why not just sit on your butt and pray?

[thebrucebeat]

Denver University says it is.
Carbon

Care to quote any part of that very long article?
Or are you just trying to pretend you have something juicy?

It's right at the very top

Introduction

Carbon is the lightest member of the IVA family of the periodic table, atomic number 6, electronic configuration 1s22s22p2. Its first ionization potential is 11.26V. Its naturally-occurring stable isotopes are of mass 12 (98.89%) and 13 (1.11%). C14 is produced by cosmic rays in the atmosphere at a constant rate, and decays to stable N14 by β- emission with a half life of about 5730 years. A living sample of wood, say, has the equilibrium amount of C14. When it dies, the radiocarbon decays steadily, and the ratio of C14 to C12 declines to half in 5730 years, and so on. By measuring this ratio, the time when the wood was living can be estimated. This method of dating was worked out by Willard Libby in 1947, and is called "carbon dating."

You just proved my point, and you can't even understand it.
This is exactly what proves the part that I highlighted in red incorrect.
Can you figure it out?

 

[guno]

1. You can certainly infer from the bible that 1 day for God, is 1,000 years for us. However, if you're then going to infer that the earth is 6,000 years old, you are in an Irreconcilable conflict with the relevant science community which says you're wrong.

You also have the option of retreating to the "it's a metaphor" statement but still, you're going to then have to do a lot of special peading and adjustments for what parts of the bible are to be taken literally and which are not.

The only way to evaluate the veracity of an ideology is to examine the core documents of that ideology. Applying external standards does mean that we ignore the very document(s) upon which the ideology is based. Which words are gospel and which words are not? Does this related to specific letters as well? For instance, is English verified as a proper language by which these gospel words are delivered (I believe the Koran is considered corrupt by fundamentalists the moment it is translated out of Arabic). Can one sentence be gospel, the next not, the next two yes, the rest no? What is the standard by which this is judged?

I think you can see I'm being facetious here, but it really is the underlying context of your approach. Sure, you can pick and choose whatever you want, and think you are right -- but you have no baseline by which to assess whether or not your interpretation is correct.


I have no "faith" in science. There is simply no such requirement. As to your claim regarding man's "faulty science", there is no disagreement among the relevant science community regarding the age of this planet or the age of our universe in terms of billions of years.

If you choose to ignore it, that's fine.

I never inferred that the Earth is 6,000 years old. Re read what I said.
What I said was creation took 6,000 years. It still does not tell how old the Earth is.
Earth had to be older because of it's formation before anything could ever live or grow on the planet.
The Bible says that 1 day to God is 1,000 years to us.
2 Peter 3:8
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

And yes carbon 14 dating is flawed.
carbon-14 dating (or radiocarbon dating, as it’s also called) is not a precise dating method in many cases, due to faulty assumptions and other limitations on this method.

Carbon has a weight of twelve atomic mass units (AMU’s), and is the building block of all organic matter (plants and animals). A small percentage of carbon atoms have an atomic weight of 14 AMU’s. This is carbon-14. Carbon-14 is an unstable, radioactive isotope of carbon 12. As with any radioactive isotope, carbon-14 decays over time. The half-life of carbon 14 is approximate 5,730 years. That means if you took one pound of 100 percent carbon-14, in 5,730 years, you would only have half a pound left.
Carbon-14 is created in the upper atmosphere as nitrogen atoms are bombarded by cosmic radiation. For every one trillion carbon-12 atoms, you will find one carbon-14 atoms. The carbon-14 that results from the reaction caused by cosmic radiation quickly changes to carbon dioxide, just like normal carbon-12 would. Plants utilize, or “breath in” carbon dioxide, then ultimately release oxygen for animals to inhale. The carbon-14 dioxide is utilized by plants in the same way normal carbon dioxide is. This carbon-14 dioxide then ends up in humans and other animals as it moves up the food chain.

