Extinctions not asteroid after all, and dino protein real after all...

[BananaSlug]

What was being talked about there, was the wicked state of man in the end. Context.

You have obviously shown that you have no care for context. The context of Genesis 2 clearly shows that Eden was planted after the creation of Adam. The verse stated nothing about the wicked state of man!

26 And as it was in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of Man: 27 They ate, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all. 28 Likewise as it was also in the days of Lot: They ate, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they built; 29 but on the day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all. 30 Even so will it be in the day when the Son of Man is revealed. Luke 17:26-30

Jesus was showing that the peoples lives of the past (before the flood) were the same as those who lived before the destruction of Sodom and is going to be the same as those who will live in the future (when Christ returns but before the "eternal state").

However, since you brought it up, I might be able to use that. See, in the tribulation, (most see that as after Jesus raptures the believers) as well as in the millenium, things are again different.

Some denominations don't believe in the rapture. They interpret the Bible differently from other denominations.

Therefore it is possible that indeed, it will be the same as the days of Noah at that time!? Men on earth live a thousand years, for example in the millennium. In the tribulation a few possible clues for a universal change exist as well. For example, men will want to die, but won't be able to. That could indicate that the life processes have changed?

So now are you saying that the near future will be changed as well?

Also a third of the stars will fall, that sure seems to be a universal change!?

You do realize that verse was about Satan and the fallen angels?

3Then another sign appeared in heaven: an enormous red dragon with seven heads and ten horns and seven crowns on his heads. 4His tail swept a third of the stars out of the sky and flung them to the earth. Revelations 12:3-4

If a man rests his opinion on solid pillars, it is of value. If one merely imagines a same state past, it is of no coinage.

The "solid pillars" are nothing more than your interpretation of scripture. Are other Christians opinions just as valid, even if they are different from yours? Other Christians here believe the physical laws of the past were the same as they are now. Are their opinions based on "solid pillars" or are you the only one who is right?

All men are fallible. All are depraved sinners. The issue is not about men, it is about so called science claims. It is also about the biblical alternative, and for that you need a bible case. I have one. Work on that.

You still haven't quite answered the question. Are you agreeing that you are a fallible depraved sinner? A yes or no will do.

No, I have no problem with pillow lava at all. Especially some right near the ocean! We should also remember that the flood waters went down. From a physical science perspective, it had to go somewhere. The explanations af it just settling in or something seem weak to me at best. Therefore, many things were covered by water that are not now.

(In reference to the bolded sentence) I thought the laws were different in the past!? Why would physical science have anything to do with the flood since the laws were different? Why would the flood waters have to "go down" in this different state past?

Okay, so you are admitting pillow lava could have been formed during the flood. This is admitting that we have 1 piece of evidence where the physical laws of the past were the same as now (especially since you've admitted the "split" occurred over 100 years after the flood).

Some claim the continents separated at the time of the flood. I am not sure. My educated opinion so far, is that it was at the time of the split. Over a century later.

Then how did pillow lava get on the side of a mountain? You just admitted you accept the fact that pillow lava forms underwater. How would pillow lava have formed on a mountain since the flood occurred over 1 century later (meaning there was no water for it to form in)?

The processes that form it today are trivial and small. There is a lot here. Science is less than certain, no?

Dolomite formation in the seawater−freshwater interface

We are actually very certain. Dolomite can actually form in various aquatic scenarios.

Right, and Eden was in the earth. Notice also that it doesn't seem to be magically appearing here. Planted would fit this best! Because like a garden, it brings forth stuff! back then, it brang forth awful fast.

And the same language is used when the earth "brings forth animals". Would that suggest animals were planted by God? Why would the same language suddenly have different meanings?

No, Gen 2 is not an order. It is a fleshing out of some things already done. By chap 2 all was done already.

So these verses do not imply a different order?

15 Then the LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to tend and keep it. 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”
18 And the LORD God said, “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.” 19 Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So Adam gave names to all cattle, to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper comparable to him. Genesis 2:15-20

This clearly says God created all of the animals after he created Adam. That little red word clearly shows these events happened in the same time frame. Secondly, why wasn't the creation of the animals in Chapter 2 mentioned before God made Adam? What will you say now?

Not IF we already know the order. It can only imply that in the head of one that looks to chap 2 for the order. No can do.

Genesis 1 never mentions the Garden of Eden. One can also imply that the events in Genesis 2 were the specific events of day 6.

