Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How then can you speak on the very things you don't believe in?
Because I've done my research.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Betsey Lane
Jesus Christ. How then can anyone believe anything you have to say when speaking about the things of Christ?
So you're essentially saying that nonbelievers can't speak on something they don't believe in? Do you realize how hypocritical that is? Not only that, but I take the extra step and do my research. It would be stupid to criticize something you don't understand. I don't do that, yet, there are creationists who will debate evolution constantly but can't even tell you what evolution really is. If that isn't hypocrisy, I don't know what is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Betsey Lane
Are you searching to find truth? I can help.
No thanks. Being raised in a Baptist family was enough for me.
If you take Genesis 1 & 2 literally that there are many inconsistancies:- In Gen 1:11 there is grass gowing (day 3) without any sun. The sun was not created til Gen 1:16 (the 4th day) but grass and trees depend on the sun for growth.
There is no inconsistency. First there was light, before the plants on day 3 and before the sun and moon on day 4. Just because the light didn't come from the sun doesn't mean that plants couldn't exist for one day without the sun. There was light.
Quote:
Originally Posted by meerkat2
Also when you come to Genesis 2:5 it says that it had not rained and nothing was actually growing in the earth and even though it says in Gen 1 that everything was created in days 1-6. In Gen 1:26 it says that God created man in his image but when you get to Gen 2:5 It says there is NOT a man to til the ground. What does Gen 2:4-5 mean?
Gen 2:4 ¶ These [are] the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
(Is a generation a day?)
Gen 2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and [there was] not a man to till the ground.
Again, there are no inconsistencies between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. A different perspective perhaps, but they are not inconsistent with one another. Genesis 1 and 2 are the same creation story, not different and not contradictory.
Gen 2:4 - the term generations here means "account" or "telling" of what happened. Genesis 1 is an overall picture of creation from God's point of view. It tells us what he did, in what order, but it's really a generic explanation of all of creation week. Genesis 2 is a more precise or specific description of day six of creation involving Adam and Eve and focuses on Adam and Eve rather than the creation as a whole.
Gen 2:5 - "And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and [there was] not a man to till the ground."
This is correct and does not contradict Gen 1 at all. On day 3 God created the plants and vegetation - a general overview statement. In Gen 2 it is explained that while plants and vegetation were created on day 3, the plants and herbs of the field were not yet grown because Adam wasn't created. This is because they're specific to him and his story. Adam was made on day six -- after the plants and vegetation (think wild/jungle/forests) of day 3 and before the plants and herbs of the field, which he would be directed to tend.
There is no inconsistency. First there was light, before the plants on day 3 and before the sun and moon on day 4. Just because the light didn't come from the sun doesn't mean that plants couldn't exist for one day without the sun. There was light.
Again, there are no inconsistencies between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. A different perspective perhaps, but they are not inconsistent with one another. Genesis 1 and 2 are the same creation story, not different and not contradictory.
Gen 2:4 - the term generations here means "account" or "telling" of what happened. Genesis 1 is an overall picture of creation from God's point of view. It tells us what he did, in what order, but it's really a generic explanation of all of creation week. Genesis 2 is a more precise or specific description of day six of creation involving Adam and Eve and focuses on Adam and Eve rather than the creation as a whole.
Gen 2:5 - "And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and [there was] not a man to till the ground."
This is correct and does not contradict Gen 1 at all. On day 3 God created the plants and vegetation - a general overview statement. In Gen 2 it is explained that while plants and vegetation were created on day 3, the plants and herbs of the field were not yet grown because Adam wasn't created. This is because they're specific to him and his story. Adam was made on day six -- after the plants and vegetation (think wild/jungle/forests) of day 3 and before the plants and herbs of the field, which he would be directed to tend.
I agree with you mams. Some say that Gen. 1 was written by God and Gen. 2 was written by Adam. This is called the Tolleth theory of Genesis, where Genesis is a compilation of the accounts of several men. Each Tolleth ends with "and these are the Generations of..." signifying the end of the tablet. I think it is very plausible. I think it would be fasinating to find copies of the original tablets of clay/stone with these individual writtings on them. There is lots of acheology to do, so who knows.
In today's world, one of the most common arguments against faith and the spiritual is the discoveries made by science and how the world works through natural unguided laws. In this thread, I just want to ask people how they view their faith and the Word of God when it is stacked against science and empirical evidence. For instance, carbon dating has given an estimate of how old the earth is, which is around 4.65 billion years, but the Bible gives off the idea the earth is around 10,000 years old. Another example is the flood; the Bible says the flood covered the earth, but modern biology and geology says that the erosion patterns portrayed on the rocks shows no indication of a global flood, but one massive flood in the Meditteranean Sea, and many other issues including the fossil record and microcevolution. How do you view the Bible in light of these supposed "facts"?
Carbon dating is only good for under 50k years, So I think that you are refering to Isotopic dating in general. All of these dating systems require the technician to guess at the quantity of the original parent material. Since fossils are not closed systems we have no way of telling how much of any matterial was originally present when the fossil found its place in the ground. In fact the whole point of a fossil is that the original tissue of the plant or animal is replaced with minerals. So when examining the fossil it is not the actual animal that we are examining but its shadowy image in the ground.
The fossil record in its entirity IS the historical account of one event, The Flood. So the entire geological column bears reccord to that particular event. Rapid burial by aquious born sediment is the best explanation for the fossil reccord. If we look to places like the Mississipi delta where there is a slow deposition we cannot find any fossils. In a forest or on the bottom of the sea an animal cannot just fall and wait to be covered by sediment. If this happens they are normally digested by other animals or insects and if anything does remain it will rot and be eaten by magots. After four days in the forest in summer, there will be no trace of a dead dear. Even antlers get digested after a short amount of time by animals seeking a good source of calcium. The limited organization that we see in the fossil reccord is due to animals living in different areas. For example a T-Rex would not be found with animals that live on the bottom of the ocean. The fossil reccord is NOT perfect for evolutionists and they have to resort to not knowing why a fossil is sometimes found in a particular area. The common explanation is that the "ground was reworked". This is a catch all phrase basically meaning "Duuhhh!"
What are other problems with the fossils reccord? Layers that represent millions of years appart often touch each other without intermediate layers and no errosion of the intermediate layers to be found. Many fossils protrude through layers with no sign showing errosion. So basically a skeleton hung its arm out of the sand for a hundred million years but was not effected by the environment. This is often seen in the coal beds. Layers show bending and kinking without being cracked which implies that they were still moist and pliable during the bending stages (like folds of modeling clay) not solid rock. Animals in the fossil reccord appear to be in the mist of life. Young, old, animals eating, animals fighting, animals giving birth. This makes sense when looking at the catastrophic globlal flood of Noah's time only and not millions of years. Also we have found many of these fossils alive and living. Consider the Coelacanth sp. this lobed finned fish was thought to be the missing link until it was discovered to be a stapple for the people on the coasts of Madagascar. These fish which are 330 million year old fossils still appear to be exactly like the living fish. So, your telling me in 330 million years there is not going to be one small evolutionary change? No, there identical, so lets throw the theory of evolution out! No, we can't do that... what will atheists have to believe in then! (lol)
How then can you speak on the very things you don't believe in?
The same way we can discuss movies, books, Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, Harry Potter, aliens from space probing us, et cetera. Just because something is fictional and one doesn't believe it actually exists does not preclude that person from having a comprehensive knowledge of the subject.
Oh, dear! I am a Christian who believes in the Bible, carbon dating, aliens, and Santa Claus! What does that say about me? And I have no trouble reconciling any of them.
Sorry if I came across as sounding hypocritical. That was not my intention. I guess I am trying to understand from a atheist point of view, after all your extensive research, why do you still choose to believe that God does not exist? What would it take for you to come to the knowledge of truth? You are really willing to take that chance? Just curious.
Sorry if I came across as sounding hypocritical. That was not my intention. I guess I am trying to understand from a atheist point of view, after all your extensive research, why do you still choose to believe that God does not exist?
Your god isn't the only one worshipped on this planet, so it's not just your god. It's everybody eles's god as well. I see no evidence for any of them, so I don't believe in any of them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Betsey Lane
What would it take for you to come to the knowledge of truth?
1. Hard evidence.
2. You don't know for a fact that what you're preaching is truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Betsey Lane
You are really willing to take that chance?
There are over 3,000+ gods worshipped on this planet. Why is yours necessarily the right one? For all we know, if there is a god, it could be one of an African tribe that is secluded from outside contact and only has a few dozen followers. It could be the gods of Ancient Greece, despite the fact that belief in them was abandoned many years ago. When you look at all the gods worshipped, all of which have a chance of existing, you will realize that everybody is taking a chance. What if there really is a god and he hates the Christian religion? If that happens, all Christians are pretty much screwed. At the end of the day, everybody is taking a chance. I don't deny the fact that there is a chance that any of the 3,000+ gods can exist, however, I see no evidence of them and no reason to believe in them.
Your god isn't the only one worshipped on this planet, so it's not just your god. It's everybody eles's god as well. I see no evidence for any of them, so I don't believe in any of them.
1. Hard evidence.
2. You don't know for a fact that what you're preaching is truth.
There are over 3,000+ gods worshipped on this planet. Why is yours necessarily the right one? For all we know, if there is a god, it could be one of an African tribe that is secluded from outside contact and only has a few dozen followers. It could be the gods of Ancient Greece, despite the fact that belief in them was abandoned many years ago. When you look at all the gods worshipped, all of which have a chance of existing, you will realize that everybody is taking a chance. What if there really is a god and he hates the Christian religion? If that happens, all Christians are pretty much screwed. At the end of the day, everybody is taking a chance. I don't deny the fact that there is a chance that any of the 3,000+ gods can exist, however, I see no evidence of them and no reason to believe in them.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am a Christian who believes in the Bible, carbon dating, aliens, and Santa Claus! What does that say about me? 
And I have no trouble reconciling any of them. 
