- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,855,785
- 52,545
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
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.
Do YOU accept Vishnu?Why do you continue to reject Vishnu?
Indeed ... and as Paul put it ...
1 Thessalonians 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.
Notice, it's how we receive It that Paul is emphasizing; not how It was conveyed.
Let's hope so!Yep, thats what the believers in other holy books say about the bible.
Would you expect any less?When in doubt, refer back to a bible verse, from the very book that is in question.
Apparently because they begin with the same incorrect assumptions about the world.
God created nature and can control it, but He does not control people's interpretations of nature.
Joshua 10 has very detailed acounting of how God intervened in that day. There is no indication that Genesis has anything of the sort going on.
That doesn't explain why they all give the same answer. If they're all flawed, they should be giving back different answers. They don't.
Funny, this is the opposite of what you said that I was responding to. You said that God did not write the laws of nature. So did He or didn't He?
But we weren't discussing Genesis. We were discussing your claim that expecting the laws of nature to be consistant was disbelieving God, unless the Bible specifically said it was consistant, and yet you expect the length of the day tomorrow to be the same as today, even though the Bible gives examples of days that were not consistant.
Stop the bait and switch when you are caught out. Either admit you mis-spoke, and regroup your thoughts, or if more appropriate, admit that you were just saying the opposite of the other person's post without thinking it through.
You must be reading a different textbook. I tend not to take religious advice from someone who denies God and refuses to discuss anything because they think they're right about someone else's faith.
When you don't want to immediately dismiss my beliefs as not conforming to an unbeliever's understanding of faith, then I will be willing to discuss it further with you.
I'm willing to discuss all sorts of things -- if pride keeps you from recognizing your own error because the wrong sort of person pointed it out to you, that's an issue you're going to have to resolve... either on your own or through prayer.
I wasn't dismissing your beliefs -- I was correcting an error you were making in something a mutual fri-- *ahem* acquaintance of ours would call "basic doctrine."
Perhaps you misinterpreted what I was saying.
Perhaps I was unclear, or are you simply playing a word game?
The way God ordained nature to actually work is one thing. What science calls "laws" or "theories" of nature is something entirely different, and sometimes, but not always, accurate.
If you start with the same flawed information, it isn't unthinkable that you would get the same flawed information back.
OK! That's a start. I'll even ignore the personal insult.
Yes, science is a model or map of nature, not nature itself. I've always said that.
But it is based on observing and testing nature, and getting consistant results. Others have asked why various methods, based on differrent principles consistantly give the same results if those results don't correspond to something meaningful, as you have implied.
It's unthinkable for that flawed information to match up perfectly, especially when you go about getting it in vastly different ways. Why would two completely different methods of dating that rely on two completely different things get the same date if they're both flawed? Why would they match up if neither of them were correct?
Why would measuring a tree's age through dendochronology turn up the same age through radiocarbon dating, if neither of them work? Radiocarbon doesn't work by measuring tree rings, and dendochronology doesn't work by measuring carbon decay. Is it just coincidence that the dates match up every time, even though they're going by two completely different methods and working off different 'flawed' information?
If one flawed system is calibrated on another flawed system, and a third comes in and is calibrated by using one of the first two, it would be very easy to see how that might work.
Except that's not how it works.
Two different systems. Same results. If dendochronology doesn't work for measuring tree age, there's no reason why measuring it with radiocarbon dating would give you the same age. They go by completely different principles. So why would they tell the same age, if neither of these principles rely on the same thing?
It's one thing for the systems to be flawed, it's quite another for them to be flawed and still return matching dates even though the methods they use are totally different. And those are just two dating techniques. There are dozens of them.
Dendrochronology is a very common means of calibrating radiocarbon dating systems...
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?