Born Again

[spotlight]

Are you living for Christ or an organization? Man looks on the outward appearance, but the LORD look upon one's heart.

Wait what? I thought it was by grace alone. If there are conditions (gotchas) involved then it is no longer by grace but by doing the works, however small, that make up the conditions.

There is far more evidence today regarding Creation as a theory than ever existed. The perspective regarding Noah's Flood and the Ark were not even regarded and developed 100 years ago. And all the support for Creation is growing far faster than that of evolution. http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks.htm Please provide a full scientific explanation as to how human footprints could exist together with that of dinosaurs.

Wow, even diehard creationists have for the most part abandoned this shtick.

The largest number of "man tracks" are forms of elongate, metatarsal dinosaur tracks, made by bipedal dinosaurs that sometimes impressed their metatarsi (heels and soles) as they walked. When the digit impressions of such tracks are subdued by mud-backflow or secondary infilling, a somewhat human shape often results.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy.html

Then along came Mr. Kuban, a computer programmer from Brunswick, Ohio, who majored in biology in college and has become an experienced student of dinosaur tracks. In 1980 he began to re-examine the Paluxy tracks in question, finding some faint impressions of toes that had gone largely unnoticed.

Two summers ago, pursuing the investigation, Mr. Kuban said he found evidence that ''practically jumped out at you.'' Ronnie J. Hastings, a high school science teacher from Waxahachie, Tex., made a similar discovery at about the same time. Almost every one of the alleged human tracks, they found, was accompanied by distinct colorations in the rock that, upon detailed analysis, revealed the pattern of dinosaurian digits.

https://www.nytimes.com/1986/06/17/scie ... urian.html

[LittleNipper]

Are you living for Christ or an organization? Man looks on the outward appearance, but the LORD look upon one's heart.

Wait what? I thought it was by grace alone. If there are conditions (gotchas) involved then it is no longer by grace but by doing the works, however small, that make up the conditions.

There is far more evidence today regarding Creation as a theory than ever existed. The perspective regarding Noah's Flood and the Ark were not even regarded and developed 100 years ago. And all the support for Creation is growing far faster than that of evolution. http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks.htm Please provide a full scientific explanation as to how human footprints could exist together with that of dinosaurs.

Wow, even diehard creationists have for the most part abandoned this shtick.

The largest number of "man tracks" are forms of elongate, metatarsal dinosaur tracks, made by bipedal dinosaurs that sometimes impressed their metatarsi (heels and soles) as they walked. When the digit impressions of such tracks are subdued by mud-backflow or secondary infilling, a somewhat human shape often results.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy.html

Then along came Mr. Kuban, a computer programmer from Brunswick, Ohio, who majored in biology in college and has become an experienced student of dinosaur tracks. In 1980 he began to re-examine the Paluxy tracks in question, finding some faint impressions of toes that had gone largely unnoticed.

Two summers ago, pursuing the investigation, Mr. Kuban said he found evidence that ''practically jumped out at you.'' Ronnie J. Hastings, a high school science teacher from Waxahachie, Tex., made a similar discovery at about the same time. Almost every one of the alleged human tracks, they found, was accompanied by distinct colorations in the rock that, upon detailed analysis, revealed the pattern of dinosaurian digits.

https://www.nytimes.com/1986/06/17/scie ... urian.html

GRACE THROUGH FAITH! Where is your faith and what is it in? It is interesting that you mention 1980 ---- many tracks have been discovered since and the consensus is that these are clearly human in nature. It seems odd to me that colorations in the rock always accompany the "dinosaurian" digits. Almost as if they were added later to perhaps cloud the truth?!?!? It would seem hard to believe but then there are high stakes involved for evolutionists...

[spotlight]

GRACE THROUGH FAITH! Where is your faith and what is it in?

So then faith is a choice and choice is a work, however small. Where's your calculus?

