What color is God?

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: loser Well, I wouldn't rule out technological aid. The flood waters had completely receded after one year (not forty years). Its very feasible. In one breath, you say that Mount Everest was once a sea bed and the next breath you say that it coudn't be covered by water. Tell me how that geographical location (the Himalayas) could have been a sea bed WITHOUT being under an ocean! If you can do that, you'll win the argument. If not, you need to think before you speak again. Either Everest lay beneath the ocean or it didn't. If it did, then the flood story is confirmed. A lack of 'ocean' fossils would disprove a global flood. Presence of these fossils corroborate the story.

The formation of the himalyas occured long before any documented account of a flood. They were mountains throughout the existence of the human race, according to fossil records. Presence of those fossils do corroberate your 'global flood' myth, but not to the point where it is more feasible than simple tectonic shift.

It can shift all it wants but unless the land mass was submerged below the ocean, no shells.

You said that the fossils were found at the 'top' of mount everest.

That means that only the continental shelf needed to have facilitated the existence of sea creatures.

Actually, this ocean that you are referring to covered the whole earth. You're having a hard time grasping this.

That's what you're trying to prove, remember? Presumptive appeal to ridicule is extremely immature.

They would have pushed up AFTER the flood. During the flood, they were underneath the water.

Are you suggesting that the biblical flood myth occured several hundred millions of years ago?

So is flooding.

That doesn't, on it's own, explain sea fossils at the top of mount everest.

[loser]

The Garden of Eden was most likely a metaphor. A metaphor for what? There are places in the bible that describe the Garden of Eden and it's location. It is possible that it could have been North of Nineveh, slightly East of the tip of the Tigris River.

I agree that the location (though not exact) is well documented in the Bible. What I meant is that the garden was not just some lush oasis in the middle of the desert. There were TWO trees in that garden unlike any trees ever found on earth. In reality, these were not actual trees...they were something else. Also, you'll recall that when they were banished from the garden, cherubims and a flaming sword were posted outside the garden to keep them out. Note:

"Gen 3:23 (LITV) Jehovah God sent him out of the garden of Eden to till the ground out of which he was taken."

Apparently, then, the garden was of a different 'substance' than the surrounding environs.

Where else in scripture do we read about a 'garden' where one of these two unique trees is found? Here:

Rev 21:2 (CEV) Then I saw New Jerusalem, that holy city, coming down from God in heaven...
...Rev 21:10 Then with the help of the Spirit, he took me to the top of a very high mountain. There he showed me the holy city of Jerusalem coming down from God in heaven.
...Rev 21:15 The angel who spoke to me had a gold measuring stick to measure the city and its gates and its walls.
...Rev 21:16 The city was shaped like a cube, because it was just as high as it was wide. When the angel measured the city, it was about fifteen hundred miles high and fifteen hundred miles wide.
...Rev 22:1 The angel showed me a river that was crystal clear, and its waters gave life. The river came from the throne where God and the Lamb were seated. Rev 22:2 (ISV) Between the street of the city and the river there was the tree of life visible from both sides. It produced twelve kinds of fruit, each month having its own fruit. The leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations.

From these scriptures and many more (such as Zechariah 2:2, 10-11; 14:4-5, 9-10; John 14:2-3). This one (read carefully) speaks volumes to the reality:

Mic 4:1 But in the last days it shall come to pass, that the mountain of the house of the LORD shall be established in the top of the mountains, and it shall be exalted above the hills; and people shall flow unto it.

Zechariah 14:4 is a reference to the landing feet (of the ship) as they touch down on the Mount of Olives. It will trigger an immense earthquake as the mountain is rifted apart.

When the city-ship, called new Jerusalem and measuring 1500 miles cubed, comes descending upon the earth, you can bet the whole world will see it and tremble in fear.

These events will not be so much supernatural as they will be extra-terrestial. Even Christians don't want to accept this reality. Why? Because it makes God too REAL and a lot less like Santa Claus.

