Evidence for God from Science

Kurieuo wrote:Every so often you here scientists or news reports that we'll be able to live to 1000 years.
Personally, all it would take is some genetic change/mutation or the like I'd think.

Once geneticists or scientists get a better handle on it, then we could possibly reverse the effects of whatever may have happened.
If the Biblical accounting is correct, then I'd look for some dominant gene on the male side.

But either way, I don't think it implausible that we lived/can live a lot longer.
Look at the elves. They often have long lifespans.

Audie wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Why would the supposed warning be credible, when so much of the rest isnt?

Ahh the rest is credible?

If its not fluffed up, the "Noah" really lived 900 years? Titanium carbide teeth most likely.

900 what? Years based on the gregorian calander, when the gregorian calander didn't exist, maybe it was 900 new moons, who actually knows, again this is down to interpretation.

And really world wide? That is the fluffed up part I was referring to Of course it can be disproved.

Depends on what evidence is available, like with evolution it is a historical science and there may be evidence we have not uncovered or we may have interpreted the current evidence wrongly, I am not saying it is a certainty that it happened, I am just saying that it is feasible and not as outlandish as you make it, there is more than enough water on the surface and underneath the surface to cause a global flood. I doubt that it was global, but you just never know.

I dont see the purpose of your rhetorical "question" at the end there. I will tho say that as one who has
experienced sexual assault Im not cool with it being taken lightly.

I am sorry to hear that has happened to you. Neither does God take his judgements lightly, if he decided to kill off a heap of people, I would imagine that he had no other choice, they would have been beyond redemption. Just like we sentence people to life in prison, because they are beyond redemption.

Of course, you were not merely being rhetorical but veeringway of topic, making it about me, and being utterly unresponsive entirely to my observation that the belief that tornadoes, earthquakes, plagues etc are "god's wrath" is so totally stone age.

I never made it about you, you made it about you (well at least it was never intentional), and again I repeat unlike your examples, Noah told the people before the flood that they should repent and that they would be wiped out, Noah built the ark before the flood and not after. There are major differences between your examples of post attribution and the Biblical example of pre attribution. Everything I have said was refuting what you said and I quote

To make the message of the story be that god send a flood to punish is to regress to stone age thinking.

, basically you are saying that God punishing people is stone age thinking, I don't see a problem with God punishing people who are bad, he even warned them before it would happen but they mocked Noah and his family and remained unrepentant.

Are you deliberately misreading me?

I say when so much of the rest is not (credible) , you respond with. "Ah so the rest is?"

I say that the idea that natural disasters are punishment from "god" is stone age thinking and look what you turned that into.

Why do you find it necessary to change the clear meaning of my words into
something utterly different, in order to find error in them?

abelcainsbrother wrote:I must say I have given those who reject the gap theory a chance to explain 2nd Peter 3:3-7 and nobody has yet explained how you can make Noah's flood fit here knowing that only the earth was flooded in Noah's flood,not the heavens and earth that were of old,I think you are making Noah's flood fit here mostly out of pride instead of looking at the details.2nd Peter 3:3-7 clearly reveal a gap between the former world that perished in water after the heavens and earth were flooded and this world that will be destroyed by fire one day.
Sorry but insults and rude attitudes do not sway me,the word does.I can handle insults if I'm right and you're wrong.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:I must say I have given those who reject the gap theory a chance to explain 2nd Peter 3:3-7 and nobody has yet explained how you can make Noah's flood fit here knowing that only the earth was flooded in Noah's flood,not the heavens and earth that were of old,I think you are making Noah's flood fit here mostly out of pride instead of looking at the details.2nd Peter 3:3-7 clearly reveal a gap between the former world that perished in water after the heavens and earth were flooded and this world that will be destroyed by fire one day.
Sorry but insults and rude attitudes do not sway me,the word does.I can handle insults if I'm right and you're wrong.

I did explain the passage.........................................but why would you believe me as they are just the words of a man.

Be convinced in your own mind ACB, I care not, just quit with all the judgement on those that don't agree with you.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:I must say I have given those who reject the gap theory a chance to explain 2nd Peter 3:3-7 and nobody has yet explained how you can make Noah's flood fit here knowing that only the earth was flooded in Noah's flood,not the heavens and earth that were of old,I think you are making Noah's flood fit here mostly out of pride instead of looking at the details.2nd Peter 3:3-7 clearly reveal a gap between the former world that perished in water after the heavens and earth were flooded and this world that will be destroyed by fire one day.
Sorry but insults and rude attitudes do not sway me,the word does.I can handle insults if I'm right and you're wrong.

I did explain the passage.........................................but why would you believe me as they are just the words of a man.

Be convinced in your own mind ACB, I care not, just quit with all the judgement on those that don't agree with you.

You should remove the beam from your eye.I have never judged you or anybody but I do disagree with you.You make yourself look bad not me because you think hurling insults and calling me a troll makes you right. I am right on topic in this thread even if my view differs from you.

Rob wrote:

Audie wrote:

Philip wrote:Of course, none of us are ever a pain in the *** to our spouses, right? RIGHT???!!! And they never tell us that we are...RIGHT??? My wife is so polite she often responds to me by saying, "Yes, SIR!!!" Yet perhaps with just a slight touch of sarcasm.

I will readily admit that my marriage did not last 99%
because I was impossible to live with.

Not that anyone here would know why I was like that or whether things are different with me now.

I can see where you're coming from possibly. I thought my marriage was that way too, but it turns out I was to blame for a lot of what happened and it wasn't so one-side as I'd thought. 99% is probably high, Audie.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:I must say I have given those who reject the gap theory a chance to explain 2nd Peter 3:3-7 and nobody has yet explained how you can make Noah's flood fit here knowing that only the earth was flooded in Noah's flood,not the heavens and earth that were of old,I think you are making Noah's flood fit here mostly out of pride instead of looking at the details.2nd Peter 3:3-7 clearly reveal a gap between the former world that perished in water after the heavens and earth were flooded and this world that will be destroyed by fire one day.
Sorry but insults and rude attitudes do not sway me,the word does.I can handle insults if I'm right and you're wrong.

