...Do you even believe in Evolution in the first palce?

[pjnlsn]

Basing on what exactly? I think your confusing your certainty of your disbelief than an actual fact.



Edit: another general apologetic thread, oh boy.

While the most common conceptions of the various gods of various religions are largely undescribed and insubstantial, this does not mean they cannot be compared to other ideas of the world, or of something said to exist (outside of the mind of a person), in a context.

 

[super animator]

While the most common conceptions of the various gods of various religions are largely undescribed and insubstantial

citation please

this does not mean they cannot be compared to other ideas of the world, or of something said to exist (outside of the mind of a person), in a context.

And how this makes it "unlikely"? what mathematical methods did you use to determine that it's "unlikely"?

 

[pjnlsn]

citation please
And how this makes it "unlikely"? what mathematical methods did you use to determine that it's "unlikely"?

It's probably more convenient for you to first tell me what you think a god is, in context. If it's something other than what I'm talking about, i'll tell you....what i'm talking about.

 

[super animator]

It's probably more convenient for you to first tell me what you think a god is, in context.

I see no relevance of my take on it.

 

[pjnlsn]

I see no relevance of my take on it.

No, I mean, what do you think i'm talking about?

 

[super animator]

No, I mean, what do you think I'm talking about?

You talking about a certain deity being unlikely, what else?

 

[pjnlsn]

You talking about a certain deity being unlikely, what else?

Right, well, if you understand that it's about a 'deity' as in a being which is said to exist, outside of the mind of any believer, then I suppose i'll still say that the most common conceptions religious people seem to have of what their god is are particularly insubstantial; While many of them seem to be full of information about the personality of this being, or various abstract and/or philosophical abilities it has, very few talk about it's substance, which is what I was talking about.

Did you really not think that was the case?

 

[bhsmte]

It's the idea that if a person repeats something enough times, he will end up believing it.

Yes indeed, that is employed by some people.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

There are things in this world that do not exist of their own accord.
Darkness is the absence of light.
Cold is the absence of heat.
Bouyancy is the relative absence of weight.
Evil is the absence of God.

The actions of evil people are the result of evil people. Evil is the result of man separating himself from God. Sickness and death are part of man's inheritance because God gave man only one rule and that was too much for him. Man's rebellion fulfilled the warning of God, that in the day man ate from the forbidden fruit, death was certain. The wages of sin are death and each of us will pay that price. God offers the spirit eternal life, but the body is doomed.

Man's rebellion? Man was set up to fail in the Genesis story

You notice that they don't sacrifice animals to God either, so they live up to neither the law nor to Grace. Those who die never knowing God are destroyed. Those who can make a choice and reject Him are damned. Will some Muslims escape Hell? Probably. Maybe even most. Judgment is God's domain. They will never be welcomed in Heaven, but perhaps they will avoid Hell. The same can be said of Hindu's Bhuddists and Jews who reject Christ. The same can be said of make-believe Christians who mouth the words but deny Christ in their hearts.

It is astonishing that you don't see the injustice of this.

 

[driewerf]

High probability you don't really want to know the answer to help move your inner self closer to the Source of higher life in our midst.

Ignoring the fact that Mr Strawberry has asked this question already five or six times. When someone aks a question many times, it is a strong indication that the person wants an answer.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

I think an eight year old could answer this question.

The wages of sin are death. Forgiveness requires a sacrifice. Under the law, it was a perfect lamb or other such animal without blemish which had value. Sacrificing it deprived the sinner of wealth. It cost him something. The sacrifice showed obedience to God. Jesus was the lamb of God. He became the sacrifice for mankind. The person who denies Christ makes His death meaningless. And you wonder why God damns those who reject Him? It's never been easier to go to heaven. You aren't even in the Middle East, where belief in Christ can get you tortured and killed. Through faith, salvation must be earned. Damnation has already been earned.

So are you saying that God decided whether or not Jesus had successfully paid the price for humanity's sins? Yes? No?

 

[In situ]

It will ... when the time comes.

You don't seams to understand the problem so let me explain. A suggestion from YEC or more specific people like Robert Gentry, Andrew Snelling etc have proposed an idea that our understanding of radioactive decay is incorrect; radioactive decay give false result which make the Earth appear older than it is.

So far all good.

Then I once made a quick calculation based on radioactive decay of aluminum and came up with a figure; the surface temperature of the Earth should be roughly at ~10k Kelvin. Compare this number to the surface temperature of the sun: ~6k Kelvin.

Based on the hypothesis proposed in combination with our current understanding of physics leads to the conclusion that the Earth should had exploded in a thermal nuclear explosion long ago.

And that was only for aluminum...

