Bible Prophecy - Nonbeliever's Playground

[montrose818]

ok the other thread wasnt very helpful (no thanks to roc doc) but is church a good place to meet a nice girl, or are they all dirty sluts who play the good girl?

 

[Deleted Member]

I'll preface this by saying I'm not religious and and not familiar with many of the details of each individual religion. I have some genuine questions about some of the stuff I've read here and a few of my own.

I didn't know that Christians believed the earth (and whole universe) is only 6,000ish years old, that raises so many questions for me. If everything is ~6,000 years old, how are we able to see the light from stars tens and hundreds of thousands (even millions) of lightyears away from us? Even most of the Milky Way that you're able to see with your bare eyes on a dark night is further than 6,000 light years away from us.

Not all Christians believe in a young Earth... many do. Me, personally I don't believe the Earth is older than 10K years. God made the Universe first. Not sure of the time frame, to be honest. Time isn't to God what it is to us.

I saw mention of Pangea = Eden, around what time frame would that have somewhat violently separated into the continents we know (considering the short timeframe)?

I think I am getting the question correct, if not you let me know. The flood was a violent event. The world's populous was destroyed save Noah, his family and the animals God commanded to the Ark. Violent eruptions/ quakes and 40 days of massive world wide flood. The entire Earth was reshaped.

Would the (theoretical) existence of aliens contradict any belief Christianity is founded on?

Not really. In my opinion aliens aren't what many people believe them to be. Satan is real, as well as fallen angels. Their goal is to deceive man. Is it plausible to consider them in that capacity? I think so.

What about animals? Do they live and die and their soul ceases to exist, or do they burn in hell because they didn't accept a religion?

Well, we know they roam in heaven as created beings. And I would love to see my doggo's again. Honestly it doesn't delve into that... It's an unknown. Possible? Maybe.

What makes them any different than humans? If either of the above, why did Noah go through so much effort to save creatures that were "lost" anyways?

We gotta eat. And given the circumstances the vegetation may have not been abundant enough to sustain life right off. It's a hunch.

Know what Noah did after the waters seceded and had an area to plant? Grew a vineyard and made wine. I am sure they also planted other food sources as well... It's interesting though. The animals obviously scattered and reproduced, same as mankind.

 

[MChat]

I didn't know that Christians believed the earth (and whole universe) is only 6,000ish years old, that raises so many questions for me. If everything is ~6,000 years old, how are we able to see the light from stars tens and hundreds of thousands (even millions) of lightyears away from us? Even most of the Milky Way that you're able to see with your bare eyes on a dark night is further than 6,000 light years away from us.

Not all Christians believe in a young earth; my beliefs do happen to be that of a Young Earth Creationist. And the light issue is a fair question; the standard answer is that God created a fully mature universe. For Biblical evidence of this, we note that God created Adam and Eve as adults, not infants, all of their organs were working exactly as they would if they had been actually born, had a childhood, went through puberty and grew into an adult.

Likewise the Universe could easily have been made "fully mature" with photons apparently from distant galaxies already present here in our own solar system. On the old site, Pazuzu, whose expertise was in Astronomy even conceded that if someone was powerful enough to create an entire Universe, placing every sub-atomic particle exactly in place and then "pushing the 'Go' button" then that Universe would be indistinguishable from an authentically multi-billion year old Universe.

Why would God do this: I believe it goes back to Free Will. If God made it 100% obvious, with every piece of evidence pointing to Him and only to Him, then that wouldn't really be a choice would it? I believe that all of the evidence that is out there can be interpreted in at least two ways: one way that points to a Creator, and one way that points toward "Chaos".

Another alternative theory is that the Speed of Light is not as constant as we once thought. Scientist in Australia have been playing with photons and have had some interesting discoveries including being able to slow down and even "stop" light. The current thought is that the Speed of Light has a maximum which is what we think of as the "constant" of the Speed of Light. However, what if that "maximum" varies depending on where you are in a given solar system, in a given galaxy, or in the void between galaxies? Is it possible that the speed of light increases exponentially absent as it moves further away from objects of gravity? We already know that immense gravitational fields do affect light. Is it possible in the void between galaxies that the Speed of Light approaches infinity? Instead of taking billions of years to "cross the universe" light could travel from one side of the universe to the other in a matter of a few hundred years.

I saw mention of Pangea = Eden, around what time frame would that have somewhat violently separated into the continents we know (considering the short timeframe)?

