steaknchips

AVFC, Ive answered ALL Juju's points during the course of this thread.. The 1st part, comes under how reliable is the new testament which I answered in the early stages of this thread. You can find here; http://carm.org/manuscript-evidence The second part of Juju's post I answered many pages back, what does God do regarding people who do not know or hear about Christ etc. http://carm.org/what-happens-those-who-have-never-heard-gospel The last part which is focused on Leviticus law, Ive just answered..Jesus fulfilled the laws and regulations.. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians+3%3A23-25&version=KJV

Total lack of understanding of the bible again.. Especially the shellfish part. How? You also havent quite answered your take on Leviathan- which is it - biblical name for a sea dinosaur , beast demon or incarnation of Satan or all 3? You seemed to be earlier implying dinosaurs were demons or something (?) Leviathan could have been http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcosuchus As for old testament law...Jesus fulfilled them.. Acts 13.And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat. Acts 14.But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean. Acts 15.And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common. Romans 14.I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean. 1 Timothy 4.For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:

Total lack of understanding of the bible again.. Especially the shellfish part.

....Good look eating a t **** rex. Gonna be interesting trying to get into a stegosaurus too, anyone have a can opener? Do you not see how dumb this idea is? Rather than eating the nice soft animals, they went for the ones with **** armour. lol...Have you seen some of the evolution theories to why dinosaurs became extinct? What dinosaurs did go into the ark would have been small, eggs etc..Perfectly reasonable..Then as the water subsided and they went out on land, food, disease, the climate would have all been different than before the flood..The world would have changed..Many animals, not just the dinosaurs may have died out.

Nothing as been dis-proven as of yet in the bible.. It mentions a global flood, the evidence is here of such...But scientists wont accept the easy answer written in scripture. It also mentions that the earth will end in fire(would you back against it?). 2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up.

Some where killed in the flood.The ones that lived didnt last long, food was scarce.. The names for all the dinosaurs came in recent times..

No, it's not. It's easy. First you go find some evidence, then you publish a scientific paper stating such evidence and put forward a theory based on it. Yet no creationist ever goes for publication in a scientific journal because they never meet the criteria, that being, having evidence to back up their claims. What it's hard to do is to put out claims based on pure fiction with no real evidence and expect to be taken seriously by the scientific community. You're talking like the scientific community is some closed group of atheists who constantly denounce god. It's not, it's open to anyone, even people who never want to university. You just have to be able to support your ideas. And trust me here, there's nothing the scientific community loves more than the idea that someone will come along and provide evidence against a long established theory that has universal support, because that's what science is all about. It's not about a group of people that all believe the same thing getting together and patting each other on the back. Kurt Wise nearly kicked out of Harvard, just for believing in creation...Proves Science dont like it...Gould was the one that wanted him to stay, as he was a very bright student.

God that article is bad. I especially like the section on entropy. One of creationists favourite weapons... except it's complete crap and is just based on a flawed understanding of what entropy is. Entropy is a measure of the amount of ways a system can achieve a certain state. For instance, if a throw a load of marbles onto my bed they're probably going to end up fairly evenly distributed across it in a fairly random pattern. That state has high entropy, that is, a high chance it'll occur. There's also a chance that they'll land in a perfect image of Jesus Christ our lord and saviour, but there's not very many ways that can happen, so it has low entropy. Systems tend towards having high entropy simply due to there being more chance of them occurring. If I pick up my marbles that formed the face of Jesus Christ our lord and saviour and threw them again, they'll probably land in a random pattern. But there's also a chance they'll land in a representation of the Virgin Mary holy mother of God, maybe even a more lifelike representation than the first, leading to a decrease in entropy. That doesn't violate the second law of thermodynamics (that being that over time systems will tend towards high entropy) for a key reason, we're looking at a localised section of an open system. The second law of thermodynamics deals with CLOSED systems, not localised events. To show that evolution is a violation of the second law of thermodynamics you'd have to prove that the entropy of the entire universe decreased as a result of it. And it hasn't, because the events that need to occur for evolution result in an increase in entropy elsewhere in the system. The overall effect will be an increase in entropy, despite the fact that on a local level entropy might have increased. To see just how absurd the argument that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics is you only have to look as far as pregnancy. In pregnancy there is a dramatic change from a high entropy to a low entropy system. Sperm and eggs are extremely high entropy. The early stages of cell division are extremely high entropy. Then entropy continuously decreases throughout the term of the pregnancy. If evolution violated the second law of thermodynamics you wouldn't be here today because pregnancy would as well. http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-thermodynamics.html

No "its only creative scientists using scientific method"... Many Christians dont like them because they think they should be using faith and not using science to prove the bible's worth. Im just using them on this thread because they understand (unlike just ordinary christians etc) science, evolution, geology, bio chemistry etc etc.. Im now resorting to using evolution sided scientist's quotes to show this thread the flaws in evolution...As you have already decided the creative scientists are not worthy enough! That's not what I asked for. Show me one none-creationist who believes in a new earth theory. You have to believe in creation 1st.. A creationist, is someone that believes in creation. The scientists are just normal scientists that believe in creation rather than evolution.. A great example of a non creationist scientist thats become questionable over the scientific method(evolution) is Michael Denton.. You have to understand here, that its hard for a scientist with great academic record to side with creation...Its would almost dishonour him/her in the field of which they operate.

