and Savior.

Yes, Jesus created life on this earth not too long ago. Man fell into sin, and Jesus came to die on the cross and redeem us from our sins. To all who are willing to believe in Him and repent and confess their sins, He offers forgiveness and eternal life. Soon he is coming again to take us to a better home. Fast fulfilling prophecies show that this event cannot be far distant. Let's not give up our hope because of the uncertain conclusions of radiometric dating, especially when it has so many problems. Now more than ever we have reason to question the long ages of radiometric dating on fossil-bearing rocks. Errors will abound in the last days, but we can have confidence in the Word of God. Soon we will see the Lord face to face, and all uncertainties will be swept away. Let's hold fast our confidence, and be ready to meet our Lord with joy when He returns. May this be the choice of each one here, is my prayer.

Amen.

source (http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/deception.html)

[The Punisher]

sorry about the length:cool:

[Monsoon X]

Really, really good info! Probably the most convincing yet!

[speedpro50]

yep, good stuff!

[DarkWolf]

I would like to counter all of the info brought up, but I'm too tired right now. So instead, I'll just reiterate my original statement: 1)As for radiometric dating, it has been proven, time and time again using objects of known age. In each and every case where an object with a known date was dated with radiometric dating techniques, the radiometric dating agreed fully with the known age. If it's accurate there, why not on objects without a known date?

Besides, he refutes his own argument right here: "I was initially involved in some internet discussions where the subject of radiometric dating was brought up, and the arguments in favor of life existing for millions of years seemed almost overpowering. It was claimed that many different dating methods all agree to within a few percent on the ages of the fossils, and that there is no way to explain this except that these methods are giving the true ages. Otherwise, why would they all agree? These different dating methods involve different decay processes, and it is not reasonable to assume that chance or some other process would make them all speed up or slow down by the same amount."

He gives good examples of why each method is flawed ... but leaves a gaping hole in his refutal of multiple methods being used, and all agreeing within a reasonable percentage. There's a huge "what if" ... but no proof. There's a huge "maybe", but no definite. Of course, on the flipside, yes the same assumptions are made for radiometric dating.

So why is it inconceivable that they're both right? They both require a lot of assumptions for them to be accepted individually. But neither requires many assumptions when you discover that they agree with each other. The only real assumption you have to make for them to both agree with each other, and validate each other, is to assume that one day for God is not equal to one day for man. Once you get past that hurdle, the rest of the pieces fall into place.

[The Punisher]

Originally posted by DarkWolf
I would like to counter all of the info brought up, but I'm too tired right now. So instead, I'll just reiterate my original statement: 1)As for radiometric dating, it has been proven, time and time again using objects of known age. In each and every case where an object with a known date was dated with radiometric dating techniques, the radiometric dating agreed fully with the known age. If it's accurate there, why not on objects without a known date?

Besides, he refutes his own argument right here: "I was initially involved in some internet discussions where the subject of radiometric dating was brought up, and the arguments in favor of life existing for millions of years seemed almost overpowering. It was claimed that many different dating methods all agree to within a few percent on the ages of the fossils, and that there is no way to explain this except that these methods are giving the true ages. Otherwise, why would they all agree? These different dating methods involve different decay processes, and it is not reasonable to assume that chance or some other process would make them all speed up or slow down by the same amount."

He gives good examples of why each method is flawed ... but leaves a gaping hole in his refutal of multiple methods being used, and all agreeing within a reasonable percentage. There's a huge "what if" ... but no proof. There's a huge "maybe", but no definite. Of course, on the flipside, yes the same assumptions are made for radiometric dating.

So why is it inconceivable that they're both right? They both require a lot of assumptions for them to be accepted individually. But neither requires many assumptions when you discover that they agree with each other. The only real assumption you have to make for them to both agree with each other, and validate each other, is to assume that one day for God is not equal to one day for man. Once you get past that hurdle, the rest of the pieces fall into place.
I think what he is doing here is just pointing out the assumptions about these methods. And I will say it again, they are not proven effective. They are an assumption, conjecture, a belief. I think the most powerful point he pointed out is how these people that use these methods assume the rate of decay is consistant. They have little knowledge or none of what the earth was like young or before the flood.
Just like years ago they ASSUMED the speed of light was consistent, but to find out it is not. Please lets separate the facts from the assumptions people!

[The Punisher]

Originally posted by DarkWolf
I would like to counter all of the info brought up, but I'm too tired right now. So instead, I'll just reiterate my original statement: 1)As for radiometric dating, it has been proven, time and time again using objects of known age. In each and every case where an object with a known date was dated with radiometric dating techniques, the radiometric dating agreed fully with the known age. If it's accurate there, why not on objects without a known date?

Why do you keep saying this when I have show you that it is not, it was proven wrong with mt. saint helens, pompay, and others. Its not fireproof, its like microsoft that has a new product, they think it is usefull, but have not gotten all the bugs worked out. And even if they get all the bugs worked out, Im sorry I can not put my faith in it b/c I cant count on microsoft OS to never have problems and why? Because Microsoft ( or radiometric dating) is made by men, but the Bible was made by God. Lets hold firm to the Bible and not put our faith in man's assumptions. :D

[DarkWolf]

Uhh, yes, various forms of radiometric dating have been shown to be very accurate. Mt. St. Helens proves nothing, for the same reasons I gave before. Of course there's going to be variying dates given.

You say scientists have to assume the rate of decay remained constant. But on the same token, creationists have to assume that the rate of decay hasn't remain constant. They're both HUGE assumptions to be made on both sides of the argument.

As for the new idea that the speed of light might have been faster long ago, I would like to know who proposed the idea. There are no signs that light is slowing down as we move on through time. Who ever proposed that light was faster long ago, than it is today, is either a nutjob, or a creation scientist, fishing for some theory to try and prove the Earth is young. There's no evidence to base this theory on, as for the past hundred years or so that light speed has been measured, there has been NO degredation in speed.

Assuming the rate of decay has remained constant, while a big assumption, is also a valid assumption, because for the past hundred or so years that we've been measuring the rates of decay, there has been no fluctuation. We've dated objects that have a known age, from as much as 6 thousand years ago, and each time the radiometric dating is accurate. One can only make the assumption from that, that for at least the past 6 thousand years, the rates of decay have remained constant. 6 thousand years ago is roughly the beginning of recorded history. Essentially anything earlier than that, we have to assume that the same radiometric dating methods that we used to verify the known ages of up to 6000 year old objects, is going to be reasonably accurate for dating any objects of unknown age.

[DarkWolf]

Originally posted by 281R
Im sorry I can not put my faith in it b/c I cant count on microsoft OS to never have problems and why? Because Microsoft ( or radiometric dating) is made by men, but the Bible was made by God. Lets hold firm to the Bible and not put our faith in man's assumptions. :D

Regardless of it's divine inspiration, the Bible too, was written by man. This same man that you can't count on to be reliable, the same man that you can't count on to be infallible. But you're going to make an exception for the Bible?

I'm not saying it's bad. I'm not saying it's wrong. I'm saying that it's written by man, and because of that, I can't trust that man's ambitions, man's greed, man's imagination, man's creativity played absolutely no part in the writing of the Bible. We already know parts of the Bible have been re-written over the course of history, to suit the author's, or the King's needs. Were those re-writes divinely inspired, and without fallacy? You're going to put your full faith in something that man has translated countless times, and altered the contents of a number of times to suit his needs? The core message remains intact, that's no surprise. You can see the same evidence of God's core message remaining intact in other religions ... there's just different interpretations of the smaller details.

If you're willing to put your full faith in that, then more power to you. I can't. I think the Bible is a good book, and can be used for many good things, but I put my faith in God, not a book written by man.

[The Punisher]

Originally posted by DarkWolf
Uhh, yes, various forms of radiometric dating have been shown to be very accurate. Mt. St. Helens proves nothing, for the same reasons I gave before. Of course there's going to be variying dates given.

You say scientists have to assume the rate of decay remained constant. But on the same token, creationists have to assume that the rate of decay hasn't remain constant. They're both HUGE assumptions to be made on both sides of the argument.

As for the new idea that the speed of light might have been faster long ago, I would like to know who proposed the idea. There are no signs that light is slowing down as we move on through time. Who ever proposed that light was faster long ago, than it is today, is either a nutjob, or a creation scientist, fishing for some theory to try and prove the Earth is young. There's no evidence to base this theory on, as for the past hundred years or so that light speed has been measured, there has been NO degredation in speed.

Assuming the rate of decay has remained constant, while a big assumption, is also a valid assumption, because for the past hundred or so years that we've been measuring the rates of decay, there has been no fluctuation. We've dated objects that have a known age, from as much as 6 thousand years ago, and each time the radiometric dating is accurate. One can only make the assumption from that, that for at least the past 6 thousand years, the rates of decay have remained constant. 6 thousand years ago is roughly the beginning of recorded history. Essentially anything earlier than that, we have to assume that the same radiometric dating methods that we used to verify the known ages of up to 6000 year old objects, is going to be reasonably accurate for dating any objects of unknown age.
1. Scientist and creationist are the same thing. Creationist is just a different type of scientist than the evolutionist in belief, but in essence, they are the same.
2. Here are some ref. on the speed of light changing.
harvard (http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/1999/02.18/light.html) ucr.edu (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html) newton (http://newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy00/phy00371.htm) Creationist make assumptions too, but they do not hold it to fact like evolutionist do. Anyways, I thought you were a creationist? Anyways, why do majortity of creationist scientist believe the earth is made in a short period of time and not a long period of time? Maybe b/c most of them, when they make assumptions, dont hold it to be true and proven to work. Science has only to do with the facts, not assumptions. If you want to make a theory, that is fine, but dont hold your assumptions to be true unless they can be proven with out a doubt. Then its a fact. As the saying goes. Assumeing only makes an a** out of you and me. :D

[The Punisher]

Originally posted by DarkWolf


Regardless of it's divine inspiration, the Bible too, was written by man. This same man that you can't count on to be reliable, the same man that you can't count on to be infallible. But you're going to make an exception for the Bible?

I'm not saying it's bad. I'm not saying it's wrong. I'm saying that it's written by man, and because of that, I can't trust that man's ambitions, man's greed, man's imagination, man's creativity played absolutely no part in the writing of the Bible. We already know parts of the Bible have been re-written over the course of history, to suit the author's, or the King's needs. Were those re-writes divinely inspired, and without fallacy? You're going to put your full faith in something that man has translated countless times, and altered the contents of a number of times to suit his needs? The core message remains intact, that's no surprise. You can see the same evidence of God's core message remaining intact in other religions ... there's just different interpretations of the smaller details.

If you're willing to put your full faith in that, then more power to you. I can't. I think the Bible is a good book, and can be used for many good things, but I put my faith in God, not a book written by man.
See, you think the Bible is just a book. So if it is just a book and not the word of God and it it is not God's word but man's word. Then how do you believe in any of it. Why dont you believe in Buda, Judism, or Muslism. They all believe in a God. He might have had humans write 3 books. You dont believe the Bible is the living word of God. So what if man wrote it? If God of the Christian faith inspired men to write a book to give us a journey of life and it is called the "Holy" Bible. Holy dose not leave any room for mistakes or interpretation. We may make mistakes or interpretitation while reading it and learning, but God knew what He meant and He never makes mistakes says His "Word", the Holy Bible.

[DarkWolf]

Originally posted by 281R
As the saying goes. Assumeing only makes an a** out of you and me. :D

Aye, something we agree on :)

Yes, I am a creationist, but not in the traditional literal sense of creation happening in 6 Earth days.

[DarkWolf]

Originally posted by 281R
See, you think the Bible is just a book. So if it is just a book and not the word of God and it it is not God's word but man's word. Then how do you believe in any of it. Why dont you believe in Buda, Judism, or Muslism. They all believe in a God. He might have had humans write 3 books. You dont believe the Bible is the living word of God. So what if man wrote it? If God of the Christian faith inspired men to write a book to give us a journey of life and it is called the "Holy" Bible. Holy dose not leave any room for mistakes or interpretation. We may make mistakes or interpretitation while reading it and learning, but God knew what He meant and He never makes mistakes says His "Word", the Holy Bible.

On the same note, other religious books are said to be divinely inspired. It's not called the Holy Quar'an for nothing. I'm not saying it's not God's word. I'm saying that it's God's message, but it was written by man. There are parts of it that have been changed ... there wouldn't be a King James Version if changes weren't made. I accept it as God's core message, but as it has been written, and re-written by man for thousands of years, I put my faith in God.

Also Buhddists don't worship God. Buhdda himself did, but Buhddists strive to be Buhdda, because he's believed to have attained total spiritual enlightenment. Buhddists strive to attain the same level of spiritual enlightenment. Technically, Buhddism isn't a religion. It's followed as such, and has been accepted as such, but because there is no worship of a higher being, it's technically not a religion.

[The Punisher]

Originally posted by DarkWolf


Aye, something we agree on :)

Yes, I am a creationist, but not in the traditional literal sense of creation happening in 6 Earth days.
true... true.... I just wanted to point out that its ok to have the theory that the earth is millions of years old if that is what you think. But before you make it the truth or proven, better make sure it is not on assumptions which it is. The most important point is not that I think the earth is young and you think that it is old, but it is that Jesus Christ died on the cross for our sins because He wanted to, lets not make assumptions about that!:D

[The Punisher]

Just wanted to TTT this one to see if anyone had any comments?:D

[MoonDog]

Originally posted by 281R
Just wanted to TTT this one to see if anyone had any comments?:D

Glad you did that...

Here is my take on age and evolution. I also believe the earth is millions of years old, BUT, not because God took that long to do it. Remember when Jesus turned the water in to wine and when he feed the multitudes. He created the wine with age, as well as the fish. They were not just little guppies but full grown fish. God also created Adam and Eve as adults, they were not little babies. Therefore, I believe God created the world in a literal 6 days but gave the earth and everything in it an appearance of being very old.

[The Punisher]

Originally posted by MoonDog


Glad you did that...

Here is my take on age and evolution. I also believe the earth is millions of years old, BUT, not because God took that long to do it. Remember when Jesus turned the water in to wine and when he feed the multitudes. He created the wine with age, as well as the fish. They were not just little guppies but full grown fish. God also created Adam and Eve as adults, they were not little babies. Therefore, I believe God created the world in a literal 6 days but gave the earth and everything in it an appearance of being very old.
Cool, but how do you counter what DW stated above about when Larius stated the same idea? Just wondering...:D

[The Punisher]

Originally posted by Larius
According to the stars, it takes billions of years for the light to travel from the star to where we are, thus making it appear that the universe is that old, however, I believe that if God can create man mature and grown, he can create a universe that appears old as well. As far as the earth, I think that it is literal time, so I would have to say about 6 thousand years old.

Reply:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dark Wolf
Why would he? Why create the laws of physics, only to rewrite them after creation? Why make stars that are millions of light years away, send their light to us in mere seconds during the 6 literal days of creation ... but new stars that are formed take millions of years for the light to reach us? Why change the chemical properties of radioactive materials, such as Carbon 14, or Uranium 238?

To confuse us?

What sense does that make? Surely God would know that we would discover radiometric dating, and physics ... among other scientific discoveries ... to say otherwise is to say that God is not all knowing. Since he knew we would discover these things, why not stick with current formulas? Why would Carbon 14 decay faster 6000 years ago, than it does today? Why would light travel the vast reaches of space faster 6000 years ago than it does today? Or if he did stick with the current formulas, why would he place bones in the ground that date back 50,000 years or more, or place stars with their light already spread to the far reaches of space? (Remember, you can't agree with radiometric dating only when it's convenient ... if you're going to accept it's accuracy when dating materials of a known age, then you have to accept it's accuracy when dating materials of an unknown age. You being a generic term.)

The question isn't whether or not he can do it, but why he would do it? I can't imagine that he would do it just to confuse us when we did discover them. That he's up in heaven laughing at our simplemindedness. That all of this is some sort of cosmic joke at our expense.[QUOTE]

[MoonDog]

He makes some very good points, Just from my own studies I have been led to my own conclusion. But DW raises some good questions. I used to believe that there was a huge time gap inbetween Gen 1 and Gen 2. I will just have to go back and start all over again. Thanks! :mad: :D

[DarkWolf]

:D

The way I see it, Genesis 1 is the birth of the universe, leading up to the creation of Man. Man was created on the last day of Creation ... at the end of Creation, to put it literally. (And to think, I've aruged this point with people who swear that Man was created at the beginning of Creation. Even a literal translation of the Bible disagrees with that!)

Gen 2 through Revelations, in my perspective, is all events that take place during the 7th day (Excluding the very beginning of Gen 2 when it sort of recaps the 6th day) ... and the first 6 days, are actually days to God, but because God does not operate in our time frame, each of those days to God, is some millions, or billions (2.5 billion Earth years = 1 God day, if using the 15 billion year old universe theory) of years.

So, for example, right now, in the year 2002, putting it in perspective of a day to God, we've rolled just about 37 and a half minutes past Midnight, in the morning of the 7th day. That's 65 million years of Human evolution (again, the suspected origins of man were roughly 65 million years ago).

I'm just geeky enough that I actually compared the 6 days of Creation to the old universe theory. You'd be surprised how well they match up ... and if the theory were any more or less than 15 billion years old, they wouldn't match up, Creation would not corrolate the scientific evidence, and the scientific evidence would contradict Creation. Coincidence? I don't think so :)

[The Punisher]

Originally posted by DarkWolf
:D
I'm just geeky enough that I actually compared the 6 days of Creation to the old universe theory. You'd be surprised how well they match up ... and if the theory were any more or less than 15 billion years old, they wouldn't match up, Creation would not corrolate the scientific evidence, and the scientific evidence would contradict Creation. Coincidence? I don't think so :)
Naughty, Naughty, Naughty DW. Your are now assuming that the radiometric dating is a scientific fact. Must I point out all the flaws again? Lets not assume, lets theorize..:)

[DarkWolf]

Actually, no I never said it was scientific fact. I think I used "Theory" pretty generously :D

[The Punisher]

Originally posted by DarkWolf
Actually, no I never said it was scientific fact. I think I used "Theory" pretty generously :D
Ok, then further explain your theory stated above, interested?

Originally posted by DarkWolf

I'm just geeky enough that I actually compared the 6 days of Creation to the old universe theory. You'd be surprised how well they match up ... and if the theory were any more or less than 15 billion years old, they wouldn't match up, Creation would not corrolate the scientific evidence, and the scientific evidence would contradict Creation. Coincidence? I don't think so

[DarkWolf]

You mean, like explain how the account of Creation corrolates the 15 billion year old universe theory? Ok, here ya go:

---------------------------
One of the oldest debates I can recall has to do with creation. There's generally two camps of thought here (speaking strictly of religious people here) ... the first are what are referred to as "Bible Thumpers". They believe that everything in the Bible is to be taken for it's literal meaning, and do not believe that any of the Bible might be an allegory, or interpreted in any other ways. They tend to unanimously believe that Creation happened in 6 literal days, and that the Earth is only about 6000 years old ... regardless of reams upon reams of scientific evidence to the contrary.

The second camp are those who believe the story of Genesis is more of an allegory, than a literal description of the events that took place. They tend to feel that God is a timeless being and as such, it is not bound by our notion of time. One day to God may be millions or billions of years to us. This camp believes that the scientific evidence of a very old Earth (approximately 4.5 - 5 billion years) agrees with the account of creation given in Genesis, rather than contradicts it. Being the geek at heart, I actually took the time to work out the math to figure out what 6 days would be if spread over 15 billion years (the theoretical age of the Universe) ... and at 2.5 billion years for each day, when applied to Genesis ... there is a definite correlation.

If you haven't guessed by now, I fall into that second camp. And looking through Genesis, and applying 2.5 billion years to each day of creation, the scientific evidence does agree with Genesis. Let's break it down real quick. First thing you have to remember, the Hebrew word for earth meant about 3 or 4 different things. And you'll notice that in Genesis, and in other parts of the Bible, earth is lowercase, and in some places it is uppercase. That leads me to believe that when earth is lowercase, it means a generic term for ground ... and when Earth is uppercase, it is referring to a planet, or our own planet, Earth.

