This is an excellent explanation of why the strata we find all over the world is consistent of a young Earth with a violent past (i.e. flood). Thank you for this excellent video!
If a massive flood event took place worldwide, why wouldn't the majority of saltwater animals that rely on a fairly constant salt density die? Did Noah bring fish and seeds aboard as well, what about the thousands of species of insects?
A good question (the salt bit) - to which we might never know the answer. Just as we do not know the salt density of the oceans BEFORE the flood the Bible does not record the salt densities during the flood either. The flood came by both rain and "springs" (ie ground water), so we can not make any assumptions on what the salt density of the flood water might have been, or even if it varied from pre-flood times. There is nothing that says it MUST have. (cont...)
As to the other Noah was instructed to stock the ark with food for the animals and themselves so we can assume a certain amount of seed. But the animals that came to Noah (he did not go out and collect them) were described as birds, cattle and creeping things which would not include fish and other marine and aquatic species which could survive a flood without the ark.
BUT some things you need to consider are:- we do not know how many species became extinct because of the flood (cont...)
But we do know that today we have fossils of many now extinct species as you would expect if they were wiped out by a flood. Indeed scientist agree that the dinosaurs were wiped out by a catastrophic "extinction level" event. It is strange they should opt for an asteroid strike for which they have little evidence rather than a flood for which they have ample evidence. But then if they admitted to a flood they would have to admit the Bible might just be accurate. (cont...)
We must also remember that apart from the seed stocks on the ark seeds and many plants have a quite remarkable ability to withstand adverse conditions and to lay dormant in hostile environments until conditions are favourable for growth. But again we don't know how many did become extinct in the flood, only that we again have fossils of now extinct plant species.
Another interesting piece of evidence is a number of animal species they have tested (MAN included) show evidence of a significant genetic "bottleneck" in the past consistent with a "near extinction level" event. This also is what you would expect from a worldwide flood event sometime in the past.
Insects? Well they're certainly "creepy" critters (and also great survivors themselves). Some might have been on the ark's manifesto. Others might have stowed away in the very long building process
I wouldn't get too cocky my friend. I'm not sure if your puting this up as evidence for or against the flood, or that you have simply failed to read beyond the first paragraph.
I did, and some of the OTHER reports also. Are you aware they all return an OPEN verdict on whether or not the trees lie where they grew or were transported there by DEEP flood waters, noting from recent observations at Mt St Helens that uprooted trees in deep water tend to settle - and remain ... UPRIGHT. (cont.)
Are you aware these "strata" it speaks of average just 3cm thick with the largest being only 15cm. It is noted that they are not even thick enough to represent normal organic layers found in forests, let alone significant passage of time. They also note many of them appear to be deposited by water action not by progressive organic accumulation.
A 3cm layer can be deposited in one day by the runoff of a single storm, it doesn't necessitate the passage of time. Strata represent EVENTS, not time.
These strata probably represent runoff events in the life of a SINGLE forest, not a succession of forests. OR they might be what you expect from trees and debris being deposited in deep water.
Are you aware that most of the felled trees did not come from the stumps near them, indicating either or both were transported there from elsewhere. Or that there was any evidence of rotting where there should have been with long time exposure. One WELL PRESERVED stump is about 15 metres high..
At even 3cm per year (rapid by uniformitarin standards) this represents over 500 years of constant exposure of its upper section.
Are you also aware the mineral content of these layers is basically volcanic ash. Yellowstone is a dormant (not extinct) ... SUPER VOLCANO. Not only capable of rapidly depositing layers of ash but also obliterating North America entirely. In fact of creating the hail and havoc of Revelation that burns up a third of the trees and grass - but that's another topic.
A book you should read: The Mysterious Stranger, by Mark Twain. It delves into the nature of right and wrong. Even if you don't agree with it, read it.
Why should I believe Mark Twain and not believe the Lord? Is Mark Twain God? More to the point is Mark Twain YOUR God that you should believe HIS word and not the Lord's?
We each must choose WHO we will and will not believe. I have chosen to believe the Lord - it appears you have chosen to believe Mark Twain. But I'm not sure that he will be able to save you.
I could read it but the Lord has already declared right from wrong and I believe HIM! Reading Mark Twain will not change that.
You don't have to believe Mark Twain. Just read the damned thing! It makes some pretty insightful comments on the nature of morality.
If nothing else, read it for its literary merit. Would you refuse to read Hemingway because his books contain a little feminism? Would you refuse to read Nietzsche because he was an atheist?
Apart from the fact that my condition makes it difficult to read hardcopy you missed the point. There are a MILLIONS of books all expressing wildly varying opinions, philosophies, insightful comments, etc. Why should I believe Mark Twain and not, say, Adolf Hitler - he wrote a book too. Should I also believe the Quran and the Vedas, or the Book of Mormon they are books too?
WHY should I believe Mark Twain and not everybody else who wrote a book on the subject? (cont.)
Neither of us has the required knowledge to KNOW for certain who is right and who is wrong. BUT I believe the LORD does so I test ALL things against HIS word.
WHO do you test Mark Twain against? Or do you test everybody else against Mark Twain?
Or do you think YOU have greater knowledge than ALL of these writers that YOU can judge which of THEM is right and which is wrong?
Faith is not about WHAT you believe, it is about WHO you believe.
For instance LOGICALLY you have declared your faith and trust is in your OWN ability to discern what is true. LOGICALLY you have placed your OWN ability to know the truth ABOVE everybody that has ever lived. For you test EVERYBODY against *your* ability to know the truth.
You have made YOURSELF the "god" of your own existence. YOURSELF as the final arbiter of truth. YOU decide what is right or wrong, not anybody else, not even society.
The trouble is the guy next to you thinks HE is the final arbiter of truth, but the guy on the other side of you thinks HE is. Now multiply this predicament by the earth's population and you have a real problem.
WHOSE concept of "right and wrong" gets to prevail? Let's see .... hmm whose got the biggest gun or bomb? Or perhaps whose got the most money? Or ....
That is why Atheism reduces "right" and "wrong", "good" and "bad" to nothing more than a meaningless personal opinion.
Logic needs no assumptions; they're self demonstrable, self necessitating.
I place my own ability to know truth over nothing. If you were to disprove one of my arguments with logic, it would be disproven, I wouldn't cling to it.
As to what is right and wrong, I already told you; empathy. Do you disagree?
"Logic needs no assumptions; they're self demonstrable, self necessitating."
OK. Then answer me this simple question:-
"Is it logical to jump out of a fourth story window?"
Remember you claim it does not need any assumptions, it is self demonstrable, self necessitating.
Therefore you should be able to answer this with a simple yes or no. And that answer should remain consistant in all circumstances (remember it needs no assumptions by your reckoning).
Without any other information, the need to jump out the window is neither self demonstrable nor self necessitating. Thus, it is illogical to jump out of a first story window for no reason at all.
"Without any other information, the need to jump out the window is neither self demonstrable nor self necessitating. "
THAT is the point - to reach a logical conclusion you NEED other information.
The logic of jumping out a first story window is NEITHER self demonstrable NOR self necessitating. To KNOW if it is logical or not REQUIRES that you gather additional information.
BUT if you can't gather the information PERSONALLY your decision is going to rely on WHO you choose to believe.
Now six people in the corridor give you six conflicting accounts of circumstances you can't personally check out. The logic TO YOU of jumping out the window depends on WHO you believe and who you don't.
The decision you make will APPEAR logical - but it is really dependent on WHO you chose to BELIEVE for the extra info required for that logical process.
Just because a scientist has a theory does not make it true. If you accept it, it is because you BELIEVE he is right, not because you KNOW he is right.
And like everybody else you base YOUR logic on that belief. MY logic is based on information I have received from the prophets and Apostles of the Lord and what *I* have personally observed. MY choice is to believe THEM along with my own senses. Atheism wants you to believe it's logical and everything else is illogical - it is a BELIEF choice.
Actually I HAVE read the Quran, the Book of Mormon, the Vedas, several other "holy books", the Von Danekin (spelling? - it has been a while) series, in fact quite a few others also. That is why I know the futility of aimless and "unanchored" reading. There are millions of OPINIONS out there but no real way of KNOWING for sure what is the truth.
In the end the ONLY thing you can LOGICALLY do is *CHOOSE* who you will *BELIEVE*, and who you will not believe, is telling you the truth.
The Bible is exceedingly logical and sensible - unless you simply choose to assume the Lord does not exist.
But the incredible thing about following Christ is once you have decided to follow Jesus it is no longer about something you have read, it becomes something you EXPERIENCE first hand.
Following Christ is not about a book, it is about a - RELATIONSHIP.
My faith is no longer based on a mere book, it is based on a personal experience of, and relationship with Christ Himself.
Nope. Hypothetically, if there were millions of opinions out there, and you had no logical basis to determine which is right, you'd logically have to apply equal skepticism to all of them.
Personal experience, I'm afraid, is neither an argument, nor evidence. It's not an argument because I can't perceive your perception; it's not evidence because it's not testable.
Besides, it's quite possible that this "relationship" you have is with an imaginary friend; it's happened before.
The point you missed is that unless you have personally experienced a fact you CANNOT "know" it to be a fact, you can only BELIEVE it to be a fact. This is because you are not relying on your own senses, you are relying on the word of somebody else or on your own mental conjecture. (cont...)
"Personal experience, I'm afraid, is neither an argument, nor evidence."
I never said it was an argument or evidence - for YOU. You can only know what YOU have personally experienced. You can only BELIEVE or not believe what somebody else has experienced.
*I* know what I have experienced, your only choice is to either believe it or not believe it. But that's the same with EVERYTHING you have not personally experienced. (cont...)
I first believed, THEN I experienced. The point is the Lord is not seeking those who will only obey Him if they are FORCED to for they will rebel at the first opportunity they can. their obedience is imposed externally. He is seeking those who desire to obey Him of their OWN freewill for their obedience comes from within THEM. A bird in a cage is ownership, a bird who stays without a cage is RELATIONSHIP.
Believing nobody is paranoia. Believing everybody is gullibility. We ALL choose SOMEBODY
Adam and Eve were not punished for eating a piece of fruit, but for disobeying a direct command. Does not ANY good father do the same for HIS children. But even Adam and Eve are given the opportunity to be saved and perhaps they will. Make no mistake, if you perish you will perish by your OWN choice, not by Adam and Eve's.
The Lord has declared there is no other way to be saved than through repentence and obedience through Jesus Christ. So understand that refusing salvation and rejecting the power and Authority of the Lord through Christ Jesus is effectively declaring to the Lord that you would rather die/perish than obey Him.
BUT understand it has ALWAYS been YOUR decision to make. You CAN reject the Lord as sovereign ruler of all the universe. Just understand that it is YOU, yourself who then choose death.
The fruit was supposed to represent the knowledge of good and evil. Tell me, how could he punish them for disobeying a direct order, when they couldn't logically know that disobedience was bad until they comitted the act?
A good father gives his kids knowledge of good from bad BEFORE expecting them to live up to it, not after.
Albert Einstein: A pacifist, made terriffic leaps in the field of science. Damned to hell.
Adolf Hitler: A sociopath, but accepted jesus. Heaven awaits.
What makes you think Adolf Hitler is going to Heaven? He clearly did not follow the word and command of Christ Jesus. Salvation is for those who are obedient to Christ, not those who are not. Calling yourself a Christian will not save you.
It is well documented Hitler paraded in public as a Christian but in private spoke as an Atheist.
Jesus Himself declared that many who cry "Lord, Lord" and think themselves Christian will not enter the Kingdom but will be rejected. (cont...)
Both Albert Einstein and George Carlin are better men than many who call themselves christian. I'd actually go so far as to call them at least as good as those who actually do what Jesus says. Yet, neither Carlin nor Einstein accept Jesus. If hell awaits them, then your god is not righteous, he's egotistical.
What is "good". You do not believe in the Lord so by WHOSE standard are you judging these men to be "good" and on what basis do you accept THEIR judgement to be the truth?
Is it not just YOUR opinion that they are "good". Why should the Lord (or anybody) bow to YOUR opinion?
It is not about being "good", it is about obedience and aknowledgement of the sovereign power and authority of Christ OVER you. Heaven is a *KING*dom, not a democracy. It is RULED by Christ, not by "Christians".
:D I judge according to empathy. Empathy is the logical basis for morality.
Didn't you say Hitler wasn't allowed in heaven? He was a catholic, Mein Kampf was quite clear that he acknowledged the sovereignty of god n' jesus.
Also, it seems a bit arbitrary, doesn't it? You're supposed to accept that a Jewish man what was once nailed to a piece of wood is your king, without a shred of evidence that he exists.
"Didn't you say Hitler wasn't allowed in heaven? He was a catholic, Mein Kampf was quite clear that he acknowledged the sovereignty of god n' jesus."
