Religion

[Bigg Bigg Blue]

What a conman he was!

A lot of people believe this kind of stuff mate

 

[denislawsbackheel]

A lot of people believe this kind of stuff mate

They are fucking idiots then.
A multiple conman, thief, fraudster and embezzler who was sent to prison several times. He had no scientific qualifications in any field, being a hotel manager. This what the eminent,respected, highly qualified astronomer Carl Sagan had to say about him

“ That writing as careless as von Däniken's, whose principal thesis is that our ancestors were dummies, should be so popular is a sober commentary on the credulousness and despair of our times. I also hope for the continuing popularity of books like Chariots of the Gods? in high school and college logic courses, as object lessons in sloppy thinking. I know of no recent books so riddled with logical and factual errors as the works of von Däniken.”

— Carl Sagan, Foreword to The Space Gods Revealed

 

[paulsimpson]

Okay. I can go with that. But how do those logical laws relate to the existence of suffering in this world?

For example, some babies are born with epidermolysis bullosa, a genetic skin disease that causes blistering all over the body, so that the baby cannot be held, or even lie on its back without pain. It seems odd to think that there is some kind of cosmic purpose to this illness that is grounded in the laws of logic.

As the philosopher James Rachels has pointed out in one of his publications, “The problem is that the world contains vastly more evil than is necessary for an appreciation of the good. If, say, only half the number of people died every year of cancer, that would be plenty to motivate the appreciation of health. And because we already have cancer to contend with, we don’t really need epidermolysis bullosa, much less AIDS, muscular dystrophy, cerebral palsy, spina bifida, diphtheria, Ebola, heart disease, diabetes, Alzheimer’s, and bubonic plague.”

Rachels continues:

‘The need to develop moral character might explain why there must be some evil in the world, but there is far more evil than is necessary for such a purpose: there is stunning, overpowering evil that crushes the life out of people. If we already have AIDS, muscular dystrophy, cerebral palsy, and spina bifida, do we need Ebola as well? If the people of Guatemala are poor and hungry, do they need an earthquake on top of it?’…’The amount of evil in the world could be reduced by two-thirds and there would still be more than we could handle.’

More recently, Stephen Law has argued that the notion that this world is the creation of an evil God who deliberately subjects us to a process of character destruction over the course of our lives is every bit as plausible as the more traditional, theistic assertion that God permits suffering to build character. Such an evil God might, for example, allow us to have children to love so as to cause us to worry agonizingly about them.

This evil God also provides us with healthy young bodies so that we can slowly be deprived of that health and vitality over the course of our lives. By giving us something wonderful for a while, and then gradually taking it away, an evil God can make us suffer even more than if we had never had it in the first place. Law’s point is to undermine the reasonableness of traditional theodicies that attempt to explain why God permits evil and suffering on a vast scale.

As far as I am concerned, your God of logic is the worst kind of sadist, nothing less than a homicidal maniac.

By giving the first man the choice to live sinless in a paradise together with his wife. I've explained elsewhere that He created an absolute perfect world which if you read Genesis 1-11 you'll see that He called the creation very good . The two lived "posse non peccari " in innocence for a while not tempted by sin and it seemed they'd never eat of the forbidden fruit. That was the only commandment they had to obey. There was no death up to the point they sinned. Absolute paradise reigned. No death , no suffering whatsoever, no pain in childbirth is mentioned. They killed no animals for food and were vegetarian. The animals were vegetarian. “See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it will be for food. Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food.”
So, a perfect world. For those Christians who think this is just a poetic allegory do damage to the Word of Christ Himself who speaks about the original parents a lot. He knew there was a real Adam . Richard Dawkins knows more about the implications of theistic evolution in that it waters down the Christian message and actually goes against the literal Word of God.
So when Adam fell he brought death and suffering into this world. That's why its important to see Adam as the perpetrator not God -give man a choice and he wrecks it. Things began slowly to die. A sin cursed world with suffering until the Second ( Last) Adam ,the Christ who literally takes all of the blame for sin on to Himself. At the end of this age there will be an end to death and there will be no suffering.

On the evolutionist naturalist secularist view suffering is part of getting ahead as in survival of the fittest ,red in tooth and claw etc., in the evolutionary tale death is the hero of their story. In this view, humans are on this planet because of millions of years of death, extinction, disease, carnivory, and suffering. By evolutionary estimation, 99.9% of all the species that have walked, swam, or flown on Earth are now extinct.
Evolution supposedly progresses by the death of the less fit and the reproduction of the most fit. So, if this the case, why should we help the old, sick, infirm, and disabled? Shouldn’t they be eliminated as less fit? After all, in the world of evolution the strong survive, and tough for you if you’re born weak or less fit! According to the evolutionist’s own worldview, how can death, disease, suffering, cancer, and disabilities really be “bad”? In nature, the weak & ill die off and the strong survive, passing on their good genes to the next generation—this is how evolution progresses. Death and weakness from disease and mutations is good for “bad” genes to die out. So by what standard do evolutionists call these things bad? Certainly not by their own standard! To claim a standard for good and bad, they have to borrow from a different worldview—the biblical revelation one.

