Post Any Evidence For God Here

[AndyDufresne]

One thing I am curious, lets step outside the Earth-Moon system. Is the age data we have for other planetary bodies and satellites, in addition to the sun, also covered by your 'young science'?

I am still sort of curious about this. Is the universe only thousands of years old too? Thus, we've been miscalculating distance of far off objects and the time light has taken to reach us?


--Andy

[tzor]

Using the scientific method, I can not test, nor observe that there was a canopy of water. The theory is corroborated with:

Well let's go over each on in proper order.

1. 20+ cultures around the world that believe there was a great flood. Cultures that don't even accept the Bible, so they have no bias to authenticate the Bible.

Flood stories are quite common in many cultures. This is in part because floods are common in many cultures. Boats (in general) are also common among any culture with access to bodies of water. With those two exceptions there is not much in common among the various stories.

2. The Bible states the atmosphere was made with water below that became the seas and water above. But this is a mute point if someone doesn't accept the Bible. I get it.

WRONG. There are actually three layers of water. The Firmament held back the waters above.

* [1:7] The dome: the Hebrew word suggests a gigantic metal dome. It was inserted into the middle of the single body of water to form dry space within which the earth could emerge. The Latin Vulgate translation firmamentum, “means of support (for the upper waters); firmament,” provided the traditional English rendering.

Under the air bubble formed by the dome was the salt water sea. Then under the sea was the land and under that was the source of fresh water that would come from springs and fountains.

The abyss: the primordial ocean according to the ancient Semitic cosmogony. After God’s creative activity, part of this vast body forms the salt-water seas (vv. 9–10); part of it is the fresh water under the earth (Ps 33:7; Ez 31:4), which wells forth on the earth as springs and fountains (Gn 7:11; 8:2; Prv 3:20). Part of it, “the upper water” (Ps 148:4; Dn 3:60), is held up by the dome of the sky (vv. 6–7), from which rain descends on the earth (Gn 7:11; 2 Kgs 7:2, 19; Ps 104:13).

This is the earth as they knew it. It was the "science" of their day. It was how they described the world around them. You can't pick and choose parts of scripture in order to force it into how we view the universe today. The waters above was literally above that place where the moon and stars were. That's not the upper atmosphere.

3. Sea fossils on the tops of mountains. Fossilized clam shells in the closed position, meaning they were buried by the flood while alive, on the top of the Andes Mountains. Huge monolithic fossils. For when clams die, they open up.

First of all, do you realize how stupid that sounds? If the clams weren't on the tops of mountains, then the flood waters would carry them to the top of the mountain and leave them there; not bury them.

So the clams were buried, probably on the ocean floor. Then what happened? Let's just say two continental shelves had a major fender bender. Science: South America's Towering Andes Range Formed Abruptly

The majestic Andes Mountains, the second-largest mountain belt in the world, formed rather abruptly—between 10 and 6 million years ago—much faster than previously assumed, according to new research appearing in the 5 June issue of Science.

PHP IMAGE NOT SUPPORTED BY FORUM

Sedimentary rocks of the Salla Formation, Eastern Cordiller, Bolivia. These rocks were deposited between approximately 29 and 25 million years ago. Paleoelevation constraints from these rocks suggest that they were deposited at less than 500 meters, whereas now, they sit at approximately 3600 meter elevations.

With that out of the way, let's look at the flood story that is in Genesis.

* [6:5–8:22] The story of the great flood is commonly regarded as a composite narrative based on separate sources woven together. To the Yahwist source, with some later editorial additions, are usually assigned 6:5–8; 7:1–5, 7–10, 12, 16b, 17b, 22–23; 8:2b–3a, 6–12, 13b, 20–22. The other sections are usually attributed to the Priestly writer. There are differences between the two sources: the Priestly source has two pairs of every animal, whereas the Yahwist source has seven pairs of clean animals and two pairs of unclean; the floodwater in the Priestly source is the waters under and over the earth that burst forth, whereas in the Yahwist source the floodwater is the rain lasting forty days and nights. In spite of many obvious discrepancies in these two sources, one should read the story as a coherent narrative. The biblical story ultimately draws upon an ancient Mesopotamian tradition of a great flood, preserved in the Sumerian flood story, the eleventh tablet of the Gilgamesh Epic, and (embedded in a longer creation story) the Atrahasis Epic.

Now if you really want to put the nail into your coffin, I give you ... the T Rex. You can't say "dinosaurs are before the flood" because the T Rex is carnivorous. So let's get to chapter 1 verses 29-30

God also said: See, I give you every seed-bearing plant on all the earth and every tree that has seed-bearing fruit on it to be your food; and to all the wild animals, all the birds of the air, and all the living creatures that crawl on the earth, I give all the green plants for food. And so it happened.

So up until the flood everyone was a vegetarian, according to the Priestly Source. This shows up in the story where the prohibition is lifted.

* [6:19–21] You shall bring two of every kind…, one male and one female: For the Priestly source (P), there is no distinction between clean and unclean animals until Sinai (Lv 11), no altars or sacrifice until Sinai, and all diet is vegetarian (Gn 1:29–30); even after the flood P has no distinction between clean and unclean, since “any living creature that moves about” may be eaten (9:3). Thus P has Noah take the minimum to preserve all species, one pair of each, without distinction between clean and unclean, but he must also take on provisions for food (6:21). The Yahwist source (J), which assumes the clean-unclean distinction always existed but knows no other restriction on eating meat (Abel was a shepherd and offered meat as a sacrifice), requires additional clean animals (“seven pairs”) for food and sacrifice (7:2–3; 8:20).

