Part 31 of Post Your Tough Questions Regarding Christianity>>MOD WARNING<<

Then you are basically in Obama's league.No need to even explain how one
goes from a College { Occidental } to a premier University { Columbia }.

 

Everything about your lack of understanding the Bible, history and science.
A massive meteor with the equivalent of 1 to 20 or 50 nuclear bombs will cause a chain reaction from earthquake, volcanic eruption, landslides, mountain slide, sink holes, ice melting, gigantic tidal waves, exploding gas pipes, oil leaks, forest fires, and global flooding yes global flooding.

 

Before the advancement of modern education, modern printing press, distribution centres, Christian apostles and missionaries have traveled to all known parts of the world sharing the Word of God to people of different ethnicity that spoke different languages.

Later, all thanks to the efforts and great contributions of those early Christians and the church in building great universities, colleges and sharing good education that would allowed this middle-aged woman in England about 2 months to have her book translated into most languages and distributed around the globe.

That middle-aged woman in England who ever she is recognized her success comes from God "God Bless the Queen".
The Bible reached the world in spite of wars and persecution thanks to people like that middle-aged English woman.

 

I must say, I find it fascinating that some people can look at the same science.....actually forget science, even without science a logical thinking person would conclude that the earth isnt flat and the earth is older than 6000yrs...or was it 4000? They seem to have added 2000yrs from past arguments.

 

You have justified the killing of babies in the name of God numerous times. I agree that supporting both the killing of babies, and claiming to be pro life is a contradiction.

 

So spreading the important Word of God is limited by the technology of mere mortals.

If that is your answer, I'm going to have to go with the Bible not being that important in the plans of an omnipotent God or that God now feels that
"Harry Potter" is a more important book for people to read since He allowed that Word to be spread around the globe in just a few months.

Thank you.

 

Anti God people have been against the killing of wicked and evil people and they have used babies always as an excuse to spread their wickedness and evil. Being Pro Life is no contradiction against saving babies, killing babies is one consistency that atheist have that they believe God exist without babies for them God does not exist.

 

Author of Harry Potter and their readers know very well that Harry Potter is a fiction.
Spreading of the Word of God is through God's given gift to man the human intelligence that allows us to use modern education and technology to understand that God is real and Harry Potter is fiction it is sad that some fans of Harry Potter treat the Harry Potter book as real history fortunate the author knows it is just a fiction.

 

That is why the church was in the forefront of science and discoveries through the church we learn the world is round, we learn that the universe is limitless, we learn that the earth is not 6000 years old but most of all we learn that humans are not apes and apes are not humans we learn the existence of God.

 

I make no claim as to how long dinosaurs existed besides it will only be speculation and not fact if I were to make such a claim. Radiocarbon dating has flaws and so they are not 100% reliable. Radiocarbon dating is only reliable within certain parameters but certainly not infallible.

 

People can make claims all day long it doesn't mean they are factual. What I don't understand is the flapdoodle claim some people make in that human beings evolved from apes...that is so ludicrous!

Till this very day no one knows who this supposedly common ancestor is that humans and apes evolved from. The whole theory is just codswallop in my view.

We read in Scripture:

24 Then God said, &#8220;Let the earth produce every sort of animal, each producing offspring of the same kind&#8212;livestock, small animals that scurry along the ground, and wild animals.&#8221; And that is what happened. 25 God made all sorts of wild animals, livestock, and small animals, each able to produce offspring of the same kind. And God saw that it was good.

26 Then God said, &#8220;Let us make human beings in our image, to be like us. They will reign over the fish in the sea, the birds in the sky, the livestock, all the wild animals on the earth, and the small animals that scurry along the ground.&#8221;

27 So God created human beings in his own image. In the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.&#8221;---Genesis 1:24-27 NLT

 

No, let me correct you here, it was on the 6th day of creation, the same day that He created mankind. (Genesis 1:24-31)

 

Some believe it to be others believe a day was a normal 24 hrs. Scripture says that a day was from morning to evening but again the dinosaurs were created on the 6th day and not the 5th.

 

Nope, sorry but you're wrong. How could they have made the argument, "The oceans are getting a little bit saltier every year that if the oceans were really millions of years old, you'd be able to practically walk across them by now" and then turn around and claim the earth is approximately 65 million years old? This would contradict their first statement.

Furthermore the argument still stands true since we're still not able to practically walk across the oceans therefore the oceans can't be millions of years old. The argument was made by young earth creationalist and not by Humphrey and Austin.

Here read below part of the article relating to the age of the oceans:

Estimating the ocean&#8217;s age

Granting the most generous assumptions to evolutionists, Austin and Humphreys calculated that the ocean must be less than 62 million years old. It&#8217;s important to stress that this is not the actual age, but a maximum age. That is, this evidence is consistent with any age up to 62 million years, including the biblical age of about 6,000 years.

The Austin and Humphreys calculation assumes the lowest plausible input rates and fastest plausible output rates. Another assumption is that there was no dissolved salt to start with. If we assume more realistic conditions in the past, the calculated maximum age is much less.

