Hypothetical question

Originally posted by googlefudge
I know that there is no evidence for the existence of gods, and I know that there is evidence against the existence of the god of the bible.

Bias is not evidence. Opinion is not evidence, either.

And you know that there can be 'evidence' that does not support a theory, and yet, with enough twisting of either the evidence or the theory, it may 'seem' to be evidence for the theory. In other words, some evidence is in the eye of the beholder.

I submit for your perusal the theory proposed by RJH, that the earth is a mere 6000 years old. He's submitted reams of evidence for his theory, and yet none of this evidence actually corroborates his theory. And yet he thinks it does.

Exactly the same with you and your 'evidence' against the existence of the God of the Bible. Because RJH would also say that he "knows" that there is evidence which proves the earth is only 6000 years old.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Bias is not evidence. Opinion is not evidence, either.

And you know that there can be 'evidence' that does not support a theory, and yet, with enough twisting of either the evidence or the theory, it may 'seem' to be evidence for the theory. In other words, some evidence is in the eye of the beholder.

I submit for your perusal the theory proposed by ...[text shortened]... d also say that he "knows" that there is evidence which proves the earth is only 6000 years old.

I am disappointed with you as a Christian for not believing the evidence I present for the Biblical age of the earth. For shame.

The Biblical Age of the Earth

The idea of the earth being billions of years old is a relatively new idea. This idea has only become popular within the last 200 years or so. Prior to the early 1800’s and late 1700’s most people believed the biblical age of the earth, about 6,000 years old, as recorded in the Bible. They took God’s word as truth.

http://www.truthingenesis.com/2013/01/03/the-biblical-age-of-the-earth/

Originally posted by RJHinds
I am disappointed with you as a Christian for not believing the evidence I present for the Biblical age of the earth. For shame.

[b]The Biblical Age of the Earth

The idea of the earth being billions of years old is a relatively new idea. This idea has only become popular within the last 200 years or so. Prior to the early 1800’s and late 170 ...[text shortened]... word as truth.

http://www.truthingenesis.com/2013/01/03/the-biblical-age-of-the-earth/[/b]

Instead of feeling shame, perhaps you should instead be asking yourself why so many knowledgeable Christians do not share your view of a young Earth and do not recognise the stuff you link to as evidence.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Instead of feeling shame, perhaps you should instead be asking yourself why so many knowledgeable Christians do not share your view of a young Earth and do not recognise the stuff you link to as evidence.

I don't have to ask a question that I already know the answer. 😏

HalleluYaH !!! Praise the LORD! Holy! Holy! Holy!

Originally posted by lemon lime
Wonder Woman has a new outfit?

Oh, for crying out loud...
Why am I [b]always the last to know?
Why don't people tell me these things, and why am I just now hearing about this?


and where can I go to see her new outfit?[/b]

It's been in the news this past couple of weeks, especially since San Diego Comic Con, where it was announced.

Here's a link directly to a JPG.

http://media.dcentertainment.com/sites/default/files/files/2010/06/newwwcostume.jpg

For more info, see the DC Comics page on WW news.

http://www.dccomics.com/tags/wonder-woman-600

Originally posted by RJHinds
I am disappointed with you as a Christian for not believing the evidence I present for the Biblical age of the earth. For shame.

[b]The Biblical Age of the Earth

The idea of the earth being billions of years old is a relatively new idea. This idea has only become popular within the last 200 years or so. Prior to the early 1800’s and late 170 ...[text shortened]... word as truth.

http://www.truthingenesis.com/2013/01/03/the-biblical-age-of-the-earth/[/b]

As I've told you before, I, too, believe the Bible. I just don't believe your version of the Bible. Clearly, the Bible was written so that ancient man could believe the truth of the Bible, and compare it with what he already knew (which was very little) and come to a conclusion about the truth of scripture. God knows that man has come so far in knowledge and by now man's truth has changed. But the Bible is written so that it does not have to change with man's rising knowledge. We now understand that "6 days of creation" is not a literal 6 days, because we know better, but that does not make Genesis a lie. It is still a story of creation. But some men cannot give God the credit of understanding the mind of man, and so they insist that Genesis MUST be literal. Give God some credit for seeing to it that his story of creation was written so that even modern man can glean truth from it, even though it was written for ancient man with limited knowledge.

Originally posted by Suzianne
It's been in the news this past couple of weeks, especially since San Diego Comic Con, where it was announced.

