Evidence for God from Science

RickD wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

thatkidakayoungguy wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

swordfish7 wrote:Ablecainsbrother, we need to understand that the meaning needs to be gathered from the original language - here I think Hebrew. We don't just pick the translation that most closely matches what we want to say! Some translations are better than others and that is why the best Christian denominations will require their ministers to study greek and Hebrew.

I don't mind getting into the Hebrew and Greek,however it is really not as necessary as you may think. We have the bible translated into English,our language and it is God's word to English speaking people. But we have problems reading it in English our own language and ignore or don't understand other parts of the bible. I could give example. Like for instance 2nd Peter 3:5-7. We ignore that this text is describing a flood of the heavens and earth that caused the world at that time to be destroyed and that the earth was formed out of these waters.

We make Noah"s flood fit into it, eventhough only the earth was flooded in Noah's flood,not the heavens and earth,and that this world was not destroyed in Noah's flood,but also the earth was not formed out of waters in Noah's flood. It was formed out of waters because of Genesis 1:2. but we ignore this and claim it is talking about Noah's flood. We must ignore what the text says and describes and ignore the facts about Noah's flood,and yet it has been done by people who claim to be bible experts. This is just one example.

Just wondering, how could the heavens be flooded? Outer space can't be flooded, well then again this is God we're talking about.

It is simply what the bible tells us.It might be hard to believe the heavens and earth were flooded but the greek word heavens in 2nd Peter 3:3-7 means cosmos and then we see the word earth also.So we have to conclude the cosmos(heavens)and the earth was flooded which caused the former world to perish.We also can see the earth is flooded in Genesis 1:2 and this is why on the second day God removes these waters and divides them off of the earth.The earth was formed out of these waters also.So if we blend 2nd Peter 3:3-7 into it? It means both the heavens and earth were flooded.This did not happen in Noah's flood by the way,only the earth was flooded so this flood was much,much worse than Noah's flood. I don't have it anymore but I used to have a link that shows that aging dying stars produce water.

And this folks, is why nobody believes in the Gap Theory.

Philip wrote:"Evolution is fact" vs. Evolution is an unproven and very problematic theory vs. Evolution (in the classical sense - simple organisms to evermore complex ones) is definitely false (for a variety of reasons) - to infinity and beyond! zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Again, WHY does anyone on any side find it so important to prove or disprove evolution. Even IF true, it's so late to the date, so as to be a meaningless argument of causes secondary to that which truly matters - least in terms of theism vs. non-theism. Audie's problem is that she knows that even if evolution occurred, that all that made it possible didn't create itself, didn't pop into existence without some organizing entity of immense power and intelligence. So, she amuses herself with pointless arguments over evolutionary mechanisms that even the scientists don't agree upon. And ACB argues relentlessly against evolution - and WHY? Because if evolution is fact, it still must have had an intelligent, organizing cause and designer. Even randomness of things is dependent upon OTHER pre-existing and totally necessary things. And even RANDOM things must be created. ACB, you need to rewind your argument to things that matter - things that are over 10 billion years before there was ANY physical thing, chemistry, biology, etc. that would eventually have provided the foundations, structures and designs to have made ANY life possible, much less for it to have evolved.

Really, you guys are killing server space with this relentlessly arguing over the irrelevance of evolution. And Audie can't prove it to be fact, and she sure as heck can't explain how it could have ever been made possible without a Cause/a Designer. And ACB is NEVER going to prove her wrong - even if she likely is. So, let's stop this irrelevant snoozefest. PLEASE! If you must argue about something, argue about what is REALLY relevant as to the central debate on this website - that is theism vs. non-theism, and if theism - WHICH God created?

thatkidakayoungguy wrote:

RickD wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

thatkidakayoungguy wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:
I don't mind getting into the Hebrew and Greek,however it is really not as necessary as you may think. We have the bible translated into English,our language and it is God's word to English speaking people. But we have problems reading it in English our own language and ignore or don't understand other parts of the bible. I could give example. Like for instance 2nd Peter 3:5-7. We ignore that this text is describing a flood of the heavens and earth that caused the world at that time to be destroyed and that the earth was formed out of these waters.

We make Noah"s flood fit into it, eventhough only the earth was flooded in Noah's flood,not the heavens and earth,and that this world was not destroyed in Noah's flood,but also the earth was not formed out of waters in Noah's flood. It was formed out of waters because of Genesis 1:2. but we ignore this and claim it is talking about Noah's flood. We must ignore what the text says and describes and ignore the facts about Noah's flood,and yet it has been done by people who claim to be bible experts. This is just one example.

Just wondering, how could the heavens be flooded? Outer space can't be flooded, well then again this is God we're talking about.

