18 Aug 15
Originally posted by CalJustOur rules, I would think if it were our rules I'd be aware of it.
You already broke our agreed rule - no saying goddidit. We agreed to examine the current evidence and then see how that could be accommodated in a Young Earth hypothesis.
But let me proceed just a little further. My own speciality is coal and coal research. As you will know, coal is made up from decayed plant material, and the constituents of coal are cal ...[text shortened]... animals in the Ark were not species known today, could you suggest what "kinds" came from were?
If you want to limit discussion on if God did something but not allow for God doing it,
I think you are the one that really does not want to discuss to the topic not me.
If you want to limit God's ability by the limitations we see today, then just write me off as
not agreeing with your rules. I don't think God acted as something other than who He is
which is God, and by acting in a special event He can create something out of nothing,
He can direct DNA to mutate as He sees fit, He is after all the writer of the code.
If He can speak the universe into being by the power of His Word, exactly what method
would be used to glean how old it is?
You want to look at rates of decay, for what purpose, you know how long they were here
so that the decay rate you look at is a measure of time? If God created the universe as
it is written then none of those rates are doing to show you anything other some measure
of decay. You assume you know the universe has been around a long time for these to
give us an accurate representation of time, but it is an assumption, not a fact on your part.
Long periods of time, we are discussing creation and you think you know scripture is
wrong by looking at coal. If God created the universe again your assumptions on long
periods of time are worthless.
I get you want to refute the Word of God by looking at what man has come up with so that
you can suggest God couldn't do it, because here are the facts, except you don't have
facts, you have assumptions, backed up with assumptions about the distant past that may
or may not be true.
With respect to your first question if I have not caused you to want to quit this discussion
on the Ark, we don't know what the land looked like before or right after the flood. We do
know according to scripture that it under went massive changes. I also told you that there
is some speculation on a massive earth quake that could have been a massive change
of land masses. We also don't know if the rate of change was the same now as it was
right after the flood. If all the animals disperse from the Ark they would have had to have
moved into such a place as being able to populate the planet as it became what it settled
into.
18 Aug 15
Originally posted by KellyJayThe animals coming out of the Ark story would have to account for places like Madagascar , that is, places totally isolated where animals from there ended up in exactly the same place, even though there would be mountain ranges and oceans between where they came from, ending up on the Ark, then getting back to the exact place they started.
Our rules, I would think if it were our rules I'd be aware of it.
If you want to limit discussion on if God did something but not allow for God doing it,
I think you are the one that really does not want to discuss to the topic not me.
If you want to limit God's ability by the limitations we see today, then just write me off as
not agreeing with your ...[text shortened]... moved into such a place as being able to populate the planet as it became what it settled
into.
Doesn't that give you SOME kind of pause about that story?
18 Aug 15
Originally posted by divegeester
No scripture is required as nobody ever, not once in the entire recorded scripture, baptised in the TITLES (not name) of father, son and Holy Spirit.
Yes they have. In fact, the baptist minister that baptized me said, "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" just as Jesus commanded in the scriptures.
That is the way it is done in many, if not all Baptist Churches.
18 Aug 15
Originally posted by sonhouseThe earth was under going massive changes during and after the flood, how creatures go
The animals coming out of the Ark story would have to account for places like Madagascar , that is, places totally isolated where animals from there ended up in exactly the same place, even though there would be mountain ranges and oceans between where they came from, ending up on the Ark, then getting back to the exact place they started.
Doesn't that give you SOME kind of pause about that story?
to the various parts of the planet would be very difficult to know if we don't know how the
place looked which we don't. There would have had to of been a massive migration all
over the place. I find that easier to believe than the astronomical number of things
required that would have had life starting some place on the planet where there was no
life at all and seeing it thrive and survive spreading out over an other wise lifeless planet
without direction, without a plan, without a purpose, without God over seeing it.
At least with my belief the author of life is directing the DNA in life to mutate to cause each
creature to be better suited to where they are going and end up through natural selection,
instead of the randomness of mutations coupled all the various parts of the universe
having to just right in the subatomic to the placement of the planets, moons, and stars.
18 Aug 15
Originally posted by KellyJaySo in other words, all dating techniques, radiometric, dendochronic, geologic, ice core, ALL those dating technologies are ALL bogus and no date past 6000 years ago is valid?
The earth was under going massive changes during and after the flood, how creatures go
to the various parts of the planet would be very difficult to know if we don't know how the
place looked which we don't. There would have had to of been a massive migration all
over the place. I find that easier to believe than the astronomical number of things
requir ...[text shortened]... iverse
having to just right in the subatomic to the placement of the planets, moons, and stars.
18 Aug 15
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseLet's put it this way. All dating methods that date the earth millions or billions of years old has to be bogus. 😏
So in other words, all dating techniques, radiometric, dendochronic, geologic, ice core, ALL those dating technologies are ALL bogus and no date past 6000 years ago is valid?
18 Aug 15
Originally posted by sonhouseNot in any other words, I've been very plain if God created the universe by speaking it into
So in other words, all dating techniques, radiometric, dendochronic, geologic, ice core, ALL those dating technologies are ALL bogus and no date past 6000 years ago is valid?
being there would be no method that could validate that we would have at our disposal.
