blackbird
-
Posts
6,692 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
8
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by blackbird
-
-
When a scientist sees a star, he might say that light has been traveling a million light years, which is a phenomenal distance. But it was probably created around six thousand years ago.
-
3 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:
Another question would be...just for you pondering...why can we see farther than 6,000 ly?
The same reason the earth was created with a certain age. The whole universe would have been created with an apparent age. In an instant the universe would have been created with galaxies, stars, etc. Even with the light from stars giving the impression it has been traveling for billions of years, when in fact, it must have been created to appear that way.
-
Just now, DogOnPorch said:
How did he do that? Or is the above probability theory all that convinced you?
I suppose I'd have a few other questions...but let's stick to this. What about metallicity? It shows the Earth wasn't created in the beginning...but rather after other stars went supernova in order to make elements beyond Lithium. As well, new stars & planets are being made as we type on our devices...any idea why?
No. I was convinced the account in Genesis is true before I heard his slide presentation. He went into all kinds of things that were very fascinating.
The universe I believe was created at the same time as the earth. So all the planets, starts, galaxies, black holes, etc. must have been created at the same time. Prior to that, perhaps there was nothing.
-
He believe the earth could have been struck by a giant meteor that caused a huge tidal wave to rush around the earth several kilometers in height. There may be some evidence for the earth being struck by a giant meteor because the earth could have been knocked off of it's axis. There is scientific evidence based upon the amount of the wobble and they have calculated when it was hit by the meteor.
-
Professor Stott also showed the Geological Time Charts with the life forms allegedly at different times. It is full of gaps that can't be properly explained.
-
If you gave a monkey a typewriter and allowed him to keep typing until he typed out the complete works of Shakespeare, how long would it take? That is like the theory of evolution. Statistically there is not enough time in the universe for evolution to occur because the random chance processes don't have enough time to create an evolving life. He said mathematically it is not possible.
-
The theory of evolution is built on something called random chance processes. Professor Stott, who is a mathematician among other things explained that the mathematical theories of probability are against evolution.
-
Just now, DogOnPorch said:
Do you believe that?
Yes. I believe the King James Bible. I was fortunate to be able to hear a series of lectures by a scientist Professor Philip Stott for four evening on the subject of creation and evolution. It was a slide presentation. He showed how from a scientific point of view the theory of evolution doesn't hold up and many other things.
-
4 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:
How old is the Earth?
Theologians have estimated from the events in the Bible that it is possibly six thousand years old. I think they get that from a timeline of events recorded in the Bible.
-
If you think about it, it makes sense that when the earth was created, everything had an apparent age even though it was just created.
-
Just now, DogOnPorch said:
And fossils of plants and such in these coal beds are what exactly?
Fossils must have been created as well at the time of creation. I found some fossils long ago.
-
Just now, DogOnPorch said:
So coal was created by Yahweh already in that form of carbon? Not as living plants first?
That makes sense. According to scientists, doesn't it take millions of years to convert plants into coal? So the coal you see today must have been created with the earth.
-
1 minute ago, DogOnPorch said:
We have giant beds of coal because during the Carboniferous Period, 350 million ya, bacteria hadn't developed the ability to consume cellulose and other complex polysaccharides...just sayin'. Things didn't rot like they do today....even with 30% O2 and high humidity.
What does the Bible say about that?
It says God created the earth. Some theologians think it was created six to ten thousand years ago. All that coal would have likely been in the earth at the time it was created. IN other words in my humble opinion the earth was created with an apparent age built into it. If you think about, when the trees and plants were created, they must have had an age at the time of creation.
-
5 minutes ago, eyeball said:
Me for one. If there really is a heaven He's definitely going to be getting a few from me starting with "WTF is the matter with you"?
I for one wouldn't want to be in your shoes.
-
17 minutes ago, TTM said:
The babies and the unborn children and the animals had only evil in their hearts too?
God sent the flood to wipe out everything except Noah, his family, and animals on the Ark. God created everything so who is to question what God does? Does God owe anyone anything? I think not. We are kept alive on this earth only because God allows it to be so. Some people die of cancer young, babies dies at birth, people of all kinds are killed in wars. We can't explain everything. The world is not an equal opportunity job. We can't understand everything, but God is good and merciful.
-
On 2017-06-03 at 6:35 PM, taxme said:
I am ready for another election. All the Greens believe in and would like to do is send us all back to the 18th century. We can't allow that to happen. The Green Party in my opinion are nothing more than a bunch of environ"mental" wackos.
I am ready also, but it might be better to give the NDP and Green some time to show the voters what they are like. It the election is too soon, the result might not change much. Giving it some time might convince a lot of people to vote them out.
-
8 minutes ago, TTM said:
"You just don't understand" and "it doesn't mean what it says" is pretty weak sauce, but typical.
There was quite obviously no sanctity of life in the old testament Further example: the flood. In sure all of the men, women, children, unborn children, pets, livestock, wild animals, etc. equally deserved to be drowned.
You are incorrect with your assumptions.
As I recall, God destroyed everyone except Noah and his family because the thoughts and intents of their hearts were only evil continually. They didn't believe Noah and mocked him when he said there was going to be a flood.
-
8 hours ago, JamesHackerMP said:
Actually, I was told the KJV makes some rather erroneous mistranslations. For example, it still says the RED SEA was parted. This is agreed by modern biblical scholars to be one of the worst mistranslations in the Bible. The children of Israel crossed the SEA OF REEDS not the Red Sea. But the mistranslation stuck.
Catholics insist that the Challoner revision of the Douay-Reims version is the most accurate. They believe that St Jerome's Vulgate is more accurate because it was completed closer in time to the authorship of the original sources. More of them still existed at the time, and some of these languages were still at that time being spoken as "living" tongues, not dead languages, like Latin, Ancient Greek, etc. are today.
And yet, the Protestants claim that that particular belief of the Catholics is B.S. I don't have the time to read that book, though thank you for citing it for me. However, I must point out that I am aware that the most conservative Christians in the US believe the KJV to be the only "uncorrupted" translation of the Bible. Needless to say, I am very skeptical of their claim. I admit there are Christians that are more widely-read by myself, but everybody has his/her own views on what is an uncorrupted translation. If I may ask, do you or Betsy speak Ancient Greek, Coptic, Ancient Hebrew, or Aramaic?
No, I do not speak Ancient Greek, Coptic, Ancient Hebrew, or Aramaic. I know what you are driving at with that question though. I have heard that type of argument made by a minister I had as a kind of response to my claim that the KJV was the only completely accurate and true version. He claimed he had studied Greek in seminary. What he didn't say but I have read is that ministerial students study some Greek but they don't speak the language. Apparently ancient Greek was primarily a spoken language. So people who hang their hat on that argument have missed the point entirely. The point is God promised to preserve his WRITTEN word. That means not in some obscure ancient language that 99.9 percent of people do not know, but in the a language they can understand. In the west that is English. KJV only people, such as myself, are talking about the translation in English. We realize other translations in other languages could be very accurate as well. However, to go to church today in the town I live, I must go where they use a modern version. There is no KJV church here.
I doubt the claim of mistranslations in the KJV. I have never heard of the "sea of reeds". I accept the wording "the Red Sea was parted" if that is what it says in the KJV. There are many verses or phrases that I do not understand but that is human shortcomings or lack of knowledge, not the fault of the Bible. When you mention "modern" biblical scholars, I am immediately on guard. In many cases those are the people who have adopted the modern versions and do not believe in the inspiration and inerrancy of today's KJV. Right there I would be on my guard about anything they say.
I can't comment much on Catholic versions or their history as I haven't studied that. Would have to spend a lot of time researching that. Not sure if I have time for that right at the moment. Maybe later. I have studied quite a bit about Roman Catholicism over the years and have some good references. I grew up in the RCC and left it about 37 years ago. I believe much of their core doctrines are unbiblical.
-
11 hours ago, kimmy said:
"...so, aside from that, how was the play, Mrs Lincoln?"
Ok, so college campuses aren't friendly places for inflammatory right-wing speakers like Ann Coulter or Milo Whatsisname. But that wasn't the question we've been discussing. The question has been, are social conservative views being given fair representation in our democracy? And the atmosphere on college campuses is pretty tangential to that question. It's no more relevant than the atmosphere in small-town diners where rural people meet for coffee.
So some places are frequented by people are very rude and hostile to conservatives? Ok. What about it? There's lots of places frequented by social conservatives who are hostile to people who don't share their views too. What about it?
-k
Sometimes you can be polite and still evoke a rude response. So the rudeness is not always equally shared. But that's the nature of these sites. If one wants to comment, he/she must be ready for receive, sometimes more than one dishes out. I accept that.
-
11 hours ago, kimmy said:
Nobody is preventing them from speaking in public forums, with the exception of mobs at universities as I said earlier.
-k
I have been on another news comment forum which is dominated by progressives and liberals and I can tell you they are not open-minded at all. There is a group of maybe a dozen or so regulars that frequent that website who will be very rude and hostile to any conservative or especially a social conservative who expresses an opinion. There is one guy who even wants other people to contact their MP to make it a hate crime to speak against man-made climate change. Others are rude in different ways. At least this website allows one to have a reasonably rational discussion. That other site is a news comment site where there is no rational discussion if you differ with the progressives.
-
On 2017-05-29 at 6:37 AM, Argus said:
To progressives, anyone who holds views on social issues different from theirs is a heretic. They've taken the view that such beliefs are illegitimate, and that no one holds them aside from 'dinosaurs' or other such fringe creatures of the past. Yet most polls show that between a third to half of Canadians hold views opposing abortion, gay/transgendered rights, legalizing marijuana or favoring the death penalty. You can't simply dismiss vast numbers of people like that as somehow beyond the pale, unfit for airing in public, and not deserving of political representation.
The NDP and the Liberals have become more and more narrow-focused over the years, expelling anyone who doesn't match up with an increasingly narrow group of ideological beliefs, beliefs which themselves change year by year. Remember, Chretien's government brought in a new marriage act which specifically stated that marriage was only to be between a man and a woman - because Liberal MPs rebelled at one which didn't. Now, to listen to Liberals only a dinosaur isn't in love with every aspect of an alphabet stew of gender and sexual roles. The NDP used to represent farmers out on the prairies. Now it mocks and sneers at them and their beliefs, and appeals to late' sipping tree huggers from downtown Toronto and Vancouver.
At least the Conservatives remain a big tent party, which allows a wide variety of views on social and ideological issues.
Very good post! Food for thought.
-
2 hours ago, Hydraboss said:
PLEASE....try it and find out. I double dare you.
Let's see if west coasters are as committed to the "green agenda" as they like to beak off about. Have fun riding your bicycle to get groceries.
Please don't lump everyone in B.C. in with the "green agenda" or environmental radicals. I think at least half the people in B.C. support the KM pipeline. We're not all enviro "mental" types.
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, The_Squid said:
It's Canada's oil.
Quote The 1982 amendments to the Constitution Act, 1867 explicitly recognized provinces’ and territories’ constitutional rights to manage their own non-renewable natural resources, forestry resources, and electrical energy. This includes the power to levy mining taxes and royalties.
Section 92A stipulates that each province’s legislature can enact laws related to:
- exploring non-renewable resources, and
- developing, conserving and managing non-renewable and forestry resources.
As well, provincial legislatures can make laws relating to raising money by any mode or system of taxation with respect to non-renewable natural resources as long as such laws do not result in differential taxation between primary production processed within the province and primary production exported to another part of Canada. Unquote
-
3 hours ago, TTM said:
Yet what happened then contines to be used to justify current christian beliefs.
the sanctity of life was obviously not believed in in the old testament, as the old testament condemns to death the vast majority of the human population, along with describing God and his chosen people wiping out various other peoples, man woman and child
To make generalizations like that is an indication you don't understand the Old Testament. As far as justifying christian beliefs, it depends what part of the Old Testament you are talking about and be sure you are not taking something in the Old Testament out of context. That would take some study and investigation and can't be done by simply pulling a verse out of the Old Testament. You might be able to delve into it on certain websites but you could also be easily misled.
Why Trust the Bible?
in Religion & Politics
Posted
Some but it was a long time ago. I had a chemistry lab in the basement when I was a kid. Had quite a collection of chemicals. Passed chemistry in high school but can't remember much now. I know a little about chemical reactions. What about metalicity?