alphaparticle

We all have weaknesses and struggle with stuff. It's not cool to shift the blame onto others, even if we are sure if they would only dress in that sack things would be so much easier...

I don't see what this has to do with creationism at all. I believe God created all things, I just think He did it through the Big Bang and evolution... unless that means I am a creationist by your definition also (which is fine).

What kind of God might use the Big Bang and evolution? An omnipotent and omniscient one might. The discerning reader might also note, as nebula pointed out, that 'evening' and 'morning' are not going to have an obvious meaning before the sun supposedly is created, and therefore might wonder about the historical factualness of the creation account in general. Perhaps the aim of it is spiritual and theological in nature rather than an attempt to lay out precisely how God created the universe. The only god, that would have used evolution, is a deceiver and one that enjoys suffering and death. The real God of course did not, The lying god just made up the story, Revelation 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. Suffering and death appears to be a part of the temporal world. Perhaps the total good that comes from it outweighs the total badness. Only God could have all the relevant information to make that sort of determination. There is no deception here- the deception would be to make a world that looks like it is billions of years old, that evolution is true, but then have it be false. Hmmm... Evolution does not appear to be true and the Earth does not look billions of years old. Are you sure you are being objective? Imagine you are trapped on an island all by yourself with nothing but a Bible. Would you conclude the Earth was billions of years old? I might conclude it's fairly old. What kind of equipment am I given? It's clear to me things are in the realm of billions of years old. That's not even up for real debate.

What kind of God might use the Big Bang and evolution? An omnipotent and omniscient one might. The discerning reader might also note, as nebula pointed out, that 'evening' and 'morning' are not going to have an obvious meaning before the sun supposedly is created, and therefore might wonder about the historical factualness of the creation account in general. Perhaps the aim of it is spiritual and theological in nature rather than an attempt to lay out precisely how God created the universe. The only god, that would have used evolution, is a deceiver and one that enjoys suffering and death. The real God of course did not, The lying god just made up the story, Revelation 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. Suffering and death appears to be a part of the temporal world. Perhaps the total good that comes from it outweighs the total badness. Only God could have all the relevant information to make that sort of determination. There is no deception here- the deception would be to make a world that looks like it is billions of years old, that evolution is true, but then have it be false.

A print about the size + erosion, which it turns out to most likely be based on the intracicies of the shape. So was there ever a conclusion to what it actually was? I thought the prints had been proven to be a hoax. This is what I discovered: http://www.nytimes.com/1986/06/17/science/fossils-of-man-tracks-shown-to-be-dinosaurian.html

this has nothing to do with 'morals' or 'modesty'. It's entirely a cultural standard. Clearly feeding a baby is a nonsexual action so it's hard for me to begin to see what the problem is here.

There are a couple reasons for this. One is that people who are more intelligent are more likely to become unbelievers altogether. If less intelligent people want to leave the faith or don't convert to it they are more likely to be joining other religious groups. Why is this? It could merely be a cultural artefact, atheism/skepticism/agnosticism in part sells itself as an intellectual exercise. That effect could be bolstered by the fact that certain institutions (such as the scientific community) tend to cultivate unbelief. It may be that certain styles of intelligence make it harder to have faith. They also make it harder for people who are less intellectually inclined to feel welcome in that community. I think there is a real correlation there, but so what? That doesn't mean there aren't extremely intelligent believers out there, but there is a larger mix of people in the believing community, which is what you'd expect.The ultimate point in my mind though is that none of this has any bearing on what the truth actually is.

I don't see how that is relevant to what actually happened. No one on either side denied God's omnipotence.

A print about the size + erosion, which it turns out to most likely be based on the intracicies of the shape.

So God is a literal photon source, like a lightbulb? No, I don't think I could subscribe to that hypothesis. That is clearly a non literal use of the word 'light'. God is what ever He wants to be. Can do all things. With Him all things are possible, so the argument "God couldn't have done it that way" becomes futile. You are claiming to have a better understanding of the word light than God? God created photons, yet you think you are smart for knowing they exist? Funny The claim that God *is* a literally photon source is problematic on many levels, one is simply that God is not a physical being, and existed prior to any photons existing.