There is then a ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 in the bodies of plants, humans, and other animals that can fluctuate, but will be fixed at the time of death. After death, the carbon-14 would begin to decay at the rate stated above. In 1948, Dr. W.F. Libby introduced the carbon-14 dating method at the University of Chicago. The premise behind the method is to determine the ratio of carbon-14 left in organic matter, and by doing so, estimate how long ago death occurred by running the ratio backwards. The accuracy of this method, however, relies on several faulty assumptions.

First, for carbon-14 dating to be accurate, one must assume the rate of decay of carbon-14 has remained constant over the years. However, evidence indicates that the opposite is true. Experiments have been performed using the radioactive isotopes of uranium-238 and iron-57, and have shown that rates can and do vary. In fact, changing the environments surrounding the samples can alter decay rates.

The second faulty assumption is that the rate of carbon-14 formation has remained constant over the years. There are a few reasons to believe this assumption is erroneous. The industrial revolution greatly increased the amount of carbon-12 released into the atmosphere through the burning of coal. Also, the atomic bomb testing around 1950 caused a rise in neutrons, which increased carbon-14 concentrations. The great flood which Noah and family survived would have uprooted and/or buried entire forests. This would decrease the release of carbon-12 to the atmosphere through the decay of vegetation.

Third, for carbon-14 dating to be accurate, the concentrations of carbon-14 and carbon-12 must have remained constant in the atmosphere. In addition to the reasons mentioned in the previous paragraph, the flood provides another evidence that this is a faulty assumption. During the flood, subterranean water chambers that were under great pressure would have been breached. This would have resulted in an enormous amount of carbon-12 being released into the oceans and atmosphere. The effect would be not unlike opening a can of soda and having the carbon dioxide fizzing out. The water in these subterranean chambers would not have contained carbon-14, as the water was shielded from cosmic radiation. This would have upset the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12.

To make carbon-14 dating work, Dr. Libby also assumed that the amount of carbon-14 being presently produced had equaled the amount of carbon-12 – he assumed that they had reached a balance. The formation of carbon-14 increases with time, and at the time of creation was probably at or near zero. Since carbon-14 is radioactive, it begins to decay immediately as it’s formed. If you start with no carbon-14 in the atmosphere, it would take over 50,000 years for the amount being produced to reach equilibrium with the amount decaying. One of the reasons we know that the earth is less than 50,000 years old is because of the biblical record. Another reason we can know this is because the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere is only 78% what it would be if the earth were old.

Finally, Dr. Libby and the evolutionist crowd have assumed that all plant and animal life utilize carbon-14 equally as they do carbon-12. To be grammatically crass, this ain’t necessarily so. Live mollusks off the Hawaiian coast have had their shells dated with the carbon-14 method. These test showed that the shells died 2000 years ago! This news came as quite a shock to the mollusks that had been using those shells until just recently.
Radiocarbon dates that do not fit a desired theory are often excluded by alleging cross-contamination of the sample. In this manner, an evolutionist can present a sample for analysis, and tell the laboratory that he assumes the sample to be somewhere between 50,000 years old and 100,000 years old. Dates that do not conform to this estimate are thrown out. Repeated testing of the sample may show nine tests that indicate an age of 5000 to 10,000 years old, and one test that shows an age of 65,000 years old. The nine results showing ages that do not conform to the pre-supposed theory are excluded. This is bad science, and it is practiced all the time to fit with the evolutionary model

These are five faulty assumptions listed here that have caused overestimates of age using the carbon-14 method. The list of non-compliant dates from this method is endless. Most evolutionists today would conclude that carbon-14 dating is – at best – reliable for only the last 3000 to 3500 years. There is another reason that carbon-14 dating has yielded questionable results – human bias.


See, you said relevant science community. Anyone who disagrees can't be relevant.
Theories are all about differences of opinions and when anyone who has a different point of view in the main science community then becomes irrelevant.

