6000 years?

Originally posted by divegeester
OK you think I'm an idiot with no common sense because I'm asking you questions you don't like, is that it? I started this thread offering people who believe in the 6,000 years theory to explain their case but now you have hijacked it with abuse and childishness. Why can't you just engage in discussion?

It is not that I do not like your questions, but that your questions are idiotic and lacking common sense. Who can tell if you are actually an idiot or just acting like one?

I have been discussing why I believe in an approximate 6,000 year old Earth and gave reasons by video and in writing as to why. It is you that do not seem to have the common sense to understand or else you are not paying attention. This is obvious by your ridiculous questions.

Originally posted by RJHinds
It is not that I do not like your questions, but that your questions are idiotic and lacking common sense. Who can tell if you are actually an idiot or just acting like one?

I have been discussing why I believe in an approximate 6,000 year old Earth and gave reasons by video and in writing as to why. It is you that do not seem to have the common sense ...[text shortened]... o understand or else you are not paying attention. This is obvious by your ridiculous questions.

Please can you quote which of my questions is according to you ridiculous and deserving of your contempt?

Originally posted by divegeester
Please can you quote which of my questions is according to you ridiculous and deserving of your contempt?

I don't have the patience now to rehactch them all and like I said I haven't been trained to explain things to retards.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I don't have the patience now to rehactch them all and like I said I haven't been trained to explain things to retards.

"Retard"!?

You are abusing and insulting me in virtually every post claiming it is because I ask ridiculous questions but you are unable to copy/paste one of these questions from only a few pages of posts. You really should rethink how you present yourself if you want to be taken seriously.

Originally posted by divegeester
"Retard"!?

You are abusing and insulting me in virtually every post claiming it is because I ask ridiculous questions but you are unable to copy/paste one of these questions from only a few pages of posts. You really should rethink how you present yourself if you want to be taken seriously.

Maybe you should rethink how you present yourself with these ridiculous questions if you want respectful answers.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Maybe you should rethink how you present yourself with these ridiculous questions if you want respectful answers.

Please tell me which of my questions to you was ridiculous and worthy of all the insults you are throwing? All you have to do is copy/paste it and explain why it is ridiculous.

Originally posted by divegeester
Please tell me which of my questions to you was ridiculous and worthy of all the insults you are throwing? All you have to do is copy/paste it and explain why it is ridiculous.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Big Bang theory wrong - Big Bang never happened, Black Holes dont exist new theory claims

YouTube

I had responded to Suzianne idea of "Black holes" that she apparently got from a speculative scientific theory with my belief that "black holes" is an anti-biblical teaching that contradicts the Biblical teaching that God holds the heavens together and therefore God would prevent holes in the fabric of space.

So I was referencing this video to support the idea that "black holes" are only speculations in scientific thought.

Originally posted by divegeester
Are you saying that you don't accept that black holes exist?

RJHinds answers with a question
You mean you really can't figure it out from all I have said?

Originally posted by divegeester
You haven't explicitly said so and what you have said is is slightly muddled comment about an exchange with Suzianne, so I'm asking you for clarification on wether or not your accept that black holds exist?

Answer by RJHinds
The quick answer is no I don't accept the theory of the existence of Black Holes in space.

I pointed out that there is a more recent theory that claims there are no Black Holes. So I see no reason to believe Black Holes exist when there is no proof that they do, especially when there is another scientific theory claiming they don't exist.

Originally posted by divegeester
I had a quick look at reports which seem interesting. Obviously needs to be peer reviewed.

Looking at your comments, do you think the concept of black holes is against scripture and the ford thier debunking will support your view of creation? In other words, why is this whole thing significant to you?

Answer by RJHinds
The Holy Bible reveals the heavens are like a curtain and that God spreads or stretches them out, but it says nothing about big black holes in the curtains. So I do not really question the scientific theory that the fabric of space has expanded or even that it may still be expanding for there is also support for that idea in the Holy Bible. However, I need a lot more proof that there are big black holes in the fabric of space, especially when there are two contradictory scientific theories on that subject.

Response by divegeester
OK to continue your soft-furnishings metaphor, the Bible (God) also says to Christ "the Earth is your foot stool " but how does that work without a chair? My point being that these scriptures are metaphors and not literal blueprints.