I mentioned Dr. Brown's Hydroplate Theory earlier. His theory explains how the continents as we know them today were formed during the flood. I recently ordered his book on the subject, but there are excerpts available online. It is an interesting theory and arguably explains the geological formations of the world better than the Theory of Plate Tectonics does.

Would the (theoretical) existence of aliens contradict any belief Christianity is founded on?

Not necessarily. The Bible mentions the Nephilim which many believe are the Fallen Angels (Demons) and/or the offspring of said Demons. There are some people that believe the Nephilim will reappear at some point in time as "Aliens" from a distant world. I mentioned this in my first post as "passing my litmus test" because the arrival of "Aliens" could make people question their beliefs. My personal thought is that God never said this was the only world on which He put life; we shouldn't assume because it is not mentioned that it didn't happen.

What about animals? Do they live and die and their soul ceases to exist, or do they burn in hell because they didn't accept a religion? What makes them any different than humans? If either of the above, why did Noah go through so much effort to save creatures that were "lost" anyways?

Animals were not created in God's Image, only Man was. Man was created with a Body, a Soul and a Spirit (as God is the Son, the Father and the Holy Spirit). Since animals have no soul, they live and they die and that is it. While man's body will die, his soul will live on. The spirit is a little more complex: Adam and Eve were created with a spirit, however that spirit died the moment they sinned by eating the forbidden fruit (which was not an apple). Every man/woman born since the fall has been born spiritually dead; when a person become a Christian, the Holy Spirit then dwells within them, basically they are "borrowing" God's spirit. When we die, the Body decays, the Spirit (if present) returns to God and the Soul goes on to it's eternal destination.

Edit: Forgot to mention why Noah had the animals on the Ark. This was to replenish the earth after the Flood. Could God have simply "re-created" all of the Animals from scratch, absolutely He could have. However, I believe God chooses often to act through men. Could He send His Angels to appear all over the earth to proclaim His existence? Absolutely, yet He chooses to allow man to share the Gospel (Good News) message. Ironically, there is a day coming when He will send His Angels forth with a proclamation and the people of earth at that time will still not turn to Him.

"And I saw another angel flying in midheaven with an eternal gospel to preach to those who live on the earth, and to every nation, tribe, language, and people; and he said with a loud voice, 'Fear God and give Him glory, because the hour of His judgment has come; worship Him who made the heaven and the earth, and sea and springs of waters.'

And another angel, a second one, followed, saying, 'Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great, she who has made all the nations drink of the wine of the passion of her sexual immorality.'

Then another angel, a third one, followed them, saying with a loud voice, 'If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand, he also will drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is mixed in full strength in the cup of His anger; and he will be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever; they have no rest day and night, those who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name.'" - Revelation 14:6-11 (NASB)

 

[MChat]

ok the other thread wasnt very helpful (no thanks to roc doc) but is church a good place to meet a nice girl, or are they all dirty sluts who play the good girl?

Wasn't sure this was a serious question. But if someone is a Christian, where better to find a like-minded Christian wife?

 

[VEX]

ok the other thread wasnt very helpful (no thanks to roc doc) but is church a good place to meet a nice girl, or are they all dirty sluts who play the good girl?

This wasn’t my question to answer, but I will.

Just because someone goes to church or another ‘official’ place of worship doesn’t guarantee that they are spiritual or following the faith.

You will meet all kinds in ‘church’.

The congregation is made up of all walks of life and that includes those who are there for selfish intent.

I don’t do ‘church’ for that reason.

My walk in Christianity is between me and the most high.

I’m sure it f you went to a church you may find, in time, someone of good heart and true spirit, but be vigilant.

If you’re going with the expectation to ‘bag some ass’, and are successful, then you both have lost the meaning of the faith. IMO.

You do you as I don’t judge.

 

[rockyota83]

Not all Christians believe in a young Earth... many do. Me, personally I don't believe the Earth is older than 10K years.

flat earth much?


you know how people say liberalism is a mental disorder? yea you have it

 

[MuntCuffin]

flat earth much?


you know how people say liberalism is a mental disorder? yea you have it

If the layers that formed the grand canyon were laid down over billions of years, why are the layers so flat and uniform? Why are their no erosion features within the layers?
If sediment filled in our geologic landscape and under pressure turned to rock, it would not be flat since we have erosional features.
And its only been about 13,000 years since the last massive flood during the younger-dryas.
You know what lays out flat uniform layers of sediment? Floods and mud flows.