Now, understand this. Just because God is bringing a giant spaceship to earth doesn't mean He is some kind of mortal alien. He's not. God doesn't breathe air...man does. The ship is for mankind's benefit. It will be a storehouse containing everything needed to restore earth back to its former glory. I think even Neil Young must have figured this out:

From After the Gold Rush:

Well, I dreamed I saw the silver spaceships flyin'
in the yellow haze of the sun,
there were children cryin' and colours flyin'
all around the chosen ones
All in a dream, all in a dream the loading had begun.
Flying Mother Nature's silver seed to a new home in the sun.

I hope we're all still alive when this happens so I can say, "See, I'm not crazy. It's happening just as it was described in scripture!"

[loser]

They were mountains throughout the existence of the human race, according to fossil records.

Actually, no, you've been misinformed. The fossil records show a global flood. A little examination of the facts and some thinking for yourself and you would discover that the theory of evolution is disproved by the fossil record and the assumed great lengths of time (necessary for the TOE to be viable, even though it remains unsubstantiated and contradicted) are unscientific and incorrect.

The fossil record is consistent with the global flood account and totally contradictive with the TOE and the old earth theory.

Fossilized tree trunks near the South Pole, coal found in Antarctica, human and 'dinosaur' tracks found together in deposits, fossilized trees that bridge strata supposedly deposited millions of years apart, and the enormous amounts of fossilized plants and animals found in the deposit record make the gradual deposit over millions of years virtually impossible. Under natural ongoing processes as we observe today, plants and animals decay too fast to leave the amount of fossils that we find. Only a flood (which inhibits decay and enormously increases sedimentation) remains a viable cause. Yet die-hard evolutionists do geological cartwheels in an effort to refute the flood account. No matter that this account is found on EVERY continent in the world (South America, for example).

Whatever happened to objectivity?

That's what you're trying to prove, remember? Presumptive appeal to ridicule is extremely immature

Sorry. I may be immature but I would attribute my faux pas to ignorance, instead.

Are you suggesting that the biblical flood myth occured several hundred millions of years ago?

I'm suggesting that we're working within a much more abbreviated timeline. Dinosaurs are mentioned in the Bible. Ancient Chinese texts mention the Emperor's own personal dragon-keeper. While dragons are considered myths, ironically, dinosaurs are considered facts...yet, they are one and the same.

I don't know how old the earth is. My guess is that its at least a hundred years old. Talk a thousand years old and we're talking about faith. There's just no way to know. If you're going to believe what some men say (scientists) and reject what other men say (writers of the Bible), it's only subjective...it's what you WANT to believe.

I'm a scientist...I'm too logical. I would love it if I could convince myself that there is no God but I can't. The evidence is too compelling. I have to believe what I perceive to be true, regardless of how that handicaps me in life.

Of course, knowing God is not ALL bearing a cross. Actually, it is rather sweet at times...I'm glad that I met Him.

[Slevin57]

Is it too much to ask for proof?

I mean as of now you are the first person I've seen lay a somewhat legitimate claim to the fact there may have been a flood.

Where in the bible does it reference dinosaur's?

The latin word for dragon is draconis, it actually means snake or serpent. However, European literature brought about the association of Dragon's with dinosaur's.

They are not the same thing. I believe the only place the bible even mentions Dragon's is in Revelation.

[Kamehameha34]

Actually, no, you've been misinformed. The fossil records show a global flood. A little examination of the facts and some thinking for yourself and you would discover that the theory of evolution is disproved by the fossil record and the assumed great lengths of time (necessary for the TOE to be viable, even though it remains unsubstantiated and contradicted) are unscientific and incorrect.

This little speech is almost always followed by a demonstration of the speaker's ignorance of science..

Fossilized tree trunks near the South Pole, coal found in Antarctica, human and 'dinosaur' tracks found together in deposits, fossilized trees that bridge strata supposedly deposited millions of years apart, and the enormous amounts of fossilized plants and animals found in the deposit record make the gradual deposit over millions of years virtually impossible. Under natural ongoing processes as we observe today, plants and animals decay too fast to leave the amount of fossils that we find. Only a flood (which inhibits decay and enormously increases sedimentation) remains a viable cause. Yet die-hard evolutionists do geological cartwheels in an effort to refute the flood account. No matter that this account is found on EVERY continent in the world (South America, for example).