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. [2] And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. [3] And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. [4] And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. [5] And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. [6] And God said, Let their be firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. [7] And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters that were above the firmament: and it was so. [8] And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and morning were the second day.

15 billion years ago, something happened which we call the Big Bang. We perceive the Big Bang as a spark of light in the void of the universe ... or an explosion that began to spread. Gasses, and debris created by this explosion started their long process of forming into stars, and planets, and eventually into solar systems, and even later into galaxies, as the universe continues to expand. The spark, or explosion brought light to the darkness. The earth in this context is the universe as a whole, where there is no form, it's merely a void. By our concept of time, this process took about 5 billion years ... but was simply 2 days to God. It's an allegory used to help man to understand the process. It's hard enough for man in this day and age to fully comprehend 5 billion years ... much less men 6000 years ago who believed the Earth was flat, and the Sun revolved around the Earth.

Genesis 1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. [10] And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good. [11] And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, and herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. [12] And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. [13] And the evening and morning were the third day. [14] And God said, let there be lights in the firmament of heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: [15] And let them be for lights in the firmament of heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. [16] And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. [17] And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, [18] And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. [19] And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

The next two days, or 5 billion years we now see the swirling gasses, and debris coming together to form the stars, and the planets. And planets beginning to rotate, and to circle the stars, and after billions of years of molten rock, cooling and forming solid land, the planets began to produce foliage. So now we have planets experiencing days and nights, and years, and seasons. We've come through 10 billion years, and now the Earth has finally taken shape, and it too is starting to produce foliage, that will later be needed to sustain life.

Genesis 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. [21] And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and ever winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. [22] And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. [23] And the evening and morning were the fifth day. [24] And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. [25] And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. [26] And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. [27] So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. [28] And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. [29] And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. [30] And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to everything that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so. [31] And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

And so we come to the final 5 billion years, or the last 2 days. And here we have life beginning in the seas, and in the sky, and on the land. A lot can happen in 5 billion years. In 5 billion years we've had the formation of the Earth, the beginnings of life, Dinosaurs, creatures in the sea, on the land, and in the air. And eventually leading to man. Notice there is no mention of Dinosaurs in Genesis ... this is simply mans limited knowledge of the world at the time Genesis was written. Imagine what man would have thought if he was informed that there were once huge reptiles roaming the Earth for over a hundred million years. That a man of average height could even fit wholly into the mouths of some of these creatures. Man simply did not know about the Dinosaurs, and thus there is no writings about them. Man knew about birds, and fish, and cattle, and snakes, and other "modern" creatures ... and he understood them, and thus they were written about.
-------------------------------

Quoted from an essay I recently wrote.

[The Punisher]

Two problems I see right off the bat here:
1. Where dose the 7th day fit in the picture. Did man live for another 2.5 billion years while God rested before he kicked them out of the garden of eden?
2. Population argument... Year 1776 America in the Revolutionary War had the population of 2 to 3 million, just over 226 years the population is now aprox 250 million. If human lived 5 million years before God kicked them out of the garden, wouldnt the population be tremendous with in 2.5 billion years?

[MoonDog]

This was taken from a Cornell University website. Link (http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/index.php)

The oldest Earth rocks are about 3.8 billion years old, although some small, very old grains found in sandstone have been dated at 4.1 billion years. The solar system is believed to be about 4.6 billion years old.

So, using your 2.5 billion years = 1 day method, that would make the creation of the earth sometime on day 5. Well, lets see:

Originally posted by DarkWolf

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. [2] And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. [3] And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. [4] And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. [5] And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. [6] And God said, Let their be firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. [7] And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters that were above the firmament: and it was so. [8] And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and morning were the second day.


It doen't seem to jive. The universe maybe 15 billion years old according to scientists, but the earth is only 4.6 at the most according to the same people.

Also, the oldest dinosaur fossils found have been "argon radioisotopic dated" and found to be somewhere around 225 million years old. That would make them created on day 6 right along with man. But the bible states that the sea and land creatures were created the day before on day 5. :D

[The Punisher]

Originally posted by MoonDog
This was taken from a Cornell University website. Link (http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/index.php)

The oldest Earth rocks are about 3.8 billion years old, although some small, very old grains found in sandstone have been dated at 4.1 billion years. The solar system is believed to be about 4.6 billion years old.

So, using your 2.5 billion years = 1 day method, that would make the creation of the earth sometime on day 5. Well, lets see:



It doen't seem to jive. The universe maybe 15 billion years old according to scientists, but the earth is only 4.6 at the most according to the same people.

Also, the oldest dinosaur fossils found have been "argon radioisotopic dated" and found to be somewhere around 225 million years old. That would make them created on day 6 right along with man. But the bible states that the sea and land creatures were created the day before on day 5. :D
assuming that the rate of decay is consistant and the methods of dating are flawless. :D

[MoonDog]

Originally posted by 281R

assuming that the rate of decay is consistant and the methods of dating are flawless. :D

I am not saying that I believe these numbers. I am just stating scientic theory to combat his theory, right now I still believe the literal 6,000 years until someone can prove otherwise.

[The Punisher]

Originally posted by MoonDog


I am not saying that I believe these numbers. I am just stating scientic theory to combat his theory, right now I still believe the literal 6,000 years until someone can prove otherwise.
Yea, I know. Just adding to you argument for DW. :D
Sorry,
<----- I'll shut up now

[MoonDog]

:D

[DarkWolf]

And if you'll read, the final 5 billion years, or 2 days of creation is the creation of the Earth and all things living on the Earth. Scientists speculate between 4.5 and 5 billion years for the Earth. Most evidence leads closer to 4.5. 4.5 billion, I'm sure you can imagine, takes place within 5 billion years ... thusly takes place within the last 2 days of Creation.

As for the 7th day, I believe we're currently in the 7th day, as I stated long before "Gen 2 through Revelations, in my perspective, is all events that take place during the 7th day (Excluding the very beginning of Gen 2 when it sort of recaps the 6th day) ... and the first 6 days, are actually days to God, but because God does not operate in our time frame, each of those days to God, is some millions, or billions (2.5 billion Earth years = 1 God day, if using the 15 billion year old universe theory) of years."

Population, scientific evidence speculates mankind appeared around 65 million years ago, not 2.5 billion. If you even bothered to read, rather than just assume, you'd see that I broke down the last 2 days as a lot of things happen in 5 billion years. Ie: "And so we come to the final 5 billion years, or the last 2 days. And here we have life beginning in the seas, and in the sky, and on the land. A lot can happen in 5 billion years. In 5 billion years we've had the formation of the Earth, the beginnings of life, Dinosaurs, creatures in the sea, on the land, and in the air. And eventually leading to man."

You put man at the end of the 6th day, and start the 7th day from there, then we're roughly about 30 some odd minutes into the 7th day as of today.

Another thing you have to remember, up until about 75 to 100 years ago, the average lifespan was 35 - 50 years. You also have to remember, there has been hundreds of wars, famines, pestilences, all throughout history, which take anyone, young and old ... a lot of people didn't make it to the ripe old age of 30. As such, our medical advances have taken giant leaps since the discovery of Penicilin, and over the past 100 or so years, life expectancy has grown from 35 - 50 years, on up to 75 - 100 years ... and as expected, in accordance, the population has swelled within the last hundred or so years.

Giving the example in America is a bad idea though, surely you realize the American poplulation has had an artificial swell, due to the "open arms" policy towards immigration that we've held. We've taken millions upon millions of immigrants over the past 200 or so years ... with a vast majority over the last 100 years.

Check again on those Dinosaur fossils. You're looking at the reptilian fossil records, check further for the oceanic fossil records. Some of the earliest fossils date back somewhere around 3.5 billion years.

[MoonDog]

Originally posted by DarkWolf
And if you'll read, the final 5 billion years, or 2 days of creation is the creation of the Earth and all things living on the Earth. Scientists speculate between 4.5 and 5 billion years for the Earth. Most evidence leads closer to 4.5. 4.5 billion, I'm sure you can imagine, takes place within 5 billion years ... thusly takes place within the last 2 days of Creation.

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
[2] And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
[3] And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
[4] And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
[5] And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Day one, the earth is created. That would make the earth 15 billion years old. But so called scientific dating has it at 4.5 billion.

Check again on those Dinosaur fossils. You're looking at the reptilian fossil records, check further for the oceanic fossil records. Some of the back somewhere around 3.5 billion years.

Evolutionists have constructed the Geologic Column in order to illustrate the supposed progression of primitive life forms to more complex systems we observe today. Yet, since only a small percentage of the earth's surface obeys even a portion of the geologic column the claim of their having taken place to form a continuum of rock/life/time over the earth is therefore a fantastic and imaginative contrivance. The lack of transitional series cannot be explained as being due to the scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled. This supposed column is actually saturated with "polystrate fossils" (fossils extending from one geologic layer to another) that tie all the layers to one time-frame. To the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation.

Population Statistics...
World population growth rate in recent times is about 2% per year. Practicable application of growth rate throughout human history would be about half that number. Wars, disease, famine, etc. have wiped out approximately one third of the population on average every 82 years. Starting with eight people, and applying these growth rates since the Flood of Noah's day (about 4500 years ago) would give a total human population at just under six billion people. However, application on an evolutionary time scale runs into major difficulties. Starting with one couple just 41,000 years ago would give us a total population of 2x10 to the 89 power. The universe does not have space to hold so many bodies.

[DarkWolf]

. . . You know ... having a Back / Forward button on your mouse can come in handy ... but it SUCKS when you're writing something, and reach over to click submit and tag the back button. :mad:

Fossils = 3.5 billion year old fossils are cyanobacteria.
Fossile Records = Too many factors that contribute to the small percentage of fossils found outside of their base geological layer. I had a few listed, but hating my mouse, so not going to bother right now.

Population Growth = You're assuming the population growth has remained realatively constant through history (with only a slight increase in recent years). Native Americans crossed over from Asia roughly 10,000 years ago (according to various radiometric dating of artifacts). Assuming that to be true (since we are debating the rate of population growth) From 8,000 BC to 1492 AD, there was no European intervention in this country, yet the population reached an equilibrium, and stopped growing. Stopped between 5 and 8 million Native Americans. It's a safe assumption to make, since it happened here, that it might have also happened elsewhere (such as Africa, Asia, Austrailia, South America) that there was no European influence. The Population growth started increasing predominantly during the growth of the Greek and leading to the Roman empire. It's a safe assumption to make that these populations would retain that equilibrium until European intervention ... as we all know, it's the European mindset that was set on expansion, conquering other nations, building an empire, etc. (I'm referring to European as all of Europe, from England, down to Italy, over to Spain, and Greece)

[QckCmbck]

Originally posted by 281R
I would like to know what everyones opinion is of my so many people think the earth is millions of years old?

I personally like the Anthropic Principal. So, that you don't have to look it up I'll tell you what it says. It's a little long but worth the read.

This currently popular term in astronomy comes from the Greek word for man, anthropos. For any principle of science to be acceptable, there must
be experimental results with general validity. The Anthropic Principle which states that the universe is especially suited for the well-being of mankind, (Note that they use the term anthrop meaning man to describe whom the world was made to suit not whom it was made by.) is one such assumption. As just one of hundreds of examples, consider the tides that the moon causes on earth. If the moon was closer to the earth, tides would be greatly increased. Ocean waves could sweep across the continents. The seas themselves might heat to the boiling point from the resulting friction. On the other hand, a more distant moon would reduce the tides. Marine life would be endangered by the resulting preponderance of stagnant water! Mankind would also be in trouble because the oxygen in the air we breathe is replenished by marine plants. We can conclude that the moon is in the "correct" position for man's well-being. Even such details as the mass of protons and the strength of gravity have values that give stability to the universe and thus reinforce the Anthropic Principle.

The Anthropic Principle is a powerful argument that the universe was designed. Of course, whether it is an intricate watch or a beautiful planet, any design plan requires a designer! Evolution theory believes it has an answer to "design" in biological systems by hypothesizing ongoing processes of mutation and natural selection. Living things are said to change very slowly and improve with time. There are many fundamental problems with evolution theory, not the least of which is that-in the case of the Anthropic Principle-the theory provides no answer at all. Whether describing tides, proton mass, or the earth's position in the solar system, is not a grand design present from the very beginning? These phenomena don't mutate or change with time. The negative response of secular science to new evidences of design is interesting in that it shows the extremes to which man will go to maintain a belief in the random origin of all things. It has even been proposed that there really is an infinite number of universes, each with a completely different set of physical properties. According to such thinking, our particular universe just happens to have conditions suitable for human life, and that is why we are here to enjoy it! Of course, there is no way to detect any "other" universes or comprehend their underlying principles. Scripture describes the creation of just one universe. It contains all things, including the clear marks of the supremely intelligent design of our creator
God

[MoonDog]

Here are nearly a dozen natural phenomena which conflict with the evolutionary idea that the universe is billions of years old. The numbers I list below in bold print (often millions of years) are maximum possible ages set by each process, not the actual ages. The numbers in italics are the ages required by evolutionary theory for each item. The point is that the maximum possible ages are always much less that the required evolutionary ages, while the biblical age (6,000-10,000 years) always fits comfortably within the maximum possible ages. Thus the following items are evidence against the evolutionary time-scale and for the biblical time-scale.
Much more young-world evidence exists, but I have chosen these items for brevity and simplicity. Some of the items on this list can be reconciled with an old universe only by making a series of improbable and unproven assumptions; others can fit in only with a young universe. The list starts with distant astronomic phenomena and works its way down to Earth, ending with everyday facts.


1. Comets disintegrate too quickly.
According to evolutionary theory, comets are supposed to be the same age as the solar system, about five billion years. Yet each time a comet orbits close to the sun, it loses so much of its material that it could not survive much longer than about 100,000 years. Many comets have typical maximum ages (on this basis) of 10,000 years.
Evolutionists explain this discrepancy by assuming that (a) comets come from an unobserved spherical 'Oort cloud' well beyond the orbit of Pluto, (b) improbable gravitational interactions with infrequently passing stars often knock comets into the solar system, and (c) other improbable interactions with planets slow down the incoming comets often enough to account for the hundreds of comets observed. So far, none of these assumptions has been substantiated either by observations or realistic calculations.

Lately, there has been much talk of the 'Kuiper Belt', a disc of supposed comet sources lying in the plane of the solar system just outside the orbit of Pluto. Even if some bodies of ice exist in that location, they would not really solve the evolutionists' problem, since according to evolutionary theory the Kuiper Belt would quickly become exhausted if there were no Oort cloud to supply it.


2. Not enough mud on the sea floor.
Each year, water and winds erode about 25 billion tons of dirt and rock from the continents and deposit it in the ocean. This material accumulates as loose sediment (i.e. mud) on the hard basaltic (lava-formed) rock of the ocean floor. The average depth of all the mud in the whole ocean, including the continental shelves, is less than 400 metres.
The main way currently known to remove the mud from the ocean floor is by plate tectonic subduction. That is, sea floor slides slowly (a few cm/year) beneath the continents, taking some sediment with it. According to secular scientific literature, that process presently removes only one billion tons per year. As far as anyone knows, the other 25 billion tons per year simply accumulate. At that rate, erosion would deposit the present amount of sediment in less than 12 million years.

Yet according to evolutionary theory, erosion and plate subduction have been going on as long as the oceans have existed, an alleged three billion years. If that were so, the rates above imply that the oceans would be massively choked with mud dozens of kilometres deep. An alternative (creationist) explanation is that erosion from the waters of the Genesis Flood running off the continents deposited the present amount of mud within a short time about 5000 years ago.


3. Not enough sodium in the sea.
Every year, rivers and other sources dump over 450 million tons of sodium into the ocean. Only 27% of this sodium manages to get back out of the sea each year. As far as anyone knows, the remainder simply accumulates in the ocean. If the sea had no sodium to start with, it would have accumulated its present amount in less than 42 million years at today's input and output rates. This is much less than the evolutionary age of the ocean, three billion years. The usual reply to this discrepancy is that past sodium inputs must have been less and outputs greater. However, calculations which are as generous as possible to evolutionary scenarios still give a maximum age of only 62 million years. Calculations for many other sea water elements give much younger ages for the ocean.

4. Earth's magnetic field is decaying too fast.
The total energy stored in the Earth's magnetic field has steadily decreased by a factor of 2.7 over the past 1,000 years. Evolutionary theories explaining this rapid decrease, as well as how the Earth could have maintained its magnetic field for billions of years, are very complex and inadequate. A much better creationist theory exists. It is straightforward, based on sound physics, and explains many features of the field: its creation, rapid reversals during the Genesis Flood, surface intensity decreases and increases until the time of Christ, and a steady decay since then. This theory matches paleomagnetic, historic, and present data. The main result is that the field's total energy (not surface intensity) has always decayed at least as fast as now. At that rate the field could not be more than 10,000 years old.

5. Many strata are too tightly bent.
In many mountainous areas, strata thousands of feet thick are bent and folded into hairpin shapes. The conventional geologic time-scale says these formations were deeply buried and solidified for hundreds of millions of years before they were bent. Yet the folding occurred without cracking, with radii so small that the entire formation had to be still wet and unsolidified when the bending occurred. This implies that the folding occurred less than thousands of years after deposition.

6. Injected sandstone shortens geologic 'ages'.
Strong geologic evidence exists that the Cambrian Sawatch sandstone -- formed an alleged 500 million years ago -- of the Ute Pass Fault, west of Colorado Springs, was still unsolidified when it was extruded up to the surface during the uplift of the Rocky Mountains, allegedly 70 million years ago. It is very unlikely that the sandstone would not solidify during the supposed 430 million years it was underground. Instead, it is likely that the two geologic events were less than hundreds of years apart, thus greatly shortening the geologic time-scale.

7. Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic 'ages' to a few years.
Radiohalos are rings of color formed around microscopic bits of radioactive minerals in rock crystals. They are fossil evidence of radioactive decay. 'Squashed' Polonium-210 radiohalos indicate that Jurassic, Triassic, and Eocene formations in the Colorado plateau were deposited within months of one another, not hundreds of millions of years apart as required by the conventional time-scale. 'Orphan' Polonium-218 radiohalos, having no evidence of their mother elements, imply either instant creation or drastic changes in radioactivity decay rates.

8. Helium in the wrong places.
All naturally occurring families of radioactive elements generate helium as they decay. If such decay took place for billions of years, as alleged by evolutionists, much helium should have found its way into the Earth's atmosphere. The rate of loss of helium from the atmosphere into space is calculable and small. Taking that loss into account, the atmosphere today has only 0.05% of the amount of helium it would have accumulated in five billion years. This means the atmosphere is much younger than the alleged evolutionary age.
A study published in the Journal of Geophysical Research shows that helium produced by radioactive decay in deep, hot rocks has not had time to escape. Though the rocks are supposed to be over one billion years old, their large helium retention suggests an age of only thousands of years.


9. Not enough Stone Age skeletons.
Evolutionary anthropologists say that the Stone Age lasted for at least 100,000 years, during which time the world population of Neanderthal and Cro-magnon men was roughly constant, between one and 10 million. All that time they were burying their dead with artefacts. By this scenario, they would have buried at least four billion bodies. If the evolutionary time-scale is correct, buried bones should be able to last for much longer than 100,000 years, so many of the supposed four billion Stone Age skeletons should still be around (and certainly the buried artefacts). Yet only a few thousand have been found. This implies that the Stone Age was much shorter than evolutionists think, a few hundred years in many areas.

10. Agriculture is too recent.
The usual evolutionary picture has men existing as hunters and gatherers for 100,000 years during the Stone Age before discovering agriculture less than 10,000 years ago. Yet the archaeological evidence shows that Stone Age men were as intelligent as we are. It is very improbable that none of the four billion people mentioned in item 10 should discover that plants grow from seeds. It is more likely that men were without agriculture less than a few hundred years after the Flood, if at all.