It is simply what the bible tells us.It might be hard to believe the heavens and earth were flooded but the greek word heavens in 2nd Peter 3:3-7 means cosmos and then we see the word earth also.So we have to conclude the cosmos(heavens)and the earth was flooded which caused the former world to perish.We also can see the earth is flooded in Genesis 1:2 and this is why on the second day God removes these waters and divides them off of the earth.The earth was formed out of these waters also.So if we blend 2nd Peter 3:3-7 into it? It means both the heavens and earth were flooded.This did not happen in Noah's flood by the way,only the earth was flooded so this flood was much,much worse than Noah's flood. I don't have it anymore but I used to have a link that shows that aging dying stars produce water.

And this folks, is why nobody believes in the Gap Theory.

What do you think 2nd Peter 3:3-7 is referring to? Noah's flood? I'm not a gap theorist but he brought up a fair point.

RickD wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

thatkidakayoungguy wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

swordfish7 wrote:Ablecainsbrother, we need to understand that the meaning needs to be gathered from the original language - here I think Hebrew. We don't just pick the translation that most closely matches what we want to say! Some translations are better than others and that is why the best Christian denominations will require their ministers to study greek and Hebrew.

I don't mind getting into the Hebrew and Greek,however it is really not as necessary as you may think. We have the bible translated into English,our language and it is God's word to English speaking people. But we have problems reading it in English our own language and ignore or don't understand other parts of the bible. I could give example. Like for instance 2nd Peter 3:5-7. We ignore that this text is describing a flood of the heavens and earth that caused the world at that time to be destroyed and that the earth was formed out of these waters.

We make Noah"s flood fit into it, eventhough only the earth was flooded in Noah's flood,not the heavens and earth,and that this world was not destroyed in Noah's flood,but also the earth was not formed out of waters in Noah's flood. It was formed out of waters because of Genesis 1:2. but we ignore this and claim it is talking about Noah's flood. We must ignore what the text says and describes and ignore the facts about Noah's flood,and yet it has been done by people who claim to be bible experts. This is just one example.

Just wondering, how could the heavens be flooded? Outer space can't be flooded, well then again this is God we're talking about.

It is simply what the bible tells us.It might be hard to believe the heavens and earth were flooded but the greek word heavens in 2nd Peter 3:3-7 means cosmos and then we see the word earth also.So we have to conclude the cosmos(heavens)and the earth was flooded which caused the former world to perish.We also can see the earth is flooded in Genesis 1:2 and this is why on the second day God removes these waters and divides them off of the earth.The earth was formed out of these waters also.So if we blend 2nd Peter 3:3-7 into it? It means both the heavens and earth were flooded.This did not happen in Noah's flood by the way,only the earth was flooded so this flood was much,much worse than Noah's flood. I don't have it anymore but I used to have a link that shows that aging dying stars produce water.

And this folks, is why nobody believes in the Gap Theory.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

RickD wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

thatkidakayoungguy wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:
I don't mind getting into the Hebrew and Greek,however it is really not as necessary as you may think. We have the bible translated into English,our language and it is God's word to English speaking people. But we have problems reading it in English our own language and ignore or don't understand other parts of the bible. I could give example. Like for instance 2nd Peter 3:5-7. We ignore that this text is describing a flood of the heavens and earth that caused the world at that time to be destroyed and that the earth was formed out of these waters.

We make Noah"s flood fit into it, eventhough only the earth was flooded in Noah's flood,not the heavens and earth,and that this world was not destroyed in Noah's flood,but also the earth was not formed out of waters in Noah's flood. It was formed out of waters because of Genesis 1:2. but we ignore this and claim it is talking about Noah's flood. We must ignore what the text says and describes and ignore the facts about Noah's flood,and yet it has been done by people who claim to be bible experts. This is just one example.

Just wondering, how could the heavens be flooded? Outer space can't be flooded, well then again this is God we're talking about.

It is simply what the bible tells us.It might be hard to believe the heavens and earth were flooded but the greek word heavens in 2nd Peter 3:3-7 means cosmos and then we see the word earth also.So we have to conclude the cosmos(heavens)and the earth was flooded which caused the former world to perish.We also can see the earth is flooded in Genesis 1:2 and this is why on the second day God removes these waters and divides them off of the earth.The earth was formed out of these waters also.So if we blend 2nd Peter 3:3-7 into it? It means both the heavens and earth were flooded.This did not happen in Noah's flood by the way,only the earth was flooded so this flood was much,much worse than Noah's flood. I don't have it anymore but I used to have a link that shows that aging dying stars produce water.

And this folks, is why nobody believes in the Gap Theory.

I understand why you say that.It is because of the NASB translation.I'm used to the KJV translation and I'm right if we go by the KJV translation but not if we go by the NASB translation. The NASB translation only focuses on the earth being formed out of water and by water while the KJV tells us both the heavens and earth was flooded. Still the NASB still points us to Genesis chapter 1 and not Noah's flood. The KJV points us to Genesis 1:2 while the NASB points us to Genesis 1. There are slight differences in translations.