It is interesting that you mention 1980 ---- many tracks have been discovered since and the consensus is that these are clearly human in nature. It seems odd to me that colorations in the rock always accompany the "dinosaurian" digits. Almost as if they were added later to perhaps cloud the truth?!?!? It would seem hard to believe but then there are high stakes involved for evolutionists...

Oh I'm behind the times.
Whose consensus would that be? The fact that there are people who believe they are human does not make them human. I don't really expect you to change your position based upon our exchange Nipper. I've been to the flat earther site and if you can't persuade someone there with the amount of data that exists to the contrary, it's not going to work in any subject less obvious than that of a globular earth. It's a wonder to me that there exist otherwise intelligent people in the world who believe strange things. Science denialism is an area of psychology that is fascinating to me. Conspiracy theories, bad philosophy, motivated belief, indoctrination - have at it. It's cheap entertainment for the rest of us.

[LittleNipper]

GRACE THROUGH FAITH! Where is your faith and what is it in?

So then faith is a choice and choice is a work, however small. Where's your calculus?

It is interesting that you mention 1980 ---- many tracks have been discovered since and the consensus is that these are clearly human in nature. It seems odd to me that colorations in the rock always accompany the "dinosaurian" digits. Almost as if they were added later to perhaps cloud the truth?!?!? It would seem hard to believe but then there are high stakes involved for evolutionists...

Oh I'm behind the times.
Whose consensus would that be? The fact that there are people who believe they are human does not make them human. I don't really expect you to change your position based upon our exchange Nipper. I've been to the flat earther site and if you can't persuade someone there with the amount of data that exists to the contrary, it's not going to work in any subject less obvious than that of a globular earth. It's a wonder to me that there exist otherwise intelligent people in the world who believe strange things. Science denialism is an area of psychology that is fascinating to me. Conspiracy theories, bad philosophy, motivated belief, indoctrination - have at it. It's cheap entertainment for the rest of us.

Faith is dependency. And the Bible clearly states that even FAITH is a gift of GOD. If you have no faith, you cannot be a Christian because you do not rest on Christ for you salvation. And it would seem that you don't even regard salvation at all. As for the earth being flat, I have a hard time proving to atheists that the earth is expressed in the Bible as a sort of circle hanging on nothing. Again, very profound for a bunch of shepherds to come up with. And the Hebrews had no specific word for sphere. The Hebrew word khûg is translated ‘circle’ having the meaning of the great circles on the globe or a sphere.

[spotlight]

Faith is dependency. And the Bible clearly states that even FAITH is a gift of GOD.

So now that which is required is a gift from god. So then I am not responsible in any manner for not having it then.

If you have no faith, you cannot be a Christian because you do not rest on Christ for you salvation.

But that's not my fault because it's no my doing. I have not been given the gift. It's now god's fault that I don't have faith.

And it would seem that you don't even regard salvation at all.

Oh my my. How can I? I haven't been given the gift from god. Blame him not me.

As for the earth being flat, I have a hard time proving to atheists that the earth is expressed in the Bible as a sort of circle hanging on nothing. Again, very profound for a bunch of shepherds to come up with. And the Hebrews had no specific word for sphere. The Hebrew word khûg is translated ‘circle’ having the meaning of the great circles on the globe or a sphere.

You misunderstood the point of my reference to flat earthers completely. What can be salvaged here? The lack of a word for a sphere is all you need to acknowledge to show that your imaginary stretch is just that, imaginary. If they had the concept of a spherical earth they'd have created a word for it. The fact that they didn't is a pretty strong indicator that the concept didn't even exist.

[LittleNipper]

Faith is dependency. And the Bible clearly states that even FAITH is a gift of GOD.

So now that which is required is a gift from god. So then I am not responsible in any manner for not having it then.

If you have no faith, you cannot be a Christian because you do not rest on Christ for you salvation.

But that's not my fault because it's no my doing. I have not been given the gift. It's now god's fault that I don't have faith.

And it would seem that you don't even regard salvation at all.

Oh my my. How can I? I haven't been given the gift from god. Blame him not me.

