There Are Many To Be Had
Published on June 5, 2009 By KFC Kickin For Christ In Current Events

Say it's not so! 


Comments (Page 15)
18 PagesFirst 13 14 15 16 17  Last
on Jun 25, 2009

OCK posts:

Guess what...you know those stars you see out there? Thousands upon thousands of them are more than 10,000 light years away. The nearest galaxy to the Milky Way is actually inside the Milky way, and it's distance from us is 25,000 light years.

lula posts:

And guess what back? This doesn't prove one iota that the universe is billions of years old.

OCK POSTS:

Maybe not, but it DOES prove that it's at least 25,000.

Want me to get data on other stars/galaxies that proves it's older, yet?

"Data... that proves" you say? Even the Theory of Relavity isn't fully understood or agreed upon.

Turns out there are still plenty of mysteries as to even how light reaches earth. Does it travel to earth through curved space? Does it occur in slow motion? Even the red shift/Doppler effect isn't fully understood with certainity. If aspects such as these cannot be understood beyond doubt, even with the latest sophisticated tools and methodologies, science is still trying to figure our cosmology out.

I posted and you responded and totally mentioned nothing regarding the scientific data I presented.

You just spooged the same crud Lula did. It's quite valid, and quite why there is a 50 million year margin of error. That doesn't change the fact that even with a 50 million year margin of error, many things are dated way beyond 10,000 years. And what of the speed of light? You don't find it miraculous and worthy of praising God that we can see a mni galaxy inside of our own that is 25,000 light years away?

What scientific data did you mention?

Again, both carbon 14 and radiometric dating techniques are limited as far as being reliably accurate for determining the actual age of the universe or of the earth.

Re: the speed of light...You've obviously jumped to the conclusion that becasue we can see galaxies light years away the universe is billions of years old.

First, has light always travelled at the same speed? Or, have tests shown in favor of a decrease in the velocity of light? And wouldn't this decrease be statistically significant?

No scientific law requires the speed of light to be constant. Scientists today are attributing the cosmic background radiation and most redshifts to this rapidly decreasing speed of light. It seems that even light itself is decaying.

 

on Jun 25, 2009

hmmmm couldn't it be our dating system isn't exactly totally accurate

I already explained this. The error percentage is built in. Even if it were as wrong as it could possibly be, some things still measure as way over 10k years.

As far as accurate radiometric readings only blind tests insure objectivity. Blind tests require that the person making the measurement no know which of several specimens is the one of interest. To measure a rock, several rocks but of different ages must accompany the specimen in question. There have been tests that came up grossly inaccurate even when scientists knew the age.

kfc posts 202

As far as light years....you're aware that the Christians believe that everything was created with age right? Adam and Eve were not babies when they were created. The animals were created as fully developed and the brand new universe was set in place with age as well.

ock posts:

For this to not be true, and for you to be right, God would have to have deliberately made things look different than they are. That seems to me dishonest.

Is it possible that scientists have drawn mistaken conclusions from the appearance of age in the universe? Can we ignore that the Creator of the universe rapidly transformed matter created on Day 1 into galaxies on Day 4 and stretched out starlight instantaneously throughout the universe? Instantaneous Creation is also mature Creation.

How about Our Lord's first miracle at the wedding at Cana? He changed water into wine and all the guests thought the wedding party had saved the best wine for last...the brand newly created wine appeared and most probably tasted like very old wine!  

on Jun 25, 2009

Man made religion...

As if there is another kind?

Yes, there is. It's called God-revealed religion and mankind has always had religion taught by God. It falls into 4 divisions or stages.

Religion is the duty of man to worship Almighty God in the way He precribed and there is only one God revealed religion at any given time period.

The first stage of revealed religion of Adam, whom God instructed immediately. Adam handed on to his children the truth about God and the duty of worshipping Him. Thus Abel offered sacrifice. The traditions were transmitted by Adam's posterity, and conscience dictated what was naturally right  and this second period is called the stage of Natural Law and also the patriarchial period of pre-Mosiac unwritten law.

