6 days Creation

[Kevinb]

1 hour ago, shiloh357 said:

Torah observant Jews still follow those commandments, actually.   But they were not given to Christians to follow, only Israel.   It's not that they have been updated or abrogated.  It's simply the case that Christians are not oblgated to those commands, as they were never given to us to obey.

 I see.. thanks for the view. Seems a bizarre thing for a God to impose on section of the humanity. A holy book sanctioning owning people as property but don't eat shellfish.

1 hour ago, shiloh357 said:

When Israel was a theocracy, that was what they were told to do.  Christians are not commanded to do that and we don't do that.  We also don't kill homosexuals, or false prophets, or adulterers or Sabbath breakers.

Ah moral relativism hey. Not a great argument for a loving God. Is homosexuality a sin? If it is why but not subject to a stoning.. how do you know?As a non believer ... non of this is moral under and circumstances. Not homosexual myself but I've no issue. Homosexuality occurs outside of us in other species..its natural and nature..google homosexuality in sheep for example. God made gay sheep... why? Those who think homosexuality is a sin...sheep are sinners? 

 They found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day. ... And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones.... And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses

[Guest shiloh357]

1 minute ago, Kevinb said:

 I see.. thanks for the view. Seems a bizarre thing for a God to impose on section of the humanity. A holy book sanctioning owning people as property but don't eat shellfish.

They are His people that He delivered from bondage.   They were/are His people by virtue of a blood covenant.  They were not merely a section of humanity, but a people He redeemed.

The Bible doesn't sanction slavery at all.  It lays down guidelines that regulate it.  Slavery was a cultural issue of that day and every nation had slaves, it seems. Slaves existed everywhere and in many parts of the world, slavery was an occupation.   The Bible doesn't sanction slavery, but neither does it circumvent it either.  It sets down regulations regarding slavery.

Quote

Ah moral relativism hey. Not a great argument for a loving God.

He is not a "loving" God;  He is a holy God who hates sin and punishes sin. 

 

Quote

Is homosexuality a sin? If it is why but not subject to a stoning.. how do you know?As a non believer ... non of this is moral under and circumstances. Not homosexual myself but I've no issue.

Why don't we punish homosexuals with stoning?  Why don't we punish adulterers, and occultists, and false prophets and sabbath breakers with stoning to death as prescribed in Scripture?

Because when Jesus went to the cross and died for our sins, he bore the punishment for our sins.   God punishes sin and in His mercy toward us, Jesus bore the full weight of the judgment and justice of God against sin, and He did it on our behalf.   Jesus death, paid the penalty for adultery, homosexuality, sabbath breakers, etc.   We don't stone people to death because Jesus has borne away the death and punishment we deserve for sins we commit, and not just the big ones, but the little sins (gossip, pride, selfishness, lying, lusting, etc), that we often make excuses for.

Quote

Homosexuality occurs outside of us in other species..its natural and nature..google homosexuality in sheep for example. God made gay sheep... why? Those who think homosexuality is a sin...sheep are sinners? 

Yeah, anyone with a basic knowledge of nature knows that animals are not "homosexual."   What we often misinterpret as homosexual activity among animals is actually part of attempts to establish dominance, animals attempting to be the alpha male. 

There is nothing natural about homosexuality. It is completely contrary to nature and wholly abnormal.

[Kevinb]

2 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

Why don't we punish homosexuals with stoning?  Why don't we punish adulterers, and occultists, and false prophets and sabbath breakers with stoning to death as prescribed in Scripture?

You kinda dodged? Do you think it a is sin? A leader of a main political party here in the uk said recently it was. Public backlash essentially forced him to resign. Not proving any point there..just out of interest. 

2 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

He is not a "loving" God;  He is a holy God who hates sin and punishes sin.

I see. It's still moral relativism though. However I agree with you he's certainly not loving. Have you heard dawkins description of God based upon his biblical texts? Cited in the God delusion. Many christains say he is loving of course.. God not dawkins☺

2 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

Yeah, anyone with a basic knowledge of nature knows that animals are not "homosexual."   What we often misinterpret as homosexual activity among animals is actually part of attempts to establish dominance, animals attempting to be the alpha male. 

Absolutely agree but I wasn't talking about that. Studies of sheep for ex...some rams will not mate with females under any circumstances but readily do with males. Demostrated via a part of hypothalamus closer to female structure than male in males. Anyways probably sheep talk. 

 

Edited September 13, 2017 by Kevinb

[Guest shiloh357]

17 minutes ago, Kevinb said:

You kinda dodged? Do you think it a is sin? A leader of a main political party here in the uk said recently it was. Public backlash essentially forced him to resign. Not proving any point there..just out of interest.

