steaknchips

Jehovah's punishment on the first humans, Adam & Eve was that if they turned against their Creator, then they would die within "ONE DAY". God's timekeeping is different to ours - (2 Peter 3:8) "However, let this one fact not be escaping YOUR notice, beloved ones, that one day is with Jehovah as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day"

I assume your lack of quoting was so that you could answer a question I didn't ask. God says in Genesis that man will live 120 years (not up to). How many of the 7 billion people on the planet will live for 120 years and how many have done so since the days of Genesis. If any one lived a life of a length other then 120 years then Genesis contains a lie.

Moses died on his 120th birthday.

Ive already explained this scripture above Limpid. The 120 years could be 120 years left for mankind before the floods...The flood was 120 years away. Read Genesis 6 and form your own opinion..

Can I suggest that we all stop? Whilst it's undeniably entertaining poking fun at the crazy people, you know full well that you could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that what they are saying is laughable bollocks, and they'll STILL keep getting up with another host of Biblical quotes that are somehow supposed to prove that they're right. They're like Arnie in the Terminator, but instead of being metallic and unstoppable, they're shiny-eyed and disturbing.

Crazy people..lol

Check out Michael Behe(Biochemist), Michale Denton(Biochemist), Karl Popper(philosophy) or Fred Hoyle(astronomer)

Psalm 90 is Moses praying.

So it's not part of the word of god? Good, so we defer to Genesis which says we will all live 120 years (not up to). So this was a simple lie?

What was a simple lie? I dont get what you mean..

Psalm 90 is Moses praying to God..Its not God preaching to world that everyone will live for 90 years...Its a prayer that Moses is doing.

The 120 years could be possible that God shortens life in mankind, as after the flood the lifespan of mankind was drastically reduced.

Alternately it could also be in reference to God saying that mankind has 120 years left before the flood wipes them out..

The best thing to do is read all Genesis 6 and make your own mind up.

Genesis 6:1-3

1 When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. 3 Then the LORD said, “My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal; his days will be a hundred and twenty years.”

It goes on to talk about God being "grieved that he had made man" because of their great wickedness and wiped them out with the flood.

Okay, so this book, which is the literal word of god states that man's lifespan is 120 years. Not "up to". So god was wrong? Or was this another "translation error"?

How many of us will live the 120 years that Genesis gives us?

Perhaps the guy writing down god's words didn't know the right word for "year" either.

120 years is the maximum, not the expected life span. For that, you want this passage:

Psalm 90:10

The length of our days is seventy years— or eighty, if we have the strength; yet their span is but trouble and sorrow, for they quickly pass, and we fly away.

So which of these two contradictory definitions is correct? Neither quote uses a phrase which means "up to". Which one is true? You'd think god would be able to remember what he'd said previously, except that as he is out of time, he said both of these things simultaneously.

Mind you, you'd expect that if god could dictate the bible to someone, he could have made sure the translations were accurate too. Pretty poor omnipotency.

Psalm 90 is Moses praying.

So a kid is going to hell because he happened to be born in Damascus or Delhi and was indoctrinated with a different faith.

I dont know mate..The scripture I posted above answers this. God will be the final judge.

But they have knowledge of a God, or Gods and have their own laws so will follow those laws

They also know of the God in the Bible but have been tought to follow another God

So what of them?

According to the bible they wont make it.

The only way to the Father is through Jesus Christ. Islam for instance is fully aware of Jesus Christ, yet their religion focuses more on Mohammed as being their true prophet. Sin is in the world mate that is fact, it entered us through Adam. The only wage for sin is life, so the only way for God to save us was for Jesus to sacrifice his life for our sins. Thus the ONLY way to the Father is through Jesus Christ.

Actual question steaknchips, what do you think about Islam, Judaism and Hindu religions. What becomes of them given they follow a different faith due to the location of their birth? Hindu isn't even monotheistic.

Romans 2:

1 For there is no partiality with God.

12 For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law;

13 for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified.

14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do ainstinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves,

15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them,

16 on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.

