Are you an atheist?

[Bladerunner]

To those on the thread, I apologize for so many post but there is only me and many others that are awaiting to get their claws (lol) into me. I try to answer all questions and concerns and then some.(lol)

Blade

 

[Bladerunner]

[quote. Doc Man ]......From the Bible, let's take three fairly simple statements attributed to Jesus. First, we have to deal with a fine point. If you are a believer in Jesus as one of the Trinity, then when Jesus speaks, it is also God who is speaking, since they are one. (If you don't believe in the Trinity, this might get trickier, but let's go on.)?

[/quote]

In the Beginning, God created the Heaven and the Earth. (Genesis 1:1)
And the Earth was without form, and void; and the darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the 'Spirit of God' moved upon the face of the waters. (Genesis 1:2)
Jesus became part of the Trinity when he was resurrected and ascended to Heaven with his father.

Above is all three of them: Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. John (14:6)
So they are still separated but united much as your son or daughter would be to you. Of course you probably don't have a spirit that can do your work for you.
You can, at anytime before your death, make a choice to go to heaven by accepting Jesus!

[quote. Doc Man ]......Jesus told Pilate: My kingdom is not of this world. But science is ENTIRELY of this world. Why would Creation Science be able to tell us anything about the kingdom of Jesus that ordinary science can't tell us?

[/quote]

Many of the creation Science people have PhDs like you do. (i.e. Johannes Kepler, who discovered the three laws of planetary motion, or James Clerk Maxwell who discovered the four fundamental equations that light and all forms of electromagnetic radiation obey.).

However, I cannot answer for them, yet have we ever seen a "red giant" star go to a "white Dwarf" the next stage of (your) evolution. I think Not. It is all Theories. Is the Universe really expanding. Theory again. Oh yeah, Galaxiom stated the "Doppler Effect" the red shift in the light spectra from distant galaxies is a theory as well. At the very minimum, it is controversial by the atheist own scientist. I think the creation science can see a little farther than you can because they have the Bible on their side. Genesis 15:5 He took him outside and said, "Look up at the sky and count the stars--if indeed you can count them." Then he said to him, "So shall your offspring be." We are just now able to approximate the stars in the sky yet, he named them all.

[quote. Doc Man ]......Jesus told his followers: Only through faith shall you come to me. This has further been interpreted in light of comments about those who seek knowledge seeking the wrong thing. In essence, if you seek God, you must have faith without the need to prove anything.?

[/quote]

Don't really know how to answer that. seems a play on words so I will play with this. If you believe in Jesus do you not have faith in his Love?

[quote. Doc Man ]......Jesus told Satan (in the desert, when Satan invited him to test God): Thou shall not test the Lord thy God. I.e. it is wrong to test because it means you have no faith. You need proof. But faith is belief without the necessity of having proof..?

[/quote]

This was first said a Messah where the children of Israel chided over water.Throughout the Bible the Hebrew people have lost faith (numerous times) and steered away from God. (i.e.. Bondage of Egypt to Exodus) only to come back to God. Man is a fickle creation. A large number of Atheist were once Christians that believed in God. For one reason or another they thurned away when they believed that God should have protected them, loved ones, children, etc. but did not. One can lose the faith and in time the belief in God. One has to be present to have the other.

[quote. Doc Man ]......Let's put those together. Creation Science attempts to use methods of measuring stuff in this world to test God (whose kingdom is in another world) so as to gain proof rather than faith. ..?

[/quote]

Can you be more specific??? but from what I have seen, Creation scientist spend their time testing the theories put forth by atheist.?

[quote. Doc Man ]......Suppose that you actually used this science to find a god and prove his existence. Would you worship this god that you just found and proved? Remember, if you can prove the existence of this god, he is clearly not smarter than Man, because you found him. However, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Joseph says "Only through faith..." So which god did you find? If you worship that god, you would be violating the commandment about putting no other gods before Me. ..?

[/quote]

I guess that would be a question for your atheist. They have to find God to disprove him. There is no other way. Don't worry, there is only one way to find him and the creation scientist know what it is. We had a atheist on another post that declared a God other than. His bad.

[quote. Doc Man ]......Which entity in the Bible would benefit from such a situation? Satan, of course, wants to deceive you and make you fall away from God's worship. So Creation Science is the work of Satan. Are you SURE you want to rely on the junk science?

[/quote]

Satan turns people away from God and will be punished in the end. So will the people who believe in him. Good Luck!

Blade

 

[Galaxiom]

The t-rexes.............BUT all of them have carbon -14 in them and I don't have to tell you what this means. Oh, my,,,,, 65 million vs a few thousand.