Radiocarbon dates that do not fit a desired theory are often excluded by alleging cross-contamination of the sample. In this manner, an evolutionist can present a sample for analysis, and tell the laboratory that he assumes the sample to be somewhere between 50,000 years old and 100,000 years old. Dates that do not conform to this estimate are thrown out. Repeated testing of the sample may show nine tests that indicate an age of 5000 to 10,000 years old, and one test that shows an age of 65,000 years old. The nine results showing ages that do not conform to the pre-supposed theory are excluded. This is bad science, and it is practiced all the time to fit with the evolutionary model.

The part highlighted in red above shows why your understanding of the science involved is pathetically flawed.
See if you can figure out why.

I never inferred that the Earth is 6,000 years old. Re read what I said.
What I said was creation took 6,000 years. It still does not tell how old the Earth is.
Earth had to be older because of it's formation before anything could ever live or grow on the planet.
The Bible says that 1 day to God is 1,000 years to us.
2 Peter 3:8
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

And yes carbon 14 dating is flawed.

......

To make carbon-14 dating work, Dr. Libby also assumed that the amount of carbon-14 being presently produced had equaled the amount of carbon-12 – he assumed that they had reached a balance. The formation of carbon-14 increases with time, and at the time of creation was probably at or near zero. Since carbon-14 is radioactive, it begins to decay immediately as it’s formed. If you start with no carbon-14 in the atmosphere, it would take over 50,000 years for the amount being produced to reach equilibrium with the amount decaying. One of the reasons we know that the earth is less than 50,000 years old is because of the biblical record. Another reason we can know this is because the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere is only 78% what it would be if the earth were old.

I'm afraid your worldview will be negatively impacted to learn that the earth is a bit more than 50,000 years old.

In addition, your data regarding carbon-14 is, I'm afraid, a clone of the Kent Hovind / creation ministries argument that has long ago been debunked by the relevant science community. There have already been a number of solid rebuttals to your young earth creationist claims so for your use and information:

How Good are those Young-Earth Arguments: Radiocarbon Dating



Oh, and the alleged biblical flood - didn't happen.

Problems with a Global Flood, 2nd edition

The biblical flood is a patently rediculous concept. It is one of many myths the religists try to pawn off on ignorant people. Floods happen every year for a variety of reasons. If it rains too much in a specific region and a landslide happens like it did up here in Oso a river can be blocked for a time and then the blocked water can be released which could cause serious damage. Tsunamis have happened many thousands of times wth devastating results. These floods can cover many thousands of square miles.

Suggesting that some fool could have predicted a large flood in advance of a catastrophic rainfall episode causing "all of the world" to be under water is childlike beyond any reason.

Teaching this kind of nonsense to children a a factual occurance is willfully dumbing down children and deteriorating their ability to reason.

This practice is harmfull. Why religists need to dumb down the population is beyond me.

This is why religion will eventually go away. People don't need to know every answer but eventually they will reject every lie.

Teaching that nonsense to children as facts is Intellectual child abuse

 

[guno]

I never inferred that the Earth is 6,000 years old. Re read what I said.
What I said was creation took 6,000 years. It still does not tell how old the Earth is.
Earth had to be older because of it's formation before anything could ever live or grow on the planet.
The Bible says that 1 day to God is 1,000 years to us.
2 Peter 3:8
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

And yes carbon 14 dating is flawed.

......

To make carbon-14 dating work, Dr. Libby also assumed that the amount of carbon-14 being presently produced had equaled the amount of carbon-12 – he assumed that they had reached a balance. The formation of carbon-14 increases with time, and at the time of creation was probably at or near zero. Since carbon-14 is radioactive, it begins to decay immediately as it’s formed. If you start with no carbon-14 in the atmosphere, it would take over 50,000 years for the amount being produced to reach equilibrium with the amount decaying. One of the reasons we know that the earth is less than 50,000 years old is because of the biblical record. Another reason we can know this is because the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere is only 78% what it would be if the earth were old.

I'm afraid your worldview will be negatively impacted to learn that the earth is a bit more than 50,000 years old.

