This is a placeholder text
Group text
by Shtal on 31 May 2012 - 08:05
by Shtal on 31 May 2012 - 08:05
by beetree on 31 May 2012 - 12:05
Shtal, who cares what the "atheists" think? It really is nobodies business but their own. Ya think?
by Ninja181 on 31 May 2012 - 15:05
""Why do atheists think the world might be flat""?
Probably because most of their woman are flat.
Probably because most of their woman are flat.
by Shtal on 31 May 2012 - 19:05
Bible says in 2 Peter chapter 3 verses 3-5. Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts. The reasons people scoff at the God’s word, not because there is a scientific reason to do so, some people don’t like that book because it chaps their hide, okay!
Bible says the scoffers going say where is the promise of his coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. The scoffers are going to teach doctrine call uniformitarianism, which is exactly what all of our science is based on today. The Bible says scoffers they willingly ignorant (In Greek that means dumb on purpose) they willingly are ignorant of two things? Number 1 by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: The scoffers don’t want to admit or understand how the earth was created and how God created by his word, secondly ignorant of the flood. See they don’t want to admit God created the world because then that would mean God owns it; and that might mean that there are some rules. Well guess what? He did and there are, okay!
(Whereby the world that then was being overflowed with water, perish. 2 Peter 3:5)
They also don’t want to admit that their was flood, because that world wide flood in the day of Noah, is proof positive, God has authority to judge his creation. And he is coming to judge it again whether you like it or not. My goal doing this is to help people, who learned evolution stuff is to see other side, but my other serious goal is to win people to Biblical creation point of view, I really do…
If there is a scientific reason to reject the Bible then I would like to hear it and see it. So far that there is none and I don’t see any scientific evidence for me to leave my Bible behind and believe evolution. Some people like idea of evolution theory because hey since it is a nice way to get rid off God, so there for that there is no rules, and so there for you know I get to do what I feel like doing. That is exactly what the Bible says they walk after their own lust. (2 Peter 3:3) That is a bottom line right there.
If I was to invent God, I am not going to invent one what I can or can’t do some things I like to do, we didn’t invent Christian God, we just trying to obey and do what he says.
Shtal.
Bible says the scoffers going say where is the promise of his coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. The scoffers are going to teach doctrine call uniformitarianism, which is exactly what all of our science is based on today. The Bible says scoffers they willingly ignorant (In Greek that means dumb on purpose) they willingly are ignorant of two things? Number 1 by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: The scoffers don’t want to admit or understand how the earth was created and how God created by his word, secondly ignorant of the flood. See they don’t want to admit God created the world because then that would mean God owns it; and that might mean that there are some rules. Well guess what? He did and there are, okay!
(Whereby the world that then was being overflowed with water, perish. 2 Peter 3:5)
They also don’t want to admit that their was flood, because that world wide flood in the day of Noah, is proof positive, God has authority to judge his creation. And he is coming to judge it again whether you like it or not. My goal doing this is to help people, who learned evolution stuff is to see other side, but my other serious goal is to win people to Biblical creation point of view, I really do…
If there is a scientific reason to reject the Bible then I would like to hear it and see it. So far that there is none and I don’t see any scientific evidence for me to leave my Bible behind and believe evolution. Some people like idea of evolution theory because hey since it is a nice way to get rid off God, so there for that there is no rules, and so there for you know I get to do what I feel like doing. That is exactly what the Bible says they walk after their own lust. (2 Peter 3:3) That is a bottom line right there.
If I was to invent God, I am not going to invent one what I can or can’t do some things I like to do, we didn’t invent Christian God, we just trying to obey and do what he says.
Shtal.
by Shtal on 01 June 2012 - 07:06
Just for the kicks since I mention evolution again. Evidence age of the Universe, typically most common given are least age for the earth are radiometric dating methods are carbon dating, it’s all based an assumptions, I am not against carbon dating, but it has flaws which I will demonstrate.
Living mollusk shell were carbon dated as being 2300 years old, obviously they are not 2300 hundred years old which is they are still alive. A freshly killed seal was carbon dated 1300 hundred years old, they just killed it and it’s not 1300 hundred years old. Shells living snails carbon dated 27,000 thousand years old. Also one part of the mammoth was dated 29,000 thousand and the other part was 44,000 thousand. Baby dima was dated 40,000 thousand and another part was 26,000 thousand and the wood next to it 9,000 thousand years old.
(Carbon dating assumptions)
They say well we know carbon decays in certain rate and so we know it’s only half as much it’s half as old. (There is an assumption that messes up everything), I show how it works.