Both evolutionists and biblical creationists have a faith. Faith is “evidence of things not seen” (Hebrews 11:1).“By faith we ( biblical believers) understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible” . Neither evolutionists nor creationists saw the origin of the universe. Neither creationism nor evolutionism can form testable hypotheses falsifiable by observable science. Why? Because the origin has already happened and cannot be undone, rewound, observed, and tested in a controlled way. Biblical creationists believe God created the way He said He did. That is why revelation is God's Word of truth because" He is not a man that He should lie" . Evolutionists including Stephen Law believe ideas of man’s invention. But neither group was there to see it. (At the same time, we would argue that what we see and experience in the world only makes sense—and can only be truly understood—in light of God's invariant laws of logic and concomitant biblical revelation. " The law of the Lord is perfect , converting the soul"

Logic is the basis for objective morality and as such there can be no evil God as God is the basis for goodness . He is good in nature and cannot act contrary to it. He also cannot declare or make good to be evil as if goodness were something arbitrary. As evil is a deprivation of the good , God can only be good.
There can be no evil God . It would go against His good nature.

I love how theists set up false premises with prepositions :"1 - whatever begins to exist has a cause". We don't know if it "began" or was "created". The most honest answer is "I don't know".
If there was a creator/god, then they certainly don't want us to know about them. If they wanted us to believe, then there would be no doubt. They certainly wouldn't have left us with such a badly written, self contradicting, unknowledgable, ignorant, hate filled, evil, hilariously stupid, immoral book for us to go by.

You began to exist. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. Except God. He has no beginning in time.. A Timeless being. QED.

On atheism/ evolutionism nothing created everything - the nothingness exploded and here we are . But matter must have a cause . It cannot create itself. Is that what you believe?


Also "immoral book "? By what standard? Atheist evolutionist materialism has no standard of morality whatsoever . We are nothing but physical particles on that view. Just neurons firing. So there's no way to know what is immoral on atheist materialism. It's just chemicals reacting with chemicals. There is no standard of morality . Yet you made judgements as to what is immoral and evil. Your view slits its own throat.

 

[JASR]

And there we have Tranche 2.0

and still no answered simple questions.

who ’s looking forward to tranche 3.0…

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

By giving the first man the choice to live sinless in a paradise together with his wife. I've explained elsewhere that He created an absolute perfect world which if you read Genesis 1-11 you'll see that He called the creation very good . The two lived "posse non peccari " in innocence for a while not tempted by sin and it seemed they'd never eat of the forbidden fruit. That was the only commandment they had to obey. There was no death up to the point they sinned. Absolute paradise reigned. No death , no suffering whatsoever, no pain in childbirth is mentioned. They killed no animals for food and were vegetarian. The animals were vegetarian. “See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it will be for food. Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food.”
So, a perfect world. For those Christians who think this is just a poetic allegory do damage to the Word of Christ Himself who speaks about the original parents a lot. He knew there was a real Adam . Richard Dawkins knows more about the implications of theistic evolution in that it waters down the Christian message and actually goes against the literal Word of God.
So when Adam fell he brought death and suffering into this world. That's why its important to see Adam as the perpetrator not God -give man a choice and he wrecks it. Things began slowly to die. A sin cursed world with suffering until the Second ( Last) Adam ,the Christ who literally takes all of the blame for sin on to Himself. At the end of this age there will be an end to death and there will be no suffering.

On the evolutionist naturalist secularist view suffering is part of getting ahead as in survival of the fittest ,red in tooth and claw etc., in the evolutionary tale death is the hero of their story. In this view, humans are on this planet because of millions of years of death, extinction, disease, carnivory, and suffering. By evolutionary estimation, 99.9% of all the species that have walked, swam, or flown on Earth are now extinct.
Evolution supposedly progresses by the death of the less fit and the reproduction of the most fit. So, if this the case, why should we help the old, sick, infirm, and disabled? Shouldn’t they be eliminated as less fit? After all, in the world of evolution the strong survive, and tough for you if you’re born weak or less fit! According to the evolutionist’s own worldview, how can death, disease, suffering, cancer, and disabilities really be “bad”? In nature, the weak & ill die off and the strong survive, passing on their good genes to the next generation—this is how evolution progresses. Death and weakness from disease and mutations is good for “bad” genes to die out. So by what standard do evolutionists call these things bad? Certainly not by their own standard! To claim a standard for good and bad, they have to borrow from a different worldview—the biblical revelation one.

Both evolutionists and biblical creationists have a faith. Faith is “evidence of things not seen” (Hebrews 11:1).“By faith we ( biblical believers) understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible” . Neither evolutionists nor creationists saw the origin of the universe. Neither creationism nor evolutionism can form testable hypotheses falsifiable by observable science. Why? Because the origin has already happened and cannot be undone, rewound, observed, and tested in a controlled way. Biblical creationists believe God created the way He said He did. That is why revelation is God's Word of truth because" He is not a man that He should lie" . Evolutionists including Stephen Law believe ideas of man’s invention. But neither group was there to see it. (At the same time, we would argue that what we see and experience in the world only makes sense—and can only be truly understood—in light of God's invariant laws of logic and concomitant biblical revelation. " The law of the Lord is perfect , converting the soul"

Logic is the basis for objective morality and as such there can be no evil God as God is the basis for goodness . He is good in nature and cannot act contrary to it. He also cannot declare or make good to be evil as if goodness were something arbitrary. As evil is a deprivation of the good , God can only be good.
There can be no evil God . It would go against His good nature.
You began to exist. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. Except God. He has no beginning in time.. A Timeless being. QED.

On atheism/ evolutionism nothing created everything - the nothingness exploded and here we are . But matter must have a cause . It cannot create itself. Is that what you believe?


