Why do the anti God crowd attack the bible ?

[Avatar4321]

Thanks but all you did was show 7 other passages that dispute what youre trying to promote. God didnt need particles to create the world, did he? He just plain creates. He doesnt need anything, according to the bible.

This section of the passage "so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear" doesnt say we're made of particles.

So that marbles that we see were not made of other things we see. So in other words, *poof* there was a marble. God is capable of that according to the bible. Unless you dispute it.

Actually, the Bible doesn't support the doctrine of Creation Ex Nihilo. The Bible use of the word created is a bit inaccurate translation. The more appropriate understanding would be that God organized the world. The elements of the world are eternal. Matter can neither be created or destroyed, merely transformed.

 

[Avatar4321]

I know God still loves the jewish people but they are in a little hot water, they are the ones that had Christ put to death.

If you believe that, then you don't understand the scriptures nearly as much as you claim to.

 

[cbirch2]

You put a lot of faith in a system with flaws.

But how would carbon dating prove dinosaurs died off 65 million years ago if they say it carbon dating will only go back 40 thousand years ?

Pick one of the other 20 dating methods.

The problem is the presuppositions before they start,among others.

What presuppositions? The rate at which a sample of atoms emit alpha radiation and decay into lighter elements is constant. Thats a fact. Carbon-14 is instable. Any that remained from the formation of earth is gone. Which means any samples of Carbon-14 in fossils or rocks are formed from the decay of nitrogen. If the decay of nitrogen is always stable and predictable then the amount of C-14 is entirely dependent on the amount of time the nitrogen sample has had to decay.

 

[Sky Dancer]

I know God still loves the jewish people but they are in a little hot water, they are the ones that had Christ put to death.

If you believe that, then you don't understand the scriptures nearly as much as you claim to.

He's a Christian. You've got to back each other up. I'm the anti-christ. Nice to meet you.

 

[Avatar4321]

Aw crap. Now youve done it.....

No proof of that whatsoever other then faulty dating methods.

Did you watch my videos ?

Faulting dating methods. O so i guess Silver-Argon, and Carbon-14 and Iodine dating methods all give the same error.

By saying radioactive dating methods are wrong your saying everything we know about nuclear physics is wrong. Its not. If you wanna debate particle physics and the standard model i would love to, it was my original major.

You're falsely assuming that the laws governing dating methods have been consistant throughout time. Not surprising since a basic premise of the scientific method is to assume that the same laws that govern science now governed it the same way in the past. I am not sure whether that's true or not.

Unfortunately, outside the advent of time travel, which creates a cornecopia of disturbing concepts to deal with, there really is no way to test the assumption that the laws of nature are the same today as they were in the past.

In other words, any conclusion we come to will be a matter of faith.

Personally, I think that the longer the world is in its fallen state, the more prone it is to decaying and corrupting influence. And if this is true, then I would postulate that radiactive decay would face a similiar principle. Since the study of radiactive elements has only been strong in the past 100-150 years I would think that we haven't been measuring it long enough to determine whether my theory is right.

Clearly my thoughts aren't the Gospel truth. I could be very wrong indeed. But thinking about it rationally it makes sense to me. And if it's true it could easily explain the discrepancies we have with dating and the scriptures.

Regardless, I have no doubt that when the time comes the Lord will reveal it all. It could be that there are many things we have never suspected. I am eager to see the day when the Lord fulfills his promise to pour out knowledge on His people.

 

[Avatar4321]

Well i see the title of my thread was spot on,almost feel like a prophet.

It's truly a shame that you don't seek out the gift of prophecy or understand it completely. it truly is a great gift. You may be more prophetic than you realize once yo understand what the Spirit of Prophecy really is.

 

[Youwerecreated]

lol if the big bang didnt happen why is everything expanding at all...

Doesnt expansion mean it was smaller at one point? How do you explain that?

How bout God is still creating.

Why would it speed up ?

Do you even know what your talking about? The idea of dark energy is based on observations from exploding supernovas rather than just galaxies expanding. That doesnt explain the fact that a universe that is expanding now must have been been a point previously. Have you ever seen an expansion or an explosion that was anything different than that? How does the big bang theory contrary to god? The big bang theory and god can coexist together. Why cant you accept evidence into your faith. Primitive jews and christians (and all people) were idiots, they thought the earth was flat. Why is this any different. Older generations had to eventually accommodate fact into their faith, like the earth goes around the sun. This is no different.

How do you explain the Cosmic Microwave Background and that the big bang theory made a successful prediction of its temperature 10 years before it was even known to exist?

Yes,but why is there no other life in our solar system if everything came from a natural system ?

