The Age of the Universe

[Goonie]

The flood is an historical fact!

Reverse-count the population of the earth from the current seven billion (the population of the earth only ever 'increases', correct?); so, by normal birth-rates in reverse (taking into consideration wars, disease epidemics etc), we end-up at basically zero people around 2500BC!! Which is when the Bible tells us the flood happened! Starting with 8 people (Noah and his family) in 2500BC, and then going by normal birth-rates up to today by normal mean calculation, we end-up with seven billion people in 2015, exactly the number we have today! DO YOU UNDERSTAND, ATHEISTS??? The atheists in here have a lot of explaining to do, and that's gonna be hard, because they have no explanation and they have no reference-point of truth, just speculation. That's why we see the slogan "The THEORY of evolution".
So now that i've shown you an INDISPUTABLE fact, based on natural birth-rates which proves the flood, consider the following, and then you can repent and be saved from your sin by confessing that Jesus is Lord, and 'believe' in your heart that God has raised him from the dead, and thus the Bible says if you do that, you will be saved...


1: Even if the Moon had been right next to the earth originally, we need to consider that the gravitational pull of the moon creates a “tidal bulge” on earth that causes the moon to spiral outwards away from the earth gradually, moving further away from the earth all the time. Because of this effect, the moon would have been closer to the earth in the past. Based on gravitational forces and the current rate of observable recession (moving away from the earth), we can calculate how much the moon has moved away over time.

If the earth is only 6,000 years old, there’s no problem, because in that time the moon would have only moved about 800 feet (250 m). But most astronomy books teach that the moon is over four billion years old, which poses a major dilemma—less than 1.5 billion years ago the moon would have been touching the earth! And if we were multiple billions of years old the moon would not be in our solar-system any more LOL.


2: Like other planets, the earth has a magnetic field that is decaying quite rapidly. We are now able to measure the rate at which the magnetic energy is being depleted and develop models to explain the data.

Secular scientists invented a “dynamo model” of the earth’s core to explain how the field could have lasted over such a long period of time, but this model fails to adequately explain the data for the rapid decay and the rapid reversals that it has undergone in the past. (It also cannot account for the magnetic fields of other planets, such as Neptune and Mercury.)

However, the creationist model (based on the Genesis Flood) effectively and simply explains the data in regard to the earth’s magnetic field, providing striking evidence that the earth is only thousands of years old—and not billions.

3: In recent years, there have been many findings of “wondrously preserved” biological materials in supposedly ancient rock layers and fossils. One such discovery that has left evolutionists scrambling is a fossilized Tyrannosaurus rex femur with flexible connective tissue, branching blood vessels, and even intact cells!

According to evolutionists, these dinosaur tissues are more than 65 million years old, but laboratory studies have shown that there is no known way—and likely none possible—for biological material to last more than thousands of years.

4: When solid rock is bent, it normally cracks and breaks. Rock can only bend without fracturing when it is softened by extreme heating (which causes re-crystalization) or when the sediments have not yet fully hardened.

There are numerous locations around the world (including the famous Grand Canyon) where we observe massive sections of strata that have been tightly folded, without evidence of the sediments being heated.

This is a major problem for evolutionists who believe these rock layers were laid down gradually over vast eons of time, forming the geologic record. However, it makes perfect sense to creationists who know that these layers were formed rapidly in the global catastrophic flood mentioned in Genesis.


You evolutionists and atheists and god-rejecters cannot explain-away any of this. And you certainly will never ever be able to explain-away the following... The Bible provides a complete genealogy from Adam to Jesus. You can go through the genealogies and add up the years. You'll get a total that is just over 4,000 years. Add the 2,000 years since the time of Jesus and you get just over 6,000 years since God created everything.

The Bible, God's word, tells us, God made Adam form the dust of the earth. If you believe in billions of years, then you believe in evolution, and that's a problem, because there is no living thing today (human or animal) in a transition stage, that's a fact. As God said: "And they shall 'bring-forth' AFTER THEIR OWN KIND". Another fact you don't realize (because atheist God rejecting scientists keep lying to you out of the backsides, and theorizing with speculation and falsified evidence) is that 'REAL' scientists have proven that the genetic genome in each species is LOCKED, it CANNOT EVOLVE, it is an impossibility, there is no way possible for the genetic structure of 'any' living thing to morph it's genetic make-up and become something else. So you atheists have a problem. There is no fossil in existence showing anything in a transistion stage. CAPICHE??? These are the simple FACTS!

The Bible does tell us, however, that the fossils we find could not have been buried before God created Adam. The animals whose bones became fossilized had to have died after God created Adam. That means those fossils must be less than 6,000 years old. Here's why:

How do we get fossils?