--------

This scripture speaks about those who have never heard the Law of God, and how they will be judged according to the law that is written in their hearts. The Law written in their hearts is the knowledge of right and wrong. Perhaps God's judgment of those without a proper knowledge of Him is included there where it says that they will be judged according to their own consciences that "bear witness, and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them.

Numerous samples of rock were taken from Mt Ngauruhoe, which erupted in the 1950's..The rocks sent to the lab were around 50 years old..Yet the dating came back stating they were millions of years old.

How old do you believe the earth is?

Not life on it, the actual planet. How old is the planet?

Depends what you believe..

If you believe God created the world and in the bible, the earth is less than 10,000 years old..Unless you twist words around in the bible to fit the evolution model, as I explained above how thats done.

If you believe in evolution, the the earth will be billions of years old, again this number will keep changing. Its ranged from millions to billions. What is said yesterday can easily change today by as much as a billion years.

Which basically gives you three options/roads to go down to determine how old the earth is.

1. Bible as it states = less than 10k years old.

2. Bible with vague writings in Genesis that need changing to fit the evolution model = billions of years.

3. Evolution = billions of years.

Radiocarbon dates that do not fit a desired theory are often excluded by alleging cross-contamination of the sample. In this manner, an evolutionist can present a sample for analysis, and tell the laboratory that he assumes the sample to be somewhere between 50,000 years old and 100,000 years old. Dates that do not conform to this estimate are thrown out. Repeated testing of the sample may show nine tests that indicate an age of 5000 to 10,000 years old, and one test that shows an age of 65,000 years old. The nine results showing ages that do not conform to the pre-supposed theory are excluded. This is bad science, and it is practiced all the time to fit with the evolutionary model.

http://contenderministries.org/evolution/carbon14.php

Stop referencing creationist websites. If you want an adult discussion you're going to have to start acting like an adult. You are stating that radiometric dating is inaccurate and is leading to samples being dated incorrectly. If what you are saying is true there would be hundreds of scientific papers documenting this, and they would all be worthy of a Nobel prize.

Instead of referencing religious websites written by scientifically ignorant charlatans, go and find us some properly written scientific material. You can use google scholar to help you out.

Check the non religious web sites too if you want, they all state the same thing on radiometric dating..It is guessed because the initial composition of the rock in unknown, it is only guessed...Along with how the composition of the rock has changed over its entire history..The radioactive decay rate needs to constant to also get a correct reading, this again is guessed. Only recently scientists themselves have said that radioactive decay rates can change over time for various reasons(but again this is just one of numerous problems with radiometric dating accuracy)..

Numerous samples of rock were taken from Mt Ngauruhoe, which erupted in the 1950's..The rocks sent to the lab were around 50 years old..Yet the dating came back stating they were millions of years old.

2 goals yesterday both from wide areas..And both scored by Darren Bent. = we need to use the width and do this more often..I would swap Heskey and have Albrighton on instead..This would give N'Zogbia and Gabby both a more free'ish role to either go wide or come inside..

Here, a qualified guy saying the same thing as the unqualified guy;

http://creation.com/radioactive-dating-fatal-flaw

http://x-evolutionist.com/the-fossil-record-evidence-of-the-world-wide-flood-of-the-bible/

http://www.icr.org/article/circular-reasoning-evolutionary-biology/

Radiocarbon dates that do not fit a desired theory are often excluded by alleging cross-contamination of the sample. In this manner, an evolutionist can present a sample for analysis, and tell the laboratory that he assumes the sample to be somewhere between 50,000 years old and 100,000 years old. Dates that do not conform to this estimate are thrown out. Repeated testing of the sample may show nine tests that indicate an age of 5000 to 10,000 years old, and one test that shows an age of 65,000 years old. The nine results showing ages that do not conform to the pre-supposed theory are excluded. This is bad science, and it is practiced all the time to fit with the evolutionary model.

http://contenderministries.org/evolution/carbon14.php

Heres my 1st link then...This guy has a Ph.D in geology..He has studied and investigated rock forms, life etc...Yet he finds more substance in the bible story of Noah's Ark than the evolution side.

http://creationwiki.org/Andrew_Snelling

Or one from Harvard, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Wise

Which one is the real Andrew Snelling?