I did explain the passage.........................................but why would you believe me as they are just the words of a man.

Be convinced in your own mind ACB, I care not, just quit with all the judgement on those that don't agree with you.

You should remove the beam from your eye.I have never judged you or anybody but I do disagree with you.You make yourself look bad not me because you think hurling insults and calling me a troll makes you right. I am right on topic in this thread even if my view differs from you.

Yes you have many times, you said we are deceived, we stretch God's word, we believe the words of men over God's word etc...etc...etc... Which is acting like a If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, then my friend it's a duck.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:I must say I have given those who reject the gap theory a chance to explain 2nd Peter 3:3-7 and nobody has yet explained how you can make Noah's flood fit here knowing that only the earth was flooded in Noah's flood,not the heavens and earth that were of old,I think you are making Noah's flood fit here mostly out of pride instead of looking at the details.2nd Peter 3:3-7 clearly reveal a gap between the former world that perished in water after the heavens and earth were flooded and this world that will be destroyed by fire one day.
Sorry but insults and rude attitudes do not sway me,the word does.I can handle insults if I'm right and you're wrong.

I did explain the passage.........................................but why would you believe me as they are just the words of a man.

Be convinced in your own mind ACB, I care not, just quit with all the judgement on those that don't agree with you.

You should remove the beam from your eye.I have never judged you or anybody but I do disagree with you.You make yourself look bad not me because you think hurling insults and calling me a troll makes you right. I am right on topic in this thread even if my view differs from you.

Yes you have many times, you said we are deceived, we stretch God's word, we believe the words of men over God's word etc...etc...etc... Which is acting like a If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, then my friend it's a duck.

If life does not evolve you have been deceived,You have said the bible is not a science book so I'm going by what you have said,you don't believe Genesis should be taken literal,while I do.I believe all of the bible is the inspired word of God not just some of it,so we differ.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:="Danieltwotwenty"]

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:I must say I have given those who reject the gap theory a chance to explain 2nd Peter 3:3-7 and nobody has yet explained how you can make Noah's flood fit here knowing that only the earth was flooded in Noah's flood,not the heavens and earth that were of old,I think you are making Noah's flood fit here mostly out of pride instead of looking at the details.2nd Peter 3:3-7 clearly reveal a gap between the former world that perished in water after the heavens and earth were flooded and this world that will be destroyed by fire one day.
Sorry but insults and rude attitudes do not sway me,the word does.I can handle insults if I'm right and you're wrong.

I did explain the passage.........................................but why would you believe me as they are just the words of a man.

Be convinced in your own mind ACB, I care not, just quit with all the judgement on those that don't agree with you.

You should remove the beam from your eye.I have never judged you or anybody but I do disagree with you.You make yourself look bad not me because you think hurling insults and calling me a troll makes you right. I am right on topic in this thread even if my view differs from you.

Yes you have many times, you said we are deceived, we stretch God's word, we believe the words of men over God's word etc...etc...etc... Which is acting like a If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, then my friend it's a duck.

If life does not evolve you have been deceived,You have said the bible is not a science book so I'm going by what you have said,you don't believe Genesis should be taken literal,while I do.I believe all of the bible is the inspired word of God not just some of it,so we differ.

No I have not been deceived, I understand it in it's context. Do you read Song of Songs as literal?? Or is it more poetic and just like Genesis I don't believe it was meant to give a literal account but rather make a theological point. So no I am not deceived, so save your insults and remove you head from the proverbial sand. I believe the whole Bible as to how I think it was meant to be read, period, just like yourself.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:Where did I contradict myself, please quote me in full.

Genesis I don't believe it was meant to give a literal account

I believe the whole Bible as to how I think it was meant to be read

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:Where did I contradict myself, please quote me in full.

You said

Genesis I don't believe it was meant to give a literal account

Then said

I believe the whole Bible as to how I think it was meant to be read

RickD wrote:

Rob wrote:

Audie wrote:

Philip wrote:Of course, none of us are ever a pain in the *** to our spouses, right? RIGHT???!!! And they never tell us that we are...RIGHT??? My wife is so polite she often responds to me by saying, "Yes, SIR!!!" Yet perhaps with just a slight touch of sarcasm.

I will readily admit that my marriage did not last 99%
because I was impossible to live with.

Not that anyone here would know why I was like that or whether things are different with me now.

I can see where you're coming from possibly. I thought my marriage was that way too, but it turns out I was to blame for a lot of what happened and it wasn't so one-side as I'd thought. 99% is probably high, Audie.

From what I know about Audie by her posts here, 99% may actually be too low.

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

Rob wrote:

Audie wrote:

Philip wrote:Of course, none of us are ever a pain in the *** to our spouses, right? RIGHT???!!! And they never tell us that we are...RIGHT??? My wife is so polite she often responds to me by saying, "Yes, SIR!!!" Yet perhaps with just a slight touch of sarcasm.

I will readily admit that my marriage did not last 99%
because I was impossible to live with.

Not that anyone here would know why I was like that or whether things are different with me now.

I can see where you're coming from possibly. I thought my marriage was that way too, but it turns out I was to blame for a lot of what happened and it wasn't so one-side as I'd thought. 99% is probably high, Audie.

From what I know about Audie by her posts here, 99% may actually be too low.

From what I know now about you, a person dares to make herself a little vulnerable in your christian presence, why,
you'll run right in and kick her.

Just call me Lucy, to your Charlie Brown.