So let's recap here. You take things out of the Genesis stories (but only some things, leaving others that are equally important to the story) forgetting that the Genesis stories are in fact a composite of various sources, in order to kit bash them into modern day observations of the world around us. You make very odd claims (there is nothing to suggest, for example, that Noah left anyone out of the ark, so you really can't blame the flood on the death of dinosaurs and your definition for aquatic dinosaurs who died while the whales did not is even more stranger still and not even remotely biblical) without any scriptural support for them whatsoever; they just happen to fit your kit bashing of scripture and modern observations.

[chang50]

Which is irrelevant to my point.Thinking about it you probably genuinely don't see the condescension in your words,but what would I know not having an equal chance of possessing compassion or a moral compass as my morally superior theist friends?

soooo am i not allowed to make judgments about a group based on what i observe? based on my life experiences and knowledge, atheists are less moral than theists.

keep in mind that this strategy is basically what kept our species alive (that plant is blue! blue plants are poisonous! i'm not going to eat that plant!). it's called using your fucking brain.

it's also what makes the average modern moron cry "discrimination" (that person is black and dressed like a thug! people like that commit way more crime! i'm going to walk on the other side of the street from them!)... but that's a whole different discussion.

Well at least I can credit you with being honest.I would also suggest your life experiences and knowledge are so far very limited if you are able to come to such a conclusion.

[waauw]

what exactly does the peace index measure? involvement in wars?

Don't start talking bullshit again. Explain to me how Iceland for example is involved in so many wars.
and if you just clicked on the link under it, you'd have find out. There is a nice table showing the multiple independent variables.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Peace_Index

Weapon shipments? NAHHH. (If I had to guess because the big dogs of Europe look so 'peaceful'!).

I don't think the peace index says all those european countries are peaceful, but rather that they are less fucked up than the rest of the world. For example this index says my country is one of the top 20% most peaceful countries, however my country is quite infamous for it's weapon production. A good example is the famous P90.

[waauw]

Though I have to admit the fossilized clam shells at the top of the Andes are actually quite remarkable, but this could also be explained if the earth were many millions of years old.

I would ask myself though, according to theory, how long does it take a mountain range to form? How many inches per year for a mountain to reach it's high peaks (miles in the sky)? according to the video the Himalayas is only rising 2 centimeters per year.

according to the theory of continental convergence the Himalayas were formed millions of years ago as India slowly slid into Asia. I would think that in all of that time, there must have been rain, wind and the occasional earthquake and other floods that would make all them clams some what hard to find. The wind and rain would have wash the clams down as the mountains were rising up. And then the earthquakes would have buried it all so deep over all of those millions of years of earth, that you just would not be able to find any evidence of an ocean floor on top of the mountains.

But if it happen some what quickly in a very brief moment in time and those mountains reached those heights in a matter of months, some 4.5 thousand years ago, then I could understand why there would be clams and sea shell and all kinds of marine life on top of the mountains. Otherwise I can't understand how the marine life could have been preserved over millions of years of other floods as well as the ground slowly lifted into the sky, inch by inch over the millions of years that the theory claims that it take for mountains to form.

Oh, and if we say volcanic activity then again all of that sea life would be buried under miles of earth, rock and mineral ore!?

==>If you'd look up, the oysters(clams) were gigantic, so just their mere size made them easy to find and their weight makes 'm more difficult to wash away.
==>when objects are on the top of mountains, they are less likely to get burried as water and dirt will follow gravity down the valley.
==>Your hypothesis that the mountainformation can not be millions of years old because of earthquakes is false. Even if you'd consider the earth a few thousand years old, there have been many earthquakes between then and now. The fact is, not everything gets burried or damaged due to earthquakes. Additionally earthquakes also have the tendency to uncover objects sometimes.
==>The same can be said for rain, that can wash away top layers lying on top of clams. I'm not saying this is the case here, but it certainly is a possibility.
==>Considering your volcanoes: Not every volcano is as big and strong to burry everything and not all volcanoes spit out ashes. In fact if you look at the volcanic zones of the Andes, not even the entire Andes is subject to volcanic activity. Keep in mind that these oysters are From Peru.

But if you really think atheists are less moral, than explain to me why there are so many atheist countries doing well on the UN Global Peace Index

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Peace_Index

What nation on the planet is an atheist nation?

I meant majority atheist countries(like for example northern, central and eastern europe). If it were the case that atheists were less moral, there would be some correlation between the number of atheists in the country and the number of wars and crime. This however is not the case. In fact many of the wars are fought by extremely religious countries(for example middle east or africa).

ps: keep in mind I don't mean by this atheists are more moral, because that isn't the case either

[Viceroy63]

==>If you'd look up, the oysters(clams) were gigantic, so just their mere size made them easy to find and their weight makes 'm more difficult to wash away.
==>when objects are on the top of mountains, they are less likely to get burried as water and dirt will follow gravity down the valley.
==>Your hypothesis that the mountainformation can not be millions of years old because of earthquakes is false. Even if you'd consider the earth a few thousand years old, there have been many earthquakes between then and now. The fact is, not everything gets burried or damaged due to earthquakes. Additionally earthquakes also have the tendency to uncover objects sometimes.
==>The same can be said for rain, that can wash away top layers lying on top of clams. I'm not saying this is the case here, but it certainly is a possibility.
==>Considering your volcanoes: Not every volcano is as big and strong to burry everything and not all volcanoes spit out ashes. In fact if you look at the volcanic zones of the Andes, not even the entire Andes is subject to volcanic activity. Keep in mind that these oysters are From Peru.