If I say we going to fill a barrel with water, so I gave a hose to fill barrel with water, but what you don’t know is I have drill holes in the barrel. While you are putting in – the water is leaking out, well - kind the like your checkbook - you know, you keep putting in and its keep leaking out someplace: right!
Well, the earth’s atmosphere – its kind the like this barrel. It’s always getting brand knew carbon14, 21 pounds every year being put in and is always leaking out through decay. So the question would be how long it would take to reach a stage called Equilibrium. Now with the barrel you can actually do the math and calculate – if I’m going to put in certain amount of water per minute and certain amount per minute leaks out. When would I reach Equilibrium? That’s all can be calculated – with little bit of math. And with atmosphere when will it reach Equilibrium. So the guys, - who invented carbon dating in the late 1940’s. Said - they wonder earth atmosphere reaching Equilibrium, they did a bunch of study on that (This subject). They said if we took a brand new planet earth, created from scratch; got it going around the sun and how long would it take to reach Equilibrium point in the atmosphere. Where production rate and destruction rate is the same. And they determine it would take about thirty thousand years to reach Equilibrium; I’ m NOT sure how they did all that calculation. You can probably see some rate scientists to figure that out.
Did you know that they discover that the earth still did not reach Equilibrium….
Radiocarbon is still forming 30 - 40% faster that it is decaying. “NOW THINK ABOUT THAT”
If Radiocarbon is still forming faster than it’s decaying - that means the earth is less then thirty thousand years old – that is Number1 and Number2 – you can’t carbon date anything. Because you would have to know when it lived – so that you could calculated when it lived. You would have to already know when it lived to fear how much carbon14 it was breathing at that time. “Doesn’t work”
Suppose you walked into the room and I said – I want you to tell me, here is candle burning on the table, when it was lit?
You find out it was 7 inches tall; well, that won’t tell me anything. Now we have to measure how fast it’s burning, we measure a candle for a while, we get Olympic stop watch and we get do to nearest 40 bazillion of the second, okay! And we all agree candle burning 1 inch per hour.
Here are two facts, seven inches tall and burning one inch per hour - but when it was lit?
Nobody could figure that out!!! Unless you make some assumptions,
Assumption number one – how tall was the candle and assumption number two has it always burned at the same rate, neither of those could be known. If you find a fossil in the dirt, the amount of carbon could be measured, the rate of decay can be determent; I don’t argue either of those. How much was in when it lived – I don’t know, has it always decay at the same rate – I don’t know, has it being contaminated, sitting in the ground for all this years, there is no way to know all this things.
(Carbon dating has a flaw to determine the age)
Here is some more information I will share again.
The troubles of radiocarbon dating are undeniably deep and serious.
Despite thirty five years of technological refinement and better understanding, the underlying assumptions have been strongly challenged and warnings are out that radiocarbon dating may soon find itself how I see it - in a crisis situation.
Continuing use of this method depends on a “fix-it-as-you-go” approach, allowing for contamination here fractionation there, and calibration whenever possible. It should be no surprise, then that fully half the dates are and is rejected. Out of thousands carbon dating that have been done; half of the numbers has being thrown out.
How do they know first half is wrong? And also how do you know the other half is right. If half of the tests results have to be thrown out: This is stupid – it’s a waste of time this is shocking to me - that the remaining half - have come to be accepted.
As with my other post “No matter how ‘useful it is, though, the radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates.
Shtal.
Living mollusk shell were carbon dated as being 2300 years old, obviously they are not 2300 hundred years old which is they are still alive. A freshly killed seal was carbon dated 1300 hundred years old, they just killed it and it’s not 1300 hundred years old. Shells living snails carbon dated 27,000 thousand years old. Also one part of the mammoth was dated 29,000 thousand and the other part was 44,000 thousand. Baby dima was dated 40,000 thousand and another part was 26,000 thousand and the wood next to it 9,000 thousand years old.
(Carbon dating assumptions)
They say well we know carbon decays in certain rate and so we know it’s only half as much it’s half as old. (There is an assumption that messes up everything), I show how it works.
If I say we going to fill a barrel with water, so I gave a hose to fill barrel with water, but what you don’t know is I have drill holes in the barrel. While you are putting in – the water is leaking out, well - kind the like your checkbook - you know, you keep putting in and its keep leaking out someplace: right!