This Kurt Wise? The one that seemingly rejects science because it disagrees with his interpretation of christianity on the grounds that it is either one or the other and his religion wins over any and all scientific approaches

Any actual credible scientists you'd care to name?

Good Article on Kurt Wise..You could ask a lot of questions after reading that...Main one being, if he ever became so "sure" we came about through evolution why the carry on with creationism? And the brainwashing sh1t wouldnt work, he is too smart for that...If he had the evidence and believed it, he would say...But he dosnt!

The evidence used getting 65 million years ago for dinosaurs would be inadmissible in a court...The readings are based on guesswork..

I'm no geologist but i understood some strain (?? or whatever you call it) of Uranium decays at a constant rate and is present in certain types of rock ... As it has a half life of hundreds of millions of years and the uranium decays at a constant rate by examining the ratios of the radioactive element beneath the fossil and the rock above the fossil you get your age of the dinosaur ?

I've also heard mention of using the earth magnetic field ..something about different traces in a rock depending on age ??

Not even going into this too much...But if your dog buries a bone in the back garden..Is the bone older that the stones and earth he puts on top of it?

So you don't understand it then?

Yes, its based on guesswork...Unless the initial ratio of parent to daughter isotope is known, the current ratio would be worthless as a means of determining elapsed time. A rock cannot be said to be millions or billions of years old if there is no way of knowing what the original composition of the rock was at the time that it was formed.. Who is to say when the "zero date" was when there was only parent isotope and no daughter? Because of this problem, it might be a significant error to simply assume that all original isotopes present in a given rock were parent isotopes.

http://www.detectingdesign.com/radiometricdating.html

The evidence used getting 65 million years ago for dinosaurs would be inadmissible in a court...The readings are based on guesswork..

I'm no geologist but i understood some strain (?? or whatever you call it) of Uranium decays at a constant rate and is present in certain types of rock ... As it has a half life of hundreds of millions of years and the uranium decays at a constant rate by examining the ratios of the radioactive element beneath the fossil and the rock above the fossil you get your age of the dinosaur ?

I've also heard mention of using the earth magnetic field ..something about different traces in a rock depending on age ??

Not even going into this too much...But if your dog buries a bone in the back garden..Is the bone older that the stones and earth he puts on top of it?

Google radiometric flaws, or inaccuracies..Or even the accuracies of it and then research it...You can form your own opinion.

Anyone can google anything. What I want to know is what you know about it. You've posted a lot on this thread that you've clearly lifted from other websites, and you seemed to have ignored my previous challenge to debate based on evidence and evidence alone. So I'm giving you an opportunity now, you have the chance to teach us what you know about a scientific topic, to give us real reasons to take you seriously.

So, explain radiometric dating to me. How does it work? What are the principles? What are the flaws? What is the evidence against its accuracy?

Alternatively, you could admit that you don't really know much about it and are simply making statements based on your religious beliefs.

So, which is it?

John,

I would be copy and pasting from other web sites to explain it, how it works and whats its flaws are. So its far easier, like I have for you to do that research yourself..

Google radiometric flaws, or inaccuracies..Or even the accuracies of it and then research it...You can form your own opinion.

The evidence used getting 65 million years ago for dinosaurs would be inadmissible in a court...The readings are based on guesswork..

Many people are under the false impression that carbon dating proves that dinosaurs and other extinct animals lived millions of years ago. What many do not realize is that carbon dating is not used to date dinosaurs.

The reason? Carbon dating is only accurate back a few thousand years. So if scientists believe that a creature lived millions of years ago, then they would need to date it another way.

But there is the problem. They assume dinosaurs lived millions of years ago (instead of thousands of years ago like the bible says). They ignore evidence that does not fit their preconceived notion.

What would happen if a dinosaur bone were carbon dated? - At Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Scientists dated dinosaur bones using the Carbon dating method. The age they came back with was only a few thousand years old.