...And not a single source cited.

I don't know how old the earth is. My guess is that its at least a hundred years old. Talk a thousand years old and we're talking about faith. There's just no way to know. If you're going to believe what some men say (scientists) and reject what other men say (writers of the Bible), it's only subjective...it's what you WANT to believe.

We can estimate, from radioactive dating that the earth is around 4.6 billion years old.

Hey look, a source!

I'm more liable to trust radioactive dating than ambiguous scriptures, written by humans.

That's the difference between real scientists and proponents of the bible. Evidence.

[Jack]

I don't know how old the earth is. My guess is that its at least a hundred years old. Talk a thousand years old and we're talking about faith.

I'm a scientist...I'm too logical.

No, you're in no way or form a scientist. You're far from being too logical. The Earth is at least a hundred years old? I have books in my library older than that. So you would accept the notion that the Egyptians built the pyramids around 70 years ago then?
Oh dear, this has gone from uninformed to blatantly silly.

[Yasa]

Quote by: loser Most people's mistake is putting trust in themselves.

lol, that is probably the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Yes.. close your mind and dont question a thing--just trust God. (Yes, that is demeaning sarcasm, you should be familiar with that)

Quote by: prejudged_Fire God did not cause all of those children to die. Satan did. He must let Satan rule for a short period of time. In Genesis, Satan challenged God's right to rule. He thought he could do it better. Think of this: A teacher is teaching a math problem in school to a class of children. One kid stands up and assumes that he has a better solution. If the teacher said "Shut up and sit down" many other kids might think he is afraid of being proved wrong and they might join in with that rebellious kid. However, if the teacher allows the child to prove to him that he can do it better and he fails to do so, then no one else can ever say that they can do it better, and if they do, it has already been proven before that the teacher knows the best way and it doesn't need to be proven again. Satan thought he could do it better. God is allowing him to prove it. When he fails to do so (which its obvious he is failing because of all the badness in the world) it will prove that God can rule the world better than Satan.

So howcome after one bad incident God doesn't just rid the world of Satan? After all--he's already proved that he's better. There is also a minor difference between your analogy and real life: when "Timmy" gets up to "prove" his equation, people don't die.

Quote by: prejudged_Fire For the same reason the teacher doesn't just say shut up and sit down. If he simply destroyed Satan on the spot, people would be continually questioning his authority eternally until he proved that he knew best. After that, no one can question him.

So.. he wants people to question him then? Which means he wants to prove he's better by letting Satan to live and to kill innocent people. So because God wants people to question him, innocent people die?

Quote by: prejudged_Fire Sitting on a throne just represents rulership.

So, he rules us, created us, and requires belief and love--or else we are condemned to eternal suffering? And yet we are free? One could argue that a slave is ultimately free... I mean, after all, he can choose not to obey or work. I guess my definition of freedom is a bit different.

[pikatore]

Quote by: loser Actually, no, you've been misinformed. The fossil records show a global flood. A little examination of the facts and some thinking for yourself and you would discover that the theory of evolution is disproved by the fossil record...

Absolute rubbish! The fossil record ITSELF is used to support evolution. So who cares if there are certain 'links' that haven't been found yet? It's advanced a hell of a lot further than what Christians have in over two thousand years.

Quote by: loser ...and the assumed great lengths of time (necessary for the TOE to be viable, even though it remains unsubstantiated and contradicted) are unscientific and incorrect.

As unscientific and incorrect as the great lengths of distance between our galaxy and other ones, measured in light years.

And another thing, carbon dating is quite a refined and useful method of finding dates (as it actually works), and it makes me laugh to have some young earth creationists say that the fossils and rocks were implanted by god to give the illusion that the earth is older than a few thousand years. What a sneaky bugger to do that aye? But then again, he is god, don't ask any questions, just shut up and say your prayers

[loser]

Is it too much to ask for proof?

