SavedOnebyGrace Posted December 22, 2015 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 11 Topics Per Day: 0.04 Content Count: 4,058 Content Per Day: 14.65 Reputation: 5,191 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/30/2023 Status: Offline Share Posted December 22, 2015 4 minutes ago, enoob57 said: Your prideful violation of hermeneutic principle 1 set for by common sense in the very begin separates us from further walking together in reason... Understanding this- what is being said and done now is laid up for an accounting before God in the Judgment Seat of Christ... love, Steven A little bit judgmental, don't you think? And you call me prideful! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enoob57 Posted December 22, 2015 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 35 Topic Count: 100 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 41,228 Content Per Day: 7.98 Reputation: 21,485 Days Won: 76 Joined: 03/13/2010 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/27/1957 Share Posted December 22, 2015 15 minutes ago, Saved.One.by.Grace said: A little bit judgmental, don't you think? And you call me prideful! There is a place in Truth where God alone sits ... this you will know if you die to yourself and draw near enough to Him to know! Do you really think that anything that 'IS' does not sit under the judgment of God? There is only one way to the truth that is through Christ as Jn 14:6 proclaims and since He 'IS' The Living representative of the written Word made living by The Presence of The Holy Spirit as tutor here is where we foundation ourselves and in no other outside source... Love, Steven Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siegi91 Posted December 22, 2015 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 12 Topic Count: 35 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,808 Content Per Day: 1.19 Reputation: 249 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/04/2015 Status: Offline Share Posted December 22, 2015 42 minutes ago, Ezra said: Ask the evolutionists (to whom you belong). Since they take their assumptions seriously, we have to allow them to make these discoveries without the benefit of Divine revelation. Correct. As an evolutionist, I take the assumptions seriously. But what about you? If the article has any substance in your eyes (otherwise you would not have posted it), then I assume that when it talks of geological eras that span 300 millions years in the past, you take that seriously too. Otherwise, what are the logical reasons to mention an article that is based on such huge errors in its basic assumptions? siegi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SavedOnebyGrace Posted December 22, 2015 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 11 Topics Per Day: 0.04 Content Count: 4,058 Content Per Day: 14.65 Reputation: 5,191 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/30/2023 Status: Offline Share Posted December 22, 2015 2 minutes ago, siegi91 said: Correct. As an evolutionist, I take the assumptions seriously. But what about you? If the article has any substance in your eyes (otherwise you would not have posted it), then I assume that when it talks of geological eras that span 300 millions years in the past, you take that seriously too. Otherwise, what are the logical reasons to mention an article that is based on such huge errors in its basic assumptions? siegi You make a good point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enoob57 Posted December 22, 2015 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 35 Topic Count: 100 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 41,228 Content Per Day: 7.98 Reputation: 21,485 Days Won: 76 Joined: 03/13/2010 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/27/1957 Share Posted December 22, 2015 1 hour ago, siegi91 said: The article bases its findings on previous biological history that lasted about 300 millions years in the past. Can this assumption be taken seriously? siegi Your kidding right? The dating methods being used are based on three primary assumptions: The primary way to develop scientific fact is through empirical evidence and unfortunate for the empiricist's they are force to dive off in faith based reason! This being a quotation of I forget who but never the less is factual and acceptable in scientific resolve... Scientists use a mix of observational data and assumptions about the past to determine the radiometric age of a rock. Comparing the amount of a parent isotope to the amount of its daughter isotope and knowing the rate of change from parent into daughter (known as the half-life), the age of the rock can be determined. However, there are several assumptions that must be made in this process. The three critical assumptions are: The initial conditions of the rock sample are accurately known. (thus without scientific data faith based on result) The amount of parent or daughter elements in a sample has not been altered by processes other than radioactive decay. (thus without scientific data faith based on result) The decay rate (or half–life) of the parent isotope has remained constant since the rock was formed. (thus without scientific data faith based on result) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siegi91 Posted December 22, 2015 