Here's a link directly to a JPG.

http://media.dcentertainment.com/sites/default/files/files/2010/06/newwwcostume.jpg

For more info, see the DC Comics page on WW news.

http://www.dccomics.com/tags/wonder-woman-600

Wow, that really is different. I should have guessed how much it might have changed because of how batmans costume changed, to the all black dark knight version.

Are you planning on getting dressed up as someone and going to one of those comic cons? I heard that Hugh Jackman showed up at one of those wearing a wolverine mask, and no one knew it was him. I'd like to go to one of those sometime, it sounds like a lot of fun.

Originally posted by lemon lime
Wow, that really [b]is different. I should have guessed how much it might have changed because of how batmans costume changed, to the all black dark knight version.

Are you planning on getting dressed up as someone and going to one of those comic cons? I heard that Hugh Jackman showed up at one of those wearing a wolverine mask, and no one knew it was him. I'd like to go to one of those sometime, it sounds like a lot of fun.[/b]

I've been to a few, mostly here in Phoenix, but I never did the 'cosplay' thing.

WW will have a different look (more of a 'warrior' look) in the Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice movie coming out next March.

There's a pic of it on this page. Just understand that this is her look for the movie only. The other JPG I linked to earlier is from DC Comics and is her look in Wonder Woman #600 and since.

http://www.eonline.com/news/563399/first-pic-of-gal-gadot-as-wonder-woman-revealed-at-comic-con-see-the-hot-shot

Originally posted by Suzianne
As I've told you before, I, too, believe the Bible. I just don't believe your version of the Bible. Clearly, the Bible was written so that ancient man could believe the truth of the Bible, and compare it with what he already knew (which was very little) and come to a conclusion about the truth of scripture. God knows that man has come so far in kn ...[text shortened]... man can glean truth from it, even though it was written for ancient man with limited knowledge.

It is Satan that is the deceiver, not God. It is clear from the fourth commandment, written by the finger of God on the tablets of stone, that He meant the creation days to be counted as normal days just like we count them today. Where is your evidence from the Holy Bible that the earth is billions of years old?

Your belief allows man to change any portion of the Holy Bible he chooses based on his current understanding. I don't believe God's truth changes with time and persons. Where is your evidence from the Holy Bible that the earth is billions of years old?

HalleluYaH !!! Praise the LORD! Holy! Holy! Holy!

Originally posted by Suzianne
I've been to a few, mostly here in Phoenix, but I never did the 'cosplay' thing.

WW will have a different look (more of a 'warrior' look) in the Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice movie coming out next March.

There's a pic of it on this page. Just understand that this is her look for the movie only. The other JPG I linked to earlier is from D ...[text shortened]... ne.com/news/563399/first-pic-of-gal-gadot-as-wonder-woman-revealed-at-comic-con-see-the-hot-shot

I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but the first one looked like a rich girl upscale suburban neighborhood version of Wonder Woman, and the second one looked like a female version of Conan the Barbarian.

And in the second one it looks like she's standing on a rock, except there's something that looks like rebar sticking out the side of it. So apparently the bad guys are ripping the city up instead of simply robbing and looting and kidnapping the commissioners daughter... whoops, that's a batman scenario, so.. uh,

oh, never mind. I'm getting too old for this stuff 😳

Originally posted by lemon lime
I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but the first one looked like a rich girl upscale suburban neighborhood version of Wonder Woman, and the second one looked like a female version of Conan the Barbarian.

And in the second one it looks like she's standing on a rock, except there's something that looks like rebar sticking out the side of it. So ap ...[text shortened]... ops, that's a batman scenario, so.. uh,

oh, never mind. I'm getting too old for this stuff 😳

Well, the dichotomy is that the film, due out in March 2016, is not a DC property, afaik anyways, and that the director has a free hand to interpret the characters as he wants. This is also why I hate these many 'reboots'. How many 'origin' stories should there be?

On the other hand, the video game "Injustice: Gods Among Us" uses the new DC Wonder Woman 600 look for their Wonder Woman character in the game.

Check it out in this You Tube link where WW fights a character named 'Killer Frost':

YouTube

Originally posted by RJHinds
It is Satan that is the deceiver, not God. It is clear from the fourth commandment, written by the finger of God on the tablets of stone, that He meant the creation days to be counted as normal days just like we count them today. Where is your evidence from the Holy Bible that the earth is billions of years old?