What he did in public is very different to what he did in private. But as I said before going through the motions of Christianity does not get you entry to the Kingdom of God if you do not actually OBEY the word of God. I saw little evidence of Hitler loving even his enemies. Followers of Christ do not commit murder, especially mass murder.
We can't say conclusively what Hitler did in his private life, as there's a lot of hearsay and rumors floating around. We can say, however, that Christianity was used, at the very least, to justify the holocaust to the public, and that the German citizens didn't exactly overthrow the guy.
There is a detailed record by one of his aids who kept a journal of many of his private conversations. You might call it "hearsay" but it is an historical document and account like most others from which we determine history.
As to the holocaust I think you will find publicity was the LAST thing Hitler wanted.
As to overthrowing him even some of his senior officers tried to assassinate him. As to the citizens, dictators DICTATE, that is why they call them "dictators".
You're correct. I might, and indeed will, call it hearsay. The evidence shows quite clearly that Hitler fit the bill as a sociopath; as such, it's quite impossible to figure out exactly what it was he was thinking.
But your videos are just attempts to explain the evidence at hand with the premise that god exists, and created the earth 10k years ago. You dismissed radioactive dating, no doubt thinking of carbon dating alone (archaeologists and geologists have many other methods of radioactive dating,) with no basis whatsoever, citing a study on the effects of xenoliths, the problems of which can be avoided simply by not sampling from the xenolith, but rather, from the surrounding rock.
"But your videos are just attempts to explain the evidence at hand with the premise that god exists, "
But is not Atheistic Science theory just an attempt to explain the evidence at hand with the premise that god does NOT exist?
The point of the videos is that it is not the actual evidence itself that denies the existence of the Lord, it is the Atheistic science THEORIES that try to explain it while steadfastly denying the existence of the Lord as something totally impossible. (cont.)
There is actually no scientific reason why the Lord cannot exist, it is only that Atheistic scinence point blank REFUSES to consider the existence of the Lord as a possibility.
It therefore AUTOMATICALLY rejects any theory that suggests the Lord exists and doggedly searches for ANY theory that negates the necessity for the Lord to exist. It also rejects any Scientist that proposes that the Lord exists ("Creation" *scientists* being the prime example).
The point you have to appreciate is that if YOU are not prepared to seriously question the theories of Atheistic Science then you are accepting them as YOUR gospel and scripture.
If you will not consider the possibility that Atheistic Science has got it wrong then you are making Atheistic Science YOUR god and "higher authority".
I know in who *I* have placed my absolute faith and trust, in whose hands I have placed MY life. Do you really know in who YOU have placed your absolute faith?
Science makes testable explanations. We're not saying god is impossible, we just want evidence.
Creation scientists are rejected not because they posit a creator, but because their hypothesis is either untestable, or flatly contradicted by the evidence.
My mind is open to any evidence. That's how I came to your video in the first place, someone submitted it as evidence.
That said, I scrutinize the evidence I look at, so I don't accept garbage.
Are you sure? It seems to me that you are already convinced in your own mind that the Lord does not exist. What you are seeking is not EVIDENCE of His existence (which is all around you), what you are seeking is PROOF of His existence.
The simplest explanation for all that you see is the Lord indeed exists. And yet you eagerly discard it as evidence the moment a scientist proposes an unproven complex THEORY as to how it MIGHT POSSIBLY happen without a God
You see it is not the evidence that denies the existence of the Lord, it is the convoluted unproven THEORIES of scientists who seek to explain the evidence in the *ASSUMED* ABSENCE of a God.
If you are dismissing the evidence on the basis of scientific theory and explanation that ASSUMES the absence of a god then you are not impartially assessing the evidence, you are CHOOSING to BELIEVE the word of the scientists. But even THEY do not know if they are right or wrong. They only have a THEORY.
No, I'm seeking evidence. The thing you don't understand is, evidence must withstand scrutiny. The easiest explanation for ANYTHING is god did it, but easy doesn't mean right. Rainbows aren't thought to be a symbol of god's promise to mankind not to massacre us by flood anymore. Now we know, it's just the refraction of light through airborne water droplets.
"You dismissed radioactive dating, no doubt thinking of carbon dating alone "
ALL methods of radioactive dating are subject to serious SCIENTIFIC doubt as to their accuracy or consistency. Many scientists have found them to be wildely inconsistent and have seriously questioned the MANY unproven assumptions on which they are based.
It is all over the 'Net, people can look up the ongoing Scientific debate for themselves
There is no scientific debate, not even on the net.
From what I've seen, the only data submitted against radiometric dating comes from people who, in their procedure, have clearly violated the preconditions necessary to use the dating method.
One study often cited was performed to assess the effect of xenoliths on the age of a rock. I've mentioned this before; a simple visual inspection can weed out any xenoliths.
So what you are saying is radiometric dating is accurate and any scientist who says it isn't doesn't know what they are doing. Tell me this, on what basis do you claim the authority and superior knowledge to declare one eminent, highly qualified scientist right and another equally eminent and highly qualified scientist as wrong?
When even the scientists themselves disagree by what divine insight do YOU declare knowledge of which one is right and which one is wrong? Do you know more than they?
Can you give me a study in which a highly qualified scientist makes this claim, and demonstrates it through experiment?
If he fails to use the dating method properly, it doesn't count, and calls his "expertise" into question. (For example, judging the age of a recent lava floe by dating its xenoliths would be "doing it wrong." Carbon dating on something more than 10k years old would also be "doing it wrong."
I know it was a joke on your part. I was just pointing out what you missed. Jokes are an easy way to avoid seeking the truth.
In case you hadn't noticed the purpose of gates communities is to keep troublemakers and undesirables OUT. The Kingdom of the Lord *IS* a gated community. And the Lord and Jesus guard it very carefully.
"D I judge according to empathy. Empathy is the logical basis for morality."
Empathy is an emotional function not a logical one. It is a heart thing, not a head thing.
The LOGICAL basis for a "standard of behaviour" (morality implies good and bad which are meaningless concepts if life is nothing but animated matter as Atheism renders it) is actually self-preservation. Self-preservation is more assured in a controlled environment. The question is WHO gets to control it?
Logically, it would be immoral to force on someone else something I wouldn't want. I wouldn't force rape on someone, because I wouldn't want to be raped. It's quite the logical function.
I grant you, the reason for the popularity of empathy is probably survival. Preservation IS more assured in a controlled environment. That's why there are so many criminals and unpleasant people. Morality demonstrates variation too, and is just as subject to natural selection.
" I wouldn't force rape on someone, because I wouldn't want to be raped. It's quite the logical function."
So the LOGICAL follow on from this statement is rapists WANT to be raped, murderers WANT to be murdered, robbers want to be robbed, etc.
Laws do not exist because people are naturally empathetic, they exist because they are NOT. You don't have to make laws about things people do NOT do, you have to make laws about what they DO.
Laws are a measure of DYSFUNCTION. Increasing laws are not a measure of increasing morality, they are a measure of increasing IMMORALITY.
A society has more laws because they NEED more laws to control increasing immoral behaviour, not because they are more civilised. A truly "civilised" society needs no law enforcement for nobody does what is wrong.
Following a religion and following Christ are not the same thing. Many who call themselves "Christian" are but the "strawmen" of Satan.
But about Adam and Eve you do not appear to be familiar with the account. The Lord indeed DID warn them beforehand that if they ate of the fruit they would "surely die".
But any good parent will tell you a child cannot always understand why they must obey even when it is imperative that they do.
THAT is why obedience is so important. You cannot always explain to a child WHY it is important to obey, just that they MUST obey ... for their OWN safety and wellbeing.
That is why a good parent teaches their child to obey whether or not they understand why. If my kid is running out onto a busy road I want him to STOP! immediately, not after I spend 10 minutes explaining road safety rules and the concept of being runover by a car.
To save my kids life I will do whatever it takes to make him obey FIRST, ask after.
By the way, the other thing you are forgetting (or appear to be unfamiliar with)is that the Lord made a habit of walking with Adam and Eve in the cool of the evening BEFORE this incident. They would have spoken about MANY things and He would have taught them many things BEFORE this.
As I have pointed out in other responses we do not know everything the Lord taught them before this point of time so your comments are unfounded and without factual authority.
It is the tree of KNOWLEDGE of good and evil, not the tree of UNDERSTANDING of good and evil. Knowledge and understanding are not the same thing.
Me, I'd explain to my kid about road safety before he even went out. But of course, in this case, they wouldn't be able to understand anyway, because they don't know what bad means yet!
And here's the thing; if your kid was running into the street, you'd stop him. If adam and eve were endangering themselves with that fruit, god could poof the fruit to a different spot, and give 'em a stern lecture.
It was in their heart to disobey. THAT is the point. Preventing them from disobeying does not change the fact they desired to disobey. Lecturing might change what is in the head, but it seldom changes what is in the heart.
The Lord has great things in store for His people - but they are things and abilities that cannot be entrusted to a rebellious heart.
It's not about the head, it is about the heart. It is about trust, loyalty, love, will, desire, obedience, bonding, etc.
But does not a father have the right to expect obedience in his OWN house? If you do not wish to obey the head of the household in which you live then what right have you to partake of all that HE provides? Surely if you reject his authority you should also reject ALL that he provides you. In the case of the Lord that is EVERYTHING, your existence included.
The father only has a right to expect obedience if he first teaches the kids that disobedience is bad. Again, adam and eve can't know good from bad without the apple, thus, they can't know disobedience is bad, thus, they can't be expected to obey.
"Again, adam and eve can't know good from bad without the apple, thus, they can't know disobedience is bad, "
Says who??
They knew what the Lord had commanded and His warning that if they ate of it they would die. BUT they chose to BELIEVE the serpent and NOT believe the Lord. They desired to be EQUAL to the Lord, not obedient to the Lord.
They KNEW what they were doing was rebeling against the authority of the one who made them. It is the REBELLION against the Lord's authority and word that is the issue and they KNEW they were doing that.
By WHOSE authority do you declare what they did and did not know? The Bible is silent on everything they did and did not know before they ate of the fruit. As we have no other source of information we know of there is no way for you to know everything they did or did not know before they ate of the fruit. Only that they knew MORE after.
On the bible. It says in the bible that the fruit contained the concept, or "knowledge," of good and evil. Logically, without that, to them, good and evil would be meaningless. (Thus, their "lack of shame" when going nekkid (because everyone knows nakedness is immoral.))
The serpent presented them with logic, which is neither good nor bad. They understood the logic. Given that they had nothing to compare the argument to, I'd deduce that god presented them with no logic, other than "because I told you to bitch!"
As to who says they can't know what bad is, that's what the bible says. The fruit is what gave them a concept of good and evil.
Again, read "The Mysterious Stranger" by Mark Twain.
The serpent presented them with FALSE logic. The serpent KNEW they would die - he just CONNED them with false logic.
They did not become like god as he promised, they DIED like the Lord warned them. They COULD have eaten of the tree of life and lived forever for it was not barred from them until AFTER they had disobeyed.
So called "Logic" has been the justification for many a great evil. Stalin "logically" killed thousands. Hitler millions, Pol Pot multitudes. All deemed "logical".
Hang on there. Those killings weren't based on logic. Those people were killed as scapegoats, or because the respective dictator felt like it at the time.
This, as opposed to the fruit; the serpent's statement that "god doesn't want them eating the fruit because they'd be like him" seems quite valid in light of the rest of the old testament, in which god proves his jealousy repeatedly.
Moreover, even god referred to it as the fruit of knowledge; who wouldn't seek to learn and improve themself
The Bible does not say they had absolutely NO knowledge of right or wrong before they ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. They had all the knowledge the Lord had taught them to that point. The Bible does not state what the Lord had already taught them. you have no authority to declare they had a total absence of knowledge of good and evil, only that they had MORE knowledge after - to their detriment because they were not ready for it.
The bible heavily implies that the fruit contained the very concept of good and evil. No matter what god "taught" them on the subject, without the concept of evil, they can never truly understand it.
Try teaching someone how reverse induction works without teaching them about electricity. That's the kind of learning difficulty I refer to.
You assume the universe revolves around mankind. What makes you think man is worthy of saving?
The miracle is the Lord is GRACIOUS and MERCIFUL enough to save SOME of mankind despite MAN'S general inhumainty, violence, cruelty, exploitation, neglect, etc. of MAN.
That DESPITE man's unworthiness of being saved from HIMSELF the Son of God HIMself died so at least SOME might be saved.
Mankind might think itself great in its OWN eyes - but it is not MAN'S eyes that will judge him.
Battered wive's syndrome. He beats me because I've done something wrong. He beats me, but he loves me. If I do what's right by him, I won't be beaten.
The worst part is, a battered wife genuinely can't see anything wrong with this line of reasoning. All objections have been beaten out of her.