I don't necessarily believe in the young earth theory. But I don't buy into the billions of years of gradual change, either. The geologic landscape suggest rapid catastrophic changes over a relatively short period.

 

[Deleted Member]

flat earth much?


you know how people say liberalism is a mental disorder? yea you have it

You're a liberal? That actually explains quite a lot.

You don't seem like a confident person, willing to just listen or learn anything from others. Even if it's just something to understand about another and how they see the world.

What is it you believe again? Comfort in not knowing? Or to afraid to just accept that someone else believes in something you don't? Neat. Indulge us, If ya dare. Promise I won't make fun of you... to much. I honestly feel like laughing too when I listen to theories like evolution and the big bang, though I typically refrain out of respect for another. I just simply disagree and move on confident in my belief. Unashamed of the gospel.

 

[AgitatedPancake]

I appreciate the genuine responses from both of you. Though it has ended in more questions which I'm completely OK with.

Another alternative theory is that the Speed of Light is not as constant as we once thought. Scientist in Australia have been playing with photons and have had some interesting discoveries including being able to slow down and even "stop" light. The current thought is that the Speed of Light has a maximum which is what we think of as the "constant" of the Speed of Light. However, what if that "maximum" varies depending on where you are in a given solar system, in a given galaxy, or in the void between galaxies? Is it possible that the speed of light increases exponentially absent as it moves further away from objects of gravity? We already know that immense gravitational fields do affect light. Is it possible in the void between galaxies that the Speed of Light approaches infinity? Instead of taking billions of years to "cross the universe" light could travel from one side of the universe to the other in a matter of a few hundred years.

Very interesting on the Autrailians having data that challenges the defined speed of light, I definitely have some research to do. And the answer that He (being capable of creating the entire universe) can place the photons exactly as needed is a reasonable answer as well. Though the only reason He would so do seems to be for the specific reason of fooling humanity, as it would otherwise be an irrelevant distinction.

I mentioned Dr. Brown's Hydroplate Theory earlier. His theory explains how the continents as we know them today were formed during the flood. I recently ordered his book on the subject, but there are excerpts available online. It is an interesting theory and arguably explains the geological formations of the world better than the Theory of Plate Tectonics does.

You did mention the hydroplate theory, without research I wasn't sure what that timeframe was. Now I understand (and it obviously makes sense at this point) that this theory applies during the time of Noah's floods. From the outside, I had no idea the theory of those floods included an entire reconstruction of earth as we know it. About what time period did it happen (once again for the uninformed like myself)? Just so I can research and compare records, genuinely not knowing the written timelines.

Animals were not created in God's Image, only Man was. Man was created with a Body, a Soul and a Spirit (as God is the Son, the Father and the Holy Spirit). Since animals have no soul, they live and they die and that is it. While man's body will die, his soul will live on. The spirit is a little more complex: Adam and Eve were created with a spirit, however that spirit died the moment they sinned by eating the forbidden fruit (which was not an apple). Every man/woman born since the fall has been born spiritually dead; when a person become a Christian, the Holy Spirit then dwells within them, basically they are "borrowing" God's spirit. When we die, the Body decays, the Spirit (if present) returns to God and the Soul goes on to it's eternal destination.

Edit: Forgot to mention why Noah had the animals on the Ark. This was to replenish the earth after the Flood. Could God have simply "re-created" all of the Animals from scratch, absolutely He could have. However, I believe God chooses often to act through men. Could He send His Angels to appear all over the earth to proclaim His existence? Absolutely, yet He chooses to allow man to share the Gospel (Good News) message. Ironically, there is a day coming when He will send His Angels forth with a proclamation and the people of earth at that time will still not turn to Him.

Alrighty, makes sense. I have no say one way or the other, I was just curious (though I do find it interesting flecker's belief does include his animals). Do we know the final ballpark location of Noah's ark? If so, is there a significant fossil record around that area? With how many carnivorous species that were (peacefully?) aboard the Ark, it would seem that those animals would need meat upon landing. But any animal deaths within the initial months on dry land seem to imply the end of the species being the only of that sex in existennce (at least within accessible range). Are there any historical references to dinosaurs within the last 6k years beyond the loch ness monster and similar "blurry film" references?