The animal has to first die. That's rather obvious. When did death enter the world? Not until Genesis chapter three when Adam and Eve disobey God. So up until that time neither people nor animals died. So, based on the Bible, there could not be any bones to create fossils until after the fall.

Here's another Biblical reason why the fossils we find could not have been buried before God created Adam:

When we examine fossils, in some of them we see evidence of sickness, disease and cancer. There is evidence of violence and of one animal eating another. So there were some problems. Not everything was good.

Yet, at the end of day six of creation: "God saw all that He made and behold. It was very good." (Genesis 1:31)

God didn't call His creation just good. He called it very good. A world with sickness, disease, cancer and violence is not good. So, the fossilized bones we now find had to have come from animals that died AFTER God created Adam, and AFTER the fall, which was only 6000 years ago by counting the geneaologies of Israel.


Another thing that atheists and God rejecters fail to understand is that dinasours lived alongside humans, and how is that so? Quite easy really... The Bible tells us what animals, including dinosaurs, ate. During day six of creation God said: "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you; and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food; and it was so."

But, what about those BIG, sharp teeth? Take T-Rex for example, certainly he was a meat eater.

Big, sharp teeth do not mean an animal is a meat eater. Bears have teeth that are big and sharp, similar to a lion's. Yet many bears are mostly vegetarion. Chinese Pandas have very sharp teeth. They need those sharp teeth because bamboo, their only food, is very hard to chew. There are numerous examples of animals that only eat plants, and that have very sharp teeth. An animal with big, sharp teeth just means that it is an animal with big, sharp teeth--nothing more.

So, Adam and Eve did not have to worry about being eaten by dinosaurs.

By the way, it's not until Genesis 9:3, just after Noah's flood, and about 1500 years after Adam and Eve were created, that God gives the animals to man as food. From that point on people started eating meat.


Keep coming atheists, i've got more where that came from. The fact that we tolerate you, is just a bonus for you, because Jesus said if they reject your message then shake the dust off your feet and move-on, it will be more tolerable for Sodom&Ghomorrah on the day of judgment than for them.

Where to start.
1. You are using the current birth rates, this just wrong! Birth rates have increased as modern technolgy has increased life expectancy. Your population point is therefore meaningless.
2. Which geneolgy of jesus? There are two, both josephs and they contradict! Anyway is he not the son of god, not joseph, so irrelevant.
3. Enough for now, but the evidence fo4 an old earth is compelling.

 

[The Cadet]

The flood is an historical fact!

Reverse-count the population of the earth from the current seven billion (the population of the earth only ever 'increases', correct?); so, by normal birth-rates in reverse (taking into consideration wars, disease epidemics etc), we end-up at basically zero people around 2500BC!! Which is when the Bible tells us the flood happened! Starting with 8 people (Noah and his family) in 2500BC, and then going by normal birth-rates up to today by normal mean calculation, we end-up with seven billion people in 2015, exactly the number we have today! DO YOU UNDERSTAND, ATHEISTS???

Do you understand that what you call "normal" birthrates have not been the standard throughout human history? Just for reference, here's what it has looked like on a log scale (to represent how birth rate growth tends not to be linear):

Even within recorded history we have not had anything resembling a constant growth rate of the human population. I also love how you don't actually give us what you consider that figure of population growth to be, leaving us to guess at what it is, or do exactly what the people who fed you this line did, and work backwards to get the wrong value.

The atheists in here have a lot of explaining to do, and that's gonna be hard, because they have no explanation and they have no reference-point of truth, just speculation. That's why we see the slogan "The THEORY of evolution".

Yes, just like all we have to deal with disease is speculation. After all, it's the "germ THEORY". And all we have to work with in aeronautics and spacefaring is speculation. After all, it's the "THEORY of gravity". And don't even get me started on the pure absent-minded speculation that is "Atomic THEORY".

You're misusing the term. Not only that, but evolution has fairly little to do with human population dynamics.

So now that i've shown you an INDISPUTABLE fact

Actually, you haven't given us any facts. What is the natural human birth and death rates? Are they constant? Can you provide evidence for these claims? You haven't shown us anything, let alone something that is "indisputable". I reckon that these birth and death rates probably didn't fit some nice, neat exponential progression during the 1300s, where a solid third of humans in europe died of the black plague, or during the early 1900s, where tens of millions died first of pandemic Influenza, and then from the ravages of war and communism.

Actually figuring out the real birth and death rates of the human population is hard work, and there has been much research into it. Your thought process, if I had to guess, was probably a little less sophisticated: "We started with 8, we have 7B now, so if we assume a certain age of the earth, what does the growth rate have to be in order for that to happen in 4,000 years? Well, if we assume that that rate is the truth, that proves it!" But that isn't the truth. You didn't even tell us what the rate was.