I didn't dodge.   You misrepresented what I said.  You omitted the part where I said that the sin of homosexuality was  what Jesus died for and was punished for.   Of course it is a sin.   But you need to be a little more honest in how you handle my responses from here on out.

Quote

I see. It's still moral relativism though. However I agree with you he's certainly not loving. Have you heard dawkins description of God based upon his biblical texts? Cited in the God delusion. Many christains say he is loving of course.. God not dawkins☺

Dawkins knows just enough about the Bible to be dangerous.  My point is that love is not God's chief attribute.  God's chief attribute is holiness.  Dawkins is the one who is delusional.

Quote

 

Absolutely agree but I wasn't talking about that. Studies of sheep for ex...some rams will not mate with females under any circumstances but readily do with males. Demostrated via a part of hypothalamus closer to female structure than male in males. Anyways probably sheep talk. 

 

Sounds like junk science and not what thinking people buy into.  

[Enoch2021]

6 hours ago, Kevinb said:

Evidence adds to theory

Ahh No.  "Just So" Stories ADD to Abject Speculations ('theory') it's called ad hoc hypotheses, they're characteristic of Pseudo-Science. SEE Below:  

‘adjusted’ after-the-fact to agree with observed temperatures.”
Mitchel, William; BIG BANG THEORY UNDER FIRE; Physics Essays Volume 10, Number 2, pp. 370-379, June 1997. 
http://nowscape.com/big-ban2.htm )

 

Quote

...microwave background didn't have to be discovered it was a prediction that could have been falsified.

This was "DeBunked" earlier in this very thread, here: https://www.worthychristianforums.com/topic/210558-6-days-creation/?do=findComment&comment=2641682

 

...

"The existence of the CMB radiation was first predicted by Ralph Alpher in 1948 in connection with his research on Big Bang Nucleosynthesis undertaken together with Robert Herman and George Gamow."
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_tests_cmb.html

 
"The first confirmation of the microwave cosmic background that we knew of, however, came from a totally different, indirect measurement.  This measurement had, in fact, been made thirty years earlier by Adams and Dunhan 16-21. Adams and Dunhan had discovered several faint optical interstellar absorption lines which were later identified with the molecules CH, CH+, and CN. In the case of CN, in addition to the ground state, absorption was seen from the first rotationally excited state. McKellar 22 using Adams’ data on the populations of these two states calculated that the excitation temperature of CN was 2.3 K."

THE COSMIC MICROWAVE BACKGROUND RADIATION: Nobel Lecture, 8 December, 1978; ROBERT W. WILSON, Bell Laboratories, Holmdel, N.J. U.S.A.
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/ 1978/wilson-lecture.pdf

 

He's talking about these...

Starting in 1937, Adams and Dunham had found some absorption lines, which were later identified with interstellar molecules CH, CH+ and CN.
Dunham, T., Jr. and Adams, W.S., Publ. Am. Astron. Soc. 9:5, 1937

and this...

'So, in 1940/1, the Canadian astrophysicist and spectroscopist Andrew McKellar (1910–1960) could analyze the data. From the observed ratios of the populations of these energy states, he calculated that the CN molecules were in thermal equilibrium with a temperature of about 2.3K.'
McKellar, A., Proc. Ast. Soc. Pac. 52:187, 1940; Publ. Dominion Astrophysical Observatory Victoria B.C. 7(15):251, 1941

 

So we already have Empirical Measurements showing up in the literature well before 1948.  Making the PRE-diction a "POST-DICTION".

 
Moreover, 

"At that time some radio astronomers thought that the microwave absorption of the earth’s atmosphere was about twice the value we were using - in other words the “sky temperature” of Figs. 6 and 8 was about 5 K instead of 2.5 K. We knew from our measurement of sky temperature such as shown in Fig. 7 that this could not be the case."
THE COSMIC MICROWAVE BACKGROUND RADIATION: Nobel Lecture, 8 December, 1978; ROBERT W. WILSON, Bell Laboratories, Holmdel, N.J. U.S.A.

Really, how'd they know that.....? At 5 K, eh?  That's a FULL UNIVERSE worth of Error in the Fairytale POST-DICTION!!!   This is Tantamount to PREDICTING the Seattle Seahawks will score between 0 and 1000 points in their next game and claiming CONFIRMATION of the Prediction when they score 28 !!

 

Let's end this Fairytale Charade....  

“History also shows that some Big Bang cosmologists’ ‘predictions’ of MBR [microwave background radiation] temperature have been ‘adjusted’ after-the-fact to agree with observed temperatures.”
Mitchel, William; BIG BANG THEORY UNDER FIRE; Physics Essays Volume 10, Number 2, pp. 370-379, June 1997. 
http://nowscape.com/big-ban2.htm

 

Furthermore:

1.  Define Scientific Theory...?

 

2.  Please Define:

a.  "Scientific Prediction"...?

b.  "POST"- diction...?

c.  Jeanne Dixon/Jimmy The Greek/Carnival Tent "Prediction"...?

d.  Cyclic Repeat - diction...?