Yes, the fossilized objects are on top of mountains but should they be there in the first place? Even after millions of years of the earth rising into the sky. If we do a thought experiment and imagine that all of the fossilized see life on top of the mountains began in some body of ocean, where they were all killed by some catastrophe and afterwards the ocean floor rose to the surface level, surely by then it would have been replaced by perhaps coral reefs that took millions of years to form as the ocean floor rose to the surface. Millions of years of tidal waves activity alone would have swept the ocean floor burying all signs of any dead/fossilized items as the ocean floor surfaced to sea level.

There is a difference, at least in my mind, between a few thousand years of earthquake activity and several millions of years of earthquake activity. And while earthquakes do sometime unearth things as it did in the case of Noah's ark where it was already visible but an earthquake made it even more obvious because the surrounding mound of earth around the Ark was flattened more towards ground level and not that it actually pushed the ark up. But those are rare circumstances of an earthquake actually revealing something. More often than not, an earthquake opens up the ground creating gnashes in the earth, and even creates sink holes where Objects fall into it and/or are buried and put out of sight.



This sink hole was not made with a giant drill from the sky but a huge boulder just beneath the surface was gradually moved down by seismic activity (earthquakes) until the day when it just all collapsed and opened up. The Boulder was moved down by the fact that it was heavier than the surrounding earth. As would fossilized items be as well. Nothing was pushed up through here thus earthquakes tend to bury things. (I am assuming a boulder because of the perfect roundness of the wall of the sinkhole. But I was not there to see it actually happen. lol.)

Not to mention that as something becomes fossilized it picks up weight because it is essentially turning into a rock. So the Ocean floor is rising over millions of years to sea level and lifting up with it something that is heavier then itself? I don't see that happening. Not over millions of years. More likely the earth would rise at the rate of inches per year leaving behind the more heavier sediments in the oceans so that the lightest materials are what we see rising into the sky with the landscape and not the heavier stone fossilized items.

Maybe you can address that for me?

[AndyDufresne]

One thing I am curious, lets step outside the Earth-Moon system. Is the age data we have for other planetary bodies and satellites, in addition to the sun, also covered by your 'young science'?

I am still sort of curious about this. Is the universe only thousands of years old too? Thus, we've been miscalculating distance of far off objects and the time light has taken to reach us?

Still curious.


--Andy

[universalchiro]

Using the scientific method, I can not test, nor observe that there was a canopy of water. The theory is corroborated with:
1. 20+ cultures around the world that believe there was a great flood. Cultures that don't even accept the Bible, so they have no bias to authenticate the Bible.
2. The Bible states the atmosphere was made with water below that became the seas and water above. But this is a mute point if someone doesn't accept the Bible. I get it.
3. Sea fossils on the tops of mountains. Fossilized clam shells in the closed position, meaning they were buried by the flood while alive, on the top of the Andes Mountains. Huge monolithic fossils. For when clams die, they open up.
http://creation.com/giant-oysters-on-the-mountain

Click image to enlarge.

4. The layers of earth, tell of soil settling according to density from the Flood. Why? Water burst out of the earth for 40 days as well as rain down from above. This water had high turbidity. And the sediment settled according to density.
5. The creatures also settled according to density from the flood. Remember bacterial life caused bloating/buoyancy and those with exoskeletons would remain most dense for resisting bloating.
6. How did aquatic dinosaurs die too? The water that came down needed to be highly alkaline to remain in some liquid form while hovering around the atmosphere. This salty water, laid the salt deposits under the great lakes, the dead sea, oceans, but the fresh watered aquatic life that couldn't adapt, died.

This is not a complete list, but what I could think of on the fly...

The global flood solves a lot of questions. Even the large life. For a canopy of water would provide greater atmospheric pressure, which reduces affect of gravity and allows animals to grow tall.

Outside of some deductions based on what I see. The canopy of water in not testable, nor observable, nor repeatable. So according to the scientific method, it is not acceptable science. but if evolutionist rejects it, and they will, I wish they would apply that same standard to their own belief system that has already been proven to be faith based.

Cheers. PS no worries about any terse or pithy comments. No one is perfect, not even Viceroy and BigBallinStallin! ha ha ha

I know other cultures have reported similar things. There has been evidence of major floods having happened in the past, but everything seems to indicate to just parts of continents being flooded. There is still no evidence of anything global having happened. This is where some scientists think the 'great flood' story came from. According to some theories it was due to a polar shift that ended our last ice age 10.000 years ago. Of course with the end of an ice age ice and snow start smelting, a lot of humidity would become liquid and maybe even gas, possibly resulting in a lot more rain and rising sea level.
http://users.cwnet.com/millenia/Sumer-origins.htm

And it would even seem that stories like the mythical 'Atlantis' could've been true(not into the detail as told by Plato per sé though). Tons of underwater cities and constructions have been found all over the planet.