1: Even if the Moon had been right next to the earth originally, we need to consider that the gravitational pull of the moon creates a “tidal bulge” on earth that causes the moon to spiral outwards away from the earth gradually, moving further away from the earth all the time. Because of this effect, the moon would have been closer to the earth in the past. Based on gravitational forces and the current rate of observable recession (moving away from the earth), we can calculate how much the moon has moved away over time.

If the earth is only 6,000 years old, there’s no problem, because in that time the moon would have only moved about 800 feet (250 m). But most astronomy books teach that the moon is over four billion years old, which poses a major dilemma—less than 1.5 billion years ago the moon would have been touching the earth! And if we were multiple billions of years old the moon would not be in our solar-system any more LOL.

Except that once again, you're looking a basic factor and assuming it has been the same throughout history. What do you think could have possibly changed a rate that relies on the tidal pull of the oceans? Maybe, I dunno, the oceans being different? There's very good reason to believe that the rate of the moon's recession was very different in the past.

https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jpe1952/38/6/38_6_475/_article

The indicated mean Earth-Moon distance of 58.28+-0.30 Earth radii at -5650 Ma gives a mean rate of lunar retreat of 1.95+-0.29 cm/year since that time, about half the present rate of lunar retreat of 3.7+-0.2 cm/year obtained by lunar laser ranging.

It, like human population growth, is not a constant, and there's no reason to believe it would be a constant if the shape and depth of the oceans was changing.

2: Like other planets, the earth has a magnetic field that is decaying quite rapidly. We are now able to measure the rate at which the magnetic energy is being depleted and develop models to explain the data.

Secular scientists invented a “dynamo model” of the earth’s core to explain how the field could have lasted over such a long period of time, but this model fails to adequately explain the data for the rapid decay and the rapid reversals that it has undergone in the past. (It also cannot account for the magnetic fields of other planets, such as Neptune and Mercury.)

However, the creationist model (based on the Genesis Flood) effectively and simply explains the data in regard to the earth’s magnetic field, providing striking evidence that the earth is only thousands of years old—and not billions.

I feel like I'm listening to someone who watched every video on the Potholer54Debunks channel, but only the bits before Hadfield proceeded to show why they were wrong. Again, you're looking at something you think might be constant, while offering absolutely no evidence that it is constant. And, big surprise, the decay rate of the earth's magnetic field does not smoothly fit the exponential curve proposed by whoever told you this crap.

3: In recent years, there have been many findings of “wondrously preserved” biological materials in supposedly ancient rock layers and fossils. One such discovery that has left evolutionists scrambling is a fossilized Tyrannosaurus rex femur with flexible connective tissue, branching blood vessels, and even intact cells!

According to evolutionists, these dinosaur tissues are more than 65 million years old, but laboratory studies have shown that there is no known way—and likely none possible—for biological material to last more than thousands of years.

Laboratory studies have done no such thing. In fact, the actual chemical mechanics of fossilization are just now starting to be studied. Mary Schweitzer, the paleontologist who first found such evidence, has recently put out a paper hypothesizing how this could be done. The claim that it has been proven impossible is completely unfounded.

4: When solid rock is bent, it normally cracks and breaks. Rock can only bend without fracturing when it is softened by extreme heating (which causes re-crystalization) or when the sediments have not yet fully hardened.

There are numerous locations around the world (including the famous Grand Canyon) where we observe massive sections of strata that have been tightly folded, without evidence of the sediments being heated.

This is a major problem for evolutionists who believe these rock layers were laid down gradually over vast eons of time, forming the geologic record. However, it makes perfect sense to creationists who know that these layers were formed rapidly in the global catastrophic flood mentioned in Genesis.

It suddenly occurs to me that you just copy-pasted this, 1:1, from Answers In Genesis. I feel the need to point out that none of these are new arguments. They're all age-old, long-debunked myths with no basis in reality. This fourth claim is completely uncited. I have no idea what you're talking about, whether it's actually true what you're saying about folding, why you're comparing rock folding to strata deposition, or why deposition via flood would actually solve any of these problems.

You evolutionists and atheists and god-rejecters cannot explain-away any of this.

Actually... We have. None of this is new. It's all really, really old news, debunked countless times. Check out Potholer54Debunks's youtube channel. Check out Talkorigins's "Index of creationist claims". It's been shown to be wrong countless times, and yet AiG still puts it up on their website. Why? They know it's wrong; they don't care.

There is no fossil in existence showing anything in a transistion stage. CAPICHE??? These are the simple FACTS!