Evil and rebellion are a communicable disease. You see Earth as some shining light of the universe. Haven't you ever considered the possibility the rest of the universe might see it as a quarantine station from which only those proven free of evil and rebellion will be permitted to leave?
You judge by YOUR opinion, but you are not in charge of the Earth, let alone the universe. By what right do YOU claim to be lord of the universe that YOUR opinion should rule?
Jails are used for two purposes; to isolate, or to rehabilitate. Isolative jails attempt to make the prisoner's life comfortable. Television, games, books, and the like are all available. Prisoners in this case are merely separated from society, because evidence suggests that they can't be trusted not to hurt people.
Rehabilitative jails eventually release the prisoners, hopefully as better people.
The point is, jail isn't a "punishment," it's a means of preserving freedom and safety.
You missed the point entirely. Perhaps I should have explained it more, sorry.
Inmates are not in prison because THEY consider themselves guilty in their OWN eyes. They are there because they are judged guilty by those who have POWER and AUTHORITY over them.
Likewise just because MAN considers himself innocent in his OWN eyes it does not make him so. Especially if one exists that has the power and authority to judge him in THEIR eyes.
They aren't in prison just because they're guilty. They're in prison because not only are they guilty, but it's necessary to isolate or rehabilitate them for a safe and free society. Holding and expressing beliefs isn't a punishable offense, lest society fail to be free.
But the point is THEY do not think they should be in prison. They are in prison because somebody ELSE judged them. THEY do not accept the judgement that has been placed on them any more than you accept the judgement that the Lord has placed on you.
But those that cannot be rehabilitated cannot be released. In the same way those on earth who cannot be rehabilitated cannot leave the earth. THAT's the whole point of it all.
If evil is a disease, I contend to you that religion is typhoid Mary.
I won't make any assumptions as regards to life through the rest of the universe, but even in that situation, the solution is to determine, through logic, what is right and wrong? I find it unlikely that the rest of the universe is ALSO guided by a bronze age storybook.
I judge according to my logic. I also give my logic, that others may decide for themselves if I'm right or wrong, and if I am, to explain why.
I agree "religion" is far from innocent. But religion is a manmade phenomenon.
I am not in a "religion", I am in a relationship. I do not belong to a church, I belong to a person, a person who is of the Elohiym, not of man. I bow to no man on Earth. Yahweh is my Father and Jesus Christ my saviour Lord and King. I do not bow to a religion, I bow to THEM. I do not obey the command of a religion I obey THEM and THEIR word only. Though NONE go with me I still will follow ... THEM!
You're in a religion. Religion is a type of relationship, it's a worshipful relationship with one or many whose existance you can't demonstrate, but whose commands, though hearsay, you never question.
No, I just can't demonstrate it to YOUR satisfaction. MY relationship with the Lord and with Jesus (as with all true followers of Christ) is a very PERSONAL relationship. It is like a marriage, not like a religion (unless your calling marriage a religion also - in which case you have an exceedingly broad definition of "religion").
There are those who never question science either, I guess that makes Science THEIR religion.
You only ASSUME this book comes from man. Have you not considered that those who are more advanced than man will also be much OLDER than man. Have you not considered that this book comes from one who is far older and wiser than man, even NOW, let alone back then.
If you give a child a book full of wisdom, it is no less full of wisdom because the child has grown up or years have passed . Judging a book by its AGE is as bad and illogical as by its cover.
Unquestionably, the oldest copies of this book we can find now are written by man. Positing a hypothetical "more advanced, much older" race of beings is no different from just saying "gawd did it."
The important part of that phrase was "storybook." It's not a book of wisdom, unless you think it's wise to beat children to death for cheeking their parents.
Besides, there's nothing wrong with judging a book by its age, in some contexts. Metaphors don't change, but our knowledge does.
But logic does not exist in a vacuum, it is built upon a foundation of "premises" or "givens". 99.9% of what you THINK you know you have not personally experienced, you have been TOLD. Be it from teachers, scientists, politicians, media, books, historians, parents, friends, collegues, etc.
99.9% of your logic is based on WHO you have chosen to believe and who you have not. MOST of it is BEYOND your ability to prove it by direct personal experience.
Like everybody else you are simply chosing WHO you will believe, WHO you will trust, in WHOSE word you will ... place your faith. ... BUT... it does not mean what they say is true.
We all have two choices. We can SEEK the truth, or we can just ASSUME we have the truth and stop seeking it.
The hard question you have to ask yourself is are you really still SEEKING the truth or have you simply settled for an assumption of truth.
This, as opposed to, say, burning someone for all eternity because a thousand years ago, their ancestor ate some fruit, and nowadays, they don't believe that a Jewish carpenter was nailed to a piece of wood until he died, was then resurrected, and flew into the sky, all to save people from being burnt for all eternity.
Yep, ancient ancestor ate some fruit, combined with not believing a seemingly ridiculous story, the two together validate eternal torture. That makes sense, just like jail.
Again you have missed the point of the Bible entirely.
If you want the point of the Bible in a nutshell it is something like this:- Mankind is NOT the centre of the universe. The universe does not revolve around man. MAN does not rule the universe. There is an ultimate power and authority in the universe to which ALL things must answer and give account including each and every person on earth. (cont.)
the very idea of something being the "center of the universe" is flawed. All things are relative. There is no ultimate power and authority, and even if there was, you only THINK it's the center of the universe. It's not. There is no "most important" because importance is subjective. There is no "most powerful" because power is subjective. There is no "most good," because good is subjective. Read up on the newer philosophers.
And you wonder why the Lord will not allow those with THIS attitude into *HIS* Kingdom.
Even the mouse is free to challenge the lion to a fight ... but he will not win, only perish.
The WISE mouse walks WITH the Lion in peace and SAFETY knowing there is none greater than he who protects him.
Understand you merely ASSUME that in all the universe there is non MORE powerful, MORE wise, MORE advanced than man himself. You place man as the ruler of the universe. (cont...)
Jesus expressed it better this way Luke 14:31 "Or what king, going to make war against another king, sitteth not down first, and consulteth whether he be able with ten thousand to meet him that cometh against him with twenty thousand? 32 Or else, while the other is yet a great way off, he sendeth an ambassage, and desireth conditions of peace."
Would you be not wise to FIRST find out if there is one GREATER and MORE POWERFUL than man before declaring you will fight allcomers and bow to none
You fail to understand my statements. Power, wisdom, and advancement, all are illusions. I won't say I'm more wise, more advanced, or more powerful, because each of those is a relative concept.
Yes and relative to man the Lord is more powerful, more wise and more advanced.
Now your options are to fight against Him and lose everything you already have (existence included) or unite with Him and gain the greater wisdom, power, knowledge, and understanding HE offers you.
The Lord never hid the fact that the choice He offers you is life or death. The only question that remains is what do YOU choose for yourself?
But understand that what we believe does not change reality one iota
So your choice is to either just settle for the ASSUMPTION/GAMBLE the Lord does not exist. OR you continue to earnestly seek the actual truth of whether or not He exists.
But understand if your just taking a gamble that He does not exist the stakes involved are your life and existence. A wise man would be seeking the truth and would not stop until he found it. Only a fool gambles his life away on the flip of a coin.
Here's the thing; if god is to be worthy of my company, he'll have to be logical. Being logical, he'd have to understand my skepticism. Thus, if god existed, and he were worth hanging out with, he wouldn't mind me doubting him.
On the other hand, if god existed, and he were a vain, narcissistic, jealous fucktard, I'd rather not grace him with my presence.
But you are not doubting Him, you are rejecting Him. One who doubts but who WANTS to know the truth seeks it. If you REALLY wanted to know if the Lord really exists the first thing you would do is *genuinely* ASK Him to let you know the truth because you WANT to know it with all your heart and mind. (If you can't trust the Lord to tell you the truth about Himself then who can you trust). (cont...)
If you aren't prepared to do that it means you've already made up your mind there is no God so it is useless praying to Him. It also means you are no longer seeking to know if He exists having assumed He doesn't.
BUT the Lord is very open and honest about who He is and what He is like. Remembering Jesus is also the embodiment of the Lord.
So both OT and NT this is the Lord. You can't make Him be anything else. You choice is to accept Him as He is or reject Him - and accept the consequences
I can't reject him unless I think he exists. Until then, I merely doubt that he exists. I was raised as a christian. I asked him if he existed repeatedly as a kid, but never got a response. Back when I was a kid, I figured he had more important things to do. From my experience, if your deity does exist, this is not a valid test of his existence.
There is a difference between "testing" and seeking, but as I said the Lord looks to the heart.
The real question you perhaps need to ask yourself is what will you do if the Lord does exist?
Do you want the Lord to exist or would you rather He did not exist? Another way of saying it is would you ACCEPT and embrace the Lord as He is or would you resent obeying Him and having Him in control.
It is seldom JUST about whether or not He exists. Admitting He exists FORCES a response from you.
Relative to man, your god may be more powerful, or more weak, depending on what "power" means. Your deity may be more "wise" or less, and he may be more or less "advanced," depending on what you mean by these things. I presume your definition of power is "who can chuck a planet the farthest." Power can be more complicated than brute strength y'know.
It sounds to me like you're throwing pascal's wager at me. That won't validate belief.
The REALITY of accurate and detailed Biblical Prophecy foretelling the future indicates the Lord has power over Time. The Flood, the exodus plagues and miacles, etc. indicate He has power over the natural forces of the Earth. Sending one Angel to defeat a whole army indicates greater military force. Sodom and Gomorrah indicate control of immense forces of destruction. in Ezekiel, Revelation and elsewhere there is a suggestion of advanced technology of some description, etc. the list is endless
I'm simply pointing out what the Bible declares. The answer lies in what you WANT to do. Do you WANT to know the truth or have you already decided what you WANT to be the truth.
The Lord is not testing your HEAD, He is testing your HEART and SOUL.
Just like He did with the Israelites the Lord is laying a proposal before you, a choice of life or death. A chance to be rescued from a doomed and dying world or perish along with it. (cont.)
It is not a matter of endless debate. It is not a point scoring exercise. It is not about trying to prove how smart you are.
It is an INDIVIDUAL offer to each and every person on the planet. What anybody else thinks of you dos not matter one iota. It is about what we do with the offer.
Accept it, reject it, ignore it, disbelieve it, it is YOUR choice to make for YOURSELF.
You will not be judged by anybody elses choice, nor they by yours.
According to Harry Potter and the sorcerer's stone, Ronald Weasly can use his wand for telekinesis.
I'm not impressed by stories.
If your deity wants to make me an offer, he should make me an offer. If he's omniscient, he should realize that I'm skeptical of books describing the supernatural, and should come down and show me that it can happen. I'm just a skeptic; I can be convinced with evidence. I just haven't seen any yet.
Hey I don't believe the Harry Potter stories either. BUT Scientific Theories are also "stories" told by a scientist to try and explain things. There is no guarantee it is a true story (even the scientists will tell you that). It is just a story they THINK might be true, often with far less convincing evidence than the Bible can offer. And yet you are happy to believe THEM.
We all choose WHO we will and will not believe. Some just don't like to admit it.
3. Turbulence: Although I truly doubt this would pose a significant effect, if it did, it would result in a layer of mixed fine and coarse grain sandstone.
4. Stagnation would result in shale.
5. Recession would result in erosion only. Deposition would occur underwater.
6. Further stagnation may result in crystalline salt deposits, as well as shales.
This model is inconsistent with the evidence, and does not explain, in particular, metamorphic rock.
4. With stagnation comes also evaporation and mineral deposition and formation.
5. ALL deposition occurs underwater, coming or going. Unless it disappears into thin air EVERYTHING eroded is deposited somewhere. Erosion depends on HORIZONTAL speed, not verticle height. Fast moving water erodes, slow moving water deposits ... in EITHER direction.
YOUR model is in much error, but the strata that exists is consistent with massive water movement.
"This model is inconsistent with the evidence, and does not explain, in particular, metamorphic rock. "
???
Metamorphic rock is formed by intense heat and volcanic action, not water and floods. SEDIMENTARY rock is formed by water. But as the videos point out increased volcanic activity is likely AFTER a worldwide flood.
Metamorphic rock is formed by intense heat and pressure. So why is it layers of metamorphic rock are found atop layers of sedimentary rock? This can only be explained through tectonics.
I think you might have been thinking of igneous rock; let's do that, shall we? During your flood, lava from the volcanoes would have met with water, and dramatically cooled, resulting in obsidian. Your flood layer should contain more obsidian than any other layer.
It appears you have not heard of "contact metamorphisis". Igneous rock is solidified magma but metamorphic rock is pre-existing rock that has been changed by heat and/or pressure. When magma at extreme high temperatures intrudes into sedimentary layers the heat it brings with it can metamorphise the surrounding sedimentary rock. This can occur ANYTIME after the sedimentary layers have been laid down. Lava can also metamorphise the rocks over which it flows leaving the deeper strata unaffected.