All T-Rex remains have been mineralised. There is no carbon in them.

Will you please stop spouting unsubstantiated rubbish.

 

[Galaxiom]

"Nevertheless, its occurrence in human cells is still controversial". Like everything
atheist put forth to explain our existence is Controversial between you own.

It is controversial only according to those who seek to discredit the research based on mDNA, usually for religious reasons. It is not controversial in main stream science.

Kind of like changing the goal post every year or so when something new is found. Again, is kind of like the fake global warming and all its figures.

Similarly with Climate Change. The supposed controversy is fabricated by very small number of scientists, mostly with ulterior motives. The evidence is unequivocally in support.

 

[Galaxiom]

The picture shows: Pillars that may commemorate the Red Sea crossing by the ancient Israelites have been discovered in recent years on both sides of the Gulf of Aqaba arm of the Red Sea. One on the Egyptian shore and another located on the Arabian side with “the legible remains of ancient paleo-Hebrew inscriptions.” Evidently the words for pharaoh, death, Egypt, King Solomon and the sacred name of God, YHWH, are all present on the second pillar.

So what? Someone erected pillars to commemorate the myth. It in no way proves that such a crossing ever happened. Wake up, seas don't just part for people to walk across.

Moreover, your statement uses weasel words, "may commemorate", "evidently".

The pillars are not even available for independent study.

 

[Galaxiom]

Well lets see here. You are saying the Hellium does and could not have become trapped in granites, radiohalos (Polonium) could not have left their signature and "fission tracks" could not have formed.

What a load of meaningless twaddle.

Granite often contains radioactive isotopes. When they decay they emit alpha particles. Alpha particles are Helium nuclei.

Rem. Man wrote the booke of the earth and universes age... God wrote the book on how he created it.

Learned men and women wrote a vast coherent body of science that is consistent at every level. Any observations that reveal inconsistencies found are investigated and the theories refined to restore consistency. It is this process of refinement that makes science so accurate.

The Bible was written by arrogant, ignorant, misogynist men who assumed that their every thought was given to them by a supernatural being. It is littered with inconsistencies that gullible fools go to great lengths try and reconcile with observed fact by inventing a plethora of ridiculous scenarios that conflict with real science.

 

[ConnorGiles]

Post 4793
10-char

He didn't comment on that piece of text in particular. I'm quite disappointed

 

[ConnorGiles]

You mean to tell me you have no problem with WIkiped.... Only science wiki is acceptable now? Oh, wow,,,, I guess I misunderstood before. Do not to use it except for science stuff. Did all you other atheist here this, Connor?

No, it is too controversial, as far as I am concerned it is out also.


Blade

I suspect you meant "hear" and even then it's wrong, I certainly did "read" it.

Wikipedia has and never will be entirely reliable due to its capability of being edited. Galaxiom is partly right, Scientific Wikipedia pages such as the one he quoted would be able to be edited but would probably be swiftly re-edited back to its correct standing.

But I maintain my view, Wikipedia will never be 100% reliable.

 

[ConnorGiles]

there you go again changing the subject. It is ok for you to quote a mistake but not me------NO????

Blade
\

I didn't change the subject, I explained the situation? Try not to confuse them Blade.

 

[ConnorGiles]

All T-Rex remains have been mineralised. There is no carbon in them.

Will you please stop spouting unsubstantiated rubbish.

I didn't even reply to his comment as I knew it was utter rubbish

Where does he get this stuff from!

 

[Frothingslosh]

I didn't even reply to his comment as I knew it was utter rubbish

Where does he get this stuff from!

Stormfront, Conservapedia, various ultra-right-wing conspiracy sites, Faux News, extreme-right pundits with agendas such as O'Reilly and Coultier, ignorant and/or disingenious "preachers" with a political agenda, things like that.

 

[Brianwarnock]

I suspect you meant "hear" and even then it's wrong, I certainly did "read" it.
.

Hey Connor I thought correcting people was wrong, or is that only when I correct you?

Brian

 

[Bladerunner]

All T-Rex remains have been mineralised. There is no carbon in them.

Will you please stop spouting unsubstantiated rubbish.

That dog won't hunt.

"from Tx to AK to China, Dinosaur bones have been directly dated by c-14 methods and found to be only thousands of years old. So much for the 100 to 150 million year old bones. Thats about 2000 times young than your guys want it to be." Uh-lala

"Another team has c-14 dated an alleged 70 million year old marine reptile in EUrope and found it to be 24,600 years old".

Boy this puts a damper on evolution as a theory of origins. God made all land animals in the 6th day.