==> basically I do agree that some major aquatic event happened a long time ago. But due to the lack of evidence of it being global, I prefer the theories that it was more local and not as catastrophic as proclaimed in multiple cultures. Though I have to admit the fossilized clam shells at the top of the Andes are actually quite remarkable, but this could also be explained if the earth were many millions of years old.

waauw, I accept your view and interpretation. For me there seems ample evidence of a global flood. For one each mountain top has sea shells or fossilized sea life. Each continent has remnant sea shells on land or fossilized sea life. So if each mountain top and each continent both have remnant sea life and fossilized sea life, then that is solid evidence. But that's not even the strongest evidence for me. The vertically standing petrified trees, poly strata of 20 layers of soil, tells a great story of trees being buried alive while the roots were still embedded in the soil. And as the high turbid water from the flood settled, it covered the alive trees in layers as the soil settled by density. For if this took millions of years for each layer to form, the tree wouldn't wait around, it would long since die and decay before the first layer finished. Besides the 100's of trees, there are fish fossils also transcending poly strata. And Archeologist found a boat that fits the Bible description of Noah's Ark, in the location that The Bible said the boat rested. Same width, same length. With 6+ anchor stones that are 7-11 feet tall, weighing 1-2 tons each, with one hole at the top. The purpose of these stones is for stabilization in severe weather. They prevent movement, this fits a boat that is not trying to move. ie Noah's Ark. Every boat built by man is to built to move to and fro, not just survive, unless the boat is specifically built for survival only.

I will admit, that my faith in the Bible is my foundation, my standard. Which means that if there are two possibilities of an interpretation: and interpretation option is evolution, and another interpretation option points to the Bible, I'll chose the one that is in accord with the Bible. But I'm not alone. For I have seen this same dedication in my evolutionist colleagues.

Summary: Though we disagree on the interpretation of the evidence, I accept your view and I am enjoying the mental stimulation of our debate.

[universalchiro]

One thing I am curious, lets step outside the Earth-Moon system. Is the age data we have for other planetary bodies and satellites, in addition to the sun, also covered by your 'young science'?

I am still sort of curious about this. Is the universe only thousands of years old too? Thus, we've been miscalculating distance of far off objects and the time light has taken to reach us?

Still curious.


--Andy

One of the problems people have with not accepting the Bible, is that science can calculate that Stars are far away. So far away that even though light travels at 186,000 miles/second, it would take too long for light to reach the earth from those stars within 10,000 years. And that this is proof of earth being 4.6 billion years old and the universe being 14.6 billion years old.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nearest_stars
Alpha Centauri is 4.2 light years away. So it takes the light produced from Alpha Centauri 4.2 years for it's light to traverse the great distance to earth. Well that is doable, but that proves nothing, because it's the closest star. So let's take not the closest star, but a distant star.

One of the farthest stars that we know about is called 'V12' or Variable 12, in the galaxy NGC 4203. This galaxy is located 3.2 million parsecs away or 10.4 million light years away. Ah ha. So this proves that the universe is at a minimum of 10.4 million years old. And therefore the Bible is no longer a book from God, but is reduced to just a good story book. And it gets worse for creationist. This V12 star, is the farthest we know. Well there are 2 trillion stars to every human on earth, the numbers are staggering. So it stands to reason that V12 is not the edge of the universe. So if we multiple that distance of the farthest star by an arbitrary number, say 1,403. Then that supports the 14.6 billion year old universe.

Now let's analyze the data:
Since we know by science that the universe is expanding.
This is in harmony with the Bible: Many places the Bible writes that God stretched out the heavens. The word stretched is to expand, synonym to firmament, expanse, like a blacksmith hammers and expands metal.
The Bible describes that the Sun, moon and stars were all created on the 4th day of creation.
Since the stars were created at a near point, then the luminary bodies were stretched out throughout the universe. Then their light would already be visible at the starting point and instantaneously.

Option 1: The universe expanded after the stars were formed, then light doesn't have far to travel.
Take the Star Trek movies. When the Enterprise goes into warp drive, it leaves a stretched out image of itself. Hold that stretched out image is an example of light starting at a near point and being stretched out. Though the ship wasn't stretched. Nor was the star stretched when God expanded the universe. So this vastly shortens the time it takes light of those distant star to be seen by earth. For since they started near the center of the universe. And Science has determined that all galaxies are expanding away from our galaxy. Then When there was a starting point their light was instantly visible.

Option 2: Light is determined to be constant. But light comes in different forms: wavelength and particle. Light is electromagnetic radiation. Particle physicist at the NEC Research Institute at Princeton has created a light pulse that was accelerated 300 times their normal velocity of 186,000/second. Dr. Lijun Wang. Essentially man is able to accelerate a portion/property of light to 300 X faster by using different mediums. http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/new ... eed-record
Not only that, but man can slow light down by using different mediums.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slow_light

For example sound travels at different velocities in different mediums. eg water allows sounds to travel faster.

The bottom line is since man can alter the acceleration of light properties, then so too can God.

I don't know which option is the answer, maybe both, maybe something else man hasn't discovered. But the evidence reveals that there is no exclusivity of only a 14 billion year old universe. That a young universe is also plausible.
Again two interpretations: How people interpret the data is to support their preconceived doctrine. I and evolutionist included.

But let's add more facts:
We can not calculate how far away a star truly is. We use two means to determine the distance:
1. is a triangulation. We use the earth's diameter of the orbit around the sun 186 million miles. By looking at a star in January then again in June, with trigonometry, we can calculate distance. But this has a limit. We can only do this with stars 400 light years away. beyond that, this method is inaccurate.
2. Brightness of star measurement & color spectrum: By comparing stars brightness within the triangulation method with the brightness of stars outside the triangulation method, we get an estimate.

But look, these are best estimates. We don't know how far these stars are from us. I'm with you that they are far. But to say that a star is 14 million light years away, is really a best guess. And it's only a measurement of distance, not time.