As for the earth being flat, I have a hard time proving to atheists that the earth is expressed in the Bible as a sort of circle hanging on nothing. Again, very profound for a bunch of shepherds to come up with. And the Hebrews had no specific word for sphere. The Hebrew word khûg is translated ‘circle’ having the meaning of the great circles on the globe or a sphere.

You misunderstood the point of my reference to flat earthers completely. What can be salvaged here? The lack of a word for a sphere is all you need to acknowledge to show that your imaginary stretch is just that, imaginary. If they had the concept of a spherical earth they'd have created a word for it. The fact that they didn't is a pretty strong indicator that the concept didn't even exist.

The Hebrew word they uses means more than a mere flat circle --- as explained. People who want to remain true to their own opinions will do just that. People believing in a flat earth are no more Biblical than a man like yourself believing that nature put us here. Neither is either logical not provable.

[spotlight]

The Hebrew word they uses means more than a mere flat circle --- as explained. People who want to remain true to their own opinions will do just that.

Irony meter just broke.

People believing in a flat earth are no more Biblical than a man like yourself believing that nature put us here.

There are numerous passages in the Bible that can only be interpreted in flat earth terms. There are very few that can be made to appear to relate to a spherical earth by strained arguments.

Speaking of being put here, who put Opium and Cannabis here?

Neither is either logical nor provable.

I would not be making comments about what is not provable nor logical when you represent the position without any supporting evidence and touting illogical talking animals.

[LittleNipper]

The Hebrew word they uses means more than a mere flat circle --- as explained. People who want to remain true to their own opinions will do just that.

Irony meter just broke.

People believing in a flat earth are no more Biblical than a man like yourself believing that nature put us here.

There are numerous passages in the Bible that can only be interpreted in flat earth terms. There are very few that can be made to appear to relate to a spherical earth by strained arguments.

Speaking of being put here, who put Opium and Cannabis here?

Neither is either logical nor provable.

I would not be making comments about what is not provable nor logical when you represent the position without any supporting evidence and touting illogical talking animals.

The Bible must be interpreted on its whole and not manipulated per verse. All verses must be interpreted in light of each other. So if some verses elude to a spherical planet, then circles and four corners must also be interpreted in that light of understanding as a sphere is an additional complexity that cannot be explained away.

[spotlight]

The Bible must be interpreted on its whole and not manipulated per verse.

This is referred to as begging the question. Google it my friend.

All verses must be interpreted in light of each other.

And I could arbitrarily place within a single bound volume disparate works by various authors and assert that they are all related and must be interpreted in such a manner that a coherent consistent message runs throughout. That might even be possible but it would not prove that that was the intent on the part of each individual author. An example of this occurs within the LDS church where the gospel taught by Brigham Young is different from that which is taught today. The TBM will deny this is the case because they have to maintain the false narrative in their mind that the church is the same over time.

So if some verses elude to a spherical planet, then circles and four corners must also be interpreted in that light of understanding as a sphere is an additional complexity that cannot be explained away.

Yeah no - except for some very telling scriptures where this absolutely fails. Satan tempts Jesus by placing him high up so that he can see all the kingdoms of the world. Not possible on a spherical planet. Stars cannot fall to earth from the heavens. Here you are clearly just making stuff up to save the idea that the Bible is a whole which it is not.

[LittleNipper]

The Bible must be interpreted on its whole and not manipulated per verse.

This is referred to as begging the question. Google it my friend.

All verses must be interpreted in light of each other.

And I could arbitrarily place within a single bound volume disparate works by various authors and assert that they are all related and must be interpreted in such a manner that a coherent consistent message runs throughout. That might even be possible but it would not prove that that was the intent on the part of each individual author. An example of this occurs within the LDS church where the gospel taught by Brigham Young is different from that which is taught today. The TBM will deny this is the case because they have to maintain the false narrative in their mind that the church is the same over time.

