Why Do You Remain A Christian?

[the stranger]

Of course not. It's never fair to curse someone for someone else's crime. How would you like to be cursed for what Hitler did? Would that not be completely stupid?

 

Was it fair that Jesus had to die upon the cross so we could go to heaven (I might add, according to the OT, all who hung from a tree were accursed) though it was us who disobeyed? He died for us, because we disobeyed, and brought curses to the whole human race.

 

As far as Hitler goes, many paid a high price for his actions. 3 million Jews dead, and Germany a record they would never be able to dismiss. In fact, it was far more than just the Jews who were killed.

 

Many times in the OT, the righteous felt the effects of the curses when Israel rebelled against God.

 

Let us pretend that we only effected ourselves and curses were only upon ourselves. Could we interact with others as we do. Could we learn to trust, and to not trust. Could we bless others and help others. Could we train and teach others? That is part of living in this world of choices.

 

You could ask, "was it fair that all humans were cursed because of Adam and Eve?" In the OT any animal that was controlled by Satan or used in that regard had to be killed along with the accused.

 

 

First, we cannot relate animals with humans. Second, what do we really know comparing to the one who created us, and does He not have the right to do His will upon His creation? Thirdly, it is no more unfair to be cursed because of others as it is being blessed because of others. We cannot take one and call it unfair, yet accept the other as expected happenings. Many poor, angry at the rich for not sharing their wealth, yet somehow, the rich are not angry with the poor for not sharing their poverty. It all comes with the territory, just like in school, and most likely among your siblings. It happens on the job, and every where else we look, thus all of these laws that should not need to exist. But do we complain about the blessings of cell phones through new advances? Or air conditioning in the heat? We are good at counting the effects of the curse, but we have a hard time counting our blessings.

 

What you're describing here are consequences, but the bible is talking about curses. Those are two different things, my friend.

 

Are they so different? The Israelites and the Egyptian suffered many curses because of one Pharaoh. This entire world including our very own bodies suffer because of the curse.

 

It doesn't matter whether or not the snake would have understood what happened, it would have still been cursing it for something it didn't do.

 

So are we (though we all would of made that decision) and so was Jesus, upon His own choice to bring salvation to all.

 

Yet Genesis 3 says that serpent was more crafty than the other animals and spoke. The serpent.

 

Who talked? Satan through the serpent or the serpents as a whole?

 

Look at the preceding verses:

 

Ezekiel 28

[11] The word of the LORD came to me:

[12] "Son of man, take up a lament concerning the king of Tyre and say to him: ‘This is what the Sovereign LORD says:

"'You were the seal of perfection,

full of wisdom and perfect in beauty.

 

 

Ah, the text is talking about the King of Tyre! Once again, NO mention of satan! It's interesting how you christians are constantly taking things out of context.

 

 

I can understand your confusion here, my friend. We can find over and over in the bible two different meanings, and at times, two different people being addressed by the same passage. But then again, the Holy Spirit can allow us to learn many different ways from one single mistake! What we have to consider is that though it sometimes can be hard to comprehend, most often it is just is hard to comprehend a verse in question to have just one meaning. Like in this case, the king here that is spoken of here most certainly was not in the Garden, right?

 

I already pointed out in a previous post that this only says that the serpent was cunning and deceptive, it says nothing about it being satan. (But even if it did, it wouldn't change the fact that Genesis 3 says no such thing.)

 

I have learned long ago my friend, that by using just a scripture or two and not relating things with the correct meaning, which is often best done by relating it to the rest of the bible, we can make the bible say what ever we want to. When putting all of these things together, even you have to admit that it is easier to see the serpent being Satan than just a snake, right? Even you confessed by the time Revelation was written, most believed this. I should add to this, and say I doubt there was ever a time when it was not believed as a whole. I know your smarter than me, my friend, and so if I can put two and two together as four, I know you can topple that in a heart beat. This way of thinking just makes the most common sense. It is hard to believe it is anything but. Could you really make a case for the other view?

 

Stranger, Dan was a tribe of Israel! The text simply symbolizes Dan as a snake, it says nothing about satan. Man, you're really grasping at straws, aren't you?

 

Interesting enough, not mentioned in the list of Revelation. Point being, the serpent was regarded is trouble, and why was this, if people truly believed it was not Satan that manifested in the serpent.

 

I used to hold to the same assumption. The problem, though, is that it is just that: an assumption.

 

Christians assume that the bible is inspired by god, that it's perfect and consistent. In turn, they pick and choose what to take literally and what to take figuratively, based on that assumption. They pick and choose what parts they agree with and then reinterpret other parts to try to make them fit, based on the assumption. Then they claim that they've substantiated their assumption. Do you not see the circular reasoning here?

 

The fact is that the reason the books of the bible were put together is because they were chosen to be canonized by the Council of Nicea in the 300s! They didn't exactly come down from the big guy in the sky on a platter, ya know.

 

The bible is riddled with inconsistencies and problems, my friend. It is not the word of god.

 

Here's a challenge for you: Go through the NT, and every time you see a claim of fulfilled prophecy, look up the original OT text and read it in context to see what it was really about. (This is what made me realize that christianity is baloney.)

 

Gotta get back to work..

 

I personally take everything in the bible literal except what is clearly other. The books were put together by men, but here is the question. If God inspired all of these men to write down His word (as the only word He Himself wrote was the ten commandments, which soon were to be destroyed out of anger) in so many books, why on earth could not our God inspire us as to know which books to include and which ones not to? Concerning inconsistencies and problems, I believe we will find many more of those in our daily lives than we will ever find in the word of God. However, I will be looking forward to going through all of these things with you in the future. I have already did as requested many times, concerning OT passages as relating to prophecy in the NT. As I sated earlier, many passages have double meanings my friend. One verse does not fit all. LOL (As funny as it gets for right now my friend.) Now get to work LOL.

 

 

 

 

 

I am hoping later tonight I might be able to get to a few more.

 

God bless

[Guest ephymeris]

Was it fair that Jesus had to die upon the cross so we could go to heaven blah, blah, blah...God bless

 

The amount of double-think it takes to keep this belief alive and how naturally it flows from christians astounds me when viewed with my apostate eyes. It's so painful to watch.

[Ouroboros]

I personally take everything in the bible literal except what is clearly other.

My experience is that Christians take everything literal or figurative depending on what they believe, not on what is clear.

 

Jesus says, "believe in me and you'll be saved." Oh, the Christian is most definitely sure that it is literal.

 

But Jesus says, "pray and ye shall receive," or "ask for anything from the heavenly Father and he will give it to you." Oh, well, that's not literal. Jesus didn't mean everything or anything, and it's not what you're asking for that you'll receive but rather an answer of no, maybe, or later.