11. History is too short.
According to evolutionists, Stone Age man existed for 100,000 years before beginning to make written records about 4,000-5,000 years ago. Prehistoric man built megalithic monuments, made beautiful cave paintings, and kept records of lunar phases. Why would he wait a thousand centuries before using the same skills to record history? The biblical time-scale is much more likely.

[DarkWolf]

I'm not even going to bother. What you've written shows, and proves nothing ... Do some actual research, instead of copy/pasting from a heavily Christian website, and you'll find your counterpoints (in actual scientific evidence, not some evolutionary wacko's guesses).

I think we all came to the agreement a while back that the pure evolution theory is junk, did we not? Trying to prove evolutionary theory wrong is a waste of time, because the man who came up with the theory in the first place (Darwin) renounced his own theory before he died. Obviously he realised he was wrong, and his theory was wrong.

The question, here and now, is whether or not the Earth is old (billions of years) or young (6000 - 10000 years). Everything that has ever been presented in support of a young Earth, there is an equal counterpoint in support of an old Earth. Believing in an old Earth does not contradict the Bible, in fact, it agrees with the Bible. So it comes down to simply ... what do YOU believe. You believe in a young Earth... good for you. I believe in an old Earth... good for me. You have your "evidence" to support a young Earth, I have my "evidence" to counter your "evidence" and thus my "evidence" supports an old Earth. Who's right? Who's wrong? Who cares?

I certainly don't. How about we move on, because trying to prove one side right or wrong is futile, and we'll only go around in circles with "evidence" and "counter evidence".

[The Punisher]

Originally posted by DarkWolf
Who's right? Who's wrong? Who cares?

Sounds like a song:D lol
<---- Just thought I'd bring some humor to the matter:D


whoops:eek:

[DarkWolf]

Originally posted by 281R
Sounds like a long:D lol
<---- Just thought I'd bring some humor to the matter:D

:p

I mean, if I really need to, I'll post up the counter evidence. It's most definitely readily available. I just don't see the point.

[Jedi]

This is one of the "stumble" blocks of my faith.

Personally, I believe in initial Creation, but evolution/adaption through the ages.

I can't discount scientific evidence of ancient human skeltons (cromagnon, prehistoric, etc). As for dating precisely when, all i know is it was a LOOOONG time ago. I am convinced dinosaurs and man existed at the same time, but mankind was able to survive somehow while the dinosaurs were wiped out by a meteor strike.

God's time and Man's time are different to me. In addition, the bible's use of time as a description is beyond farfetched sometimes it throws the whole mix in the air. An example:

Genesis 9:29
And all the days of Noah were nine hundred and fifty years:
and he died.

950 years old. Really.

I believe all reasonable things are possible through God, but this is stretching it.

[MoonDog]

Originally posted by Chris98GT
I believe all reasonable things are possible through God, but this is stretching it.

Reasonable? Resonable to who, you? I know that my God is not limited to time or space or any "laws of nature". You fail to realize, He is the one that created all of these laws. You people are putting Him in a box and making suit your needs and beliefs. Just because you don't understand something or there isn't a "scientific" explaination for the Word of God you decide to disbelieve it or come up with some grand idea to help you better understand what He was trying to say. I have chosen to take Gods word at face value. What He says is what he means. If I was to tell you that I live in a 3000 sqft house in Richardson, would you take that to mean that I really live in a trailer out in BFE? IF God says He created the world and all that is in it in 7 days, then that is what He did, stop calling Him a liar. You must not know the same God that I do, and I will defend His word until the day I die.

http://www.dfwstangs.net/hosting/MoonDog/soapbox.gif

[The Punisher]

Originally posted by DarkWolf


:p

I mean, if I really need to, I'll post up the counter evidence. It's most definitely readily available. I just don't see the point.
Post it if you have the time. I would like to read it.:)

[Jedi]

Originally posted by MoonDog
stop calling Him a liar.

I never called God a liar. Stop putting words in my mouth.

I was given a brain, and while it may be the work of Satan to instill this doubt in my mind, understand that there IS doubt in my mind. I don't want to just "accept", I want to learn. I feel that God wants us to choose him as Worship without a choice isn't true Worship.

That being said, this probably sounds hypocritical, but I don't suppose to know what God thinks or wants or can do as that is just arrogant of me. But when it comes to ME, I know what I think, want and can do.

When i posted up the 950 years, it was an example that taking the literal description of time is hard for me to believe. I never said it wasn't possible with extensive arguments about biology and limitations of the human anatomy, etc. lemem say that again, I stated that it was hard for me to believe.

Going on the attack with the "your god is not the same as mine" is presumtive and high minded. It is Christians like you that make my journey harder because of the "holier than thou" attitude that I face whenever I have a question or a problem in my journey with faith. We're both on the same path, buddy. I face my trials, you face yours. Do not take that you are better of me just because I stumble along the way.

[MoonDog]

I dont believe that I am better then anyone. And I am certainly not "holier than thou". I just get tired of some people trying to explain God through science and thinking that they are right and everyone else is wrong. And if it cant be explain through science then it really didn't happen. I did not mean to flame you one bit.

There are many things that I do not understand or I find hard to believe but that does not mean that it is not true. I believe that if it is written in the bible then it is God's word and therefore it is truth. It really doesn't matter if I find it resonable or not, God said it, that is enough for me.

[DarkWolf]

Originally posted by MoonDog
Reasonable? Resonable to who, you? I know that my God is not limited to time or space or any "laws of nature". You fail to realize, He is the one that created all of these laws. You people are putting Him in a box and making suit your needs and beliefs. Just because you don't understand something or there isn't a "scientific" explaination for the Word of God you decide to disbelieve it or come up with some grand idea to help you better understand what He was trying to say. I have chosen to take Gods word at face value. What He says is what he means. If I was to tell you that I live in a 3000 sqft house in Richardson, would you take that to mean that I really live in a trailer out in BFE? IF God says He created the world and all that is in it in 7 days, then that is what He did, stop calling Him a liar. You must not know the same God that I do, and I will defend His word until the day I die.

I really wish you guys would quit throwing out the accusations of lieing. You automatically see something that's slightly different than what you believe, though the meaning is the same (ie, a different interpretation) and you spout off about how I'm (and now it seems, Chris ... sorry buddy, it's a tough crowd when you've got a slightly different interpretation of things :) ) calling God a liar, simply because I believe that God's time, and our time are two different things... and what may be one day to God, is billions of years to us. There's no contradiction, there's no claim that God wasn't speaking the truth. It's creation, as explained by God, so that Man could comprehend.

Set yourself back 6000 years ago. And be honest. If God came down and spoke to you, and said "I created the world in 6 days ... well, 6 days for me, but here on Earth it was more like 15 billion years. Here, let me explain the complex process in detail about how the universe, the world, and the heavens were created." If he had said that to you, do you honestly believe that you would have comprehended the meaning of those words? I seriously doubt it. But comprehending days, and breaking down the complex processes into simple actions ... that you could comprehend.

It's not as far of a stretch as you seem to think it is.

You claim that ancient man had as much intelligence as we have. What proof do you have of this? Just because the brain is the same size, does not mean the intelligence is the same. Take a mentally challenged individual ... 30 years old, yet with the intelligence of a 6 year old... brain's the same size as an average person, but their intellectual capacity isn't. I'm not saying all ancient people were mentally challenged, but I am saying their intellectual capacity wasn't nearly on the level of our current standing. You go back in time again, and try explaining analytical geometry to ancient man, or nuclear fusion/fission, chaos theory, or let's try something simple ... explain what television is ... just bring a towel, because when you blow their mind you're going to want to clean up the mess.

I thought I'd already countered the comet theory ... yet I see you put a new twist on it. You're assuming that all comets are the age of the universe. Why? That would be like saying all rocks on Earth are the age of the Earth. That's not a very wise assumption to make. Comets are composed of frozen debris, whether it's from a planet, asteroid, or star, for whatever reason the debris has frozen into a solid object. The object, when caught in the gravitational pull of a star (let's use our solar system as an example), in this case, the Sun, it's placed on an elliptical orbit (imagine that, just like the planets)... however it's orbit is much tighter because it's being pulled into the Sun, rather than "falling" around it. It shoots in, and then is slingshot around the otherside, back out to the far reaches of solar system, at which point it slows, and being caught in the gravitational pull again, it comes back. With each return trip, it loses a little more of it's mass due to coming so near the Sun, it melts (that's what the trail is behind a comet). Some, either on their return trip, or on the subsequent slingshot out, don't make it, either slamming into a planet, or a moon, or an asteroid ... thus being destroyed. Others make regular return trips (like Halley's Comet), becuase they've been fortunate enough to not slam into solid objects, so we get to enjoy them when they come around, but eventually if they never slam into anything, they'll melt completely away, and be gone. As they are made from space debris, new planets, new stars are made, it's foolish to assume that debris in space is the same age as the universe.

Mud, seafloor erosion, blah blah blah. This one is simple. Recyling. Yeah, plate techtonics has something to do with it, but so does weather. Just take a look at rivers that flow into lakes... the sediments don't accumulate on the lake floors, which often aren't even affected by plate techtonics. Why do you think that is? Weather. When water evaporates, and rises into the atmosphere ... do you really think it's pure? I mean ... where's the filter? Go to the cleanest, most non-polluted area you can think of, and take a sample of the rain. You'll find dirt and dust, minerals, and any number of other things, including living organisms within a raindrop.

Sodium in the sea. This goes back to exactly the same reason why sediments haven't accumulated in mass amounts. Weather. Recycling. The very basic premis of nature is recycling.

Earths magnetic field decay ... much like the "shrinking Sun" theory. It's a young Earthers wet dream. Go back and do some research, and you'll find that in truth, the magnetic field has a history of fluctuation. They had nothing to measure it 1000 years ago, so don't assume that it's only decreased over the last 1000 years. Since the technology has been around to measure it, we've seen both increases, and decreases, but no long term decay. Ie: after a period of decrease, it goes through a period of increase, and reaches an equilibrium.

Strata bent into hairpins. Go back and study geology. There's too much information to go into detail, but to put it simply, there's geological processes known as injection molding, where magma is injected into a crack, or pocket of open air within rock. It then cools and hardens and becomes itself, rock. Then we have a massive earthquake that might cause the rock to rise up and form a mountain (two plates collide, and are subsequently thrust upwards), and now this injection mold is exposed and it baffels those with limited geological knowledge, and causes Young Earther's to go into a frenzy about "This is proof that the Earth is young!!!". Of course, that's just one of the processes. I invite you to do some research on your own, you'll see there's a number of reasons for this supposed "discrepency".

Hmmm... while I'm looking up the Sandstone issue, I seem to have found the page you copy/pasted from ... practically word for word. There's ... good lord! There's 4 pages ... maybe 5 on a Google search, that are links to pages that are nothing but an exact word for word copy of what you've posted. 4 or 5 entire pages of a 6 page search for Cambrian Sawatch Sandstone, is nothing but "Proof for a Young Earth" or some other nonsense. And they're all simply copy/pasting the same "proof" word for word. Does nobody actually do their own research anymore? Sheesh!

Ahhh, here we go. After page upon page of Young Earther's copying word for word the exact list that you've presented, I come across an actual study on the area. Just as I suspected, it's an anomally caused by the formation of the mountain ... in other words, during the earthquakes that formed the mountain, magma was also released within the cracks and fissures, which caused the hardened sandstone to heat again, and become fluid enough to inject itself within the upper layers of rock. Studies have been done, and this anomally is observed in only four distinct areas, all containing similar geochemical signatures. So, essentially, the same thing is happening that happens with tightly folded strata. But I commend you for posting that, because that's a new one, I actually had to look for the answer. :D

Skeletons, fossils, and Helium, oh my! Where to start? Bones can be crushed, and burned to dust, there's no reason to not believe this has happened in ancient times. Your information on radioactive decay is just plain false. Some families of radioactive elements produce Helium in their decay, but not all. Actually, quite few. Most of the breakdowns that I've seen only have 3 families: Uranium 235, 238, and Thorium 232. Granted, there's probably more, but I don't feel like searching for them. There's enough that I've seen to show that only a few decay into helium. And the radiohalos in fossils ... you make a broad assumption that foriegn matter is never introduced into fossils. Ie: that foriegn radioactive materials won't be introduced into the fossils from the sediment, or water, or tar, in which they are buried. That the fossils can't become hosts for other matter (you do know that fossils are porous, right?), such that while the other matter decay's it leaves it's "radiohalo" signature within the fossil as well ... thus giving rise to the seemingly "proof" that you've submitted?

Agriculture ... we're back to the intelligence of stone age man ... brain was similar in size, but that doesn't mean the capacity for intelligence was equal. As I stated much earlier, only recently has the population growth exploded, largely due to the European mindset ... conquest, empire, expansion. Before that time, man was predominantly nomadic, following his food. It's not unthinkable that no one discovered plants grew from seeds until 10,000 years ago, but when you look at the time involved ... 6 months to grow an edible crop ... meanwhile you're village is starving ... or follow the large and abundant herds of animals, and have a constant and replensihible stock of food. The choice is simple. The practice of agriculture didn't start until the practice of trade started. When people began trading goods and food, civilizations arose.

History is too short? Why? Cave paintings, statues, lunar cycles, all these are things that don't need to be transported within a nomadic civilization ... save for the records of lunar cycles, which are compact enough to carry by one person. Now let's apply this to the agriculture scenerio above ... these nomadic tribes, if they're writing down their history, they are then having to carry those records with them, through generation after generation. The mass of information would soon become cumbersome, and not suited for nomadic life. They recorded their history in those cave paintings ... at least the history that they felt was important. Their accomplishments. They honored their ancestors in those statues, monoliths, totem poles, etc. But their history was passed down verbally. Which we refer to as Pre-History, because there are no written records. Written history did not start until, you guessed it, trade started, which brought rise to agriculture, which brought rise to civilizations. As these civilizations became stationary, people began putting their history to clay tablets, or papyrus, or sandstone, or whatever surface they found suitable for writing. Since they no longer had to transport these written documents, it became convenient.

Next.

[Jedi]

Originally posted by DarkWolf
There's no contradiction, there's no claim that God wasn't speaking the truth. It's creation, as explained by God, so that Man could comprehend.

Thanks for putting into better words what I was trying to say. I don't see a war between Science and Christianity. I see it as a way to understand both areas better.

I made a mistake of joining this forum in that I joined looking to explore and voice my thoughts hoping that I could learn something that would better my walk with God. Instead, I find I'm knocked back down for my "lack of faith". That is unfortunate as that type of behavior is what kept me away from God in the first place.

I heard a phrase once..."The trouble with Christianity is that it's filled with Christians".

Chuck Swindoll, who happens to also be my pastor, wrote in his book The Grace Awakening a passage I want you to read.

There are killers on the loose today. The problem is that you can't tell by looking. They don't wear little buttons that give away their identity, nor do they carry signs warning everybody to stay away. On the contrary, a lot of them carry Bibles and appear to be clean-living, nice-looking, law-abiding citizens. Most of them spend a lot of time in churches, some in places of religious leadership. Many are so respected in the community, their neighbors would never guess they are living next door to killers. They kill freedom, spontaneity, and creativity; they kill joy as well as productivity. They kill with their words and their pens and their looks. They kill with their attitudes far more often than with their behavior."

He calls these people "Grace Killers". Read the book, search on the web, and better yet...search within yourselves.

Ephesians 2:8
"For by grace you have been saved though faith, and this is not of your own doing; it is the gift of God, not the results of works so that no one may boast."

As for now, I believe that not even you or people like you can affect this grace upon me. Just the same, I'll keep my issues to myself and my pastor from now on.

[DarkWolf]

Originally posted by Chris98GT
Thanks for putting into better words what I was trying to say. I don't see a war between Science and Christianity. I see it as a way to understand both areas better.

I made a mistake of joining this forum in that I joined looking to explore and voice my thoughts hoping that I could learn something that would better my walk with God. Instead, I find I'm knocked back down for my "lack of faith". That is unfortunate as that type of behavior is what kept me away from God in the first place.

I heard a phrase once..."The trouble with Christianity is that it's filled with Christians".

No problem no problem. I believe God gave us science, so we could better understand our world. :)

That phrase is classic! I've heard it before too, and oh so many times it's true. Here's another one: "God, please save me from your followers!" :D

I mean really, to each his own, but some people seriously take it WAY too far. The Bible teaches "Love thy neighbor" ... not "Scoff, laugh and point when he asks questions."

[The Punisher]

Originally posted by DarkWolf


No problem no problem. I believe God gave us science, so we could better understand our world. :)

That phrase is classic! I've heard it before too, and oh so many times it's true. Here's another one: "God, please save me from your followers!" :D

I mean really, to each his own, but some people seriously take it WAY too far. The Bible teaches "Love thy neighbor" ... not "Scoff, laugh and point when he asks questions."
DW, I will be the first to say this was a un-called for statement. I will stand behind Moondog on this one and say where did he Scoff you or Chris98Gt? Where?
Plus, yes you made a true point. God gave us science to better understand our world. But do you understand science is not fireproof? It is as faulty as us humans are. Please tell me you dont base your faith on science.. Science cannot explain God. (I believe that is what Moondog is trying to get across) As much interpreted evidence you think their is for an old earth, there is just as much interpreted evidence for a young earth.
And another point, why do ya'll dare to judge someone simply over a messageboard about their faith. THIS IS A MESSAGE BOARD!!!!!!!!!!!! Many things can be misinterpretated and be confused. JUST CHILL OUT!!! And Plus above, Chris98GT stated
<I>I believe all reasonable things are possible through God, but this is stretching it.</I> Is rising from the dead reasonable? I mean have you ever seen anyone rise from the dead? Well, that is very unreasonable to many people. And this is one of the main unreasonable events that make us Christians..

Point being, I didnt like the fact that Moondog put words in your mouth (Chris98GT) about God being a liar. It was probably a misunderstanding and I dont like the fact of you and DarkWolf now bashing Moondog. You may not think you are, but you are.
Lets forgive each other and try to help and work on the same side of the fence.
:)
<---- My 2 cents

[speedpro50]

I think I will continue not to touch this one...:(

Lee

[MoonDog]

Thank you Lance.

Chris, I read the "reasonable" statement, and the way it reads is that you dont believe it when God said people lived 900+ years. That is calling God a liar. If I misinterpreted what you said, I am sorry.

Jay, we can go round and round on the discussion of a young or old earth. I choose to believe that when God said 6 days of creation, that is what he ment and he wasn't talking in riddles. You believe that we need science to better understand our lives and God. I am sorry you believe that way but at the sametime I respect you views. If I have offended you at all, I am sorry.

[Jedi]

Originally posted by MoonDog
Thank you Lance.

Chris, I read the "reasonable" statement, and the way it reads is that you dont believe it when God said people lived 900+ years. That is calling God a liar. If I misinterpreted what you said, I am sorry.

That's what you read. What you failed to see is that I was asking someone to explain it to me. NOT knock me down with "you are calling God a liar."

I found the answer to my stumbling block on my own. Genesis 6:3. I needed to know how the bible explained it. As far as I saw it was never explained. Now I know.

[DarkWolf]

Originally posted by 281R
DW, I will be the first to say this was a un-called for statement. I will stand behind Moondog on this one and say where did he Scoff you or Chris98Gt? Where?
Plus, yes you made a true point. God gave us science to better understand our world. But do you understand science is not fireproof? It is as faulty as us humans are. Please tell me you dont base your faith on science.. Science cannot explain God. (I believe that is what Moondog is trying to get across) As much interpreted evidence you think their is for an old earth, there is just as much interpreted evidence for a young earth.
And another point, why do ya'll dare to judge someone simply over a messageboard about their faith. THIS IS A MESSAGE BOARD!!!!!!!!!!!! Many things can be misinterpretated and be confused. JUST CHILL OUT!!! And Plus above, Chris98GT stated
<I>I believe all reasonable things are possible through God, but this is stretching it.</I> Is rising from the dead reasonable? I mean have you ever seen anyone rise from the dead? Well, that is very unreasonable to many people. And this is one of the main unreasonable events that make us Christians..