RJHinds answers with a question
If God is high up in the third heaven, the earth could not be considered His throne or His crown now could it?

Originally posted by divegeester
Are you genuinely answering my general point about scriptural metaphors not being literal, or are you deliberately obfuscating by commenting why God used a footstool as a metaphor?

Reply by RJHinds
I do not deny that it is a metaphor and metaphors are used for highlighting the similarities between different things. But I do not admit that the Holy Bible is made up entirely of metaphors with no actual history to be found.

Originally posted by divegeester
I'm not suggesting that the Bible is made up entirely of metaphors. I'm trying to understand why you believe that the concept of black holes goes against scripture. So far you haven't made much of a case to be honest.

Answer by RJHinds
Because curtains do not normally have black holes in them.

Response by divegeester
Goodbye and good luck with the banjo lessons

Originally posted by RJHinds
Black holes in space are obviously cancelled out by the two opposing scientific theories and the Holy Bible says nothing about them in the curtain-like fabric of space.

So common sense reasoning would require us to believe that they were not mentioned because they were not there. It is not logical to think God would make black holes in His curtain of space.

Stupid question by divegeester
Are you saying then that if any cosmic phenomena is not specifically mentioned in the Bible, you don't believe it exists?

Reply by RJHinds
No, of course not.

Are you saying you are stupid?

It is ridiculous to keep asking, "Are you saying etc., etc., etc." when you can easily read what I am saying which is in plain sight.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I don't have the patience now to rehactch them all and like I said I haven't been trained to explain things to retards.

That's 3.

Originally posted by RJHinds

The Holy Bible reveals the heavens are like a curtain and that God spreads or stretches them out, but it says nothing about big black holes in the curtains. So I do not really question the scientific theory that the fabric of space has expanded or even that it may still be expanding for there is also support for that idea in the Holy Bible. However, I need a lot more proof that there are big black holes in the fabric of space, especially when there are two contradictory scientific theories on that subject.

RJ, My Bible says nothing about a Venus Flytrap. Should I believe that there is such a weird thing as a plant the catches and eats insects !? Hey, the Bible said nothing about that.

Originally posted by RJHinds
It is ridiculous to keep asking, "Are you saying etc., etc., etc." when you can easily read what I am saying which is in plain sight.[/b]

I'm trying to understand what it is you believe and why. So far all I have from you is that you reject decades of established astronomical observation on Black Holes because the Bible once describes space metaphorically as a set of curtains and it doesn't mention black holes.

You seen to think this is a sufficient explanation of your quite strange belief and then feel justified to start abusing me if I ask you about how you have constructed this belief.

Originally posted by divegeester
I'm trying to understand what it is you believe and why. So far all I have from you is that you reject decades of established astronomical observation on Black Holes because the Bible once describes space metaphorically as a set of curtains and it doesn't mention black holes.

You seen to think this is a sufficient explanation of your quite strange bel ...[text shortened]... then feel justified to start abusing me if I ask you about how you have constructed this belief.

The bible also does not mention magnatars, pulsars, quasars, elliptical galaxies, or galaxies of any kind so I guess that means we are being duped into seeing these things, right?

Originally posted by sonhouse
The bible also does not mention magnatars, pulsars, quasars, elliptical galaxies, or galaxies of any kind so I guess that means we are being duped into seeing these things, right?

It doesn't mention the internet, chess or RHP, it's doesn't mention RJHinds - perhaps he doesn't actually exist 😲

Originally posted by sonship
[quote] The Holy Bible reveals the heavens are like a curtain and that God spreads or stretches them out, but it says nothing about big black holes in the curtains. So I do not really question the scientific theory that the fabric of space has expanded or even that it may still be expanding for there is also support for that idea in the Holy Bible. However, ...[text shortened]... weird thing as a plant the catches and eats insects !? Hey, the Bible said nothing about that.