But i will say astrology is not one of my the fields that i have a strong background in.

 

[cbirch2]

You're falsely assuming that the laws governing dating methods have been consistant throughout time. Not surprising since a basic premise of the scientific method is to assume that the same laws that govern science now governed it the same way in the past. I am not sure whether that's true or not.

Unfortunately, outside the advent of time travel, which creates a cornecopia of disturbing concepts to deal with, there really is no way to test the assumption that the laws of nature are the same today as they were in the past.

In other words, any conclusion we come to will be a matter of faith.

Personally, I think that the longer the world is in its fallen state, the more prone it is to decaying and corrupting influence. And if this is true, then I would postulate that radiactive decay would face a similiar principle. Since the study of radiactive elements has only been strong in the past 100-150 years I would think that we haven't been measuring it long enough to determine whether my theory is right.

Clearly my thoughts aren't the Gospel truth. I could be very wrong indeed. But thinking about it rationally it makes sense to me. And if it's true it could easily explain the discrepancies we have with dating and the scriptures.

Regardless, I have no doubt that when the time comes the Lord will reveal it all. It could be that there are many things we have never suspected. I am eager to see the day when the Lord fulfills his promise to pour out knowledge on His people.

The decay of particles is caused by the electric charges of quarks within the nucleus of the atom, the strength of the strong nuclear force, and the weak nuclear force. If either of these things were to change in the slightest atoms would be entirely unstable.

Debating biology is one thing, thats not a concrete and clear science. But particle physics is all math. Carbon and Nitrogen have been decaying at the same rate throughout time because if they hadnt stars and planets wouldnt even have formed as they have now.

How do you propose the decay rate of certain elements have changed all over the universe simultaneously throughout time?

Decay rates depend more than anything on the electromagnetic forces within the nucleus of an atom. If decay rates were different, electromagnetic charges would be different, meaning the atom would be an entirely different atom.

 

[Avatar4321]

How is the bibile evidence of anything?

Eye witness accounts are always evidence. That's not debateable. The debate is whether the witnesses are credible.

And you learn that by experimenting on the word.

Are you serious? You have no proof that those "eyewitnesses" even existed.

The Bible itself is a collection of claimed eye witness accounts. The very existence of the Bible proves that the writers existed. Whether their testimony is true, ie credible, on the other hand is debatable as I said.

 

[Avatar4321]

Anyways, everyone have a great day, i am off to a movie with the wife.

Sounds more productive than staying around here.

 

[Avatar4321]

Coming off as genuine in seeking truth then attacking it.

Your name is ironic.

I think everyone except her has realized that since she started posting. But you know, it's alright. You can learn something from everyone. Sometimes you just need to look harder.

When you claim that ONLY YOU know Absolute Truth, and that anyone who challenges you is a liar or an attacker, that's unfortunate. Some Christians are chauvinists, and they think are superior to everyone else. It's natural to feel your path is the one true path FOR YOU. That's how Buddhism is for me. I don't recommend it to you. You've haven't the interest or aptitude for it. I respect that Christianity is your one true path. The problem is, many religions feel this way and there is too much fighting about it.

On the one hand, you side with youwerecreated in criticizing Truthmatters and then you kind of back off and say you can learn something from everyone. I like that part.

That's precisely why I'm not foolish enough to claim that only I know it. I only know what I know. But I've experimented on the things I know to develop faith in God to continue to rely on Him even though I don't know everything.

 

[cbirch2]

How bout God is still creating.

Why would it speed up ?

Do you even know what your talking about? The idea of dark energy is based on observations from exploding supernovas rather than just galaxies expanding. That doesnt explain the fact that a universe that is expanding now must have been been a point previously. Have you ever seen an expansion or an explosion that was anything different than that? How does the big bang theory contrary to god? The big bang theory and god can coexist together. Why cant you accept evidence into your faith. Primitive jews and christians (and all people) were idiots, they thought the earth was flat. Why is this any different. Older generations had to eventually accommodate fact into their faith, like the earth goes around the sun. This is no different.

How do you explain the Cosmic Microwave Background and that the big bang theory made a successful prediction of its temperature 10 years before it was even known to exist?

Yes,but why is there no other life in our solar system if everything came from a natural system ?

But i will say astrology is not one of my the fields that i have a strong background in.

Dude what are you talking about. There are millions of planets outside of out solar system. Life doesnt exist on other planets in this solar system because no other planets are in the habitable zone, the zone in which water can exist. But we have no idea if life exists outside of our solar system because weve never been outside of it. There very well could be.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I know God still loves the jewish people but they are in a little hot water, they are the ones that had Christ put to death.