Point being, I didnt like the fact that Moondog put words in your mouth (Chris98GT) about God being a liar. It was probably a misunderstanding and I dont like the fact of you and DarkWolf now bashing Moondog. You may not think you are, but you are.
Lets forgive each other and try to help and work on the same side of the fence.
:)
<---- My 2 cents

No, absolutely my faith is not based on science. That would be foolish :)

I'm not bashing MoonDog personally, though I was implying him in my statement. That statement, however, applies to all Christians who, whether they recognize it or not, have a "holier than thou" attitude. Claiming that someone is calling God a liar, just because they believe Genesis might have been an allegory (don't deny it), that's the exact attitude that works to turn people away from Christianity. People don't want to feel persecuted just because they believe differently, and it's especially devistating to someone searching for their path, to be shot down because they're tyring to understand.

Question, where am I judging anyone on their faith?

When have any of you scoffed at anyone elses' belief? Or put words in their mouths ... for lack of a better description. Shall I quote them?

MoonDog: You must not know the same God that I do, and I will defend His word until the day I die.

281R: Naughty, Naughty, Naughty DW. Your are now assuming that the radiometric dating is a scientific fact. Must I point out all the flaws again? Lets not assume, lets theorize..

Speedpro50: Darkwolf, I would love for you to show me in the scripture how Jesus is not God in the Flesh.

Speedpro50: Believers know some things unbelievers do not and that is a fact. If the Lord Jesus has never spoken to heart and called you son, I understand your not being able to see these things as the truth they are.

Monsoon X: That's something you can't even begin to relate to.

I personally know that there is supreme God and that he sent His Son to die for us, for our sins. WHY? Because what you call many coincediences I call the work of God in my life. I thank God for ALL things that happen in my life. And when I lean on Him and trust that he'll take care of things, HE DOES LIKE HE PROMISED THAT HE WOULD.

And about the Bible being a simple book is wrong. The Bible has withstood the most extreme scruntiny over all the centuries and has never been discounted. No men ALONE could have conjured up a book like the Bible. To disregard it as a simple collection of stories made up by men shows that you have never set out to read it and find errors totally.

Monsoon X: Jay you're gonna have to quit riding the fence when it comes to God.

Speedpro50: The question DW is which God?

281R: DW, obivious your god is different then the God of the Bible. Well, if you want me to read my Bible and know your god, then your god must be the anti-christ.

Speedpro50: dw -- so you would then say that the Son of God (Jesus Christ) lied to those he spoke to saying he was the only way???

Speedpro50: Did God give you your own path or what? To many things you have said don't add up. It sounds like you are mad at religion and have built some type of wall around yourself spiritually.

Monsoon X: DW-For you to conclude that since Jesus and God are one in the same so you choose to worship God and throw away what he says about his Son is an incomplete faith. (The same for many other "religions") You say that you are talking about the same God that Christians talk about yet, when it comes to His plan of salvation you want to alter it. People these days want salvation by their own expectations and not from how God has stated it. You believe in an Omni* God, yet you can't seem to fathom Jesus as His Son, seperate yet the same? What we have here is a spirituality that is a mile wide yet only an inch deep. What you in essence have done is made yourself a god, and made you own path of salvation.

There's plenty more, I don't feel like digging through all the threads. These are all examples of you guys either putting words in my mouth, or scoffing at my (or Chris's) beliefs, just because they differ slightly from your own.

I'm used to this treatment, and it's like water off a ducks back to me, because I know that what I believe is right in my heart, as it was given to me by God. But to some people, statements like this are hurtful, and might make them resent Christians/Christianity. You've got to learn to be more understanding.

Jay, we can go round and round on the discussion of a young or old earth. I choose to believe that when God said 6 days of creation, that is what he ment and he wasn't talking in riddles. You believe that we need science to better understand our lives and God. I am sorry you believe that way but at the sametime I respect you views. If I have offended you at all, I am sorry.

No harm done, I've got pretty thick skin :) Allow me to clarify though, I don't believe we need science. I believe God gave us science. I believe it's a gift from God. And to answer you Lee, yes, I know science is not fireproof. And yes, I know that for every evidence of an old Earth there's a counter evidence for a young Earth ... which is precisely why I said the same thing earlier. :D There's no definitive evidence one way or the other. So it comes down to what you personally believe.

[46Tbird]

Originally posted by MoonDog
Chris, I read the "reasonable" statement, and the way it reads is that you dont believe it when God said people lived 900+ years. That is calling God a liar. If I misinterpreted what you said, I am sorry.
Man, that's brutal. I thought this was supposed to be a non-bashing Forum.

And FYI, there is no evidence (besides the infallible words of man... I mean God... as written in the Bible) that men can live much past 120 years. There is just absolutely nothing else that supports it.

DW - I am very impressed with your knowledge of both science and scripture, and it looks like you have done quite a bit of soul searching. Kudos to you for being able to see both sides of an argument, and not blindly following either flock. And for having the patience of Job with these Christians. :D LOL

[speedpro50]

Originally posted by 46Tbird

Man, that's brutal. I thought this was supposed to be a non-bashing Forum.

And FYI, there is no evidence (besides the infallible words of man... I mean God... as written in the Bible) that men can live much past 120 years. There is just absolutely nothing else that supports it.

DW - I am very impressed with your knowledge of both science and scripture, and it looks like you have done quite a bit of soul searching. Kudos to you for being able to see both sides of an argument, and not blindly following either flock. And for having the patience of Job with these Christians. :D LOL

Please watch what you say about "these Christians" and don't forget that we all can make mistakes. Christians are not perfect, yet quite the opposite. The 1st step in becoming a Christian is realizing just that.

[speedpro50]

Originally posted by DarkWolf


No, absolutely my faith is not based on science. That would be foolish :)

I'm not bashing MoonDog personally, though I was implying him in my statement. That statement, however, applies to all Christians who, whether they recognize it or not, have a "holier than thou" attitude. Claiming that someone is calling God a liar, just because they believe Genesis might have been an allegory (don't deny it), that's the exact attitude that works to turn people away from Christianity. People don't want to feel persecuted just because they believe differently, and it's especially devistating to someone searching for their path, to be shot down because they're tyring to understand.

Question, where am I judging anyone on their faith?

When have any of you scoffed at anyone elses' belief? Or put words in their mouths ... for lack of a better description. Shall I quote them?



There's plenty more, I don't feel like digging through all the threads. These are all examples of you guys either putting words in my mouth, or scoffing at my (or Chris's) beliefs, just because they differ slightly from your own.

I'm used to this treatment, and it's like water off a ducks back to me, because I know that what I believe is right in my heart, as it was given to me by God. But to some people, statements like this are hurtful, and might make them resent Christians/Christianity. You've got to learn to be more understanding.



No harm done, I've got pretty thick skin :) Allow me to clarify though, I don't believe we need science. I believe God gave us science. I believe it's a gift from God. And to answer you Lee, yes, I know science is not fireproof. And yes, I know that for every evidence of an old Earth there's a counter evidence for a young Earth ... which is precisely why I said the same thing earlier. :D There's no definitive evidence one way or the other. So it comes down to what you personally believe.

What comment or question of mine were you referring to?

Lee

[speedpro50]

Originally posted by DarkWolf

When have any of you scoffed at anyone elses' belief? Or put words in their mouths ... for lack of a better description. Shall I quote them?

There's plenty more, I don't feel like digging through all the threads. These are all examples of you guys either putting words in my mouth, or scoffing at my (or Chris's) beliefs, just because they differ slightly from your own.


I am not seeing in your quotes above where I scoffed @ your beliefs or put words in your mouth. We were having a discussion and I was simply respoding to what you had previously said.

Lee

[The Punisher]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
281R: Naughty, Naughty, Naughty DW. Your are now assuming that the radiometric dating is a scientific fact. Must I point out all the flaws again? Lets not assume, lets theorize.

281R: DW, obivious your god is different then the God of the Bible. Well, if you want me to read my Bible and know your god, then your god must be the anti-christ.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DW, where above in these two statements you pointed out did I scoffed at your belief. I dont really know what the first statement has to do with anything. But the second, I simply pointed out that you told me to go read my Bible and I would know your God. My and everyone elses Bible from the word of God states Jesus saith unto him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."
Now you go to say that you think Christ is not the only way to Heaven for us people. So in this verse you are either telling me that you dont think Jesus said this and this is the only way or you are serving another god. Because you stated that you know God and you told me to read my Bible to know your God and my Bible states you cannot get to God or be saved except through Christ. If this is true, which I hold that it is, I dont see why God would make an exception for you, me, or anyone else.
I was just pointing out the obvious...

[speedpro50]

Originally posted by 281R
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
281R: Naughty, Naughty, Naughty DW. Your are now assuming that the radiometric dating is a scientific fact. Must I point out all the flaws again? Lets not assume, lets theorize.

281R: DW, obivious your god is different then the God of the Bible. Well, if you want me to read my Bible and know your god, then your god must be the anti-christ.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DW, where above in these two statements you pointed out did I scoffed at your belief. I dont really know what the first statement has to do with anything. But the second, I simply pointed out that you told me to go read my Bible and I would know your God. My and everyone elses Bible from the word of God states Jesus saith unto him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."
Now you go to say that you think Christ is not the only way to Heaven for us people. So in this verse you are either telling me that you dont think Jesus said this and this is the only way or you are serving another God. Because you stated that you know God and you told me to read my Bible to know your God and my Bible states you cannot get to God or be saved to be with God through Christ. If this is true, which I hold that it is, I dont see why God would make an exception for you, me, or anyone else.
I was just pointing out the obvious...

This also corresponds with your statement Lance.

1 John 4:3
And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

Lee

[MoonDog]

Originally posted by speedpro50


This also corresponds with your statement Lance.

1 John 4:3
And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

Lee

I am not touching that one, leave me out of it. :)


Sorry Chris, I saw it more as a statement then a question. But, if you will let me,I will
try to explain at least one theory as to how man could have lived to be 900+ years old.


Gen 1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it
divide the waters from the waters.


The Hebrew word for firmament is raqiya (raw-kee'-ah)
properly an expanse, a wide extent of space or body, the firmament or visible arch of the
sky: - firmament.

So, God creates a visible arch in the middle of the waters and divides the two. It is
theorized that a crystalized canopy encompassed the earth that was held in place by the
earths electromagnetic field. This had a twofold effect, one would be that it would filter
out the harmful ultraviolet rays from the sun. The other would be that it would allow for
a higher content of oxygen in the air we breath. This is verified in the fossil record,
they have found air pockets that have contained upto 30% oxygen, more then twice our air
of today.

Those two things, the filtered sun rays, and more oxygen, coupled with a time when I believe
there were less sickness. In my opinion, I say less sickness because since the earth is
younger (for arguement sake we will say at least 2.5 billion years younger and no humans
around) there would not be the diseases that we have today. Many but not all of the diseases
we have come from an improper diet and sexual immorallity. So, those three things alone would
cause someone today to live close to 200 - 250 years easy IMO.

Now in James we read:


Jam 1:15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished,
bringeth forth death.


When God created us, He ment for us to live forever. But when sin was introduced into the
world it brought death with it.


Gen 6:3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he alsois
flesh: yet his days shall be a hundred and twenty years.


At this point, the canopy gives way, (by the way, the electromagnetic field has a half-life
of 1400 years, from the time of the creation of Adam to the flood is 1656 years) and floods
the earth and Noah and his family are the only survivors. Hence, less oxygen, rays from the
sun, more diseases from decaying flesh, and the mere fact that God had numbered our days to
120 years. It is interesting to note that before the flood the average lifespan was 881, after
the flood it dropped to 218 on average and continued to drop through the ages.

This is a just a theory but it is a good explaination as to how they could have lived that
long.

[MoonDog]

Originally posted by 46Tbird

Man, that's brutal. I thought this was supposed to be a non-bashing Forum.

It wasn't brutal, I was apologizing and said I was sorry. :rolleyes:


And FYI, there is no evidence (besides the infallible words of man... I mean God... as written in the Bible) that men can live much past 120 years. There is just absolutely nothing else that supports it.

No support. Thats your opinion.


DW - I am very impressed with your knowledge of both science and scripture, and it looks like you have done quite a bit of soul searching. Kudos to you for being able to see both sides of an argument, and not blindly following either flock. And for having the patience of Job with these Christians. :D LOL

"theses Christians"? I wont even ask what that is supposed to mean.

[46Tbird]

Originally posted by MoonDog
No support. Thats your opinion.
No. Actually, that's your opinion. Go re-read what you wrote and you'll see that it's full of 'I think', 'IMO', 'my opinion', etc... and has no links substantiating any of the data. Sorry, it's that darned ol scientific method that I think needs to be upheld.
"theses Christians"? I wont even ask what that is supposed to mean.
LOL - you Christians get up in a wad even when I'm not insulting anybody. Let's take it one step at a time here:

1. DW takes a lot of care and time to respond to all of your inquiries on what and why he belives what he does

2. You know that DW and I do not have 100% confidence in the words of the Bible and have not accepted Jesus Christ as our savior; hence, we are 'not Christian'

3. It has been made perfectly clear that you belive verbatim every written word in the Bible and have accepted Jesus Christ as your savior; hence, you are 'Christian'

This makes my line "Kudos to you... for having the patience of Job with these Christians" make perfect sense.

[MoonDog]

Originally posted by 46Tbird

No. Actually, that's your opinion. Go re-read what you wrote and you'll see that it's full of 'I think', 'IMO', 'my opinion', etc... and has no links substantiating any of the data. Sorry, it's that darned ol scientific method that I think needs to be upheld.

[/B]

I was responding to your quote:

Originally posted by 46Tbird

And FYI, there is no evidence (besides the infallible words of man... I mean God... as written in the Bible) that men can live much past 120 years. There is just absolutely nothing else that supports it.



First, for you to say that nothing but the bible supports man living past 120 years is in fact an opinion, your opinion.

Second, when I say 'I think', 'IMO', 'my opinion', it is because the first person to disagree with me will start spouting off that it isn't true, asking where the links are, saying that it is just my opinion. So to save time (mine and yours) I put that in there to keep from arguing. The people that are going to believe it, will, and the ones not believing, won't. Of course, this is just my opinion.

I think that is going in my sig. :D

[DarkWolf]

Originally posted by speedpro50
This also corresponds with your statement Lance.

1 John 4:3
And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

Lee

This is exactly what I'm talking about, putting words in my mouth. Where have I ever stated that Jesus isn't the son of God, or God in the flesh? When have I ever said God has never spoken to my heart? You make an assumption. Assuming I called Jesus a liar for saying he's the only way. Etc.

And 281R, when I say that my God is your God, because there is only one God, and then you tell me that my God must be the Anti-Christ ... that's a scoff, if not an outright bash of my beliefs.

What comment or question of mine were you referring to?

Lee

Oops, I meant 281R, for some reason I thought his name was Lee :)

[The Punisher]

Originally posted by DarkWolf


This is exactly what I'm talking about, putting words in my mouth. Where have I ever stated that Jesus isn't the son of God, or God in the flesh? When have I ever said God has never spoken to my heart? You make an assumption. Assuming I called Jesus a liar for saying he's the only way. Etc.

And 281R, when I say that my God is your God, because there is only one God, and then you tell me that my God must be the Anti-Christ ... that's a scoff, if not an outright bash of my beliefs.



Oops, I meant 281R, for some reason I thought his name was Lee :)
Dude, you have already told us in a previous post that you do not think Jesus is the only way to heaven and God and Jesus says he is THE ONLY WAY... Quit contradicting yourself.. And no I am not scoffing you, I am stating the obvious. I understand you have a different view of God than Christians do, but so do Jews, Muslims, satanic cults, and others. But I am stating the obvious here, you tell me to go study my Bible to know your God and I have. He says no one comes to him except through Christ. You disagree with this so me being a Christian and excepting what Christ has says tells me we are not standing on the same rock. No offense, but I can not walk the fence on this matter.

[MoonDog]

Jay, do you believe these passages?


1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

Act 2:21 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.
Act 2:36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

Act 4:10 Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.
Act 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
Rom 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Joh 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.


Basicly they are saying that only through Jesus are you saved and that only through Him can you enter into Gods kingdom.

[DarkWolf]

Originally posted by 281R
Dude, you have already told us in a previous post that you do not think Jesus is the only way to heaven and God and Jesus says he is THE ONLY WAY... Quit contradicting yourself.. And no I am not scoffing you, I am stating the obvious. I understand you have a different view of God than Christians do, but so do Jews, Muslims, satanic cults, and others. But I am stating the obvious here, you tell me to go study my Bible to know your God and I have. He says no one comes to him except through Christ. You disagree with this so me being a Christian and excepting what Christ has says tells me we are not standing on the same rock. No offense, but I can not walk the fence on this matter.

Are you intentionally missreading my posts ... so that you can try to find a contradiction? Here, let me break it down for you simply:

1: I believe Jesus was God in the Flesh.
2: I believe God visited many cultures/nations, not just Isreal/Jews, to spread his word.
3: I believe that through God are you saved. Though there are different ways through God (Ie: through Jesus (God) for Christians).
4: My God is the same as your God, however the Bible tells you differently, and you believe the Bible, so you don't believe my God is the same.
5: God has given me this path to walk, and I choose to walk the path He has given me.
6: I'm not "on the fence" about my faith / beliefs.

The only real difference here, is you choose to believe the Bible unquestioningly, while I choose to put my faith in God, not a book that was written by man (no matter how divinely inspired said book may or may not be) ... if it's written by man, it's subject to the fallability of man. I do not deny that the Bible is a piece of the puzzle (as has already been agreed to ("We know it's not the whole truth, but it's ALL THE TRUTH WE NEED.") I believe that's near the same words one of you have said.) I do not deny that the Bible is divinely inspired. I do not deny that the Bible contains truths. I do not agree that the Bible is the unquestionable and infallible Word of God. Why? Because it was written by man.

And MoonDog, yes I believe those passages. However, my belief is that Jesus was God in the flesh, so those passages mean that through God are we saved. My belief does not invalidate those passages, and it does not call Jesus/God a liar.

I understand with the way that I play devil's advocate ( :D ) with certain issues (giving possibilities for the opposite viewpoint, pointing out that none of us really know's if what we believe is right ... we just believe that it is ... etc.) that you may take my counterpoints to mean that I actually believe that particular way. Sometimes yes, sometimes no, so unless I say "I believe this..." please do not assume that I actually believe what I'm saying, I'm usually just giving a counterpoint to continue debating. Hopefully this will help in clearing up any supposed contradictions.

[MoonDog]

Originally posted by DarkWolf
2: I believe God visited many cultures/nations, not just Isreal/Jews, to spread his word.

To an extent, I believe this sentence. The one thing I would change here would be "God" to "a god". But, other then that I would say that it is ture.

Originally posted by DarkWolf
("We know it's not the whole truth, but it's ALL THE TRUTH WE NEED.")

This in no way says that anything in the bible is untrue. It is saying that everything in the bible is true but not all truth is in the bible.

Originally posted by DarkWolf
3: I believe that through God are you saved. Though there are different ways through God (Ie: through Jesus (God) for Christians).

This would seem to contridict the bible.

Joh 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.


Jesus (the Son) speaking to us as a man says that he is to only way to get to the Father (God). So, to say that there are several ways to God would contridict this verse. Not all truth is in the bible but everything in it is true, therefore this is a true verse. See, Jesus was God but he was a man at the sametime. I dont think you are extinguishing the two. Explain this if you will, I would like to know if I follow where you are coming from.

Originally posted by DarkWolf
And MoonDog, yes I believe those passages. However, my belief is that Jesus was God in the flesh, so those passages mean that through God are we saved. My belief does not invalidate those passages, and it does not call Jesus/God a liar.

Been there done that. I am not trying to catch you in a lie or anything. I am just trying to understand where you are coming from and your beliefs on Jesus/God. I think I know but I am just trying to clarify a couple of things.