Well, the earth’s atmosphere – its kind the like this barrel. It’s always getting brand knew carbon14, 21 pounds every year being put in and is always leaking out through decay. So the question would be how long it would take to reach a stage called Equilibrium. Now with the barrel you can actually do the math and calculate – if I’m going to put in certain amount of water per minute and certain amount per minute leaks out. When would I reach Equilibrium? That’s all can be calculated – with little bit of math. And with atmosphere when will it reach Equilibrium. So the guys, - who invented carbon dating in the late 1940’s. Said - they wonder earth atmosphere reaching Equilibrium, they did a bunch of study on that (This subject). They said if we took a brand new planet earth, created from scratch; got it going around the sun and how long would it take to reach Equilibrium point in the atmosphere. Where production rate and destruction rate is the same. And they determine it would take about thirty thousand years to reach Equilibrium; I’ m NOT sure how they did all that calculation. You can probably see some rate scientists to figure that out.
Did you know that they discover that the earth still did not reach Equilibrium….
Radiocarbon is still forming 30 - 40% faster that it is decaying. “NOW THINK ABOUT THAT”
If Radiocarbon is still forming faster than it’s decaying - that means the earth is less then thirty thousand years old – that is Number1 and Number2 – you can’t carbon date anything. Because you would have to know when it lived – so that you could calculated when it lived. You would have to already know when it lived to fear how much carbon14 it was breathing at that time. “Doesn’t work”
Suppose you walked into the room and I said – I want you to tell me, here is candle burning on the table, when it was lit?
You find out it was 7 inches tall; well, that won’t tell me anything. Now we have to measure how fast it’s burning, we measure a candle for a while, we get Olympic stop watch and we get do to nearest 40 bazillion of the second, okay! And we all agree candle burning 1 inch per hour.
Here are two facts, seven inches tall and burning one inch per hour - but when it was lit?
Nobody could figure that out!!! Unless you make some assumptions,
Assumption number one – how tall was the candle and assumption number two has it always burned at the same rate, neither of those could be known. If you find a fossil in the dirt, the amount of carbon could be measured, the rate of decay can be determent; I don’t argue either of those. How much was in when it lived – I don’t know, has it always decay at the same rate – I don’t know, has it being contaminated, sitting in the ground for all this years, there is no way to know all this things.
(Carbon dating has a flaw to determine the age)
Here is some more information I will share again.
The troubles of radiocarbon dating are undeniably deep and serious.
Despite thirty five years of technological refinement and better understanding, the underlying assumptions have been strongly challenged and warnings are out that radiocarbon dating may soon find itself how I see it - in a crisis situation.
Continuing use of this method depends on a “fix-it-as-you-go” approach, allowing for contamination here fractionation there, and calibration whenever possible. It should be no surprise, then that fully half the dates are and is rejected. Out of thousands carbon dating that have been done; half of the numbers has being thrown out.
How do they know first half is wrong? And also how do you know the other half is right. If half of the tests results have to be thrown out: This is stupid – it’s a waste of time this is shocking to me - that the remaining half - have come to be accepted.
As with my other post “No matter how ‘useful it is, though, the radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates.
Shtal.
by Shtal on 01 June 2012 - 09:06
beetree wrote: Shtal, who cares what the "atheists" think? It really is nobodies business but their own. Ya think?
It is always interesting to learn how other people think. (Example like GSD_admin has strong religion faith in evolution)
Shtal.
It is always interesting to learn how other people think. (Example like GSD_admin has strong religion faith in evolution)
Shtal.
by Shtal on 01 June 2012 - 17:06
Examing two video clips in my first two post of this thread, the first clip - the guy says that if he had evidence under his satisfaction he would serve God of the Bible, but the second guy in the second video clip says even if he had evidence under his own satisfaction he would still reject the God of the Bible since he thinks that the God of the Bible is a jerk.
Examing the third catagory of people example like myself I serve God of the Bible by faith which God gave me and by my own will because I love the Lord God my creator.
Shtal.
Examing the third catagory of people example like myself I serve God of the Bible by faith which God gave me and by my own will because I love the Lord God my creator.
Shtal.
by Shtal on 01 June 2012 - 22:06
Also, speaking the age of the earth, while back GSD_admin was showing me evidence age of the earth which involving radiometric dating, forgive me for my language but those numbers they pulled right under their ass.
(Check out the link)
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html
Shtal.
(Check out the link)
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html
Shtal.
by Red Sable on 01 June 2012 - 22:06
I just watched some of the Planet Earth videos today (Jungle series). WOW!! Just breathtaking! Anyone who has watched that and still does not believe there is an intelligent Creator has to be a little dumb. 
What an amazing world we live in!
What an amazing world we live in!
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top