 

The books were put together by men, but here is the question. If God inspired all of these men to write down His word (as the only word He Himself wrote was the ten commandments, which soon were to be destroyed out of anger) in so many books, why on earth could not our God inspire us as to know which books to include and which ones not to?

Sure. He can. Through voting and politics. When the majority of priests agree, then it's God's voice.

 

Concerning inconsistencies and problems, I believe we will find many more of those in our daily lives than we will ever find in the word of God. However, I will be looking forward to going through all of these things with you in the future. I have already did as requested many times, concerning OT passages as relating to prophecy in the NT. As I sated earlier, many passages have double meanings my friend.

Which is convenient since any Christians with any belief just pick the meaning that fits.

[Phanta]

Little slice of Lion's Den anyone? Have it with a side-order of shut your damn trap End.

 

That emoticon is so disturbing. It looks like it is removing its butt-skin and revealing raw, bloody underflesh. Gross.

 

Phanta

[bdp]

Spinoza proved without a doubt that "God" exists.

 

No he didn't. Fuck Spinoza, he was no better, worse, or different than me. Get off your knees and use your own brain.

[the stranger]

My experience is that Christians take everything literal or figurative depending on what they believe, not on what is clear.

 

Jesus says, "believe in me and you'll be saved." Oh, the Christian is most definitely sure that it is literal.

 

But Jesus says, "pray and ye shall receive," or "ask for anything from the heavenly Father and he will give it to you." Oh, well, that's not literal. Jesus didn't mean everything or anything, and it's not what you're asking for that you'll receive but rather an answer of no, maybe, or later.

 

True Ourobors, but is in everything else in the bible, we have to take along side everything else. Like in James, the prayer in faith will heal the sick, those I would dare say more than not do not see restored health when prayed over. And in the verse quoted, Satan believes in Jesus, but certainly is not saved. Satan worshipers to the truest version believe in Jesus, and hate Him. Again, we must take every scripture not only with it's passage, but along side all other passages that speak on the same topic, and I will be the first to admit, that is not often as easy as it sounds.

 

Which is convenient since any Christians with any belief just pick the meaning that fits.

 

If the shoe fits, put it on, if not, throw that sucker away, because it probably stinks with holes in it anyway.

 

Cits, regarding your other verses in the OT, I have been through those many a times. I will do so again later but first want to reply to earlier posts. One thing however, to keep in mind, as that we can only really relate to the customs of our day and time. I promise you that different countries would challenge how you view things here. We have to keep the time and culture in place with the context, or we can never understand. I will get to more of that, detailing the verses, later on.

 

Isaiah 40:22 is a favorite of creationists, because it refers to the earth as a "circle." However, the earth is NOT a circle, it's a sphere. Likewise, the "compass" mentioned in the first two references would also be a reference to making a circle rather than the correct shape of a sphere. (The final reference, Amos 9:6, makes no allusion at all to the shape of the earth, so I'm not sure why it's even mentioned here.)

 

Now, before you respond with the typical creationist claim that Hebrew didn't have a term for "sphere" and therefore "circle" was the best term they had, allow me to point out that Hebrew did have a word for "ball" ("duwr"), which was used here:

 

Isaiah 22

[18] He will roll you up tightly like a ball

and throw you into a large country.

There you will die

and there the chariots you were so proud of

will become a disgrace to your master’s house.

 

 

Now, when referring to the earth's shape, if the biblical writers had intended to convey the idea of it being a "sphere," the word "ball" would have been a much better choice than "circle," would it not?

 

It is interesting that you point to a word that put in this context was used just one time in the entire bible. And in fact, circle in the translated form was used just that once.

 

circle (chug) compass, arch, vault, and circle. These are the words that describe the meaning in this context. It was translated to three words in the KJV. circle circuit compass

 

for compass :

 

Proverbs 8:27 (King James Version)

 

27When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth:

 

1 Kings 7:35 (King James Version)

 

35And in the top of the base was there a round compass of half a cubit high: and on the top of the base the ledges thereof and the borders thereof were of the same.

 

Also used in Exodus 27:5 and 38:4 regarding in the midst of the alter.

 

 

 

Now let us check on "ball" or "dur" meaning anything round and used as other words in the KJV as burn, dwell, and of course ball.

 

 

 

It should be noted that first, both of these two words are rarely used, and second, the KJV is just a translation of the original, thus many times in the newer translations we read things a bit different.

 

Now given the meaning of both words in context as well is other words used for translation in the KJV, at the very least, would you not say a word such as meaning compass, circle, and circuit seem a better fit than a word used as burn, and/or dwell? I do not see one word being a better fit than the other, or if I do, I guess I would have to keep with the original, wouldn't you?

 

 

Besides, you also have to contend with this:

 

Revelation 7

[1] After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four winds of the earth to prevent any wind from blowing on the land or on the sea or on any tree.

 

 

So, now the earth has corners! How is that consistent with either a sphere or a circle? So much for the bible being "scientific," huh?

 

Revelation 20:8 (King James Version)

 

8And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog, and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.

 

 

Why is this important? The same Greek word, but translated different, The word quarter and corner makes no difference of this era of writting in this context.

 

In any event, it was just like saying the earth has pillars. It is a way to temp to understand, or put it in a way, one can grasp, what is being said. The basic idea is separating the world into four different parts, as we also see many scriptures speak of the four winds as well. Even we have the NW, SW, NE, and SE. It can easily be related as the same sort of method of speaking. It has already been established that they knew the earth was round in in the midst of space, so then it can only be common knowledge that John was describing it in a way that is understandable, and had been described that same way many times in the past.

 

 

Well, my friend, I think I will have to get to the rest a bit later.

[the stranger]

Oh, I just remembered another question I have.

 

This is more about logistics and the time factor.

 

Adam supposedly named all animal species on this planet.

 

If we include all worms, flies, non-mammals, fish, you name it, anything that is at least visible for the normal eye, we end up with some million species.

 

Now, to name all those species would take some time.

 

How long is one million seconds? Let's come back to that later.

 

Ouroboros, actually Adam only named what God brought him, including livestock, birds, and the beast of the field. (Gen. 2:20)

 

I'm not going to argue about the science in the Bible because I believe that ancient people did know more about some facts than we would think. And I also believe that it's easy to reinterpret ancient texts to fit into what we know today, and it is possible that the original authors didn't have our interpretation at mind at all.

 

But instead, I would like to understand the non-science in the Bible. When God created the light, and it was day and night the first week. How was that possible since our Earth is a sphere and there is night and day all the time somewhere on the planet. Right now, it's dusk here where I live, but I know that somewhere else there it's morning. And furthermore, somewhere right now, in this moment, there is midday and somewhere else there is midnight.