Some also take the word interpreted as eastward to mean 'in advance of'.

Since when did the direction of the Garden mean "in advance of"? Does that mean westward now means "after"?

That also makes sense, because God had the garden there before man was made, obviously. He made man somewhere else, as you may know. Then He brought man to Eden.

Why? He couldn't have created Adam, planted the garden, then put Adam in it?

Impossible to make the garden after He brought guests to it! Elementary.

You've heard it here first, brought to you by BananaSlug. Dad has just admitted that something was impossible for God! In a past where anything could happen, where our current laws did not apply, dad has admitted something was impossible for God to do.

How do you know such a thing would be "impossible" since even you don't know how the physical laws of the past existed?

This stuff is so easy.

You keep thinking that.

 

[dad]

You didn't use science. You merely claim, "science can't know". That is not using science, it is known as an opinion.

One cannnot use science to look at the state of the far past universe, any more than the future one. Don't blame me. I never used toilet tissue either. So? I use what applies.

"The issue then, is what the material that is now radioactive was doing before this universe state existed. I can't recall the line of thinking, that was going on, if your recollections are correct. What comes to mind reading it, is that there is no evidence about a same state past. Or a different state past, as far as science is concerned. Therefore any evidence would be out of that realm."

^Not science. For it to be considered science you would need to supply evidence for your claims. You have yet to provide any scientific evidence. My point stands.

No, for your point to stand science must apply! Bible and history support only one state, a different one. Your point is impaled.

What was the purpose of the daughter isotopes being present before radioactive decay? You have yet to give an explanation.

What is the purpose of transparent gold in New Jerusalem? These, and many other questions are not covered by science.

Then why did you say this in the last post?

"If we are talking bible, then the future will not see the decay of the present. Yet, why would we assume that the (what are now daughter isotopes) will disappear? No reason. The same thing applies in a former universe state."
http://www.christianforums.com/t7390200-37/#post52835304

What would be the purpose of God placing daughter isotopes in rock if there was no radioactive decay?

Easy. In a different state, they no loner would be 'daughter' related. They are merely materials in an eternal process. Nothing to do with decay.

1. It started when you claimed that daughter isotopes (a product of decay) were present in the "past state". You stated:

Ha!!! Now you are starting to clue in. False!!! Daughter isotopes were already here. But they were not involved in the decay process. (#275)

2. I asked you to prove it. You then said:

I go by deduction, and what we do know. We do know they are here, and I deduce they had to get here somehow. Since no same state is known, in the past or proven, one would have to assume they were part of creation. (#285)

3. I asked you to provide evidence. You said:

No need to, since you can't prove a same state. You can't know, let alone be sure by science!(#291)

4.. I asked if you didn't care to provide the evidence you said you had or if you couldn't provide it. You stated:

I can do all things through Christ, that strengthens me. But not all things are needful. For everything, a time, and place. If you get to a point where that becomes important, it may be looked at. (#352)

5. I said you couldn't provide evidence. You said:

Well, why pick daisies, better to focus on something close to topic. (#357)

6. I stated my question was on topic. You then said:

The issue then, is what the material that is now radioactive was doing before this universe state existed. I can't recall the line of thinking, that was going on, if your recollections are correct. What comes to mind reading it, is that there is no evidence about a same state past. Or a different state past, as far as science is concerned. Therefore any evidence would be out of that realm.

7. Which brings us to:

If you want to back track, you do it. Or who is it that is lazy? That merely indicates you think you had a point somewhere you can't seem to recall or produce, as I see it. That ain't much to worry about. At least on my end. (#376)

So as you can see I had a point and you have failed to provide evidence when you said you had it. Hopefully I won't have to find information like this for you. Your a big boy now, I shouldn't have to hold your hand. If you have evidence to support your assertion, show it. If you don't have evidence, admit it! Your flip-flopping is getting old.

I see. So you think you are at a point where it is important to know what went on in a different state? I might suggest you learn something of the spiritual. That is part of the different state. That is what has to be looked at!!! That is the topic! That is part of what was in the mix in a different state, and why the (NOW daughter) material was not employed in a decay position. You are a big boy, no? You should realize that science doesn't and can't know the state of the universe of the future or far past. That means science will not be part of the evidence. Not for you.

What else supports it? The Bible certainly doesn't support many of your ideas. I've never read a verse that said radioactive decay did not exist before the flood. So the Bible doesn't even support some of your ideas...