You asked to rule out the moon. But the moon has quit a few strong indicators that it is not as old as thought and supports a young creation model:
It's distance from earth, while receding away, puts the moon billions of years younger than estimated.
The moon dust: NASA built massive landing paddles for legs and built a ladder a couple feet short of the ground. Why? space dust. Knowing how much space dust lands on the moon each year. The moon with evolutionary age, would have many feet of dust. But it's not so, there is enough dust to support a Biblical young creation model, not enough dust to support old age of evolution.

If one cares to look for truth, it is there. The Lord declared all who seek will find, all who ask of Him, He will give. Salvation is merely a search away, merely an ask away. He has already sent His son to pay in full for all our transgressions. but only those
who ask for this free gift, receive. those who reject, He will rightly judge.

[chang50]

If one cares to look for truth, it is there. The Lord declared all who seek will find, all who ask of Him, He will give. Salvation is merely a search away, merely an ask away. He has already sent His son to pay in full for all our transgressions. but only those
who ask for this free gift, receive. those who reject, He will rightly judge.[/quote]


If your God could be shown to exist,I would accept the fact without hesitation,but equally I would refuse his free gift,as you put it,and take whatever judgement comes my way because I have too much self-respect to bow down to such a monster.

[Viceroy63]

Putting aside any theories to explain the size of the universe as I do agree that it is a guess but it is based on observation of the universe; I do not believe that God would create a Universe that only appears to be 14 billion years old while in actuality it is only several thousands. I believe that God created us with the 5 senses so that we can gather information with them to explain away the expanse of the Universe and other mysteries, and not to come up with a theory that Light could have moved faster at an earlier time in the universe in order to change the observable facts. That I believe would make God to be a deceiver in some grand cosmic joke where at the end God says, "Fooled Ya, the Universe is only several thousand years old and not Billions."

The Gap Theory has always been in existence, I think even before we started calling dragons, Dinosaurs, we also believed that the Universe was ancient but that only the earth was a recreation. That is to say that the earth is also billions of years old but any sign of the earth being billions of years old were eradicated when the earth became void and formless and when darkness came to cover the face of the deep. Simply said when God recreated the earth, moon and stars, 6,000 years ago, there would be no need to leave for example billions of years of dust build up on the moon. That is one of the criteria for a young creation. That there is not enough dust on the moon or salt in the sea or the electromagnetism of the earth is too strong. But if God did recreate the earth then why would he not do a thorough job of it when He said, "Let the dry land appear and let the oceans be gathered," Why not make them like new even though the earth could have been in a state of desolation for billions of years?

Obviously when science talks about the so called, "Evolution of the earth and life forms" they are simply making that up or hypothesizing, as there really is no evidence to support those conclusions. The Bible tells us that 6000 years ago the earth was a lifeless water world with absolutely no land mass, inside a dark and mirky cloud of dirty dust. None of that could indicate that the earth, sun and moon did not already pre-existed even if the sun had probably died out billions of years earlier. This conflicts with the earth being a hot molten rock cooling down and life coming into existence all on it's own. Where there is no light there can be no life. But 6,000 years ago does not have to be an absolute age of the universe, only the history of the life forms that God had created in this recreated earth made new. It would be like taking a junker and rebuilding her with all new parts and a fantastic paint job and turning out a product that was originally built so long ago but now, where is the evidence for that when you look at that car? All you would see is a mint condition 1917 world war I vehicle that looks brand new. No Moon dust Build up, no extremely salty seas and everything looking like it was built yesterday. But the car itself had been around for billions of years just rusting away. Until it was RECREATED!

To say that the Universe is only several thousand years old is to deny the logical evidence of our own eyes. God is a god of order and not disorder or theories, and all the universe points to laws that govern all things. This is a fact! So any theory that tries to circumnavigate the observable facts should not even be entertained. Yes, some types of particles have been clocked at going faster then the speed of light, but this does not mean that they actually went through normal space and time. This has also never been proven, by the way. The theory has been created that particles can move in and out of our plain of existence and into another plain where time and space make no difference there and that this is what is happening in the world of quantum physics but never has it been shown that any kind of Light Particles can travel faster than the speed of light (through normal space time), where it has been proven that Einstein's theory of relativity is correct. Time and space does fluctuate but the speed of light is always constant. So either Einstein's proven and observable facts are true or God is just playing a big joke on all of us and I simply can't subscribe to that.

[AndyDufresne]

I simply can't subscribe to that.

I agree with this part of your post.


--Andy

[Viceroy63]

Everyone's entitled to an opinion Andy. Even little monkey's like yourself.

[Viceroy63]

If one cares to look for truth, it is there. The Lord declared all who seek will find, all who ask of Him, He will give. Salvation is merely a search away, merely an ask away. He has already sent His son to pay in full for all our transgressions. but only those
who ask for this free gift, receive. those who reject, He will rightly judge.


If your God could be shown to exist,I would accept the fact without hesitation,but equally I would refuse his free gift,as you put it,and take whatever judgement comes my way because I have too much self-respect to bow down to such a monster.

Exactly why, is God a "Monster?"

[chang50]

If one cares to look for truth, it is there. The Lord declared all who seek will find, all who ask of Him, He will give. Salvation is merely a search away, merely an ask away. He has already sent His son to pay in full for all our transgressions. but only those
who ask for this free gift, receive. those who reject, He will rightly judge.


If your God could be shown to exist,I would accept the fact without hesitation,but equally I would refuse his free gift,as you put it,and take whatever judgement comes my way because I have too much self-respect to bow down to such a monster.

Exactly why, is God a "Monster?"

