Tristen

C14 is an interesting side-case to the other "radioactive dating" methods. The starting assumptions in C14 dating are far more local, and variable, and therefore far less trustworthy. However, in the short term (over a few thousand years), we sometimes have local artifacts of actual known ages - against which to calibrate this method. I too have seen many carbon dated items give 'ages' into the future. My examples have all been under 10,000 years. But my impression is that this is a common outcome. It is a shame that modern journals don't publish full data sets anymore. There is, unfortunately, a positive results bias across all of science publication. This means we no longer have access to the data needed to assess the method itself. It is only "possible" if, a) one (or more) of the assumptions failed, or b) the sample was contaminated. Sure - but is it a testable "reason"? It has become a very convenient rationalization to simply disregard disagreeable data as sample "contamination". And then, Whoa!!! - what are we left with but data sets in overwhelming agreement. Funny how that happens. And therefore gets a big green tick. And by "known dates", you mean "dates" previously established by other methods using the same set of unverifiable assumptions. But not "known" in the sense of observed rock formation. I only point this out to demonstrate that allegiance to the method forces you to apply biased assumptions and use exaggerated language. Right - so that is the propaganda. - Apart from an investigator determining that the generated 'age' "dated to an appropriate period", how do we know that an assumption is "good"? - How do we distinguish between a "good" assumption and a false positive result? - What do we do with the "millions" of data points generated by "radioactive methods" that fall outside of expectations (apart from simply not reporting them)? - What do we do about the many examples of dating methods disagreeing with each other, or disagreeing with the fossils, or even disagreeing with themselves? Regardless of how you answer the above questions, these inexorable components of the methods remain "assumptions" - i.e. unobserved, unverified, unverifiable elements which are a logical requirement of accepting supposed 'ages'. Therefore, regardless of how pompous the posturing and propaganda, no-one is rationally obligated to accept the methods as valid.

Sorry - a bit late to the party. I'd suggest that there are far greater problems with "radioactive dating" than the old earth assumption. 1- The logic of "radioactive dating" is compromised by a fundamental, necessary, irreducible reliance upon a slew of unverifiable assumptions (and yes - that includes isochron dating). If even a single one of those assumptions happens to be wrong, then any supposed "ages" generated by the methods are entirely meaningless. 2- There is already a lot of evidence that the assumptions are commonly false (e.g. by testing newly generated rock formations). In fact, older geological papers commonly use the failure of these assumptions to explain why their data didn't line up with expectations. 3- The common impression of generated 'ages' being in overwhelming agreement is a demonstrable lie. It is very easy to find examples of "ages" disagreeing with each other. Or 'ages' that are so far outside of expectation as to be automatically rejected. Or where the 'ages' are rejected because they disagreed with the assumed fossil 'ages'. I recently read an old paper that tested the same sample (a single zircon (rock crystal)) seven times using the same method, generating seven different 'ages' (with non-overlapping errors). Furthermore, these methods really should be in agreement more often - because many of the methods have been calibrated against each other by, a) rejecting 'ages' that disagree with those 'ages' generated by more trusted methods (i.e. leaving only agreed 'ages'), and b) literally calibrating one method to the other (i.e. using two methods, then using the 'age' generated by one to establish the decay rate of the other method). This practice should generate a bias towards broad agreement between the methods - which is still not achieved (despite the propaganda). Another bias is due to the detection limits of the equipment - meaning that the method chosen is determined by the expectation of the investigator. That is, only certain methods can be theoretically used for certain expected 'ages'. Therefore, it is common for investigators to only use methods they consider to be valid for the 'ages' they are expecting. I therefore don't trust "radioactive dating" whatsoever. I'm sure they can generate a relative pattern - but nothing precise enough to produce anything resembling a trustworthy 'age'.

If someone is "offended" when you "politely decline the meal", then they are being unreasonable. There are many reasons a person may "politely decline the meal". Many people nowadays fast for non-spiritual reasons. Many are on restrictive diets. It may be because of diabetes, or lactose intolerance, or Chrones disorder etc. Some medications affect appetite. People have allergies. Maybe you are just not hungry - that is allowed. etc., etc. There are so many valid reasons to "decline the meal". It is therefore absurd for the person offering the meal to assume offense. I suppose you could say you are currently on a restrictive diet. If you feel so inclined, you could tell them your diet includes periods of fasting. They don't need to know why. I think the Matthew verse is more about having the right attitude - that your fast is between you and God (and not anyone else's business)- as opposed to a legalistic prohibition on mentioning that you are fasting. That is, don't be like the religious leaders who would use fasting to play the self-righteous martyr - to show everyone how holy and pious they were.

