Asimov said:
*giggle*
duordi, Asimov makes a good point here. The theological position that you're presenting in this thread really seems to make the Lord look capricious at his best -- and evil at his worst.
Just saying.
Upvote
0
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.
Asimov said:God: "ok guys, here's the way it's gonna be. There's all this misinformation running about, because you guys are fallible. There are different religions to choose from, fallacies regarding Jesus and the Bible and all that. Added on top of that, there's this evil guy Satan that I allow to wander my Creation and trying to subvert my followers. Now, I can give you the real deal now, so you have enough information to make an intelligent decision, but I'm not gonna do that until after you're dead and in the places that you've chosen, ok? Sounds good!"
Humans: uuuuuhh......what?
Asimov said:You assume that this is the perfect evidence? Amazing. Anyway, the question was related to God existing, not him asking us to follow him or not.
gluadys said:I believe God created an objectively real and knowable universe. What kind of universe do you think God created such that all our knowledge would be faith-based rather than evidence-based?
gluadys said:Let me try to make it clearer.
Do you think it is true that God made a real world?
Do you think it is true that God made a world of order that follows natural laws and processes?
Do you think it is true that God equipped us with sense, intellect and reason that is capable of comprehending the orderly processes of nature?
If your answer to all the above is yes, then it follows that it does not require faith to know what the orderly processes of nature are. All it takes is study.
If you hold that it requires faith to believe in a scientific conclusion, then you must answer "no" to one or more of those three questions. Which one(s) will you answer "no" to?
I will also ask you questions.gluadys said:I don't follow your logic here. Nor do I understand what free will has to do with being able to study nature.
This is all beside the point. I wasn't making a statement about salvation. I was making a statement about creation.
Let me try to make it clearer.
Do you think it is true that God made a real world?
Do you think it is true that God made a world of order that follows natural laws and processes?
Do you think it is true that God equipped us with sense, intellect and reason that is capable of comprehending the orderly processes of nature?
If your answer to all the above is yes, then it follows that it does not require faith to know what the orderly processes of nature are. All it takes is study.
If you hold that it requires faith to believe in a scientific conclusion, then you must answer "no" to one or more of those three questions. Which one(s) will you answer "no" to?
Correct on all counts. That is why sandstone (and other sedimentary rocks) are not dated radiometrically. Igneous rocks (which are derived from molten material) are those used for radiometric dating.
duordi said:I will also ask you questions.
Regarding dating.
Fine I will use molten material it makes no logical difference.
How long has the the maerial reamained molten?
And does the molten material contain decay elements?
When the molten material solidifies does the radioactive clock reset by eliminating all decay elements?
No but you are measureing the material and not the rock.
And how did the molten material get radioactive material in it?
Were less complicated atoms created first step by step until radioactive elements were formed or did radioactive elements magically appear?
There was no judgement intended on my part as they made choices based on what they knew at the time.Sheseala said:Here, I thought the stock market crash was caused by margin buying and over speculation and it didn't help that people freaked and defaulted on their loans.
What the heck is morally wrong with giving rights to people? I rather like being able to vote, go to an engineering school, get a degree, and be recognized in the field (which I'll admit is still hard). What is morally wrong about that?
Cocaine's for horses and not for men...
Girl_4_God said:Has anyone ever heard of Kent Hovind? He is a creationist. He has some really good creations vrs. evolution movies
Jenny
Girl_4_God said:He is a creationist.
He has some really good creations vrs. evolution movies
That is not true. I'll quote you again:duordi said:There was no judgement intended on my part as they made choices based on what they knew at the time.
The intent of the paragraph was to indicate the change in social beliefs at the time.
Duane
duordi said:The great depression started with the stock market crash of 1929 and was caused by moral chaos during the decade before. Questioning of commonly held moral and social standards was commonpleace. Gay rights, womens rights, and acceptance of drug use was a sign of the times. Coke ( the soft drink ) had cocaine (the drug) in it, that is why it is called Coke today.
Girl_4_God said:Has anyone ever heard of Kent Hovind? He is a creationist. He has some really good creations vrs. evolution movies
Jenny
Judgement indicates that I said it was good or bad.Tomk80 said:That is not true. I'll quote you again:
[/i]
You did not simply indicate a change in social beliefs. You specifically stated that a change in moral beliefs caused the stock market crash. Sheseala answered this by providing the normal explanation for this (ie, no, not changing morals but irresponsible envesting was the cause). You have not provided sources for your explanation, you have not given a response to this yet and as far as all of us know, what you are saying in the above is just plain false. Care to back up your statement?