After the remultiplication of the human race from Noe, mankind began to forget God and idol worship and paganism grew.

The third stage of God's revealed religion came with Moses whom God gave a clearer exposition of religious duties to be put into writing. I call this Biblical Judaism or Old Covenant law which had a specific sacrificial priesthood.

Finally, God sent Christ to give the more perfect New Covenant law --the Christian law which only the Catholic Chruch teaches in its fullness and on Christ's promise will teach until the end of the world.  

All religions other than these are man made and becasue they are man made in matters of faith and morals contain truth and error.

on Jun 25, 2009

You know...the more and more that I study anthropology and philosophy...the more I am convinced that religion/god/et al, is man made. To each their own to the tip of their nose.

 

Be well,  ~Alderic

on Jun 25, 2009

ock posts:

Maybe the Christian god IS correct, KFC. But that isn't spoiled if the bible is not correct. And that is a WAY simpler solution than trying to suggest that a universe as vast as this was made to fool us into thinking it is one thing when it's actually something else.

Both Holy God and the Holy Bible, of which He is the principle Author, are correct. Correct, meaning it has no errors. It's inerrant becasue every writing, every book was written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. So, therefore the Holy Bible can be trusted to give us factual and truthful statements concerning not only truth to the salvific purposes of God, but also truth of history, chronology, science, and the cosmos.  

kfc posts:

There is nothing in the bible thus far that has been proven incorrect. It's been verified thousands of times over and has stood the test of time quite well.

Yes, the Bible is true and trustworthy in its essence and this has some Modernists chomping at the bit.

Genesis is a very special book written by Moses whom God revealed things about the world that Moses could have never known by reason or observation. Yet they are all there..things that God spoke to Noe, to Abraham and Jacob. The Jews knew things about God and the creation that "Marduk" woulnd't even hear of for more than a millennia. Which in my view means the great liklihood that Hebrew tradition had influenced the surrounding pagan cultures rather than vice versa,   

 

on Jun 25, 2009

So, therefore the Holy Bible can be trusted to give us factual and truthful statements concerning not only truth to the salvific purposes of God, but also truth of history, chronology, science, and the cosmos.

 

Though the Catholic church and others have removed and done various "editing and clarency" work on it?

 

 

on Jun 25, 2009

So, therefore the Holy Bible can be trusted to give us factual and truthful statements concerning not only truth to the salvific purposes of God, but also truth of history, chronology, science, and the cosmos.



Though the Catholic church and others have removed and done various "editing and clarency" work on it?

The CC hasn't removed anything. The Church, from the time of her founding by Christ in 33AD, had always used the Old Testament Septuagint collection of 46 Books. It is the same collection contained in the Catholic Canon today.

When the Protestant forefathers abandoned the Catholic Church in 1517, they adopted the collection of 39 Books as determined by the Jews of Jamnia in 90AD. Just as the Jews had rejected the 7Books, the Protestant forefathers followed suit and omitted the same 7 Old Testament Books as well as some writings from the Books of Esher and Daniel which are contained in Catholic Bibles.  

As far as the most accurate and trustworthy translations having the closest rendering and sense of the original Hebrew and Greek, it's the Douay Rheims version hands down. The reason is simple. It's from St.Jerome's Latin Vulgate Bible which is a word by word accurate translation from the original languages.

On the other hand, the Protestant Bibles have undergone many translations since Luther in 1517 and contain many mistranslations becasue dogmatic interests were allowed to bias the translations. Today, the revised versions are a great improvement; the corrections being brought in closer harmony with the Catholic Douay Version.

The Holy Bible is God's revelation of a supernatural order of Truth far deeper than the product of human thinking and when it comes everyone's indivicudal interpretation of it, conflicting conclusions are proof that men haven't managed to understand it.

 

 

on Jun 25, 2009

~Lula~

 

You know...just...forget...I...asked. Such a debate with you or KFC is a futile and pointless thing.