My next question would be, do you believe that everything contained in the bible is truth? I think I already know how you will answer this but say it anyway. :)

[The Punisher]

Originally posted by DarkWolf


Are you intentionally missreading my posts ... so that you can try to find a contradiction? Here, let me break it down for you simply:

1: I believe Jesus was God in the Flesh.
2: I believe God visited many cultures/nations, not just Isreal/Jews, to spread his word.
3: I believe that through God are you saved. Though there are different ways through God (Ie: through Jesus (God) for Christians).
4: My God is the same as your God, however the Bible tells you differently, and you believe the Bible, so you don't believe my God is the same.
5: God has given me this path to walk, and I choose to walk the path He has given me.
6: I'm not "on the fence" about my faith / beliefs.

The only real difference here, is you choose to believe the Bible unquestioningly, while I choose to put my faith in God, not a book that was written by man (no matter how divinely inspired said book may or may not be) ... if it's written by man, it's subject to the fallability of man. I do not deny that the Bible is a piece of the puzzle (as has already been agreed to ("We know it's not the whole truth, but it's ALL THE TRUTH WE NEED.") I believe that's near the same words one of you have said.) I do not deny that the Bible is divinely inspired. I do not deny that the Bible contains truths. I do not agree that the Bible is the unquestionable and infallible Word of God. Why? Because it was written by man.

And MoonDog, yes I believe those passages. However, my belief is that Jesus was God in the flesh, so those passages mean that through God are we saved. My belief does not invalidate those passages, and it does not call Jesus/God a liar.

I understand with the way that I play devil's advocate ( :D ) with certain issues (giving possibilities for the opposite viewpoint, pointing out that none of us really know's if what we believe is right ... we just believe that it is ... etc.) that you may take my counterpoints to mean that I actually believe that particular way. Sometimes yes, sometimes no, so unless I say "I believe this..." please do not assume that I actually believe what I'm saying, I'm usually just giving a counterpoint to continue debating. Hopefully this will help in clearing up any supposed contradictions.
Yes, now I have clarity. I see how you believe and you know how I believe. I hope you understood I was not scoffing you, but I guess it wasnt clear about the matter. I just hope you dont go around with "these Christians" aditude as you stated before.

[DarkWolf]

Originally posted by 281R
Yes, now I have clarity. I see how you believe and you know how I believe. I hope you understood I was not scoffing you, but I guess it wasnt clear about the matter. I just hope you dont go around with "these Christians" aditude as you stated before.

Wasn't me :D But I'm glad we cleared it up for any future discussions.

Originally posted by MoonDog
To an extent, I believe this sentence. The one thing I would change here would be "God" to "a god". But, other then that I would say that it is ture.

This in no way says that anything in the bible is untrue. It is saying that everything in the bible is true but not all truth is in the bible.

My next question would be, do you believe that everything contained in the bible is truth? I think I already know how you will answer this but say it anyway.

This is why I said that the Bible is part of the puzzle. I believe it contains truths, but I don't agree that it's unquestionable/infallible, simply because it was written by man. On the issue of salvation, my belief doesn't contradict the Bible, because the Bible gives one way to salvation (but it's presented as the only way). I believe that salvation comes through God, and I believe Jesus was God in the flesh, so you're still being saved through God ... no contradiction with the Bible. You see there being a distinction between Jesus and God (which is kind of confusing to me, as you say Jesus was God, but he was in the form of man. Isn't that just saying Jesus was God in the flesh?). I don't see a distinction. Jesus was God in the flesh, so whether he gave his message as Jesus to the Jews, or as God to Moses ... it's the same being, just in a different form.

Also, there is only one God. The "gods" of other religions are either A) God as he appeared to that monotheistic culture, or B) in polytheistic cultures, God is the creator and above all other "gods". However the other "gods" aren't gods at all ... the easiest way to explain it is that they're angels. People chose to worship them, and proclaimed them as gods. If you look at the core message of all religions, you'll see the same pattern, the same message, as that which you find in the Bible. It's hard to do that when you believe the Bible is unquestionable, because you'll be looking at it with the intent to prove it wrong, and the first minute detail that's different, will automatically invalidate it in it's entirety in your mind.

I used to be the same way, when I believe the Bible was unquestionable. When I came upon my first question that the Bible didn't have an answer for (Dinosaurs), I wasn't even thinking about the length of time involved, I just wanted to know why Dinosaurs were not mentioned in the Bible. That was in 2nd grade. From 2nd to 10th grade I never got an answer to that question, and others that came up over the course of time. Yes, I was angry, because I believed the Bible was unquestionable ... yet here I had questions that the Bible couldn't answer. Of course, I've already explained how it lead me to renounce relgion, and deny God, and I got sick, etc...

Anyway, while I was studying other religions, I wasn't looking to prove them wrong. Nor was I looking to discover the same patterns/messages over and over again. I was simply searching for a religion that could answer my questions. I got into Wicca and Shamanism, not because they answered my questions, but because there is no "definitive word of God" for them. There's no book that claims absolute authority over the religion(s). I started to get into Druidism for the same reason. Here, these were religions that at their core were the same as Christianity, yet they did not raise these questions, because there was no "absolute word of God". If you had a question, all you had to do was ask ... be it through meditation / prayer, or by finding the answeres yourself by doing the research. There was nothing that contradicted these religions, and they didn't contradict other religions.

Before I started practicing Druidism, one night during meditation / prayer, I guess you could say, I had an epiphany (again, this has already been explained). All the little pieces came together, all the same patterns and messages came together, and the realization came over me that all of these religions came from the same source: God. Obviously the epiphany goes much deeper than that, but I consider it a personal thing between me and God.

[MoonDog]

Originally posted by DarkWolf
This is why I said that the Bible is part of the puzzle. I believe it contains truths, but I don't agree that it's unquestionable/infallible, simply because it was written by man.

If I am reading this correct. You are saying that since the bible was written by men (who were inspired by God) it contains truths but there is a certain level of error. Simply, you dont beleive everything written in the bible. Right?

[DarkWolf]

More like: I don't believe that the Bible is infallible, and unquestionable.

Yes, because it was written by man. Everything done by man (be it writing the Bible, or writing a novel, etc.) is subject to the corruption of man. No matter how divinely inspired the men were, they were still men.

[MoonDog]

Originally posted by DarkWolf
More like: I don't believe that the Bible is infallible, and unquestionable.

Yes, because it was written by man. Everything done by man (be it writing the Bible, or writing a novel, etc.) is subject to the corruption of man. No matter how divinely inspired the men were, they were still men.

infallible=Incapable of erring
unquestionable=Beyond question or doubt

So, I can rewrite your statement to read:

I don't believe that the Bible is incapable of error, and beyond question or doubt.

This is an untrue statement, the Bible is inerrant and infallible. Why? Because the character of God demands it. God, who cannot lie (Titus 1:2), cannot permit anything that is not true or totally accurate to stand as His Word. For example, if Paul, when writing the Epistle to the Romans, made an error in what he wrote, God, who sees and knows all things, would know about it. Would He, as a righteous God, stand by and do nothing about it? Not the God of perfection whom I worship!

The Bible is inerrant (having no errors), and it is infallible (incapable of error), because it is God's Word. The Bible is unique, set apart from all other books in history, different from all other writings. Why? Because it belongs to God, it reflects His character, and it tells the story of His love for us.

Please don't come back with the "it was written by man" speach. We all agree it was written by men, but that does not mean it is untrue or with error.

[DarkWolf]

And as I said, this is where we differ in our belief.

[46Tbird]

Originally posted by MoonDog
This is an untrue statement, the Bible is inerrant and infallible. Why? Because the character of God demands it. God, who cannot lie (Titus 1:2), cannot permit anything that is not true or totally accurate to stand as His Word.
So the proof that the Bible is the Word of God... is a passage from the Bible? That's circular logic.

MoonDog, what happens if a deviant person changes the message given in a passage of someone's Bible and then gives it back to the owner to study... is God going to change it back? Or will he strike down the perpetrator? If he does neither, then He will be permitting a book that is not totally true to stand as His Word.

There are many different religious texts that say they are the 'true' word of God, and are accepted as such. Are they all true or totally accurate? Because they most certainly are standing as His Word.

As I read it, this could be taken as a bash against Christianity, but it most certainly is not. Just looking for some interesting conversation. :)

[MoonDog]

Can you or anyone else give me a verse or passage from some other religion, i.e. Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism, Confucianism, etc. that says that their book contains the true words of God? And since there are "many" such texts, can you give me 3? I would like to see it.

[MoonDog]

Originally posted by DarkWolf
I used to be the same way, when I believe the Bible was unquestionable. When I came upon my first question that the Bible didn't have an answer for (Dinosaurs), I wasn't even thinking about the length of time involved, I just wanted to know why Dinosaurs were not mentioned in the Bible.

Dinosaurs: They are mentioned. These dont sound like anything around today.

Job 40:15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.
Job 40:16 Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.
Job 40:17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.
Job 40:18 His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.

Job 41:1 Canst thou draw out leviathan with a hook? or his tongue with a cord which thou lettest down?
Job 41:2 Canst thou put a hook into his nose? or bore his jaw through with a thorn?
Job 41:14 Who can open the doors of his face? his teeth are terrible round about.
Job 41:15 His scales are his pride, shut up together as with a close seal.
Job 41:18 By his sneezes a light doth shine, and his eyes are like the eyelids of the morning.
Job 41:19 Out of his mouth go burning lamps, and sparks of fire leap out.
Job 41:20 Out of his nostrils goeth smoke, as out of a seething pot or caldron.
Job 41:21 His breath kindleth coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth.

[46Tbird]

Originally posted by MoonDog
Dinosaurs: They are mentioned. These dont sound like anything around today.

Job 41:19 Out of his mouth go burning lamps, and sparks of fire leap out.
Job 41:20 Out of his nostrils goeth smoke, as out of a seething pot or caldron.
Job 41:21 His breath kindleth coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth.
This is not describing a dinosaur.

Sounds like a dragon to me. A mythical creature. Is there a verse that describes a horse with a long protruding horn too? :p

[MoonDog]

Originally posted by 46Tbird

This is not describing a dinosaur.

Sounds like a dragon to me. A mythical creature. Is there a verse that describes a horse with a long protruding horn too? :p

Komodo DRAGON :)
http://www.fonz.org/animals/images/dragon.jpg

Dont tell me that you did not know that there dinosaur fossils have been excavated that show a strange protuberance, with internal cavity, on top of the head. It is conceivable that this could have served as a sort of mixing chamber for combustible gases that would ignite when exhaled into the outside oxygen. There is no other logical purpose for this, you can't say it had no use, that would go against evolution.

There is such a thing as a bombardier beetle, same principle. Read up on it, you may learn something. :D


:eek:
http://www.petbutler.com/FlashFax/BomBeet.jpg

By the way, Psalm 92:10 But my horn shalt thou exalt like the horn of a unicorn: I shall be anointed with fresh oil. :p

[The Punisher]

Sadly, because many people have been taught evolution, they think dinosaurs lived millions of years BEFORE man. If we get rid of our false evolutionary ideas, it makes so much sense to say that Behemoth was a dinosaur!

:D

[46Tbird]

Yeah, like those fake dinosaur footprints in Glen Rose! I mean, who could really believe it takes more than a few thousand years for mud to turn to stone, get buried, have a river change course and run over and expose them?

Millions of years...?? Please!

:p

[MoonDog]

Originally posted by 46Tbird
Yeah, like those fake dinosaur footprints in Glen Rose! I mean, who could really believe it takes more than a few thousand years for mud to turn to stone, get buried, have a river change course and run over and expose them?

Millions of years...?? Please!

:p

Just because something is 'fossilized' does not mean that it is millions of years old. When the conditions and materials are right, a bone can become filled with minerals fairly quickly ... researchers have found that chicken bones and wood can be replaced with minerals in just five to ten years.


This boot and leg were found in a creek bed near the West Texas town of Iraan in the 1980's. The leg has completely fossilized, while the boot has not. Did it take millions of years for this to fossilize? No, of course not.

http://www.dfwstangs.net/hosting/MoonDog/fossil_boot.jpg

[46Tbird]

Originally posted by MoonDog
Did it take millions of years for this to fossilize? No, of course not.
Dinosaurs had boots too! :p

You can turn your nose to scientific research if you want to, but keep in mind they don't have an agenda when they are trying to explain the phenomena they encounter. If there are fifteen different fields of research and they are all leading to a multi-billion year old universe, all from different angles... then I will conclude that the universe is billions of years old. Go ahead and think dinosaur fossils are a few decades old if you want to.

[The Punisher]

Originally posted by 46Tbird
Go ahead and think dinosaur fossils are a few decades old if you want to.
And on the same line, you can go ahead and think dinosaur fossils are a few millions of years old if you want to. :D

[MoonDog]

Originally posted by 46Tbird
Dinosaurs had boots too! :p

You can turn your nose to scientific research if you want to, but keep in mind they don't have an agenda when they are trying to explain the phenomena they encounter. If there are fifteen different fields of research and they are all leading to a multi-billion year old universe, all from different angles... then I will conclude that the universe is billions of years old. Go ahead and think dinosaur fossils are a few decades old if you want to.

Dude, I am just stating facts here. I just proved you you that it doesn't take millions of years for bone to fossilize. And you choose to dismiss it because it doesn't line up with what you believe. Do you think that scientists telll you everything that they find in their studies? If you do then you are a fool. They only tell you what they want you to hear, and that my friend is an agenda. Most of the scientists today are out to try to prove the bible wrong. To bad they have failed.

Besides, all of the scientific studies are done by man, and since man has flaws, that makes the studies flawed. So, most scientific "evidence" is untrue and can't be trusted. Just like everything else that is done by man, right?

Originally posted by MoonDog
Can you or anyone else give me a verse or passage from some other religion, i.e. Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism, Confucianism, etc. that says that their book contains the true words of God? And since there are "many" such texts, can you give me 3? I would like to see it.

I still have not received an answer to this, how come? How about just 2 such references? :p

[46Tbird]

Originally posted by MoonDog
Do you think that scientists telll you everything that they find in their studies? If you do then you are a fool.
Well call me a fool then. Scientists DO report all their findings. That is what makes them scientists. That's how you know about a leg getting fossilized. If they pick and choose what they decide to report, then they ARE on an agenda and are not following the Scientific Method.
I still have not received an answer to this, how come? How about just 2 such references? :p
Since I'm not a scholar of ANY religious texts (especially those that are not well-documented or written in English), I don't have time to search for religious quotes. But for now I'll assume you are right, that the Holy Bible is the only religious text that claims to be the literal Word of God. From what I know about them, other religious texts claim to be ABOUT God, not BY God. Since ALL of them were actually written by man (i.e, did not fall from the sky, and written in God's handwriting), I can't see how one is to be believed above any other. They're ALL man-made.

[The Punisher]

Originally posted by 46Tbird
Well call me a fool then. Scientists DO report all their findings. That is what makes them scientists. That's how you know about a leg getting fossilized. If they pick and choose what they decide to report, then they ARE on an agenda and are not following the Scientific Method.

Since I'm not a scholar of ANY religious texts (especially those that are not well-documented or written in English), I don't have time to search for religious quotes. But for now I'll assume you are right, that the Holy Bible is the only religious text that claims to be the literal Word of God. From what I know about them, other religious texts claim to be ABOUT God, not BY God. Since ALL of them were actually written by man (i.e, did not fall from the sky, and written in God's handwriting), I can't see how one is to be believed above any other. They're ALL man-made. science is man made, so why believe any of it?
Plus, you are so sure scientist report all their findings and you trust in them. Then why is it so hard for you to trust the men who wrote the Bible were not crazy and writing it from the word of God. You sure are quick to scientific belief and very sceptical about spiritual religious belief.

[MoonDog]

Originally posted by 46Tbird
I don't have time to search for religious quotes. But for now I'll assume you are right, that the Holy Bible is the only religious text that claims to be the literal Word of God.

You are proving my point here, Danny. Just because I wrote something and posted it you are assuming that it is true. How do you know that I am not lieing unless you look it up for yourself. Afterall, I have my own agenda since I am a Christian, right?

Scientists are the same way, they have an agenda and publish what they want you to believe, and since you don't have the time to study for yourself you choose to believe whatever they say. You have no idea whether they are lieing to you or not.

What I and Lance and Lee and JC and others have done is studied to find out what the real truth is and that is what we have found. Think for yourself man, and stop letting the scientists cram you full their own religion, Secular Humanism.

[46Tbird]

Originally posted by 281R
science is man made, so why believe any of it?
You're kind of skewing what I'm saying. I'm not saying that what is man-made is necessarily wrong, just to be taken with a grain of salt. It's OK to use your common sense sometimes to weed out the facts from the BS.

Did Noah reeeeeaally get two of every animal on board the Ark? The Bible tells you Yes, but God-given common sense tells you No, it's not possible. With all the research we have done, with all the travelling we do into rain forests, we still find thousands of new species every year. So to say that a man was able to find a male and female of every species on earth... and get them all together without eating each other (tigers)... or flying away (mosquitos)... or running away (cheetahs)... and be fed (cattle)... and not procreate (rabbits)... AND build a giant boat to put them all in... IN A SINGLE LIFETIME... is dumb. Then after the Ark landed, he had to take them all back to their homeland and hope that they were able to procreate and be successful (what did the lions have to eat - grass? - or both of the antelopes? ;) ). When you have to stretch and distort what you know in order to make it 'work' (people lived longer, the Ark is now in heaven, etc...) well, you just aren't using your head.

I know what you're going to say... "With God, nothing is impossible". And you're right. But your book has answers for every little question that divert from real knowledge and are faith-based. For example, "The earth is about 6000 years old". Science knows this is untrue. Formations in caves can be measured as they are being built. And based on the amount of material deposited every year, we can extrapolate that it takes hundreds of thousands of years for water to deposit enough calcium to create them.

The Bible gets you locked into a viewpoint that science doesn't follow. With science you get to understand all that God has done before we came. God wants you to know what he has done, why are you shrouding yourself inside of a book written by man that keeps you from truly understanding the wonders God has created?
Plus, you are so sure scientist report all their findings and you trust in them. Then why is it so hard for you to trust the men who wrote the Bible were not crazy and writing it from the word of God. You sure are quick to scientific belief and very sceptical about spiritual religious belief.
No, believe it or not I don't trust every scientist's findings. I also understand that an agenda has to exist for research to be done. But it happens all the time that a discovery is made that turns the prevailing scientific opinion upside-down. Being willing to accept that mistakes will happen, that all answers aren't known, that we still have much to learn and understand about this wonderful world that God created for us... is what makes science a way to come closer to God.

It's just my opinion, guys. You are entitled to your own. But I won't stick my head in the sand just to appease the authors of a book. Like the one I just wrote. :) LOL

[MoonDog]

Originally posted by 46Tbird
Science knows this is untrue.


This is just an opinion. There is no one alive today that can stand here and say "Yes, the Earth is 4.5 billion years old because I was there!" An old earth is just a theory just like a young earth is a theory. Anything that relates to the age of the earth or dinosaur bones or anything that can be considered pre-historic is all theory, it is not a known fact. Yet, they teach it as fact in school dont they? :rolleyes: It boils down to who you want to believe, I choose to believe God, who will not lie, over a man who has flaws and has been know to lie.

[46Tbird]

Originally posted by MoonDog
Scientists are the same way, they have an agenda and publish what they want you to believe, and since you don't have the time to study for yourself you choose to believe whatever they say. You have no idea whether they are lieing to you or not.
*sigh*

You are right. I don't have the time to prove every fallacy written in a science book. But when you are a scientist, and report your findings, you are going to be scruitinized by your peers. You need evidence, documentation, and the findings of those that came before you to make claims that are going to be accepted.

But you also realize that your evidence, your documentation, and the findings of those that came before you are subject to be thrown out if new data comes along that disproves it.