How about this one?

Or this one:

Or any number of these:

Or these:
http://mwils083.students.digitalodu.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]YEAHWHALESYEAH.jpg
Or any number of the countless other examples provided by sites like these:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil
www.transitionalfossils.com/
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/lines/IAtransitional.shtml
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=transitional+fossil

Unless you want to define "transitional fossil" differently than the entire scientific community, in which case I'd like to know your definition and why it's relevant.

Keep coming atheists, i've got more where that came from.

Yes, I'm sure you're willing to copy-paste more complete drivel from Answers in Genesis (that bit about "nothing dying before 4000BCE" is hilarious given that we have cave paintings of humans hunting and killing animals that date back long before that, along with how absurd it is on its face). But the fact of the matter is, regardless of what you hold on faith, when you lie about science, I'm going to correct your obvious mistakes. Furthermore, ask yourself - why should you trust a ministry which so flagrantly and blatantly violates the 9th commandment? It's not like the objections to those things you posted earlier are news. It's been known for decades that those arguments were completely bunk, and yet they're pushing them anyways. Does it bother you that your sources lie to you?

 

[davedajobauk]

There is a new study saying the expansion saying it has already reached its critical limit and the universe is starting to collapse back in onto itself.

https://heiscomingblog.wordpress.co...f-collapse-and-impending-doom/comment-page-1/

and

http://phys.org/news/2015-03-universe-brink-collapse-cosmological-timescale.html

It would explain the important question of where the matter came from. Then the next question would be when did the actual matter come into existence wouldn't be important because who knows how much or how long the universe "recycles" itself. And that being the best case scenario compared to something like the big chill.

In the matter of 'sayings' ~ "It takes as long to get well, as it took to get sick" < generally

No, the expansion of the universe is showing no-sign at-all of slowing-down
indeed, there is every sign that the expansion of the universe, is even speeding-up. ie: 'infinite expansion'

In the area of "RECYCLING"
If all the black holes in our universe were to consume all of the free matter within it (universe)
and then, were to swallow each-other.... 'we' MIGHT.... just might, have, another Big Bang
~ in a 'future' that we will not see



dave

 

[florida2]

The flood is an historical fact!

The fathers of modern geology were Christians who went out to search for evidence of the flood. They found none at all - a situation that continues to this day.

Reverse-count the population of the earth from the current seven billion (the population of the earth only ever 'increases', correct?); so, by normal birth-rates in reverse (taking into consideration wars, disease epidemics etc), we end-up at basically zero people around 2500BC!! Which is when the Bible tells us the flood happened! Starting with 8 people (Noah and his family) in 2500BC, and then going by normal birth-rates up to today by normal mean calculation, we end-up with seven billion people in 2015, exactly the number we have today! DO YOU UNDERSTAND, ATHEISTS??? The atheists in here have a lot of explaining to do, and that's gonna be hard, because they have no explanation and they have no reference-point of truth, just speculation.

Shouting smugly at people isn't the best way to convince or convert them.

For centuries the world population was stable or slow growing thanks to low infant mortality, low life expectancy, poor medicine etc. It wasn't until the industrial revolution that we saw the vast increases in population to lead to today's figure of c7 billion. Please show your calculations used.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population

The flood is an historical fact!

The fathers of modern geology were Christians who went out to search for evidence of the flood. They found none at all - a situation that continues to this day.

That's why we see the slogan "The THEORY of evolution".

There is a huge difference between the everyday use of 'theory' and the scientific use of 'theory'. In science 'theory' is pretty much as high as an idea can get. It means it is a way of explaining something in the universe which is very well supported by evidence. It is not a 'guess' as your idea of theory might suggest. Do you doubt the theory of gravity?

Don't worry - many creationists ignorant of the workings of science have made this claim before and, sadly, many probably will do so in the future.

So now that i've shown you an INDISPUTABLE fact, based on natural birth-rates which proves the flood

Your face is very much disputable.

http://ncse.com/cej/4/4/creationists-population-growth-bunnies-great-pyramid

, consider the following, and then you can repent and be saved from your sin by confessing that Jesus is Lord, and 'believe' in your heart that God has raised him from the dead, and thus the Bible says if you do that, you will be saved...

People might be more accepting if you hadn't been shouting at them.

1: Even if the Moon had been right next to the earth originally, we need to consider that the gravitational pull of the moon creates a “tidal bulge” on earth that causes the moon to spiral outwards away from the earth gradually, moving further away from the earth all the time. Because of this effect, the moon would have been closer to the earth in the past. Based on gravitational forces and the current rate of observable recession (moving away from the earth), we can calculate how much the moon has moved away over time.

