Flat Earth Theory.

BNR32FAN said:

Then you don’t know the Bible because Judas never believed which is why he was stealing money from the treasury and Jesus prayed this about him on the night Judas betrayed Him.

”While I was with them, I was keeping them in Your name which You have given Me; and I guarded them and not one of them perished but the son of perdition, so that the Scripture would be fulfilled.“
‭‭John‬ ‭17‬:‭12‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

Click to expand...

So Jesus must have allowed Satan to enter into Judas on that dreadful night just as he is allowing Satan to enter into the Antichrist in the last days.

Apple Eye said:

So Jesus must have allowed Satan to enter into Judas on that dreadful night just as he is allowing Satan to enter into the Antichrist in the last days.

Click to expand...

I don’t know about that, I wouldn’t jump to any conclusions about it because I’m not aware of any evidence to support it.

BNR32FAN said:

I’m aware of this to but when did scientists actually begin attempting to date the age of the earth? About 150 years ago right? The point was to indicate how scientists have been claiming they know the age of the earth over and over and over and the predicted ages have changed over and over and over. So obviously I wouldn’t start at 1950 to demonstrate this.

Click to expand...

Scientists have tried to measure the age of the Earth for about 300 years, although the first attempts were based on an incorrect understanding of the physics of the problem and therefore led to wrong answers. The earliest attempts that I have found were those of Isaac Newton (1642-1727) and Georges-Louis Leclerc de Buffon (1707-1788), who estimated the a mass of iron the size of the Earth would take 50,000 to 75,000 years to cool from an incandescent state to its present temperature.

Later scientists used geological methods to estimate the age of the Earth. During the late 18th century, James Hutton (1726-1797) developed the idea of a geological cycle, and concluded from his studies of the record of the rocks that there was 'no vestige of a beginning' of the Earth's history. Charles Lyell, in Principles of Geology (1830-33), estimated that the Tertiary period had lasted about a million years. Charles Darwin, in the first edition of The Origin of Species (1859), estimated that the erosion of the Weald Dome, in south-east England, had required 300 million years. Conversely, John Phillips, in 1860 (164 years ago), used measurements of the rate of deposition of sediment by the River Ganges to estimate the age of the Earth as 96 million years.

Lord Kelvin (Sir William Thomson) (1824-1907) returned to the cooling time method and obtained estimates of 100-500 million years in 1861 and 20-30 million years in 1897. The 1897 estimate was much less than the ages obtained by geological methods.

All these estimates were invalidated in the early 20th century by the discovery of radioactivity as a source of terrestrial heat, and its application to radiometric dating. It was only 60 years after the discovery of radioactivity that Patterson measured the age of the Earth as 4550±50 million years, and this age has stood for nearly 70 years without significant alteration.

BNR32FAN said:

It’s not to an atheist? But this is Christian Forums and I’m a Christian, not an atheist. To people who actually believe the Bible it is proof. Are you a Christian?

Click to expand...

I am an atheist. I rejected Christianity 40 years ago after studying the Bible and realising that it is not historical, and, in particular, that the New Testament prophecies of an imminent end of the world have been falsified by the passage of time since they were written.

Astrophile said:

Scientists have tried to measure the age of the Earth for about 300 years, although the first attempts were based on an incorrect understanding of the physics of the problem and therefore led to wrong answers. The earliest attempts that I have found were those of Isaac Newton (1642-1727) and Georges-Louis Leclerc de Buffon (1707-1788), who estimated the a mass of iron the size of the Earth would take 50,000 to 75,000 years to cool from an incandescent state to its present temperature.

Later scientists used geological methods to estimate the age of the Earth. During the late 18th century, James Hutton (1726-1797) developed the idea of a geological cycle, and concluded from his studies of the record of the rocks that there was 'no vestige of a beginning' of the Earth's history. Charles Lyell, in Principles of Geology (1830-33), estimated that the Tertiary period had lasted about a million years. Charles Darwin, in the first edition of The Origin of Species (1859), estimated that the erosion of the Weald Dome, in south-east England, had required 300 million years. Conversely, John Phillips, in 1860 (164 years ago), used measurements of the rate of deposition of sediment by the River Ganges to estimate the age of the Earth as 96 million years.