Not if you don't mind being disappointed...proof is that most elusive of creatures which won't be trapped by mere evidence.

Where in the bible does it reference dinosaur's?

The word 'dinosaur' was coined in 1842 by Sir Richard Owen. It's from the Greek meaning 'terrible lizards'. There are at least two creatures mentioned in the bible that could refer to what we now call dinosaurs: Leviathan and Behemoth. Some have suggested that Behemoth was a crocodile; others feel like it was a hippo; nobody knows for sure. Leviathan was a 'sea monster', probably something along the lines of Mokele-Mbembe. Then, again, M-M may be a figment of superstitious imaginations and Levi a reality. Once again, proof is hard to come by.

They are not the same thing.

Would it be too much to ask for proof?

[pikatore]

I do enjoy seeing what christians answer in this thread, and what they don't answer. It's the latter I'm most interested in.

[loser]

...And not a single source cited.

Can you google? Should I take it, then, that you doubt the veracity of my post without even a cursory investigation? And you reference my ignorance of science? ROFL!

NEWS FLASH! Poi has been shown to cause massive brain deterioration!

We can estimate, from radioactive dating that the earth is around 4.6 billion years old.

We? Are you legion? A private consortium? When was the last time that you radio-dated the earth? I mean, come on, the earth is a LOT older since THEN.

I found this rock the other day. It looks to be 2,467,319 years, 149 days, 18 hours, 37 minutes old and counting. If I send you this rock, could you verify it's age for me, please?

Don't you find it amazing that people will believe ANYTHING...

...EXCEPT the truth?

Hey look, a source! I'm more liable to trust radioactive dating than ambiguous scriptures, written by humans.

Your source...was it written by God or some other alien OR (God forbid!) HUMANS? Do you even read what YOU write?

After reading that jewel by you, I feel so ignorant.

That's the difference between real scientists and proponents of the bible.

Ignorance? BTW, define REAL scientist. Is that one that agrees with YOUR beliefs or MINE?

I checked out your source. Am I supposed to believe what a bunch of humans say?

I thought we were talking about the age of the earth and what do they do? They attempt to date METEORITES!

Why? On the ASSUMPTION that the solar system formed from a common pool of matter. Well, there's some well-documented evidence! The good thing is that that observation would totally destroy the theory of evolution! Evolution requires a long, gradual formation. If the solar system formed from a "common pool of matter" that means it had to be instantly CREATED!

See? Even YOUR scientists are forced to turn to CREATION to explain OUR world.

Thanks for sharing that.

We're not that ignorant, after all.

[loser]

I have books in my library older than that.

How do you know that? Did you carbon date them? Surely you're not just believing that because somebody printed an old publication date on them, are you? You don't believe everything you read, do you?

Oops, I guess you do. Otherwise, you would have understood that I was being sarcastic and would not even have bothered posting such a ridiculous reply.

Are we all bozos on this bus?

So you would accept the notion that the Egyptians built the pyramids around 70 years ago then?

Well, if you say so, who am I to argue.

After all, I wasn't even born that long ago...that's ANCIENT history to me.

[pikatore]

Quote by: loser Don't you find it amazing that people will believe ANYTHING... ...EXCEPT the truth?

That, my friend, sickens me to the bone. How painfully ironic to be coming from you. Apart from taking the piss out of carbon dating, you still haven't provided a decent rebuttal to date.

Quote by: loser Your source...was it written by God or some other alien OR (God forbid!) HUMANS? Do you even read what YOU write? After reading that jewel by you, I feel so ignorant.

You should, seeing that the Bible was written by humans as well.

Quote by: loser Ignorance? BTW, define REAL scientist. Is that one that agrees with YOUR beliefs or MINE?

His. Because his 'beliefs' have evidence behind them. Yours don't. It's that simple. The best thing you've got for 'evidence' is a pile of crazy talk in some ancient book.

Quote by: loser I checked out your source. Am I supposed to believe what a bunch of humans say?

Seeing you probably read the Bible and believe in what it says, the question is more of 'Are you supposed to believe what a bunch of educated scientists say?'.