Its difficult to explain but I dont put myself into a brand/branch, cult, sect, etc..They are all money grabbing, corrupt, broken in my eyes. Im just a christian that believes the bible as it is written literally.. Ok, I'll run with this. How then do you explain then that 4 gospels are flawed and contradictory accounts of the same events? That none can agree on who was present at the resurrection? That the Council of Nicea edited and agreed the versions of the Gospels that would ultimately appear in the Bible? Do you throw your mother, wife, girlfriend out of the house once a month for 5 days whilst she is unclean? Do you condone the stoning of adulterers? You don't. I admire people of faith, and some of the values espoused by the Abrahamic religions are indeed noble and worthy. But I also believe you are just a pisstaker. Albeit a good one. Any Christian apologetics site can answer all these questions you have..I suggest this one. Its fair and well researched. http://carm.org/

No "its only creative scientists using scientific method"... Many Christians dont like them because they think they should be using faith and not using science to prove the bible's worth. Im just using them on this thread because they understand (unlike just ordinary christians etc) science, evolution, geology, bio chemistry etc etc.. Im now resorting to using evolution sided scientist's quotes to show this thread the flaws in evolution...As you have already decided the creative scientists are not worthy enough!

Eldredge, Niles; as quoted in: Sunday Mail, Brisbane, Australia, September 14, 1986.

No, I meant his original words in the scientific paper / journal and if you look at my edited post, you'll see that he didn't actually say that at all, that is some madcap nutters (Gary Parker) interpretation of Niles Eldredge using the term Special Creation (meaning something completely different to how said nutter interprets it) So it wasn't said by him, you copied it from a website without first checking your facts and I've found where it originates from and proved it to be bollocks. EDIT: Not only that but you didn't get it from that website, supreme failure on your behalf Look at the bottom of this page, all the sources are evident in writing.. http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/

Bicks, http://www.delusionresistance.org/creation/evoquotes.html

Risso, Yes they are both evolutionists, they are hard liners that the earth is billions of years old..Im getting quotes from the "non-creationists" tp prove they are stuck.. The dating is all "estimated" from years ago...Radiometric dating takes place on an "estimated" date..Its flawed!

Niles Eldredge. "As we have seen, the fossils of invertebrates, the most abundant by far of all fossils, do offer strong support for the concept of creation, specifically the Biblical concepts of Creation-Corruption-Catastrophe-Christ."

David M Raup. “most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument made in favor of Darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true.” “we still have a record which does show change, but one that can hardly be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection.” In comparing fossil forms with modern forms, we do see change all right, but it’s not the kind of change associated with natural selection. It’s simply "variation" within the created kinds, plus decline and even extinction, reflecting corruption and catastrophe."

Paul said in 1 Corinthians 2:14..."But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised." You either believe, or you dont! Man v God = God wins everytime with me mate...Sorry! You should be apologising to yourself. I hope that when you grow up you'll realise how dumb this is and actually start looking at things with an open mind. Have looked into it with an open mind? Have you questioned the method, or just merely accepted it?

Paul said in 1 Corinthians 2:14..."But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised." You either believe, or you dont! Man v God = God wins everytime with me mate...Sorry! If you don't listen, then there is no point entering into debate with you. I still listen and I take it in....Im still waiting for answers on(in English); How polystrate fossils can stretch through strata layers? And why are they all over the Globe?

Its difficult to explain but I dont put myself into a brand/branch, cult, sect, etc..They are all money grabbing, corrupt, broken in my eyes. Im just a christian that believes the bible as it is written literally..

Paul said in 1 Corinthians 2:14..."But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised." You either believe, or you dont! Man v God = God wins everytime with me mate...Sorry!

Dinosaurs lived with man. They were just called different names, amongst them was tanniyn, bahemowth and livyathan. The earth is less than 10000 years old.(accurate age would be between 6000-7000 years old).. After the global flood the earth has been populated by the contents of the seas and the Ark.

Are you Jewish? No im a Christian and I believe in a young earth and the bible as it is. When you say that do you mean you believe the earth is only 6,000 years old?.. How do you explain the Sumerians (which a lot of old testament stories are based on their myths) and the place in Turkey Göbekli Tepe which seems to date as far back 10,000 BC. Boring question - but how you explain the dinosaurs ? rock formations dating millions of years etc ? The vast majority of Christians don't believe genesis literally or the idea the earth is young - so why do you cling onto it ? are you a Jehovah witness? Ive answered all this before mate earlier in the thread, ive also posted links to various web sites to explain it all.

Talking of you standing by your beliefs I believe Laura is still waiting for an answer to a question she asked at least twice. I don't believe for one minute you missed it which suggests you dodged it and that while you claim to stand by your beliefs you don't actually have the courage of your convictions. Which question is that? This one..asked at least 3 times previously,odd that you missed it. Still being ignored. Its not being ignored at all. I dont see the relevance of such question.. Its like me asking you, how do religious people fit into a non believer's life? My views on homosexuality dont cause any hindrance to my everyday life. Vice versa, your views on the bible wont cause you any hindrance to your everyday life. In both cases...Not agreeing with something, dosnt mean ridicule, or hurt people.

Are you Jewish? No im a Christian and I believe in a young earth and the bible as it is.