In addition, your data regarding carbon-14 is, I'm afraid, a clone of the Kent Hovind / creation ministries argument that has long ago been debunked by the relevant science community. There have already been a number of solid rebuttals to your young earth creationist claims so for your use and information:

How Good are those Young-Earth Arguments: Radiocarbon Dating



Oh, and the alleged biblical flood - didn't happen.

Problems with a Global Flood, 2nd edition

The biblical flood is a patently rediculous concept. It is one of many myths the religists try to pawn off on ignorant people. Floods happen every year for a variety of reasons. If it rains too much in a specific region and a landslide happens like it did up here in Oso a river can be blocked for a time and then the blocked water can be released which could cause serious damage. Tsunamis have happened many thousands of times wth devastating results. These floods can cover many thousands of square miles.

Suggesting that some fool could have predicted a large flood in advance of a catastrophic rainfall episode causing "all of the world" to be under water is childlike beyond any reason.

Teaching this kind of nonsense to children a a factual occurance is willfully dumbing down children and deteriorating their ability to reason.

This practice is harmfull. Why religists need to dumb down the population is beyond me.

This is why religion will eventually go away. People don't need to know every answer but eventually they will reject every lie.

Thomas Jefferson:

"And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter"

Letter to John Adams from Thomas Jefferson, April 11 1883

 

[peach174]

I'm afraid your worldview will be negatively impacted to learn that the earth is a bit more than 50,000 years old.

In addition, your data regarding carbon-14 is, I'm afraid, a clone of the Kent Hovind / creation ministries argument that has long ago been debunked by the relevant science community. There have already been a number of solid rebuttals to your young earth creationist claims so for your use and information:

How Good are those Young-Earth Arguments: Radiocarbon Dating



Oh, and the alleged biblical flood - didn't happen.

Problems with a Global Flood, 2nd edition

I never said that what has been highlighted in red.
Someone added that and has tried to make it look like I typed that, when I didn't.

The problem arises when contender ministries is used as a source.

The problem arises when you added something to make it look like I said it.
That is against form rules.

 

[Hollie]

I never said that what has been highlighted in red.
Someone added that and has tried to make it look like I typed that, when I didn't.

The problem arises when contender ministries is used as a source.

The problem arises when you added something to make it look like I said it.
That is against form rules.
It is you who is trying to paint me as a follower of creationists when I have never said anything like that.
I never used contender ministries and I don't even know who they are.

I added nothing to your post.

Bearing false witness? That will put you on the outs with the gods.

 

[Vandalshandle]

It was explained to us in New Orleans that Katrina was god punishing New Orleans for the annual gay decadence festival. They failed to explain why one of the very few areas that was not flooded was then gay district of the French Quarter.

 

[Hollie]

It was explained to us in New Orleans that Katrina was god punishing New Orleans for the annual gay decadence festival. They failed to explain why one of the very few areas that was not flooded was then gay district of the French Quarter.

Maybe the gods need to update their Garmin with the latest maps.

 

[peach174]

The problem arises when contender ministries is used as a source.

The problem arises when you added something to make it look like I said it.
That is against form rules.
It is you who is trying to paint me as a follower of creationists when I have never said anything like that.


I added nothing to your post.

Bearing false witness? That will put you on the outs with the gods.

Read post 123
Then read your post 131.

Just because you don't like a certain religious site does not mean that its false.

Read Wikipedia where it says that there are flaws with carbon dating.

Radiocarbon dating - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Errors and reliability

There are several possible sources of error in both the beta counting and AMS methods

 

[thebrucebeat]

Care to quote any part of that very long article?
Or are you just trying to pretend you have something juicy?

It's right at the very top

Introduction

Carbon is the lightest member of the IVA family of the periodic table, atomic number 6, electronic configuration 1s22s22p2. Its first ionization potential is 11.26V. Its naturally-occurring stable isotopes are of mass 12 (98.89%) and 13 (1.11%). C14 is produced by cosmic rays in the atmosphere at a constant rate, and decays to stable N14 by β- emission with a half life of about 5730 years. A living sample of wood, say, has the equilibrium amount of C14. When it dies, the radiocarbon decays steadily, and the ratio of C14 to C12 declines to half in 5730 years, and so on. By measuring this ratio, the time when the wood was living can be estimated. This method of dating was worked out by Willard Libby in 1947, and is called "carbon dating."