It falsely assumes a regular rate of recession.

There is evidence that the moon was closer in the past. Examining the rocks shows us tidal deposits and the distance and therefore recession rate of the moon can be calculated. The evidence supports varying rates of recession. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_against_a_recent_creation#Lunar_retreat

If the earth is only 6,000 years old, there’s no problem, because in that time the moon would have only moved about 800 feet (250 m). But most astronomy books teach that the moon is over four billion years old, which poses a major dilemma—less than 1.5 billion years ago the moon would have been touching the earth! And if we were multiple billions of years old the moon would not be in our solar-system any more LOL.

How do you arrive at that figure? The current lunar recession rate is 3.8cm per year. If we use your 1.5 billion figure and a constant recession (and some simple maths) you get a figure of 5700000000cm total recession, or 57000 km which is pretty small fry when the moon is 384000km away now!

2: Like other planets, the earth has a magnetic field that is decaying quite rapidly. We are now able to measure the rate at which the magnetic energy is being depleted and develop models to explain the data.

Secular scientists invented a “dynamo model” of the earth’s core to explain how the field could have lasted over such a long period of time, but this model fails to adequately explain the data for the rapid decay and the rapid reversals that it has undergone in the past. (It also cannot account for the magnetic fields of other planets, such as Neptune and Mercury.)

However, the creationist model (based on the Genesis Flood) effectively and simply explains the data in regard to the earth’s magnetic field, providing striking evidence that the earth is only thousands of years old—and not billions.

http://www.huecotanks.com/debunk/magnetic.htm

More assumptions about a rate of constant decay. Yes, the magnetic field changes over time but it can increase as well as decreases.

The dynamo model works perfectly well for the other planets, including Mercury and Neptune. Mercury is a bit of an odd case and it took scientists a while to figure it out. The gas giants all have magnetic fields because they have a liquid/solid core (the name gas giant is somewhat misleading)

Here's a pretty cool article: http://www.astronomynotes.com/solarsys/s7.htm

3: In recent years, there have been many findings of “wondrously preserved” biological materials in supposedly ancient rock layers and fossils. One such discovery that has left evolutionists scrambling is a fossilized Tyrannosaurus rex femur with flexible connective tissue, branching blood vessels, and even intact cells!

According to evolutionists, these dinosaur tissues are more than 65 million years old, but laboratory studies have shown that there is no known way—and likely none possible—for biological material to last more than thousands of years.

Care to provide any links or evidence?

The find was largely due to using new ways of examining the fossils using acid to dissolve away certain parts to examine the interior. It looks like the T Rex find is not necessarily a one-off.

It has evolutionists delighted about the new possibilities and not 'scrambling' as you suggest.

4: When solid rock is bent, it normally cracks and breaks. Rock can only bend without fracturing when it is softened by extreme heating (which causes re-crystalization) or when the sediments have not yet fully hardened.

There are numerous locations around the world (including the famous Grand Canyon) where we observe massive sections of strata that have been tightly folded, without evidence of the sediments being heated.

This is a major problem for evolutionists who believe these rock layers were laid down gradually over vast eons of time, forming the geologic record. However, it makes perfect sense to creationists who know that these layers were formed rapidly in the global catastrophic flood mentioned in Genesis.

http://geochristian.com/2009/10/06/six-bad-arguments-from-answers-in-genesis-part-6/

The Grand Canyon is not evidence of The Flood. This has been discussed many times on this board and I'm sure you can easily find the threads. Geology is not my speciality so I'll leave it to others to go into the details.

You evolutionists and atheists and god-rejecters cannot explain-away any of this.

Only took some scientific knowledge and the ability to use the internet. I'm not an atheist nor a god-rejecter (not sure what the difference is).

And you certainly will never ever be able to explain-away the following... The Bible provides a complete genealogy from Adam to Jesus. You can go through the genealogies and add up the years. You'll get a total that is just over 4,000 years. Add the 2,000 years since the time of Jesus and you get just over 6,000 years since God created everything.

So? It doesn't actually prove anything.

Have you noticed that the genealogies provided in Luke 3 and Matthew 1 don't agree? There aren't any decent answers why not.

The Bible, God's word, tells us, God made Adam form the dust of the earth.

...and other religious texts will tell you other stories.

If you believe in billions of years, then you believe in evolution, and that's a problem, because there is no living thing today (human or animal) in a transition stage, that's a fact.

Nope. Every single organism ever is transitional. Transitional organisms are simply those between two other forms.

