teddyv

On 4/27/2024 at 8:47 AM, other one said:

 I would post the interview, but you have to be a member to watch it.

I  googled "Tucker interview ballots" and found versions of it in seconds. I assume the full version is the one on Twitter.

50 minutes ago, dad2 said:

God changes things properly. A bit like how forces act on everything. So everything changes when nature changes. It is no surprise that if God changes nature that everything is affected. Men's lifespans, plant growth etc. To look at ratios as if they got here because of this present nature exclusively will result in looking at every aspect and material that changed as if it did not, and imagining separate miracles were needed.  (rather than a change across the board) So every time to look at a ratio you are shocked that some other rock isotope ration could be the same, or work the same. As if that were some fluke or prearranged deception. You also have no basis to your claim. If something has a ratio of isotopes that woulda coulda shoulda taken a million years if formed by decay in this nature, it simply tells us how much of this was here at the onset of our present state. You imagine that it is some weird coincidence because daughter isotopes are now being made. That does not look like something made by billions of years of present nature decay at all! Only to firm died in the wool believers that this present nature was always around.

Everything was affected. So the pattern of creation, then the former state, then this present nature has to exist in all those things. The issue in not how many things (millions not thousands of things) were affected! The issue is your belief set used when interpreting those patterns. Nothing else.

Precisely what is happening. You did not believe the Genesis account of God and embraced the lie of Satan that God did not reaaallly do what He said. Like the serpent told Eve in the garden, that God was lying. She should have believed God instead. The way it looks to you is the way you chose to believe.

Yes, even me for a long time. I assumed what we were taught must be true. Comparing that with God's word, and what is actually known it became clear that it is solely a matter of two beliefs to choose from.

No. They actually do not even know what time is if you dig into it. They have theories about what space time is. Those theories have no relevance outside of the  solar system and area that we know. No one has rode a spaceship a hundred million light years away in space and passed someone riding one the other way for example. They may have put a clock on a plane on earth and noticed that here our time changes a bit.

That is actually false as well. The things that may shift light in deep space need not be the same things that shift light here near earth. Period. One possible example, for the sake of illustration (as opposed to some precise claim of what is happening) could be that time itself affect light. The space and time and whatever else is unseen out there could affect how much time is involved in light moving and indeed might cause a shift. As usual, all we have is fishbowl philosophy here where you try to impose realities from the fishbowl of earth and the solar system area out onto the UNKNOWN.

I guess that is evidence you do not read posts or that you do not comprehend what you read due to heavy beliefs. I already explained that. Parallax measure involves on measure here in the area of this earth and solar system. So one line of that triangle  represents time and space here, not just distance when you draw other lines from it to deep space. In other words IF time and space were the same all the way to the star out there, THEN the measure would be accurate for distance as well. Additionally, unless time existed as we know it all the way to the star, even if the distance were correct, it could take almost no time for light from there to get here! No matter how we look at it you are talking from ignorance and belief alone.

It does not look like a decay chain (unless one were submerged in a belief system that thought it was) Not at all! It looks like ratios of stuff that are now in a relationship based on the laws that now exist. Any other set of forces that used to exist obviously would have also resulted in a relationship between those same materials. One example is man. We used too live well over nine centuries. Suddenly around the time of Peleg (where the change happened probably) life spans plummeted to something like 230 years or whatever. So yes, men still walked and had bones and looked like they used to in large measure. But things had changed inside due to new forces acting on their bodies and minds. From that new standard of living only about 230 years, it then dropped over a fairly short time even further till it reached today's life spans. Abraham lived for example I think it was 175 years. Moses 120 years. David probably closer to 70 years. They say Abraham and Noah lived at the same time when Abraham was young.

 So you do not get to look at how a human body operates now, and is affected by radioactivity etc and claim it was the same since creation. Nor do you get to claim it is some 'massive coincidence' that man still has blood and bones and eyes etc. Like the ratios, we existed before the nature change.

 One exception to the sudden change in life spans was people born before Peleg's time. Noah for example and Shem. Their lives were somewhat longer than normal for the time after the change.

The fact that some substances exist that are not reactive in this nature should be no surprise. What you should have said is 'there is no reason now, in this present nature, for it to exist'! Why should there be for all things? Not all things are a product of this nature! Therefore they need no have a reason to exist here. Looking at the example of man again, there are even a few things that some claim have no great reason to exist in us! Ever consider that they did have a reason in the former nature??

Also, it is bogus to apply the term Gnostic to knowing about the former state and nature of earth, since no one knows what it was! That is the point, we don't know. Science presumes it was the one way!