But all that aside tectonic activity did not stop when the flood did. Tectonic activity is still occurring. That some metamorphic rock is found atop sediemtary rock means nothing more than the metamorphising event or tectonic event occurred after the sedimentary event.
As regarding obsidian I once again point out that a worldwide flood would not produce *A* flood layer but a MULTITUDE of strata. Plus the increased downward pressure of billions of tonnes of water is likely to suppress volcanic activity DURING the flood and increase it AFTER the flood as the downward pressure is released. You theory is unsubstantiated on many levels.
Your "theory" doesn't explain igneous rock found interstitial to the strata.
Contact metamorphosis doesn't explain metamorphic strata over an extremely large area. Moreover, there would be clear signs of contact metamorphosis, namely, its close proximity to igneous rock.
If you're saying all apparent tectonic activity on the earth happened within the past 10k years, please realize that the resulting earthquakes, tsunamis, and vulcanism would destroy all life.
"Your "theory" doesn't explain igneous rock found interstitial to the strata."
WHY? Your making these vague "inferences" without actually substantiating them. It is a deceptive ploy I've come across many times and it is not a game I'm interested in playing.
As to tectonic activity there is no reason to not assume it has been ocurring for the whole existence of the Earth. The Flood is only ONE single instance of geological activity. It does not preclude any other geological activity before, after or during.
Since when has anybody claimed that the flood is the only geological event to have ever occurred on the earth??
Rather than accuse me of making vague inferences and playing games, you could just ask me for a source.
For example, in New York, the Ladentown Basalt is found interstitial to sedimentary deposits.
I have, by the way, been picking out evidence to show that your model is contradicted. You're being rude by implying that I'm not living up to that standard.
The point is you are making claim after claim without explaining why they contradict the flood. You just did it again.
You fail to explain why you think the Ladentown Basalt disproves the flood.
Basalt is evidence of quick cooling by whatever method. Water cools as quickly as air. In addition the flood was not the last ever geological event to lay down sedimentary layers.
The Ladentown Basalt does not contradict the flood, it can quite happily co-exist with it.
It's an even basalt layer laying on top of a metamorphic layer (metamorphosed by the lava, natch,) and below that, a sedimentary layer.
Above the basalt there is a sedimentary layer only.
According to your flood model, there should be a thin layer of metamorphic rock on TOP of the basalt as well, separating it from the next sedimentary layer. This tests false, no metamorphic layer exists on top of it.
Only if that layer was laid before the basalt intrusion, which, on the evidence you have given, indicates it wasn't. Understand not EVERY single sedimentary layer is necessarily due to the Flood. Cataclysmic geological events did not suddenly stop with the flood.
The point is that WITHIN the geological column lies the strata you would EXPECT from a worldwide flood. It does not mean that EVERY layer of the column is due to the flood. (cont...)
Understand It's the uniformitarian THEORY that denies the flood, not the actual evidence contained in the geological column itself.
Many scientists are now coming to realise the geological column can only be explained by a series of rapid cataclysmic geological events, not an eons long slow accumulation as posited by the old traditional uniformitarian view.
The "Cataclysmic" theory, by the way, is not just a creationist theory, it's a theory held by many mainstream secular scientists also.
4. Yeah, that's what I meant by crystalline deposits.
5. Given receding waters, the water would be moving faster on land, where it's actually receding, as opposed to in water, where it stops receding. Thus, receding water should erode the land, and deposit when it gets to large bodies.
The strata that exists is not consistent with massive water movement.
MY model is in error? Why? What evidence do you have that shows my model is wrong? Thus far, you've just presented a counter-model.
Regarding receding water its horizontal speed depends on the slope of the underlying land and the depth of the water. (eg receding water moving down verticle cliffs has virtually no horizontal movement and hence no erosion. Receding water that is deep and wide tends to have much slower horizontal movement also).
EROSION is a factor of the rate of HORIZONTAL movement. (cont.)
But yes rapidly moving surface water will erode and then deposit when it reaches deeper slower moving water. This will result in broad alluvial coastal plains, massive deltas and massive underwater alluvial "shelves". BUT THEN these also exist around the world as evidence don't they.
That "why" part? I was asking for specific examples. What observable facts does it contradict? What phenomena? What evidence? Just saying it's contradicted isn't enough. You have to point out the evidence, and explain why.
1. The layers of mud were layed down AFTER the initial wave. The violent water keeps the finer particles dissolved until things quiet down. That's why an ongoing tsunami would lay down coarse sandstone.
2. The water has to run to the run off first, and as it goes, it picks up a good deal of earth, but not stone. That's why it would likely be charged with more fine particles than large ones.
3. Turbulence would move everything. That's why the result would be a mixed grain stone.
1. An ongoing tsunami is receding water in reverse. It is only turbulent at its leading edge where it is shallower and fast moving (horizontally). As the body of water behind it gets deeper and wider it moves less turbulently.
But that's the point. there was nothing "neat" about the great flood. It was an everchanging and rapidly changing dynamic interaction of many factors. Hydraulic, landform, slope, horizontal speed, direction, geology, tidal (lunar) influences, etc. (cont...)
THAT is why you will not find a neat "flood layer" but rather a multitude of strata laid down by the UNIQUE progressive changing dynamics of the flood IN THAT PARTICULAR location.
Remember *ALL* sedimentary rock strata has this one thing in common ... they were laid down ... UNDERWATER!
Again, said model would only explain the existance of fine and coarse grained sedimentation. How about the thick layers of calcium carbonate, which could only be laid down by coral over a long period of time?
Who said coral reefs and shell beds etc. did not exist BEFORE the Great Flood??
Recent tsunamis have demonstrated that they can rapidly accumulate vast shell beds. Obviously they could also pulverise reefs. But there is no reason why these things could not have accumulated BEFORE the flood. Remember we do not know what was land and what was ocean before the Flood, only what we have after the flood.
Reefs take time to accumulate. THAT was my point.
On what basis do you say that layer distinctions can't happen via slow accumulation? While it is true that steady deposition would blur the lines between layers, erosion and subsequent deposition would explain the sharp change.
Yes REEFS take time to accumulate, but they had plenty of time to accumulate BEFORE the flood. BUT pulverise a reef in ONE DAY and overlay it with a layer of sediment and presto you have a calcium carbonate rich layer / strata ready to be formed into limestone over time. Floods create layers from materials EXISTING BEFORE the flood. Geological events AFTER the flood change them.
It is a misunderstanding of geological processes to try and make the flood do EVERYTHING.
From this, I gather you're NOT a YEC. Although it seems you believe in a biblic flood, in the literal version of genesis, there's only about another 2k years before that, certainly not enough time to account for the rate of formation you're talking about. (There are limits to how much carbonate will dissolve in the ocean before it kills all life.)
Question: if you're allowing for an old earth, why bother with a recent catastrophic flood, when it goes against radiometric evidence?
Apart from the well reported dissention and doubt in the scientific community as regards the accuracy of radiometric dating there is something else you should also consider.
The Lord does not declare how old the SUBSTANCE of the Earth is. Genesis declares that for an UNSPECIFIED length of time the earth lay void and in darkness BEFORE the first day of creation. Five minutes or a few million years, who but the Lord knows? (cont.)
I suggest you reread the beginning of Genesis and understand that in the modern parlance of science in six days the Lord "TERRAFORMED" the Earth from a lifeless, dark ball of water and rock into the lit and living world we see around us.
He did this using the MATERIAL the earth was made of.
The Lord created the LIVEABLE planet on which man exists and man himself. BUT He created it all from the materials that existed an unknown time BEFORE the first day. (cont.)
So the bottom line is you can believe the rocks of the earth, and the substance of fossils, etc. is as old as you WANT to believe they are. It STILL does not disprove the Biblical account given by the Lord.
He has not told us how long the rocks and water have existed.
"In the beginning" is NOT the first day, it is "the beginning" in which the heavens and the dark ball of rock and water called "Earth" was created. Light (day) and the first day did not come until an unknown time after.
This is an excellent explanation of why the strata we find all over the world is consistent of a young Earth with a violent past (i.e. flood). Thank you for this excellent video!
johnm1108 2 years ago
If a massive flood event took place worldwide, why wouldn't the majority of saltwater animals that rely on a fairly constant salt density die? Did Noah bring fish and seeds aboard as well, what about the thousands of species of insects?
rjswolfman 2 years ago
A good question (the salt bit) - to which we might never know the answer. Just as we do not know the salt density of the oceans BEFORE the flood the Bible does not record the salt densities during the flood either. The flood came by both rain and "springs" (ie ground water), so we can not make any assumptions on what the salt density of the flood water might have been, or even if it varied from pre-flood times. There is nothing that says it MUST have. (cont...)
IslandBard 2 years ago
As to the other Noah was instructed to stock the ark with food for the animals and themselves so we can assume a certain amount of seed. But the animals that came to Noah (he did not go out and collect them) were described as birds, cattle and creeping things which would not include fish and other marine and aquatic species which could survive a flood without the ark.
BUT some things you need to consider are:- we do not know how many species became extinct because of the flood (cont...)
IslandBard 2 years ago
But we do know that today we have fossils of many now extinct species as you would expect if they were wiped out by a flood. Indeed scientist agree that the dinosaurs were wiped out by a catastrophic "extinction level" event. It is strange they should opt for an asteroid strike for which they have little evidence rather than a flood for which they have ample evidence. But then if they admitted to a flood they would have to admit the Bible might just be accurate. (cont...)
IslandBard 2 years ago
We must also remember that apart from the seed stocks on the ark seeds and many plants have a quite remarkable ability to withstand adverse conditions and to lay dormant in hostile environments until conditions are favourable for growth. But again we don't know how many did become extinct in the flood, only that we again have fossils of now extinct plant species.
(last cont...)
IslandBard 2 years ago
Another interesting piece of evidence is a number of animal species they have tested (MAN included) show evidence of a significant genetic "bottleneck" in the past consistent with a "near extinction level" event. This also is what you would expect from a worldwide flood event sometime in the past.
Insects? Well they're certainly "creepy" critters (and also great survivors themselves). Some might have been on the ark's manifesto. Others might have stowed away in the very long building process
IslandBard 2 years ago
Ah, there ya go. You're doing better, asking for sources. I'll have you doing science before ya know it.
My source is the yellowstone superimposed petrified forests. For some reason youtube won't let me link to it in a comment, so here's what ya do:
1. Go to google.
2. Search for "Superimposed layers of petrified trees", in that wording, with or without quotation marks.
3. Clicky the first link.
PrometheusWithLight 2 years ago
I wouldn't get too cocky my friend. I'm not sure if your puting this up as evidence for or against the flood, or that you have simply failed to read beyond the first paragraph.
I did, and some of the OTHER reports also. Are you aware they all return an OPEN verdict on whether or not the trees lie where they grew or were transported there by DEEP flood waters, noting from recent observations at Mt St Helens that uprooted trees in deep water tend to settle - and remain ... UPRIGHT. (cont.)
IslandBard 2 years ago
Are you aware these "strata" it speaks of average just 3cm thick with the largest being only 15cm. It is noted that they are not even thick enough to represent normal organic layers found in forests, let alone significant passage of time. They also note many of them appear to be deposited by water action not by progressive organic accumulation.
A 3cm layer can be deposited in one day by the runoff of a single storm, it doesn't necessitate the passage of time. Strata represent EVENTS, not time.
IslandBard 2 years ago
(cont.)
These strata probably represent runoff events in the life of a SINGLE forest, not a succession of forests. OR they might be what you expect from trees and debris being deposited in deep water.
Are you aware that most of the felled trees did not come from the stumps near them, indicating either or both were transported there from elsewhere. Or that there was any evidence of rotting where there should have been with long time exposure. One WELL PRESERVED stump is about 15 metres high..
IslandBard 2 years ago
At even 3cm per year (rapid by uniformitarin standards) this represents over 500 years of constant exposure of its upper section.
Are you also aware the mineral content of these layers is basically volcanic ash. Yellowstone is a dormant (not extinct) ... SUPER VOLCANO. Not only capable of rapidly depositing layers of ash but also obliterating North America entirely. In fact of creating the hail and havoc of Revelation that burns up a third of the trees and grass - but that's another topic.
IslandBard 2 years ago
My advice would be that you worry less about my scientific acumen, and a little more about your own.
What I believe will not determine your fate. It is what YOU believe that will determine your fate.
My advice is if you want to truly seek the truth then GENUINELY question EVERYTHING, and that includes science and scientific theory.
Remember whether or not you feel like you "won" an argument if what you believe is not the truth - YOU lose!
I'm out to win the truth, not a debate.
IslandBard 2 years ago
A book you should read: The Mysterious Stranger, by Mark Twain. It delves into the nature of right and wrong. Even if you don't agree with it, read it.