1. There's not enough energy in the universe? energy is conserved in interactions, almost by definition there is enough energy. The universe is not 100% 'electric'. There are four fundamental forces in the universe, the electromagnetic force is one. 2. Finding mammals in the pre-cambrian? by all means, share with us. 3. ions are atoms that have an extra electron or two compared to protons (or vice versa, in which case they are often referred to as cations). They are not the fundamental building blocks of things. Maybe you should tell me, what do you think relativity is and why do you think it is wrong? Relativistic corrections go into your GPS system. The most spectacular evidence that Relativity is true though are given by nuclear weapons which work because of the relativistic mass-energy relation. Relativisty, special and general, is incredibly well tested and established empirically on multiple fronts. The most advanced quantum mechanics we have has relativistic corrections in it. 4. So the fact that we have actually been in space and seen this entire system is irrelevant to you? How about the guys who went to the moon, or was that a conspiracy in your estimation? 5. no. Besides which, there are other radioactive isotopes we can use to do dating. 1. I've seen energy decay until it escapes our Universe. In fact if Modern Cosmetology is to be believed only about 8.8% of the original energy is left in our Universe. The Universe can not be both expanding and decaying at the same time but yet they say that the Universe is 156 Billion light years thick but only 13.77 Billion light years old. 2. There is pretty much nothing fossilized in the Precambrian except deep sea creatures but would you settle for Dinosaur and Human footprints found together? http://www.dinosaurc14ages.com/footprints.htm 3. I really shouldn't be talking about things nobody knows about except an elect few. http://www.holoscience.com/wp/ Has a good crash course in the Electric Universe Cosmetology Model. Satellites use software tricks to correct for differences in GPS triangulation but it's all based on a static Earth model. Quantum Mechanics is still not advanced enough yet to get down to calculating individual electrons and neutrons working together in what I call Ions (Technically the only thing in existence beside Ions is Neutrons) 4. We have seen the system. Even I have seen the system. I know how it works and all is consistent with a Geocentric Earth model. However remember that Geocentric does not mean flat as some mockers like to suggest. 5. Doesn't matter which element is used because all elements are breaking down like I posted in number 1. Equilibrium has not yet reached it's Climax and under best estimations it would only take 30,000 years to reach equilibrium from the formation of the Earth. This problem is ignored by Scientist as it's 'Unthinkable' to them. All questions have answers, feel free to ask me some if you desire as I have been studying science intently for many years. 1. Energy doesn't decay, it changes forms.It's all there, in different forms. So you're seeing it decay and escape our universe, dare I ask where and how? 2. Those are widely not regarded as human made footprints. 3. what? Advanced quantum mechanics is relativistic. What you call 'ions' is just wrong. GPS uses general and special relativistic corrections. That's a fact. Did you share how you think nukes work? 4. No, that model is not consistent with what we've seen. If geocentrism were true, they would not have to account for the movement of earth, relative to the sun, when sending out various probes. 5. Radioactive isotopes decay via the weak force, at rates that can be studied experimentally extremely carefully, as well as modeled theoretically.

So God is a literal photon source, like a lightbulb? No, I don't think I could subscribe to that hypothesis. That is clearly a non literal use of the word 'light'.

What kind of God might use the Big Bang and evolution? An omnipotent and omniscient one might. The discerning reader might also note, as nebula pointed out, that 'evening' and 'morning' are not going to have an obvious meaning before the sun supposedly is created, and therefore might wonder about the historical factualness of the creation account in general. Perhaps the aim of it is spiritual and theological in nature rather than an attempt to lay out precisely how God created the universe.

1. There's not enough energy in the universe? energy is conserved in interactions, almost by definition there is enough energy. The universe is not 100% 'electric'. There are four fundamental forces in the universe, the electromagnetic force is one. 2. Finding mammals in the pre-cambrian? by all means, share with us. 3. ions are atoms that have an extra electron or two compared to protons (or vice versa, in which case they are often referred to as cations). They are not the fundamental building blocks of things. Maybe you should tell me, what do you think relativity is and why do you think it is wrong? Relativistic corrections go into your GPS system. The most spectacular evidence that Relativity is true though are given by nuclear weapons which work because of the relativistic mass-energy relation. Relativisty, special and general, is incredibly well tested and established empirically on multiple fronts. The most advanced quantum mechanics we have has relativistic corrections in it. 4. So the fact that we have actually been in space and seen this entire system is irrelevant to you? How about the guys who went to the moon, or was that a conspiracy in your estimation? 5. no. Besides which, there are other radioactive isotopes we can use to do dating.