Also "immoral book "? By what standard? Atheist evolutionist materialism has no standard of morality whatsoever . We are nothing but physical particles on that view. Just neurons firing. So there's no way to know what is immoral on atheist materialism. It's just chemicals reacting with chemicals. There is no standard of morality . Yet you made judgements as to what is immoral and evil. Your view slits its own throat.

Could have saved all those words and just typed Good - God = 0.

You probably don't realise this but what you are talking about is a very narrow reading of Darwinian evolution, the biggest, strongest, fittest individual could find themselves cast aside if the "weak" form an alliance against him.


What's your view on Leviticus and homosexuals?

 

[mexico1970]

Could have saved all those words and just typed Good - God = 0.

You probably don't realise this but what you are talking about is a very narrow reading of Darwinian evolution, the biggest, strongest, fittest individual could find themselves cast aside if the "weak" form an alliance against him.


What's your view on Leviticus and homosexuals?

Could have summarised it by saying that what can't be explained just announce that god did it.

Which god is anyone's guess of course.

 

[ZenHalfTimeCrock]

By giving the first man the choice to live sinless in a paradise together with his wife. I've explained elsewhere that He created an absolute perfect world which if you read Genesis 1-11 you'll see that He called the creation very good . The two lived "posse non peccari " in innocence for a while not tempted by sin and it seemed they'd never eat of the forbidden fruit. That was the only commandment they had to obey. There was no death up to the point they sinned. Absolute paradise reigned. No death , no suffering whatsoever, no pain in childbirth is mentioned. They killed no animals for food and were vegetarian. The animals were vegetarian. “See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it will be for food. Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food.”
So, a perfect world. For those Christians who think this is just a poetic allegory do damage to the Word of Christ Himself who speaks about the original parents a lot. He knew there was a real Adam . Richard Dawkins knows more about the implications of theistic evolution in that it waters down the Christian message and actually goes against the literal Word of God.
So when Adam fell he brought death and suffering into this world. That's why its important to see Adam as the perpetrator not God -give man a choice and he wrecks it. Things began slowly to die. A sin cursed world with suffering until the Second ( Last) Adam ,the Christ who literally takes all of the blame for sin on to Himself. At the end of this age there will be an end to death and there will be no suffering.

On the evolutionist naturalist secularist view suffering is part of getting ahead as in survival of the fittest ,red in tooth and claw etc., in the evolutionary tale death is the hero of their story. In this view, humans are on this planet because of millions of years of death, extinction, disease, carnivory, and suffering. By evolutionary estimation, 99.9% of all the species that have walked, swam, or flown on Earth are now extinct.
Evolution supposedly progresses by the death of the less fit and the reproduction of the most fit. So, if this the case, why should we help the old, sick, infirm, and disabled? Shouldn’t they be eliminated as less fit? After all, in the world of evolution the strong survive, and tough for you if you’re born weak or less fit! According to the evolutionist’s own worldview, how can death, disease, suffering, cancer, and disabilities really be “bad”? In nature, the weak & ill die off and the strong survive, passing on their good genes to the next generation—this is how evolution progresses. Death and weakness from disease and mutations is good for “bad” genes to die out. So by what standard do evolutionists call these things bad? Certainly not by their own standard! To claim a standard for good and bad, they have to borrow from a different worldview—the biblical revelation one.

Both evolutionists and biblical creationists have a faith. Faith is “evidence of things not seen” (Hebrews 11:1).“By faith we ( biblical believers) understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible” . Neither evolutionists nor creationists saw the origin of the universe. Neither creationism nor evolutionism can form testable hypotheses falsifiable by observable science. Why? Because the origin has already happened and cannot be undone, rewound, observed, and tested in a controlled way. Biblical creationists believe God created the way He said He did. That is why revelation is God's Word of truth because" He is not a man that He should lie" . Evolutionists including Stephen Law believe ideas of man’s invention. But neither group was there to see it. (At the same time, we would argue that what we see and experience in the world only makes sense—and can only be truly understood—in light of God's invariant laws of logic and concomitant biblical revelation. " The law of the Lord is perfect , converting the soul"

Logic is the basis for objective morality and as such there can be no evil God as God is the basis for goodness . He is good in nature and cannot act contrary to it. He also cannot declare or make good to be evil as if goodness were something arbitrary. As evil is a deprivation of the good , God can only be good.
There can be no evil God . It would go against His good nature.
You began to exist. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. Except God. He has no beginning in time.. A Timeless being. QED.

On atheism/ evolutionism nothing created everything - the nothingness exploded and here we are . But matter must have a cause . It cannot create itself. Is that what you believe?


Also "immoral book "? By what standard? Atheist evolutionist materialism has no standard of morality whatsoever . We are nothing but physical particles on that view. Just neurons firing. So there's no way to know what is immoral on atheist materialism. It's just chemicals reacting with chemicals. There is no standard of morality . Yet you made judgements as to what is immoral and evil. Your view slits its own throat.

The content here is mere exegesis based on alleged revelation, which is ironic given your appeal to a priori reasoning in your previous posts.