Quote by: loser I thought we were talking about the age of the earth and what do they do? They attempt to date METEORITES!

Your ignorance speaks loudly in this sentence.

By dating metorites, we are able to not only backtrace thier trajectories and get a general idea of how old other bodies are, but use this data to help get a better idea of when the earth formed, since the planets in our galaxy formed roughly at the same time.

Quote by: loser Why? On the ASSUMPTION that the solar system formed from a common pool of matter.

And that is crazier than the assumption that a 'god' made it?

Quote by: loser See? Even YOUR scientists are forced to turn to CREATION to explain OUR world.

Creation by some magical being? PAH-LEESE. There are many other theories to explain otherwise. So for now, your magical friend doesn't have enough credibility, im afriad.

Quote by: loser We're not that ignorant, after all.

You've just convinced me even more of the opposite.

[pikatore]

Quote by: loser Not if you don't mind being disappointed...proof is that most elusive of creatures which won't be trapped by mere evidence.

Yeah, you probably believe that the lochness monster exists as well.

[Kamehameha34]

Can you google? Should I take it, then, that you doubt the veracity of my post without even a cursory investigation? And you reference my ignorance of science? ROFL!

It's not my job to back up your arguments.

We? Are you legion? A private consortium? When was the last time that you radio-dated the earth? I mean, come on, the earth is a LOT older since THEN. I found this rock the other day. It looks to be 2,467,319 years, 149 days, 18 hours, 37 minutes old and counting. If I send you this rock, could you verify it's age for me, please? Don't you find it amazing that people will believe ANYTHING... ...EXCEPT the truth?

Science, with evidence behind it doesn't cede ground to fantastical religious musings in a debate.

Funny how you, along with several fundamentalist theists keep repeating this "divine truth" rhetoric.

I actually opened a very relevant fortune cookie a couple hours ago: The argument with the strongest language is often the weakest.

What you're doing is appealing to emotion. Not a debate tactic - a fallacy.

Your source...was it written by God or some other alien OR (God forbid!) HUMANS? Do you even read what YOU write?

Yes, humans wrote it. The difference is that I am free to test what is written - and the intelligent scientific world is in agreement with the validity of carbon dating.

Ignorance?

You're catching on.

BTW, define REAL scientist. Is that one that agrees with YOUR beliefs or MINE?

It has nothing to do with beliefs. It has to do with the unbiased testing of certain concepts - so we don't have to except them on blind faith: a requirement for religion.

If the solar system formed from a "common pool of matter" that means it had to be instantly CREATED!

By what? A god? What created the god?

"God" doesn't stop an infinite regress. The fact that matter exists doesn't mean that it was made by the supposedly divine father of a man who lived 2,000 years ago.

See? Even YOUR scientists are forced to turn to CREATION to explain OUR world.

No, we have M-theory. This can be mathematically validated.

I thought we were talking about the age of the earth and what do they do? They attempt to date METEORITES!

This was just under the first heading:

The oldest rocks which have been found so far (on the Earth) date to about 3.8 to 3.9 billion years ago (by several radiometric dating methods).

[loser]

Quote by: loser Most people's mistake is putting trust in themselves. lol, that is probably the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

Are you basically saying that you were born yesterday?

Stick around...if you think that was ridiculous, you haven't heard nothing, yet.

Yes.. close your mind and dont question a thing--just trust God.

Funny, my quote was intended to say just the opposite...that we should question EVERYTHING, including OUR OWN UNDERSTANDING!

Is the difficulty of understanding in the conveying of the message or the cognition of it?

There is also a minor difference between your analogy and real life: when "Timmy" gets up to "prove" his equation, people don't die.

Sure they do. According to the latest estimates, 2 people die every second worldwide. Even more alarming, the human mortality rate is 100%. That means, as far as we know, that EVERYONE is going to die. Sobering news, indeed.

So, he rules us, created us, and requires belief and love--or else we are condemned to eternal suffering?