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 12 Topic Count: 35 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,808 Content Per Day: 1.19 Reputation: 249 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/04/2015 Status: Offline Share Posted December 22, 2015 (edited) 17 minutes ago, enoob57 said: Your kidding right? The dating methods being used are based on three primary assumptions: The primary way to develop scientific fact is through empirical evidence and unfortunate for the empiricist's they are force to dive off in faith based reason! This being a quotation of I forget who but never the less is factual and acceptable in scientific resolve... Scientists use a mix of observational data and assumptions about the past to determine the radiometric age of a rock. Comparing the amount of a parent isotope to the amount of its daughter isotope and knowing the rate of change from parent into daughter (known as the half-life), the age of the rock can be determined. However, there are several assumptions that must be made in this process. The three critical assumptions are: The initial conditions of the rock sample are accurately known. (thus without scientific data faith based on result) The amount of parent or daughter elements in a sample has not been altered by processes other than radioactive decay. (thus without scientific data faith based on result) The decay rate (or half–life) of the parent isotope has remained constant since the rock was formed. (thus without scientific data faith based on result) So, do you agree that the article is based on very wrong premises? Namely that there was a history dating at last 300 millions years in the past. Compared with a world which is a few thousands years old, we are talking of an error in the range of at least five orders of magnitude. i don't know you, but if my accountant tells me that I have 100,000 dollars in the bank, when I have in fact only one dollar, I would probably trust nothing else he says. Would you? siegi Edited December 22, 2015 by siegi91 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enoob57 Posted December 22, 2015 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 35 Topic Count: 100 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 41,228 Content Per Day: 7.98 Reputation: 21,485 Days Won: 76 Joined: 03/13/2010 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/27/1957 Share Posted December 22, 2015 No most of what is being stated factual by scientific means is deceptive to what science based truth is... it is an empirical method deriving fact not assumption and when it fills in the fact-less gaps with non-empirical methods it becomes faith based as a false religion putting forth lies by claiming pure science... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ezra Posted December 22, 2015 Group: Royal Member Followers: 16 Topic Count: 134 Topics Per Day: 0.04 Content Count: 8,142 Content Per Day: 2.35 Reputation: 6,612 Days Won: 20 Joined: 11/02/2014 Status: Offline Author Share Posted December 22, 2015 1 hour ago, siegi91 said: Otherwise, what are the logical reasons to mention an article that is based on such huge errors in its basic assumptions? siegi Sometimes errors have to be posted to contrast them with the truth. Evolutionists have been denying for ages that anything significant happened 6,000 years ago, whereas Christians have been asserting that something did happen. So now we both agree that 6,000 years was a watershed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FresnoJoe Posted December 24, 2015 Group: Graduated to Heaven Followers: 207 Topic Count: 60 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 8,651 Content Per Day: 1.17 Reputation: 5,761 Days Won: 4 Joined: 01/31/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 03/04/1943 Share Posted December 24, 2015 On 12/22/2015 at 1:31 PM, siegi91 said: do you agree that the article is based on very wrong premises? It Mixes The Observable And Measurable Fact That Man Daily Corrupts And Pollutes Plant Earth The earth lies defiled under its inhabitants; for they have transgressed the laws, violated the statutes, broken the everlasting covenant. Therefore a curse devours the earth, and its inhabitants suffer for their guilt; therefore the inhabitants of the earth are scorched, and few men are left. Isaiah 24:5-6 (English Standard Version) With The Scientism Myth That Man Can Affect It's Climate And He got up and rebuked the wind and said to the sea, “Hush, be still.” And the wind died down and it became perfectly calm. And He said to them, “Why are you afraid? Do you still have no faith?” They became very much afraid and said to one another, “Who then is this, that even the wind and the sea obey Him?” Mark 4:39-41 (New American Standard Bible) I Agree As long as the earth exists, planting and harvesting, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night will never stop." Genesis 8:22 (GOD'S WORD® Translation) ~ God is our refuge and strength, always ready to help in times of trouble. So we will not fear when earthquakes come and the mountains crumble into the sea. Psalms 46:1-2 (New Living Translation) Love, Joe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HAZARD Posted January 1, 2016 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 320 Topics Per Day: 0.04 Content Count: 6,830 Content Per Day: 