In other words, there’s nothing to engage with. It’s all mere assertion from what I can tell. Sorry to state this, as for all I know you may be a very decent person but that’s where I am leaving things and I will not be debating with you any further.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

By giving the first man the choice to live sinless in a paradise together with his wife. I've explained elsewhere that He created an absolute perfect world which if you read Genesis 1-11 you'll see that He called the creation very good . The two lived "posse non peccari " in innocence for a while not tempted by sin and it seemed they'd never eat of the forbidden fruit. That was the only commandment they had to obey. There was no death up to the point they sinned. Absolute paradise reigned. No death , no suffering whatsoever, no pain in childbirth is mentioned. They killed no animals for food and were vegetarian. The animals were vegetarian. “See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it will be for food. Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food.”
So, a perfect world. For those Christians who think this is just a poetic allegory do damage to the Word of Christ Himself who speaks about the original parents a lot. He knew there was a real Adam . Richard Dawkins knows more about the implications of theistic evolution in that it waters down the Christian message and actually goes against the literal Word of God.
So when Adam fell he brought death and suffering into this world. That's why its important to see Adam as the perpetrator not God -give man a choice and he wrecks it. Things began slowly to die. A sin cursed world with suffering until the Second ( Last) Adam ,the Christ who literally takes all of the blame for sin on to Himself. At the end of this age there will be an end to death and there will be no suffering.

On the evolutionist naturalist secularist view suffering is part of getting ahead as in survival of the fittest ,red in tooth and claw etc., in the evolutionary tale death is the hero of their story. In this view, humans are on this planet because of millions of years of death, extinction, disease, carnivory, and suffering. By evolutionary estimation, 99.9% of all the species that have walked, swam, or flown on Earth are now extinct.
Evolution supposedly progresses by the death of the less fit and the reproduction of the most fit. So, if this the case, why should we help the old, sick, infirm, and disabled? Shouldn’t they be eliminated as less fit? After all, in the world of evolution the strong survive, and tough for you if you’re born weak or less fit! According to the evolutionist’s own worldview, how can death, disease, suffering, cancer, and disabilities really be “bad”? In nature, the weak & ill die off and the strong survive, passing on their good genes to the next generation—this is how evolution progresses. Death and weakness from disease and mutations is good for “bad” genes to die out. So by what standard do evolutionists call these things bad? Certainly not by their own standard! To claim a standard for good and bad, they have to borrow from a different worldview—the biblical revelation one.

Both evolutionists and biblical creationists have a faith. Faith is “evidence of things not seen” (Hebrews 11:1).“By faith we ( biblical believers) understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible” . Neither evolutionists nor creationists saw the origin of the universe. Neither creationism nor evolutionism can form testable hypotheses falsifiable by observable science. Why? Because the origin has already happened and cannot be undone, rewound, observed, and tested in a controlled way. Biblical creationists believe God created the way He said He did. That is why revelation is God's Word of truth because" He is not a man that He should lie" . Evolutionists including Stephen Law believe ideas of man’s invention. But neither group was there to see it. (At the same time, we would argue that what we see and experience in the world only makes sense—and can only be truly understood—in light of God's invariant laws of logic and concomitant biblical revelation. " The law of the Lord is perfect , converting the soul"

Logic is the basis for objective morality and as such there can be no evil God as God is the basis for goodness . He is good in nature and cannot act contrary to it. He also cannot declare or make good to be evil as if goodness were something arbitrary. As evil is a deprivation of the good , God can only be good.
There can be no evil God . It would go against His good nature.
You began to exist. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. Except God. He has no beginning in time.. A Timeless being. QED.

On atheism/ evolutionism nothing created everything - the nothingness exploded and here we are . But matter must have a cause . It cannot create itself. Is that what you believe?


Also "immoral book "? By what standard? Atheist evolutionist materialism has no standard of morality whatsoever . We are nothing but physical particles on that view. Just neurons firing. So there's no way to know what is immoral on atheist materialism. It's just chemicals reacting with chemicals. There is no standard of morality . Yet you made judgements as to what is immoral and evil. Your view slits its own throat.

I mean, fair play fella. That is TOP wumming.

 

[paulsimpson]

Wow. This comment isn’t intended to start a discussion (at least with you), as I know we’ll never agree so no point, but ‘holy shit’ seems an appropriate comment to make at this juncture, as it has more than one relevant meaning in relation to what you just posted.

I sincerely hope anyone who’s on the fence regarding religion reads that post and is shocked into thinking ‘i’m just a lighter version of this guy’ and subsequently ducks away from religion.

A week is 7 days because it follows the moon's cycle, 28 days for full cycle, split into quarters to reflect New, Half-Waxing, Full, Half-waning... not because it said so in the bible!

Plus this is variable and has been since the Earth had a moon. It didn't always have one.

Plus, It's drifting away, so eventually we should have 8-day weeks. How does that fit with the good book?

Google Search

If the moon is steadily receding from the earth, than in the past, it was closer. Based on today’s rate of recession, the moon would have been touching the earth about 1.5 billion years ago.

Of course, this doesn’t mean that the moon was ever that close. You'd have a tidal problem! It’s just the logical limit to the physical process we observe today. We can use this limit as a kind of clock. According to this clock, the earth-moon system cannot be more than 1.5 billion years old.

There's an important point about this calculation. It does not reveal the precise age of the earth-moon system. It merely tells us the maximum age.
The biblical age of the moon (about 6,000 years) fits this clock just fine. In fact, the moon has not moved outward very far—less than 1,000 feet (300 m)—since it was created.

But what doesn’t fit this clock is a moon that’s over four billion years old. The implications are self evident.

The moon was created on day 4 so you're right that the earth didn't always have one as it was created on day 1.

God created the moon " for signs and seasons, days and years " Genesis1:14-15
Jews have used their Bible ( Old Testament ) to calculate festivals and seasons days and years rather than the West using the sun for such.
So a week is 7 days ( Exodus 20:11) because God did indeed intend it as a pattern for the week and created the moon to aid the calculation of days and years .