God is not "mad" at you. Or do you really think you surprised God into an emotional reaction? God knew exactly what He was getting with you - and He loved you anyway - with a love beyond comprehension. If your feelings tell you otherwise, then your feelings are lying to you. It is your responsibility to make a decision to trust what God's Word tells us, and to reject the lies of your feelings. Forget about what other Christians appear to be doing. They either will go through, or already have gone through, an experience similar to yours. Your walk with God is your own. And forget about striving to be anyone other than yourself. Stop comparing yourself to others. Just get to know God. Talk to Him about what is on your mind - honestly. Let Him speak to you through His Word, through sermons, through circumstances etc.. No pressure. Constant striving puts out the flame in many Christians. Fellowship with God is not a chore, but relationship. You talk when you have something to say, and God talks when He has something to say. Otherwise, you can simply enjoy each other's company. If you think you are too angry or lax, talk to God about it. God's kingdom is "righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit". If you don't have that, ask God how to get hold of it. It's not supposed to be rocket surgery 😊 .

1 John 5:19 We know that we are of God, and the whole world lies under the sway of the wicked one.

Of course you can "honor God" - by treating her with love and acceptance, by being kind and patient with her, by being the closest thing to Jesus she will ever likely encounter besides Jesus Himself (ideally). The child is now a reality - and loved by God. There's no reason you have to stop being friendly towards her. We were all corrupted by sin - before we found His grace. This friend is no different. She, like many others, has been deceived into thinking her sexual proclivities are morally acceptable. With a baby on the way, she is about to go through some challenging times (as is true for all new parents). This is an opportunity to show Her the love of God. Pray for her, see if she has needs you can help meet, get other Christians around her if possible. Only Jesus can give her righteousness. If you show her His love, perhaps He will use you to turn her heart towards Himself in repentance. If she asks, be honest about the truth - that God loves her overwhelmingly but is very clear regarding His disapproval of homosexuality. Then the choice will be hers as to what she does with that information. But otherwise, be Jesus to her as much as you have opportunity. "Love never fails".

Revelation 20:2 He laid hold of the dragon, that serpent of old, who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years; It was certainly Satan. My question is, 'Why are snakes are held accountable?' Genesis 3:14 So the Lord God said to the serpent: “Because you have done this, You are cursed more than all cattle, And more than every beast of the field; On your belly you shall go, And you shall eat dust All the days of your life. I may be overinterpreting this - but it seems like a curse on all snakes - which now travel on their bellies. So I wonder how the progenitor snake earned this curse. Or maybe it only refers to Satan, and the biological snakes moving on their bellies is an ancillary coincidence.

You ask a question, but then "Oy vey" everyone who presumes to provide you with an answer from a perspective you disagree with. Why waste time asking questions when you will refuse to consider the answers? Never mind - I will "Oy vey" myself if I can - to save you the effort. EDIT: Oy vey!

Hey fp, This question can be addressed from several angles. - The term “repentance” simply refers to a change of direction. In the case of salvation, we turn towards serving God (in righteousness), and away from serving ourselves and the corrupted desires of our flesh. In confessing Christ as Lord, we make an active decision to enter into His process of sanctification – allowing the Holy Spirit to separate us (our behaviors) from the corrupted world. That is, even though we stumble, we always turn back to God (repent). That is the direction we have chosen to travel. - Central to the concept of Christian repentance is the recognition that sin is bad – not just in some ethereal, abstract, theological sense, but literally bad for us. Sin destroys us. Sin is the lie that we are missing out on something if we behave with righteous self-control. Sin is corruption, and deceit, and bondage, and death. Sin is not good nor to be desired, but rather something we need to be saved from. - By contrast, righteousness is health, and freedom, and peace, and joy. Righteousness means we are in control of our actions – rather than being dictated to by our flesh. Righteousness is the power to live the all-conquering life God prepared for us. - The reason we need a Savior is that we are corrupted beyond the capacity to be righteous enough to save ourselves. Perfect righteousness is the standard. We have all fallen well short. There is therefore no super-moral act that could add righteousness to our account. Nothing we do can ever earn God’s favor. Our salvation comes entirely by trusting in the grace offered through the Gospel of Christ. Therefore, Christ alone is exclusively deserving of all glory - we cannot take any credit for our own salvation. Nothing we ever did, nor can do, can ever make us deserving. - To receive that salvation, one must sincerely surrender ownership of their life to the lordship of Christ as a faith response to His Gospel. That decision infers that we are no longer our own masters, but He is our Master/Owner/Lord. In choosing to make Jesus our Lord, we are choosing to surrender our behaviors to Him – i.e. to do those things that are in our eternal best interest – i.e. to live the free, overcoming, all-conquering life He created for us to enjoy – i.e. to have dominion over our flesh, rather than be enslaved to its desires. - Because He loved us and saved us, we love Him and desire to do the things that are pleasing to Him. Good behavior is a natural response to comprehending His salvation – and the love expressed through His sacrifice for us.