False. The long lifespans, land masses moving from waters in creation week without heat, and waters over the earth, and etc etc all scream out different!! That covers decay as well.

For example...rust! That involves atoms, you know.

"
Chemical reactions associated with rusting

The rusting of iron is an electrochemical process that begins with the transfer of electrons from iron to oxygen.[3] The rate of corrosion is affected by water and accelerated by electrolytes"


Rust - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



"An electrolyte is any substance containing free ions that behaves as an electrically conductive medium"

Electrolyte - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


"An ion is an atom or molecule where the total number of electrons is not equal to the total number of protons, giving it a net positive or negative electrical charge."

Ion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In other words, a present state arrangement! In the new heaven state, there won't be rust!Matthew 6:20 - But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:

 

[dad]

You have obviously shown that you have no care for context. The context of Genesis 2 clearly shows that Eden was planted after the creation of Adam.

No! "8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed."

So, the man was PUT in the garden. How could God plant the garden after man, then put him in it! Ridiculous.

The verse stated nothing about the wicked state of man!



26 And as it was in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of Man: 27 They ate, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all. 28 Likewise as it was also in the days of Lot: They ate, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they built; 29 but on the day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all. 30 Even so will it be in the day when the Son of Man is revealed. Luke 17:26-30

Jesus was showing that the peoples lives of the past (before the flood) were the same as those who lived before the destruction of Sodom and is going to be the same as those who will live in the future (when Christ returns but before the "eternal state").

No, that is why we have a bible, not just snipped veres! The REASON the Noah era world was killed is clear! And the sins of Sodom are also a hallmark of that end time. No way round it.

Some denominations don't believe in the rapture. They interpret the Bible differently from other denominations.

Some devils may not either. So???

So now are you saying that the near future will be changed as well?

You do realize that verse was about Satan and the fallen angels?

Of course the new heaven state is also different! That is why I have said for years now that the future is the key to the past. As far as the stars, I believe they also will literally fall! The physical and spiritual are connected. When the devill and his demons no longer have access to heaven (the separated spiritual) they will be HERE!! I have no reason to believe that that reality will not be reflected in the universe man sees.

3Then another sign appeared in heaven: an enormous red dragon with seven heads and ten horns and seven crowns on his heads. 4His tail swept a third of the stars out of the sky and flung them to the earth. Revelations 12:3-4

Yes, his tales conned many. Not me any more. I am fed up.

The "solid pillars" are nothing more than your interpretation of scripture. Are other Christians opinions just as valid, even if they are different from yours? Other Christians here believe the physical laws of the past were the same as they are now. Are their opinions based on "solid pillars" or are you the only one who is right?

Says you. Where are they? Where is their evidence!? Stop huffing and puffing, and get some meat on the table.

You still haven't quite answered the question. Are you agreeing that you are a fallible depraved sinner? A yes or no will do.

Yes. Just as Paul admitted he was chief of sinners. Anyone that says otherwise is lying.

(In reference to the bolded sentence) I thought the laws were different in the past!? Why would physical science have anything to do with the flood since the laws were different? Why would the flood waters have to "go down" in this different state past?

Because we need to grow stuff, and breathe, etc. If God sent a wind from space, and blew waters off the surface, for example, the waters would go down. Just as if you take a cup full of water over a sink, and blow hard on it, a lot will go out of the cup. Elementary.

Okay, so you are admitting pillow lava could have been formed during the flood. This is admitting that we have 1 piece of evidence where the physical laws of the past were the same as now (especially since you've admitted the "split" occurred over 100 years after the flood).

No! Not yet. Why would I admit the unknown? I suspect it was near the time of continental separation. If anyone has facts to bring to bear, we might zero in on the thing.

Then how did pillow lava get on the side of a mountain? You just admitted you accept the fact that pillow lava forms underwater. How would pillow lava have formed on a mountain since the flood occurred over 1 century later (meaning there was no water for it to form in)?


Dolomite formation in the seawater−freshwater interface

We are actually very certain. Dolomite can actually form in various aquatic scenarios.

It "can" But there is no way to say all we see "did"! Now, about the mountain...where is it? Precisely? What "age" are the rocks?

And the same language is used when the earth "brings forth animals". Would that suggest animals were planted by God? Why would the same language suddenly have different meanings?

Well, language is meant to be comprehended. Not just spoken. Animals and men were to be fruitful and multiply. That doesn't mean together!