Just look around you,20,000 infants starving to death every single day.An omnipotent god who does not prevent that is monstrous at a minimum.It is way too high a price for human freewill.

[BigBallinStalin]

Found Him:

[BigBallinStalin]

Putting aside any theories to explain the size of the universe....
Obviously when science talks about the so called, "Evolution of the earth and life forms" they are simply making that up or hypothesizing, as there really is no evidence to support those conclusions. The Bible tells us it was RECREATED!

To say that the Universe is only several thousand years old is to deny the logical evidence of our own God.

[Viceroy63]

If one cares to look for truth, it is there. The Lord declared all who seek will find, all who ask of Him, He will give. Salvation is merely a search away, merely an ask away. He has already sent His son to pay in full for all our transgressions. but only those
who ask for this free gift, receive. those who reject, He will rightly judge.


If your God could be shown to exist,I would accept the fact without hesitation,but equally I would refuse his free gift,as you put it,and take whatever judgement comes my way because I have too much self-respect to bow down to such a monster.

Exactly why, is God a "Monster?"

Just look around you,20,000 infants starving to death every single day.An omnipotent god who does not prevent that is monstrous at a minimum.It is way too high a price for human freewill.

That is only because mankind does not want to consider God's plan in totality. There is a reason and a purpose for sin and suffering and there is even a reason and a purpose for the existence of a devil who seduces mankind to sin against God. It is mankind's choice to sin and thus reject God that brings upon us all of this sin and suffering and not God's choice. But if God is God then He would have seen the end from the beginning and figured out a plann for every contingency. What about aborted Babies? Should they not have a right to exist despite the fact that they were murdered by their own parents? The last estimate I heard was 4,000 abortion performed in the USA alone. EVERY DAY! Imagine what that number must be like world wide especially in atheist majority nations? Why Every Year we have a holocaust of aborted babies just in America alone. God wants us to learn from this and those children will have a chance to come to know God in the Final Judgment spoken of in the Bible. That is God's plan!

By your logic however, knowing that at the very least, some 16,000 children die every day of starvation and starvation related diseases around the world, (and that number could be 20,000 or even higher now), I would say that Parents are the real monsters just for bringing children into this world of sin and suffering. Even if the children don't die of starvation, how could anyone possibly think that it is a good idea to have children in this totally screwed world where they are bound to become liars and thieves because that is basically the so called, "Good" potential that Mankind has inherent within??? Children born in this generation are bound to become Godless degenerates like Lawyers or Politicians, and all mixed up or worst, even Darwinist? =) How cruel to bring children into this world! The real monsters are People and not God because God did not force anyone to have children into this totally perverse world of ours so that they should suffer or be killed? That is if we go by your judgment of God being a monster.

One more thing! The Bible clearly states that this will not go on for ever and ever. If that were not the case then I think that we could all just commit suicide and forget about the coming Judgement of God. But if there is a judgment coming then it can not be just only about men but about God as well. God will judge mankind and mankind is the one who basically condemns themselves individually. But the coming judgement is also about God. For if God fails in that coming judgment to prove once and for all that He was and is totally just and righteous in all that he has done and allowed to happen over the past 6,000 years, then who would honestly follow and obey God for all of eternity. If the matter is not settled about God being right then surely another revolt and another rebellion will take place in eternity sooner or later. Another Lucifer Rising! God needs to prove to us that He did right by us. So while God will judge mankind, Mankind will also be judging God in that coming 100 years of judgment right after the millennial rule of Jesus Christ. Just as planned in the Bible for those who really read it.

[universalchiro]

oh waauw, I already address the Amelekites. They were performing child sacrifices to a god. And Murder in the 10 Commandments is illegal killing for example murder. God sent messenger after messenger that if the Amelekites didn't change from their evil illegal murder, God would justifiably judge them.


http://www.levitt.com/hebrew/commandments.html
"Hebraic Insight…

The Jewish sages note that the word “ratsakh” applies only to illegal killing (e.g., premeditated murder or manslaughter) — and is never used in the administration of justice or for killing in war. Hence the KJV translation as “thou shalt not kill” is too broad.

Since man is made in the image of God, his life is infinitely precious — only God Himself has the right to give and take life. In the Mishnah it is written, “Why was only one man (i.e., Adam) created by God? — to teach that whoever takes a single life destroys thereby a whole world.”

But murder can be figurative as well as literal. The Talmud notes that shaming another publicly is like murder, since the shame causes the blood to leave the face. Moreover, gossip or slander are considered murderous to the dignity of man. The Pirkei Avot (Ethics of the Fathers) states, “The evil tongue slays three persons: the utterer of the evil, the listener, and the one spoken about…” The Lord Jesus also linked the ideas of our words and attitudes with murder (see Matt. 15:19).
(hebrew)
“Thou Shalt Not Kill” Is Thou Shall not illegally murder.
— Ex. 20: "


As far as King David's house standing forever? This too is very easy to see when someone searches for truth.
Let's look at the Genealogy of Jesus:
Matthew 1:1-18 This is through the legal line of Jesus' earthly father. Since Joseph didn't sire Jesus, for to fulfill prophecy, Jesus was virgin born, the wording changes from all the forefathers till it gets to Joseph. On all of the forefathers it says so and so was the father of so and so, but when it gets to Joseph, it says "Joseph the husband of Mary. To underscore that Joseph didn't sire Jesus, though he was his earthly father. Also, the genealogy starts off with Jesus the Messiah, the son of David. Clearly stating the line of King David is to Jesus.
Luke give a different genealogy, Luke 3:23-38. This genealogy is through the blood line of Mary.