Considering there are roughly 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars in the universe (wiki), on average having a couple planets spinning around them with many having at least one planet within the human habitable "goldilocks" zone (not including the idea that aliens could live outside of the human habitable zone which could add even more possibility), it seems very probably from a statistical standpoint that intelligent nonhuman life exists elsewhere in the universe as well. But according to the contemporary beliefs, intelligent and even potentially bipedal life (just for the sake of discussion) from another planet yet not created in God's image and therefore inferior and not worthy of heaven? If humans on planet Earth are the only beings worthy of heaven, even though there are let's say 10,000 other intelligent species (which is 1 in 100 billion chance intelligent life, pretty good imo) in the universe due to having dissimilar appearance, that seems a pretty extreme belief

Sorry I may have missed a bit of my thought process, I'll have to continue my thoughts on the topic in the morning

 

[rockyota83]

If the layers that formed the grand canyon were laid down over billions of years, why are the layers so flat and uniform? Why are their no erosion features within the layers?
If sediment filled in our geologic landscape and under pressure turned to rock, it would not be flat since we have erosional features.
And its only been about 13,000 years since the last massive flood during the younger-dryas.
You know what lays out flat uniform layers of sediment? Floods and mud flows.

I don't necessarily believe in the young earth theory. But I don't buy into the billions of years of gradual change, either. The geologic landscape suggest rapid catastrophic changes over a relatively short period.

so god made gold?

 

[rockyota83]

You're a liberal? That actually explains quite a lot.

You don't seem like a confident person, willing to just listen or learn anything from others. Even if it's just something to understand about another and how they see the world.

What is it you believe again? Comfort in not knowing? Or to afraid to just accept that someone else believes in something you don't? Neat. Indulge us, If ya dare. Promise I won't make fun of you... to much. I honestly feel like laughing too when I listen to theories like evolution and the big bang, though I typically refrain out of respect for another. I just simply disagree and move on confident in my belief. Unashamed of the gospel.

i believe im very thankful im not as naive as religious people

 

[Add]

So you still haven't answered my question about butt stuff......

Doesnt god say anal is wrong? And why do good religious girls do it to "save their virginity'?

Your poophole is not a loophole.

 

[Add]

Nothing created God. He exists outside of the Universe, outside of Time even. The Universe (and Time) are part of His Creation.

The Hebrew name for God (YHWH) translated into English is "I AM" but that doesn't really do it justice. In Hebrew it is more accurately "The Existing One" (no beginning, no end, existing without end or beginning).

Also, I'm calling bullshit on this.....

Something can't exist from nothing. It can't just appear. Something had to be prior in order for something else to happen.

God had to be someone's "creation", as you say.

 

[rockyota83]

Something can't exist from nothing. It can't just appear. Something had to be prior in order for something else to happen.

God had to be someone's "creation", as you say.

that is a conundrum

so what/who created the thing that created god? and who created that? and then who created that?

 

[Add]

 

[det107]

2. Jews do not recognize Christ as the Messiah.

Begging your pardon... Yeshua Hamashiach. Jews see Jesus as a messenger & the Christians view him as a Savior.

Sooo.....?

 

[Roc Doc]

I'll preface this by saying I'm not religious and and not familiar with many of the details of each individual religion. I have some genuine questions about some of the stuff I've read here and a few of my own.

I didn't know that Christians believed the earth (and whole universe) is only 6,000ish years old, that raises so many questions for me. If everything is ~6,000 years old, how are we able to see the light from stars tens and hundreds of thousands (even millions) of lightyears away from us? Even most of the Milky Way that you're able to see with your bare eyes on a dark night is further than 6,000 light years away from us.

I saw mention of Pangea = Eden, around what time frame would that have somewhat violently separated into the continents we know (considering the short timeframe)?

Would the (theoretical) existence of aliens contradict any belief Christianity is founded on?

What about animals? Do they live and die and their soul ceases to exist, or do they burn in hell because they didn't accept a religion? What makes them any different than humans? If either of the above, why did Noah go through so much effort to save creatures that were "lost" anyways?

I asked those questions in the other thread specifically to see how literal some were taking the old testament. If that's what gives them comfort and a sense of understanding, that's great for them, but me personally I don't believe the old testament was a historical document.

 

[Deleted Member]

I appreciate the genuine responses from both of you. Though it has ended in more questions which I'm completely OK with.