?

https://www.lpi.usra.edu/science/kring/Chicxulub/images/thumb/ChicxulubZoneOfCenotes.jpg

 

Explain how we know the direction of impact here exactly? If you are correct, fine. We can look at the other explanation of how it did fall as debris. In either case, no one needs your particular belief. But since you made a claim, I wait to see your specs and evidence.

In summary:  Nothing it knowable and reality is unreliable. 

48 minutes ago, Dennis1209 said:

Underground oil is an interesting topic of which I am not well acquainted. It is indeed a hot issue today that keeps the world going around and destroying the earth per leftists, tree huggers, and Mother Earth worshippers, including the Pope.

We all know scientific explanations, hypotheses, and theories come from Darwinian evolution.

I seem to recall reading something a long time ago. Please correct me if this is inaccurate. Oil wells pumped dry decades ago have refilled themselves over time. I cannot recall the source or prove it, but I seem to recall oil wells in Texas and Oklahoma that were depleted decades ago replenishing themselves.

We have all heard the saying, “Oil does not mix with water.” That design was intentionally created with all the freshwater aquifers and oil and its derivatives underground.

As designed, the earth’s water is cyclic, meaning it stays within our atmosphere through its three stages (water, vapor, ice). It is recycled, and much of the water returns to the oceans by tributaries.

If water is recycled, plants and animals produce carbon, the main ingredient of so-called fossil fuels. Is carbon recycled, sinking, squeezed out, and liquified by pressure?

I feel qualified to speculate on the subject, as I do have initials after my name, Dennis, SR. 😊 LOL

Had a quick look regarding replenishing of wells and I see no indication of that replenishment of "new " oil. Rather, it is more likely that the extraction of the main oil bearing trap is subsequently refilled from other oil bearing strata due to pressure differential.

Also, with the advent of newer methods and technologies such as fracking, formerly producing areas could be revisited to access previously non recoverable resources.

14 hours ago, SavedOnebyGrace said:

I've research Biblical Creation for 40+ years and continue to do so. Maybe you could use the following: Pastor David Reagan Presents Evidence for the Gap Theory from the Creation Story

I'll have a look. (Edited to add - I see the heading, but I don't see an article)

I don't accept Gap as a literal historical narrative of the early earth. I think there is some potential value when viewing the Genesis narrative as an early cosmology held by the Hebrews. @FreeGrace, while I don't embrace his view, brought up some interesting textural use of the "formless and void" which further convinces me we are dealing with story-telling and worldview building first and foremost, rather than a treatise on the how and when of these things - theology before all else.

7 hours ago, Who me said:

One has to decide is an explanation that is based on the bible and honours the bible is correct or whether explanations  that ignore the bible and are based on man's ideas are correct.

This is not an either/or proposition. There are alternative interpretations that honour the text, while not conflicting with the general revelation.

7 hours ago, Who me said:

 

If ccreation scientists  cannot give reasonable  explanations neither can evolution believing scientists. 

Creationists create ad hoc solutions to problems, but rarely take the next step of ensuring their solution does not conflict or contradict their other solutions to other problems.

Right now, biological evolution is the best explanatory framework for the diversity of life on earth. That does not mean it is right, but that it's the best current one. There are creationists scientists working on potential models (ICR is into something called continuous environmental tracking). AiG and CMI both accept natural selection and mutation as mechanisms for adaptation and speciation, both part of the suite of known evolutionary mechanisms. I assume they also accept the other mechanisms as well since they are well evidenced and observed. 

14 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

If you took all the miracles out of the Bible, you wouldn't have much left.  For example, having the dead return to life is not possible, yet it happens 10 times in the Bible.  Christianity is predicated on Jesus taking on the sins of the world and raising again on the third day.  God is not governed by the natural laws of the world He created.

Recent studies have estimated that Noah may have cared for 1,398 kinds of land-dwelling animals and flying creatures. This includes all living and known extinct animals. Using a “worst-case scenario” approach in our calculations, there would have been 6,744 land animals and flying creatures on the Ark.  The Ark as described in the Bible had a volume of about 1.88 million cubic feet.  (source) No problem.  Also, not every species were taken, but every kind.  The Great Flood happened about 4,372 years ago; more than enough time for the world to be re-populated.

If your view that Creation and the Flood were wholly supernatural events then I don't have much argument with you.

But here you are making testable claims of ark capacity to hold all of the created kinds (which are rather arbitrarily designed, likely to get the conclusion needed - to fit on the ark), that then somehow speciated into the orders of magnitude more species, while also having even more species going extinct in the last 4400 years. So it's not just about populating, but also extinction.

8 hours ago, Who me said:

I suggest you check out answersingenesis or creation.com for accurate information about what the bible teaches about the global flood.