Now Juxtapose the Characteristics of each and place Your "big bang Prediction" trainwreck in the appropriate category...?

 

btw: The CMB is a Fairytale anyways, see my Full Exposition here (You-Tube): Science vs. Scientism Episode 6 - Speed of Light and the CMB

 

regards

[Enoch2021]

6 hours ago, Kevinb said:

I'm just not getting the rational on presupposing a God...

Well it's Simple Logic...

There are ONLY Two Possible World-Views (Ontological Primitives) that can be held to account for how we (Universe/Us) are here;

Unguided -- Nature (Matter)  or   Guided --- Intelligent Agency (God)

 

We "Presuppose" God for Good Reason:

1.  The Universe had a Beginning.
2.  The Universe is made of Matter.
3.  Matter is The Consequent, "A Knower" is the Necessary Antecedent.
(SEE: Quantum Mechanics)
4.  Therefore:  "A CREATOR".

 

You "Presuppose" Nature (Matter):

"Matter" Pre-Existed before it Existed then Poofed itself into Existence. (before that... it Poofed itself from Nothing into Pre-Existence.)

 

So...

Disjunctive Syllogism:  A logical argument of the form that if there are only two possibilities, and one of them is ruled out, then the other MUST BE TRUE.

 

Which one can be Ruled Out ??

 

regards

[Kevinb]

2 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

You omitted the part where I said that the sin of homosexuality was  what Jesus died for and was punished for.   Of course it is a sin.   But you need to be a little more honest in how you handle my responses from here on out.

I saw the Jesus part but you didn't explicitly say you thought it was a sin and still is one yourself... that's not dishonesty. Now you have more precisely clarrified your view... that's what I asked.

3 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

Dawkins knows just enough about the Bible to be dangerous.  My point is that love is not God's chief attribute.  God's chief attribute is holiness.  Dawkins is the one who is delusional.

Dawkins speaks more scientifically than biblical refuting. People like Matt dillahunty are likely more dangerous having exclusively studied it for 25 plus years. Just started watching the atheist experience last couple of weeks...interesting.

[Guest shiloh357]

8 minutes ago, Kevinb said:

Dawkins speaks more scientifically than biblical refuting. People like Matt dillahunty are likely more dangerous having exclusively studied it for 25 plus years. Just started watching the atheist experience last couple of weeks...interesting.

Dawkins doesn't read the Bible and doesn't understand it and assigns false values to it.  He is hardly scientific.   Dawkins encourages his sheeple to mock Christians with derision.  He actually encouraged that specific thing.  Mocking those who believe the Bible derision.   It isn't a matter of a respectful disagreement.   He hates Christians and anyone who leans toward believing the Bible.   

He should be written off as the fake intellectual that he is.   There is simply nothing about him to even respect.

[Kevinb]

2 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

He is hardly scientific.   Dawkins encourages his sheeple to mock Christians with derision.  He actually encouraged that specific thing.  Mocking those who believe the Bible derision.   It isn't a matter of a respectful disagreement.   He hates Christians and anyone who leans toward believing the Bible.   

He should be written off as the fake intellectual that he is.   There is simply nothing about him to even respect.

Highly respected evolutionary biologist... the field you'll see as the enemy as it contractions a presupposition bias you can't prove.

Correction... he has said specifically to mock beliefs... not individual people. The same way people here I've seen mock Islam and Mormonism. He'll just do it to all religions. Also he's said many verses are beautifully written.. he reads them often. As well as Christian people aren't bad people and have done many good things. 

Edited September 13, 2017 by Kevinb

[Guest shiloh357]

Just now, Kevinb said:

 

Correction... he has said specifically to mock beliefs... not individual people. The same way people here I've seem mock Islam and Mormonism. He'll just do you to all. 

"So when I meet somebody who claims to be religious, my first impulse is: “I don’t believe you. I don’t believe you until you tell me do you really believe — for example, if they say they are Catholic — do you really believe that when a priest blesses a wafer it turns into the body of Christ? Are you seriously telling me you believe that? Are you seriously saying that wine turns into blood?” Mock them! Ridicule them! In public!
Don’t fall for the convention that we’re all too polite to talk about religion. Religion is not off the table. Religion is not off limits." ~ Richard Dawkins https://ladydifadden.wordpress.com/2012/03/28/transcript-of-richard-dawkins-speech-from-reason-rally-2012/ 

 

Quote

Highly respected evolutionary biologist... the field you'll see as the enemy as it contractions a presupposition bias you can't prove.

Real biology supports the creation model.  Evolution isn't science and should not be treated at real science.   If Evolution had been first proposed today, it would have been laughed into the ground