So these verses do not imply a different order?

15 Then the LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to tend and keep it. 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”
18 And the LORD God said, “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.” 19 Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So Adam gave names to all cattle, to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper comparable to him. Genesis 2:15-20

This clearly says God created all of the animals after he created Adam.

Not in any way is that true. The context is going back and looking at what was done. In this verse, the issue of Adam naming the animals is raised. Not the order.

That little red word clearly shows these events happened in the same time frame. Secondly, why wasn't the creation of the animals in Chapter 2 mentioned before God made Adam? What will you say now?

No need to say anything, since order was in Chap 1.

Genesis 1 never mentions the Garden of Eden. One can also imply that the events in Genesis 2 were the specific events of day 6.

That is why chap 2 exists. To cover what was not mentioned. Glad you are cluing in.

Since when did the direction of the Garden mean "in advance of"? Does that mean westward now means "after"?

No more than 'silly' means multi billionaire.

Why? He couldn't have created Adam, planted the garden, then put Adam in it?

So where did He create Adam, and store him, till the garden was ready? On a space shuttle cryonics lab? Please.

You've heard it here first, brought to you by BananaSlug. Dad has just admitted that something was impossible for God! In a past where anything could happen, where our current laws did not apply, dad has admitted something was impossible for God to do.

Yes, impossible for God to lie. Or be a nincompoop. He brought man to the garden. He gave us a brain. Let's use it. And let's assume He has one, or something like one too. Say uncle.

 

[marktheblake]

The context of Genesis 2 clearly shows that Eden was planted after the creation of Adam.

This clearly says God created all of the animals after he created Adam.

This is an old argument, that doesnt stand up to any scrutiny at all. Genesis 1 is the order of creation events, Genesis two is about Adam, it is not a sequence of events.

Of course you shall disagree so show us the peer reviewed published paper by a qualified professional from a related field that supports your position that the order of creation in Gen 1 is contradicted by Gen 2.

 

[Alunyel]

You keep saying "History and the Bible point to a different state past.", but you've yet to show us exactly how History points to a "different state past.".

History actually points to a different state any time beyond last Tuesday.

The way everything in the universe worked was completely different last Monday, and only changed to the way it is now about 1600 hours on Tuesday. You can't prove it was the same, so it must've been different!

I can say that to my hearts content, it's no more or less reasonable than the nonsense you constantly spurt. If I were to make that claim seriously, you'd expect me to be able to prove it, asking to prove that things weren't different beyond last Tuesday is asking to prove a universal negative. The burden of proof lies with you. Until you can show us reasonable evidence that anything was different, then we won't ever take your claims seriously. Please stop repeating the same smeg over and over again.

 

[BananaSlug]

No! "8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed."

So, the man was PUT in the garden. How could God plant the garden after man, then put him in it! Ridiculous.

The same way I could build a wind chime, then plant a garden, then put the wind chime in it. If such a thing is possible for me, then it should hardly pose a problem for an omnipotent God!

What is the purpose of transparent gold in New Jerusalem? These, and many other questions are not covered by science.

I take that as you have no clue what the purpose of daughter isotopes were in the "past state". You are simply posting drivel in a continuing attempt to uphold your ideas. Either tell us what their purpose was in the past state, or stop saying they were there!

Some devils may not either. So???

You've heard it here again folks! Any Christian who doesn't believe the same way dad does is a devil! Maybe some of you Christians should confront dad instead of letting him continue on with such drivel.

Says you. Where are they? Where is their evidence!? Stop huffing and puffing, and get some meat on the table.

Maybe they'll come out of hiding, I'm tiring of having to hold your hand when you've yet to hold up your end. I've met plenty of Christians in my college days that had no problem with the state of the past. One of them was even my geology professor!

Yes. Just as Paul admitted he was chief of sinners. Anyone that says otherwise is lying.

Okay, since now you have finally admitted you are a fallible, lying, sinning human, what makes you think you are the only one whose interpretation of scripture is right? What makes your interpretation different from other Christians' interpretations?

Because we need to grow stuff, and breathe, etc. If God sent a wind from space, and blew waters off the surface, for example, the waters would go down. Just as if you take a cup full of water over a sink, and blow hard on it, a lot will go out of the cup. Elementary.