As God said: "And they shall 'bring-forth' AFTER THEIR OWN KIND". Another fact you don't realize (because atheist God rejecting scientists keep lying to you out of the backsides, and theorizing with speculation and falsified evidence) is that 'REAL' scientists have proven that the genetic genome in each species is LOCKED, it CANNOT EVOLVE, it is an impossibility, there is no way possible for the genetic structure of 'any' living thing to morph it's genetic make-up and become something else. So you atheists have a problem. There is no fossil in existence showing anything in a transistion stage. CAPICHE??? These are the simple FACTS!

Try telling bacteria who change their bacteria more often than you change your socks. They can even swap pieces of DNA with each other.

There is no single human genome, otherwise we'd all be identical! Thanks to mutations we're all different and this genetic diversity (though small) helps long term species survival and disease resistance.

Do you have a dog? All breeds of dog are the result of human selective breeding, resulting in changes in their genetic code.

Early humans domesticated crops through selective breeding which means changes in DNA.

Please show evidence that the genome cannot change. You have mutations going on in your body right this second.

The Bible does tell us, however, that the fossils we find could not have been buried before God created Adam. The animals whose bones became fossilized had to have died after God created Adam. That means those fossils must be less than 6,000 years old. Here's why: [snip]

I don't remember the Bible mentioning fossils.

​

Keep coming atheists, i've got more where that came from. The fact that we tolerate you, is just a bonus for you, because Jesus said if they reject your message then shake the dust off your feet and move-on, it will be more tolerable for Sodom&Ghomorrah on the day of judgment than for them.

The majority of Christians accept evolution.

I'm sure the athiests on this board are enormously grateful that you let them remain so they can see you post a lot of waffle with no discernable facts.

 

[BukiRob]

We need real scientific references to back this claim up.

These 2 come to mind.... and are both fairly recent

University of North Carolina http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating2.html (Dr David A. Plaisted)

Dr Andrew Snelling BS in applied Geology Honors, Phd Geology https://answersingenesis.org/geolog...ometric-dating-problems-with-the-assumptions/

 

[BukiRob]

That's a 50 minute video. Post the best arguments from it and we'll go from there. Don't expect everyone to waste an hour of their lives to save you 10 minutes of typing.

Ive already done that. The man holds 2 Phd one in physics from MIT where he taught Physics for 8 years. He is FAR, FAR, FAR more qualified than ANYONE posting on this website. You keep challenging what Ive said, and you're too darn lazy or afraid of the truth. You want more, WATCH THE VIDEO.

 

[BukiRob]

Have you noticed that the genealogies provided in Luke 3 and Matthew 1 don't agree? There aren't any decent answers why not.

Er, not so much....

http://ap.lanexdev.com/user_images/image/bibbul/2003/bb-03-31-lg.png

That is by Dr David Miller. His full article is here.

https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=6&article=932

Anyone who knows ANYTHING about Jewish culture in that time knows that the concept of mother-in-law or father-in-law did not exist. They were called mother or father. It is why in Luke Yeshua is referred to as the son of.... and in Matthew the lineage is called the father of (NASB) or begat (KJV) Matthew is showing the biological lineage. Luke is showing the maternal lineage.

Furthermore if you know anything about Jewish culture a man can ONLY prove he is Jewish by showing Jewish roots through the MATERNAL side of the line. As the Jews say, "we know for certain who the mother is... the father??? Who knows..."

Matthew and Luke show that no matter which lineage you look at, Yeshua is a direct decedent of David.

The link with the article is annotated with references and appropriate footnotes

 

[Goonie]

Yes but to born of the house of david one must be born to the father, since patriarchy determines the house, the mother is not relevant.

 

[BukiRob]

Yes but to born of the house of david one must be born to the father, since patriarchy determines the house, the mother is not relevant.

Nothing you said could possibly be further from the truth. Just because you dont like the answer does not mean it is not correct. Jewish society is predominately a maternal society.

Today, if your father is Jewish but if his wife is a gentile, Orthodox Jews will NOT consider you to be Jewish even though your father is a Jew. In fact, today if you want to make Aliyah, you have to show a MATERNAL unbroken line of Jews back to a MINIMUM of 3 generations.

Furthermore, if you had a married brother (1st century and before) and he died without a son. YOU would under oral law be required to take his wife and give her a son. Now that son would not be your's but your brother's son...

Stop applying gentile thinking to a Jewish culture and stop reading the Bible from a Gentile perspective. Its a book written largely about the Jews, written by Jews FOR JEWS. As St Paul states in Romans : 16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believes; to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile.

 

[[serious]]

Reverse-count the population of the earth from the current seven billion (the population of the earth only ever 'increases', correct?); so, by normal birth-rates in reverse (taking into consideration wars, disease epidemics etc), we end-up at basically zero people around 2500BC!! Which is when the Bible tells us the flood happened! Starting with 8 people (Noah and his family) in 2500BC, and then going by normal birth-rates up to today by normal mean calculation, we end-up with seven billion people in 2015, exactly the number we have today! DO YOU UNDERSTAND, ATHEISTS???