Very interesting on the Autrailians having data that challenges the defined speed of light, I definitely have some research to do. And the answer that He (being capable of creating the entire universe) can place the photons exactly as needed is a reasonable answer as well. Though the only reason He would so do seems to be for the specific reason of fooling humanity, as it would otherwise be an irrelevant distinction.


You did mention the hydroplate theory, without research I wasn't sure what that timeframe was. Now I understand (and it obviously makes sense at this point) that this theory applies during the time of Noah's floods. From the outside, I had no idea the theory of those floods included an entire reconstruction of earth as we know it. About what time period did it happen (once again for the uninformed like myself)? Just so I can research and compare records, genuinely not knowing the written timelines.

The time period for the flood was around 4400 years ago.

Alrighty, makes sense. I have no say one way or the other, I was just curious (though I do find it interesting flecker's belief does include his animals).

Well, me hoping something is accurate and the reality is something entirely different. Yah, of course I miss my furry friends and would love to see them again, but I may not. God has used animals MANY times in scripture for his purposes and gives us the opportunity to have a bond/ relationship with them here. Beyond that? Don't know.

Do we know the final ballpark location of Noah's ark?

The bible says Mt Ararat in the area of Eastern Turkey

If so, is there a significant fossil record around that area?

There's a pretty significant fossil record everywhere... not only the bones that survived we see in museums around the world, but all those huge crude oil deposits are derived from all the human/ animal and vegetation that was deposited from the flood.

With how many carnivorous species that were (peacefully?) aboard the Ark, it would seem that those animals would need meat upon landing. But any animal deaths within the initial months on dry land seem to imply the end of the species being the only of that sex in existennce (at least within accessible range).

Possibly... I am sure some animals were given some grace to adapt and survive. Some may have been food for others. Animals tend to reproduce pretty quick and don't carry their offspring in the womb for long durations.

Are there any historical references to dinosaurs within the last 6k years beyond the loch ness monster and similar "blurry film" references?

So interesting fact... reptiles don't stop growing so long as they live. In the time before the flood the life span was much longer for people, and animals as well. How big would a lizard get in 800 years? Dinosaur size I'm sure. We have mention of what we call dinosaurs today in the book of Job. Behemoth, Leviathan are a couple of examples of biblical references that describe dinosaurs in the days before the flood.

Considering there are roughly 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars in the universe (wiki), on average having a couple planets spinning around them with many having at least one planet within the human habitable "goldilocks" zone (not including the idea that aliens could live outside of the human habitable zone which could add even more possibility), it seems very probably from a statistical standpoint that intelligent nonhuman life exists elsewhere in the universe as well. But according to the contemporary beliefs, intelligent and even potentially bipedal life (just for the sake of discussion) from another planet yet not created in God's image and therefore inferior and not worthy of heaven? If humans on planet Earth are the only beings worthy of heaven, even though there are let's say 10,000 other intelligent species (which is 1 in 100 billion chance intelligent life, pretty good imo) in the universe due to having dissimilar appearance, that seems a pretty extreme belief

Sorry I may have missed a bit of my thought process, I'll have to continue my thoughts on the topic in the morning

Let me get my morning coffee and I'll revisit this one.

 

[Deleted Member]

I asked those questions in the other thread specifically to see how literal some were taking the old testament. If that's what gives them comfort and a sense of understanding, that's great for them, but me personally I don't believe the old testament was a historical document.

For me, I take it rather literal... The timeline tends to match and make sense. Many others I know see it the way you do. We have been so ingrained with the ideas and teachings of evolution, plate tectonics, geology and etc. I can see why it's pretty difficult to wrap ones head around the idea the earth may have been created and not taken eons and eons to do so. Yet alone a drastic, sudden and violent change like a flood. It literally contradicts everything we are thrown at in grade school on up.

I suppose in that context it is understandable why many would see it different.

 

[Deleted Member]

Also, I'm calling bullshit on this.....

Something can't exist from nothing. It can't just appear. Something had to be prior in order for something else to happen.

God had to be someone's "creation", as you say.

Why can't something exist from nothing?

Can you explain to me the big bang theory?

 

[Deleted Member]

Begging your pardon... Yeshua Hamashiach. Jews see Jesus as a messenger & the Christians view him as a Savior.

Sooo.....?