That said, it is still possible it is billions of years old, my most truthful answer to how old it
is would be, I don't know.
19 Aug 15
Originally posted by RJHindsHow does what you quoted have anything to do with what is "recorded in scripture"?Yes they have. In fact, the baptist minister that baptized me said, "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" just as Jesus commanded in the scriptures.
That is the way it is done in many, if not all Baptist Churches.
19 Aug 15
Originally posted by KellyJayYou don't 'know' but clearly don't believe Earth to be billions of years old. It is really sad that people in this day and age after 12 people have walked on the moon and all the work and science that went into that huge effort, all the astronomic discoveries, all the tree ring data, all the ice core data, C14 dating techniques good for 20,000 years or more, radiometric dating of rocks, geologic dating of sediments and so forth, vast sedimentary structures UNDER the grand canyon, the supposed site of all that washed away by the supposed world wide flood, all that just casually dismissed, like you could dismiss 400 years of solid scientific growth, mathematics, genetics, evolution science.
Not in any other words, I've been very plain if God created the universe by speaking it into
being there would be no method that could validate that we would have at our disposal.
That said, it is still possible it is billions of years old, my most truthful answer to how old it
is would be, I don't know.
Where creationists cannot get it through their heads that evolution is the study of how life changes over time and has nothing to do with life origins. Evolutionary scientists could care less how life got here, they are ONLY interested in what happened next, how said life changes over time. Yet creationists INSIST evolution science be lumped together with life origins, saying if you don't know how life got here, you can never understand how life changes. Which is total BS. I don't need to know the origin of iron to be able to make a nice frying pan but creationists would say, since you don't know how iron got here (in fact, I do) then you can NEVER make a frying pan......
19 Aug 15
Originally posted by KellyJayI have also been very plain.
Not in any other words, I've been very plain if God created the universe by speaking it into
being there would be no method that could validate that we would have at our disposal.
That said, it is still possible it is billions of years old, my most truthful answer to how old it
is would be, I don't know.
Whatever God did to "speak the world into existence" would leave some remnants, or tracks, for us to discover.
My challenge to you was if we accept that God created it, and studied some of the remaining evidence of such a creation, would you be prepared to look at it, without saying at every turn, when this evidence presents a problem, that goddidit?
Anyway, you totally ignored my coal evidence, and just fell back into your goddidit position, even though you claim to be open to learning, since (and I quote) " we all have errors".
Here's a simpler example.
You say to me that a certain house was built, fully furnished, in half-an-hour.
I say, let's accept that statement for the sake of this argument, and merely examine the steps needed for this to happen.
Firts, the foundations need to be laid. How much time would this take, in your opinion?
Then, the shell must be built, the walls and the roof. What time out of the 30 min should we allow for that?
Lastly, we need to paint the inside, purchase furniture and fittings and appliances. How long do you think this will take?
Also, you cannot furnish a house before laying the foundation and doing the other stuff, because you need a certain sequence of events.
Now, if your reply is simply (as you repeatedly do) : "I cannot tell how it was done, but God can surely build a house in 30 minutes, and he can, if he wants to, start by putting the furniture on the ground and then build the house and foundatioins around it", can you see that we really have no basis for any meaningful discussion?
19 Aug 15
Originally posted by sonhouseI believe in evolution, so I don't care about that topic.
You don't 'know' but clearly don't believe Earth to be billions of years old. It is really sad that people in this day and age after 12 people have walked on the moon and all the work and science that went into that huge effort, all the astronomic discoveries, all the tree ring data, all the ice core data, C14 dating techniques good for 20,000 years or more ...[text shortened]... ince you don't know how iron got here (in fact, I do) then you can NEVER make a frying pan......
The thing that keeps me away from taking anything seriously is someone telling me we
have to give credit for everything, to nothing. Nothing cannot produce anything, let alone
everything! If there is nothing than you don't have energy, heat, matter, left, right, up,
down, There would be nothing to react with anything, even a reaction is something, so
what you are left with is the impossible.
If you cannot get past the opening bell, it doesn't really matter what the rest of the story
has in it. The only thing that people can do is point to the universe as it is and make
assumptions about what could have happen in the distant past.
As I pointed out to you if God is the first cause, and He spoke things into reality, all of the
dating methods we have based upon any given rate would be meaningless, unless it is
something we can validate by seeing it play out from beginning to end.
19 Aug 15
Originally posted by CalJustReally, you know the foot print of what God speaking things into reality would look like?
I have also been very plain.
Whatever God did to "speak the world into existence" would leave some remnants, or tracks, for us to discover.
My challenge to you was if we accept that God created it, and studied some of the remaining evidence of such a creation, would you be prepared to look at it, without saying at every turn, when this evidence present ...[text shortened]... oundatioins around it", can you see that we really have no basis for any meaningful discussion?
When He created the stars, the light of them shown on the earth. What would you use to
figure out how old they were when they were less than a day old?
You want me to look at God's creation and NOT say God created it? Why in the world
would I do that? It is what I believe to be true, why don't you step back and ponder the
reality of the universe because God created it?
I agree we have no basis for any meaningful discussion, as you seem to think in order
to have one we must agree with how you look at things for it to be meaningful.