Other than teaching that the Bible describes a great Flood (true), any of their suggested mechanisms are grossly inadequate ad hoc explanations of what we see in the world around us.

13 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

In my opinion, the primary evidence that the commonly taught idea of fossil fuels is incorrect stems from the fact that the earth is NOT billions of years old.  However, things like gold, diamonds, coal, oil, gemstones, natural gas, silicon, lithium, copper and iron were in the earth from the time of creation.  Some call this Mature Universe Theory.  I consider it simply the best way to understand what the Bible teaches us.

Young or old, the earth contains all the resources it has (excepting the occasional meteor impact). That's not really up to debate. Concentration of the these metals and minerals into economic resources for extraction is another matter. Would not a mature creation view essentially say that every copper deposit, gold deposit, lithium deposit was created in place, as-is? But we see the processes that concentrate and create mineral deposits in action today (black and white smokers, hydrothermal activity at Lihir/Ladolam gold deposit).

That source seems like a lot of different voices making various claims including the ones you included, but many others contrary so I'm not sure that is a particularly great source.

4 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Well, that's just the point.  If "nothingness", that is NOT chaos.  

The existence of chaos means that stuff is there.  In a chaotic condition.

With nothingness, there is nothing there.  The words are totally different.

There are 2 keys to Gen 1:2.  The wrong word "formless", which doesn't exist in any object.  According to sources, shape is 2 dimensions and form is 3 dimensions.

So, if you can see an object, you are seeing form.

So the KJV botched "tohu".  But research ALL 10 uses/translations of "tohu" in the OT and you will see what it really means.

Here, I'll do it for you.

chaos, desolation, futile, waste place (3), confusion, formless (2).  But Jer 4:23 cannot be ‘formless’ since it describes the total destruction of land by a besieging army that destroys nations (from context).  So should be 4 x for “wasteland/place”.  None of these words can be applied to original perfect creation of the earth.  ALL of these translations describe very negative conditions.

This is why I said earlier that it is a literary symbol or allusion. It does not represent an actual historical state of the universe or earth. This is language that is consistent with the cosmology of the ancient Hebrews, as well as their contemporaries. Bringing and applying any modern concept to this language is adding to the text.

8 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Is there any evidence from Scripture that God would create the earth in such minute stages that "primordial chaos" would be the starting point?

That doesn't sound anything like the rest of Genesis 1 where the text says:  "let there be" or "let them..." in v.3,6,9,11,14,15,20,24.  

In the Hebrew, it is merely "light, BE!!"  And it was so.  God didn't say anything about "letting".  He simply spoke into existence all the things in the verses cited above.

There is no evidence that God created the heavens and earth in stages, etc.

I'm not sure I follow what you are seeking to clarify. The chaos is the starting condition, nothingness, if you will.

2 minutes ago, BeyondET said:

Scripture would only mentioned the face of the deep, if that's the case. Ice melting doesn't have a face it's just melting.

Or maybe is a literary allusion to primordial chaos...

On 4/4/2024 at 12:52 PM, SavedOnebyGrace said:

According to Genesis 1, when was the Ice Age?

No ice age mentioned in Genesis 1.

Or anywhere else recorded in the Bible.

12 hours ago, SavedByGrace1981 said:

I voted for Trump in 2016. and in 2020 and likely will again in 2024 if he's a candidate. Consider who he was running against in those elections

I've always been conservative and I try to consider the most conservate option of the ones available. Unfortunately and contrary to popular belief, that isn't always the R candidate.  It's never the D candidate. So in elecions like in 08 and 12 I voted 3rd party. 

In 16 and 20 the most conservative was DJT so he got my vote.

My son said, "Dad, how can you vote for a man with Trumps moral baggage?"

Son, we're voting for a US president - not a preacher or a priest

 

Funny how back in the Bill Clinton days, the cons were all about character.

As I recall, Mar-a-Lago has a series of covenants or restrictions on it that forbid development, hence it will never be as valuable as land that can be redeveloped or repurposed.

On 2/26/2024 at 1:00 PM, FJK said:

Wonder how they measured the ocean Temp 284,000 years ago, and did they use Fahrenheit or Celsius thermometers in those days?

This number is a "statistically likely" event value. It's not a cycle that occurs every 284,000 years.

Here's the Live Science article from which the OP was drawn. I cannot seem to locate anything like a source paper.

On 2/18/2024 at 9:44 AM, FJK said:

That is a judgment.

That "court of law", among other things, found that Mar-a-Lago was worth only 18 million, do you believe that? If you do you need to do some research into property values there and after that decide if that Judge committed fraud himself by declaring it to be only worth that to lead to that decision against him.