Try doing that same math to see how many people were in the world in 1500 BC when the Jews were leaving Egypt. I get 146.

 

[BukiRob]

Try doing that same math to see how many people were in the world in 1500 BC when the Jews were leaving Egypt. I get 146.

The original supposition is so deeply flawed I don't even know where to begin...

 

[Goonie]

Nothing you said could possibly be further from the truth. Just because you dont like the answer does not mean it is not correct. Jewish society is predominately a maternal society.

Today, if your father is Jewish but if his wife is a gentile, Orthodox Jews will NOT consider you to be Jewish even though your father is a Jew. In fact, today if you want to make Aliyah, you have to show a MATERNAL unbroken line of Jews back to a MINIMUM of 3 generations.

Furthermore, if you had a married brother (1st century and before) and he died without a son. YOU would under oral law be required to take his wife and give her a son. Now that son would not be your's but your brother's son...

Stop applying gentile thinking to a Jewish culture and stop reading the Bible from a Gentile perspective. Its a book written largely about the Jews, written by Jews FOR JEWS. As St Paul states in Romans : 16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believes; to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile.

I am aware of this, but both geneologies are following the male line, with some exceptions.

Secondly it nice saying that one is josephs and the other marys, but where does it say this? Indeed both geneologies seem to be josephs unless you do mental gymnastics/ rewrite the bible.

 

[BukiRob]

I am aware of this, but both geneologies are following the male line, with some exceptions.

Secondly it nice saying that one is josephs and the other marys, but where does it say this? Indeed both geneologies seem to be josephs unless you do mental gymnastics/ rewrite the bible.

Good golly Do ANY of you people click on the links provided?????????


Its ALL addressed by a PHD in the paper I linked a few replies up.

Short version is you can trace the genealogies in other parts of the bible

 

[florida2]

Er, not so much....

http://ap.lanexdev.com/user_images/image/bibbul/2003/bb-03-31-lg.png

That is by Dr David Miller. His full article is here.

https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=6&article=932

Anyone who knows ANYTHING about Jewish culture in that time knows that the concept of mother-in-law or father-in-law did not exist. They were called mother or father. It is why in Luke Yeshua is referred to as the son of.... and in Matthew the lineage is called the father of (NASB) or begat (KJV) Matthew is showing the biological lineage. Luke is showing the maternal lineage.

Furthermore if you know anything about Jewish culture a man can ONLY prove he is Jewish by showing Jewish roots through the MATERNAL side of the line. As the Jews say, "we know for certain who the mother is... the father??? Who knows..."

Matthew and Luke show that no matter which lineage you look at, Yeshua is a direct decedent of David.

The link with the article is annotated with references and appropriate footnotes

I'll take your word for it. I did a little looking around but most places seemed to have no firm answers.

It's not something that's important to the discussion at hand but the post I was replying to seemed to think it was cold hard fact that the Bible is right and therefore evolution and deep time is wrong.

It just seems a bit bizarre that it would include two genealogies with differences without even one sentence just to explain why.

 

[Doveaman]

I see people make statements here that flies in thew face of what we already know and then to see you claim it is a matter of "interpretations" is only a confession of your own ignorance about the subject.

Everything we already know had to be interpreted in order to arrive at a conclusion. That is how the human mind works.

 

[Goonie]

Good golly Do ANY of you people click on the links provided?????????


Its ALL addressed by a PHD in the paper I linked a few replies up.

Short version is you can trace the genealogies in other parts of the bible

Oh I read the article, but the point remains both mathew and luke launch into the geneologies of jesus and they both indicate it is the geneology of joseph, luke does not say he is giving josephs father in laws geneology so the confusion remains, and what does the bible say about someone not being the father of confusion?

Enough this is getting to close to apologetics. Which I believe aren't part of the discussion. Lets get back to the OP.

 

[Doveaman]

Astronomers do not disagree on whether the Big Bang is the right model. There was a time when there was disagreement. Then came the evidence, the Big Bang model was accepted, and the debate moved to the next open question.

The Big Bang is still an open question for many scientists:

An Open Letter to the Scientific Community

 

[BukiRob]

I'll take your word for it. I did a little looking around but most places seemed to have no firm answers.

It's not something that's important to the discussion at hand but the post I was replying to seemed to think it was cold hard fact that the Bible is right and therefore evolution and deep time is wrong.

It just seems a bit bizarre that it would include two genealogies with differences without even one sentence just to explain why.