Interesting that one genealogy goes from Jesus through King David to Adam to God. The other goes from God through Adam, through King David to Jesus. They go in opposite directions, a legal line through Joseph and a blood line through Mary. Why? To be redundant for the nay sayers, to be clear.

So the question is, is Jesus the King of the Jews?
Luke 23:3 Jesus on trial by Pilate for claiming to be God, Pilate asks Jesus, "Are you the King of the Jews?" And Jesus answered him and said, "It is as you say". And they put a crown of thorns to mock Him for being King of the Jews and they scourged Him with whips that had metal shards at the tip, that ripped the flesh off His back, then while bleeding and beaten and spat upon and beard pulled out, they mocked Him again by putting a royal purple robe on his opens wounds. As the blood coagulated, then they stripped Him of the royal robe. Humiliating Jesus they nailed Him to a cross and hung a placard above Him that read "THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS." Luke 23:38. All the while Jesus did not turn His face away when they beat Him, He did not fight back, He willingly went as a lamb to the slaughter. Why?

All this was foretold to occur, to every word that proceeded out of Jesus' mouth was to fulfill prophecy. And guess who was overseeing all this and all this pleased Him to see Jesus being nailed to the cross? God the Father. Isaiah 53:10... Why?

For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

But that's not the end of the story... Revelation 21 & 22 The lamb that died on the cross will come down and reign from Jerusalem and His glory will put the sun and moon to shame, there will be no night in the region for His glory will light all. And this will be forever and ever.

So the lineage of King David, his offspring will indeed reign on the throne forever through Jesus the Christ. But a hidden truth is that God has always been King of Israel, from ancient of days even through now. Most of the time this is not physically seen with our eyes. But 1 Samuel 8:7 gives clarity that God has always been King and that God of the the trinity is Jesus. "The LORD said to Samuel, "Listen to the voice of the people in regard to all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me from being King over them."

So you admit that the kingdom didn't stand forever. On top of that you neglect the many empires which conquered Israel and the entire region for that matter, bringing an end to the reign of jews over their own land.

Also how very convenient for you once again to try and blurr the meanings of words with literal and figurative interpretations. How hell can you even proclaim here that you know the truth when so much in the Bible is so easily interpreted as something else?

btw, here's another one:
Psalm 147:5
Great is our Lord and mighty in power;
his understanding has no limit.
==> he is omniscient

Genesis 3:8
But the Lord God called to the man, “Where are you?”
==> God does not know where Adam is hiding. In fact all throughout the Bible God asks questions and is surprised on several occasions. How can this be if he is omniscient?

I think this is a similar question that was just posed earlier. And this question got buried in all the post. It was on my "to do list", but then forgot about it, until these questions of what kind of God would allow babies being killed.

Through the centuries theologians have debated the question of whether we have free will or bondage to sin. In other words can we freely choose to be righteous of be unrighteous, can we freely choose God or reject God. Augustine (believed we can only choose evil apart from God) debated Erasmus about this topic. Erasmus wrote "Free will" (that we can choose righteous acts or unrighteous acts, we can choose God or not) And a millennium later, Martin Luther penned "Bondage of the will" (which says that we don't have free will to choose, that we are bound to choose sin). Then a half millennium later, Jonathon Edwards wrote "Freedom of the will" (which says that both, we have free will to choose, but apart from God we can only choose sin, so both views were correct).

There are many scriptures that say we must choose between right and wrong. When temptations comes, we must choose to flee. etc. But there are many scriptures that say we are predestined, that God chose us before time began, that God chose us before the foundation of the earth. And Ephesians says, "for by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one should boast." So this clearly states that Salvation is by God through our faith. And Romans teaches that faith comes from hearing the word of God and God establishes our faith.
So which is it? Do we have free will to chose or don't we? And if we don't have free will, how can we be responsible for our own sins?
In Colossians 1:21 "...although you were formerly alienated and hostile in mind, engaged in evil deeds." So before salvation, we were foreigners to God, we were hostile in mind and engaged in evil deeds. And Isaiah 64:6 describes all of our so called righteous deeds are menstrual rags. Before salvation comes, even our so called righteous acts are filthy and unclean to God, for we are doing them for self glory, for self adoration.

So back to what waauw pointed out in the Garden of Eden. Once Adam and Eve sinned. They completely fell, not partially, which means they needed a savior, something needed to die for their sin. For the wages of sin is death. When an all knowing God shows up on the scene, He asks Adam and Eve, "Where are you?" and "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?"

This is a great question that waauw poses. For no all knowing God needs to ask any questions. Right?!! right. But God wasn't asking to learn the answer. How do I know this? There are many reasons, but I'll use one. Acts 2:23 "This Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death. But God raised Him up again, putting an end to the agony of death..." God the Father, the Son and Holy Spirit already predetermined with foreknowledge to put Jesus on the cross before the 1st day of creation. And Ephesians 1:4 "He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world". So God chose us before the 3rd day of creation.

The answer is God was allowing Adam free will to choose, but Adam could only choose sin at that point. Why? Adam fell and instead of repenting, he blames his wife. God let's us choose, but apart from God, we can only choose sin. When salvation comes, God is the source of all righteousness, and the closer we get to Him, the more sanctified we become, not the more saved. Once salvation is received, one can't be more saved or less saved. So sin is paid for, but there are still consequences to our sin while on earth.

So to answer your question waauw and it is worthy of dicussing, is that mankind is free to choose. But apart from God, we can only choose sin. When God was asking Adam questions, He wasn't asking to learn the answer, He was giving Adam free will to chose and Adam chose sin.