If you believe that, then you don't understand the scriptures nearly as much as you claim to.

You might want to open the bible and read it for yourself.



Mat 27:22 Pilate said to them, What then shall I do with Jesus, who is called Christ? They all said to him, Let Him be crucified.
Mat 27:23 And the governor said, Why? What evil has He done? But they cried out the more, saying, let Him be crucified!
Mat 27:24 But when Pilate saw that it gained nothing, but rather that a tumult was made, he took water and washed his hands before the crowd, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person. You see to it.


Who were the people that handed Christ over to pilate to be crucified ?

Who were the people that were calling for him to be crucified ?

 

[cbirch2]

Eye witness accounts are always evidence. That's not debateable. The debate is whether the witnesses are credible.

And you learn that by experimenting on the word.

Are you serious? You have no proof that those "eyewitnesses" even existed.

The Bible itself is a collection of claimed eye witness accounts. The very existence of the Bible proves that the writers existed. Whether their testimony is true, ie credible, on the other hand is debatable as I said.

What? Writing a book is not an eyewitness account, unless written as such. The bible is not. The bible is not usually written by the people in each book, particularly the old testament. Therefore the eyewitnesses you refer to have to be the characters in that book that talked to prophets and saw the miracles. But those are characters. Eyewitness accounts of people dont even mean much, eye witness accounts of fictional characters in books mean even less.

 

[Avatar4321]

Why do you need facts when you have faith?

Who cares about the fact that snakes can't talk when the Bible says you should have faith that it happened?

What makes you think snakes couldn't talk before the fall? What makes you think they can't now if they chose to?

People put too many limitations on things. Not criticizing you personally here. I think I probably act the same.

Interestingly enough, that could possibly be true.

The main reason for the Flood was that the Sons of God had mated with the daughters of mankind, and they created the Nephilim.

God saw what was going on and decided He needed to start over again.

There are alot of things that can be true if we just open our minds to the possibility.

Take Unicorns. Many presume them to be mythological creatures because they picture them as they are always depicted in media. Essentially to be horses with a horn. People accept this as fact. But they don't consider the possibility that the picture we associate with Unicorns is different from what our ancestors thought.

I commonly accepted this as fact, until I read an obscure account of an ancient writer describing a unicorn. (I wish I could remember the source). When I read it, it just clicked, this writer isn't describing what we consider a unicorn. He's describing a Rhinocerous.

I wonder how many other things we attribute to myth and think our ancestors were foolish simply because we don't understand what they were actually talking about. How many people are closed to ideas because they just cant broaden their view to see alittle more widely then they currently are?

I think it's human nature to resist this. And it's difficult to find balance between opening your mind to possibilities and denial of clear and convincing truth sometimes.

I know, I'm long winded. I just think about this stuff from time to time and I don't get to talk about it often.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Do you even know what your talking about? The idea of dark energy is based on observations from exploding supernovas rather than just galaxies expanding. That doesnt explain the fact that a universe that is expanding now must have been been a point previously. Have you ever seen an expansion or an explosion that was anything different than that? How does the big bang theory contrary to god? The big bang theory and god can coexist together. Why cant you accept evidence into your faith. Primitive jews and christians (and all people) were idiots, they thought the earth was flat. Why is this any different. Older generations had to eventually accommodate fact into their faith, like the earth goes around the sun. This is no different.

How do you explain the Cosmic Microwave Background and that the big bang theory made a successful prediction of its temperature 10 years before it was even known to exist?

Yes,but why is there no other life in our solar system if everything came from a natural system ?

But i will say astrology is not one of my the fields that i have a strong background in.

Dude what are you talking about. There are millions of planets outside of out solar system. Life doesnt exist on other planets in this solar system because no other planets are in the habitable zone, the zone in which water can exist. But we have no idea if life exists outside of our solar system because weve never been outside of it. There very well could be.

My point is if we are all made up of elements in the universe how come there is no other life detected out there yet ?

So earlier you said don't discuss evolution with anyone who does not understand it,well i understand it .well let's see if we are a product of evolution or creation.

 

[cbirch2]

Yes,but why is there no other life in our solar system if everything came from a natural system ?

But i will say astrology is not one of my the fields that i have a strong background in.

Dude what are you talking about. There are millions of planets outside of out solar system. Life doesnt exist on other planets in this solar system because no other planets are in the habitable zone, the zone in which water can exist. But we have no idea if life exists outside of our solar system because weve never been outside of it. There very well could be.

My point is if we are all made up of elements in the universe how come there is no other life detected out there yet ?