The chain mail I was referring to was of the form of scam artist.Tomk80 said:Despite not seeing the point of that in any way, here you go.
No it is not. The intention of the chain letter is harmless. The personal freedom of the subjects participating in chain letters is not compromised in any way, neither does it limit the participants in anyway to develop themselves as humans. Chain letters in postal form also cost the persons participating little money (a few stamps, that's it).
Chain letters in e-mail form cost society more money and might thus be regarded as immoral. However, the cost of those is negligable when compared to the cost of spam-mail. Next to that, the participants again make the choice of sending the e-mail themselves, it is not forced upon them. And if it is a chain letter that is funny, it would have been send through anyway.
So, no. The persons receiving and sending the chain mail are not inflicted personal harm, and the cost to society as a whole because of chain mail is negligable.
gluadys said:So you will ask questions but you will not answer mine. Why should I answer yours if you will not answer mine?
gluadys said:My understanding is that a number of decay products are removed by the liquification of the rock e.g. argon gas. But you should read the links I gave you and follow up with other scientific papers to get all the details. This is not my field of expertise.
gluadys said:Various elements are distributed both in the earth's crust and in the mantle beneath.
gluadys said:When? At the beginning of the universe or during a process on earth? I already described the chronology of the beginning of the universe.
gluadys said:All the elements on/in the earth were present when the earth was formed. They don't need to be formed anew whenever a volcano erupts.
Very clear except the part about how the decay elements are determined to be caused only from when the rock was created.gluadys said:Good article. Very clear.
By what process is the rock formed?
No. Elements have isotopes. Every atom is an isotope of its element. i.e. every atom has a number of electrons, protons and neutrons which give it an atomic weight. Most of this weight is in the protons and neutrons. The two charged particles (electrons and protons) have to balance each other electromagnetically. If their number changes, you have a different element (and that only happens if the element is unstable and therefore radioactive.) But changing the number of neutrons does not affect what the element is or how it interacts with other elements. So when atoms of the same element have different numbers of neutrons, they are the same element, but they have different atomic weights. Each of these is an isotope. The creation of different atomic isotopes would begin with the very formation of atoms long before the earth existed.
It is true that a lot of radioactive elements are complex (check out the periodic table of elements). And it is true that these were created later than the light elements. The first atoms to be created were simple hydrogen and helium atoms. (Note that even these have different isotopes although they are not radioactive isotopes.) More complex atoms did not appear until stars were formed, as they required the nuclear fusion reactions in the heart of stars to fuse simple atomic nuclei together into more complex ones.
The heaviest elements required even more than ordinary stellar fusion. They required the immense pressures of a super-nova. However, all these elements had been created before our solar system came into being. So as far as the earth is concerned we can consider that all the elements in all their isotopes already existed.
Actually evolution says the egg came first.However radiometric dating has nothing to do with evolution.
As you have realized by now most of the posters here reject the idea that God preforms miracles.Girl_4_God said:Has anyone ever heard of Kent Hovind? He is a creationist. He has some really good creations vrs. evolution movies
Jenny
My peaceful spirit considers that the Earth was smother.Matthew777 said:Dude. I don't even know why we need to debate this anymore. There is only enough water in the earth to flood 22% of the earth's surface. This does not mean that Noah's flood did not happen; it was a local Mesopotamian event.
May peace be upon thee and with thy spirit.
It seems that you are referring to a ponzi scheme here. At least my suspision was that that would come next, followed by stock markets. However, there are some essential differences in those.duordi said:The chain mail I was referring to was of the form of scam artist.
If you are not familiar with this type of a chain letter it is probably not worth the time to explain it.
The point was do you think it is immoral to "trick people" into giving you money, by playing on their greed, fear or other forms of emotional manipulation.
If you think it is OK then the stock market crash was a good thing.
Duane
Not those who are christian, and there are a number of evolutionists amongst those.duordi said:As you have realized by now most of the posters here reject the idea that God preforms miracles.
trueSome believe He dosen't exist.
Some believe He does exist.
But this is not what most people here believe. I think you should work on your reading comprehension if you haven't figured that out yet.I haven't figgured out yet if there is a difference between believing in a God that can't do anything or believing there is no God.
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?