This means the Earth should be a fireball at minimum. However, in respect to all known facts, Earth is not a fireball... why is that? To my knowledge this has not happen, so why does the Earth exists? In other words; what is wrong with our current understanding of physics?

Now you have some option here; either, you deny that the Earth exists or you need to explain or point to an explanation why the Earth still exists...

So, please stop with the rhetoric and address the question.

 

[KWCrazy]

Hypothetical question: If scientists managed to clone a human being from the cells of a virgin, would that clone be sinless?

Theoretically we could combine the cells of two females and create life, but that would only create another female; not a male.

As for the "Adam was created as an adult proves embedded age" idea, if there was really an entire false history given to the world then, wouldn't Adam and Eve have been created with parents, who would either be still alive, or dead and buried somewhere?

They WERE the parents. The idea of embedded age is the manifestation of those who can't comprehend that God created a mature world complete with MAN, not child.

And their parents would have had parents, who would have had parents, so on and so forth. How come such a thing isn't mentioned anywhere?

Why does God not mention that Noah's Ark had air condiitionong, a revese osmosis water purification system, and twin diesel engines? Because it didn't.

 

[KWCrazy]

It is astonishing that you don't see the injustice of this.

It's astonishing to see someone questioning the intentions and morality of someone they deny exists.

 

[KWCrazy]

So are you saying that God decided whether or not Jesus had successfully paid the price for humanity's sins? Yes? No?

Jesus paid the price for the sins of man. Yes. However, Forgiveness is not passed out like tracts at a Jehova witness convention. To obtain forgiveness you must seek forgiveness. You must believe in Christ and accept His sacrifice as the payment for forgiveness of YOUR sins. Deny Him and you deny salvation. Reject Him and the condemnation of man is upon you because you personally rejected salvation and pretended that this temporary structure we call life is somehow the totality of our existence.

 

[AV1611VET]

You don't seams to understand the problem so let me explain. A suggestion from YEC or more specific people like Robert Gentry, Andrew Snelling etc have proposed an idea that our understanding of radioactive decay is incorrect; radioactive decay give false result which make the Earth appear older than it is.

So far all good.

Then I once made a quick calculation based on radioactive decay of aluminum and came up with a figure; the surface temperature of the Earth should be roughly at ~10k Kelvin. Compare this number to the surface temperature of the sun: ~6k Kelvin.

Based on the hypothesis proposed in combination with our current understanding of physics leads to the conclusion that the Earth should had exploded in a thermal nuclear explosion long ago.

And that was only for aluminum...

This means the Earth should be a fireball at minimum. However, in respect to all known facts, Earth is not a fireball... why is that? To my knowledge this has not happen, so why does the Earth exists? In other words; what is wrong with our current understanding of physics?

Now you have some option here; either, you deny that the Earth exists or you need to explain or point to an explanation why the Earth still exists...

So, please stop with the rhetoric and address the question.

In situ, I have the following note in my Bible program:

God may have embedded age into His creation, since a byproduct of radioactivity is heat, and squishing a 13.7 billion-year-old universe down into 6000 years would require a release of so much heat as to destroy everything.

This note comes from a poster who once pointed that out, and I mentioned it here: 40

The point is that God embedded age into His creation to prevent the earth from burning up.

I know you are addressing YEC and not Embedded Age, and I'm hesitant to agree with you because I don't understand what you're saying ... so I'll say this:

If what you say is correct, then perhaps God embedded age into His creation to keep the earth from burning up.

 

[KWCrazy]

You don't seams to understand the problem so let me explain. A suggestion from YEC or more specific people like Robert Gentry, Andrew Snelling etc have proposed an idea that our understanding of radioactive decay is incorrect; radioactive decay give false result which make the Earth appear older than it is.

Our observations of radioactive decay are correct. However, the starting point was never 100%. The earth was NOT formed by natural processes, so using the physical characteristics of the creation and trying to assess the age of the creation can never result in a correct answer.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Jesus paid the price for the sins of man. Yes.

Yes, we know that bit of the story. That wasn't the question. Who decided that Jesus had successfully paid the price for humanity's sins? Was it God?

 

[KWCrazy]

Yes, we know that bit of the story. That wasn't the question. Who decided that Jesus had successfully paid the price for humanity's sins? Was it God?

Yes.
Of course, Jesus and the Father are one. Still, at Gathsemene Jesus spoke of God taking the cup from Him, which affirmed that God the Father is the absolute authority.

 

[durangodawood]

Yes.
Of course, Jesus and the Father are one. Still, at Gathsemene Jesus spoke of God taking the cup from Him, which affirmed that God the Father is the absolute authority.

They are "ONE".

But for one to be the authority, and the other not.... that means they are TWO.

Thats ok by me. I dont expect it to make sense.