Is God a liar?

[Open Heart]

http://creationtoday.org/radiometric-dating-is-it-accurate/
http://creation.com/the-way-it-really-is-little-known-facts-about-radiometric-dating
https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-for-creation/six-evidences-of-young-earth/

These are disreputable, unscientific sites. Try sourcing something that is remotely scientific.

 

[Speedwell]

First (or last in the post) mistake. Facts and theories and truth
are all different things. And as I said, nothing you see screams
"I'm billions of years old!" You have to believe scientists and
their tests over the one who created everything, including the
radiation they misuse in their attempts to render him irrelevant.

I won't go through each item and show you how wrong you are
to accept it blindly. Yahweh is the only one worthy of that faith
in the first place. I will let you begin with the following links if
you care to know how much you've been duped by humanism
disguised as science.

http://creationtoday.org/radiometric-dating-is-it-accurate/
http://creation.com/the-way-it-really-is-little-known-facts-about-radiometric-dating
https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-for-creation/six-evidences-of-young-earth/

Of course, you can dig up other sites that refute these facts, and I can dig up more
that refute theirs, and so on. Eventually, it comes down to faith, and mine is in Yahweh.

If you believe in a god who created death, disease and suffering, that is no god.

The trouble with those sites is that they not only argue against science, they intentionally misrepresent it. That seems to be true of Creationists generally. When a Creationist says something like "evolution requires..." or "the theory of evolution says..." you can bet the ranch that what follows will be a bald-faced lie.

If you can't argue your position honestly, what good is it?

 

[pat34lee]

The trouble with those sites is that they not only argue against science, they intentionally misrepresent it. That seems to be true of Creationists generally. When a Creationist says something like "evolution requires..." or "the theory of evolution says..." you can bet the ranch that what follows will be a bald-faced lie.

If you can't argue your position honestly, what good is it?

Exactly what I was thinking of your first paragraph.
Unless, maybe you can add some facts to your libel
of creationists in general?

 

[pat34lee]

These are disreputable, unscientific sites. Try sourcing something that is remotely scientific.

If you don't believe your own bible, I don't care much
what you think is unscientific or disreputable. As I said,
we could go back and forth with theories and stories,
but you put your faith man's word over Yahweh's. That
never ends well.

 

[Open Heart]

Exactly what I was thinking of your first paragraph.
Unless, maybe you can add some facts to your libel
of creationists in general?

You are accusing him of libel? Every word he said was spot on.

 

[Open Heart]

If you don't believe your own bible

But I DO believe my Bible. I think that there are many different genres in the Bible. Songs and poems and parables and books of history and books of law and proverbs and myths. You have to read each part in the genre that it is, and not try to make it something it is not. Don't we agree that it would be ridiculous to read a Psalm and take it literally that rivers clap their hands? It is just as ridiculous to take a creation myth literally. You have to read it for the eternal truth it teaches (that God created the world) NOT as a history book.

 

[Aman777]

But I DO believe my Bible. I think that there are many different genres in the Bible. Songs and poems and parables and books of history and books of law and proverbs and myths. You have to read each part in the genre that it is, and not try to make it something it is not. Don't we agree that it would be ridiculous to read a Psalm and take it literally that rivers clap their hands? It is just as ridiculous to take a creation myth literally. You have to read it for the eternal truth it teaches (that God created the world) NOT as a history book.

The Holy Spirit wrote Genesis from inside Moses. The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Truth and must tell the exact Truth and He does IF you can understand Genesis Chapter One. It's the complete History of God's Creation from the beginning to when every Christian is safely in Heaven at the end of the present 6th Day. This is apparent IF you can understand the next verse:

Gen 2:1 ¶ Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

When God finishes His Creation or does any work, it is brought to perfection or God didn't do it. This verse is speaking of a time in the Future when God's 3rd Heaven has been brought to perfection and ALL of the host of Heaven is safely in Heaven with Him. Remember that the last sinner to be saved will be among the host or inhabitants of Heaven, since God's perfect Heaven will NOT be perfect until the last sinner to be saved, is safely home. Amen?

 

[Speedwell]

Exactly what I was thinking of your first paragraph.
Unless, maybe you can add some facts to your libel
of creationists in general?

Take a look at the thread "Evolution and logical fallacies," the discussion of information theory starting at post 27.