 

Do you have an explanation to this "day/night" thing in Genesis from this perspective? Was the "day/night" concept not at all our planets motion in relationship with the sun, or was God located in a certain timezone when he created the Universe? Is perhaps the Universe created based on Greenwich time?

 

Antlerhead, I want to get to one of your older post for the last one tonight.

 

I believe you are right, however, in the garden, things were night and day. In Matthew, Luke we see the rapture, as some are getting taken in their sleep and others while they are working in the fields. The bible certainly notes this fact. However, one should also note that the whole creation thing was more than a science test, but a basic outline for the way that we should live. Work six days, rest one. Fortuntly, I rest more than that. Jesus says that God is always working, seeming different than the six days of work. It was set up for our basic way of living, but factual at the same time. Yes, it was always light somewhere, and always dark somewhere, but God wanted to illistrate 6 - 24 hour days of creation. How would have you wrote that out for easy understanding of that fact?

 

However, you make an interesting point. If the stars and the sun were yet to be placed, how can it be relating to a revolving around the sun? I think, again. the only reasonable explanation is to realize Gods intent, to lay out a way of life for us, and to help us understand it was created in six days. I do not have the cross reference with me offhand, but in Psalms it states that the sun and moon were created to govern the day and the night. If true, than the day and the night did not need the sun and the moon, because they were just created to govern them. We understand it as such, but what do we really know? It could easily just be Gods way of making us understand that it was 24 hour time frames that He was referring to.

 

I guess some questions we could ponder all day with, my friend.

 

I am going to make an effort to go back to your earlier questions, as I do find them quite interesting.

 

 

God bless

[★ Citsonga ★]

Of course not. It's never fair to curse someone for someone else's crime. How would you like to be cursed for what Hitler did? Would that not be completely stupid?

 

Was it fair that Jesus had to die upon the cross so we could go to heaven (I might add, according to the OT, all who hung from a tree were accursed) though it was us who disobeyed? He died for us, because we disobeyed, and brought curses to the whole human race.

 

The mental gymnastics christians go through!

 

First off, you're talking about a mythological story. Second, even if it were true, according to the story Jesus chose to go through it.

 

As far as Hitler goes, many paid a high price for his actions. 3 million Jews dead, and Germany a record they would never be able to dismiss. In fact, it was far more than just the Jews who were killed.

 

Dude, those were casualties of men's crimes against humanity! Are you really too blind to see the difference between that and a supposed "curse" from god? Do you really not see that what supposedly happened in the garden was not just natural consequences, but rather god actively cursing things?

 

These comparisons are just plain ridiculous, my friend. You really should start thinking for yourself instead of just swallowing christian arguments.

 

Anyway, I gotta get to work. It'll probably be a few days before I get enough spare time to respond fully.

[Antlerman]

I'm not going to argue about the science in the Bible because I believe that ancient people did know more about some facts than we would think. And I also believe that it's easy to reinterpret ancient texts to fit into what we know today, and it is possible that the original authors didn't have our interpretation at mind at all.

 

But instead, I would like to understand the non-science in the Bible. When God created the light, and it was day and night the first week. How was that possible since our Earth is a sphere and there is night and day all the time somewhere on the planet. Right now, it's dusk here where I live, but I know that somewhere else there it's morning. And furthermore, somewhere right now, in this moment, there is midday and somewhere else there is midnight.

 

Do you have an explanation to this "day/night" thing in Genesis from this perspective? Was the "day/night" concept not at all our planets motion in relationship with the sun, or was God located in a certain timezone when he created the Universe? Is perhaps the Universe created based on Greenwich time?

 

Antlerhead, I want to get to one of your older post for the last one tonight.

 

I believe you are right, however, in the garden, things were night and day. In Matthew, Luke we see the rapture, as some are getting taken in their sleep and others while they are working in the fields. The bible certainly notes this fact. However, one should also note that the whole creation thing was more than a science test, but a basic outline for the way that we should live. Work six days, rest one. Fortuntly, I rest more than that. Jesus says that God is always working, seeming different than the six days of work. It was set up for our basic way of living, but factual at the same time. Yes, it was always light somewhere, and always dark somewhere, but God wanted to illistrate 6 - 24 hour days of creation. How would have you wrote that out for easy understanding of that fact?

 

However, you make an interesting point. If the stars and the sun were yet to be placed, how can it be relating to a revolving around the sun? I think, again. the only reasonable explanation is to realize Gods intent, to lay out a way of life for us, and to help us understand it was created in six days. I do not have the cross reference with me offhand, but in Psalms it states that the sun and moon were created to govern the day and the night. If true, than the day and the night did not need the sun and the moon, because they were just created to govern them. We understand it as such, but what do we really know? It could easily just be Gods way of making us understand that it was 24 hour time frames that He was referring to.

 

I guess some questions we could ponder all day with, my friend.

 

I am going to make an effort to go back to your earlier questions, as I do find them quite interesting.

 

 

God bless

That was not one of my older posts. That was Ouroboros' post, not mine. Mine don't argue specifics of Bible interpretation, and appear to be much more difficult for you since you have tackled any yet. Would you care for me to go back and point you to a few?

[Ouroboros]

True Ourobors, but is in everything else in the bible, we have to take along side everything else. Like in James, the prayer in faith will heal the sick, those I would dare say more than not do not see restored health when prayed over. And in the verse quoted, Satan believes in Jesus, but certainly is not saved. Satan worshipers to the truest version believe in Jesus, and hate Him. Again, we must take every scripture not only with it's passage, but along side all other passages that speak on the same topic, and I will be the first to admit, that is not often as easy as it sounds.

It is not easy, and that's why you have so many denominations with different views, and you have so many different groups of Christians in the past as well. The Bible is not a clear message. It's jumbled and nebulous. And when "holy" men have revelations from God, they don't even agree what God is saying to their minds.

 

So who should I trust for a proper interpretation? You, Bob Nobody, Ehrman, your pastor, or myself?

 

Which is convenient since any Christians with any belief just pick the meaning that fits.

 

If the shoe fits, put it on, if not, throw that sucker away, because it probably stinks with holes in it anyway.

Your response shows that you can't see the problem. If a person's faith and belief dictates their interpretation, then the interpretation is subjective. If it is subjective, then the Bible is not a guide for the believer to follow, but only a tool in the hand of the believer to use against other people.

[Ouroboros]

Oh, I just remembered another question I have.

 

This is more about logistics and the time factor.

 

Adam supposedly named all animal species on this planet.