Much of Israel did not accept Jesus as the messiah. That's true. Another large faction of people did. The old testament describes the entire process in detail as to the why, when, what, where, when and how it would all take place. It even tells the entire nation of Israel that many wouldn't recognize Jesus for who he was. Isaiah wrote that Jesus would come from a branch of Jesse (Davids father) and through his line the messiah would come. Mary (Jesus mother) is a descendent of King David. The book of Luke has the entirety of the lineage from David down.

All Jews will leave a cup out for the messiah/ Elijah at Passover supper. They just completely missed it. And it makes sense. Jesus came with the gospel in around 33 A.D. Not all would hear and believe then. Jerusalem would be destroyed in 70 A.D., and much of the new testament hadn't been completed by then.

 

[DT75FLH]

Why can't something exist from nothing?

Can you explain to me the big bang theory?

Here is a sticking point with people who believe the big bang theory, evolution etc.....

It's a leap of "faith" that a spark started all this.....but they refuse to believe something outside could have created that spark...

They refuse to see the conundrum....while denying a God could exist...

 

[MChat]

Also, I'm calling bullshit on this.....

Something can't exist from nothing. It can't just appear. Something had to be prior in order for something else to happen.

God had to be someone's "creation", as you say.

And yet the Big Bang Theory says that all of the matter that makes up the Universe simply exists and has "always" existed. Where'd this matter, this "dirt" (if you will) that makes up the Universe come from? Even the Big Bang Theory doesn't propose to answer that question.

So what it comes down to is you can either choose to believe:


In the beginning there was dirt and the Universe came from Random Chaos.

OR

In the beginning there was a Creator the Universe came from Intelligent Design.


Considering the Laws of Physics... actually no, let consider just one of the many laws of physics: the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, which seems more plausible? And as we bring in other laws of physics into the picture, one seems more and more plausible and the other less and less so. Even Evolutionists in the last decade have admitted that an "Alien" implantation of life on this planet is statistically more likely than life evolving from pond scum as many of us were originally taught in our Biology classes. Without acknowledging the Creator, they have essentially admitted that Intelligent Design is more likely than Random Chaos.

 

[MChat]

Very interesting on the Autrailians having data that challenges the defined speed of light, I definitely have some research to do. And the answer that He (being capable of creating the entire universe) can place the photons exactly as needed is a reasonable answer as well. Though the only reason He would so do seems to be for the specific reason of fooling humanity, as it would otherwise be an irrelevant distinction.

Not to try to speak to God's motivation; however I don't know that "fooling humans" was it as much as creating a complete and mature Universe. God wanted the stars to be visible from the very beginning, as the Gospel Message of the Messiah is portrayed there (e.g. "Virgo" = Virgin Mary); this is why the Wise Men from the East knew Jesus was born by looking at the stars.

"Then God said, 'Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and they shall serve as signs and for seasons, and for days and years;" - Genesis 1:14

You did mention the hydroplate theory, without research I wasn't sure what that timeframe was. Now I understand (and it obviously makes sense at this point) that this theory applies during the time of Noah's floods. From the outside, I had no idea the theory of those floods included an entire reconstruction of earth as we know it. About what time period did it happen (once again for the uninformed like myself)? Just so I can research and compare records, genuinely not knowing the written timelines.

As Flecker said, about 4400-4500 years ago. There is actually a descent amount of proof for this as well. The estimated age of the Sahara Desert (oldest desert on earth), the estimated age of the oldest tree on earth, and the estimated age for the oldest coral reef on earth are all about 4400 years.

Alrighty, makes sense. I have no say one way or the other, I was just curious (though I do find it interesting flecker's belief does include his animals). Do we know the final ballpark location of Noah's ark? If so, is there a significant fossil record around that area? With how many carnivorous species that were (peacefully?) aboard the Ark, it would seem that those animals would need meat upon landing. But any animal deaths within the initial months on dry land seem to imply the end of the species being the only of that sex in existennce (at least within accessible range). Are there any historical references to dinosaurs within the last 6k years beyond the loch ness monster and similar "blurry film" references?

As I mentioned earlier, death was not part of the original Creation; all animals, including man, were herbivores. It wasn't until after the flood that certain animals became omnivores or carnivores. This most likely occurred over the next few hundred years as the conditions on earth warranted the changes in animals we observe as "micro-evolution." We see in the Bible that after the flood the lifespan of man starts to decline (950 for Noah, 600 for Shem, 464 for Eber, 205 for Terah, 175 for Abraham... to finally 120 for Moses; this indicates that the earth became less and less hospitable after the flood. This obviously would have a profound impact on wild animals and variations within a Kind of animal would develop based on where they were on earth.