 

[pat34lee]

But I DO believe my Bible. I think that there are many different genres in the Bible. Songs and poems and parables and books of history and books of law and proverbs and myths. You have to read each part in the genre that it is, and not try to make it something it is not. Don't we agree that it would be ridiculous to read a Psalm and take it literally that rivers clap their hands? It is just as ridiculous to take a creation myth literally. You have to read it for the eternal truth it teaches (that God created the world) NOT as a history book.

Let's try one word then. Or two, actually. VERY GOOD.

How would you define something that God says is very good?
Remember Yeshua's words in Mark 10:18.

 

[pat34lee]

Take a look at the thread "Evolution and logical fallacies," the discussion of information theory starting at post 27.

Does that prove that creationists in general consistently and
intentionally misrepresent science and lie about evolution?

If not, you are still libeling those who don't

 

[Speedwell]

Does that prove that creationists in general consistently and
intentionally misrepresent science and lie about evolution?

If not, you are still libeling those who don't

How many examples do you want? Why don't you show me a Creationist who argues against science as it is rather than a straw man cooked up by the organizations behind those websites you posted.

 

[pat34lee]

How many examples do you want? Why don't you show me a Creationist who argues against science as it is rather than a straw man cooked up by the organizations behind those websites you posted.

When you say 'those websites', you are talking about probably
dozens of people, if not more. I have never seen a problem on
the pages I link to. I will accept your label on them IF you can find
problems with any of the three I posted. Not refutations of fact,
but misrepresentation or fraud or lying about evolution, as you
allege.

A fourth link:
http://www.earthage.org/youngearthev/evidence_for_a_young_earth.htm

 

[Speedwell]

When you say 'those websites', you are talking about probably
dozens of people, if not more. I have never seen a problem on
the pages I link to. I will accept your label on them IF you can find
problems with any of the three I posted. Not refutations of fact,
but misrepresentation or fraud or lying about evolution, as you
allege.

A fourth link:
http://www.earthage.org/youngearthev/evidence_for_a_young_earth.htm

 

[Speedwell]

When you say 'those websites', you are talking about probably
dozens of people, if not more. I have never seen a problem on
the pages I link to. I will accept your label on them IF you can find
problems with any of the three I posted. Not refutations of fact,
but misrepresentation or fraud or lying about evolution, as you
allege.

A fourth link:
http://www.earthage.org/youngearthev/evidence_for_a_young_earth.htm

ROFLMAO!
But if you really want me to explain it to you, you are going to have to be honest with me: what university level science courses have you completed? Math courses?

 

[Open Heart]

How would you define something that God says is very good?

Very means a whole heck of a lot.
Good is the opposite of bad. Awesome.

 

[Speedwell]

And it's God's idea of good, not necessarily ours, and not necessarily fully known to us, anyway. When a Creationist says, "God pronounced what He created to be very good, therefore it must be thus-and-so." what follows is self-serving speculation.

 

[Aman777]

And it's God's idea of good, not necessarily ours, and not necessarily fully known to us, anyway. When a Creationist says, "God pronounced what He created to be very good, therefore it must be thus-and-so." what follows is self-serving speculation.

God is speaking of the perfection of His Creation at the end of the present 6th Day when everything will exist in perfection, or when God's work is finished or become very good or very perfect, as He will say. Then God will rest (Cease ALL creating) and celebrate because His perfect 3rd Heaven has now been made perfect and filled with ALL of it's host, which are God's Children who have been born again Scripturally. Romans 8:9 Otherwise known as Christians.

Gen 2:1 ¶ Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

I thought this happened in the past but that is not true since God's Work must finish in perfection, a Future time which is AFTER the prophecy of Gen 1:28-31 is fulfilled. See why I refer to today as the present 6th Day?

 

[Open Heart]

When you say 'those websites', you are talking about probably
dozens of people, if not more.

And how many of them actually have PhD's in biology, genetics, biological anthropology, geology, or the like? Not dozens.

Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or consider it a valid theory (Robinson 1995). This means that less than 0.15 percent of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that is just in the United States, which has more creationists than any other industrialized country. In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept creationism drops to less than one tenth of 1 percent. www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111.html

 

[Speedwell]

Don't you realize that most of those scientists are only pretending to not believe in creation science in order to keep their cushy jobs with the worldwide anti-Bible conspiracy?

 

[Stillicidia]

.