 

If we include all worms, flies, non-mammals, fish, you name it, anything that is at least visible for the normal eye, we end up with some million species.

 

Now, to name all those species would take some time.

 

How long is one million seconds? Let's come back to that later.

 

Ouroboros, actually Adam only named what God brought him, including livestock, birds, and the beast of the field. (Gen. 2:20)

 

Gen 2:19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground ALL the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.

 

If God had to bring every animal to him, he would be busy for more than a few days still. According to tradition, Adam was created on Saturday and ate the forbidden fruit on Wednesday next week. Still not enough days, and it's not explained by God bringing the animals to Adam.

 

Another question is, did God change animals teeth after the fall? My understanding is that all animals ate fruit, vegetables, leaves, etc before the fall, but some became carnivores after the fall. Is that so? If that's the case, how come predators have canine teeth that is fitted for eating meat? Did they get this after the fall from God?

[Ouroboros]

Antlerhead, I want to get to one of your older post for the last one tonight.

Antlerman and I are two different people. The post you responded to was mine. Just an FYI.

 

I believe you are right, however, in the garden, things were night and day. In Matthew, Luke we see the rapture, as some are getting taken in their sleep and others while they are working in the fields. The bible certainly notes this fact. However, one should also note that the whole creation thing was more than a science test, but a basic outline for the way that we should live. Work six days, rest one. Fortuntly, I rest more than that. Jesus says that God is always working, seeming different than the six days of work. It was set up for our basic way of living, but factual at the same time. Yes, it was always light somewhere, and always dark somewhere, but God wanted to illistrate 6 - 24 hour days of creation. How would have you wrote that out for easy understanding of that fact?

 

However, you make an interesting point. If the stars and the sun were yet to be placed, how can it be relating to a revolving around the sun? I think, again. the only reasonable explanation is to realize Gods intent, to lay out a way of life for us, and to help us understand it was created in six days. I do not have the cross reference with me offhand, but in Psalms it states that the sun and moon were created to govern the day and the night. If true, than the day and the night did not need the sun and the moon, because they were just created to govern them. We understand it as such, but what do we really know? It could easily just be Gods way of making us understand that it was 24 hour time frames that He was referring to.

So the night and day thing was more of a metaphor (a representative symbol) for the real light and darkness.

 

If you can believe that, then why can't you believe that more parts of the story are metaphorical? Why maintaining literalism in some aspects (without any solid proof or reason) while accepting symbolism in other aspects? If you suddenly realized that logic can bring one literal part in Genesis and make it into symbolic, then why can't logic, reason, facts, evidence, and science make it for the rest of it?

 

Why can't you accept the same interpretation many other Christians have done? There are many Christians that have embraced old Earth, old Universe, and evolution. They can even see how it fits the Genesis story. It's just a matter of adaptation. Evolution is a fact and extremely well supported with evidence. I've only seen a tiny fraction of it and it blows everything out of the water. I'd say there are more evidence for evolution than there is for Big Bang. No. Seriously. It's even mathematical evident (or more properly, it's a combination of statistics and calculus). There even have been several computer programs that were made to evolve according to evolutionary processes, and they come out on top in comparison with traditional user programmed solutions. So it works. It's true. It's mathematically evident. So why hold on to a story as literal just because it feels good?

[Guest Spinoza]

I remain a Christian, or more appropriately a follower of Jesus the Nazarene (Natzir/branch) because he was brave enough to say He was God .... yod- heh

 

אין עוד מלבדו

[★ Citsonga ★]

I remain a Christian, or more appropriately a follower of Jesus the Nazarene (Natzir/branch) because he was brave enough to say He was God .... yod- heh

 

So if I called myself God, that would make me brave?

 

 

[Guest Spinoza]

I remain a Christian, or more appropriately a follower of Jesus the Nazarene (Natzir/branch) because he was brave enough to say He was God .... yod- heh

 

So if I called myself God, that would make me brave?

 

 

People would surely want to crucify you.

[the stranger]

Antlerman and I (Ouroboros) are two different people. The post you responded to was mine. Just an FYI.

 

Ourobos, Now that explains it, my friend. Now I just have to remember as such. LOL Sorry about that, guys.

 

So the night and day thing was more of a metaphor (a representative symbol) for the real light and darkness.

 

I was pondering this question again yesterday. Let me try one more stab at it.

 

Genesis 1:5 (New American Standard Bible)

 

5(A)God called the light day, and the darkness He called night And (B)there was evening and there was morning, one day.

 

Now there is no way this can be called a metaphor if taken literally. At this point, the sun and the moon was yet to be created.

 

Genesis 1:3-4 (New American Standard Bible)

 

3Then (A)God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.

 

4God saw that the light was (B)good; and God ©separated the light from the darkness.

 

 

I think part of our problem is that we assume that the light has to be the sun, and the sun only. Yet we have fire flies and fire, and do we know where this light comes from? It should also be noted that God is light. In other words, light comes from God, not just a creation of God, thus the sun.

 

Here are a couple I want you to see relating the Lord and the day.

 

 

 

Psalm 104:19 (New American Standard Bible)

 

 

19He made the moon (A)for the seasons;

The (B)sun knows the place of its setting.

 

 

Genesis 1:16 (New American Standard Bible)

 

16God made the two great lights, the (A)greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made (B)the stars also.

 

Psalm 74:16-17 (New American Standard Bible)

 

 

16Yours is the day, Yours also is the night;

You have (A)prepared the light and the sun.

17You have (B)established all the boundaries of the earth;

You have made ©summer and winter.

 

=====================================================================================

 

Bottom line: time was started by God. The day and the night was created by the first light. Thus, the day and the night were all ready established before the sun and moon being created. The sun and the moon were created to bring seasons.

 

Part of the problem is that we think we have to fully understand something in order for it to be true. History has proven to us over and over that this is not true. Just because we cannot wrap our minds around creation does not mean that creation is not here. The weather men cannot often predict a weather forecast of even 12 hours, but yet ew think we have scientific proof of the world being some 4 or more millions of years old.

 

God did not need to create heaven and earth in a step by step fashion that we can comprehend, or that can only make sense to us. If god created time, and everything involved in it, including us (which we still do not really have a grasp about) then certainly God could create the world in ways that we can not understand. The first light was used to establish the 24 hour period, and not the sun and the moon. The first light was (or presumed) to have been replaced with the sun and the moon.

 

When relating it to mans prospective, if the orgin of man was the garden, and that was the center peace of the world of that time, than certainly it would not be beyond comprehension to assume that the day and evening prospective was used as how it related to the garden of Eden.