It'll be a long time before weeks are eight days. But eight days are important in celebration of Chanukah remembering back to a certain time when one days' oil lasted eight days in the 2nd Century of the 2nd Temple Jerusalem -164 BC .
A miracle that preceded restoration and future kingdom ie 8 th day completion - see also festival of Shmini Atzeret.
You mock Torah which the 2 other monotheistic religions have respect. But a good reading of the 1st 11 chapters of the book Genesis (Beresheet) would inform.
God isn't mocked.

 

[1.618034]

If the moon is steadily receding from the earth, than in the past, it was closer. Based on today’s rate of recession, the moon would have been touching the earth about 1.5 billion years ago.

Of course, this doesn’t mean that the moon was ever that close. You'd have a tidal problem! It’s just the logical limit to the physical process we observe today. We can use this limit as a kind of clock. According to this clock, the earth-moon system cannot be more than 1.5 billion years old.

There's an important point about this calculation. It does not reveal the precise age of the earth-moon system. It merely tells us the maximum age.
The biblical age of the moon (about 6,000 years) fits this clock just fine. In fact, the moon has not moved outward very far—less than 1,000 feet (300 m)—since it was created.

But what doesn’t fit this clock is a moon that’s over four billion years old. The implications are self evident.

The moon was created on day 4 so you're right that the earth didn't always have one as it was created on day 1.

God created the moon " for signs and seasons, days and years " Genesis1:14-15
Jews have used their Bible ( Old Testament ) to calculate festivals and seasons days and years rather than the West using the sun for such.
So a week is 7 days ( Exodus 20:11) because God did indeed intend it as a pattern for the week and created the moon to aid the calculation of days and years .

It'll be a long time before weeks are eight days. But eight days are important in celebration of Chanukah remembering back to a certain time when one days' oil lasted eight days in the 2nd Century of the 2nd Temple Jerusalem -164 BC .
A miracle that preceded restoration and future kingdom ie 8 th day completion - see also festival of Shmini Atzeret.
You mock Torah which the 2 other monotheistic religions have respect. But a good reading of the 1st 11 chapters of the book Genesis (Beresheet) would inform.
God isn't mocked.

Google Search

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

If the moon is steadily receding from the earth, than in the past, it was closer. Based on today’s rate of recession, the moon would have been touching the earth about 1.5 billion years ago.

Of course, this doesn’t mean that the moon was ever that close. You'd have a tidal problem! It’s just the logical limit to the physical process we observe today. We can use this limit as a kind of clock. According to this clock, the earth-moon system cannot be more than 1.5 billion years old.

There's an important point about this calculation. It does not reveal the precise age of the earth-moon system. It merely tells us the maximum age.
The biblical age of the moon (about 6,000 years) fits this clock just fine. In fact, the moon has not moved outward very far—less than 1,000 feet (300 m)—since it was created.

But what doesn’t fit this clock is a moon that’s over four billion years old. The implications are self evident.

The moon was created on day 4 so you're right that the earth didn't always have one as it was created on day 1.

God created the moon " for signs and seasons, days and years " Genesis1:14-15
Jews have used their Bible ( Old Testament ) to calculate festivals and seasons days and years rather than the West using the sun for such.
So a week is 7 days ( Exodus 20:11) because God did indeed intend it as a pattern for the week and created the moon to aid the calculation of days and years .

It'll be a long time before weeks are eight days. But eight days are important in celebration of Chanukah remembering back to a certain time when one days' oil lasted eight days in the 2nd Century of the 2nd Temple Jerusalem -164 BC .
A miracle that preceded restoration and future kingdom ie 8 th day completion - see also festival of Shmini Atzeret.
You mock Torah which the 2 other monotheistic religions have respect. But a good reading of the 1st 11 chapters of the book Genesis (Beresheet) would inform.
God isn't mocked.

God loves a trier... :eyeroll:

 

[I'm With Stupid]

On the evolutionist naturalist secularist view suffering is part of getting ahead as in survival of the fittest ,red in tooth and claw etc., in the evolutionary tale death is the hero of their story. In this view, humans are on this planet because of millions of years of death, extinction, disease, carnivory, and suffering. By evolutionary estimation, 99.9% of all the species that have walked, swam, or flown on Earth are now extinct.
Evolution supposedly progresses by the death of the less fit and the reproduction of the most fit. So, if this the case, why should we help the old, sick, infirm, and disabled? Shouldn’t they be eliminated as less fit? After all, in the world of evolution the strong survive, and tough for you if you’re born weak or less fit! According to the evolutionist’s own worldview, how can death, disease, suffering, cancer, and disabilities really be “bad”? In nature, the weak & ill die off and the strong survive, passing on their good genes to the next generation—this is how evolution progresses. Death and weakness from disease and mutations is good for “bad” genes to die out. So by what standard do evolutionists call these things bad? Certainly not by their own standard! To claim a standard for good and bad, they have to borrow from a different worldview—the biblical revelation one.

So much wrong with this, I don't know where to start. The first mistake is that you think that science, like religion, concerns itself with what should be rather than what is. The description of how evolution works is just that: a description. It makes no moral judgment and doesn't tell you how to live. You then seem to misunderstand what would confer an evolutionary advantage in a social species such as humans and other apes. You portray evolutionary survival as an entirely individual thing, yet no human in history has lived and survived without the support of others. Social species don't survive by casting out members of the group the second they are operating at anything less than 100%. Older people have valuable experience to contribute to the survival of the group as a whole.

As for your claim that "neither creationists or evolutionists saw the origin of the universe," that's also not exactly true.

That's a picture from the first moment of the universe that light was able to pass through it. Not the exact origin, but in cosmological terms, pretty damn close. Of course we could debate whether the big bang was truly the beginning of the universe, but it's very difficult to take seriously anyone who claims it didn't happen when you can actually see it with a telescope.

 

[Bigg Bigg Blue]

They are fucking idiots then.
A multiple conman, thief, fraudster and embezzler who was sent to prison several times. He had no scientific qualifications in any field, being a hotel manager. This what the eminent,respected, highly qualified astronomer Carl Sagan had to say about him

“ That writing as careless as von Däniken's, whose principal thesis is that our ancestors were dummies, should be so popular is a sober commentary on the credulousness and despair of our times. I also hope for the continuing popularity of books like Chariots of the Gods? in high school and college logic courses, as object lessons in sloppy thinking. I know of no recent books so riddled with logical and factual errors as the works of von Däniken.”

— Carl Sagan, Foreword to The Space Gods Revealed

I agree with you mate, I'm just saying that the ancient alien theory has a lot of followers

 

[Elbow beards]

By giving the first man the choice to live sinless in a paradise together with his wife. I've explained elsewhere that He created an absolute perfect world which if you read Genesis 1-11 you'll see that He called the creation very good . The two lived "posse non peccari " in innocence for a while not tempted by sin and it seemed they'd never eat of the forbidden fruit. That was the only commandment they had to obey. There was no death up to the point they sinned. Absolute paradise reigned. No death , no suffering whatsoever, no pain in childbirth is mentioned. They killed no animals for food and were vegetarian. The animals were vegetarian. “See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it will be for food. Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food.”
So, a perfect world. For those Christians who think this is just a poetic allegory do damage to the Word of Christ Himself who speaks about the original parents a lot. He knew there was a real Adam . Richard Dawkins knows more about the implications of theistic evolution in that it waters down the Christian message and actually goes against the literal Word of God.
So when Adam fell he brought death and suffering into this world. That's why its important to see Adam as the perpetrator not God -give man a choice and he wrecks it. Things began slowly to die. A sin cursed world with suffering until the Second ( Last) Adam ,the Christ who literally takes all of the blame for sin on to Himself. At the end of this age there will be an end to death and there will be no suffering.

On the evolutionist naturalist secularist view suffering is part of getting ahead as in survival of the fittest ,red in tooth and claw etc., in the evolutionary tale death is the hero of their story. In this view, humans are on this planet because of millions of years of death, extinction, disease, carnivory, and suffering. By evolutionary estimation, 99.9% of all the species that have walked, swam, or flown on Earth are now extinct.
Evolution supposedly progresses by the death of the less fit and the reproduction of the most fit. So, if this the case, why should we help the old, sick, infirm, and disabled? Shouldn’t they be eliminated as less fit? After all, in the world of evolution the strong survive, and tough for you if you’re born weak or less fit! According to the evolutionist’s own worldview, how can death, disease, suffering, cancer, and disabilities really be “bad”? In nature, the weak & ill die off and the strong survive, passing on their good genes to the next generation—this is how evolution progresses. Death and weakness from disease and mutations is good for “bad” genes to die out. So by what standard do evolutionists call these things bad? Certainly not by their own standard! To claim a standard for good and bad, they have to borrow from a different worldview—the biblical revelation one.

Both evolutionists and biblical creationists have a faith. Faith is “evidence of things not seen” (Hebrews 11:1).“By faith we ( biblical believers) understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible” . Neither evolutionists nor creationists saw the origin of the universe. Neither creationism nor evolutionism can form testable hypotheses falsifiable by observable science. Why? Because the origin has already happened and cannot be undone, rewound, observed, and tested in a controlled way. Biblical creationists believe God created the way He said He did. That is why revelation is God's Word of truth because" He is not a man that He should lie" . Evolutionists including Stephen Law believe ideas of man’s invention. But neither group was there to see it. (At the same time, we would argue that what we see and experience in the world only makes sense—and can only be truly understood—in light of God's invariant laws of logic and concomitant biblical revelation. " The law of the Lord is perfect , converting the soul"

Logic is the basis for objective morality and as such there can be no evil God as God is the basis for goodness . He is good in nature and cannot act contrary to it. He also cannot declare or make good to be evil as if goodness were something arbitrary. As evil is a deprivation of the good , God can only be good.
There can be no evil God . It would go against His good nature.
You began to exist. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. Except God. He has no beginning in time.. A Timeless being. QED.

On atheism/ evolutionism nothing created everything - the nothingness exploded and here we are . But matter must have a cause . It cannot create itself. Is that what you believe?


Also "immoral book "? By what standard? Atheist evolutionist materialism has no standard of morality whatsoever . We are nothing but physical particles on that view. Just neurons firing. So there's no way to know what is immoral on atheist materialism. It's just chemicals reacting with chemicals. There is no standard of morality . Yet you made judgements as to what is immoral and evil. Your view slits its own throat.

Rather than write reams and reams of shit, why don't you answer the simple questions put to you? I'll try again. Do you believe in evolution? How old do you think the earth is? Do you believe in the evil god of the old testament?

 

[Elbow beards]

If the moon is steadily receding from the earth, than in the past, it was closer. Based on today’s rate of recession, the moon would have been touching the earth about 1.5 billion years ago.

Of course, this doesn’t mean that the moon was ever that close. You'd have a tidal problem! It’s just the logical limit to the physical process we observe today. We can use this limit as a kind of clock. According to this clock, the earth-moon system cannot be more than 1.5 billion years old.

There's an important point about this calculation. It does not reveal the precise age of the earth-moon system. It merely tells us the maximum age.
The biblical age of the moon (about 6,000 years) fits this clock just fine. In fact, the moon has not moved outward very far—less than 1,000 feet (300 m)—since it was created.

But what doesn’t fit this clock is a moon that’s over four billion years old. The implications are self evident.

The moon was created on day 4 so you're right that the earth didn't always have one as it was created on day 1.

God created the moon " for signs and seasons, days and years " Genesis1:14-15
Jews have used their Bible ( Old Testament ) to calculate festivals and seasons days and years rather than the West using the sun for such.
So a week is 7 days ( Exodus 20:11) because God did indeed intend it as a pattern for the week and created the moon to aid the calculation of days and years .

It'll be a long time before weeks are eight days. But eight days are important in celebration of Chanukah remembering back to a certain time when one days' oil lasted eight days in the 2nd Century of the 2nd Temple Jerusalem -164 BC .
A miracle that preceded restoration and future kingdom ie 8 th day completion - see also festival of Shmini Atzeret.
You mock Torah which the 2 other monotheistic religions have respect. But a good reading of the 1st 11 chapters of the book Genesis (Beresheet) would inform.
God isn't mocked.

I take it you've never took any interest in science or astronomy then, ever, or biology, geology,anthropology.....

 

[Marklr]

By giving the first man the choice to live sinless in a paradise together with his wife. I've explained elsewhere that He created an absolute perfect world which if you read Genesis 1-11 you'll see that He called the creation very good . The two lived "posse non peccari " in innocence for a while not tempted by sin and it seemed they'd never eat of the forbidden fruit. That was the only commandment they had to obey. There was no death up to the point they sinned. Absolute paradise reigned. No death , no suffering whatsoever, no pain in childbirth is mentioned. They killed no animals for food and were vegetarian. The animals were vegetarian. “See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it will be for food. Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food.”
So, a perfect world. For those Christians who think this is just a poetic allegory do damage to the Word of Christ Himself who speaks about the original parents a lot. He knew there was a real Adam . Richard Dawkins knows more about the implications of theistic evolution in that it waters down the Christian message and actually goes against the literal Word of God.
So when Adam fell he brought death and suffering into this world. That's why its important to see Adam as the perpetrator not God -give man a choice and he wrecks it. Things began slowly to die. A sin cursed world with suffering until the Second ( Last) Adam ,the Christ who literally takes all of the blame for sin on to Himself. At the end of this age there will be an end to death and there will be no suffering.

On the evolutionist naturalist secularist view suffering is part of getting ahead as in survival of the fittest ,red in tooth and claw etc., in the evolutionary tale death is the hero of their story. In this view, humans are on this planet because of millions of years of death, extinction, disease, carnivory, and suffering. By evolutionary estimation, 99.9% of all the species that have walked, swam, or flown on Earth are now extinct.
Evolution supposedly progresses by the death of the less fit and the reproduction of the most fit. So, if this the case, why should we help the old, sick, infirm, and disabled? Shouldn’t they be eliminated as less fit? After all, in the world of evolution the strong survive, and tough for you if you’re born weak or less fit! According to the evolutionist’s own worldview, how can death, disease, suffering, cancer, and disabilities really be “bad”? In nature, the weak & ill die off and the strong survive, passing on their good genes to the next generation—this is how evolution progresses. Death and weakness from disease and mutations is good for “bad” genes to die out. So by what standard do evolutionists call these things bad? Certainly not by their own standard! To claim a standard for good and bad, they have to borrow from a different worldview—the biblical revelation one.

Both evolutionists and biblical creationists have a faith. Faith is “evidence of things not seen” (Hebrews 11:1).“By faith we ( biblical believers) understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible” . Neither evolutionists nor creationists saw the origin of the universe. Neither creationism nor evolutionism can form testable hypotheses falsifiable by observable science. Why? Because the origin has already happened and cannot be undone, rewound, observed, and tested in a controlled way. Biblical creationists believe God created the way He said He did. That is why revelation is God's Word of truth because" He is not a man that He should lie" . Evolutionists including Stephen Law believe ideas of man’s invention. But neither group was there to see it. (At the same time, we would argue that what we see and experience in the world only makes sense—and can only be truly understood—in light of God's invariant laws of logic and concomitant biblical revelation. " The law of the Lord is perfect , converting the soul"

Logic is the basis for objective morality and as such there can be no evil God as God is the basis for goodness . He is good in nature and cannot act contrary to it. He also cannot declare or make good to be evil as if goodness were something arbitrary. As evil is a deprivation of the good , God can only be good.
There can be no evil God . It would go against His good nature.
You began to exist. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. Except God. He has no beginning in time.. A Timeless being. QED.

On atheism/ evolutionism nothing created everything - the nothingness exploded and here we are . But matter must have a cause . It cannot create itself. Is that what you believe?


Also "immoral book "? By what standard? Atheist evolutionist materialism has no standard of morality whatsoever . We are nothing but physical particles on that view. Just neurons firing. So there's no way to know what is immoral on atheist materialism. It's just chemicals reacting with chemicals. There is no standard of morality . Yet you made judgements as to what is immoral and evil. Your view slits its own throat.