Lord Kelvin (Sir William Thomson) (1824-1907) returned to the cooling time method and obtained estimates of 100-500 million years in 1861 and 20-30 million years in 1897. The 1897 estimate was much less than the ages obtained by geological methods.

All these estimates were invalidated in the early 20th century by the discovery of radioactivity as a source of terrestrial heat, and its application to radiometric dating. It was only 60 years after the discovery of radioactivity that Patterson measured the age of the Earth as 4550±50 million years, and this age has stood for nearly 70 years without significant alteration.

Click to expand...

Typically you don’t really hear about anyone before William Thomson on the subject which was where I started my reference point. Although I was off by about 50 years. I remembered it was in the 1800s I thought it was closer to 1870 and I didn’t really think it was a big deal if I was off by a few years. I didn’t think I was off my 50 years tho so my mistake in that dept.

BNR32FAN said:

But you can’t tell me what these materials would’ve been subjected to if the earth was created in one day. I completely understand that scientists understand how they could be formed over billions of years, but that’s not how God said He did it, is it?

Click to expand...

Of course I can't tell you what conditions these materials would have been subjected to if the Earth was created in one day.

However, all the scientific evidence, from radiometric dating of terrestrial rocks and meteorites, astronomical observations of stars and planetary systems in the process of formation, and the age of the oldest lunar rocks, shows that the formation of the Earth took tens of millions of years. Also, according to Genesis 1:2 on the first day of the creation water was present as a liquid, so the temperature must have been between 0°C and 100°C. Radioactive materials have been subjected to much higher and lower temperatures without any change in their decay rates and half-lives.

BNR32FAN said:

And I said that right after this portion you’ve quoted here, didn’t I? That the universe is expanding and that the Bible says several times that God stretched out the heavens? You saw that I said that in the post, right?

Click to expand...

My understanding of this is that Babylonian astronomers of the 1st millennium BC had a static picture of the universe in which the Earth was a flat disc resting on water and the sky (the residence of the Sun, Moon and stars) was a solid vault with water above it, and that during the Babylonian captivity (585-530 BC) the Jews adopted this cosmology and adapted it to their own religious doctrines. This ancient Babylonian cosmology has nothing in common with modern scientific cosmology, in which the universe is essentially infinite and the Sun is only one of innumerable stars and the Earth a small planet in orbit around it.

Astrophile said:

Of course I can't tell you what conditions these materials would have been subjected to if the Earth was created in one day.

However, all the scientific evidence, from radiometric dating of terrestrial rocks and meteorites, astronomical observations of stars and planetary systems in the process of formation, and the age of the oldest lunar rocks, shows that the formation of the Earth took tens of millions of years. Also, according to Genesis 1:2 on the first day of the creation water was present as a liquid, so the temperature must have been between 0°C and 100°C. Radioactive materials have been subjected to much higher and lower temperatures without any change in their decay rates and half-lives.

Click to expand...

How would we know if there were changes in the decay rates? I was actually crunching some numbers this morning and we’ve only began studying isotopic decay for about 80 years now. The half-life of uranium 238 is 4.5 billion years. So to put it into perspective, if we were watching a snail crawling and that represented the rate of decay and the half-life point was at 1 mile the amount of time we’ve actually tracked the snail’s movement would be 2 milliseconds. So it like we’ve watched a snail crawl for one and a half blinks of an eye and concluded that its pace has never changed.

BNR32FAN said:

And there was evening and there was morning.

Click to expand...

That's night

BNR32FAN said:

How would we know if there were changes in the decay rates? I was actually crunching some numbers this morning and we’ve only began studying isotopic decay for about 80 years now. The half-life of uranium 238 is 4.5 billion years. So to put it into perspective, if we were watching a snail crawling and that represented the rate of decay and the half-life point was at 1 mile the amount of time we’ve actually tracked the snail’s movement would be 2 milliseconds. So it like we’ve watched a snail crawl for one and a half blinks of an eye and concluded that its pace has never changed.

