Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
There is no way for me to address all your questions. So, I only take the last one:
I said I know how is the radiometric dating done. I would say it is a very precise work. However, I also said that I don't think the results of all dating are accurate. In other words, I only treat the dates as relative and proportional values, but not as real values. This way of recognition does not affect my secular science research at all. I still send samples to get dates. And I always have a peaceful mind in interpreting and using these dates.
So how much real time is represented by, say, 300 million years, which is given by radiometric dating? I do not know. I think it is 100 m.y. older than 200 m.y.. But I do not know how long is the 100 m.y. difference in reality. Sounds strange, but I do think I have good reason to see it this way.
How do I treat the creation "days"? I don't know either. But I don't like to think it is a 24-hr period of time as we know it. The meaning of "day" in the creation process is not defined. However, I do take the sequence (day 1, day 2 etc.) seriously. I think the sequence is real and is very critical.
This is all about the real nature of time, which no one really knows today.
So my response to your comments: 1) all data are acceptable and are functional; And 2) God will show me what time REALLY is when I see Him in face. (side point: I do think there is still time in Heaven)
Do we have all kinds of global problems today? We do have many, right? For example, over population, water shortage, global epidemics, terrorism, nuclear proliferation, ID theft, etc. etc. I am sure to say that all these global-scale problems appeared because we developed the modern technology. Without the technology, we still have problems, but no global problem.
I am not against technology. It is God's gift and I am all for it. But I also recognize that the advance of technology does not create a better society, but make the society a more dangerous place.
One question left to reply.
Ok... now I'm REALLY confused.
-You believe the bible is literal... expect in Genesis 1 where the word "day" is used... in which case, it's not literal? If it was meant to be taken literally, why use the specific term "day"?
This is related to the argument on what does the "literal" mean. There are several extensive discussions in the Origin Theology forum. Basically, a literal reading of anything still needs "interpretation". For example, the literal meaning of "water" could have several interpretations include things like soup. (I don't want to continue on this issue).
-You trust radiometric dating (even if not fully)... but you still think the earth was flat enough to be covered in water as early as 5,000 years ago... while radiometric dating shows the highest mountain ranges as being FAR older than that.
I'm also still waiting to hear why you think the flood DID occur... rather that your basis for thinking if it COULD have occurred.
This is what I mean: one question left. I will get to this a little later.
Is this where we get into the whole conversation over how "guns don't kill people... people kill people"?
No. I don't say that. People use gun to kill. That is what is about. Without gun or sword, people use stone or stick to kill. Scale back the medical tech, a skin wound then is as fatal as a gun wound now. So, the medical tech advanced, but the seriousness of wound also intensified. Technology is NOT the solution.
How is that a problem?
Well, except that a lot of gun wounds are also not fatal these days. The primary issue here, however, is that death from accidental injuries and diseases has been drastically reduced.No. I don't say that. People use gun to kill. That is what is about. Without gun or sword, people use stone or stick to kill. Scale back the medical tech, a skin wound then is as fatal as a gun wound now. So, the medical tech advanced, but the seriousness of wound also intensified. Technology is NOT the solution.
It is possible that God, in His foreknowledge and future [dispensational] planning --- put that stuff there in the order that they are currently in because we are going to be needing that stuff during the Millennial Reign for whatever reason.
Well, except that a lot of gun wounds are also not fatal these days. The primary issue here, however, is that death from accidental injuries and diseases has been drastically reduced.
yep so how about you move back to the time of the black death. Good time for you. Plenty of religion. No central heating, no fridge, no net, TV etc....This one takes us back to the theme of OP.
As I am enjoying the achievement of science, I don't think science is really doing any good to human being. We are no better off than people lived 1000 years ago from any point of view. If I were allowed to chose, I prefer the life 1000 years ago. I think science is leading us to destruction.
The projected deaths from that are a fraction of the deaths from similar epidemics in centuries past. Take the Black Plague, which is estimated to have killed anywhere from 30% to 60% of the population of Europe.I am not sure. We may review the high death toll of the flu in 20's and foresees the possible bird's flu to come.
So, you just discount the people that live well, and count only those that die horribly? Why?The key is: more population, more death, even the proportion could be similar. But the death is not evaluate by ratio of population, but by the number of individuals. 10,000 death is more significant then than now. Is life getting cheaper due to population increase?
What is your problem with the Mediterranean flood again? Is it that how do we know it happened?
We know it happened because we found the salt layer at the bottom. But the salt layer is NOT made by the flood, but was made before the flood. A local or global flood will not make a salt layer anywhere.
Remember it. You will beat your classmates on this issue because you learned it here.
OK, rather than cater to your usual would be elitist pretensions, let's put it this way
Now, if you meant to say something you misspelled, like "subaerial" do let us know! O busted one.
That would only apply in the present universe, one would assume that the SN originated in the former state, or at least the changing universe process.
OK. So, W is the will of God. X is one star, and Y is another. And FL is the former light speed.
X x FL divided by W = W FL
Y x FL divided by W = W FL
W FL x W = W FL
If W = Y FL, and W = X FL, and X does not = Y then either speed is W. (even if different)
X*F[sub]L[/sub] / W does not equal W*F[sub]L[/sub]
It equals X*F[sub]L[/sub] / W
W*F[sub]L[/sub] x W = W[sup]2[/sup] F[sub]L[/sub]
So the Will of God is now a squared term, so you have squared the will of God. Does that have any "actual meaning"?