Considering there are roughly 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars in the universe (wiki), on average having a couple planets spinning around them with many having at least one planet within the human habitable "goldilocks" zone (not including the idea that aliens could live outside of the human habitable zone which could add even more possibility), it seems very probably from a statistical standpoint that intelligent nonhuman life exists elsewhere in the universe as well. But according to the contemporary beliefs, intelligent and even potentially bipedal life (just for the sake of discussion) from another planet yet not created in God's image and therefore inferior and not worthy of heaven? If humans on planet Earth are the only beings worthy of heaven, even though there are let's say 10,000 other intelligent species (which is 1 in 100 billion chance intelligent life, pretty good imo) in the universe due to having dissimilar appearance, that seems a pretty extreme belief

There was a statistician that set out to prove that it was possible for life to have evolved on earth without a Creator. In his calculations he choose several "givens": Given a planet with the right atmosphere, at the correct distance from it's sun (assuming a single sun solar-system, which as it turns out is less common, not more common). When he finished all of his calculations, he determined that the odds that life could form spontaneously is 1x10^800 (I won't type all of that out).

Assuming that each of the 1x10^21 estimated stars in the Universe has a planet capable of sustaining life, with the right atmosphere at the right distance, which we know that isn't true, as the majority of solar systems have binary stars, which makes "the right distance" even more unlikely, but assuming that every star DOES have a planet where life could form, then life has a 1x10^38 chance of forming all on its own even ONCE in the entire Universe (much less our galaxy). And that is oversimplifying the probability calculation, in reality each of the 1x10^21 theoretical planets have the same 1x10^800 odds of life forming spontaneously.

There are mathematicians / statisticians that specialize in the laws of large numbers; I have neither studied it, nor have much desire to do so. However, I did learn that statistically speaking, "Impossible" is often defined as 1x10^50 power. So life forming spontaneously on any given planet is essentially "Impossible to the 16th power."

In other words, the likelihood of life forming outside of earth, randomly, without a Creator is practically zero.

 

[Add]

Why can't something exist from nothing?

Can you explain to me the big bang theory?

No, I can't. But it didn't come from a flying spaghetti monster

 

[Deleted Member]

No, I can't. But it didn't come from a flying spaghetti monster

You're right... it's even worse. It came from men/ scientist!



And we Christians prefer to be insulted with "Cosmic Genie". Kay?

All kidding aside, We can agree to just disagree. Neither should be offended and I get the feeling we aren't. Let's enjoy the world we live in and keep learning, yah?

 

[montrose818]

If you’re going with the expectation to ‘bag some ass’, and are successful, then you both have lost the meaning of the faith. IMO.

It was a serious question. I keep religion close to my heart but dont do church, so I figured I would ask the people who do, how the crowd there really is. Is it made up of genuinely good people, or extreme sinners who are trying to "be a born again christian".

Wasn't sure this was a serious question. But if someone is a Christian, where better to find a like-minded Christian wife?

yes, it was a serious question. I dont know the crowd or women that go to church (because I have not gone much), and figured you or others would know the attendees overall better than I could ever guess. Sorry for off topic. The churches around me have a corrupt reputation (money laundering, etc) so I chose to stay away from them for the most part, not putting further effort into finding a good one.

 

[Icono]

I spent too much time in the other thread, this one I'll have to revisit. Got some bangers lined up.

 

[Roverhound]

Wow! Thanks everyone! I'm actually dumber now!

 

[bbagwell]

I went to church as a kid with a friend. One day they asked if we had read the ten commandments. Sure yeah we have all read them. Have you ever broken one of them? Well yeah of course. Well you are going to hell and there is nothing you can do about it. Well that freed up my Sundays! Jesus won't save you unless you speak in tongues..... Well that never happened so off to hell! Later in life I went to a church that was much different. I believe in God but I have a hard time believing everything in the Bible. Especially since King James threw out a bunch of it, and printed what he wanted. Also I believe language loses meaning through translation. I was told my a co-worker I am going to hell. I told him I will see him there. He said no I am saved I am going to Heaven. I told him only God can judge me, and if you think you can make that judgement see you in hell asshole.