Bread_of_Life

Yes, as well as Bibleworks 5.0, which I would also recommend. e-Sword is particularly useful for etymology and such like, and to keep study notes throughout.

Can Do, The answer is quite simple - the dinosaurs didn't die out in the first documented global disaster, but the last documented disaster - approximately 65 million years ago. This event is called the "K-T Boundary" event - and it wasn't only the dinosaurs that died. In fact, all creatures over 25Kg in weight died out at the K-T boundary, mainly because they were top, or near the top, of the food chain. This allowed mammals (at the time very small creatures) to evolve into the bigger creatures we see today, filling the "gap" at the top of the food chain that dinosaurs had left. The K-T Boundary event was most probably caused by a meteor impact, the cratar of which is found of the coast of Mexico at Chicxulub. However, there are several other possible causes that have been theorised for this event, including a so called "flood-basalt" - an unusual spike in volcanic activity. The K-T Boundary extinction is one of at least 4 major extinctions documented in the fossil record, and is the second biggest - 80% of all life was wiped out. The biggest extinction documented, ironically, was the one that allowed the dinosaurs to thrive - the so called "End-Permian" extinction, 230 million years ago. This killed off about 97% of all species. Both of these events are extremely well documented in the fossil record, and cannot be explained by so called "flood-geology". All the best, Nikolai

A day is dictated by rotation, not orbit, and no, it's not always been 24 hours. In fact, it's gradually slowing down (due to tidal forces from the moon) - it used to be shorter. In the 4.5 billion year history of earth, the orbit has speeded up and gradually slowed down again several times. But, in fantasy 6000 year old land, good sense like the above doesn't matter. Keep up the discussion!

Itzomi, The answer is that the account of creation in Genesis, if taken literally, is incorrect. There are various problems with it - many even more fundamental than the question of light before the Sun and Moon. If the Christian faith rested on the literal truth of the genesis account, then Christianity would also be incorrect. However, I think that this is where you're going wrong. The biblical account doesn't have to be true from beginning to end, nor does it have to be literal from beginning to end. The Genesis account, especially the description of the flood, does seem literal - however it likely is a compilation of 2 different creation myths (signifying man's relationship to God and the animals, and man's fall from grace, rather than anything else) - and a global flood myth built up from the very real Red Sea flood. However, the fact that this is so doesn't mean we can reject the rest of the bible lock, stock and barrel. Nor does it mean we have to question our faith in Jesus, or the accounts of Jesus' life in the gospels. The bible is made up of many books, each of which are very different. The gospels are eye witness accounts of Jesus - Genesis is clearly not an eye-witness account, for example. Anyway, I think the main question is "how do we reconcile the fact that genesis is wrong with Christianity", rather than "how do we reconcile the fact that the moon and the sun were created after light". N

I

Done - henceforth I am new baptised (as Romeo would say). New name, new sig, new start.

So, chosen a new sn, but I'm wondering how I do it/who I contact to change it. Probably in the wrong place this post, but hey, I only really know people on this part of the forum!? Many thanks, Nikolai

Eric, It is! N

Eric, Didn't seem to be turned off - I checked it out and still don't have PMing? N

Tess, Weirdly, my inbox just isn't working - I don't seem to have access to PMs at all - I don't know what's wrong with the system. Might contact an admin about it! Will do do. I'm reading "The Age of the Earth" by G. Brent Dalrymple, the definitive text on geochronology. And I'm also reading "Super System 2" by Doyle "The Texas Dolly" Brunson, the definitive text on playing poker to win, and especially no-limit hold-em. And yes, I have been blessed with several friends here who are believers, and who have been very supportive of me thus far. However, I am going to do a church tour starting this Sunday to find a community for fellowship that I feel comfortable with, whose views I agree on. I am also actively looking for some Christian courses to go more in-depth into the Word than I have gotten at simple evangelical courses in the past - so hopefully through these things I will meet more likeminded people. Trinity I think people must be re-reading it over and over because they just don't believe it yet - it'll sink in eventually Wayne Right, exactly. I don't expect God to deal with things for me - I just turn to him to give me the strength and perspective to deal with them myself. All the rest - thankyou again all for your heartfelt and encouraging comments! Again, when I have time, I promise I will respond to them all! Seeking His Heart, Nik

Poor Winace, I'd love to see his reaction! And Tim, I'd love to talk to him again, I often wonder how he's getting along. But no, I've not had the chance to do that I'm pretty sure I said yes, didn't I? And now I have some hope! I hope you'll be less scared now, although my views havn't changed! My conversion had: a) nothing to do with science b) nothing to do with apologetics c) nothing to do with wanting to see loved ones again d) nothing to do with science (worth saying again) However, it did have everything to do with life experience and emotions, and how God has been interacting with my life. More when I finally get to writing it all up and posting it! N