 

If you can believe that, then why can't you believe that more parts of the story are metaphorical? Why maintaining literalism in some aspects (without any solid proof or reason) while accepting symbolism in other aspects? If you suddenly realized that logic can bring one literal part in Genesis and make it into symbolic, then why can't logic, reason, facts, evidence, and science make it for the rest of it?

 

Yes, this is my problem with many that do not take the bible literally. Where do we draw the line? You could almost take it straight up to the top of the chain. Some books, like the books of prophecies, including Revelation, seem to make it clear that one cannot read it just as it states in its entirety.

 

Why can't you accept the same interpretation many other Christians have done? There are many Christians that have embraced old Earth, old Universe, and evolution. They can even see how it fits the Genesis story. It's just a matter of adaptation. Evolution is a fact and extremely well supported with evidence. I've only seen a tiny fraction of it and it blows everything out of the water. I'd say there are more evidence for evolution than there is for Big Bang. No. Seriously. It's even mathematical evident (or more properly, it's a combination of statistics and calculus). There even have been several computer programs that were made to evolve according to evolutionary processes, and they come out on top in comparison with traditional user programmed solutions. So it works. It's true. It's mathematically evident. So why hold on to a story as literal just because it feels good?

 

Again, if a Christian holds to the old world view, more power to him. Now going with evolution, can you show me even one thing that has changed to something bigger and/or better than before? Differences as things around them change, maybe, but a new breed, or upgraded breed, that is smarter than the past. And again, why is there no in between stages at the present time. You can say it is because it is a long process, but that only makes the question stronger. There has to be stages of everything in creation, but there is no evidence of that. There has to be other animals that seem to be able to start grasping the human verbal communication, and the likes of greater intelligence. We see no animal cities, or countries. We see no animals riding on water craft that they have designed. We see no real buildings of such design. Humans are still in complete control, just as the bible states. It does seem to me that there would began to be wars of ruler ship and control if others were close to having our ability. As I have pointed out on other links, missing links are all around us, and it is hard to say you know and have read the book when half of the chapters are missing.

 

God bless. I will respond later on more when I get more time. You are still in my prayers and I will continue to research your past posts.

[Ouroboros]

So the night and day thing was more of a metaphor (a representative symbol) for the real light and darkness.

 

I was pondering this question again yesterday. Let me try one more stab at it.

 

Genesis 1:5 (New American Standard Bible)

 

5(A)God called the light day, and the darkness He called night And (B)there was evening and there was morning, one day.

 

Now there is no way this can be called a metaphor if taken literally. At this point, the sun and the moon was yet to be created.

 

Genesis 1:3-4 (New American Standard Bible)

 

3Then (A)God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.

 

4God saw that the light was (B)good; and God ©separated the light from the darkness.

 

 

I think part of our problem is that we assume that the light has to be the sun, and the sun only. Yet we have fire flies and fire, and do we know where this light comes from? It should also be noted that God is light. In other words, light comes from God, not just a creation of God, thus the sun.

So God was turned on and turned off depending on if it was night or day?

 

God must be able to produce darkness if he was also the night, unless you now want to argue that God is absent during night.

 

It still makes the sun and the moon nothing but symbols for what night and day is. The true night and day comes from God turning on and off light a lightbulb, and the sun and moon are just there to pretend to be the night and day lights. That makes them symbols, not the sources.

 

And when God finally created the sun and the moon, was the night and day still controlled by God's light switch or was the sun and moon now the representatives of the night and day? If they were, then we're still back to the problem of which timezone on the spherical planet Earth was that night and day measured from? Or did God just create the sun and moon and had them not shine at all, and only the God-light-bulb was controlling the day and night? If so, the why do you believe that a God-light-on-off sequence must have been 24 hours? It could have been 240 million years each time instead. You wouldn't know, would you?

 

Here are a couple I want you to see relating the Lord and the day.

 

Psalm 104:19 (New American Standard Bible)

 

 

19He made the moon (A)for the seasons;

The (B)sun knows the place of its setting.

 

 

Genesis 1:16 (New American Standard Bible)

 

16God made the two great lights, the (A)greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made (B)the stars also.

 

Psalm 74:16-17 (New American Standard Bible)

 

 

16Yours is the day, Yours also is the night;

You have (A)prepared the light and the sun.

17You have (B)established all the boundaries of the earth;

You have made ©summer and winter.

I think you're missing the point.

 

The planet is spherical. You know that right? Or do you believe the planet is flat?

 

If you do believe it is spherical, do you know how night and day works? Do you believe the sun rises over the edge of the pancake edge, or do you trust science that the planet is rotating around its axis?

 

If you do trust science that the planet is rotating and that night and day is created that way, then do you believe that when Israel is facing the sun, the whole planet is lit up as a day, and when the sun is facing the other side of the planet, the whole planet is dark??

 

If you do believe that day and night is created when the sun hits just a particular part of the planet, and the night is the opposite side of the planet, then you should be able to bring this whole chain of knowledge into one concept, day and night is constantly happening all over the planet at all times.

 

So then we're back to the original question, which timezone did the Bible use when God declared "Now it is night on planet Earth," and then later "Now it is morning on planet Earth."

 

Or do you still consider that the day and night was just a lighbulb that God turned on and off arbitrarily and called night and day?

 

 

=====================================================================================

 

Bottom line: time was started by God. The day and the night was created by the first light. Thus, the day and the night were all ready established before the sun and moon being created. The sun and the moon were created to bring seasons.

So then the day and night were not bound by a 24 hours limitation. God only needed to turn it on all call it morning, and then turn it off and call it night.

 

 

Part of the problem is that we think we have to fully understand something in order for it to be true. History has proven to us over and over that this is not true. Just because we cannot wrap our minds around creation does not mean that creation is not here. The weather men cannot often predict a weather forecast of even 12 hours, but yet ew think we have scientific proof of the world being some 4 or more millions of years old.

You trust a 2,000 year old book over 2,000,000 books today. Scientists make mistakes, no doubt about it, but when they discover their mistakes, they correct them. When Christians discover mistakes in the Bible, they invent explanations to why the mistakes still must be true. Big difference.

 

You're trusting people from 2,000 years ago who didn't even live during the time they're writing about. Moses (or whoever) did not live during creation. You don't even know how the Genesis story got into the Bible or who wrote it. It is assumed by many Christians that Moses wrote them, but history points a different direction.

 

I trust people that live and breathe today who have written books about how the experimented and reasoned their way to the truth.

 

God did not need to create heaven and earth in a step by step fashion that we can comprehend, or that can only make sense to us. If god created time, and everything involved in it, including us (which we still do not really have a grasp about) then certainly God could create the world in ways that we can not understand. The first light was used to establish the 24 hour period, and not the sun and the moon. The first light was (or presumed) to have been replaced with the sun and the moon.