It is ironic that you posture yourself as intellectually superior, but at the same time ignore my arguments - choosing instead to resort to logic fallacy (Appeals to Motive and Innuendo) as well as patronizing rhetoric. You have decided to be disingenuous in your responses. Therefore, I agree that further conversation with you would not be fruitful. I have no doubt. And you choose to end on more logic fallacy; more Innuendo and Appeals to Motive. My "larger point" was very clear - I claimed you made an unfair and unfounded generalization in an earlier comment. I called you out to justify your comment, and you decided to start dishonestly accusing me of nonsense (e.g. "political correctness"). So be it - you are not accountable to me.

You have not established your claim in "fact" whatsoever. My decision to check you on what I consider to be an unwise statement is not a legitimate example of "political correctness". Ironically, trying to belittle an opposing view by misrepresenting the person (e.g. insinuating that the person is acting immaturely by disagreeing with you) is an established strategy of the politically correct. The politically correct are those who try to control disagreeable speech. Furthermore, the politically correct tend to emphasize the differences between groups in order to generate divisions between them. My point is the opposite of "political correctness". I did not claim myself to be "mature". I claimed that there is a spectrum of maturity across Christianity. And therefore, your insinuation that immaturity is a problem exclusive to "Protestants" is both unfounded, and unnecessarily divisive. It is also absurdly simplistic to treat "Protestants" as a singular, homogeneous group (or denomination).

I would suggest that, for the very reasons you mentioned, your original statement about "Protestants" is a very simplistic and unnecessarily denigrative generalization. Spiritually mature Christians (of all stripes) understand to trust in God's sovereignty. Many who focus on prophecy see fulfilled prophecy as a comfort - affirming God's sovereignty. But there are also many Christians who are still finding their way to this revelation. Is this exclusive to "Protestants"?

Kidnapping is unequivocally, unambiguously prohibited under Mosaic Law. Exodus 21:16 He who kidnaps a man and sells him, or if he is found in his hand, shall surely be put to death. 1 Timothy 1:9-11 knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God which was committed to my trust. Slavery, in general, is a much larger and more nuanced topic - which would have to be addressed on a specific cultural level - as many different types of historical servitude have been described as "slavery". New World slavery (most people's conception of "slavery") stripped individuals (each created by God, in His image) of their human dignity. These slaves were not only kidnapped, but treated as disposable commodities. Slaves in the Ancient Near East (e.g. Greece, Rome) were a class of society. Slaves could run households, and businesses, and even own their own slaves. The slavery of Hebrews under Mosaic Law was voluntary (except for the prospective masters), and temporary - and served as a type of welfare for Hebrews facing hard times. Joseph was a slave in Egypt, but also the second most powerful person on the planet at the time. A slave around Abraham's time meant you were part of a tribe - whose size contributed to your (and the tribe's) survival. A slave enjoyed the protections and resources associated with being part of a larger family structure - albeit from the bottom of the authority chain. I don't say any of this to be Pollyanna about the plight of historical slaves. Slaves could be mistreated in any context. However, even in a free context, poor and vulnerable people can be mistreated by the powerful. - Which is all to say that the claim "God condemns slavery" is too simplistic to be a useful reflection of God's opinion of "slavery".

Are you talking absolute numbers, or a particular percentage?

I think those who have been Christians for a while have witnessed the surprising acceleration of the apostacy over the past few decades.