This date did not fit the preconceived notion that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. So what did they do? They threw the results out. And kept their theory that dinosaurs lived "millions of years ago" instead.

http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/carbondating.html

Yes I too used to think evolution was how we all came about, until I looked into it..

I also used to think the bible was old hat, contradictory, full of rubbish and untruths and it did'nt make any sense etc, until I looked into it.

I thank the internet actually because it gives you the tools to delve into both sides and form you own opinions.

Then God said to Noah and to his sons with him: “I now establish my covenant with you and with your descendants after you and with every living creature that was with you—the birds, the livestock and all the wild animals, all those that came out of the ark with you—every living creature on earth. I establish my covenant with you: Never again will all life be destroyed by the waters of a flood; never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth.”

And God said, “This is the sign of the covenant I am making between me and you and every living creature with you, a covenant for all generations to come: I have set my rainbow in the clouds, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth. Whenever I bring clouds over the earth and the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will remember my covenant between me and you and all living creatures of every kind. Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life. Whenever the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and all living creatures of every kind on the earth.”

So God said to Noah, “This is the sign of the covenant I have established between me and all life on the earth.”

So did God forget or did someone turn the rainbow off in Thailand?

"All" life("all" flesh) are the words used...

Because you cannot understand one scripture without reading and understanding them all. Its like coming into the middle of a conversation listening to one sentence then trying to understand what the whole conversation was about...

Don't patronise me. You have no idea how much I have studied the bible.

Rather than regurgitating homilies, how about responding to my argument? Is the bible the word of god or not? If so, why is it inconsistent, contradictory and requiring "interpretation"? If it is not, then what are you talking about?

Yes it is the word of God.

No it is not contradictory.

No it is not inconsistent.

Interpretation is needed because its read in a sinful world and restricting ourselves to a narrow ideological view, such as strict literalism, interferes with our ability to fully understand God's revelation.

Noah was 480 years old when he began the work :

My Dad is 65 and he is ****, he kindly built us a fence a couple of years ago but it took its toll, I honestly cant see Noah building a ship capable of carrying every species at his age to be honest.

If you include a sentence like this in your opening gambit, you cant expect anyone to take any further point you ever make seriously, never mind all the other ancient chinese-whisper superstition you include.

You know how some young kids believe in Santa because they have been told he exists and the events (presents appear on Christmas morning!) circumstantially back up there belief? and adults dont believe in Sanata because they are privy knowledge of how the presents got there factually based on documentable evidence?

You sound like a child

I really hope you are trying to wind people up :?

When God made Adam and Eve they were sinless and, basically, physically perfect. When sin entered the world there was an obviously harmful effect upon their bodies; they died. Genetically speaking, when they were first made their health was so good that their natural inclination was to live a long time. But since sin is in the world and it has an effect on people we get sick, grow old, and die...Noah would have been so close to the original genetic line of Adam and Eve, that his health was exceedingly great and so could live this long.

"My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be a hundred and twenty years." Genesis 6:3.

It might be possible that God shortened the lifespan of man because of man's great wickedness. After all, the flood came soon after this statement of God and the lifespan of people drastically shortens after Noah's ark.

So this is a bit that we have to take as not literally true, even though the whole book is the literal word of god? If that was what god meant, why didn't she say that?

When the scholar who was making up the story (as instructed by god), why did he decide that when god told him "a really long time" he should write it down as 6 days? He could have used "זמן רב" to indicate "a long time", or even "שש פעמים רב" to indicate 6 long times. He chose a word which translates as "day". Why would god let him make such a stupid mistake? Perhaps she isn't outside of time at all, or she'd have known about this stupid mistake.

Either your book is the word of god or it isn't. You aren't allowed to interpret it as you see fit otherwise you might as well be reading Peter Pan.

Because you cannot understand one scripture without reading and understanding them all. Its like coming into the middle of a conversation listening to one sentence then trying to understand what the whole conversation was about...

Limpid,

The passage isnt saying a 1000 years in a literal sense..It is saying that, to God, a day is like a thousand years, because God is outside of time. God is not limited by natural processes and time as humans are. What may seem like a long time to us, or a short time, is nothing to God, either way.