RickD wrote:Who's Ken Ham? Never heard of him.

thatkidakayoungguy wrote:

RickD wrote:Who's Ken Ham? Never heard of him.

A young earth creationist who is in charge of the Ark Project.
Here's his site: https://answersingenesis.org/
I don't agree with all there but I think there's much good to be found.

RickD wrote:

thatkidakayoungguy wrote:

RickD wrote:Who's Ken Ham? Never heard of him.

A young earth creationist who is in charge of the Ark Project.
Here's his site: https://answersingenesis.org/
I don't agree with all there but I think there's much good to be found.

I'm joking. I know who Ken Ham is. I used to "sing his praises" all the time. He's quite a guy.

thatkidakayoungguy wrote:

RickD wrote:

thatkidakayoungguy wrote:

RickD wrote:Who's Ken Ham? Never heard of him.

A young earth creationist who is in charge of the Ark Project.
Here's his site: https://answersingenesis.org/
I don't agree with all there but I think there's much good to be found.

I'm joking. I know who Ken Ham is. I used to "sing his praises" all the time. He's quite a guy.

Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean by "sing his praises" but I guess that means you were supportive of him. Yes I'd say he's quite a guy.

RickD wrote:

thatkidakayoungguy wrote:

RickD wrote:

thatkidakayoungguy wrote:

RickD wrote:Who's Ken Ham? Never heard of him.

A young earth creationist who is in charge of the Ark Project.
Here's his site: https://answersingenesis.org/
I don't agree with all there but I think there's much good to be found.

I'm joking. I know who Ken Ham is. I used to "sing his praises" all the time. He's quite a guy.

Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean by "sing his praises" but I guess that means you were supportive of him. Yes I'd say he's quite a guy.

When I say, "sing his praises", and "He's quite a guy", assume I'm being extremely sarcastic.

thatkidakayoungguy wrote:

RickD wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

thatkidakayoungguy wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:
I don't mind getting into the Hebrew and Greek,however it is really not as necessary as you may think. We have the bible translated into English,our language and it is God's word to English speaking people. But we have problems reading it in English our own language and ignore or don't understand other parts of the bible. I could give example. Like for instance 2nd Peter 3:5-7. We ignore that this text is describing a flood of the heavens and earth that caused the world at that time to be destroyed and that the earth was formed out of these waters.

We make Noah"s flood fit into it, eventhough only the earth was flooded in Noah's flood,not the heavens and earth,and that this world was not destroyed in Noah's flood,but also the earth was not formed out of waters in Noah's flood. It was formed out of waters because of Genesis 1:2. but we ignore this and claim it is talking about Noah's flood. We must ignore what the text says and describes and ignore the facts about Noah's flood,and yet it has been done by people who claim to be bible experts. This is just one example.

Just wondering, how could the heavens be flooded? Outer space can't be flooded, well then again this is God we're talking about.

It is simply what the bible tells us.It might be hard to believe the heavens and earth were flooded but the greek word heavens in 2nd Peter 3:3-7 means cosmos and then we see the word earth also.So we have to conclude the cosmos(heavens)and the earth was flooded which caused the former world to perish.We also can see the earth is flooded in Genesis 1:2 and this is why on the second day God removes these waters and divides them off of the earth.The earth was formed out of these waters also.So if we blend 2nd Peter 3:3-7 into it? It means both the heavens and earth were flooded.This did not happen in Noah's flood by the way,only the earth was flooded so this flood was much,much worse than Noah's flood. I don't have it anymore but I used to have a link that shows that aging dying stars produce water.

And this folks, is why nobody believes in the Gap Theory.

What do you think 2nd Peter 3:3-7 is referring to? Noah's flood? I'm not a gap theorist but he brought up a fair point.

thatkidakayoungguy wrote:

RickD wrote:

thatkidakayoungguy wrote:

RickD wrote:

thatkidakayoungguy wrote: A young earth creationist who is in charge of the Ark Project.
Here's his site: https://answersingenesis.org/
I don't agree with all there but I think there's much good to be found.

I'm joking. I know who Ken Ham is. I used to "sing his praises" all the time. He's quite a guy.

Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean by "sing his praises" but I guess that means you were supportive of him. Yes I'd say he's quite a guy.

When I say, "sing his praises", and "He's quite a guy", assume I'm being extremely sarcastic.

Sometimes internet sarcasm can be hard to detect.

RickD wrote:

thatkidakayoungguy wrote:

RickD wrote:

thatkidakayoungguy wrote:

RickD wrote: I'm joking. I know who Ken Ham is. I used to "sing his praises" all the time. He's quite a guy.

Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean by "sing his praises" but I guess that means you were supportive of him. Yes I'd say he's quite a guy.

When I say, "sing his praises", and "He's quite a guy", assume I'm being extremely sarcastic.

Sometimes internet sarcasm can be hard to detect.

Not once you get to know me.