You just proved my point, and you can't even understand it.
This is exactly what proves the part that I highlighted in red incorrect.
Can you figure it out?

The problem arises when you added something to make it look like I said it.
That is against form rules.
It is you who is trying to paint me as a follower of creationists when I have never said anything like that.


I added nothing to your post.

Bearing false witness? That will put you on the outs with the gods.

Read post 123
Then read your post 131.

Just because you don't like a certain religious site does not mean that its false.

Read Wikipedia where it says that there are flaws with carbon dating.

Radiocarbon dating - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Errors and reliability[edit]

There are several possible sources of error in both the beta counting and AMS methods

Still haven't figured it out yet, huh?

 

[Hollie]

The problem arises when you added something to make it look like I said it.
That is against form rules.
It is you who is trying to paint me as a follower of creationists when I have never said anything like that.


I added nothing to your post.

Bearing false witness? That will put you on the outs with the gods.

Read post 123
Then read your post 131.

Just because you don't like a certain religious site does not mean that its false.

Read Wikipedia where it says that there are flaws with carbon dating.

Radiocarbon dating - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Errors and reliability

There are several possible sources of error in both the beta counting and AMS methods

You edited your post 123.

Secondly, I'd suggest not using wiki as your science source.

How is it again the earth is 50,000 years old?

 

[peach174]

Read post 123
Then read your post 131.

Just because you don't like a certain religious site does not mean that its false.

Read Wikipedia where it says that there are flaws with carbon dating.

Radiocarbon dating - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Errors and reliability

There are several possible sources of error in both the beta counting and AMS methods

You edited your post 123.

Secondly, I'd suggest not using wiki as your science source.

How is it again the earth is 50,000 years old?

Tell me where I said that because I didn't.

No someone added to the end of it. And since you know it was that ministry it had to have been you. Talk about deceitful.

 

[Hollie]

You edited your post 123.

Secondly, I'd suggest not using wiki as your science source.

How is it again the earth is 50,000 years old?

Tell me where I said that because I didn't.

No someone added to the end of it. And since you know it was that ministry it had to have been you. Talk about deceitful.

Don't draw me into your lies that you are hoping to get out from under. Yeah, talk to me about deceitful. You edited your post and are now hoping to sidestep your dishonesty.

Why don't you acknowledge that you cut and pasted volumes of material without properly attributing the source.

 

[peach174]

Care to quote any part of that very long article?
Or are you just trying to pretend you have something juicy?

It's right at the very top

Introduction

Carbon is the lightest member of the IVA family of the periodic table, atomic number 6, electronic configuration 1s22s22p2. Its first ionization potential is 11.26V. Its naturally-occurring stable isotopes are of mass 12 (98.89%) and 13 (1.11%). C14 is produced by cosmic rays in the atmosphere at a constant rate, and decays to stable N14 by β- emission with a half life of about 5730 years. A living sample of wood, say, has the equilibrium amount of C14. When it dies, the radiocarbon decays steadily, and the ratio of C14 to C12 declines to half in 5730 years, and so on. By measuring this ratio, the time when the wood was living can be estimated. This method of dating was worked out by Willard Libby in 1947, and is called "carbon dating."

You just proved my point, and you can't even understand it.
This is exactly what proves the part that I highlighted in red incorrect.
Can you figure it out?

What - this is what was said ; The half-life of carbon 14 is approximate 5,730 years. That means if you took one pound of 100 percent carbon-14, in 5,730 years, you would only have half a pound left.