Your belief allows man to change any porti ...[text shortened]... le that the earth is billions of years old?

HalleluYaH !!! Praise the LORD! Holy! Holy! Holy!

It is Satan that is the deceiver, not God.

Ummm, no kidding? What does this even have to do with this conversation? This is just more of this "I believe the BIBLE" talk. So do I, like I said, just not YOUR interpretation.

It is clear from the fourth commandment, written by the finger of God on the tablets of stone, that He meant the creation days to be counted as normal days just like we count them today.

You mean, "Remember the Sabbath day, and keep it Holy"? Yes, there is similarity here, and yes, this means to keep the seventh day Holy just as God did at Creation. This does NOT mean that God's days are exactly like our days. There's no basis for that belief.

Where is your evidence from the Holy Bible that the earth is billions of years old?

The same place that evidence for your belief that the Creation days were 24 hours long is -- nowhere. The same place that evidence for your belief that the earth is 6000 years old is -- nowhere. God doesn't tell us everything, nor does he need to. Clearly we can figure out the age of the universe, and of the earth, for ourselves. And he knew that we would someday. This doesn't change the meaning of Genesis one whit.

Your belief allows man to change any portion of the Holy Bible he chooses based on his current understanding.

No, it doesn't. All it allows man to do is change his understanding of the Bible based on his knowledge. And that's not the same thing at all. And this is the glory of how it was written. It was written so that ancient man could understand it and so modern man can understand it as well. And its truth remains the same to each of those men.

I don't believe God's truth changes with time and persons.

Neither do I.

Originally posted by Suzianne
I've been to a few, mostly here in Phoenix, but I never did the 'cosplay' thing.

WW will have a different look (more of a 'warrior' look) in the Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice movie coming out next March.

There's a pic of it on this page. Just understand that this is her look for the movie only. The other JPG I linked to earlier is from D ...[text shortened]... ne.com/news/563399/first-pic-of-gal-gadot-as-wonder-woman-revealed-at-comic-con-see-the-hot-shot

Both of them of cool. Comic book characters should get to wear more than one outfit at a time. I don't see why it has to be just one.

The only downside to these costumes is that they're not distinct. By that, I mean that they don't make the characters instantly recognizable like Superman's, Batman's, Spiderman's or Captain America's costume. I like WW's second costume, but she looks a lot like Xena. The first one is a nice change as well.

Originally posted by vivify
Both of them of cool. Comic book characters should get to wear more than one outfit at a time. I don't see why it has to be just one.

The only downside to these costumes is that they're not distinct. By that, I mean that they don't make the characters instantly recognizable like Superman's, Batman's, Spiderman's or Captain America's costume. I like WW's second costume, but she looks a lot like Xena. The first one is a nice change as well.

You have a good point here. When the MMORPG City of Heroes was still up and running, my main character had cat ears and a cat tail and wielded dual knives. CoH had an awesome costume editor, and you could have like 5 or 6 costumes max for your character that they could change, literally, on the fly. I made hers all red and black, some with a short cape, some without, but they all had a similar overall feel to them. I thought it made the character more instantly recognizable to have similar color patterns, yet different styles for a change of pace.

Originally posted by Suzianne
[b]It is Satan that is the deceiver, not God.

Ummm, no kidding? What does this even have to do with this conversation? This is just more of this "I believe the BIBLE" talk. So do I, like I said, just not YOUR interpretation.

It is clear from the fourth commandment, written by the finger of God on the tablets of stone, that He meant the creat ...[text shortened]... those men.

[b]I don't believe God's truth changes with time and persons.

Neither do I.[/b]

You are the one that chooses a special interpretation of scripture to allow for your billions of years which tickles your ears. I allow the scriptures to speak for themselves and they say the heavens and the earth and seas and everything in them were created in only 6 normal days. The Sabbath law support this by allowing one day of rest in a 6 day work week as a memorial to God's creation work.

Your belief also allows you to ignore those portions of the Holy Bible that disproves your belief. You don't even try to present proof from the Holy Bible that the earth is billions of years old, while I have presented proof from the Holy Bible that the earth is only about 6000 years old from the genealogies and historical acounts i have listed in past threads on this subject.

Why do you continue to claim to be a Christian and yet deny and ignore the truth in the Holy Bible?