I went to a service a few years back at the Bethesda Evangelical Church in a town called Helensburgh in Scotland. We studied the parable of the prodigal son, and I am still touched by one passage: While he was still a long way off, his father saw him. That's how I see God now - my Father in heavan who, despite my rebellion against him, despite my sin, would stand at the end of His driveway *every day* to watch out for me - and would see me even when I was a long way off. And as He saw me trying to approach Him, He ran to me and embraced me. And I told him: And yet despite this truth He has bestowed upon me more blessings and more peace and more revelation this past week than I might dare count: My message to the people on these boards, praise Him today in prayer and in worship for bringing me back to life! Give thanks to the Lord for He is good, His love endures forever. Blessings all Nik

Everyone, When I have time, I will respond to you all individually - all of your kind words and posts are overwhelming. 2 things to say at the moment, firstly I don't know what sort of a Christian I am - I just know I am one. I am going on a tour of churches, and hoping to find some courses at those churches so that I can search deeper into the Word and make those decisions myself. All I know at the moment is my experience of God is awesome. Secondly, a shout out to SuperJew, love you man. We've been through the mill me and you, but seriously, always respected you. Would love to talk to you, ironically I'm at humeanatheist on yahoo and AIM. best dudes. N ps. Keep those renaming suggestions coming. Still want to keep the science reference in some way, also love John's Gospel at the moment, keep thinking!

Prefer the former - I've always hated the fact that my initials were "SA" (or "Sturm Abteilung", the gymnastic wing to the Nazi Party) - I don't want that to change to SS (the Nazi Secret Police, if anything, worse than the SA). traveller, Thanks dude - that means a whole lot to me! I didn't know people cared all that much - it's *just* me! All the best, Nik

Now that I like - I wanted to keep some sort of reference to science, lest people think I checked my brain in at the door! Keep 'em comin'!

Yes, my nickname. I was fond of that. I was thinking of a small change - ScientificTheist or something like that. Exciting arn't I? Actually, let's open it to the floor - the best suggestion for a new nickname wins

Sure, was actually working on one, but things are moving so fast in my life right now, there's more to add in every day!

So yeah, I'm now a Christian. Any questions?

Not so fast there Whysoblind - there is plenty of evidence that X-X men can exist, as can X-Y women. Sexual differentiation occurs at the end of the first trimester of gestation, through the release (or non-release) of testosterone from the testes. In men, this ought to be mediated by the Y chromosome. However, embryologically, this can misfire in X-Xs, or not fire at all in X-Ys - causing genetically male women, and genetically female men. So in actual fact, the cause of sex differentiation is embryological - it is chemical - but mediated and caused by genes usually. You should also be careful about equating sex differentiation with hetrosexuality. The fact that homosexuality exists means that sex differentiation doesn't always hetrogenise sexuality. Once again, the evidence is that sexual inclination can be affected by the complex balance of hormones in utero. It isn't necessarily purely genetic.

Bump! Cmon Joy, where are ya!

I totally agree, I really do doubt the strength of the childish faith that is biblical literalism. It's just escapism from the real world of doubts and uncertainties if you ask me. Whoever said the above was totally right.

vrspock The square root of -1 (i) is an "imaginary number". It's called "imaginary" because it doesn't really exist - it isn't a quantifiable or describable quantity - it represents a notional second axis on the number line that doesn't actually represent anything in reality. It comes in useful though, for example, in optics this notional second axis can be used to quantify the phase shift of a photon. "i" can also be used in equations where sine and cosine are difficult to use - although even here, this is just for purposes of manipulating equations, you can't actually numerically work out an equation's value if there's an "i" in there. But it doesn't exist, not at least in real life - it doesn't describe anything in the universe. You can't have "i" apples but you can have 1 apple, and you can even have -1 apples, if you consider losses as "real" descriptions of things. Sorry to burst your bubble, but this isn't a reason to dismiss maths (yes, it's plural, mathematics), science, and the laws of the physical universe.

Ted, With all due respect, and although I agree that Ian's method is overly abrasive at times, it is very difficult when you make the difference between the three clear so many times and yet you are ignored. Whereas I don't advocate rudeness, I do sometimes feel like giving up on some people. Human weakness I suppose. Nik

Well, the video was pretty scratchy, but it looked like a ratfish to me. Nik

An excellent site you might want to visit is "radiometric dating: A Christian Perspective": http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html Although it doesn't cover every type of dating, it covers all the most common types that show that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old. If you're really hardcore, you might want to purchase "The Age of the Earth" by G. Brent Dalrymple, although I'd only recommend it if you have a lot of time for such things! If you have any specific questions on particular methods of dating, something maybe you didn't understand at first reading, just PM me and I'll be happy to explain.