0.84 Reputation: 3,570 Days Won: 1 Joined: 02/16/2002 Status: Offline Share Posted January 1, 2016 Romans 1:22, "professing themselves to be wise they became fools," I will post this here as well because many people sadly believe what men teach professing what they have learnt and believe to be Bible truth. Hundreds of Scriptures plainly and truthfully teach that there was in fact two great floods on this earth. The first, Lucifers flood wiped out EVERYTHING, no light and not one living thing left alive and Noahs flood, there were people left alive, Noah and his wife and his sons and their wives, there were animals left alive, an arc full, there were birds left alive, Noah released a bird, there was DAY AND NIGHT! Peter said these scoffers of the last days, the days we are in now, since Noah, would be ignorant of the fact that the heavens were of old; that the social system ruled by Lucifer on the old Earth perished by water; that the heavens and the Earth since the six days of restoration are kept in store to be purified again- the next time by fire; that the Lord is not slack concerning His promises of final restoration of the earth to its third perfect state; and that God was longsuffering to all men, not willing that any should perish, but all come to repentance. To those who say they believe only what is written in Scripture, yet deny that there was in fact two floods on this earth! Now one either believes these scriptures and accepts that there was two floods, or on must strike these hundreds of Scripture out of their bible, better still, CHUCK IT IN THE BIN, BECAUSE THE REST OF IT MUST BE LIES ALSO? Here are all the Scriptures that show a vast difference between the flood God hit the Earth with in His anger after Lucifers rebellion, and the flood of Noah. Read them, learn and believe what the Bible says and not what men say and teach. The hardest thing I have found to do is to UNLEARN OLD KNOWLEDGE, WHICH IS FALSE, AND RECIEVE NEW KNOWLDGE AND TRUTH. I will head the Scriptures L.F for Lucifers Flood, and N.F. for Noahs Flood. L.F. Earth made waste (Gen. 1:2; Jer. 4:23-26; 2 Pet. 3:5-6). N.F. Earth not made waste (Gen. 8:11-12, 22 ; Heb. 11:7 ; 1 Pet. 3:20). L.F. Earth made empty (Gen. 1:2 ; Jer. 4:23). N.F. Earth not made empty (Gen. 6:18-22 ; 8:16). Noah, his wife, his sons and their wives and all the animals on the Arc were saved alive to start over. L.F. Earth made totally dark (Gen. 1:2-5 ; Jer. 4:23-26). N.F. Not made totally dark (Gen. 8:6-22) L.F. No light from heaven (Gen. 1:2 ; Jer. 4:23-26). N.F. Light from heaven (Gen. 8:6-22). L.F. No day and night (Gen. 1:2-5). N.F. Day and night (Gen. 8:1-22). L.F. All vegetation destroyed Gen. 1:2 ; 2:5-6 ; Jer. 4:23-26). N.F. Vegetation not destroyed (Gen. 8:11, 21 ; 9:3, 20). L.F. No continued abating of the waters off the earth (Gen. 1:6-12). N.F. Continued abating of the waters from the earth by evaporation (Gen. 8:1-14). L.F. Waters taken off the earth in one day (Gen. 1:10). N.F. Months of waters abating off the earth (Gen. 8:1-14). L.F. God supernaturally takes waters off the earth (Gen. 1:6-12). N.F. Natural work of evaporation of the waters off the earth (Gen. 8:1-14). L.F. No rebuke or miraculous work in fled away (Gen. 1:6-12 ; Ps. 104:7). N.F. No rebuke or miraculous work is taking waters off the earth (Gen. 8:1-14). L.F. The waters on earth in Gen. 1:2, hasted away when rebuked (Gen. 1:6-2 ; Ps. 104:9). N.F. The bounds already eternally set for waters in Gen. 8:1-14). L.F. All fish were totally destroyed in flood of Gen. 1:2 ; Jer. 4:23-26). N.F. No fish were destroyed of created again after Noah's flood (Gen. 1:20-23 ; 6:18-22). L.F. No Fowls left on the earth after (Gen. 1:2 ; Jer. 4:23-26). N.F. Fowls were left after Noah's flood (Gen. 6:20 ; 8:7-17). L.F. No animals left after (Gen. 1:2 ; Jer. 4:23-26 ; 2 Pet. 3:5-6). N.F. Some of all animals kept alive (Gen. 6:20 ; 8:17 ; 9:2-4, 10-16). L.F. No man left on earth in Gen. 1:2 ; Jer. 4:23-26 ; 2 Pet. 3:5-6). N.F. Eight men and women left after Noah's flood (Gen. 6:18 ; 8:15-22 ; 9:1-16 ; 1 Pet. 3:20). L.F. No social system left at all in Gen. 1:2 ; Jer. 4:23-26 ; 2 Pet. 3:5-6). N.F. A social system left after Noah's flood (Gen. 8:15-22 ; 9:1-16 ; 1 Pet. 3:20). L.F. No ark made to save men in Gen. 1:2 ; jer. 4:23-26 ; 2 Pet. 3:5-6). N.F. An ark made to save men and animals alive (Gen. 6:8-8 : 22 ; 9:1-16 ; Heb. 11:7). L.F. Cause: fall of Lucifer, now Satan (Isa. 14:12-14; Jer. 4:23-26; Ezek. 28:11-17 ; Luke 10:18). N.F. Cause: wickedness of men (Gen. 6:5-13) ; and fallen angels (Gen. 6:1-4; Jude 6-7 ; 2 Pet. 2:4). L.F. Result: became necessary to make new life on earth (Gen. 1:3-2 : 25 ; Isa. 45:18 ; Eph. 3:11). N.F. Results: no new creation made, for all men and animals were not destroyed (Gen. 6:18-8 : 22 ; 9:1-16). This proves the Earth was plenished before because God told Noah to go and re-plenish the earth, Genesis 9:1, ‘And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.” Just as God told Adam and Eve to do when He restored the Earth to a habitable state and He created them, Genesis 1:28, “And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth” I hope you take the time to read and check the Scriptures for yourself and make up your own mind as to what you want to believe. Cheers Mate, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts