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.
Lemley, B., Anything into oil, Discover 27(4), 2006.
Synthetic just means a man-made process, not in nature. But they are the same thing!
The fossil reccord/Geological column is my proof of the flood.
I trust the God who used man to write the bible. It is God's hand that can be seen throughout the manuscript, but that would require one to open ones eyes.
BTW, the bible is proof. You just choose to reject it. Based on your false reasoning we should not trust Darwin's books because they were written in the past too. 150 years or 2000 years, what is the difference if they speak of the truth? Does truth change over time? No.
Bible is not proof of anything other than people in ancient times trying to explain their world or as a source of entertainment. No not all in the past is false, that which has been actually PROVEN , or by actually more than one reference. Where in ancient documents by others than whom is in the bible, have these miracles and events been written about, the way the Bible says? I am not talking about people in the bible, I am talking about events. Please post links. And I have read the Bible, that is why I do not believe, I am free thinking and was given the opportunity to come to my own conclusions based on actual evidence.
Bible is not proof of anything other than people in ancient times trying to explain their world or as a source of entertainment. No not all in the past is false, that which has been actually PROVEN , or by actually more than one reference. Where in ancient documents by others than whom is in the bible, have these miracles and events been written about, the way the Bible says? I am not talking about people in the bible, I am talking about events. Please post links. And I have read the Bible, that is why I do not believe, I am free thinking and was given the opportunity to come to my own conclusions based on actual evidence.
So am I a free thinker. That is why I came to the conclusion that the bible is the truth, that God is real, that Jesus is the Messiah.
When has the bible been proven to be true. So religion no longer requires faith? Did I miss a recent development? Where are the news outlets covering this story?
There is no nice way of saying this, but anyone who believes the Earth is only 6000 years old has a completely distorted view of reality. I don't believe it's wrong to say this...atleast not anymore wrong then if you were to say an adult who believes in Santa Clause has a completely distorted view of reality.
We have made so many scientific advancements in the last 100 years, yet people let these controlling religious organizations who are after nothing more than their money, control the way they think.
People put there trust into science every day, yet when it comes to science that contradicts religious beliefs that were most likely indoctrinated/brainwashed into them as a child, all of a sudden science has it all wrong.
I have nothing more to add to this conversation. The Earth cannot be 6000 years old. There is nothing that we can observe that suggests it is 6000 years old. Multiple fields of science all point to an Earth and universe that are Billions of years old.
OK, thank you for taking the time to comment on this converstion since you have nothing more, we will continue to discuss and you can go on your way. Thank you.
But there is nothing to prove that the Universe is billions of years old. So, the facts do not speak for themselves, and the age of the universe is based on ones interpretation of the facts. I side with God and the Bilble. You may wish to side with man's fallible ideas about the past.
I came to my conclusions by studying evolution and finding no answer only stories of the past based on man's ideas.
I studied the bible and found that the bible is true on so many levels that the areas that I cannot prove imperically must still be true.
I then realized that it is not a matter of who has the better evidence. For evidence does not speak for itself. All evidence (facts like fossils) need to be interpreted. Both the evolutionist scientist and creationist scientist use the same facts, yet come to different conclusions. So, when we look at the underlying interpretations we find that each comes to a conclusion based on a preconcieved idea of the universe. The evolutionist says there is no God and the Creationist says there is a God. These presuppositions or axioms force us to interpret the evidence in different ways. So, if we can truely be unbiased (for no one is) then we would see the facts as they are. But we would have a difficult time of producing a theory of how the facts came to be as they are.
So, in that I have concluded that a Godly model of the universe makes more sense based on the evidence. I have taken on the axioms that God exists, he gave the Bible, his word to man and that Jesus is the Messiah based on this word and the evidence presented in the Gospels. Which were written for us to believe. Not to falsify information, not to decieve, but to tell the truth of the events pertaining to the life of Jesus Christ.
OK, thank you for taking the time to comment on this converstion since you have nothing more, we will continue to discuss and you can go on your way. Thank you.
But there is nothing to prove that the Universe is billions of years old. So, the facts do not speak for themselves, and the age of the universe is based on ones interpretation of the facts. I side with God and the Bilble. You may wish to side with man's fallible ideas about the past.
Again, why do you side with the Bible, when there is no real proof? And are you saying science is wrong?I am sorry but when something has been tested and studied by thousands of scientists over the years and they come to the same conclusion, I doubt it is wrong. Man is fallible, right you are, man wrote and translated the Bible. There is more proof of the Universes old age than your theory. I have tons more. Astronomy: Ages of Universe and Earth/Big Bang, sunspot cycle, hemet ca
I came to my conclusions by studying evolution and finding no answer only stories of the past based on man's ideas.
I studied the bible and found that the bible is true on so many levels that the areas that I cannot prove imperically must still be true.
I then realized that it is not a matter of who has the better evidence. For evidence does not speak for itself. All evidence (facts like fossils) need to be interpreted. Both the evolutionist scientist and creationist scientist use the same facts, yet come to different conclusions. So, when we look at the underlying interpretations we find that each comes to a conclusion based on a preconcieved idea of the universe. The evolutionist says there is no God and the Creationist says there is a God. These presuppositions or axioms force us to interpret the evidence in different ways. So, if we can truely be unbiased (for no one is) then we would see the facts as they are. But we would have a difficult time of producing a theory of how the facts came to be as they are.
So, in that I have concluded that a Godly model of the universe makes more sense based on the evidence. I have taken on the axioms that God exists, he gave the Bible, his word to man and that Jesus is the Messiah based on this word and the evidence presented in the Gospels. Which were written for us to believe. Not to falsify information, not to decieve, but to tell the truth of the events pertaining to the life of Jesus Christ.
Seems creationists, go out to try to prove the evolutionists wrong, by way of their faith in the Bible. Most scientists are in it for the science, not to prove something wrong or right, they are looking for the answers And in no way does a a magical fairy sitting on a throne in nothing to create the universe make more sense than energy ( dark matter) creating it. And I am sorry to tell you this, but the Bible fits your description of why you dont believe in evolution, stories of the past based on mans ideas. Again, why do you believe the Bible is the word of God?
I came to my conclusions by studying evolution and finding no answer only stories of the past based on man's ideas.
I studied the bible and found that the bible is true on so many levels that the areas that I cannot prove imperically must still be true.
I then realized that it is not a matter of who has the better evidence. For evidence does not speak for itself. All evidence (facts like fossils) need to be interpreted. Both the evolutionist scientist and creationist scientist use the same facts, yet come to different conclusions. So, when we look at the underlying interpretations we find that each comes to a conclusion based on a preconcieved idea of the universe. The evolutionist says there is no God and the Creationist says there is a God. These presuppositions or axioms force us to interpret the evidence in different ways. So, if we can truely be unbiased (for no one is) then we would see the facts as they are. But we would have a difficult time of producing a theory of how the facts came to be as they are.
So, in that I have concluded that a Godly model of the universe makes more sense based on the evidence. I have taken on the axioms that God exists, he gave the Bible, his word to man and that Jesus is the Messiah based on this word and the evidence presented in the Gospels. Which were written for us to believe. Not to falsify information, not to decieve, but to tell the truth of the events pertaining to the life of Jesus Christ.
What if you were never raised as a Christian? Do you think you'd feel the same way...hypothetically speaking of course?
The bible has been proven and is the truth. Darwins is just a bad hypothesis poorly supported by conjecture.
The only thing that has been proven about the Bible is that is is a blatant ripoff of earlier culture's mythologies (and this is true of both the OT and NT). Your God is a direct hand me down from the Sumerian god EL. Before he was promoted to "one true god" he was a lowly god of war married to the goddess Asherah. If history had taken a slightly different course you would be worshipping EL, Enlil or Marduk and claiming the Epic of Gilgamesh is supported by the evidence..
Evolution on the other hand is REALITY, is supported by mountains of overwhelming evidence (more so than gravity) in everything from the fossil record to geology and biology, and is indeed a fact whether you and your backwoods kin wish to believe it or not.
So am I a free thinker. That is why I came to the conclusion that the bible is the truth, that God is real, that Jesus is the Messiah.
Truth is a measurable quality.
Truth can be proven through the sceintific process, through experimentation, etc.
Truth can also be replicated under laboratory conditions and clinical trials.
So, please provide scientific evidence that "the bible is truth".
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.