And now with the red herrings. 

As I said earlier, tribe over truth.

23 hours ago, FJK said:

You make accusations against him, are you willing to stand behind those accusations as truth come the Judgment?

Accusations against another are serious business, we end up judged by the same standards we use to judge others.

I am not making accusations. We have judgments against him by a court of law. 

He probably should have realized that becoming such a public figure would bring much greater scrutiny and exposure to all his dealings.

Or he could have not used shady business practices. And been a molester.

Character was everything, so they said back in the day. Now it does not matter at all. Tribe over truth.

Resurrecting this with some new info.

So True the Vote was in court recently, the ones behind much of the assertions of the "2000 Mules" documentary cannot provide the court any evidence of their allegations. (here)

On 2/14/2024 at 6:04 AM, Starise said:

Many seem to see living as non believers more fun than living as a believer. 

Thoughts?

A couple thoughts:

Some would argue that Christians behave a certain way because of the threat of hell. If that is how someone regards their faith, then yes, that is actually going to be a miserable way to live.

The church has been known to not allow for much "fun" behaviour because of verses like "avoiding all appearance of evil".

My parents, who grew up in the Reformed churches of Netherlands in the 40's and 50's, really hated Sundays because you could do nothing. My mother was not even allowed to read a book because of the "day of rest". It sucked the joy and made religion a burden. It was a case of "Sabbath made for man, not man made for the Sabbath".

4 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Did you know that fractions as we use them today didn't exist in Europe until the 17th century? In fact, at first, fractions weren't even thought of as numbers in their own right at all, just a way of comparing whole numbers with each other.  source

Can you tell me to the thousandth of an inch the length of a cubit? No?  Is it because you're an ignorant bronze aged shepherd, or because a cubit is not a precise instrument of measurement by today's standards?

The ancient Babylonians calculated the area of a circle by taking 3 times the square of its radius, which gave a value of pi = 3. One Babylonian tablet (ca. 1900–1680 BC) indicates a value of 3.125 for π, which is a closer approximation.  source

You have to do better than to use mathematics that were not invented until centuries later.  I've seen this same argument from atheists dozens of times.

The Bible directly states that pi is 3. It's right there in the instructions for the Sea. It's about as prose as language gets. Since it was given a diameter, even if fractions were unknown, the circumference should be 31 cubits - that's an integer, not a fraction. 

The point is, you don't read the Bible literal like you claim to do (and demand everyone else should), or you make allowances for all sorts of things.

No, you read as a modern 20th-21st century person does.

47 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

That which is written literally should be taken literally, and that which is a metaphor should be treated as a metaphor.  There are plenty of each.  When God said the Israelites were carried out of Egypt on the wings of eagles we know it is intended as a metaphor.  When the word says, "the evening and the morning were the first day," we know it means a day.  When it says "in the days of Noah," we know it's talking about a time span.  Noah lived many days in hos 950 year lifespan.  Even proponents of long ages know what the Bible says and what the intended meaning is.  They simply choose not to believe it.

Is pi exactly three?

Interesting that dispensationalism seems to be on the way out with the younger generations.

Also interesting that the survey data is from 2021 and the drop was that pronounced over the period. I would suspect with the latest war with Hamas, that might be dropping even more.

3 minutes ago, Still Alive said:

I'm a creationist, but I don't adhere to  YEC. Frankly, I think that the "age of man" is 6,000 years, but on a very old planet. I compare it to an oil painting on a canvas that has had several paintings on it, each one covered with whitewash and a new painting applied. And if you peal back the layers you will see remnants of previous paintings. 

Or, in the case of the earth the remnant of previous ages. Stuff like Neanderthal man, dinosaurs, etc. All of which were created by God, but the bible is silent on the issue because that's not the subject matter it is focused on. 

I'm not saying that IS what happened. Rather, I'm saying it could be what happened, or something like it. It's easy to speculate on subjects on which the bible is silent. It's why I don't use the bible to help me decide which brand of car to buy, or which breakfast cereal, or brown vs white eggs to buy.

That's fine. I don't have a problem with "I don't know, but this is what I think". YEC as used typically implies a young earth. You might better fit under the Old Earth Creationist (OEC) group, but there is likely various definitions under there as well.

Generally, these discussion are typically rooted in the hypotheses and interpretations put out by the major creationist organizations like Answers in Genesis, Institute for Creation Research and Creation Ministries International.  Since they make testable claims, then they are subject to scrutiny. Unfortunately much of their explanations are on an ad hoc basis and they rarely consider implications of one explanation on another process or interpretation.