So you're saying that God can create the world in any way he wants, except through evolution or old universe? You're the one limiting God! Don't you see it?

 

You are basically saying that God can do anything he wants, except what science has discovered to be true. You are defining God's creation based on what you WANT to believe, not what FITS reality. Think about it.

 

If there is a God, why is it that God could not have used evolution or Big Bang? Explain why. I'm really interested. Why is it that you are the one who decides how God did it?

 

Think about this: "let there be light." According to the Big Bang theory, at first, the "bang" was dark and no physical processes created any light. But somewhere around 150,000 years after the event, suddenly light came about through nuclear processes. The whole universe lit up like a candle. "Let there be light."

 

God commanded the ocean, land, and sky to "bring forth" life. Evolution says that life started in the ocean, that life evolved in the ocean, then on land, then in the sky.

 

About 60,000 years ago, the hominid species evolved to modern humans, Homo sapiens, symbols came about. We could understand images, stories, and start to understand the world. We ate the fruit of knowledge. Our knowledge about the world started to grow and expand, for good and for evil.

 

Now tell, me where would my interpretation above be wrong?

 

 

When relating it to mans prospective, if the orgin of man was the garden, and that was the center peace of the world of that time, than certainly it would not be beyond comprehension to assume that the day and evening prospective was used as how it related to the garden of Eden.

Even before Eden existed? The whole universe, the stars were created relating to a local event on our planet?

 

If the light was just something that God could turn on and off arbitrarily, why do you demand that it must be 24 hours and not a billion years?

[Ouroboros]

Again, if a Christian holds to the old world view, more power to him. Now going with evolution, can you show me even one thing that has changed to something bigger and/or better than before?

First of all, bigger is not necessarily better. It depends.

 

And yes, there are evidence in the fossil record, and as I have told you and other Christians multiple times in the last month, there are many documented cases of evolutionary steps, even speciations (one species become another). And I'm tired of giving the links and explaining them again. If you don't read what I write, then why do you ask?

 

Differences as things around them change, maybe, but a new breed, or upgraded breed, that is smarter than the past.

Yes, new breed, upgraded breed, documented, recorded, experimented, observed in nature, etc... many times over. But you would only know about them if you read books that tell you about them. Since you're not reading those books or taking a class in the topic, the knowledge is lost on you.

 

And again, why is there no in between stages at the present time.

You are an "in-between" individual. We all are. Every individual of every species is an intermediate step.

 

It is impossible to find all fossils from all dead individuals from the past, so there will always be missing individual steps, but based on DNA markers and comparing bones, we know stuff about the steps. It's not guessing. But I have explained this earlier to some degree.

 

I urge you again, buy Dawkins' book and read it. I will not write 100,000 words and explain all the things he brings up just to make you understand the basics of evolution. He doesn't even go into the depth of it. I have read more than just his book, and his book is great for someone who just started to learn about evolution, but there are 1,000 times more things.

 

You can say it is because it is a long process, but that only makes the question stronger.

Actually, some changes have been observed in just a few generations. It depend on the environmental pressures.

 

As I've said to you at least two or three times before, evolution has been observed many times. There used to be a book (which I don't remember the name of) in the 90's that had about 300 examples of evolutionary events observed and documented in the wild.

 

Today, I don't know how many there might be. Thousands? Ten thousands?

 

There has to be stages of everything in creation, but there is no evidence of that. There has to be other animals that seem to be able to start grasping the human verbal communication, and the likes of greater intelligence.

First of all, that's a misunderstanding of evolution.

 

Evolution does not say: survival of the fittest in a process that will ultimately always lead to humans.

 

Evolution is about reproductive success, no evolution towards the goal we as humans have decided are beneficial for humans.

 

We see no animal cities, or countries. We see no animals riding on water craft that they have designed.

Again, you are showing why you don't understand evolution. You are making an assumption that this is something evolution claims, when it doesn't. You're demanding that evolution is proven true by evidence that evolution would not claim to be true.

 

How about I demand that you prove Jesus by giving me his sandals. Or prove to me that Jesus was resurrected by resurrecting a person yourself. Why don't you prove that Hell exists by sending someone there? You see, I demand stupid proofs by you to prove Christianity. Those things wouldn't prove Christianity, would they? So why would evolution be proven by non-evolution evidence?

 

We see no real buildings of such design. Humans are still in complete control, just as the bible states. It does seem to me that there would began to be wars of ruler ship and control if others were close to having our ability. As I have pointed out on other links, missing links are all around us, and it is hard to say you know and have read the book when half of the chapters are missing.

But to turn the tables on you. Chimps communicate and have social structure. The use tools and even weapons. Some groups of chimps have developed a culture of enjoying "pool parties" in the jungle. Bonobos can learn human sign language and communicate. There was a tribe of chimps that killed of (genocide) members of another tribe to gain more ground. And much more...

 

And how about Homo erectus, Homo habilis, Astralopithecus afarensis, Homo neaderthalis, and more... who all walked upright. Some of them used tools. Some were hunters with spears. Some buried their dead. But all of them are not Homo sapiens. And we know this from the fossils (and we have many fossils of each one to know that it was not just some weird ape or weird human, there were real species very closely related in form and behavior to humans.

 

You can't explain these things with creationism, but you can explain these things with evolution.

 

God bless. I will respond later on more when I get more time. You are still in my prayers and I will continue to research your past posts.

And I still want to know why you are so hardheaded on that God must have created the Earth and species in a few 24-hour segments, and why God could not have used Big Bang or evolution? You have no foundation for such a declaration or limitation of God's powers. So tell me. What evidence do you have that God cannot use Big Bang and evolution?

[DesertBob]

There has to be stages of everything in creation, but there is no evidence of that. There has to be other animals that seem to be able to start grasping the human verbal communication, and the likes of greater intelligence.

First of all, that's a misunderstanding of evolution.

 

Evolution does not say: survival of the fittest in a process that will ultimately always lead to humans.

 

Evolution is about reproductive success, not evolution towards the goal we as humans have decided are beneficial for humans.