I began to exist? Or the universe? I began to exist when I was born. The universe is another matter...we just don't know if it began to exist. Or what came before it. Oh, yeah...theists make the rules here, I almost forgot....the special rule that everything has a beginning,,,but this god thing. I reject your special rule.
Stop telling me what I believe....i've made no claims. I stated that "I don't know"...but that doesn't mean GOD!
An atheist is somebody that doesn't believe in your god claim...they don't have to have ANY answers. It's up to the person making the claim to provide the answers and evidence.

So you don't believe the bible is immoral? A book that advises how to keep slaves. How you can OWN another human. A book that describes a god that hates and murders innocent children? A misogynistic and homophobic book.

Morality is society based...the bible's only morals are for the age that it was written. It's stuck in those times. Or do you still not eat shrimp? Morality is forever changing. And people that identify as atheist tend to have better morals than most Christians. Morals aren't from any god...we KNOW the Bible can not be any god's word anyway. Morals are for a better society all round.
Any person that has to get their morals from a book, is clearly not good. To do good just because you believe a god is watching you is clearly for selfish reasons. For the fear of what will happen when you die. People that do good deeds without a belief in a god are the real good people.

 

[JASR]

Tranche 3.0 landed whilst I was out.

still no answers to the simple questions asked.

I await tranche 4.0, not with trepidation or fear , but with a resigned eye roll of inevitability

 

[denislawsbackheel]

By giving the first man the choice to live sinless in a paradise together with his wife. I've explained elsewhere that He created an absolute perfect world which if you read Genesis 1-11 you'll see that He called the creation very good . The two lived "posse non peccari " in innocence for a while not tempted by sin and it seemed they'd never eat of the forbidden fruit. That was the only commandment they had to obey. There was no death up to the point they sinned. Absolute paradise reigned. No death , no suffering whatsoever, no pain in childbirth is mentioned. They killed no animals for food and were vegetarian. The animals were vegetarian. “See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it will be for food. Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food.”
So, a perfect world. For those Christians who think this is just a poetic allegory do damage to the Word of Christ Himself who speaks about the original parents a lot. He knew there was a real Adam . Richard Dawkins knows more about the implications of theistic evolution in that it waters down the Christian message and actually goes against the literal Word of God.
So when Adam fell he brought death and suffering into this world. That's why its important to see Adam as the perpetrator not God -give man a choice and he wrecks it. Things began slowly to die. A sin cursed world with suffering until the Second ( Last) Adam ,the Christ who literally takes all of the blame for sin on to Himself. At the end of this age there will be an end to death and there will be no suffering.

On the evolutionist naturalist secularist view suffering is part of getting ahead as in survival of the fittest ,red in tooth and claw etc., in the evolutionary tale death is the hero of their story. In this view, humans are on this planet because of millions of years of death, extinction, disease, carnivory, and suffering. By evolutionary estimation, 99.9% of all the species that have walked, swam, or flown on Earth are now extinct.
Evolution supposedly progresses by the death of the less fit and the reproduction of the most fit. So, if this the case, why should we help the old, sick, infirm, and disabled? Shouldn’t they be eliminated as less fit? After all, in the world of evolution the strong survive, and tough for you if you’re born weak or less fit! According to the evolutionist’s own worldview, how can death, disease, suffering, cancer, and disabilities really be “bad”? In nature, the weak & ill die off and the strong survive, passing on their good genes to the next generation—this is how evolution progresses. Death and weakness from disease and mutations is good for “bad” genes to die out. So by what standard do evolutionists call these things bad? Certainly not by their own standard! To claim a standard for good and bad, they have to borrow from a different worldview—the biblical revelation one.

Both evolutionists and biblical creationists have a faith. Faith is “evidence of things not seen” (Hebrews 11:1).“By faith we ( biblical believers) understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible” . Neither evolutionists nor creationists saw the origin of the universe. Neither creationism nor evolutionism can form testable hypotheses falsifiable by observable science. Why? Because the origin has already happened and cannot be undone, rewound, observed, and tested in a controlled way. Biblical creationists believe God created the way He said He did. That is why revelation is God's Word of truth because" He is not a man that He should lie" . Evolutionists including Stephen Law believe ideas of man’s invention. But neither group was there to see it. (At the same time, we would argue that what we see and experience in the world only makes sense—and can only be truly understood—in light of God's invariant laws of logic and concomitant biblical revelation. " The law of the Lord is perfect , converting the soul"

Logic is the basis for objective morality and as such there can be no evil God as God is the basis for goodness . He is good in nature and cannot act contrary to it. He also cannot declare or make good to be evil as if goodness were something arbitrary. As evil is a deprivation of the good , God can only be good.
There can be no evil God . It would go against His good nature.
You began to exist. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. Except God. He has no beginning in time.. A Timeless being. QED.

On atheism/ evolutionism nothing created everything - the nothingness exploded and here we are . But matter must have a cause . It cannot create itself. Is that what you believe?


Also "immoral book "? By what standard? Atheist evolutionist materialism has no standard of morality whatsoever . We are nothing but physical particles on that view. Just neurons firing. So there's no way to know what is immoral on atheist materialism. It's just chemicals reacting with chemicals. There is no standard of morality . Yet you made judgements as to what is immoral and evil. Your view slits its own throat.

Utter gibberish

 

[Brightwell’s left peg]

I take it you've never took any interest in science or astronomy then, ever, or biology, geology,anthropology.....

It’s the work of the devil

 

[paulsimpson]

Google Search

You weren't there . No one,
except God. His revelation says the earth got a moon on day 4. Secular atheistic versions lack knowledge. Jewish Christian scriptures are revealed truth.