That's the difference between scientific and religious doctrine. :)

[The Punisher]

Originally posted by MoonDog
This is just an opinion. There is no one alive today that can stand here and say "Yes, the Earth is 4.5 billion years old because I was there!" An old earth is just a theory just like a young earth is a theory. Anything that relates to the age of the earth or dinosaur bones or anything that can be considered pre-historic is all theory, it is not a known fact. Yet, they teach it as fact in school dont they? :rolleyes: It boils down to who you want to believe, I choose to believe God, who will not lie, over a man who has flaws and has been know to lie.
True, there is not enough evidence so support an old earth. People assume way to much. All the evidence I have heard for an old earth was based on assumptions and incomplete studies.

[46Tbird]

Originally posted by MoonDog
I choose to believe God, who will not lie, over a man who has flaws and has been know to lie.
Me too! God is talking to you... do you trust the deciphels over Him? ;)

It's a rhetorical question, I already know your answer. :) We agree on a lot of things guys! I just view the Bible as the old way man used to answer questions he had no possible way of understanding. I just choose to use modern understanding to answer the questions. :)

Peace

[The Punisher]

Originally posted by 46Tbird
*sigh*

You are right. I don't have the time to prove every fallacy written in a science book. But when you are a scientist, and report your findings, you are going to be scruitinized by your peers. You need evidence, documentation, and the findings of those that came before you to make claims that are going to be accepted.

But you also realize that your evidence, your documentation, and the findings of those that came before you are subject to be thrown out if new data comes along that disproves it.

That's the difference between scientific and religious doctrine. :) Not really, if you look at the Bible for instance. The OT was written, and it set a standard. But then Jesus came along which was prophesized in the OT and completely change the way we interact, learn, and be saved by God. Now we have the NT. But except this book is not over,(Revelations) but the war is already won!:D

[46Tbird]

So does the Book of Mormon complete the Trilogy?

[46Tbird]

Originally posted by 281R
True, there is not enough evidence so support an old earth. People assume way to much. All the evidence I have heard for an old earth was based on assumptions and incomplete studies.
So what do you do when you are immersed in a world of scientific data that goes against what the Bible claims is the truth? Do you say, 'Ah, that's BS!', 'That's not true!', 'Liars!', 'Heathens!' ( ;) )...

What I mean is, we are understanding our world and our universe better than ever. And all of our understanding points to a very long period of time to get to this point in existence. Astrological research is indicating a universe that is 10-20 billion years old, with other fields of science concurring. Evidence is leading us to believe we are in a universe that is quite a bit older than the one described in the Bible. Have you ever thought that maybe God is talking to us now? That He has provided knowledge and the ability to produce equipment that will help us to understand what He has created? I'd like to think He is using science as a vehicle to communicate with us. I reject the idea that God used to communicate with man but doesn't anymore. Why would He do that?

[The Punisher]

Originally posted by 46Tbird
So what do you do when you are immersed in a world of scientific data that goes against what the Bible claims is the truth? Do you say, 'Ah, that's BS!', 'That's not true!', 'Liars!', 'Heathens!' ( ;) )...

What I mean is, we are understanding our world and our universe better than ever. And all of our understanding points to a very long period of time to get to this point in existence. Astrological research is indicating a universe that is 10-20 billion years old, with other fields of science concurring. Evidence is leading us to believe we are in a universe that is quite a bit older than the one described in the Bible. Have you ever thought that maybe God is talking to us now? That he has provided knowledge and the ability to produce equipment that will help us to understand what he has created? I'd like to think he is using science as a vehicle to communicate with us. I reject the idea that he used to communicate with man but doesn't anymore.
Conforming to the world I would see be the first mistake. Just b/c everybody else thinks its right, dose that make it right? Are you living in relative truth or ablsolute truth. I seem you notice that man makes mistakes and I hope you understand that men at the root are evil. If you are conforming to the world for the answers to life, the god you are serving is the world. Not the God I serve.

Remember,
*Majority of people thought the earth was flat. Was it flat?
*Majority of people thought the earth was the center of the universe. Was it the center of the universe?

[The Punisher]

Originally posted by 46Tbird
So does the Book of Mormon complete the Trilogy? I guess it would if you want to mix your faith in Christ with a cult.:rolleyes::D

[MoonDog]

Originally posted by 46Tbird
So what do you do when you are immersed in a world of scientific data that goes against what the Bible claims is the truth? Do you say, 'Ah, that's BS!', 'That's not true!', 'Liars!', 'Heathens!' ( ;) )...

Science has never found anything that goes against the bible, NEVER.

What I mean is, we are understanding our world and our universe better than ever. And all of our understanding points to a very long period of time to get to this point in existence. Astrological research is indicating a universe that is 10-20 billion years old, with other fields of science concurring. Evidence is leading us to believe we are in a universe that is quite a bit older than the one described in the Bible. Have you ever thought that maybe God is talking to us now? That He has provided knowledge and the ability to produce equipment that will help us to understand what He has created? I'd like to think He is using science as a vehicle to communicate with us. I reject the idea that God used to communicate with man but doesn't anymore. Why would He do that?

1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

There is nothing that science can give us that can enable us to better understand the things of God.

[46Tbird]

Originally posted by 281R
Remember,
*Majority of people thought the earth was flat. Was it flat?
*Majority of people thought the earth was the center of the universe.
What you fail to mention is that religion told them so, back when there was no other way to understand the universe.

Thanks for backing me up! :D LOL

[46Tbird]

Originally posted by MoonDog
There is nothing that science can give us that can enable us to better understand the things of God.
Then quit trying to use science to support your views. :)

[The Punisher]

Originally posted by 46Tbird
What you fail to mention is that religion told them so, back when there was no other way to understand the universe.

Thanks for backing me up! :D LOL
No, I am not backing you up. You dont know if religon told them b/c your not them. Now you are assuming. Even if religon told them. Everybody is part of a religon unless you are not persuing anything in life. Read the def.

re·li·gion Pronunciation Key (r-ljn)
n.
1.Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2.The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3.A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
<B>4.A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion. </B>

Most scientist form a religon of their own. The problem with the world today is not relgion itself, but to many wrong religons to go with the right one.

[46Tbird]

Okay, so I was beating around the bush.

Christianity told them the world was flat, and that the earth was the center of the universe. That better? :)

I don't need to have lived in the Middle Ages to know what the Church was telling people to believe. It is a part of world history.

You guys are all wacky. You say I can't know anything to be true outside of the things I have personally experienced, yet you base your entire belief system on the words and experiences of 'inspired' unnamed men. You believe men can't communicate directly with God... anymore. You completely agree with radiometric dating when it supports the known date of certain religious artifacts, yet discard it as inaccurate when measuring anything older than a few thousand years. You believe the Bible is the only accurate religious text.. because it says it is. The Book of Mormon is a religious text for a 'cult' because it goes against the New Testament. Yet you DON'T think the New Testament is a religious text for a 'cult' for going against the Old Testament. Then you say too many religions is the problem with the world... and you follow one. You think all of man's books are nonsense... except one.

Like I said before, believe what you want. But realize that what you are doing is just disregarding the facts, and denial is going to get you nowhere. I wonder why you don't embrace the discovery of the wonders that God created.

Peace

[The Punisher]

Originally posted by 46Tbird
Okay, so I was beating around the bush.

Christianity told them the world was flat, and that the earth was the center of the universe. That better? :)

I don't need to have lived in the Middle Ages to know what the Church was telling people to believe. It is a part of world history.

You guys are all wacky. You say I can't know anything to be true outside of the things I have personally experienced, yet you base your entire belief system on the words and experiences of 'inspired' unnamed men. You completely agree with radiometric dating when it supports the known date of certain religious artifacts, yet discard it as inaccurate when measuring anything older than a few thousand years. You believe the Bible is the only accurate religious text.. because it says it is. The Book of Mormon is a religious text for a 'cult' because it goes against the New Testament. Yet you DON'T think the New Testament is a religious text for a 'cult' for going against the Old Testament. Then you say too many religions is the problem with the world... and you follow one. You think all of man's books are nonsense... except one.

Like I said before, believe what you want. But realize that what you are doing is just disregarding the facts, and denial is going to get you nowhere. I wonder why you don't embrace the discovery of the wonders that God created.

Peace
<B>number 1</B>, please dont tell me what I believe. I know what I believe and please dont put words in my views. No I do not support any kind of radiometric dating b/c it has to many flaws and is not error proof. Plus, radiometric dating has only been around for only about a hundred years so why base your faith on it.
<B>number 2</B>, You dont really know that much about the Bible do you? If you did, you would not question the NT versus the OT and then go trying to compare the book of Mormon as a Triliogy. Plus, I dont think every book men wrote is nonsense except for the Bible, I was just bringing up examples of other books you believe b/c man wrote your books too. But you know what, you say God gave us science and other things to help us. Well I hope science or what else gift you think God gave you helps you find salvation b/c if the Bible is true which I think it is. God did write one thing in it personally. The Ten Commandments. He engraved them in stone. And I doubt it highly you are able to keep any of them. So how are you going to get to heaven if our God is such a Holy and Rightous God. If you believe He is not rightous and Holy, then you must think we were made by an intelligent alien that dosent interact with our lives and could care less if we did right or wrong. So what is going to seperate yourself from everone else in the afterlife?

:rolleyes:

[The Punisher]

Oh and also, Christians didnt say the earth is flat. The bible describes the earth as being round. Plus, about the center of the universe thing, the Catholic Church was the main say so in the center of the universe. Even though as it appears the earth is not the center of the universe, it is as we know the spiritual center of the universe. Unless you believe in aliens?

We really don't know where the physical center of the universe is. If God's heavens are infinite in extent, then no center actually exists. But the question of the earth's physical position is less important than the spiritual reality of God's love for his people.

[46Tbird]

Originally posted by 281R
You dont really know that much about the Bible do you? If you did, you would not question the NT versus the OT and then go trying to compare the book of Mormon as a Triliogy.
Mormons are Christians and consider it a trilogy, why don't you? OH... because they are a cult, right? Remind me what the difference between a religious cult and a religion is, please.
But you know what, you say God gave us science and other things to help us. Well I hope science or what else gift you think God gave you helps you find salvation b/c if the Bible is true which I think it is.
:confused: I don't quite follow. I'm only literate in English. And God gave me a gift he also gave to you. I choose to use mine. It's in here ------> :)
God did write one thing in it personally. The Ten Commandments. He engraved them in stone. And I doubt it highly you are able to keep any of them.
Actually I can. Off the top of my head 'Thou shalt not kill'. I haven't killed anyone, thank you very much. I doubt if you are able to keep them all. But that's okay too, that's not the path to salvation is it? So it is okay to disobey the literal Word of God, right...?? Right?
If you believe He is not rightous and Holy, then you must think we were made by an intelligent alien that dosent interact with our lives and could care less if we did right or wrong. So what is going to seperate yourself from everone else in the afterlife?:rolleyes:
Well hello, pot! Those most certainly aren't my words brother. Where have I ever said God doesn't interact with us anymore?? I'm the one telling YOU he interacts with all of us, EVERY DAY!! YOU are the one saying he 'used to' talk to man, and no longer does!!! Sheesh. And as for right and wrong, he instilled that in every one of us. Do you need it to be written in order to follow it? Nothing is going to seperate me from everyone else in the afterlife. If we are all God's creations, why do you feel you are somehow better than anyone else?? :confused: God loves Hindus and Muslims and Christians too. As long as they love and appreciate Him right back. :) JMO, natch.

Here, I'll give you one of these for no reason too. :rolleyes:

[The Punisher]

Originally posted by 46Tbird


Actually I can. Off the top of my head 'Thou shalt not kill'. I haven't killed anyone, thank you very much. I doubt if you are able to keep them all. But that's okay too, that's not the path to salvation is it? So it is okay to disobey the literal Word of God, right...?? Right?


So you have never hurt and killed a persons reputation by calling them a bad or hatefull name?, speaking badly behind their back?

But, you never answered my question. How are you going to be saved? How are you going to get to heaven?

[The Punisher]

Originally posted by 46Tbird
And as for right and wrong, he instilled that in every one of us. Do you need it to be written in order to follow it?
Im sure a gay person or a physco killer would have conflicts with this statement

[The Punisher]

Originally posted by 46Tbird
Mormons are Christians and consider it a trilogy, why don't you? OH... because they are a cult, right? Remind me what the difference between a religious cult and a religion is, please.


If you need the difference, here is a place to start.
Mormon Thread (http://www.dfwstangs.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=63087)
<----- I had to educate myself;)

[Jedi]

Originally posted by 281R
So you have never hurt and killed a persons reputation by calling them a bad or hatefull name?, speaking badly behind their back?

But, you never answered my question. How are you going to be saved? How are you going to get to heaven?


Wait a second....

....and I pause for effect.... "HOLY CRAP".

The Sixth Commandment reads "Thou Shall Not Murder", not "Thou Shall Not Hurt Anothers Delicate Feelings".

He was right...you guys are wacky. I can't believe that comparison was made.

[DarkWolf]

Originally posted by MoonDog
Can you or anyone else give me a verse or passage from some other religion, i.e. Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism, Confucianism, etc. that says that their book contains the true words of God? And since there are "many" such texts, can you give me 3? I would like to see it.

Buddhism doesn't claim to be the true religion. Buddhists strive to be like Buddha, who reached enlightenment. He was just a man. Confuscianism is philosophy, not religion. Jainism is a glorified Meism, where the self is the divine ... not really a religion, though it's practiced as such, like Buhdism. Hinduism also is not really a religion, as it's based mainly on the same principles that Jainism is based on.

For religious texts claiming to be the 'true' word of God, check out Islam (Quar'an), Judaism (Torah), and Sikhism (Siri Guru Granth Sahib). I'll leave out Christianity (Bible), as that's a given. Those are just off the top of my head. If you want me to post more, I shall do so.

Originally posted by MoonDog
Dinosaurs: They are mentioned. These dont sound like anything around today.

Job 40:15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.
Job 40:16 Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.
Job 40:17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.
Job 40:18 His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.

Job 41:1 Canst thou draw out leviathan with a hook? or his tongue with a cord which thou lettest down?
Job 41:2 Canst thou put a hook into his nose? or bore his jaw through with a thorn?
Job 41:14 Who can open the doors of his face? his teeth are terrible round about.
Job 41:15 His scales are his pride, shut up together as with a close seal.
Job 41:18 By his sneezes a light doth shine, and his eyes are like the eyelids of the morning.
Job 41:19 Out of his mouth go burning lamps, and sparks of fire leap out.
Job 41:20 Out of his nostrils goeth smoke, as out of a seething pot or caldron.
Job 41:21 His breath kindleth coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth.

The top part, sounds a lot like our current giant lizards (Komodo Dragon, or a large Iguana).

The second part ... 46Tbird's right ... that sounds like a mythical dragon. While I don't discount the possibility of fire-breathing creatures, I've seen no compelling evidence of such. The Bombardier Beetle isn't exactly the same thing. The chemicals mixed produce a reaction, much like mixing sodium with water. Bang, explosion. They spray chemicals, but don't spray fire. They mix chemicals that make a loud pop, and if the predator doesn't leave, then they spray chemicals on them. But no spraying fire. Again, I won't discount the possibility of such a thing happening, but the probability is very low. No compelling evidence, and just speaking in terms of usefulness, spraying fire from ones nose or mouth, is likely to cause as much, if not more damage to the sprayer, as it does to the sprayee. It's not very useful to defend yourself, by hurting yourself.

[MoonDog]

Originally posted by 46Tbird
Mormons are Christians and consider it a trilogy, why don't you? OH... because they are a cult, right? Remind me what the difference between a religious cult and a religion is, please.

cult by definition is (1)a religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader. The followers of such a religion or sect. (2) A system or community of religious worship and ritual. (3) The formal means of expressing religious reverence; religious ceremony and ritual.

So, by definition we all belong to a cult, that is one reason I dont like to use the word. :D

Actually I can. Off the top of my head 'Thou shalt not kill'. I haven't killed anyone, thank you very much. I doubt if you are able to keep them all. But that's okay too, that's not the path to salvation is it? So it is okay to disobey the literal Word of God, right...?? Right?

No one, with the exception of one, has kept all of the commandments, no one. That is the reason God gave the Israelites a blood sacrifice, for the covering of their sins. But it wasn't good enough that is why it had to be done every year. Then Jesus came and He became the ultimite sacrifice and anyone who believed would have their sins covered by His blood and God would act as if they never happened. Now, if you would like to try to get into the Kingdom of God on your own without a sacrifice then that is up to you, but I can tell you that you wont beable to stand on you own when that day comes.

I'm the one telling YOU he interacts with all of us, EVERY DAY!! YOU are the one saying he 'used to' talk to man, and no longer does!!! Sheesh. God loves Hindus and Muslims and Christians too. As long as they love and appreciate Him right back.

I never said that God doesn't talk to us today. He still does, He has many different ways that he communicates to us. Sometimes it is through other people. Hint Hint :) And, yes, God does love Hindus and Muslims and even Atheists but even though He loves them they choose to deny His Son, and that is where the problem lies.

[MoonDog]

Originally posted by DarkWolf
For religious texts claiming to be the 'true' word of God, check out Islam (Quar'an), Judaism (Torah), and Sikhism (Siri Guru Granth Sahib). I'll leave out Christianity (Bible), as that's a given. Those are just off the top of my head. If you want me to post more, I shall do so.

I was looking for quotes from the texts but if you can't dig any up I understand.

The top part, sounds a lot like our current giant lizards (Komodo Dragon, or a large Iguana).

Job 40:17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: Yeah, OK, an iquana with a tail like a cedar tree.

The second part ... 46Tbird's right ... that sounds like a mythical dragon. While I don't discount the possibility of fire-breathing creatures, I've seen no compelling evidence of such. The Bombardier Beetle isn't exactly the same thing. The chemicals mixed produce a reaction, much like mixing sodium with water. Bang, explosion. They spray chemicals, but don't spray fire. They mix chemicals that make a loud pop, and if the predator doesn't leave, then they spray chemicals on them. But no spraying fire. Again, I won't discount the possibility of such a thing happening, but the probability is very low. No compelling evidence, and just speaking in terms of usefulness, spraying fire from ones nose or mouth, is likely to cause as much, if not more damage to the sprayer, as it does to the sprayee. It's not very useful to defend yourself, by hurting yourself.

At least your not discounting the possibility. Just because a "mythical dragon" is not around today they never exsisted right? That is some pretty good logic. :rolleyes:

[DarkWolf]

Originally posted by MoonDog
I was looking for quotes from the texts but if you can't dig any up I understand.



Job 40:17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: Yeah, OK, an iquana with a tail like a cedar tree.



At least your not discounting the possibility. Just because a "mythical dragon" is not around today they never exsisted right? That is some pretty good logic. :rolleyes:

I'm sorry that I don't have a copy of those three books, so I can't provide immediate quotes. You're welcome to head to the library and look them up yourself.

Now, on to the cedar tree ... you seen many cedar trees lately? They're not exactly sequoias, if you know what I mean. I've not seen many cedars that are more than 1 foot in circumference. In otherwords, cedar trees don't exactly have massively thick trunks. A 3 foot long Iguana is going to have a 4 to 6 inch circumference tail. A 10 foot long Komodo is going to have a foot or better circumference on it's tail. So yes, it sounds a lot like our current giant lizards.

I just said, I won't rule out the possibility. What didn't you understand about my statement? :confused:

[MoonDog]

Originally posted by DarkWolf
I'm sorry that I don't have a copy of those three books, so I can't provide immediate quotes. You're welcome to head to the library and look them up yourself.

:rolleyes:

Now, on to the cedar tree ... you seen many cedar trees lately? They're not exactly sequoias, if you know what I mean. I've not seen many cedars that are more than 1 foot in circumference. In otherwords, cedar trees don't exactly have massively thick trunks. A 3 foot long Iguana is going to have a 4 to 6 inch circumference tail. A 10 foot long Komodo is going to have a foot or better circumference on it's tail. So yes, it sounds a lot like our current giant lizards.