Not only that, but human language and society are a very recent development, a blink of an eye in evolutionary terms. Maybe a dozen millenia or something like that, IIRC. One would imagine that the evolution of opposable thumbs and speech would be a relatively rare thing, and it could not arise anyplace but in certain species with sufficiently developed brains. On the other hand, dolphins may be way more advanced than we know. And there is the matter of certain parrot species -- my African Gray parrot had a vocabulary of two or three hundred words, and used them appropriately. In research settings, that particular species can answer questions about shape, color, and quantity, and correct other birds when they give the wrong answer:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_(parrot)

 

So ... not only does Stranger misunderstand evolution, and not only would we not expect to see very many species in some phase of speech-development, but in truth, there are species besides humans which are evolving their own intelligence, and even speech, if you are willing to recognize that not all intelligence is structured like human intelligence or necessarily even that recognizable to us. Parrots, for instance, have no desire to please, but they will compete for attention -- so you train them in entirely different ways than children or dogs, using an accomplice to demonstrate how to correctly interact with you.

 

As my parrot, SmallTalk, would often say, "SmallTalk is a SMART bird. Don't make me come over there."

[Ouroboros]

Not only that, but human language and society are a very recent development, a blink of an eye in evolutionary terms. Maybe a dozen millenia or something like that, IIRC. One would imagine that the evolution of opposable thumbs and speech would be a relatively rare thing, and it could not arise anyplace but in certain species with sufficiently developed brains.

I'm actually taking the class right now, so I can fill you in on it.

 

Language might be as old as 300,000 years. The first evidence of a hyoid bone has been found that old, and it's one of the parts we have to have to create our complex sounds. And it has been found in some of the now dead homo species. H. neadertalis had one and most likely could speak since they hunted together and drove mammoths into mud-traps etc. They must have had some form of communication to organize the teamwork.

 

Most primates have opposable thumbs (and toes) and the record stretches back millions of years.

 

And when it comes to the brain, the size of the brain evolved also millions of years ago (IIRC), but not until 60,000 years ago did the first H. sapiens start to use symbols in form of art and ornaments. Some genetic change happened, most likely a larger site in the brain for language syntax and probably a better (longer) short-term memory. We can hold more concepts simultaneous while thinking.

 

On the other hand, dolphins may be way more advanced than we know. And there is the matter of certain parrot species -- my African Gray parrot had a vocabulary of two or three hundred words, and used them appropriately. In research settings, that particular species can answer questions about shape, color, and quantity, and correct other birds when they give the wrong answer:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_(parrot)

That's right. And several primates can learn to understand sentences quite well, and construct their own.

 

So ... not only does Stranger misunderstand evolution, and not only would we not expect to see very many species in some phase of speech-development, but in truth, there are species besides humans which are evolving their own intelligence, and even speech, if you are willing to recognize that not all intelligence is structured like human intelligence or necessarily even that recognizable to us. Parrots, for instance, have no desire to please, but they will compete for attention -- so you train them in entirely different ways than children or dogs, using an accomplice to demonstrate how to correctly interact with you.

True.

 

And another detail Stranger doesn't understand is that there were multiple species with speech, tools, and primitive culture living simultaneous in the past. We are the only one that made it. And one possibility is that we were selected for because of our better ability to adjust to different environments (because of the improved abilities of the brain).

 

As my parrot, SmallTalk, would often say, "SmallTalk is a SMART bird. Don't make me come over there."

 

I can tell you're from an ancient world of programming...

[Antlerman]

I'm still waiting for those promised responses that the Stranger said he was going to get to. I guess my prophecy he would choose the easier distractions of quibbling over interpretations was spot-on?

[Ouroboros]

I'm still waiting for those promised responses that the Stranger said he was going to get to. I guess my prophecy he would choose the easier distractions of quibbling over interpretations was spot-on?

They always do.

[the stranger]

And I still want to know why you are so hardheaded on that God must have created the Earth and species in a few 24-hour segments, and why God could not have used Big Bang or evolution? You have no foundation for such a declaration or limitation of God's powers. So tell me. What evidence do you have that God cannot use Big Bang and evolution?

 

Clock

 

 

Age Estimate

 

1. Receding Moon

 

 

750 m.y.a. max

 

2. Oil Pressure

 

 

5,000 - 10,000 years

 

3. The Sun

 

 

1,000,000 years max

 

4. The Oldest Living Thing

 

 

4,900 years max

 

5. Helium in the Atmosphere

 

 

1,750,000 years max

 

6. Short Period Comets

 

 

5,000 - 10,000 years

 

7. The Earth's Magnetic Field

 

 

10,000 years max

 

8. C-14 Dating of Dino Bones

 

 

10,000 - 50,000 years

 

9A. Dinosaur Blood and Ancient DNA

 

 

5,000 - 50,000 years

9B. Unfossilized Dinosaur Bones 5,000 - 50,000 years

9C. 165 Million Year Old Ligaments 5,000 - 50,000 years

 

10. Axel Heiberg Island

 

 

5,000 - 10,000 years

 

11. Carbon-14 in Atmosphere

 

 

10,000 years max

 

12. The Dead Sea

 

 

13,000 years max

 

13. Niagara Falls

 

 

5,000 - 8,800 years max

 

14. Historical Records

 

 

5,000 years max

 

15. The San Andreas Fault

 

 

5,000 - 10,000 years

 

16. Mitochondrial Eve

 

 

6,500 years

 

17. Population Growth

 

 

10,000 years max

18. Minerals in the Oceans Various (mostly young) Ages

19. Rapid Mountain Uplift Less than 10 million years

20. Carbon 14 from "Old" Sources 10,000 to 50,000 years

21. Dark Matter and Spiral Galaxies 100 - 500 million years (max)

22. Helium and lead in Zircons 6,000 years

 

 

My link

 

 

HOW OLD IS THE UNIVERSE?

 

Evolutionists generally use five different methods in determining the age of matter: salt content in the oceans, deposition of sediments, rate of soil erosion, disintegration of radioactive materials, and Libby's Carbon 14 experiment. Problems can be found with all of these methods, but the biggest problem of all is the method that they've chosen to ignore--the study of Half Lives.

 

This is where one figures the current rate of decay or deterioration of something and then figures backwards to see how long this process has been going. For example, if one fills his gas tank up with gas and drives for 100 miles, you can figure that he's driven 100 miles if you know how may miles his car will travel per gallon.

 

The dating of matter works the same way, except in science this is called the study of Half Lives. Evolutionists tend to steer away from this field of study, for it is very capable of demolishing their religious conviction that the universe and the earth is billions of years old. Let's look at a few examples:

 

The sun is continuously burning out at a rate of 5 feet per hour. This means that the sun would have been TWICE the size that it is now only 100,000 years ago! Only 20,000,000 years ago, the sun would have been so large that it would be touching the earth! Yet evolutionists insist that the universe, including the sun, is billions of years old.

 

Because of meteors and meteorites, interplanetary dust falls upon the earth at a rate of at least 14 million tons per year. The evolutionists claim that the earth, the moon, and the various planets are at least 4.5 billion years old. This means that there should be a layer of space dust on the moon over 500 feet thick. However, when the astronauts landed on the moon, LESS THAN THREE INCHES of dust were found. Three inches could have accumulated in less than 8000 years.