Says that same thing; half life of about 5730 years

 

[thebrucebeat]

It's right at the very top

Introduction

Carbon is the lightest member of the IVA family of the periodic table, atomic number 6, electronic configuration 1s22s22p2. Its first ionization potential is 11.26V. Its naturally-occurring stable isotopes are of mass 12 (98.89%) and 13 (1.11%). C14 is produced by cosmic rays in the atmosphere at a constant rate, and decays to stable N14 by β- emission with a half life of about 5730 years. A living sample of wood, say, has the equilibrium amount of C14. When it dies, the radiocarbon decays steadily, and the ratio of C14 to C12 declines to half in 5730 years, and so on. By measuring this ratio, the time when the wood was living can be estimated. This method of dating was worked out by Willard Libby in 1947, and is called "carbon dating."

You just proved my point, and you can't even understand it.
This is exactly what proves the part that I highlighted in red incorrect.
Can you figure it out?

What - this is what was said ; The half-life of carbon 14 is approximate 5,730 years. That means if you took one pound of 100 percent carbon-14, in 5,730 years, you would only have half a pound left.

Says that same thing; half life of about 5730 years

Half life has absolutely nothing to do with weight.
Zero.
It is a function of radioactivity. Nothing shrinks or gets lighter.

 

[peach174]

Tell me where I said that because I didn't.

No someone added to the end of it. And since you know it was that ministry it had to have been you. Talk about deceitful.

Don't draw me into your lies that you are hoping to get out from under. Yeah, talk to me about deceitful. You edited your post and are now hoping to sidestep your dishonesty.

Why don't you acknowledge that you cut and pasted volumes of material without properly attributing the source.

I did not edit my post.
I forgot to add the link, I admit that, but I did not add that stuff at the bottom.

 

[Hollie]

Don't draw me into your lies that you are hoping to get out from under. Yeah, talk to me about deceitful. You edited your post and are now hoping to sidestep your dishonesty.

Why don't you acknowledge that you cut and pasted volumes of material without properly attributing the source.

I did not edit my post.
I forgot to add the link, I admit that, but I did not add that stuff at the bottom.

You were careless. I'm responsible for your carelessness. You are responsible for what you post.

 

[peach174]

You just proved my point, and you can't even understand it.
This is exactly what proves the part that I highlighted in red incorrect.
Can you figure it out?

What - this is what was said ; The half-life of carbon 14 is approximate 5,730 years. That means if you took one pound of 100 percent carbon-14, in 5,730 years, you would only have half a pound left.

Says that same thing; half life of about 5730 years

Half life has absolutely nothing to do with weight.
Zero.
It is a function of radioactivity. Nothing shrinks or gets lighter.

Half-life | Radioactive decay | Khan Academy!
grams are weight.

Multiply the number of pounds by 453.6 to convert to grams. For example, to find the number of grams in 2 lbs., multiply 2 by 453.6 to get 907.2 grams.

How to Convert Weight to Grams | eHow

Khan Academy
Question;
I'm learning about radiation decay and I need help understanding half life in a more easier sense?
Scientists answer;
Imagine that you have 100 pennies in a box. You shake the box thoroughly, open it, and remove all pennies that show tails. That would remove somewhere around 50 pennies, more or less. These penny "nuclei" would have decayed one half-life in the time you were shaking the box. You'd have close to 50 pennies left. Now, close it up and shake it again. Another half-life has passed, and you remove the decayed pennies (showing tails). You have something like 25 pennies left after two half-life…

 

[hortysir]

Then you've missed the entire purpose of prayer. We don't pray to get things from God. It isn't like calling up a delivery place, telling them what want and then sitting back to get them. Prayer is about communication with God. It's how we get to know God.

Prayer isn't about changing His will, but changing our will. It's about sharing what's going on in our life, our thoughts, our feelings. It's about thanking God for the blessings we have. and yes we are supposed to ask Him for the righteous desires of our heart.

The point is we communicate so we know God. Not so we get things.

"We don't pray to get things from God." I think it is actually you who is refefining what prayer is.

How is that you are tasked with speaking on behalf of some entity you describe with the inclusive "we"?