I can see why people might think that but from the perspective of the writers and to the culture it was principally written to it would be apparent to the audience of that day.

As I pointed out earlier if you asked the question in the 1950 of scientists (the mainstream view) How old is the universe the most common answer would have been that the Universe is eternal. Thus the idea that the Universe had a beginning would have been roundly scoffed at.

What I can say definitively based upon the CONSENSUS view of science is that the first 3 words in scripture are absolutely true... IN THE BEGINNING

This is where things get dicey... everything that has a beginning has a cause.

When you look at the attributes needed for this Quantum Fluctuation what you see are all of the attributes of Gd.

Multiple universes is frankly a cop out and has no way of being verifiable by any means known to man. Most physicists admit this.

More to the point though, as I've said, it has been shown that the 24 hour 6 day creation is absolutely 100% mathematically possible while from our point of observation we see the universe being ~15 billion years old. Again, Genesis is showing us creation from G-d's perspective FORWARD. We look at creation looking BACK.

Gravity absolutely has a major impact on time. The greater a bodies gravity the slower time moves... at the event horizon of a black hole time is all stops.

The baseline problem with the basic question of the creation of the universe simply can not be answered by science. Scientific Theories are necessarily theories of something, some physical reality. Equations describe properties, and thus describe something. There can not be equations that describe not-anything.

The fact of the matter is that people are abusing and outright misrepresenting quantum mechanics to attempt to explain the cause of the Big Bang. More than a few well noted esteemed scholars are voicing their descent on the attempted use of a quantum event that cause the Big Bang. Chief among those is Dr David Albert a professor at Columbia university (Phd in Theoretical Physics) Albert's is critical of Lawrence Krauss (one of the architects of a Quantum Fluctuation for the cause of the BB) Albert is not known for being friendly to those who believe in creation or intelligent design.

The key, fundamental flaw of quantum fluctuation is there is a massive and fundamental difference from a quantum event in a vacuum and one theoretically occurring where there is NOTHING. In the case of the Big Bang, literately NOTHING existed. A Vacuum exists in SPACE which is something... massive, fundamental difference. The fact that a quantum event occurs or can occur in space vacuum or otherwise is a foundation, fundamental difference that trying to state that not anything exists yet a quantum fluctuation can and did occur causing the Big Bang.

As Albert states it: The fact that some arrangements of fields happen to correspond to the existence of particles and some don’t is not a whit more mysterious than the fact that some of the possible arrangements of my fingers happen to correspond to the existence of a fist and some don’t. And the fact that particles can pop in and out of existence, over time, as those fields rearrange themselves, is not a whit more mysterious than the fact that fists can pop in and out of existence, over time, as my fingers rearrange themselves. And none of these popping—if you look at them aright—amount to anything even remotely in the neighborhood of a creation from nothing.1










1. Albert, D., On the Origin of Everything: review of A Universe From Nothing, by Lawrence M. Krauss, New York Times, 23 March 2012; nytimes.com

 

[Doveaman]

I will never know as much about cars as my mechanic does. I will never know more about plumbing than my plumber. I try to be informed, but to an extent I also put some trust on people who have actually spent a career learning how their field works. If I started telling all dieticians that they don't know anything about diets, I would look like a fool. Do you also criticize people for taking medical advice from doctors? It is immature and silly to act as if your ignorance of a field is just as good as the knowledge of people who spent a career on that field.

It is also immature and silly to act as if your ignorance of God is just as good as the knowledge of people who spent a lifetime on that field.

Actually, you are supporting my previous claim -- A lot of the scientific claims made in these forums are based on trust/faith in the words of men, just as our religious claims are based on trust/faith in the words of God.

 

[BukiRob]

Oh I read the article, but the point remains both mathew and luke launch into the geneologies of jesus and they both indicate it is the geneology of joseph, luke does not say he is giving josephs father in laws geneology so the confusion remains, and what does the bible say about someone not being the father of confusion?

Enough this is getting to close to apologetics. Which I believe aren't part of the discussion. Lets get back to the OP.

Again, you are looking at it from a gentile perspective. To a Jew, this would not even raise an eyebrow. There are 4 levels of reading scripture. 1)Peshat (Plain or direct meaning)
2)Remez (allegoric, hidden or symbolic) It "hints" at a deeper truth beyond the plain meaning
3) Derash (to inquire or seek) Comparative meaning; the Midrash is a commentary by the Jewish sages over the last 1500+ years... think commentary
4)Sod (the secret meaning) given through divine revelation or inspiration.

All of these must fit together. In other words the Sod can not violate the Pshat and Remez or it is error.

.... but we argree we are drifting off topic