 

Radioactive helium is generated by decaying uranium atoms. Dr. Melvin Cook, a former Nobel-prize nominee, says that this helium is constantly being released into our atmosphere, and that there are currently about a million-billion grams of this helium in our atmosphere. Yet, this is a very small number compared to what it would be if the earth were over 4.5 billion years old. According to Cook's measurements, the earth can't be over 10,000 to 15,000 years old.

 

The half life of the earth's magnetic field is believed to be less than 1400 years. That is, 1400 years ago, the earth's magnetic field would have been twice as strong as it is today. Only 10,000 years ago, the earth would have had a magnetic field as strong as the sun! WHO KNOWS what it would have been like 4.5 billion years ago!?

 

You see, these are the things that are commonly ignored by "serious scientists." The theory of evolution is an UNSCIENTIFIC theory, which is made up of blind guesswork and outright lying. It cannot be proven by the scientific laws of observation and experimentation. Darwin's theory is nothing more than a religious faith for high-minded people who think they're too smart for God. The Lord Jesus Christ was a Creationist (Matt. 19:4; Mark 13:19), and when we compare His life work to the life work of Darwin and his followers, we find a much better Way in Jesus Christ and in the written word of God.

 

My link

 

 

17 - MOON DUST—Although most people do not know it, one of the reasons so much money was spent to send a rocket to the moon was to see how thick the dust was on its surface!

 

Evolutionists had long held to the fact (as we do) that the earth and moon are about the same age. It is believed, by many, that the earth and its moon are billions of years old. If that were true, the moon would by now have built up a 20-60 mile [32 to 97 km] layer of dust on it!

 

In *Isaac Asimov’s first published essay (1958), he wrote:

 

" . . I get a picture, therefore, of the first spaceship [to the moon], picking out a nice level place for landing purposes, coming slowly downward tail-first and sinking majestically out of sight."—*Isaac Asimov, Asimov on Science: A Thirty-Year Retrospective (1989), xvi-xvii.

 

In the 1950s, *R.A. Lyttleton, a highly respected astronomer, said this:

 

"The lunar surface is exposed to direct sunlight, and strong ultraviolet light and X-rays [from the sun] can destroy the surface layers of exposed rock and reduce them to dust at the rate of a few ten-thousandths of an inch per year. But even this minute amount could, during the age of the moon, be sufficient to form a layer over it several miles deep."—*R.A. Lyttleton, quoted in R. Wysong, Creation-Evolution Controversy, p. 175.

 

In 5 to 10 billion years, 3 or 4/10,000ths of an inch per year would produce 20-60 miles [32-97 km] of dust. In view of this, our men at NASA were afraid to send men to the moon. Landing there, they would be buried in dust and quickly suffocate! So NASA first sent an unmanned lander to its surface, which made the surprising discovery that there was hardly any dust on the moon! In spite of that discovery, Neil Armstrong was decidedly worried about this dust problem as his March 1970 flight in Apollo 11 neared. He feared his lunar lander would sink deeply into it and he and Edwin Aldrin would perish. But because the moon is young, they had no problem. There is not over 2 or 3 inches [5.08 or 7.62 cm] of dust on its surface! That is the amount one would expect if the moon were about 6000-8000 years old.

 

*Dr. Lyttleton’s facts were correct; solar radiation does indeed turn the moon rocks into dust. With only a few inches of dust, the moon cannot be older than a few thousand years.

 

It is significant that studies on the moon have shown that only 1/60th of the one- or two-inch dust layer on the moon originated from outer space. This has been corroborated by still more recent measurements of the influx rate of dust on the moon, which also do not support an old moon.

 

My link

 

(also see the other 30 facts concerning a young earth.)

 

 

UTTER COMPLEXITY—In order to form a protein, the DNA molecule has to direct the placement of amino acids in a certain specific order in a molecule made up of hundreds of thousands of units. For each position, it must choose the correct amino acid from some twenty different amino acids. DNA itself is made up of only four different building blocks (A, G, C, and T). These are arranged in basic code units of three factors per unit (A-C-C, G-T-A, etc.). This provides 64 basic code units. With them, millions of separate codes can be sequentially constructed. Each code determines one of the many millions of factors in your body, organs, brain, and all their functions. If just one code were omitted, you would be in serious trouble.

 

AN ASTOUNDING CLAIM—The evolutionists applied their theory to the amazing discoveries about DNA—and came up with a totally astonishing claim:

 

All the complicated DNA in each life form, and all the DNA in every other life form—made itself out of dirty water back in the beginning! There was some gravel around, along with some dirt. Nearby was some water, and overhead a lightning storm. The lightning hit the dirty water and made living creatures complete with DNA. They not only had their complete genetic code, but they were also immediately able to eat, digest food, move about, perform enzymatic and glandular functions, and all the rest.

 

Instantly, they automatically knew how to produce additional cells; their DNA began dividing (cells must continually replenish themselves or the creature quickly dies); their cells began making new ones; and every new cell could immediately do the myriad of functions that the entire creature must do.

 

My link

 

(concerning DNA and much much more)

 

=============================================================================================================

 

OK OK I am done with this part of our disagreement!

 

The only point that I am making is that you read something and dismiss it, and I read something and I do the same thing. We both already have our minds made up. You can (and have) give me plenty of (facts) and sites to support your believe and I can do the same. You will not change your mind, nor will I change mine. The point here is that there is plenty of factual information out there to believe in a young earth. If you want to believe in the old earth thing and the "What Creator" thing, you can, but what you cannot do is say I have no factual claims to back up what I believe.

 

Now in my next post, though I do want to address your most recent concerns in my last post, I want to try to hunt down Antlerheads questions that he is referring to. Antlerhead, you know I try not to ignore any tough questions, whether i know the answer or not, but with so many posters, they can be easily lost in the wind, per say. I will try to hunt down the questions in which you are referring to. And Ouroboros, I am hoping to get to you later on tonight.

 

Antlerhead, thank you for your extreme patience. Your questions will be on my very next post with my answers, whether right or not.

[the stranger]

Antlerman, sorry to do this to you, but for the life of me I cannot find the questions in which you are referring to. If you can direct me to a page or copy them for me it would be much appreciated, my friend.

[Guest Spinoza]

 

HOW OLD IS THE UNIVERSE?

 

Antlerhead, thank you for your extreme patience. Your questions will be on my very next post with my answers, whether right or not.

 

My guess is Infinitely Old.... a lot older than 13.75 Billion.