Creation and the Venus Flytrap

In Genesis 1:11-13 God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass … according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. So the evening and the morning were the third day.” The two other categories of living things produced on the third day were “the herb that yields seed and the fruit tree that yields fruit.” We can reasonably deduce that the insectivorous plants were included among the grasses and not among the herb that yields seed e.g. cereal grains. Interestingly, at the end of the sixth day of creation when God specified what may be eaten by the animal kingdom and by man, the grains and the fruit were included but not the grasses (1:29-30). As we shall see, there was undoubtedly a good reason for this. The Lord then declared that His creation was very good (1:31) and that it was finished (2:1-2). Apart from the fact that death can hardly be described as “very good,” death is not mentioned in the account of creation.

The great work of botanical classification begun by Carl Linneaus in the mid-eighteenth century led to the investigation of the insectivorous plants. The Venus flytrap was given its botanical name, Dionaea muscipula, in 1770. The earliest studies began in the late eighteenth century in Germany and were followed up in the nineteenth century in England. Studies were conducted by Sir Joseph Dalton Hooker, director of Kew Gardens, then notably, a major study by Charles Darwin. Quite late in his life Darwin studied several common members of this family of plants including especially Drosera rotundifloria and Dionea muscipula.

Darwin conducted a number of experiments and found that the short sensitive filaments were not affected by raindrops or wind, and provided they were not moist, objects such as bits of wood, cork, moss, paper, stone, or glass had no effect upon inflection of the leaf. He tried various dilute chemical solutions and determined that the filaments did not react to inorganic or to non-nitrogenous solutions. Reaction was most effective with the salts of ammonia while phosphate of ammonia was particularly powerful (p.168). In these experiments Darwin also tried human urine and found this to be effective although he pointed out that the power of the urine did not lie in the urea (CO(NH2)2) which is the chief solid component of mammalian urine and an end product of protein decomposition (p.79 and p.124). Although unstated by Darwin, this would leave uric acid (C3H4N4O3) as the active component and, significantly, this is the chief component in the urine of birds and reptiles. Further, urine from birds and reptiles is not a liquid but a semisolid. Each leaf is seemingly limited to four or five capture cycles requiring several days rest between each cycle.

From Darwin’s experiments, it is clear that prior to the Fall of Man neither air nor water alone were the subject of the digestion process. However, Darwin showed that nitrogen is a necessary symbiotic component of the digestive process. Today, that component is derived from living insects but prior to the Fall there was seemingly only one other source of nitrogenous materials: excrement in small doses. It is considered significant that the grasses seem to thrive on this source of nitrogen as is evident by a walk through the local cow pasture. This could be the reason the grasses were not included in the foods offered to Man. However, in offering Man herbs and fruits to eat, the Lord certainly recognized the inevitable result would be the final products of digestion. In fact, He provided an amazing hierarchy of insects and bacteria that have faithfully served to take good care of these by-products. Entire armies of dung beetles and smaller fry attend to the by-products of the larger mammals and Man but what about the by-products of the birds, the insects and the small reptiles? Any visitor to a busy rookery will attest to bird by-products as a veritable hazard from above, however, the Venus flytrap may have considered it all to be manna from heaven.

http://www.creationmoments.com/resources/articles/design/nature-natures-god/creation-and-venus-flytrap

Originally posted by RJHinds
[b]Creation and the Venus Flytrap

In Genesis 1:11-13 God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass … according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. So the evening and the morning were the third day.” The two other categories of living things produced on the third day were “the herb that yields seed and the fruit tree that yields fruit.” We can re ...[text shortened]... /www.creationmoments.com/resources/articles/design/nature-natures-god/creation-and-venus-flytrap[/b]

From Darwin’s experiments, it is clear that prior to the Fall of Man neither air nor water alone were the subject of the digestion process. However, Darwin showed that nitrogen is a necessary symbiotic component of the digestive process. Today, that component is derived from living insects but prior to the Fall there was seemingly only one other source of nitrogenous materials: excrement in small doses.

Nitrogen derived from living insects. That has to be a new low in the BS category.

Originally posted by divegeester
I'm trying to understand what it is you believe and why. So far all I have from you is that you reject decades of established astronomical observation on Black Holes because the Bible once describes space metaphorically as a set of curtains and it doesn't mention black holes.

You seen to think this is a sufficient explanation of your quite strange bel ...[text shortened]... then feel justified to start abusing me if I ask you about how you have constructed this belief.

After all this time of your ignorant questions and comments, I have determined that you are not capable of understanding what I believe. 😏