PrometheusWithLight 2 years ago
Why should I believe Mark Twain and not believe the Lord? Is Mark Twain God? More to the point is Mark Twain YOUR God that you should believe HIS word and not the Lord's?
We each must choose WHO we will and will not believe. I have chosen to believe the Lord - it appears you have chosen to believe Mark Twain. But I'm not sure that he will be able to save you.
I could read it but the Lord has already declared right from wrong and I believe HIM! Reading Mark Twain will not change that.
IslandBard 2 years ago
I actually facepalmed here.
You don't have to believe Mark Twain. Just read the damned thing! It makes some pretty insightful comments on the nature of morality.
If nothing else, read it for its literary merit. Would you refuse to read Hemingway because his books contain a little feminism? Would you refuse to read Nietzsche because he was an atheist?
PrometheusWithLight 2 years ago
Apart from the fact that my condition makes it difficult to read hardcopy you missed the point. There are a MILLIONS of books all expressing wildly varying opinions, philosophies, insightful comments, etc. Why should I believe Mark Twain and not, say, Adolf Hitler - he wrote a book too. Should I also believe the Quran and the Vedas, or the Book of Mormon they are books too?
WHY should I believe Mark Twain and not everybody else who wrote a book on the subject? (cont.)
IslandBard 2 years ago
Neither of us has the required knowledge to KNOW for certain who is right and who is wrong. BUT I believe the LORD does so I test ALL things against HIS word.
WHO do you test Mark Twain against? Or do you test everybody else against Mark Twain?
Or do you think YOU have greater knowledge than ALL of these writers that YOU can judge which of THEM is right and which is wrong?
Faith is not about WHAT you believe, it is about WHO you believe.
I've read many books but I BELIEVE the Lord.
IslandBard 2 years ago
I test Mark Twain against logic. The laws of logic are immutable, ineffable, and transcend even existence. Even your deity is subject to logic.
I don't believe any one source. I believe only things which are self demonstrable, or which are testable by me.
PrometheusWithLight 2 years ago
"I test Mark Twain against logic."
Based on what premises? WHO have you believe for the assumptions you have made on which your "logic" is based?
The laws of logic ARE immutable, BUT are seldom applied properly or followed through to their ultimate conclusion.
(cont...)
IslandBard 2 years ago
For instance LOGICALLY you have declared your faith and trust is in your OWN ability to discern what is true. LOGICALLY you have placed your OWN ability to know the truth ABOVE everybody that has ever lived. For you test EVERYBODY against *your* ability to know the truth.
You have made YOURSELF the "god" of your own existence. YOURSELF as the final arbiter of truth. YOU decide what is right or wrong, not anybody else, not even society.
(cont...)
IslandBard 2 years ago
The trouble is the guy next to you thinks HE is the final arbiter of truth, but the guy on the other side of you thinks HE is. Now multiply this predicament by the earth's population and you have a real problem.
WHOSE concept of "right and wrong" gets to prevail? Let's see .... hmm whose got the biggest gun or bomb? Or perhaps whose got the most money? Or ....
That is why Atheism reduces "right" and "wrong", "good" and "bad" to nothing more than a meaningless personal opinion.
IslandBard 2 years ago
The laws of logic.
Logic needs no assumptions; they're self demonstrable, self necessitating.
I place my own ability to know truth over nothing. If you were to disprove one of my arguments with logic, it would be disproven, I wouldn't cling to it.
As to what is right and wrong, I already told you; empathy. Do you disagree?
PrometheusWithLight 2 years ago
"Logic needs no assumptions; they're self demonstrable, self necessitating."
OK. Then answer me this simple question:-
"Is it logical to jump out of a fourth story window?"
Remember you claim it does not need any assumptions, it is self demonstrable, self necessitating.
Therefore you should be able to answer this with a simple yes or no. And that answer should remain consistant in all circumstances (remember it needs no assumptions by your reckoning).
IslandBard 2 years ago
I note you haven't replied to my logic test.
Let me make it easier:-
Is it logical to jump out of a FIRST story window?
Remember by your claim it needs no assumptions, it is self demonstrable and self necessitating.
Therefore by your declaration you need no other information to answer this question.
IslandBard 2 years ago
Without any other information, the need to jump out the window is neither self demonstrable nor self necessitating. Thus, it is illogical to jump out of a first story window for no reason at all.
PrometheusWithLight 2 years ago
"Without any other information, the need to jump out the window is neither self demonstrable nor self necessitating. "
THAT is the point - to reach a logical conclusion you NEED other information.
The logic of jumping out a first story window is NEITHER self demonstrable NOR self necessitating. To KNOW if it is logical or not REQUIRES that you gather additional information.
BUT if you can't gather the information PERSONALLY your decision is going to rely on WHO you choose to believe.
IslandBard 2 years ago
(cont.)
Now six people in the corridor give you six conflicting accounts of circumstances you can't personally check out. The logic TO YOU of jumping out the window depends on WHO you believe and who you don't.
The decision you make will APPEAR logical - but it is really dependent on WHO you chose to BELIEVE for the extra info required for that logical process.
(cont.)
IslandBard 2 years ago
Just because a scientist has a theory does not make it true. If you accept it, it is because you BELIEVE he is right, not because you KNOW he is right.
And like everybody else you base YOUR logic on that belief. MY logic is based on information I have received from the prophets and Apostles of the Lord and what *I* have personally observed. MY choice is to believe THEM along with my own senses. Atheism wants you to believe it's logical and everything else is illogical - it is a BELIEF choice.
IslandBard 2 years ago
All of Twain's books are free from copyright, and available online, so the inability to lift a heavy hardcover book shouldn't be problematic.
I'm not asking you to believe the book. I'm asking you to READ it, so you know what I'm talking about.
Yes, I know Hitler wrote a book. You should read it. You don't have to believe it, just read it.
You should also read the Quran, and the Gita, and Mormon.
Each of these books has unquestionably affected mankind, and is worthy of reading, at the least
PrometheusWithLight 2 years ago
Actually I HAVE read the Quran, the Book of Mormon, the Vedas, several other "holy books", the Von Danekin (spelling? - it has been a while) series, in fact quite a few others also. That is why I know the futility of aimless and "unanchored" reading. There are millions of OPINIONS out there but no real way of KNOWING for sure what is the truth.
In the end the ONLY thing you can LOGICALLY do is *CHOOSE* who you will *BELIEVE*, and who you will not believe, is telling you the truth.
IslandBard 2 years ago
(Cont.)
The Bible is exceedingly logical and sensible - unless you simply choose to assume the Lord does not exist.
But the incredible thing about following Christ is once you have decided to follow Jesus it is no longer about something you have read, it becomes something you EXPERIENCE first hand.
Following Christ is not about a book, it is about a - RELATIONSHIP.
My faith is no longer based on a mere book, it is based on a personal experience of, and relationship with Christ Himself.
IslandBard 2 years ago
Nope. Hypothetically, if there were millions of opinions out there, and you had no logical basis to determine which is right, you'd logically have to apply equal skepticism to all of them.
Personal experience, I'm afraid, is neither an argument, nor evidence. It's not an argument because I can't perceive your perception; it's not evidence because it's not testable.
Besides, it's quite possible that this "relationship" you have is with an imaginary friend; it's happened before.
PrometheusWithLight 2 years ago
"if there were millions of opinions out there"
*IF*??? There ARE millions of opinions out there.
The point you missed is that unless you have personally experienced a fact you CANNOT "know" it to be a fact, you can only BELIEVE it to be a fact. This is because you are not relying on your own senses, you are relying on the word of somebody else or on your own mental conjecture. (cont...)
IslandBard 2 years ago
"Personal experience, I'm afraid, is neither an argument, nor evidence."
I never said it was an argument or evidence - for YOU. You can only know what YOU have personally experienced. You can only BELIEVE or not believe what somebody else has experienced.
*I* know what I have experienced, your only choice is to either believe it or not believe it. But that's the same with EVERYTHING you have not personally experienced. (cont...)
IslandBard 2 years ago
I first believed, THEN I experienced. The point is the Lord is not seeking those who will only obey Him if they are FORCED to for they will rebel at the first opportunity they can. their obedience is imposed externally. He is seeking those who desire to obey Him of their OWN freewill for their obedience comes from within THEM. A bird in a cage is ownership, a bird who stays without a cage is RELATIONSHIP.
Believing nobody is paranoia. Believing everybody is gullibility. We ALL choose SOMEBODY
IslandBard 2 years ago
Adam and Eve were not punished for eating a piece of fruit, but for disobeying a direct command. Does not ANY good father do the same for HIS children. But even Adam and Eve are given the opportunity to be saved and perhaps they will. Make no mistake, if you perish you will perish by your OWN choice, not by Adam and Eve's.
(cont.)
IslandBard 3 years ago
The Lord has declared there is no other way to be saved than through repentence and obedience through Jesus Christ. So understand that refusing salvation and rejecting the power and Authority of the Lord through Christ Jesus is effectively declaring to the Lord that you would rather die/perish than obey Him.
BUT understand it has ALWAYS been YOUR decision to make. You CAN reject the Lord as sovereign ruler of all the universe. Just understand that it is YOU, yourself who then choose death.
IslandBard 3 years ago
The fruit was supposed to represent the knowledge of good and evil. Tell me, how could he punish them for disobeying a direct order, when they couldn't logically know that disobedience was bad until they comitted the act?
A good father gives his kids knowledge of good from bad BEFORE expecting them to live up to it, not after.
Albert Einstein: A pacifist, made terriffic leaps in the field of science. Damned to hell.
Adolf Hitler: A sociopath, but accepted jesus. Heaven awaits.
Yeah.
PrometheusWithLight 3 years ago
What makes you think Adolf Hitler is going to Heaven? He clearly did not follow the word and command of Christ Jesus. Salvation is for those who are obedient to Christ, not those who are not. Calling yourself a Christian will not save you.
It is well documented Hitler paraded in public as a Christian but in private spoke as an Atheist.
Jesus Himself declared that many who cry "Lord, Lord" and think themselves Christian will not enter the Kingdom but will be rejected. (cont...)
IslandBard 2 years ago
Peachy.
Both Albert Einstein and George Carlin are better men than many who call themselves christian. I'd actually go so far as to call them at least as good as those who actually do what Jesus says. Yet, neither Carlin nor Einstein accept Jesus. If hell awaits them, then your god is not righteous, he's egotistical.
PrometheusWithLight 2 years ago
What is "good". You do not believe in the Lord so by WHOSE standard are you judging these men to be "good" and on what basis do you accept THEIR judgement to be the truth?
Is it not just YOUR opinion that they are "good". Why should the Lord (or anybody) bow to YOUR opinion?
It is not about being "good", it is about obedience and aknowledgement of the sovereign power and authority of Christ OVER you. Heaven is a *KING*dom, not a democracy. It is RULED by Christ, not by "Christians".
IslandBard 2 years ago
:D I judge according to empathy. Empathy is the logical basis for morality.
Didn't you say Hitler wasn't allowed in heaven? He was a catholic, Mein Kampf was quite clear that he acknowledged the sovereignty of god n' jesus.
Also, it seems a bit arbitrary, doesn't it? You're supposed to accept that a Jewish man what was once nailed to a piece of wood is your king, without a shred of evidence that he exists.
Heaven: the world's largest gated community.
PrometheusWithLight 2 years ago
"Didn't you say Hitler wasn't allowed in heaven? He was a catholic, Mein Kampf was quite clear that he acknowledged the sovereignty of god n' jesus."
What he did in public is very different to what he did in private. But as I said before going through the motions of Christianity does not get you entry to the Kingdom of God if you do not actually OBEY the word of God. I saw little evidence of Hitler loving even his enemies. Followers of Christ do not commit murder, especially mass murder.
IslandBard 2 years ago
No true Scotsman fallacy.
We can't say conclusively what Hitler did in his private life, as there's a lot of hearsay and rumors floating around. We can say, however, that Christianity was used, at the very least, to justify the holocaust to the public, and that the German citizens didn't exactly overthrow the guy.
PrometheusWithLight 2 years ago
There is a detailed record by one of his aids who kept a journal of many of his private conversations. You might call it "hearsay" but it is an historical document and account like most others from which we determine history.
As to the holocaust I think you will find publicity was the LAST thing Hitler wanted.
As to overthrowing him even some of his senior officers tried to assassinate him. As to the citizens, dictators DICTATE, that is why they call them "dictators".
IslandBard 2 years ago
You're correct. I might, and indeed will, call it hearsay. The evidence shows quite clearly that Hitler fit the bill as a sociopath; as such, it's quite impossible to figure out exactly what it was he was thinking.
PrometheusWithLight 2 years ago
"without a shred of evidence that he exists."
Just because you close your eyes and refuse to open them does not make all the evidence disappear. It is all still there as my videos point out.