So you are comparing a "present state" phenomena to a "past state" phenomena! Thank you for showing that. You do realize that you have essentially nullified your argument by comparing the waters of the flood to the water in a cup. You have compared a "past state" event with a "present state" event. Thank you and have a pleasant day!

No! Not yet. Why would I admit the unknown? I suspect it was near the time of continental separation. If anyone has facts to bring to bear, we might zero in on the thing.

It "can" But there is no way to say all we see "did"! Now, about the mountain...where is it? Precisely? What "age" are the rocks?

You can't backtrack now. The physical laws of the present couldn't have applied during the separation, since it would have created heat (as you have stated so often). This means that pillow lava on the side of a mountain could have only formed while underwater.
This is not about the age of rocks. This is about the formation of pillow lava. If the Bible is true, then the only way pillow lava could have formed on the side of a mountain would be if the mountain itself was under water. This could have only occurred during the flood. Secondly, you've claimed the separation of the continents did not produce heat. No heat=no pillow lava. So the formation of pillow lava in the "past state" is the same as the formation of the "present state". Elementary.

Well, language is meant to be comprehended. Not just spoken. Animals and men were to be fruitful and multiply. That doesn't mean together!

Trying to change the topic? That is a tactic of a man who realizes he is wrong but won't admit it. Let's try again:

You claim the phrase "let the earth bring forth" in Genesis 1 is meant to convey the meaning that God grew plants from seed. Let's take a look at this verse.

11 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth”; and it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. Genesis 1:11-12

Yet this same language is used when God creates the animals:

24 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind”; and it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. Genesis 1:24-25

So, why do you claim the same language has two different meanings? If "let the earth bring forth plants" means God grew them from seed, why wouldn't "let the earth bring forth living creatures" mean he grew them from seed as well?

Not in any way is that true. The context is going back and looking at what was done. In this verse, the issue of Adam naming the animals is raised. Not the order.
No need to say anything, since order was in Chap 1.

Did you ignore this?

18 And the LORD God said, “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.” 19 Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So Adam gave names to all cattle, to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper comparable to him. Genesis 2:15-20

After Adam was created, God decided to make a helper for him. It doesn't make sense that the blue phrase is between the red phrases. Why would the blue phrase be included so late into Chapter 2? Shouldn't it be earlier in the chapter before God formed Adam? It seems so out of place that the only logical explanation is that either Chapter 2 is the specific order of events of Day 6, or another order of creation.

That is why chap 2 exists. To cover what was not mentioned. Glad you are cluing in.

Are you agreeing that Genesis 2 are the events specific to day 6?

No more than 'silly' means multi billionaire.

Then how can you state that "eastward" means "in advance of?

So where did He create Adam, and store him, till the garden was ready? On a space shuttle cryonics lab? Please.

It's nice to see how much you doubt God's power. How about he created Adam then planted the Garden a nanosecond later? Aren't all things possible with God? Oh wait, you've already stated some things are impossible for God!

Is it sad that I, an atheist, seem to be one of the few that points out dad's serious theological problems to him? Are no Christians upset that he is possibly harming others' faith with his insane drivel?

Yes, impossible for God to lie. Or be a nincompoop. He brought man to the garden. He gave us a brain. Let's use it. And let's assume He has one, or something like one too. Say uncle.

Nice to see you try and cover your post. You stated:

He made man somewhere else, as you may know. Then He brought man to Eden. Impossible to make the garden after He brought guests to it! Elementary. (#379)

You admitted it was impossible for God to make a garden after he "brought guests to it". You admitted that such a thing is impossible for an OMNIPOTENT God.

So, would it be possible for God to create Adam, the plant Eden, then put Adam in it? Of course, you stated such a thing is impossible. Nice to see a Christian doubt God's power...

 

[dad]

You keep saying "History and the Bible point to a different state past.", but you've yet to show us exactly how History points to a "different state past.".

The long life spans of the Sumers. The spirit kings of Egypt. Need more??

History actually points to a different state any time beyond last Tuesday.

No. The evidences are clear. Try to deal in reality. Lastt week is known.

I can say that to my hearts content, it's no more or less reasonable than the nonsense you constantly spurt. If I were to make that claim seriously, you'd expect me to be able to prove it, asking to prove that things weren't different beyond last Tuesday is asking to prove a universal negative.

Look, negative, positive or any other current, your current is present tense. Fess up. Move on.

The burden of proof lies with you. Until you can show us reasonable evidence that anything was different, then we won't ever take your claims seriously. Please stop repeating the same smeg over and over again.