Click to expand...

There are short-lived radionuclides, with half-lives much less than 80 years, that have been followed throughout their decay until none of the radioactive atoms remain. They have shown the same exponential decay throughout the process. Why do you think that long-lived radionuclides should have variable half-lives when short-lived radionuclides are observed to have constant half-lives?

There are no theoretical grounds for expecting for radioactive half-lives to change; as I have already pointed out the energies associated with temperatures and pressures in the Earth's crust are of the order of millionths of the binding energies of atomic nuclei and therefore are too small to perturb the nuclear energy levels and to cause detectable changes in the half-lives. Also, the age of the Earth measured by radiometric dating is >100,000 the age given by young Earth creationists. Do you really think that radioactive half-lives have changed by a factor of 100,000, or that a snail could run at 100,000 times its observed crawling pace?

Astrophile said:

My understanding of this is that Babylonian astronomers of the 1st millennium BC had a static picture of the universe in which the Earth was a flat disc resting on water and the sky (the residence of the Sun, Moon and stars) was a solid vault with water above it, and that during the Babylonian captivity (585-530 BC) the Jews adopted this cosmology and adapted it to their own religious doctrines. This ancient Babylonian cosmology has nothing in common with modern scientific cosmology, in which the universe is essentially infinite and the Sun is only one of innumerable stars and the Earth a small planet in orbit around it.

Click to expand...

Ok but Genesis was written about 1000 years before that.

BNR32FAN said:

Ok but Genesis was written about 2000 years before that.

Click to expand...

Not.. did you verify that?

Strong in Him said:

I have no idea because I don't know any Hebrew.

All I know is that English words don't always adequately explain what the Hebrew, or Greek, were trying to express.
In Greek, for example, there are 4 words for love. These describe family love, sexual love, the love between 2 friends (I think) and Divine, Agape love. All we can say in English is, "I love my mum", "I love my husband", "I love going to the seaside", "I love the Beatles", "I love God". We don't love these things/people in the same way - we have a different relationship with each. In Greek, someone could see immediately what the person meant by what word was being used.

I don't know any examples, but I have been in Bible studies and heard people say "we don't have the equivalent word in English". There are also cases where the Hebrew for a particular verse is unclear. The translators have done the best they could, but if the Hebrew is unclear, obviously the English is not going to be a direct translation.

Click to expand...

Yeah then there is sin....

Astrophile said:

There are short-lived radionuclides, with half-lives much less than 80 years, that have been followed throughout their decay until none of the radioactive atoms remain. They have shown the same exponential decay throughout the process. Why do you think that long-lived radionuclides should have variable half-lives when short-lived radionuclides are observed to have constant half-lives.

Click to expand...

No I'm not saying that it does fluctuate, I’m just saying that if it did it wouldn’t be surprising and we probably wouldn’t know about it yet. I’m definitely no expert on the subject by any means, but I have been trying to learn.

BNR32FAN said:

And there was evening and there was morning.

Click to expand...

Both of which require the sun.

weekEd said:

Sadly exegesis isn't present when it comes to the simple fact God is different than a person who writes texts. Then revelation is a vision or an experience but it's never text.

Click to expand...

What advantage then has the Jew, or what is the profit of circumcision? Much in every way! Chiefly because to them were committed the oracles (words) of God.

d taylor said:

What advantage then has the Jew, or what is the profit of circumcision? Much in every way! Chiefly because to them were committed the oracles (words) of God.

Click to expand...

Psalms 90:4

d taylor said:

What advantage then has the Jew, or what is the profit of circumcision? Much in every way! Chiefly because to them were committed the oracles (words) of God.

Click to expand...

It looks like you ask questions and answer them yourself

Jipsah said:

Psalms 90:4

Click to expand...

So, God also walks on water.

BNR32FAN said:

Then you don’t know the Bible because

Click to expand...

Sorry, we've already played the "you don't believe the Bible game", and you enthusiastically denied what our Lord Himself said. No further sophstries necessary.

A fig for your 24 Hour Days of Creation blather.