IN ADDITION:
"Will of God" is not a quantity. It is a thing.
Y and X are "stars", again, things, not quantities.
If you are trying to make a symbolic logic syllogism you will need to use different types of symbols.
This appears to be neither math nor logic.
At what point was W=Y*F[sub]L[/sub] and W=X*F[sub]L[/sub]established? If that is the case then:
X*F[sub]L[/sub] / W
and
W=X*F[sub]L[/sub]
Then you have effectively set up the equation:
X*F[sub]L[/sub] / X*F[sub]L[/sub] = 1.
I am unsure how meaningful it is to state that X*F[sub]L[/sub] = X*F[sub]L[/sub] But there you go.
So are you claiming the Will of God is a tautology? Or are you just saying "a thing is what it is"?
------------------------------------------------WARNING: PET THEORY COMING UP --- BE PREPARED TO FACEPALM
PARENTS, YOU MAY WANT TO HAVE YOUR CHILDREN LEAVE THE ROOM
THIS IS A PET THEORY --- NOT A LIE, NOT DECEPTION --- BUT A PET THEORY
In relation to questions about, "Why do we find this here and that there?"
White Cliffs here --- Blue Angel Shale there --- Oil Reserves here --- Pockets of [whatever] there:
It is possible that God, in His foreknowledge and future [dispensational] planning --- put that stuff there in the order that they are currently in because we are going to be needing that stuff during the Millennial Reign for whatever reason.
THIS CONCLUDES MY PET THEORY ON THE GEOLOGY OF THE EARTH
- Atheistic Explanation: they formed there over massively-long periods of time.
- Dispensational Explanation: they were put there for future use.
YOU MAY NOW ALLOW YOUR CHILDREN BACK INTO THE ROOM
THIS IS A PET THEORY --- NOT A LIE, NOT DECEPTION --- BUT A PET THEORY
It is not elitist if I know more geology than you do. It is not elitist if you accuse me of using the term "uniform" when in fact I did not. I even pointed out that I would be surprised if such a marker bed was uniform.
If you are unable to acquiesce to your ignorance of the topic at hand and you accidentally misrepresented my point but will not admit to the obvious mistake that all can read for themselves, well then I have nothing more to say to you about this. I prefer to talk to honest people.
Oh my. I made a misspelling! Yikes!
Matt 7:3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
Since we are being nit-picky at times like this I love to remind everyone of your "math skills":
Enjoy your "brilliance" while you can. For every "misspelling" you find in my posts, I'll keep reminding people of how "perfect" you are.
In case you forgot how you bollocksed that up here's where you went wrong and how I corrected you:
The thing that Av, dad and juv all have in common is a complete inability to ever accept that they are wrong about anything. In China they probably would be / have been hard core Maoists, because the little red book contains the unarguable answer to everything. As it is they are "christians" and use the bible for their personal little arsenal of ignorance.
And this is my stance as well --- and the stance of my pastor, who has two doctorates. By all means, check this stuff out for yourselves and draw your own conclusions.For me the height of honesty comes in the assessment that I don't think anyone should believe a word I say without checking it out. That's why I always attempt to put in caveats and references or citations for most of my claims. I could be in error. I could be grossly in error.
Even though I clearly said it was a PET THEORY. Your sarcastic post right after that, as well as what others said, just serve to reinforce my point that it's not what we say, it's who we are. I'm pretty sure that had I said the same thing, but w/o the disclaimer first, I would have still gotten the same replies.But by the same token, I despise the attitude of those who think they can never be in error. THOSE are the last people I will ever trust.
2 Corinthians 6:8 said:By honour and dishonour, by evil report and good report: as deceivers, and yet true;
Even though I clearly said it was a PET THEORY. Your sarcastic post
So you consider it part and parcel of your Christian faith to be obnoxious and proud of your own ignorance of others' field of expertise all the while throwing this in their faces and critiquing their field of which you are ignorant? That's fine. I suppose then, that version of "Christianity" based on treating others as lesser beings is something I dislike.right after that, as well as what others said, just serve to reinforce my point that it's not what we say, it's who we are.
Are you incapable of understanding what I wrote? I hope you actually thought about what I wrote. I put in all the disclaimers and everything. Why don't you treat my post with the respect you want yours treated with? I didn't say anything about your post. I merely posted my pet theory on where Independent Baptists come from. Sheesh. What's wrong with that?I'm pretty sure that had I said the same thing, but w/o the disclaimer first, I would have still gotten the same replies.
You can quote the BIble and still not think for yourself. Or you can quote the bible and show you actually are thinking. Some prefer the first to the second.Here's what I've found over the years here:
- Don't quote the Bible --- or you're not thinking for yourself.
That's because you are a member of minority sect within the larger Christian community.
- Don't quote Basic Doctrine --- or you're brainwashed.
WHO SAID YOU WERE A LIAR?
- Don't quote Pet Theories --- or you're some kind of ideaologist, if not a down-right liar.
Did I say you did?WHO SAID YOU WERE A LIAR?
I didn't.
This means that what follows is an aggregation of accusations from a plethora of persons.Here's what I've found over the years here:
Did I say you did?
Let me repeat --- with emphasis, this time:This means that what follows is an aggregation of accusations from a plethora of persons.
Don't flatter yourself into thinking I just had you in mind.
This pet theory isn't the only pet theory I've ever posted before.
[Right, MrGoodBytes?]
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?