IslandBard 2 years ago
But your videos are just attempts to explain the evidence at hand with the premise that god exists, and created the earth 10k years ago. You dismissed radioactive dating, no doubt thinking of carbon dating alone (archaeologists and geologists have many other methods of radioactive dating,) with no basis whatsoever, citing a study on the effects of xenoliths, the problems of which can be avoided simply by not sampling from the xenolith, but rather, from the surrounding rock.
PrometheusWithLight 2 years ago
"But your videos are just attempts to explain the evidence at hand with the premise that god exists, "
But is not Atheistic Science theory just an attempt to explain the evidence at hand with the premise that god does NOT exist?
The point of the videos is that it is not the actual evidence itself that denies the existence of the Lord, it is the Atheistic science THEORIES that try to explain it while steadfastly denying the existence of the Lord as something totally impossible. (cont.)
IslandBard 2 years ago
There is actually no scientific reason why the Lord cannot exist, it is only that Atheistic scinence point blank REFUSES to consider the existence of the Lord as a possibility.
It therefore AUTOMATICALLY rejects any theory that suggests the Lord exists and doggedly searches for ANY theory that negates the necessity for the Lord to exist. It also rejects any Scientist that proposes that the Lord exists ("Creation" *scientists* being the prime example).
(cont.)
IslandBard 2 years ago
The point you have to appreciate is that if YOU are not prepared to seriously question the theories of Atheistic Science then you are accepting them as YOUR gospel and scripture.
If you will not consider the possibility that Atheistic Science has got it wrong then you are making Atheistic Science YOUR god and "higher authority".
I know in who *I* have placed my absolute faith and trust, in whose hands I have placed MY life. Do you really know in who YOU have placed your absolute faith?
IslandBard 2 years ago
There's no such thing as "atheistic science."
Science makes testable explanations. We're not saying god is impossible, we just want evidence.
Creation scientists are rejected not because they posit a creator, but because their hypothesis is either untestable, or flatly contradicted by the evidence.
My mind is open to any evidence. That's how I came to your video in the first place, someone submitted it as evidence.
That said, I scrutinize the evidence I look at, so I don't accept garbage.
PrometheusWithLight 2 years ago
"My mind is open to any evidence."
Are you sure? It seems to me that you are already convinced in your own mind that the Lord does not exist. What you are seeking is not EVIDENCE of His existence (which is all around you), what you are seeking is PROOF of His existence.
The simplest explanation for all that you see is the Lord indeed exists. And yet you eagerly discard it as evidence the moment a scientist proposes an unproven complex THEORY as to how it MIGHT POSSIBLY happen without a God
IslandBard 2 years ago
You see it is not the evidence that denies the existence of the Lord, it is the convoluted unproven THEORIES of scientists who seek to explain the evidence in the *ASSUMED* ABSENCE of a God.
If you are dismissing the evidence on the basis of scientific theory and explanation that ASSUMES the absence of a god then you are not impartially assessing the evidence, you are CHOOSING to BELIEVE the word of the scientists. But even THEY do not know if they are right or wrong. They only have a THEORY.
IslandBard 2 years ago
No, I'm seeking evidence. The thing you don't understand is, evidence must withstand scrutiny. The easiest explanation for ANYTHING is god did it, but easy doesn't mean right. Rainbows aren't thought to be a symbol of god's promise to mankind not to massacre us by flood anymore. Now we know, it's just the refraction of light through airborne water droplets.
PrometheusWithLight 2 years ago
"You dismissed radioactive dating, no doubt thinking of carbon dating alone "
ALL methods of radioactive dating are subject to serious SCIENTIFIC doubt as to their accuracy or consistency. Many scientists have found them to be wildely inconsistent and have seriously questioned the MANY unproven assumptions on which they are based.
It is all over the 'Net, people can look up the ongoing Scientific debate for themselves
IslandBard 2 years ago
There is no scientific debate, not even on the net.
From what I've seen, the only data submitted against radiometric dating comes from people who, in their procedure, have clearly violated the preconditions necessary to use the dating method.
One study often cited was performed to assess the effect of xenoliths on the age of a rock. I've mentioned this before; a simple visual inspection can weed out any xenoliths.
PrometheusWithLight 2 years ago
So what you are saying is radiometric dating is accurate and any scientist who says it isn't doesn't know what they are doing. Tell me this, on what basis do you claim the authority and superior knowledge to declare one eminent, highly qualified scientist right and another equally eminent and highly qualified scientist as wrong?
When even the scientists themselves disagree by what divine insight do YOU declare knowledge of which one is right and which one is wrong? Do you know more than they?
IslandBard 2 years ago
(cont.) But I'll leave it to people to check out for themselves the multitude of divisions and debates going on in the Scientific community itself.
IslandBard 2 years ago
Can you give me a study in which a highly qualified scientist makes this claim, and demonstrates it through experiment?
If he fails to use the dating method properly, it doesn't count, and calls his "expertise" into question. (For example, judging the age of a recent lava floe by dating its xenoliths would be "doing it wrong." Carbon dating on something more than 10k years old would also be "doing it wrong."
PrometheusWithLight 2 years ago
"Heaven: the world's largest gated community."
It will only be a problem to those not allowed through it. You see the Gates of Heaven are the way OUT of the prison you are in.
IslandBard 2 years ago
It was a joke. You missed the point of it.
PrometheusWithLight 2 years ago
I know it was a joke on your part. I was just pointing out what you missed. Jokes are an easy way to avoid seeking the truth.
In case you hadn't noticed the purpose of gates communities is to keep troublemakers and undesirables OUT. The Kingdom of the Lord *IS* a gated community. And the Lord and Jesus guard it very carefully.
Many a true word is spoken in jest.
IslandBard 2 years ago
"D I judge according to empathy. Empathy is the logical basis for morality."
Empathy is an emotional function not a logical one. It is a heart thing, not a head thing.
The LOGICAL basis for a "standard of behaviour" (morality implies good and bad which are meaningless concepts if life is nothing but animated matter as Atheism renders it) is actually self-preservation. Self-preservation is more assured in a controlled environment. The question is WHO gets to control it?
IslandBard 2 years ago
Logically, it would be immoral to force on someone else something I wouldn't want. I wouldn't force rape on someone, because I wouldn't want to be raped. It's quite the logical function.
I grant you, the reason for the popularity of empathy is probably survival. Preservation IS more assured in a controlled environment. That's why there are so many criminals and unpleasant people. Morality demonstrates variation too, and is just as subject to natural selection.
PrometheusWithLight 2 years ago
" I wouldn't force rape on someone, because I wouldn't want to be raped. It's quite the logical function."
So the LOGICAL follow on from this statement is rapists WANT to be raped, murderers WANT to be murdered, robbers want to be robbed, etc.
Laws do not exist because people are naturally empathetic, they exist because they are NOT. You don't have to make laws about things people do NOT do, you have to make laws about what they DO.
(cont.)
IslandBard 2 years ago
Laws are a measure of DYSFUNCTION. Increasing laws are not a measure of increasing morality, they are a measure of increasing IMMORALITY.
A society has more laws because they NEED more laws to control increasing immoral behaviour, not because they are more civilised. A truly "civilised" society needs no law enforcement for nobody does what is wrong.
IslandBard 2 years ago
Following a religion and following Christ are not the same thing. Many who call themselves "Christian" are but the "strawmen" of Satan.
But about Adam and Eve you do not appear to be familiar with the account. The Lord indeed DID warn them beforehand that if they ate of the fruit they would "surely die".
But any good parent will tell you a child cannot always understand why they must obey even when it is imperative that they do.
(cont.)
IslandBard 2 years ago
A child has no concept of death until the child encounters it. How could they possibly know what death means?
PrometheusWithLight 2 years ago
THAT is why obedience is so important. You cannot always explain to a child WHY it is important to obey, just that they MUST obey ... for their OWN safety and wellbeing.
That is why a good parent teaches their child to obey whether or not they understand why. If my kid is running out onto a busy road I want him to STOP! immediately, not after I spend 10 minutes explaining road safety rules and the concept of being runover by a car.
IslandBard 2 years ago
(cont.)
To save my kids life I will do whatever it takes to make him obey FIRST, ask after.
By the way, the other thing you are forgetting (or appear to be unfamiliar with)is that the Lord made a habit of walking with Adam and Eve in the cool of the evening BEFORE this incident. They would have spoken about MANY things and He would have taught them many things BEFORE this.
IslandBard 2 years ago
Right, but they'd've been incapable of understanding good and bad without the apple.
How could they possibly know death is a bad thing?
How could they possibly know obedience is a good thing? (And that last one is debatable anyway.)
PrometheusWithLight 2 years ago
As I have pointed out in other responses we do not know everything the Lord taught them before this point of time so your comments are unfounded and without factual authority.
It is the tree of KNOWLEDGE of good and evil, not the tree of UNDERSTANDING of good and evil. Knowledge and understanding are not the same thing.
IslandBard 2 years ago
Huh.
Me, I'd explain to my kid about road safety before he even went out. But of course, in this case, they wouldn't be able to understand anyway, because they don't know what bad means yet!
And here's the thing; if your kid was running into the street, you'd stop him. If adam and eve were endangering themselves with that fruit, god could poof the fruit to a different spot, and give 'em a stern lecture.
PrometheusWithLight 2 years ago
It was in their heart to disobey. THAT is the point. Preventing them from disobeying does not change the fact they desired to disobey. Lecturing might change what is in the head, but it seldom changes what is in the heart.
The Lord has great things in store for His people - but they are things and abilities that cannot be entrusted to a rebellious heart.
It's not about the head, it is about the heart. It is about trust, loyalty, love, will, desire, obedience, bonding, etc.
IslandBard 2 years ago
But does not a father have the right to expect obedience in his OWN house? If you do not wish to obey the head of the household in which you live then what right have you to partake of all that HE provides? Surely if you reject his authority you should also reject ALL that he provides you. In the case of the Lord that is EVERYTHING, your existence included.
IslandBard 2 years ago
The father only has a right to expect obedience if he first teaches the kids that disobedience is bad. Again, adam and eve can't know good from bad without the apple, thus, they can't know disobedience is bad, thus, they can't be expected to obey.
PrometheusWithLight 2 years ago
"Again, adam and eve can't know good from bad without the apple, thus, they can't know disobedience is bad, "
Says who??
They knew what the Lord had commanded and His warning that if they ate of it they would die. BUT they chose to BELIEVE the serpent and NOT believe the Lord. They desired to be EQUAL to the Lord, not obedient to the Lord.
(cont...)
IslandBard 2 years ago
They KNEW what they were doing was rebeling against the authority of the one who made them. It is the REBELLION against the Lord's authority and word that is the issue and they KNEW they were doing that.
IslandBard 2 years ago
They knew they were rebelling, sure.
My point is, they didn't know that was bad.
PrometheusWithLight 2 years ago
By WHOSE authority do you declare what they did and did not know? The Bible is silent on everything they did and did not know before they ate of the fruit. As we have no other source of information we know of there is no way for you to know everything they did or did not know before they ate of the fruit. Only that they knew MORE after.
IslandBard 2 years ago
On the bible. It says in the bible that the fruit contained the concept, or "knowledge," of good and evil. Logically, without that, to them, good and evil would be meaningless. (Thus, their "lack of shame" when going nekkid (because everyone knows nakedness is immoral.))
PrometheusWithLight 2 years ago
The serpent presented them with logic, which is neither good nor bad. They understood the logic. Given that they had nothing to compare the argument to, I'd deduce that god presented them with no logic, other than "because I told you to bitch!"
As to who says they can't know what bad is, that's what the bible says. The fruit is what gave them a concept of good and evil.
Again, read "The Mysterious Stranger" by Mark Twain.
PrometheusWithLight 2 years ago
The serpent presented them with FALSE logic. The serpent KNEW they would die - he just CONNED them with false logic.
They did not become like god as he promised, they DIED like the Lord warned them. They COULD have eaten of the tree of life and lived forever for it was not barred from them until AFTER they had disobeyed.
So called "Logic" has been the justification for many a great evil. Stalin "logically" killed thousands. Hitler millions, Pol Pot multitudes. All deemed "logical".
IslandBard 2 years ago
Hang on there. Those killings weren't based on logic. Those people were killed as scapegoats, or because the respective dictator felt like it at the time.
This, as opposed to the fruit; the serpent's statement that "god doesn't want them eating the fruit because they'd be like him" seems quite valid in light of the rest of the old testament, in which god proves his jealousy repeatedly.
Moreover, even god referred to it as the fruit of knowledge; who wouldn't seek to learn and improve themself
PrometheusWithLight 2 years ago
"that's what the bible says"
The Bible does not say they had absolutely NO knowledge of right or wrong before they ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. They had all the knowledge the Lord had taught them to that point. The Bible does not state what the Lord had already taught them. you have no authority to declare they had a total absence of knowledge of good and evil, only that they had MORE knowledge after - to their detriment because they were not ready for it.