An all knowing God didn't create robots. We have free choice and we are responsible for our choices and actions. And thus God is justified in judging our actions. All have sinned and falling short of the glory of God. Only through Christ Jesus and His sacrifice on the cross for our sins, can we be free from sin and live in eternity in Heaven.

The choice is yours, but so are the consequences.

I like this topic of supposed contradictions in the Bible. Try again. No one can find any contradictions in the Bible. Why? It is the word of God. From the very creator of the universe and you. He loves you so much, that He sent His only Son to pay in full for all your wrong doings. And also all the times you were wronged and deserved justice, He righted those wrongs too.

[Woodruff]

If one cares to look for truth, it is there. The Lord declared all who seek will find, all who ask of Him, He will give. Salvation is merely a search away, merely an ask away. He has already sent His son to pay in full for all our transgressions. but only those
who ask for this free gift, receive. those who reject, He will rightly judge.


If your God could be shown to exist,I would accept the fact without hesitation,but equally I would refuse his free gift,as you put it,and take whatever judgement comes my way because I have too much self-respect to bow down to such a monster.

Exactly why, is God a "Monster?"

Because humans created him to be one.

[john9blue]

ugh, haven't we had this argument before? if god exists and is as omniscient as is claimed, who are we to complain if he decides children have to die? you're putting restrictions on what is "good" and "evil" from your limited human perspective.

[BigBallinStalin]

One cannot grasp the infinite knowledge and wisdom of God---although of a few ITT have claimed that they know what God wants of them and of others, which is interesting!

[chang50]

If one cares to look for truth, it is there. The Lord declared all who seek will find, all who ask of Him, He will give. Salvation is merely a search away, merely an ask away. He has already sent His son to pay in full for all our transgressions. but only those
who ask for this free gift, receive. those who reject, He will rightly judge.


If your God could be shown to exist,I would accept the fact without hesitation,but equally I would refuse his free gift,as you put it,and take whatever judgement comes my way because I have too much self-respect to bow down to such a monster.

Exactly why, is God a "Monster?"

Just look around you,20,000 infants starving to death every single day.An omnipotent god who does not prevent that is monstrous at a minimum.It is way too high a price for human freewill.

That is only because mankind does not want to consider God's plan in totality. There is a reason and a purpose for sin and suffering and there is even a reason and a purpose for the existence of a devil who seduces mankind to sin against God. It is mankind's choice to sin and thus reject God that brings upon us all of this sin and suffering and not God's choice. But if God is God then He would have seen the end from the beginning and figured out a plann for every contingency. What about aborted Babies? Should they not have a right to exist despite the fact that they were murdered by their own parents? The last estimate I heard was 4,000 abortion performed in the USA alone. EVERY DAY! Imagine what that number must be like world wide especially in atheist majority nations? Why Every Year we have a holocaust of aborted babies just in America alone. God wants us to learn from this and those children will have a chance to come to know God in the Final Judgment spoken of in the Bible. That is God's plan!

By your logic however, knowing that at the very least, some 16,000 children die every day of starvation and starvation related diseases around the world, (and that number could be 20,000 or even higher now), I would say that Parents are the real monsters just for bringing children into this world of sin and suffering. Even if the children don't die of starvation, how could anyone possibly think that it is a good idea to have children in this totally screwed world where they are bound to become liars and thieves because that is basically the so called, "Good" potential that Mankind has inherent within??? Children born in this generation are bound to become Godless degenerates like Lawyers or Politicians, and all mixed up or worst, even Darwinist? =) How cruel to bring children into this world! The real monsters are People and not God because God did not force anyone to have children into this totally perverse world of ours so that they should suffer or be killed? That is if we go by your judgment of God being a monster.

One more thing! The Bible clearly states that this will not go on for ever and ever. If that were not the case then I think that we could all just commit suicide and forget about the coming Judgement of God. But if there is a judgment coming then it can not be just only about men but about God as well. God will judge mankind and mankind is the one who basically condemns themselves individually. But the coming judgement is also about God. For if God fails in that coming judgment to prove once and for all that He was and is totally just and righteous in all that he has done and allowed to happen over the past 6,000 years, then who would honestly follow and obey God for all of eternity. If the matter is not settled about God being right then surely another revolt and another rebellion will take place in eternity sooner or later. Another Lucifer Rising! God needs to prove to us that He did right by us. So while God will judge mankind, Mankind will also be judging God in that coming 100 years of judgment right after the millennial rule of Jesus Christ. Just as planned in the Bible for those who really read it.

I have read what you have written and if it is true the plan sucks.God's only possible excuse for theodicy is that he doesn't exist.You talk about induced abortions,the numbers pale into insignificance compared to miscarriages.What divine plan creates parasites to burrow into the eyes of newborns?Your god is more than monstrous,he is sick.Yet atheists are often accused of not having a moral compass,if we were created in your god's image that would indeed be true.

[john9blue]

One cannot grasp the infinite knowledge and wisdom of God---although of a few ITT have claimed that they know what God wants of them and of others, which is interesting!

well they're dumb then

[chang50]

ugh, haven't we had this argument before? if god exists and is as omniscient as is claimed, who are we to complain if he decides children have to die? you're putting restrictions on what is "good" and "evil" from your limited human perspective.

It's the only perspective I have,same as everyone else.You do realise the argument about putting restrictions on what is 'good' or 'evil',from a limited human perspective is also necessarily from a limited human perspective?