What sort of proof would you like? Just name it. Science? I hope you know that science doesn't do spiritual, or unknown future universe states! So precisely what do you want, or offer? If anything at all!?

 

[marktheblake]

Why would the blue phrase be included so late into Chapter 2?

because that is where it was relevant. Chapter 2 is not an order of events.

 

[dad]

The same way I could build a wind chime, then plant a garden, then put the wind chime in it. If such a thing is possible for me, then it should hardly pose a problem for an omnipotent God!

Except Adam wasn't a chime. And he was put in a ready made garden. Put that in your pipe, and smoke it.

I take that as you have no clue what the purpose of daughter isotopes were in the "past state". You are simply posting drivel in a continuing attempt to uphold your ideas. Either tell us what their purpose was in the past state, or stop saying they were there!

Speaking of the unknown, even if I were right is not something that is verifiable by science! This is a science forum. Work within those severe, crippling limits!

You've heard it here again folks! Any Christian who doesn't believe the same way dad does is a devil! Maybe some of you Christians should confront dad instead of letting him continue on with such drivel.

Lurkers that can read will know that I compared devils to those folks that are not orbiting God's word. Not orbiting my opinion.

Maybe they'll come out of hiding, I'm tiring of having to hold your hand when you've yet to hold up your end. I've met plenty of Christians in my college days that had no problem with the state of the past. One of them was even my geology professor!

Maybe they will, but the same fate awaits them, if they have the defeated case you present so far. They best stay hidden.

Okay, since now you have finally admitted you are a fallible, lying, sinning human, what makes you think you are the only one whose interpretation of scripture is right? What makes your interpretation different from other Christians' interpretations?

Just lucky, I guess. Maybe God pointed me in the right direction, He uses simple things to confound those that think they are wise, you know. I qualify.

So you are comparing a "present state" phenomena to a "past state" phenomena! Thank you for showing that. You do realize that you have essentially nullified your argument by comparing the waters of the flood to the water in a cup. You have compared a "past state" event with a "present state" event. Thank you and have a pleasant day!

Not in the least way, in the remote corners of the misty present bound minds of men, is that true, or a similar color to true. The pillow lava issue is something large in your head. If we want to actually look at it, and the facts, we might get somewhere. The questions are these

--was pillow lava formed in the flood? If so, how do we know, exactly??!

--was the PL formed at the time of the continental separation, or some other time??


To determine this, we need to look at facts, and evidence. You posted a pic. Where is it? What is the geology there? You wanna get down, let's do this thing. Otherwise, you are being fluffy, and blowing feathers, in lieu of smoke.

You can't backtrack now. The physical laws of the present couldn't have applied during the separation, since it would have created heat (as you have stated so often). This means that pillow lava on the side of a mountain could have only formed while underwater.

Ha. You missed the obvious! The heat actually was produced, in great measure, because the end of the separation was in this state. Not all of it, or we all would be dead. Elementary.

This is not about the age of rocks. This is about the formation of pillow lava. If the Bible is true, then the only way pillow lava could have formed on the side of a mountain would be if the mountain itself was under water. This could have only occurred during the flood.

Really? Ever heard of uplift, and mountain building?!

Secondly, you've claimed the separation of the continents did not produce heat. No heat=no pillow lava. So the formation of pillow lava in the "past state" is the same as the formation of the "present state". Elementary.

False! They produced plenty of heat. All the heat we see now! More or less. But that was just from the tail end of the thing, when this state came to be! At least as I read the evidence so far.

You claim the phrase "let the earth bring forth" in Genesis 1 is meant to convey the meaning that God grew plants from seed. Let's take a look at this verse.

No. Only if we are talking plants. Since we know they were planted, obviously they brang forth by growing!

Yet this same language is used when God creates the animals:

24 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind”; and it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. Genesis 1:24-25

So, why do you claim the same language has two different meanings? If "let the earth bring forth plants" means God grew them from seed, why wouldn't "let the earth bring forth living creatures" mean he grew them from seed as well?

The meanings are not different, it is the focus of what is being talked about. Plants do not multiply as humans, for example. Yet they reproduce, or bring forth. Bring from what? From themselves. The seed of a man differs from the seed of a cow, or a cattail.