IslandBard 2 years ago
The bible heavily implies that the fruit contained the very concept of good and evil. No matter what god "taught" them on the subject, without the concept of evil, they can never truly understand it.
Try teaching someone how reverse induction works without teaching them about electricity. That's the kind of learning difficulty I refer to.
PrometheusWithLight 2 years ago
you really believe god committed near-genocide by flooding the world? why would you worship such a homicidal maniac? lol
hehe troll/sniper alert, better block me straight away, i got nothing but criticism for your brand of lurid religious propaganda.
Elvisdogg 3 years ago
You assume the universe revolves around mankind. What makes you think man is worthy of saving?
The miracle is the Lord is GRACIOUS and MERCIFUL enough to save SOME of mankind despite MAN'S general inhumainty, violence, cruelty, exploitation, neglect, etc. of MAN.
That DESPITE man's unworthiness of being saved from HIMSELF the Son of God HIMself died so at least SOME might be saved.
Mankind might think itself great in its OWN eyes - but it is not MAN'S eyes that will judge him.
IslandBard 3 years ago
Battered wive's syndrome. He beats me because I've done something wrong. He beats me, but he loves me. If I do what's right by him, I won't be beaten.
The worst part is, a battered wife genuinely can't see anything wrong with this line of reasoning. All objections have been beaten out of her.
PrometheusWithLight 3 years ago
Wrong analogy altogether.
Evil and rebellion are a communicable disease. You see Earth as some shining light of the universe. Haven't you ever considered the possibility the rest of the universe might see it as a quarantine station from which only those proven free of evil and rebellion will be permitted to leave?
You judge by YOUR opinion, but you are not in charge of the Earth, let alone the universe. By what right do YOU claim to be lord of the universe that YOUR opinion should rule?
IslandBard 3 years ago
(cont)
Try the analogy of jail. Jails are full of innocent men ... just ask them!
IslandBard 3 years ago
Jails are used for two purposes; to isolate, or to rehabilitate. Isolative jails attempt to make the prisoner's life comfortable. Television, games, books, and the like are all available. Prisoners in this case are merely separated from society, because evidence suggests that they can't be trusted not to hurt people.
Rehabilitative jails eventually release the prisoners, hopefully as better people.
The point is, jail isn't a "punishment," it's a means of preserving freedom and safety.
PrometheusWithLight 3 years ago
You missed the point entirely. Perhaps I should have explained it more, sorry.
Inmates are not in prison because THEY consider themselves guilty in their OWN eyes. They are there because they are judged guilty by those who have POWER and AUTHORITY over them.
Likewise just because MAN considers himself innocent in his OWN eyes it does not make him so. Especially if one exists that has the power and authority to judge him in THEIR eyes.
IslandBard 3 years ago
They aren't in prison just because they're guilty. They're in prison because not only are they guilty, but it's necessary to isolate or rehabilitate them for a safe and free society. Holding and expressing beliefs isn't a punishable offense, lest society fail to be free.
PrometheusWithLight 3 years ago
But the point is THEY do not think they should be in prison. They are in prison because somebody ELSE judged them. THEY do not accept the judgement that has been placed on them any more than you accept the judgement that the Lord has placed on you.
But those that cannot be rehabilitated cannot be released. In the same way those on earth who cannot be rehabilitated cannot leave the earth. THAT's the whole point of it all.
IslandBard 2 years ago
If evil is a disease, I contend to you that religion is typhoid Mary.
I won't make any assumptions as regards to life through the rest of the universe, but even in that situation, the solution is to determine, through logic, what is right and wrong? I find it unlikely that the rest of the universe is ALSO guided by a bronze age storybook.
I judge according to my logic. I also give my logic, that others may decide for themselves if I'm right or wrong, and if I am, to explain why.
PrometheusWithLight 3 years ago
I agree "religion" is far from innocent. But religion is a manmade phenomenon.
I am not in a "religion", I am in a relationship. I do not belong to a church, I belong to a person, a person who is of the Elohiym, not of man. I bow to no man on Earth. Yahweh is my Father and Jesus Christ my saviour Lord and King. I do not bow to a religion, I bow to THEM. I do not obey the command of a religion I obey THEM and THEIR word only. Though NONE go with me I still will follow ... THEM!
IslandBard 3 years ago
You're in a religion. Religion is a type of relationship, it's a worshipful relationship with one or many whose existance you can't demonstrate, but whose commands, though hearsay, you never question.
PrometheusWithLight 3 years ago
No, I just can't demonstrate it to YOUR satisfaction. MY relationship with the Lord and with Jesus (as with all true followers of Christ) is a very PERSONAL relationship. It is like a marriage, not like a religion (unless your calling marriage a religion also - in which case you have an exceedingly broad definition of "religion").
There are those who never question science either, I guess that makes Science THEIR religion.
IslandBard 2 years ago
"guided by a bronze age storybook."
You only ASSUME this book comes from man. Have you not considered that those who are more advanced than man will also be much OLDER than man. Have you not considered that this book comes from one who is far older and wiser than man, even NOW, let alone back then.
If you give a child a book full of wisdom, it is no less full of wisdom because the child has grown up or years have passed . Judging a book by its AGE is as bad and illogical as by its cover.
IslandBard 3 years ago
Unquestionably, the oldest copies of this book we can find now are written by man. Positing a hypothetical "more advanced, much older" race of beings is no different from just saying "gawd did it."
The important part of that phrase was "storybook." It's not a book of wisdom, unless you think it's wise to beat children to death for cheeking their parents.
Besides, there's nothing wrong with judging a book by its age, in some contexts. Metaphors don't change, but our knowledge does.
PrometheusWithLight 3 years ago
"I judge according to my logic."
But logic does not exist in a vacuum, it is built upon a foundation of "premises" or "givens". 99.9% of what you THINK you know you have not personally experienced, you have been TOLD. Be it from teachers, scientists, politicians, media, books, historians, parents, friends, collegues, etc.
99.9% of your logic is based on WHO you have chosen to believe and who you have not. MOST of it is BEYOND your ability to prove it by direct personal experience.
IslandBard 3 years ago
(cont.)
Like everybody else you are simply chosing WHO you will believe, WHO you will trust, in WHOSE word you will ... place your faith. ... BUT... it does not mean what they say is true.
We all have two choices. We can SEEK the truth, or we can just ASSUME we have the truth and stop seeking it.
The hard question you have to ask yourself is are you really still SEEKING the truth or have you simply settled for an assumption of truth.
IslandBard 3 years ago
This, as opposed to, say, burning someone for all eternity because a thousand years ago, their ancestor ate some fruit, and nowadays, they don't believe that a Jewish carpenter was nailed to a piece of wood until he died, was then resurrected, and flew into the sky, all to save people from being burnt for all eternity.
Yep, ancient ancestor ate some fruit, combined with not believing a seemingly ridiculous story, the two together validate eternal torture. That makes sense, just like jail.
PrometheusWithLight 3 years ago
Again you have missed the point of the Bible entirely.
If you want the point of the Bible in a nutshell it is something like this:- Mankind is NOT the centre of the universe. The universe does not revolve around man. MAN does not rule the universe. There is an ultimate power and authority in the universe to which ALL things must answer and give account including each and every person on earth. (cont.)
IslandBard 3 years ago
And my point is this;
the very idea of something being the "center of the universe" is flawed. All things are relative. There is no ultimate power and authority, and even if there was, you only THINK it's the center of the universe. It's not. There is no "most important" because importance is subjective. There is no "most powerful" because power is subjective. There is no "most good," because good is subjective. Read up on the newer philosophers.
PrometheusWithLight 3 years ago
And you wonder why the Lord will not allow those with THIS attitude into *HIS* Kingdom.
Even the mouse is free to challenge the lion to a fight ... but he will not win, only perish.
The WISE mouse walks WITH the Lion in peace and SAFETY knowing there is none greater than he who protects him.
Understand you merely ASSUME that in all the universe there is non MORE powerful, MORE wise, MORE advanced than man himself. You place man as the ruler of the universe. (cont...)
IslandBard 2 years ago
Jesus expressed it better this way Luke 14:31 "Or what king, going to make war against another king, sitteth not down first, and consulteth whether he be able with ten thousand to meet him that cometh against him with twenty thousand? 32 Or else, while the other is yet a great way off, he sendeth an ambassage, and desireth conditions of peace."
Would you be not wise to FIRST find out if there is one GREATER and MORE POWERFUL than man before declaring you will fight allcomers and bow to none
IslandBard 2 years ago
You fail to understand my statements. Power, wisdom, and advancement, all are illusions. I won't say I'm more wise, more advanced, or more powerful, because each of those is a relative concept.
PrometheusWithLight 2 years ago
Yes and relative to man the Lord is more powerful, more wise and more advanced.
Now your options are to fight against Him and lose everything you already have (existence included) or unite with Him and gain the greater wisdom, power, knowledge, and understanding HE offers you.
The Lord never hid the fact that the choice He offers you is life or death. The only question that remains is what do YOU choose for yourself?
But understand that what we believe does not change reality one iota
IslandBard 2 years ago
(cont.)
So your choice is to either just settle for the ASSUMPTION/GAMBLE the Lord does not exist. OR you continue to earnestly seek the actual truth of whether or not He exists.
But understand if your just taking a gamble that He does not exist the stakes involved are your life and existence. A wise man would be seeking the truth and would not stop until he found it. Only a fool gambles his life away on the flip of a coin.
IslandBard 2 years ago
Yep, that's pascal's wager alright.
Here's the thing; if god is to be worthy of my company, he'll have to be logical. Being logical, he'd have to understand my skepticism. Thus, if god existed, and he were worth hanging out with, he wouldn't mind me doubting him.
On the other hand, if god existed, and he were a vain, narcissistic, jealous fucktard, I'd rather not grace him with my presence.
PrometheusWithLight 2 years ago
"he wouldn't mind me doubting him."
But you are not doubting Him, you are rejecting Him. One who doubts but who WANTS to know the truth seeks it. If you REALLY wanted to know if the Lord really exists the first thing you would do is *genuinely* ASK Him to let you know the truth because you WANT to know it with all your heart and mind. (If you can't trust the Lord to tell you the truth about Himself then who can you trust). (cont...)
IslandBard 2 years ago
If you aren't prepared to do that it means you've already made up your mind there is no God so it is useless praying to Him. It also means you are no longer seeking to know if He exists having assumed He doesn't.
BUT the Lord is very open and honest about who He is and what He is like. Remembering Jesus is also the embodiment of the Lord.
So both OT and NT this is the Lord. You can't make Him be anything else. You choice is to accept Him as He is or reject Him - and accept the consequences
IslandBard 2 years ago
I can't reject him unless I think he exists. Until then, I merely doubt that he exists. I was raised as a christian. I asked him if he existed repeatedly as a kid, but never got a response. Back when I was a kid, I figured he had more important things to do. From my experience, if your deity does exist, this is not a valid test of his existence.
PrometheusWithLight 2 years ago
There is a difference between "testing" and seeking, but as I said the Lord looks to the heart.
The real question you perhaps need to ask yourself is what will you do if the Lord does exist?
Do you want the Lord to exist or would you rather He did not exist? Another way of saying it is would you ACCEPT and embrace the Lord as He is or would you resent obeying Him and having Him in control.
It is seldom JUST about whether or not He exists. Admitting He exists FORCES a response from you.
IslandBard 2 years ago
According to the Lord, anyway.
Relative to man, your god may be more powerful, or more weak, depending on what "power" means. Your deity may be more "wise" or less, and he may be more or less "advanced," depending on what you mean by these things. I presume your definition of power is "who can chuck a planet the farthest." Power can be more complicated than brute strength y'know.
It sounds to me like you're throwing pascal's wager at me. That won't validate belief.
PrometheusWithLight 2 years ago
The REALITY of accurate and detailed Biblical Prophecy foretelling the future indicates the Lord has power over Time. The Flood, the exodus plagues and miacles, etc. indicate He has power over the natural forces of the Earth. Sending one Angel to defeat a whole army indicates greater military force. Sodom and Gomorrah indicate control of immense forces of destruction. in Ezekiel, Revelation and elsewhere there is a suggestion of advanced technology of some description, etc. the list is endless
IslandBard 2 years ago
I'm simply pointing out what the Bible declares. The answer lies in what you WANT to do. Do you WANT to know the truth or have you already decided what you WANT to be the truth.
The Lord is not testing your HEAD, He is testing your HEART and SOUL.
Just like He did with the Israelites the Lord is laying a proposal before you, a choice of life or death. A chance to be rescued from a doomed and dying world or perish along with it. (cont.)
IslandBard 2 years ago
It is not a matter of endless debate. It is not a point scoring exercise. It is not about trying to prove how smart you are.
It is an INDIVIDUAL offer to each and every person on the planet. What anybody else thinks of you dos not matter one iota. It is about what we do with the offer.