Blade

 

[Galaxiom]

"from Tx to AK to China, Dinosaur bones have been directly dated by c-14 methods and found to be only thousands of years old. So much for the 100 to 150 million year old bones. Thats about 2000 times young than your guys want it to be." Uh-lala

"Another team has c-14 dated an alleged 70 million year old marine reptile in EUrope and found it to be 24,600 years old".

Both of those unattributed quotes are complete rubbish. They are from barefaced liars.

Are you really that gullible?

You simply accept anything that backs what you want to believe without regards for its veracity while claiming that any scientific knowledge is built on assumptions.

Like I asked before, please stop posting unsubstantiated rubbish.

 

[Bladerunner]

It is controversial only according to those who seek to discredit the research based on mDNA, usually for religious reasons. It is not controversial in main stream science.

Similarly with Climate Change. The supposed controversy is fabricated by very small number of scientists, mostly with ulterior motives. The evidence is unequivocally in support.

(mDNA) the so called main stream scientist is not so main stream. Out of every 20 secular articles I look at, only five out of 20 specifically from the secular group of scientist declare there is not recombination. However, the rest out of the 20 secular groups declare it is controversial. Don't know what you want me to think here.

Here is one article that tries to toe the line (so to speak) maybe yes it does but so infrequently there is not need to change the evolution thought process. However, I am more interested in the first sentence in the first paragraph."The problem of whether recombinant mtDNAs are created in mammalian cells has been controversial for many years."

Controversial-----throw it out...it is no good. Does not prove nothing.

http://www.pnas.org/content/102/17/6057.full

Isaiah 55:8-9 states: 8. "For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways," declares the LORD. 9."For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways And My thoughts than your thoughts. "

That should tell you atheist everything,,,,,,Man is NOT a God.

Blade

p.s. I give you all the real stuff for Climate change at one time, will not do it again.

 

[Bladerunner]

What a load of meaningless twaddle.

Granite often contains radioactive isotopes. When they decay they emit alpha particles. Alpha particles are Helium nuclei.

Learned men and women wrote a vast coherent body of science that is consistent at every level. Any observations that reveal inconsistencies found are investigated and the theories refined to restore consistency. It is this process of refinement that makes science so accurate.

The Bible was written by arrogant, ignorant, misogynist men who assumed that their every thought was given to them by a supernatural being. It is littered with inconsistencies that gullible fools go to great lengths try and reconcile with observed fact by inventing a plethora of ridiculous scenarios that conflict with real science.

We are talking specifically about the radioisotope Polonium (radio-halos in granite) and their unique characteristics. Oh, never mind ,,,its ok,,, I understand.

There are many Learned men and women on both sides.

2 Peter 3:8 states: But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

2 Peter written somewhere between 65-68 AD or roughly 3-4000 years after creation. Why would he say this. The were ignorant of the science of the stars,moon and earth back then. I know ,,,, it was just something he threw out there to stumble people on it. He was a devious person, I have been told.

Blade

 

[Bladerunner]

He didn't comment on that piece of text in particular. I'm quite disappointed

Please post it again if you please,,,I can not find it... If you are talking about the Wiki article, I am not reading it. It was you who told me that wiki could not be trusted and Galaxiom tells me it can be trusted only on scientific data. Controversial again. Make up you blooming minds.

Blade

 

[Bladerunner]

I didn't even reply to his comment as I knew it was utter rubbish

Where does he get this stuff from!

yep,,,bet you knew deep down in your bones.

Blade

 

[Bladerunner]

Stormfront, Conservapedia, various ultra-right-wing conspiracy sites, Faux News, extreme-right pundits with agendas such as O'Reilly and Coultier, ignorant and/or disingenious "preachers" with a political agenda, things like that.

I know what you do now for a living>>>>>>Your one of those democratic Liberal advisors. Well, if you are not,,, you should be,,,you are good at throwing it around.........


Blade

 

[Bladerunner]

Both of those unattributed quotes are complete rubbish. They are from barefaced liars.

Are you really that gullible?

You simply accept anything that backs what you want to believe without regards for its veracity while claiming that any scientific knowledge is built on assumptions.

Like I asked before, please stop posting unsubstantiated rubbish.

Back at you!

"Are you really that gullible?

You simply accept anything that backs what you want to believe without regards for its veracity while claiming that any scientific knowledge is built on assumptions.

Like I asked before, please stop posting unsubstantiated rubbish"

Seems you have the same problem. I guess we can agree to disagree. and maybe jump to another subject....We have beat this one until it is like the primordial ooze we are suppose to come from.


Blade