So if some verses elude to a spherical planet, then circles and four corners must also be interpreted in that light of understanding as a sphere is an additional complexity that cannot be explained away.

Yeah no - except for some very telling scriptures where this absolutely fails. Satan tempts Jesus by placing him high up so that he can see all the kingdoms of the world. Not possible on a spherical planet. Stars cannot fall to earth from the heavens. Here you are clearly just making stuff up to save the idea that the Bible is a whole which it is not.

Jesus the Messiah/Christ validated the entire Old Testament. Jesus validated none of the book of Mormon. And I'm surprised at you in this day and age not having a clue how Satan the prince of this planet could not take Jesus to a secluded out of the way place and conjure up scenes of various places and kingdoms of his planet. I mean today I can sit in my living room and see anything I want by conjuring it up on a TV screen... When we die and are judged, do you not suppose that GOD will not flash before the unsaved individual's eyes every mistake he ever did --- and without a TV? And people believed this possible long before TV was invented.

[spotlight]

Jesus the Messiah/Christ validated the entire Old Testament. Jesus validated none of the book of Mormon. And I'm surprised at you in this day and age not having a clue how Satan the prince of this planet could not take Jesus to a secluded out of the way place and conjure up scenes of various places and kingdoms of his planet. I mean today I can sit in my living room and see anything I want by conjuring it up on a TV screen... When we die and are judged, do you not suppose that GOD will not flash before the unsaved individual's eyes every mistake he ever did --- and without a TV? And people believed this possible long before TV was invented.

You are begging the question once again Nipper. It is incorrect to use the Bible to vindicate itself. Satan is a late invention of religion. Theology evolves over time. Unfortunately.

[LittleNipper]

Jesus the Messiah/Christ validated the entire Old Testament. Jesus validated none of the book of Mormon. And I'm surprised at you in this day and age not having a clue how Satan the prince of this planet could not take Jesus to a secluded out of the way place and conjure up scenes of various places and kingdoms of his planet. I mean today I can sit in my living room and see anything I want by conjuring it up on a TV screen... When we die and are judged, do you not suppose that GOD will not flash before the unsaved individual's eyes every mistake he ever did --- and without a TV? And people believed this possible long before TV was invented.

You are begging the question once again Nipper. It is incorrect to use the Bible to vindicate itself. Satan is a late invention of religion. Theology evolves over time. Unfortunately.

The Bible is the only Word of GOD. And without the Bible we would have no knowledge of Christ --- I mean, He died 2000 years ago. If indeed it is the Word of GOD it will magnify HIM. Now, we can seek after scientific evidence, and behavioral evidence, and archaeological evidence, and prophetic fulfillment; however, these in turn are derived from the study of GOD's Word. A book that is a forgery will not posses all these tributes if any. And the book of Mormon I believe is what started you to mistrust GOD's Word.

[spotlight]

The Bible is the only Word of GOD. And without the Bible we would have no knowledge of Christ --- I mean, He died 2000 years ago. If indeed it is the Word of GOD it will magnify HIM. Now, we can seek after scientific evidence, and behavioral evidence, and archaeological evidence, and prophetic fulfillment; however, these in turn are derived from the study of GOD's Word. A book that is a forgery will not posses all these tributes if any. And the book of Mormon I believe is what started you to mistrust GOD's Word.

Um no Nipper, just the opposite of what I've been trying to pound into your head. The Bible is contradicted by scientific facts at least where your literal interpretation of it is concerned. You simply choose to remain ignorant of the facts. Am I wrong? If so you will have no problem explaining how there exist fossils throughout a permafrost that would take hundreds of thousands of years to form.

[LittleNipper]

The Bible is the only Word of GOD. And without the Bible we would have no knowledge of Christ --- I mean, He died 2000 years ago. If indeed it is the Word of GOD it will magnify HIM. Now, we can seek after scientific evidence, and behavioral evidence, and archaeological evidence, and prophetic fulfillment; however, these in turn are derived from the study of GOD's Word. A book that is a forgery will not posses all these tributes if any. And the book of Mormon I believe is what started you to mistrust GOD's Word.