Some religions may teach that but it is NOT a tenet of the Bible. Still, yours is a common misconception. Take heart. Even dyed-in-the-wool, bible-thumping, hardcore and mainline 'Christians' falsely believe this.

Blame Satan for that.

Absolute rubbish! The fossil record ITSELF is used to support evolution.

Charles Darwin:

"For I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I arrived."

" Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? . . . Why do we not find them imbedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?" (Origin of Species, 1958 Masterpieces of Science edition, pp. 136-137).


"The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory" (Darwin, pp. 260-261).

"The explanation lies, I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record" (p. 261).

David Raup (evolutionist, respected paleontologist at the University of Chicago and the Field Museum) writes:

"A large number of well-trained scientists outside of evolutionary biology and paleontology have unfortunately gotten the idea that the fossil record is far more Darwinian than it is. This probably comes from the oversimplification inevitable in secondary sources: low-level textbooks, semi-popular articles, and so on. Also, there is probably some wishful thinking involved. In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general, these have not been found—yet the optimism has died hard, and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks" (Science, Vol. 213, p. 289)

Francis Hitching (Royal Archaeological Institute, the Prehistoric Society and the Society for Physical Research):

"Given the known rates of evolutionary turnover, it has been estimated that at least 100 times more fossil species have lived than have been discovered . . . But the curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: the fossils go missing in all the important places.

"When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren't there; at least, not in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt. Either they don't exist at all, or they are so rare that endless argument goes on about whether a particular fossil is, or isn't, or might be, transitional between this group and that.

"...There ought to be cabinets full of intermediates-indeed, one would expect the fossils to blend so gently into one another that it would be difficult to tell where the invertebrates ended and the vertebrates began. But this isn't the case. Instead, groups of well-defined, easily classifiable fish jump into the fossil record seemingly from nowhere: mysteriously, suddenly, full-formed, and in a most un-Darwinian way. And before them are maddening, illogical gaps where their ancestors should be" (The Neck of the Giraffe: Darwin, Evolution and the New Biology, 1982, pp. 9-10)

Richard Milton (Science writer):

". . . Although each of these classes [fishes, amphibians, reptiles, mammals and primates] is well represented in the fossil record, as of yet no one has discovered a fossil creature that is indisputably transitional between one species and another species. Not a single undisputed 'missing link' has been found in all the exposed rocks of the Earth's crust despite the most careful and extensive searches"(Shattering the Myths of Darwinism, 1997, p. 253).

Stephen Jay Gould (Harvard University paleontologist and avowed evolutionist):

"In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors: it appears all at once and 'fully formed'" (Gould, "Evolution's Erratic Pace," Natural History, May 1977, pp. 13-14).

H.S. Lipson (Professor, British Institute of Physics):

" We must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it" (Physics Bulletin, Vol. 30, p. 140)

Soren Lovtrup (scientist):

"I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science" (Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth, 1987, p. 422).

The coelacanth was thought to be extinct and so ancient that it was considered to be the first fish that supposedly crawled onto land (a transitional species). Fossils of it appear in strata from the Devonian period (about 350 million years ago). It was thought to have become extinct about 70million years ago...until they caught one in 1938! It turns to find out that the local islanders had been using them for food for years.

If scientists aren't even aware of things going on around them in their current world, what chance do you give them of discovering a world that existed before the human race?

The abundance of 'living fossils' in existence today totally obliterates the traditional view of the fossil record and evolution.

How much proof does a person need before they'll dismount their dead cow and stop trying to ride it?

[loser]

And another thing, carbon dating is quite a refined and useful method of finding dates (as it actually works),...

Well, it works EXCEPT for some faulty assumptions which enormously skew the figures.

...and it makes me laugh to have some young earth creationists say that the fossils and rocks were implanted by god to give the illusion that the earth is older than a few thousand years.

Me too. That just shows a lack of understanding...both of science AND scripture! In reality, the Bible does not date the age of the earth.

But then again, he is god, don't ask any questions, just shut up and say your prayers

God says: "Come, let us REASON TOGETHER." It seems that God is a LOT more reasonable than man.

[notworthabean]

pretty much spot on prejudged