 

Be well, ~Alderic

on Jun 25, 2009

I wonder if Noah took a pair of every kind of fish onto the Ark.  It isn't mentioned, and it would be pretty silly since the point of the ark was to save life from water, but fish aren't really scared of water.

 

Still, God said he would destroy everything that lived.  He was pissed off at man, but still all the animals not on the ark got it in the proverbial neck.

 

Sorry for the digression - I just wonder these things.

on Jun 25, 2009

Well it is a problem because if God is God and he reveals himself to us thru this word then he would protect his word as well.

Interesting - as mere fallible humans, we can't fathom the wisdom of God, but we know what God would do.

It's the truth.  We can't know God's truth.

Protect it.  Proclaim it. 

Forget about it, Ock - they have all the facile, omnidirectional and contradictory answers down.

on Jun 26, 2009

As they would claim we do, Daiwa.  It's ok.  I never enter into these conversations expecting to change minds - I'm just curious how many times I can get the robots to repeat their programming.  The number continually grows.

on Jun 26, 2009

we can't fathom the wisdom of God, but we know what God would do.

It's the truth. We can't know God's truth.

Only what God has revealed to us.  I believe the scriptures we have today is God's revelation to mankind.  It's up to us what we do with it.  No one's browbeating you Daiwa.  You have your beliefs, and we have ours.  You just happen to believe we are weak and you are strong because you rely on yourself.  We know that yet while we are weak, admittedly so,  we are strong because we rely on God.   God said we can know the truth and that the truth will set us free.  So I can either believe you and your comment here or I can believe Christ who said that we can know truth.  He is the truth. 

I wonder if Noah took a pair of every kind of fish onto the Ark

doubt it. 

Still, God said he would destroy everything that lived.

yes, but he always always leaves a remnant behind.  Someday there will be a bigger day of destruction but there will be a remnant left just like in the days of Noah. 

I just wonder these things.

nothing wrong with that.  I wonder things too. 

 

on Jun 26, 2009

The CC hasn't removed anything. The Church, from the time of her founding by Christ in 33AD, had always used the Old Testament Septuagint collection of 46 Books. It is the same collection contained in the Catholic Canon today.

I didn't even read past this line Lula. 

This is the second entry you've left here in a day trying to get us back into your RCC dogma.  I ignored the first time. 

Please don't bring that here.  

 

 

 

on Jun 26, 2009

yes, but he always always leaves a remnant behind

 

Well if he did, then he can't be trusted to do what he says he's going to do.

 

4For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.

Which, by the way, is one more indicator that these lines were written with sub-standard intellect.  If we're going to be literal, it says "every living substance."  Olive trees are a living substance.  Just more along the Hoaxes line.

on Jun 26, 2009

Well if he did, then he can't be trusted to do what he says he's going to do.

he did exactly what he said he'd do. 

Which, by the way, is one more indicator that these lines were written with sub-standard intellect. If we're going to be literal, it says "every living substance." Olive trees are a living substance. Just more along the Hoaxes line.

ya, and your point?  Who says the Olive trees made it? 

I don't know if they did or didn't but you really have to read the whole context.  If you read to the end of the chapter you'd read this:

"The water prevailed fifteen cubits higher and the mountains were covered.  All flesh that moved on the earth perished, birds and cattle and beasts and every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth, and all mankind. of all that was on the dry land, all in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, died.  Thus He blotted out every living thing that was upon the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky and they were blotted out from the earth, and only Noah was left together with those that were with him in the ark." 

So what kind of intellect doesn't read something in full context?  Your fish question is answered here as well. 

It's funny what and how you look at things Ock.  You totally missed that God gave them one more week for sinners to repent after Noah took 120 years to build this ark.  This shows the love and patience of God for mankind in spite of their rebellion towards him. 

sub-standard intellect?   The writers of the scriptures were little more than scribes, because they were only instruments in the hand of God.  God was the author of the words you quoted above.  You don't realize it but you are really saying that about God's intellect, not man's. 

18 PagesFirst 13 14 15 16 17  Last