Um no Nipper, just the opposite of what I've been trying to pound into your head. The Bible is contradicted by scientific facts at least where your literal interpretation of it is concerned. You simply choose to remain ignorant of the facts. Am I wrong? If so you will have no problem explaining how there exist fossils throughout a permafrost that would take hundreds of thousands of years to form.

This may give you another perspective. It is perplexing yet there are other possible explanations. https://creation.com/permafrost

[spotlight]

This may give you another perspective. It is perplexing yet there are other possible explanations. https://creation.com/permafrost

Do you ever think for yourself Nipper? You just cut and paste from creationists sites. How can you ever learn anything in such a manner as this? You assume you know it all already. Anything that rocks your boat gets summarily dismissed.

Your article does nothing to address the problem that permafrost poses. Uniformitarianism or lack thereof does not solve this problem. This is, per your view a creation of god. Does the way it behaves - think chemistry and physics as they relate to the behavior of matter here - change all on their own since creation occurred? The problem with the permafrost is that there are no conditions involving uniformitarianism or catastrophism that would allow the depth of permafrost to exist after the creation event. And by the way, uniformitarianism does not exclude catastrophies. It refers to your "fined tuned" laws of nature without which life cannot exist. Contradiction after contradiction Nipper is all you have.

[LittleNipper]

This may give you another perspective. It is perplexing yet there are other possible explanations. https://creation.com/permafrost

Do you ever think for yourself Nipper? You just cut and paste from creationists sites. How can you ever learn anything in such a manner as this? You assume you know it all already. Anything that rocks your boat gets summarily dismissed.

Your article does nothing to address the problem that permafrost poses. Uniformitarianism or lack thereof does not solve this problem. This is, per your view a creation of god. Does the way it behaves - think chemistry and physics as they relate to the behavior of matter here - change all on their own since creation occurred? The problem with the permafrost is that there are no conditions involving uniformitarianism or catastrophism that would allow the depth of permafrost to exist after the creation event. And by the way, uniformitarianism does not exclude catastrophies. It refers to your "fined tuned" laws of nature without which life cannot exist. Contradiction after contradiction Nipper is all you have.

Of course I think for myself. Many people believe that the Earth is 2 billion years old. And I disagree and I have my reasons. I tend to share Creationist websites because they are scientists and fully understand scientific terminology. I don't need all that to comprehend that something is wrong with what evolutionists accept as absolute truth. I believe that the permafrost didn't take hundreds of thousands of years to reach a certain depth under certain conditions anything is possible, and with GOD ALL things are possible. Uniformitarianism is not a Creationist or Christian theory or construct. It is an earlier secular scientific view that believes that what happened in the past is very much the same and consistent with what happens today. I certainly do not believe this. I believe that GOD created a perfect environment on a perfect world, within a perfect Universe. And after the FALL of Adam everything was corrupted to one degree or another and has been progressively getting worse since. Saying contradiction after contradiction may give you some peace of mind, but it doesn't convince me of anything.

[spotlight]

Of course I think for myself. Many people believe that the Earth is 2 billion years old. And I disagree and I have my reasons.

4.543 billion Nipper. The fact that you are off by this much underscores your level of ignorance of the subject. You have not looked into this at all in any sort of objective manner have you?

I tend to share Creationist websites because they are scientists and fully understand scientific terminology.

No, they are apologists. Even if your apologists have PhDs in the appropriate fields it does not make them right. An appeal to authority is a fail. But have to give it up to them if they understand the proper terminology. Their money spent on education did not entirely go down the drain.

But even here you are incorrect. Their terminology is not correct much of the time. "Evolutionist" for example is not proper scientific terminology. Uniformitarianism is a concept they misunderstand. Baraminology is not proper scientific terminology. They are nutters Nipper, not scientists.

I don't need all that to comprehend that something is wrong with what evolutionists accept as absolute truth.