For one thing, God probably created the oceans with some saltiness, so that saltwater fish could live comfortably in it. Noah&#8217;s Flood would have dissolved large amounts of sodium from land rocks. This would have found its way into the oceans when the Flood waters retreated. Finally, the larger-than-expected SGWD would further reduce the maximum age.

Conclusion

The salinity of the oceans is a strong evidence that they, and the Earth itself, are far younger than the billions of years required for evolution, and is consistent with the biblical age of about 6,000 years. It is also far younger than the evolutionists&#8217; &#8216;dates&#8217; for many marine creatures. In short, the sea is not salty enough to suit the taste of evolutionists! Of course, all such calculations depend on assumptions about the past, like the starting conditions and constant rates of processes. They can never prove the age of something. For that, we need an eye-witness (cf. Job 38:4). The point of such calculations is to demonstrate that even under the evolutionists&#8217; own assumptions about the past, the Earth is far younger than is usually claimed and does not contradict the Bible.

To read the entire article: http://creation.com/salty-seas-evidence-for-a-young-earth

No I'm not because the age of the earth/oceans hasn't been proven to be millions of years old. I hope you had read the entire article I presented..."they can never prove the age of something, therefore Austin and Humphreys haven't proven anything.

Yes indeed your argument has been debunked!...not mine!

 

Huh? Sorry I find your post incoherent...I don't see how it relates to my post. Did someone say salt evoporates and become rain clouds?...it certainly wasn't me.

 

Exactly! Great post Inc! The bottom line and at the end of the day there is absolutely "no proof"!

 

Well if you mean doing natural things with the same sex such as playing athletic games, having dinner, going hunting, fishing, camping, going to a Pro sporting event as spectators...etc. those are natural things to do amongst friends of the same sex. They are just bonding together as friends.

But when people of the same sex engage in sexual acts between themselves that's when they cross the line and are doing something unnatural. That is a sinful act.

We read in Scripture:

"Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin."---Leviticus 18:22 NLT

 

Well if their computers are all programmed using the same software then they will have same conclusions but I wouldn't be surprised if some of them are downright dishonest...I mean people are dishonest all the time, doesn't matter who they are.

Would you be surprised of dishonest people in any walk of life? Boy, if you say yes that would be very naive of you. I mean after all we are all sinners.

But one last thought, not all scientists who are honest in their work are in agreement with radiocarbon dating. And so the reality is we can't prove anything as being conclusive as far as this radiocarbon dating technique is concerned.

 

Look all we are saying is that radiocarbon dating is not all that accurate it is made out to be and so with that said the dating of stuff is not conclusive. So please refrain from saying the dates are facts. Be intellectually honest and say the dating of stuff is theorized to be a certain age.

 

Likewise we are amused at you thought processess too!

I can proclaim my faith is not blind faith, but why do you claim the authors of the Bible were in bathrobes when they wrote what God inspired them to write?

As for the talking snakes, we have to remember that while animals are not capable of speaking, there are powerful beings out there (God, the angels, satan, the demons) who are capable of the impossible, including enabling animals to speak.

Most scholars hold that it was Satan in the Garden of Eden who was speaking through the snake, not the snake itself speaking on its own. Thus, the Genesis 3 account it is not suggesting that snakes were of an intellect that would have enabled them to speak coherently.

There is evidence of the Great Flood of Noah but of course it is not conclusive nevertheless for those who have faith in God the story in their perspective is a true historcal event.

Sorry but not every scientist on earth agrees with its results as fact. Maybe you should do some research to see that not all scientists are on board with the accuracy of radiocarbon dating techniques. There are assumptions that goes into this technique so you just can't jump to the conclusions that the results are conclusive and so the results can't be regarded as factual.

 

Why are some Christians so concerned with the perceived sin of others? Judge not lest thee be judged, let he whom is without sin cast the first stone, love thy neighbor as thyself. From my time in Church it is the sole domain of God to judge the sin of man. If that be the case they why spend a moment thinking about the perceived sin of another? I think time would be better spent holding ourself to the bar said to be set by God.

 

We are saying it's not all that accurate, furthermore we are not obligated to prove anything...I mean what's the sense? You are only going to deny it.

 

Look all we're saying is that radiocarbon dating is accurate to a certain extent and so it's not 100% accurate and it is not infallible.

 

Nobody on God's green earth can tell us exactly how old that earth is? The jury is still out on that, there are estimates ranging from 6,000 yrs. to 4.5 billion yrs...so who knows?...only God knows the answer to that one, I mean after all He created the universe.

We read in Scripture:

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."---Genesis 1:1 NLT

 

Are you sure? I'm beginning to feel like I'm on trial being asked questions by a pedantic prosecutor...lol ...and I'm not guilty of any crime...lol

Yes because I haven't had any problems with my gas gauge being inaccurate. A gas gauge is really not a very complex piece of hardware and so the less things it has the less problems it will encounter.

Let me tell you this, I would readily believe my gas gauge that tells me my gas is running out moreso over some piece of equipment that tells me a piece of bone is 10 millions yrs. old...lol