After Adam was created, God decided to make a helper for him. It doesn't make sense that the blue phrase is between the red phrases. Why would the blue phrase be included so late into Chapter 2? Shouldn't it be earlier in the chapter before God formed Adam? It seems so out of place that the only logical explanation is that either Chapter 2 is the specific order of events of Day 6, or another

order of creation.

Perspective....God made man, (and woman) on the 6th day.

Are you agreeing that Genesis 2 are the events specific to day 6?

Gen 2 is a big chapter. Not all of it pertains to day 6. This is news??

Then how can you state that "eastward" means "in advance of?

I said it is one translation, that makes sense.

"[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Geneva]n m [/FONT]

1. [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Geneva]
   [*] east, antiquity, front, that which is before, aforetime
   
   1. front, from the front or east, in front, mount of the East
   2. ancient time, aforetime, ancient, from of old, earliest time
   3. anciently, of old (adverb)
   4. beginning
   5. east adv
   
   [*] eastward, to or toward the East"[/FONT]
2. Old Testament Hebrew - StudyLight.org

Any more questions?

It's nice to see how much you doubt God's power. How about he created Adam then planted the Garden a nanosecond later? Aren't all things possible with God? Oh wait, you've already stated some things are impossible for God!

It is impossible for Him to be stupid. So? Who says the garden was planted in a nanosecond???? Get a grip.

Is it sad that I, an atheist, seem to be one of the few that points out dad's serious theological problems to him? Are no Christians upset that he is possibly harming others' faith with his insane drivel?

If they were, would we not hear a bible case that is contrary? All I harm is the godless drivel that is so called science/ maybe they like to see it harmed. So?

Nice to see you try and cover your post. You stated:

He made man somewhere else, as you may know. Then He brought man to Eden. Impossible to make the garden after He brought guests to it! Elementary. (#379)

You admitted it was impossible for God to make a garden after he "brought guests to it". You admitted that such a thing is impossible for an OMNIPOTENT God.

Yes. If He says He did it a certain way, it is impossible He lies. So??? Deal with it. We kid you not.

So, would it be possible for God to create Adam, the plant Eden, then put Adam in it? Of course, you stated such a thing is impossible. Nice to see a Christian doubt God's power...

Don't get silly. Would it be possible for God to make a lollipop that held the universe? That is a non issue!

 

[dad]

The same way I could build a wind chime, then plant a garden, then put the wind chime in it. If such a thing is possible for me, then it should hardly pose a problem for an omnipotent God!

I take that as you have no clue what the purpose of daughter isotopes were in the "past state". You are simply posting drivel in a continuing attempt to uphold your ideas. Either tell us what their purpose was in the past state, or stop saying they were there!

Since science doesn't know, content yourself with not knowing. The arrangement and job of materials in merged matter, in the new heavens state is determined by the new fabric of the eternal universe. It is not for science to know that, or for the stuck in the PO mudders to ask how it will work. That is for us to find out one day. meanwhile, we content ourselves, those of us limited to science of the present, to the present state of affairs. I have to tell you this?
For bibble believers, who want clues, yes, we can move a little beyond the strict dead end absolute limits of physical only science! But that journey of discovery is not a debate. It is a tour for believers to enjoy, and marvel at.

Atheists and unbelievers must resign themselves to ignorance and darkness, regarding things too high for them. Don't blame me.

So you are comparing a "present state" phenomena to a "past state" phenomena! Thank you for showing that. You do realize that you have essentially nullified your argument by comparing the waters of the flood to the water in a cup. You have compared a "past state" event with a "present state" event. Thank you and have a pleasant day!

The fallacy you comit here is missing the fact that the other state also has rules. In fact, it also has physical in the mix! It just also has the spiritual, and that, like love, changes everything!

 

[Gracchus]

Since science doesn't know, content yourself with not knowing.

Not knowing is not where science stops, it is where it starts.

The fallacy you comit here is missing the fact that the other state also has rules. In fact, it also has physical in the mix!

So what are the rules? Give us some examples.



(This would all be so much simpler if you would just take your medication.)

 

[dad]

Not knowing is not where science stops, it is where it starts.

Buzz Lightyear claims the same thing. But we must content ourselves with the reality that both he and it are in a box.

So what are the rules? Give us some examples.

Well, the PO cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven. Flesh and blood. Jesus had a new body that can and did. It was also spiritual. That is an example.

The normal laws, and atomic realities that lead to things like rusting will not be there either.

Gold and I think I recall, other things will have different 'physical' characteristics and properties. Being transparent, for example.