You have to look at when Job was written. It was written somewhere around 4,000 years ago over in the Middle East.

...the tree most likely referred to is the famous well-known species called "Cedrus libani", or "cedar-of-Lebanon," a beautiful and stately tree that grows in the Middle East. These trees can be quite large! I worked on cross-sections from one tree that were about 1.5 meters (5 ft.) in diameter. The tree can attain heights greater than 40 meters (130 ft.) with a diameter greater than 3 meters (15 ft.)! The tree is a favorite nursery tree and is now planted all over the world, even many here in Tucson, Arizona. Hope this helps.

Henri

Henri D. Grissino-Mayer
Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research
The University of Arizona
Tucson, Arizona 85721 USA

[46Tbird]

Originally posted by 281R
So you have never hurt and killed a persons reputation by calling them a bad or hatefull name?, speaking badly behind their back?
Isn't that covered under 'Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor'? You even got your Commandments crossed up! LOL So yes, I have done that but still haven't killed anyone.
But, you never answered my question. How are you going to be saved? How are you going to get to heaven?
I don't really believe in a heaven the way you do. God has wonders in store for us that you and I can't even fathom. You are wasting your time trying to think about how wonderful it will be sitting on clouds with all the other Christians. And since salvation is a religious principle I don't buy it. :)

[speedpro50]

Originally posted by Chris98GT
Wait a second....

....and I pause for effect.... "HOLY CRAP".

The Sixth Commandment reads "Thou Shall Not Murder", not "Thou Shall Not Hurt Anothers Delicate Feelings".

He was right...you guys are wacky. I can't believe that comparison was made.

Chris98GT - I have been reading through your posts on this site for about 6 months now, and have yet to see any love in your posts anywhere. I am concerned for you and will pray for you. Have you been born again? I don't want to offend.

Lee

[The Punisher]

Originally posted by 46Tbird
Isn't that covered under 'Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor'? You even got your Commandments crossed up! LOL So yes, I have done that but still haven't killed anyone.
Ummmmm, no! Because for example: You know a girl that sleeps around a lot with different guys and you call her a hoe to her face or behind her back. In reality that may be what she is doing or could be classified as. But this hurtfull name is hurting and killing her from the inside or killing her reputation. It is all in the interpretiation here. Why would you think what God states is always in the physical state?

Originally posted by 46Tbird
I don't really believe in a heaven the way you do. God has wonders in store for us that you and I can't even fathom. You are wasting your time trying to think about how wonderful it will be sitting on clouds with all the other Christians. And since salvation is a religious principle I don't buy it. :) [/B] Then what do you think is going to happen to you when you die. You say God talks to you, then what is going to happen? Plus, what is your purpose on earth then? What is God's purpose for you here on earth?

[The Punisher]

Originally posted by Chris98GT
Wait a second....

....and I pause for effect.... "HOLY CRAP".

The Sixth Commandment reads "Thou Shall Not Murder", not "Thou Shall Not Hurt Anothers Delicate Feelings".

He was right...you guys are wacky. I can't believe that comparison was made.
Dude, why do you think God always means the physical when so much out of the Bible is about spiritual. You dont think words hurt and kill somebody. I guess you have not seen abusive parents that abuse and kill a child inside by hurtfull words. Words can hurt just as much as the physical action can. If you have ever been in love you know this.

[speedpro50]

Originally posted by Chris98GT
Wait a second....

....and I pause for effect.... "HOLY CRAP".

The Sixth Commandment reads "Thou Shall Not Murder", not "Thou Shall Not Hurt Anothers Delicate Feelings".

He was right...you guys are wacky. I can't believe that comparison was made.

Hmmmm...Jesus said this about murder!

Matthew 5:21-22
You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.

[46Tbird]

Originally posted by 281R
Then what do you think is going to happen to you when you die. You say God talks to you, then what is going to happen? Plus, what is your purpose on earth then? What is God's purpose for you here on earth?
281R, I'm not going to pretend to know what God has in store for me when I die. I'll find that out when that day comes, same as you brother. Don't lie to me and tell me you know exactly what is in store for you after you pass on.

As for a purpose, that is an interesting question. I think God has a plan for us all and it is unfolding before us. Appreciating friends and family and the gifts God has provided are very important to me. Being a positive influence on the people I know is as good a purpose as I can think of. What does the Bible tell you that your purpose is? I'll assume that you are going to take that answer for your own, so break it out and start quoting.

[speedpro50]

Originally posted by 46Tbird
281R, I'm not going to pretend to know what God has in store for me when I die. I'll find that out when that day comes, same as you brother. Don't lie to me and tell me you know exactly what is in store for you after you pass on.



Yes, I do know, and NO, I am not lying!:D

[46Tbird]

Originally posted by speedpro50
Yes, I do know, and NO, I am not lying!:D
:D

Fair enough, I think we should just agree to disagree. You find answers to your questions in the Bible, and I don't. It's really as simple as that. I know we've had our quarrels in this and other threads, but I really do respect you guys' opinions. I know you think it's impossible for me to know God with my views, but understand that I wasn't immersed in Christian philosophy while growing up. And from the outside looking in, it doesn't seem any different than any other religion. Too many complications, too many conflicting opinions, too much interpretation, too few real answers - exactly as you feel about science. I really hope we all come to know and understand God, through whatever means we can. Thanks for your opinions, your views, and your prayers.

I really need to get back to work now! :D

Peace
Danny

[The Punisher]

Originally posted by 46Tbird

Appreciating friends and family and the gifts God has provided are very important to me. Being a positive influence on the people I know is as good a purpose as I can think of. What does the Bible tell you that your purpose is? I'll assume that you are going to take that answer for your own, so break it out and start quoting. You can do all these things with out God in your life. So why do you need Him? I know what my purpose here is and its not to make everyone happy. The Bible is a book. The words from God in the Bible are living. You told me God talks to you and you know all these things about God. Yet you have told me you dont have an answer to what happens to you after you die and you tell me you are on this earth to <I>"Appreciating friends and family and the gifts God has provided are very important to me. Being a positive influence on the people I know is as good a purpose as I can think of." </I> So you are telling me God hasnt given you an agenda. If he has, please state it. So why believe in God at all. You can appreciate friends and family with out Him, you can use your talents (gifts) without Him, you can be a positive role model to people in your society without Him, and you can deny everything in history that God has done for us that was written by His inspired followers with out Him. So do you have Him? or not?

[speedpro50]

Originally posted by 46Tbird
:D
I know you think it's impossible for me to know God with my views, but understand that I wasn't immersed in Christian philosophy while growing up.

Peace
Danny

ME NEITHER DANNY! Read the following:)

FROM A PREVIOUS THREAD:
I was a troubled young man (serious tone here)...j/k...I was big time troubled and in trouble. I was dealing drugs in Beaumont TX at 16 carrying a 38 special for protection involved with gangs and doing lots of partying. Never went to church as a youth and had a poor family situation. My mom was married and remarried and remarried and remarried so I had a variety of dads, with my bio-dad not caring a bit about me. I was in and out of school and in and out of 3 different rehabs (lock down facilities), arrested 3 times and a run away (temporary) 7 times. All these things going on until I met m wife (at the time a backslid christian) at the age of 16. She did introduce me to her family when we went home from college on breaks and they loved me like my family never seemed to be able to. It was a normal family that accepted me. My wife's grand father has been a pastor, church planter and evangelist for 52 years and he led me to the Lord in his church office in Wills Point, TX december of 1995. I had only attended a few church services at Turner Baptist Church prior to being saved. My wife and I are now happily married (5+ years) with 2 beautiful baby girls! We are committed to Christ now more than ever, strugglin like the next guy to surrender fully to God's control in our lives. You would never know in meeting me that I was a thug with NO cares ready to kill! God has truly and miraculously changes my life. I have been a Youth Pastor for over 2.5 years now at Believers Church in Quinlan, TX. I am a successful business owner and have 2 offices in Mesquite and Wills Point. I owe it all to God as it was not simply my ability, but God's blessings. I am a committed LOCAL CHURCH man as the NT teaches all Christians to be. My prayer for my life (and my family's) and and please pray with me (for me) is that we will serve God 100% in total surrender until the RAPTURE or until I die!

Praise the Lord for His forgiveness, loving kindness, and GRACE!



Danny - I have been saved for almost 7 years. I didn't grow up in church. I am learning everyday. Just wanted to let you know you don't have to be brainwashed to be a believer, you just have to receive the FREE gift. PEACE!

Lee

[46Tbird]

Name one thing you are going to do in this lifetime that you HAVE to have the power of God to do. Are you going to fly, are laser beams going to shoot out of your eyes, are you going to metamorphose into a giant fly, are you going to part the Red Sea, are you going to walk again three days after you die? Name one thing you won't be able to do without God.

[Jedi]

Originally posted by speedpro50
Chris98GT - I have been reading through your posts on this site for about 6 months now, and have yet to see any love in your posts anywhere. I am concerned for you and will pray for you. Have you been born again? I don't want to offend.

Lee

Don't confuse my directness with "no love". If you can do that, I'll try not to confuse your condecending tone with concern.

Read the "how you found jesus" thread for my history. Then you will see why I react they way I do to certain actions and attitudes of Christians (or any faith, but typcially Christian).

The lockstep and dogmatic attitude of most Christians affects my journey with Christ negatively. The "believe as I do or you're going to Hell" attitude of most Christians is what keeps people from exploring their faith. I explore despite that, but it still makes me angry. A difference of opinion, even a difference of faith is just that...a difference.

[speedpro50]

1. Go to heaven
2. Effectively pray and have answered prayer
3. Operate in any spiritual gift
4. effectively witness and disciple other christians

There is much that a Christian cannot do on his own.

John 15:5 "For without me (Jesus), you can do nothing."

Lee

[MoonDog]

Originally posted by 46Tbird
Name one thing you are going to do in this lifetime that you HAVE to have the power of God to do. Are you going to fly, are laser beams going to shoot out of your eyes, are you going to metamorphose into a giant fly, are you going to part the Red Sea, are you going to walk again three days after you die? Name one thing you won't be able to do without God.

It takes the power of God for someone to be saved and be washed by the blood of Jesus. When you get to that point you will understand what I am saying. If you want something in the natural, I personally witnessed a little girl that I know, who was born deaf, begin to hear. Tell me that is not the power of God. But the miraculous is not all that we are here for.

THE GREAT COMMISSION
Mar 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
Mar 16:17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
Mar 16:18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

The first thing we are to do is tell everyone we come in contact with about Jesus.

[46Tbird]

Sorry Lee, that wasn't aimed at you. :)

And in my eyes, you most certainly can do all those things without any divine influence. But that's JMO. :)

[speedpro50]

Originally posted by Chris98GT
Don't confuse my directness with "no love". If you can do that, I'll try not to confuse your condecending tone with concern.

Read the "how you found jesus" thread for my history. Then you will see why I react they way I do to certain actions and attitudes of Christians (or any faith, but typcially Christian).

The lockstep and dogmatic attitude of most Christians affects my journey with Christ negatively. The "believe as I do or you're going to Hell" attitude of most Christians is what keeps people from exploring their faith. I explore despite that, but it still makes me angry. A difference of opinion, even a difference of faith is just that...a difference.

#1 - a "difference in faith" can send a person to hell

#1 - Quoting you so you will see where my concern comes from:
Rapture reads to me as God saying "I love all my children, but some more than others. I will summon those before the end of the world so they don't suffer. Of those left, you will suffer and then join us in Heaven."

Well that's bullshit IMHO. Of the men that initially wrote the bible "inspired by God", they worked to define and explain the end of the world and existance in such a way as the followers of Christ would strive for perfection. What better way to encourage that stuggle than with fear. Not just any fear, but fear of painful suffering and agony by the hand of God.

As for now, I see Revelations and Rapture as a scary fairy tale on the same level as the boogyman and bed bugs.

You are denying the Word of God as being infallible, you curse, and you lay out a self-created doctrine that God loves some people more than others which is absolutely not rue. This is why I am concerned along with many other things.

Lee

[speedpro50]

Originally posted by 46Tbird
Sorry Lee, that wasn't aimed at you. :)

And in my eyes, you most certainly can do all those things without any divine influence. But that's JMO. :)

I am somewhat kidding when I say this::)

Your opinion is wrong!:D

[46Tbird]

Originally posted by MoonDog
The first thing we are to do is tell everyone we come in contact with about Jesus.
Yep, evangelism. See, in my eyes that's when your relationship with God becomes a man-made fixation with spreading your opinion. I'm sorry, but I feel differently. It doesn't matter to me if you share my views on God or not, he has a relationship with you that is different than mine, and that is a relationship I respect from a distance. I won't tell you that you are 'closer to' or 'further from' God than I am. How can I know, that is between you and God and has nothing at all to do with me. Like I said, I respect your views since you do acknowledge the existence of God, we just differ on how to appreciate Him. Again, thank you for your views.

[46Tbird]

Originally posted by speedpro50
Your opinion is wrong!:D
And that is just your opinion! :D

[MoonDog]

Originally posted by 46Tbird
Yep, evangelism. See, in my eyes that's when your relationship with God becomes a man-made fixation with spreading your opinion. I'm sorry, but I feel differently

It is a commandment given to us from God, it isn't some man-made fixation with spreading an opinion. Why would God tell someone to do one thing and tell someone else not to do it? I respect where you are coming from Danny but this many ways to God crap is for the birds. There are to many contridictions.

[speedpro50]

Originally posted by 46Tbird
And that is just your opinion! :D

And that is just your opinion!:D

Lee

P.S. I guess we could keep going and going...it's been fun!

[The Punisher]

Originally posted by 46Tbird
Yep, evangelism. See, in my eyes that's when your relationship with God becomes a man-made fixation with spreading your opinion. I'm sorry, but I feel differently. It doesn't matter to me if you share my views on God or not, he has a relationship with you that is different than mine, and that is a relationship I respect from a distance. I won't tell you that you are 'closer to' or 'further from' God than I am. How can I know, that is between you and God and has nothing at all to do with me. Like I said, I respect your views since you do acknowledge the existence of God, we just differ on how to appreciate Him. Again, thank you for your views.
How do you have a relationship with God if you dont have any information about Him? Has God ever appeared to you? How do you know He is there?

[The Punisher]

Originally posted by 46Tbird
Name one thing you are going to do in this lifetime that you HAVE to have the power of God to do. Are you going to fly, are laser beams going to shoot out of your eyes, are you going to metamorphose into a giant fly, are you going to part the Red Sea, are you going to walk again three days after you die? Name one thing you won't be able to do without God. For one here again, you are thinking physical. Physical thinking is one of the main reasons most Jews rejected Jesus Christ. Because they wanted a physical savior to rule them and defeat the Romans. Yet He was here to save us from something in the spiritual relm and not the physical. Yet I say to you, through God all things are possible. Every follower of Christ has a sprititual gift and has a calling. We all know on this earth that we are surpose to do good. B/C good is what feels right deep down. But lets take our eyes off ourselves and put it on God. What dose God want me to do. What is His purpose for men. And to tell you the truth my friend, unless God has appeared before you and told you, you will never know without studying Him. And where are you going to start studying Him? In science? How about in history. The Bible. If you start there and once you realize that the Bible has truth to it. You will then start being closer to God. Science will never get close to God b/c God has chosen to not put His word and truth in science. Sorry to preach, but please dont tell me you have a relationship with God out of thin air.

[46Tbird]

Originally posted by 281R
Sorry to preach, but please dont tell me you have a relationship with God out of thin air.
Sorry bro, I do. I have no need for a book to have a relationship with God. Get over it.

God created all of us equally, yet you think you are somehow better in God's eyes than a non-Christian. This is a fundamental problem with me getting involved in any religion. I believe - it's my opinion - that this little detail inherent to all religions is a man-made fallacy used to sway people into an us-versus-them position with other groups. You have been swayed. I haven't.

I believe God loves us all equally, and will provide for us all equally in the afterlife as long as we love and appreciate Him. You have become immersed in a system of rules that define how you are to worship God. More power to you, I choose to stay out of that man-made doctrine and appreciate God in a way that seems fitting to me (just like you do).

[The Punisher]

Originally posted by 46Tbird
Sorry bro, I do. I have no need for a book to have a relationship with God. Get over it.

God created all of us equally, yet you think you are somehow better in God's eyes than a non-Christian. This is a fundamental problem with me getting involved in any religion. I believe - it's my opinion - that this little detail inherent to all religions is a man-made fallacy used to sway people into an us-versus-them position with other groups. You have been swayed. I haven't.

I believe God loves us all equally, and will provide for us all equally in the afterlife as long as we love and appreciate Him. You have become immersed in a system of rules that define how you are to worship God. More power to you, I choose to stay out of that man-made doctrine and appreciate God in a way that seems fitting to me (just like you do).
Then if it came out of thin air, sounds like it was made up. And yes you do not need a book to have a relationship with God. Everybody has a relationship with God, but in order to have a good one and not a bad one with God, you better use the book. Good luck telling a teacher you know all about the subject without reading the book. And you want to know why so many Christians bring up going to hell or not thing all the time is b/c it is not a game, its a fight. Dont wait till its to late to discover that. Crack the book and learn.

Now this <B><I>"I believe God loves us all equally, and will provide for us all equally in the afterlife as long as we love and appreciate Him. You have become immersed in a system of rules that define how you are to worship God. More power to you, I choose to stay out of that man-made doctrine and appreciate God in a way that seems fitting to me (just like you do). "</B></I>
Is just putting words in God's mouth to determine your own fate.

[Jedi]

Originally posted by speedpro50
#1 - a "difference in faith" can send a person to hell

This is why I am concerned along with many other things.

Lee

My relationship with God is between Him and me. Period. You are not involved in anyway shape or form. I don't care what quote from Scripture you pull out to support your position or excuse the intrusion, what I'm saying is don't concern yourself with matters that don't involve you.

Discussing and debating the syntax and meaning of a few passages, even the basic tenants of the Bible is not going to send me to Hell. I've accepted the Jesus Christ the Almighty as my savior. I will be forgiven for my sins in the end, just as you will. But just because I don't believe everything that you do doesn't mean I have forsaken or turned my back on God.

I seek not your favor or approval. I only seek the grace of God.

Gal I:6-12
6: I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and turning to a different gospel --
7: not that there is another gospel, but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ.
8: But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed.
9: As we have said before, so now I say again, If any one is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed.
10: Am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still pleasing men, I should not be a servant of Christ.
11: For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not man's gospel.
12: For I did not receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

[speedpro50]

Originally posted by Chris98GT
My relationship with God is between Him and me. Period. You are not involved in anyway shape or form. I don't care what quote from Scripture you pull out to support your position or excuse the intrusion, what I'm saying is don't concern yourself with matters that don't involve you.

Discussing and debating the syntax and meaning of a few passages, even the basic tenants of the Bible is not going to send me to Hell. I've accepted the Jesus Christ the Almighty as my savior. I will be forgiven for my sins in the end, just as you will. But just because I don't believe everything that you do doesn't mean I have forsaken or turned my back on God.

I seek not your favor or approval. I only seek the grace of God.

Gal I:6-12
6: I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and turning to a different gospel --
7: not that there is another gospel, but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ.
8: But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed.
9: As we have said before, so now I say again, If any one is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed.
10: Am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still pleasing men, I should not be a servant of Christ.
11: For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not man's gospel.
12: For I did not receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

That scripture explains perfectly my concern for you.

[Jedi]

Originally posted by speedpro50
That scripture explains perfectly my concern for you.

And explains why I want you to back off. 11 and 12 specifically.

I'm done defending myself.

[46Tbird]

Originally posted by 281R
And yes you do not need a book to have a relationship with God. Everybody has a relationship with God, but in order to have a good one and not a bad one with God, you better use the book.
Sorry dude, the scare tactics don't phase me. And keep in mind that my ideas about God came out of thin air to me in exactly the same way as your ideas about God came out of thin air to the people that wrote your little book. Be a sheep if you want to. I prefer to listen to what God tells me instead of the authors of any book. To each his own I guess.