The fact is, prayer is often seeking influence from the gods so as to have them intercede in the life of a believer or to somehow influence some event or circumstance. There's a direct cause-and-effect reason for religions to promote prayer. You wish to breed a culture that has a complete sheep-like response to authority? Have them pray 5 times a day. Does this mean everyone who does such a thing is being brainwashed? No, there are other elements involved, but such repetition is a key requirement.

If you think prayers don't hurt -- then make the case that Moslems praying 5 times a day isn't part and parcel of the deep seated brainwashing they go through in order to fly airplanes into buildings.

The efficacy of prayer has been subject to some rather comprehensive testing. The results of the biggest and best study of the subject ever was released a few years ago. Here’s how it was reported in the Slate.com article: What the latest prayer study tells us about God.

god jr makes specific promises in the Bible about how prayer is supposed to work. Jesus says in many different places that he and God will answer your prayers. And Christians believe Jesus -- according to this recent article, "54% of American adults believe the Bible is literally true." In some areas of the country the number goes as high as 75%.

If the Bible is literally true, then something is seriously amiss. Simply look at the facts. In Matthew 7:7 Jesus says:

Ask, and it will be given you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For every one who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. Or what man of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!
If "every one who asks receives", then if we ask for cancer to be cured, it should be cured. Right? If "our Father who is in heaven gives good things to those who ask him", then if we ask him to cure cancer, he should cure it. Right? And yet nothing happens.
In Matthew 17:20 Jesus says:

For truly, I say to you, if you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move; and nothing will be impossible to you.
If "nothing will be impossible to you", then if we ask to cure cancer tonight, cancer should disappear. Right? Yet nothing happens. Note that if we take the Bible less-than-literally here, the statement "nothing will be impossible to you" becomes "lots of things will be impossible to you," and that would mean that Jesus is lying.
In Matthew 21

I tell you the truth, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and it will be done. If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer.
If "you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer", then if we ask to cure cancer tonight, cancer should dissappear. Right? Yet nothing happens. Note again that there is not a non-literal way to interpret "you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer", unless you replace "whatever" with "nothing" or "little."
The message is reiterated Mark 11:24:

Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.
If God says, "believe that you have received it, and it will be yours," and if we believe in God and his power, then what should happen if we pray to cure cancer tonight? It should be cured. Either that, or God is lying.
In John chapter 14, verses 12 through 14, Jesus tells all of us just how easy prayer can be:

"I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Son may bring glory to the Father. You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it." [ref]
Look at how direct this statement is: "You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it." This is the "Son of God" speaking. Have we taken him "too literally?" No. This is a simple, unambiguous statement. Have we taken his statement "out of context?" No - Jesus uses the word anyone. Yet Jesus' statement is obviously false. Because when we ask God to cure cancer tonight, nothing happens.
We see the same thing over and over again...

I love it when a non-believer attempts to translate Scripture


Jesus teaches us 'The Lord's Prayer'.
The key words in that prayer is, "Thy will be done"


THAT is what I pray for. HIS will, not mine

 

[peach174]

I did not edit my post.
I forgot to add the link, I admit that, but I did not add that stuff at the bottom.

You were careless. I'm responsible for your carelessness. You are responsible for what you post.

I made a mistake like all of us do sometimes. I admit that I did forgot to put the link up. I usually do put up my links that I cut and past from.
You are not responsible for me.
You are the one trying to make it. that I am a creationist when I am not.
Someone added that part from the site to make is sound like I said the earth was 50,000 years old when I never did.

 

[RandomVariable]

I just have to join in here. This is just freakin' painful.

Radioactive Decay - Windows to the Universe

This picture shows radioactive decay of a carbon-14 atom. The carbon atom gives off a beta particle of radiation. The carbon atom turns into a nitrogen atom.
Original artwork by Windows to the Universe staff (Randy Russell).

"Beta particles have a single negative charge and weigh only a small fraction of a neutron or proton." beta