So earlier you said don't discuss evolution with anyone who does not understand it,well i understand it .well let's see if we are a product of evolution or creation.

...Seriously?

No other life has been detected because when it comes to planets outside of our solar system all they look like to us are specs on a telescope. The closest star is 4 lightyears away. Most other stars you see are hundreds if not thousands of lightyears away. Most of the other stars in the universe are so far away we cant even seem them individually, only in large clusters.

We have no way of knowing if there is other life or not.

 

[cbirch2]

Yes,but why is there no other life in our solar system if everything came from a natural system ?

But i will say astrology is not one of my the fields that i have a strong background in.

Dude what are you talking about. There are millions of planets outside of out solar system. Life doesnt exist on other planets in this solar system because no other planets are in the habitable zone, the zone in which water can exist. But we have no idea if life exists outside of our solar system because weve never been outside of it. There very well could be.

My point is if we are all made up of elements in the universe how come there is no other life detected out there yet ?

So earlier you said don't discuss evolution with anyone who does not understand it,well i understand it .well let's see if we are a product of evolution or creation.

"if we are all made up of elements in the universe"

So wait....If im correct in understanding that, do you not believe everything in the universe is an element...?

 

[Sky Dancer]

I think everyone except her has realized that since she started posting. But you know, it's alright. You can learn something from everyone. Sometimes you just need to look harder.

When you claim that ONLY YOU know Absolute Truth, and that anyone who challenges you is a liar or an attacker, that's unfortunate. Some Christians are chauvinists, and they think are superior to everyone else. It's natural to feel your path is the one true path FOR YOU. That's how Buddhism is for me. I don't recommend it to you. You've haven't the interest or aptitude for it. I respect that Christianity is your one true path. The problem is, many religions feel this way and there is too much fighting about it.

On the one hand, you side with youwerecreated in criticizing Truthmatters and then you kind of back off and say you can learn something from everyone. I like that part.

That's precisely why I'm not foolish enough to claim that only I know it. I only know what I know. But I've experimented on the things I know to develop faith in God to continue to rely on Him even though I don't know everything.

youwerecreated is foolish enough to claim the only Absolute Truth is Christianity. I have no problem with people having faith in God.

I have a problem with people who are unable to see that other people's religions are as true to them as yours is to you.

I appreciate when posters don't twist the words and meanings of my post. (See earlier post).

 

[Avatar4321]

I always get a laugh when Christians pretend the Bible is scientific proof of anything.

And I'm amused when people pretend that scientific proof is the only way we can know anything. Amused and yet sad.

It's sad you twisted the meaning of my words. I did not say that scientific proof is the only way to know anything. I said it's funny when Christians pretend the Bible is scientific proof of anything.

I keep trying to have a better connection with you, but it's difficult when you insist on distorting the meaning of my post.

The nature of faith is knowing beyond what can be proved. You keep forgetting I'm a person of faith, myself. I get it though. My faith doesn't count because it isn't Biblical.

You discount my religion. That is sad.

I don't discount your religion in the least. In fact, i study it from time to time, even though I disagree with some basic tenants. I study lots of things. It's easier to love people you understand.

And Forgive me, but I wasn't attempting to twist your words or direct those comments at you directly. I should have been clearer in my statements.

The nature of faith is certitude. That's why God reveals the Truths He does and gives us the choice to exercise faith in them. So we can understand through our own experiences that what He teaches are true.

Take honesty for example. It's a true principle. Can it be proven try scientifically? No (though I won't deny that I would consider the study of the effects of lying on the liars body is interesting evidence). How do I know it's a true principle? Is it because of reason? No. Though I am sure I could make some reasonable arguments why it's good to be honest.

No. The only way to know honesty is good for ourselves is to actively strive to be honest in our lives. Then we see the fruits of it. We can taste them for ourselves. The Holy Spirit testifies to us, no matter what our religious persuasion, that being honest is a true and holy principle.

The only way to have things of the Spirit taught to us exercising faith (IE Doing the principle) and learning through the Spirit.

That is why I encourage people not to simply take my word for anything. I could be wrong. We all need to learn for ourselves. We all need to have our own personal experience with God. And we can have our own experience with God through experimenting in faith.

I didn't always know God was there. I just came to the conclusion that if there was a God, and if He created me with the ability to communicate. He could communicate back. And when and if He was ever really He could make Himself known. At that point I had to conclude that if the scriptures are true, then the only way we could know is to exercise faith. I had to experiment.

I will never regret doing that. Nor of learning what I have since. I only wish my choices had been better since then because despite learning alot I still have done alot of stupid things.