...Is just putting words in God's mouth to determine your own fate.
I haven't put words in God's mouth. All I have done is told you what I hear him saying to me. You choose to listen to a book over Him. That is your right.

We can go round-and-round, but we aren't saying anything new here. You know my view, I know yours. You aren't changing my opinion with your bully tactics, and I am not trying to change your opinion. We should probably drop it, as there is nothing else left to say. You pray for me and I'll pray for you. :)

[DarkWolf]

Originally posted by MoonDog
:rolleyes:

:rolleyes:
Right back at ya. If you're too lazy to do the research yourself, I'm not going to waste my time.

Originally posted by MoonDog
You have to look at when Job was written. It was written somewhere around 4,000 years ago over in the Middle East.

And as little as 1000 years ago, there were (and some speculate, may still be) giant lizards of 20 to 25 feet in length. Early relatives of the monitor lizard family. So, I say again, it sounds a lot like our current giant lizards.

[MoonDog]

Originally posted by Chris98GT
And explains why I want you to back off. 11 and 12 specifically.

I'm done defending myself.

Chris, if you say that you have received Christ as your savior, then I believe you and and truly happy for you. I will get off your back concerning this. Even though we may differ on some issues I consider you a brother in Christ. I hope someday you can find an answer to the questions that you may still have concerning some of the things in the Bible. If at anytime I can be of help just PM me and maybe I can give you my opinion.

Randy

[MoonDog]

Originally posted by 46Tbird
You pray for me and I'll pray for you. :)

OK, on the count of 3 we will all start praying for one another....1....2.....3.....PRAY! :D

[MoonDog]

Originally posted by DarkWolf
:rolleyes:
Right back at ya. If you're too lazy to do the research yourself, I'm not going to waste my time.



And as little as 1000 years ago, there were (and some speculate, may still be) giant lizards of 20 to 25 feet in length. Early relatives of the monitor lizard family. So, I say again, it sounds a lot like our current giant lizards.

It has nothing to do with being lazy, I do alot of researching during the day. I just dont have the time, that is why I asked someone to show me. No big deal.

We can keep going on this and to tell you the truth, I am getting tired. The facts are there, not just a theory made up by some man. Believe how you want, it is obvious that none of us are going to bend on the subject and I must say that I admire you Jay standing for what you believe even though I believe you to be wrong.

[The Punisher]

Originally posted by 46Tbird
Sorry dude, the scare tactics don't phase me. And keep in mind that my ideas about God came out of thin air to me in exactly the same way as your ideas about God came out of thin air to the people that wrote your little book. Be a sheep if you want to. I prefer to listen to what God tells me instead of the authors of any book. To each his own I guess.


I haven't put words in God's mouth. All I have done is told you what I hear him saying to me. You choose to listen to a book over Him. That is your right.

We can go round-and-round, but we aren't saying anything new here. You know my view, I know yours. You aren't changing my opinion with your bully tactics, and I am not trying to change your opinion. We should probably drop it, as there is nothing else left to say. You pray for me and I'll pray for you. :)
I guess then Jesus's words came out of thin air then. Just like yours. If your ideas about god came out of thin air, then I guess your god is not real. Like I said, dont try to explain something unless you have read up about it and studied it. I am not trying to bully, I am only pointing out the truth. And if God tells you stuff out of the blue, please tell us b/c I would like to know and I am sure every Christian would like to know. And I know you are not trying to change my belief about God. But I am trying to change yours because by faith I know you are valuable to God and from studying and researching, I know your view of God is wrong. And I dont want you to get the feeling that I am better than you b/c in essence, we are all equal. But the road to heaven is narrow, and not wide. Crack the "Book", you have nothing to loose. Only to gain.

[DarkWolf]

Originally posted by MoonDog
It has nothing to do with being lazy, I do alot of researching during the day. I just dont have the time, that is why I asked someone to show me. No big deal.

We can keep going on this and to tell you the truth, I am getting tired. The facts are there, not just a theory made up by some man. Believe how you want, it is obvious that none of us are going to bend on the subject and I must say that I admire you Jay standing for what you believe even though I believe you to be wrong.

Go here: http://www.religioustolerance.org/ ... it'll at least give you a synopsis of those three religions I quoted. And if I'm not mistaken, there may even be links to online scriptures from those books. The Torah, everyone should know that one well enough, as it's the OT of the Bible.

The giant lizards aren't a theory. We know they were around, and foot prints have been found recently that were fairly new, suggesting that there possibly might still be some around. Just taking the physical description in Job, the similarities are there. These giant lizards are no doubt decendants of dinosaurs, just as alligators and crocodiles are living dinosaurs.

[MoonDog]

Originally posted by DarkWolf
Go here: http://www.religioustolerance.org/ ... it'll at least give you a synopsis of those three religions I quoted. And if I'm not mistaken, there may even be links to online scriptures from those books. The Torah, everyone should know that one well enough, as it's the OT of the Bible.

The giant lizards aren't a theory. We know they were around, and foot prints have been found recently that were fairly new, suggesting that there possibly might still be some around. Just taking the physical description in Job, the similarities are there. These giant lizards are no doubt decendants of dinosaurs, just as alligators and crocodiles are living dinosaurs.

Thanks for the link, I will check it out.

You are right about the giant lizards. I have even heard stories of people down in the amazon seeing creatures that resemble small taradactal. There was also the sea creature that resembled a Plesiosaur near New Zealand.

And, IMO, some of the mythical creatures and the mythical gods of Greek Lore, I dont think were so mythical. This is just my opinion though. Just something that I read in the bible that would make me think this way.

Gen 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God (angels) came in unto the daughters of men, and they bore children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

And of course the passage from Job.

[46Tbird]

Originally posted by 281R
I guess then Jesus's words came out of thin air then. Just like yours. If your ideas about god came out of thin air, then I guess your god is not real.
Man, I'd rather smash my thumb to a bloody pulp with a hammer than talk religion with you. Because you believe what you are told by other men, you trust that the Bible's authors were divinely inspired. So when they wrote it into their book that no one after them can be inspired, you believed them. In my book that makes you are a fool !!! Who the hell are you to tell me that God can't communicate with me or anybody else today?? You really believe you deserve special treatment from God for being a Christian, don't you? You are so painfully brainwashed it's sickening. God created us all equally, and if we live our lives as he would want he will take us all on equal standing after this life. If Christianity helps you achieve this, he will love you as much as any Muslim that does the same. Or anyone else for that matter, including me.

You guys' problem with my relationship with God stems from the fact that I don't have a little book to point to for quotes and guidance. IMO, you are letting the words and phrases of the Bible become what you worship.

You guys worship the words and I'll worship the Creator, thank you very much. I'm much more comfortable with Him than your little man-made book. :)

[DarkWolf]

Originally posted by MoonDog
Thanks for the link, I will check it out.

You are right about the giant lizards. I have even heard stories of people down in the amazon seeing creatures that resemble small taradactal. There was also the sea creature that resembled a Plesiosaur near New Zealand.

And, IMO, some of the mythical creatures and the mythical gods of Greek Lore, I dont think were so mythical. This is just my opinion though. Just something that I read in the bible that would make me think this way.

Gen 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God (angels) came in unto the daughters of men, and they bore children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

And of course the passage from Job.

Yup, Gen 6:4 describes the Titans of Greek mythos quite nicely :) Yet another of the many reasons why I feel God spoke to many cultures.

[The Punisher]

I trust the Bible just like I trust a history book. If you cant trust history books, then that is your problem. You might as well proclaim there is no God or you made it up in your head. Because you have no history or proof to back it up.
I dont mean these to be hurtfull words, but I have to stand behind the truth.

[46Tbird]

Originally posted by 281R
I trust the Bible just like I trust a history book. If you cant trust history books, then that is your problem. You might as well proclaim there is no God or you made it up in your head. Because you have no history or proof to back it up.
I dont mean these to be hurtfull words, but I have to stand behind the truth.
Do you really think I would be hurt by your saying you require a book in order for my relationship with God to be valid? You've been saying that all along, and all along I've been telling you I have no book, and have no need for a book. My relationship with God has nothing to do with any book. Keep your book if you feel like the book is how you get a relationship with God. Read all you want about other people's personal relationships with God and believe what they wrote. Use the book to tell you how God thinks about you. Use the book to feel warm and cozy inside. Use the book as a stepstool. Use the pages of the book to roll a joint for all I care. If the book makes you happy, keep the book. The book will save you!

And since you require history and proof to back up claims... what about the authors of the Bible?? What history or proof did they have to back up their claims :confused: That's right!! They had exactly as much 'proof' as I have. So don't tell me my relationship with God is any less valid than theirs or yours. It's not very Christian-like.

Or maybe it is. ;)

[MoonDog]

Originally posted by DarkWolf
Yup, Gen 6:4 describes the Titans of Greek mythos quite nicely :) Yet another of the many reasons why I feel God spoke to many cultures.

Well, I dont know about the "God spoke to many cultures" part. Because it goes on the say:

Gen 6:5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
Gen 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
Gen 6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
Gen 6:8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.

These "giants" were not godly men but men thought to be gods because they were born from human mothers inpregnated by fallen angels. That is what made them wicked. And as a result God sent the flood in order to wipe out evil.

Dang, yours and Danny's beliefs are similar to the BAHÁ'Í Faith. I used to work with a guy that believed that way. Nice guy.

[The Punisher]

Originally posted by 46Tbird
Do you really think I would be hurt by your saying you require a book in order for my relationship with God to be valid? You've been saying that all along, and all along I've been telling you I have no book, and have no need for a book. My relationship with God has nothing to do with any book. Keep your book if you feel like the book is how you get a relationship with God. Read all you want about other people's personal relationships with God and believe what they wrote. Use the book to tell you how God thinks about you. Use the book to feel warm and cozy inside. Use the book as a stepstool. Use the pages of the book to roll a joint for all I care. If the book makes you happy, keep the book. The book will save you!

And since you require history and proof to back up claims... what about the authors of the Bible?? What history or proof did they have to back up their claims :confused: That's right!! They had exactly as much 'proof' as I have. So don't tell me my relationship with God is any less valid than theirs or yours. It's not very Christian-like.

Or maybe it is. ;)
I ask you again then? How do you know God exist? What is your proof. What is your testimony that He exists?
I think Jesus Christ and His disciples, being I believe Jesus Christ is God, has a lot more validity than you do.
And besides, you say you will pray for us. Who taught you about prayer. Did God speak to you directly about it? Or was it passed on to you from man.
And besides, you want proof of the Bible authors, go study the Bible. Soon you will learn that not one of them contradict each other and must I continue.
And here you contradict everything written in the Bible. Seems to me you are not working on the same side of the fence as everyone else in the book.

[DarkWolf]

Originally posted by 46Tbird
IMO, you are letting the words and phrases of the Bible become what you worship.

"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them."

Not pointing fingers at anyone, just some people do take it to these extremes. And not just the Bible, church statues, and jewlery among other things.

[DarkWolf]

Originally posted by MoonDog
Well, I dont know about the "God spoke to many cultures" part. Because it goes on the say:

Gen 6:5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
Gen 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
Gen 6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
Gen 6:8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.

These "giants" were not godly men but men thought to be gods because they were born from human mothers inpregnated by fallen angels. That is what made them wicked. And as a result God sent the flood in order to wipe out evil.

Dang, yours and Danny's beliefs are similar to the BAHÁ'Í Faith. I used to work with a guy that believed that way. Nice guy.

Exactly. The "gods" of other religions are simply the Angels of Christianity. People started to worship them as gods, and that angered God because they were getting his message wrong. Thus the 1st commandment, to let everyone know that there is only one God, and to worship any other "gods" is wrong.

[46Tbird]

Originally posted by 281R
I ask you again then? How do you know God exist? What is your proof. What is your testimony that He exists?
Why do I have to answer over and over again your dumb questions? I see God everywhere I look. If that isn't proof enough to you... then oh well. My testimony? I told you before I don't have a book. You think that since you have a book, you are right. Your book says it is right. So it must be right. Right?
I think Jesus Christ and His disciples, being I believe Jesus Christ is God, has a lot more validity than you do.
I don't have a problem with this. You are entitled to your own opinion. It doesn't mean you are right, it means you have a stance on the issue. Just like me. :)
And besides, you say you will pray for us. Who taught you about prayer. Did God speak to you directly about it? Or was it passed on to you from man.
Since I am a man, and have limited understanding of what God does and why, I will do the best I can to communicate with him. The only way I know how is through prayer, or at least conjuring up the thoughts in my head. Sounds a lot like you huh?

Why do you feel the need to bash me at every point just because I don't feel the need to use your book to establish a relationship with God? I think it's funny that you would rather worship the words than God, but that is your decision.

[MoonDog]

Originally posted by DarkWolf
Exactly. The "gods" of other religions are simply the Angels of Christianity. People started to worship them as gods, and that angered God because they were getting his message wrong. Thus the 1st commandment, to let everyone know that there is only one God, and to worship any other "gods" is wrong.

Well, I dont think they were angels but men that were born having angelic fathers, making them like gods. Yes, people were worshiping them and that is what angered God.

I have been looking at the web link you posted and the ones that I have seen so far that say they have a revelation from God appear to be off shoots of Judaism, i.e. Islam, Christianity, Sikhism, Bahá'í. Interesting stuff.

[The Punisher]

Originally posted by 46Tbird
Why do I have to answer over and over again your dumb questions? I see God everywhere I look. If that isn't proof enough to you... then oh well. My testimony? I told you before I don't have a book. You think that since you have a book, you are right. Your book says it is right. So it must be right. Right?

I don't have a problem with this. You are entitled to your own opinion. It doesn't mean you are right, it means you have a stance on the issue. Just like me. :)

Since I am a man, and have limited understanding of what God does and why, I will do the best I can to communicate with him. The only way I know how is through prayer, or at least conjuring up the thoughts in my head. Sounds a lot like you huh?

Why do you feel the need to bash me at every point just because I don't feel the need to use your book to establish a relationship with God? I think it's funny that you would rather worship the words than God, but that is your decision.
Danny, I am not bashing you. I just wanted to understand you better. There is not much more to discuss here, you have your views and I have mine. But no I dont worship the words but I hold them to be God's word. (This is the difference) And as being that I believe they are God's words we should keep them Holy. And Holy means to keep them sacred. And that is why we protect them and hold them to our hearts. You say you see God and I will hold it that you do. You are the only one that can determine that b/c I am not you. But I pray that one day you will read the Bible and just at least consider it to be the true words of God. That is all I can ask.
Peace & Good luck
No hard feelings
Lance:)

[DarkWolf]

Originally posted by MoonDog
I have been looking at the web link you posted and the ones that I have seen so far that say they have a revelation from God appear to be off shoots of Judaism, i.e. Islam, Christianity, Sikhism, Bahá'í. Interesting stuff.

Isn't it? :D

Unfortunately, they only have current religions, non of the ancient ones (the Wicca, Druidism, and Shamanism on there are the Neo-Pagan versions, not the original versions). I think it's even more interesting to see how Greek/Roman, Byzantine, Sumerian, etc have similar teachings, messages, themes, and events as presented in the Bible.

[46Tbird]

Lance, there were never any hard feelings. :) aawwwwwwww! LOL

I'm sure I'll meet you guys someday. Extend a hand to a heathen why don't ya! :D

[MoonDog]

Time for a group hug! :D

[The Punisher]

Originally posted by Monsoon X
For now, I believe that God created the heavens and the earth way before he put life on it. one more thought with this statement JC, read Mark 10:6
Jesus says "But from the beginning of creation, God made male and female" meaning that Adam and Eve were made on the 6th day at the beginning of creation. Which Jesus's own words throw out the million year gap or what ever you want to call it theory. ;)

[DarkWolf]

Originally posted by 281R
one more thought with this statement JC, read Mark 10:6
Jesus says "But from the beginning of creation, God made male and female" meaning that Adam and Eve were made on the 6th day at the beginning of creation. Which Jesus's own words throw out the million year gap or what ever you want to call it theory. ;)

Actually, not really. As the beginning of creation would be day 1, not day 6. That's the end of creation. :p

Also, as the 2.5 billion years theory for each day is in Earth time... it would still only be 6 days to God, thusly the beginning of creation (so to speak ... even though the 6th day was the final ... or end ... day of creation) :D

[The Punisher]

Originally posted by DarkWolf
Actually, not really. As the beginning of creation would be day 1, not day 6. That's the end of creation. :p

Also, as the 2.5 billion years theory for each day is in Earth time... it would still only be 6 days to God, thusly the beginning of creation (so to speak ... even though the 6th day was the final ... or end ... day of creation) :D yea, but that is determining what God considers time. Yet, that theory would not make since. Really, if God made day and night and the whole earth and enviroment opperate around day and night, and on top of that Jesus was God and he said 3 days he would rise from the dead, I dont think He meant 3 billion year God days. Really, that theory is silly when trying to compare it to scripture. ;)

[DarkWolf]

Originally posted by 281R
yea, but that is determining what God considers time. Yet, that theory would not make since. Really, if God made day and night and the whole earth and enviroment opperate around day and night, and on top of that Jesus was God and he said 3 days he would rise from the dead, I dont think He meant 3 billion year God days. Really, that theory is silly when trying to compare it to scripture. ;)

:p

Actually not really. :D Because, there again, God is simply using a language / timescale that we could fathom. Well, we then. We now, can fathom 15 billion years ... but 6000 years ago, such was not really the case. 6000 years ago was pre-Greek influence in mathematics. A year was an eternity, and many cultures had no calendars to mark the passage of time, they simply lived from day to day.

People understood days. And as it is a theory, I speculate that a day to God is 2.5 billion years to us. So therefore, God, knowing man would not understand the complexity of 2.5 billion years per day, he simply told it from His perspective, being not subject to Earth time ... which would be 6 days, rather than 15 billion years.

Now, as God was in the flesh, ala Jesus, at this point, he's speaking in literal Earth days ... since he's now on Earth as Jesus, and therefore subject to Earth time. :p

[The Punisher]

Originally posted by DarkWolf
:p

Actually not really. :D Because, there again, God is simply using a language / timescale that we could fathom. Well, we then. We now, can fathom 15 billion years ... but 6000 years ago, such was not really the case. 6000 years ago was pre-Greek influence in mathematics. A year was an eternity, and many cultures had no calendars to mark the passage of time, they simply lived from day to day.

People understood days. And as it is a theory, I speculate that a day to God is 2.5 billion years to us. So therefore, God, knowing man would not understand the complexity of 2.5 billion years per day, he simply told it from His perspective, being not subject to Earth time ... which would be 6 days, rather than 15 billion years.

Now, as God was in the flesh, ala Jesus, at this point, he's speaking in literal Earth days ... since he's now on Earth as Jesus, and therefore subject to Earth time. :p
Well really, it just comes out to be a theory. There are pro's and con's to each side. The only pro I see for this theory is to justify Genesis with the belief system that the earth is millions or billions of years old which is not provable or have an eye witness too except for God Himself. Otherwise God defined our day by creating day and night and designed everything to work together. Even Gen 1 says "3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness." He created light form darkness and separated them in a cycle that we call day. The million or billion year old theory has to take too many assumptions and to many flaws for me to believe it. Could it have happend in millions or billions of years? possibly.... Likely??? I would say no. My opinion:cool:

[DarkWolf]

Originally posted by 281R
Well really, it just comes out to be a theory. There are pro's and con's to each side. The only pro I see for this theory is to justify Genesis with the belief system that the earth is millions or billions of years old which is not provable or have an eye witness too except for God Himself. Otherwise God defined our day by creating day and night and designed everything to work together. Even Gen 1 says "3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness." He created light form darkness and separated them in a cycle that we call day. The million or billion year old theory has to take too many assumptions and to many flaws for me to believe it. Could it have happend in millions or billions of years? possibly.... Likely??? I would say no. My opinion:cool:

Aye. Neither has any hard core conclusive evidence ... either theory has counter evidence for one another, so we have no way to say for sure one way or the other. :D