Accept it, reject it, ignore it, disbelieve it, it is YOUR choice to make for YOURSELF.
You will not be judged by anybody elses choice, nor they by yours.
A wise person would SEEK the truth.
IslandBard 2 years ago
According to Harry Potter and the sorcerer's stone, Ronald Weasly can use his wand for telekinesis.
I'm not impressed by stories.
If your deity wants to make me an offer, he should make me an offer. If he's omniscient, he should realize that I'm skeptical of books describing the supernatural, and should come down and show me that it can happen. I'm just a skeptic; I can be convinced with evidence. I just haven't seen any yet.
PrometheusWithLight 2 years ago
Hey I don't believe the Harry Potter stories either. BUT Scientific Theories are also "stories" told by a scientist to try and explain things. There is no guarantee it is a true story (even the scientists will tell you that). It is just a story they THINK might be true, often with far less convincing evidence than the Bible can offer. And yet you are happy to believe THEM.
We all choose WHO we will and will not believe. Some just don't like to admit it.
IslandBard 2 years ago
3. Turbulence: Although I truly doubt this would pose a significant effect, if it did, it would result in a layer of mixed fine and coarse grain sandstone.
4. Stagnation would result in shale.
5. Recession would result in erosion only. Deposition would occur underwater.
6. Further stagnation may result in crystalline salt deposits, as well as shales.
This model is inconsistent with the evidence, and does not explain, in particular, metamorphic rock.
PrometheusWithLight 3 years ago
Now, your multiple layer model:
1. Your thinking short term tsunami, not ongoing tsunami. Plus your ignoring the layers of MUD laid down by the recent tsunami of SE Asia.
2. Torrential rain causes FAST FLOWING masses of runoff capable of moving vast masses of rock and earth.
3. MASSIVE turbulence moves EVERYTHING, EVERYWHERE. The result will depend on MANY factors including the base landforms under the flood.
(cont...)
IslandBard 3 years ago
4. With stagnation comes also evaporation and mineral deposition and formation.
5. ALL deposition occurs underwater, coming or going. Unless it disappears into thin air EVERYTHING eroded is deposited somewhere. Erosion depends on HORIZONTAL speed, not verticle height. Fast moving water erodes, slow moving water deposits ... in EITHER direction.
YOUR model is in much error, but the strata that exists is consistent with massive water movement.
IslandBard 3 years ago
"This model is inconsistent with the evidence, and does not explain, in particular, metamorphic rock. "
???
Metamorphic rock is formed by intense heat and volcanic action, not water and floods. SEDIMENTARY rock is formed by water. But as the videos point out increased volcanic activity is likely AFTER a worldwide flood.
IslandBard 3 years ago
Metamorphic rock is formed by intense heat and pressure. So why is it layers of metamorphic rock are found atop layers of sedimentary rock? This can only be explained through tectonics.
I think you might have been thinking of igneous rock; let's do that, shall we? During your flood, lava from the volcanoes would have met with water, and dramatically cooled, resulting in obsidian. Your flood layer should contain more obsidian than any other layer.
PrometheusWithLight 3 years ago
It appears you have not heard of "contact metamorphisis". Igneous rock is solidified magma but metamorphic rock is pre-existing rock that has been changed by heat and/or pressure. When magma at extreme high temperatures intrudes into sedimentary layers the heat it brings with it can metamorphise the surrounding sedimentary rock. This can occur ANYTIME after the sedimentary layers have been laid down. Lava can also metamorphise the rocks over which it flows leaving the deeper strata unaffected.
IslandBard 3 years ago
(cont.)
But all that aside tectonic activity did not stop when the flood did. Tectonic activity is still occurring. That some metamorphic rock is found atop sediemtary rock means nothing more than the metamorphising event or tectonic event occurred after the sedimentary event.
IslandBard 3 years ago
As regarding obsidian I once again point out that a worldwide flood would not produce *A* flood layer but a MULTITUDE of strata. Plus the increased downward pressure of billions of tonnes of water is likely to suppress volcanic activity DURING the flood and increase it AFTER the flood as the downward pressure is released. You theory is unsubstantiated on many levels.
IslandBard 3 years ago
Your "theory" doesn't explain igneous rock found interstitial to the strata.
Contact metamorphosis doesn't explain metamorphic strata over an extremely large area. Moreover, there would be clear signs of contact metamorphosis, namely, its close proximity to igneous rock.
If you're saying all apparent tectonic activity on the earth happened within the past 10k years, please realize that the resulting earthquakes, tsunamis, and vulcanism would destroy all life.
PrometheusWithLight 3 years ago
"Your "theory" doesn't explain igneous rock found interstitial to the strata."
WHY? Your making these vague "inferences" without actually substantiating them. It is a deceptive ploy I've come across many times and it is not a game I'm interested in playing.
IslandBard 2 years ago
As to tectonic activity there is no reason to not assume it has been ocurring for the whole existence of the Earth. The Flood is only ONE single instance of geological activity. It does not preclude any other geological activity before, after or during.
Since when has anybody claimed that the flood is the only geological event to have ever occurred on the earth??
IslandBard 2 years ago
Rather than accuse me of making vague inferences and playing games, you could just ask me for a source.
For example, in New York, the Ladentown Basalt is found interstitial to sedimentary deposits.
I have, by the way, been picking out evidence to show that your model is contradicted. You're being rude by implying that I'm not living up to that standard.
PrometheusWithLight 2 years ago
The point is you are making claim after claim without explaining why they contradict the flood. You just did it again.
You fail to explain why you think the Ladentown Basalt disproves the flood.
Basalt is evidence of quick cooling by whatever method. Water cools as quickly as air. In addition the flood was not the last ever geological event to lay down sedimentary layers.
The Ladentown Basalt does not contradict the flood, it can quite happily co-exist with it.
IslandBard 2 years ago
It's an even basalt layer laying on top of a metamorphic layer (metamorphosed by the lava, natch,) and below that, a sedimentary layer.
Above the basalt there is a sedimentary layer only.
According to your flood model, there should be a thin layer of metamorphic rock on TOP of the basalt as well, separating it from the next sedimentary layer. This tests false, no metamorphic layer exists on top of it.
PrometheusWithLight 2 years ago
Only if that layer was laid before the basalt intrusion, which, on the evidence you have given, indicates it wasn't. Understand not EVERY single sedimentary layer is necessarily due to the Flood. Cataclysmic geological events did not suddenly stop with the flood.
The point is that WITHIN the geological column lies the strata you would EXPECT from a worldwide flood. It does not mean that EVERY layer of the column is due to the flood. (cont...)
IslandBard 2 years ago
Understand It's the uniformitarian THEORY that denies the flood, not the actual evidence contained in the geological column itself.
Many scientists are now coming to realise the geological column can only be explained by a series of rapid cataclysmic geological events, not an eons long slow accumulation as posited by the old traditional uniformitarian view.
The "Cataclysmic" theory, by the way, is not just a creationist theory, it's a theory held by many mainstream secular scientists also.
IslandBard 2 years ago
4. Yeah, that's what I meant by crystalline deposits.
5. Given receding waters, the water would be moving faster on land, where it's actually receding, as opposed to in water, where it stops receding. Thus, receding water should erode the land, and deposit when it gets to large bodies.
The strata that exists is not consistent with massive water movement.
MY model is in error? Why? What evidence do you have that shows my model is wrong? Thus far, you've just presented a counter-model.
PrometheusWithLight 3 years ago
Regarding receding water its horizontal speed depends on the slope of the underlying land and the depth of the water. (eg receding water moving down verticle cliffs has virtually no horizontal movement and hence no erosion. Receding water that is deep and wide tends to have much slower horizontal movement also).
EROSION is a factor of the rate of HORIZONTAL movement. (cont.)
IslandBard 3 years ago
(cont.)
But yes rapidly moving surface water will erode and then deposit when it reaches deeper slower moving water. This will result in broad alluvial coastal plains, massive deltas and massive underwater alluvial "shelves". BUT THEN these also exist around the world as evidence don't they.
IslandBard 3 years ago
As do mountains, glacial sedimentary deposits, and other such contradictions of your model.
PrometheusWithLight 3 years ago
"As do mountains, glacial sedimentary deposits, and other such contradictions of your model. "
Again - WHY do they contradict as you claim?
IslandBard 2 years ago
"MY model is in error? Why? "
It is contrary to observable facts, realities and phenomena. It does not accord with the real world evidence.
IslandBard 3 years ago
That "why" part? I was asking for specific examples. What observable facts does it contradict? What phenomena? What evidence? Just saying it's contradicted isn't enough. You have to point out the evidence, and explain why.
PrometheusWithLight 3 years ago
"Just saying it's contradicted isn't enough. You have to point out the evidence, and explain why."
Does not the same standard apply to you??
IslandBard 2 years ago
1. The layers of mud were layed down AFTER the initial wave. The violent water keeps the finer particles dissolved until things quiet down. That's why an ongoing tsunami would lay down coarse sandstone.
2. The water has to run to the run off first, and as it goes, it picks up a good deal of earth, but not stone. That's why it would likely be charged with more fine particles than large ones.
3. Turbulence would move everything. That's why the result would be a mixed grain stone.
PrometheusWithLight 3 years ago
1. An ongoing tsunami is receding water in reverse. It is only turbulent at its leading edge where it is shallower and fast moving (horizontally). As the body of water behind it gets deeper and wider it moves less turbulently.
But that's the point. there was nothing "neat" about the great flood. It was an everchanging and rapidly changing dynamic interaction of many factors. Hydraulic, landform, slope, horizontal speed, direction, geology, tidal (lunar) influences, etc. (cont...)
IslandBard 3 years ago
THAT is why you will not find a neat "flood layer" but rather a multitude of strata laid down by the UNIQUE progressive changing dynamics of the flood IN THAT PARTICULAR location.
Remember *ALL* sedimentary rock strata has this one thing in common ... they were laid down ... UNDERWATER!
IslandBard 3 years ago
Again, said model would only explain the existance of fine and coarse grained sedimentation. How about the thick layers of calcium carbonate, which could only be laid down by coral over a long period of time?
PrometheusWithLight 3 years ago
Who said coral reefs and shell beds etc. did not exist BEFORE the Great Flood??
Recent tsunamis have demonstrated that they can rapidly accumulate vast shell beds. Obviously they could also pulverise reefs. But there is no reason why these things could not have accumulated BEFORE the flood. Remember we do not know what was land and what was ocean before the Flood, only what we have after the flood.
IslandBard 2 years ago
Reefs take time to accumulate. THAT was my point.
On what basis do you say that layer distinctions can't happen via slow accumulation? While it is true that steady deposition would blur the lines between layers, erosion and subsequent deposition would explain the sharp change.
PrometheusWithLight 2 years ago
Yes REEFS take time to accumulate, but they had plenty of time to accumulate BEFORE the flood. BUT pulverise a reef in ONE DAY and overlay it with a layer of sediment and presto you have a calcium carbonate rich layer / strata ready to be formed into limestone over time. Floods create layers from materials EXISTING BEFORE the flood. Geological events AFTER the flood change them.
It is a misunderstanding of geological processes to try and make the flood do EVERYTHING.
IslandBard 2 years ago
From this, I gather you're NOT a YEC. Although it seems you believe in a biblic flood, in the literal version of genesis, there's only about another 2k years before that, certainly not enough time to account for the rate of formation you're talking about. (There are limits to how much carbonate will dissolve in the ocean before it kills all life.)
Question: if you're allowing for an old earth, why bother with a recent catastrophic flood, when it goes against radiometric evidence?
PrometheusWithLight 2 years ago
I am a person who believes the word of the Lord.
Apart from the well reported dissention and doubt in the scientific community as regards the accuracy of radiometric dating there is something else you should also consider.
The Lord does not declare how old the SUBSTANCE of the Earth is. Genesis declares that for an UNSPECIFIED length of time the earth lay void and in darkness BEFORE the first day of creation. Five minutes or a few million years, who but the Lord knows? (cont.)
IslandBard 2 years ago
I suggest you reread the beginning of Genesis and understand that in the modern parlance of science in six days the Lord "TERRAFORMED" the Earth from a lifeless, dark ball of water and rock into the lit and living world we see around us.
He did this using the MATERIAL the earth was made of.
The Lord created the LIVEABLE planet on which man exists and man himself. BUT He created it all from the materials that existed an unknown time BEFORE the first day. (cont.)
IslandBard 2 years ago
So the bottom line is you can believe the rocks of the earth, and the substance of fossils, etc. is as old as you WANT to believe they are. It STILL does not disprove the Biblical account given by the Lord.
He has not told us how long the rocks and water have existed.
"In the beginning" is NOT the first day, it is "the beginning" in which the heavens and the dark ball of rock and water called "Earth" was created. Light (day) and the first day did not come until an unknown time after.
IslandBard 2 years ago