Then you cannot complain if you encounter people who'd reject your world view without ever reading the Bible.

I believe that the permafrost didn't take hundreds of thousands of years to reach a certain depth under certain conditions anything is possible, and with GOD ALL things are possible.

Back this up with a valid computer model that reflects the laws of chemistry and physics (as you believe your god has created those). You can't do that and neither can your apologists with PhDs. If god violated his laws to quick freeze the soil to that depth then he is a deceiver because there would be no need to create permafrost to that depth for any reason whatsoever other than to throw people off on how long it would take.

Uniformitarianism is not a Creationist or Christian theory or construct. It is an earlier secular scientific view that believes that what happened in the past is very much the same and consistent with what happens today.

Nope Nipper. That is not what it means. It refers to the laws being the same. You know the laws made by your god supposedly. Or is there no law at all? So per your understanding even though water today is made from two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen in the past this was not the case.

I certainly do not believe this.

And you should not be surprised then that there are people who certainly do not believe in your god's existence Nipper. You have no basis to complain at all.

I believe that GOD created a perfect environment on a perfect world, within a perfect Universe. And after the FALL of Adam everything was corrupted to one degree or another and has been progressively getting worse since. Saying contradiction after contradiction may give you some peace of mind, but it doesn't convince me of anything.

I never expected it to convince you of anything. I never expected to convince anybody on the flat earth site either. But the exchange was entertaining and enlightening in understanding human nature.

[spotlight]

Oh look! Uniformitarianism in the Bible. It must be false.
Heb 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today, and for ever.

[LittleNipper]

Catastrophism VS Uniformatarianism https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid= ... N2NhYjMzNw Actually, all scientist now accept catastrophic events of one sort or another. Uniformatarianism deals with geologic formations and the processes involved. There was simply too much evidence for an event or several events of one sort or another, and so uniformatarianism has pretty much been forgotten.

[huckelberry]

Catastrophism VS Uniformatarianism https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid= ... N2NhYjMzNw Actually, all scientist now accept catastrophic events of one sort or another. Uniformatarianism deals with geologic formations and the processes involved. There was simply too much evidence for an event or several events of one sort or another, and so uniformatarianism has pretty much been forgotten.

little Nipper
Uniformitarianism has hardly been forgotten. It remains the basic pattern of geological events. There are exceptions where a catastrophe breaks through the regular pattern. It is that interruption that shows a catastrophe has occurred. Why else would a person think of a catastrophe? How would you answer the questions that the link you have asked?(did you read the link?) The grand canyon is a good example of uniformitarian processes.

I find the combination of uniformity and catastrophe interesting. I could share examples from the area in which I live. I like that because with those example I can check up on the authorities and see if what they talk about is really there. We had a giant flood that involved the valley I live in as well as other valleys in the region. (actually there were multiple repeats of this flood)
But Nipper there is no point in discussing the real world I live in. You do not believe that our world is a result of events in time. You believe that God created things as they are in a moment by command. You believe this was done at least twice. The flood involved recreating the world after the crust broke up . Everything was reformed to look just as if it was millions and millions of years old. I suppose you could say that if one was going to do that at all one might as well do it completely without mistakes. That would explain why geology finds patterns of events fitting together as if they happened one after the other over huge stretches of time.

You can hardly blame people for being convinced of great age by such a thorough invention.

[LittleNipper]

Catastrophism VS Uniformatarianism https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid= ... N2NhYjMzNw Actually, all scientist now accept catastrophic events of one sort or another. Uniformatarianism deals with geologic formations and the processes involved. There was simply too much evidence for an event or several events of one sort or another, and so uniformatarianism has pretty much been forgotten.

little Nipper
Uniformitarianism has hardly been forgotten. It remains the basic pattern of geological events. There are exceptions where a catastrophe breaks through the regular pattern. It is that interruption that shows a catastrophe has occurred. Why else would a person think of a catastrophe? How would you answer the questions that the link you have asked?(did you read the link?) The grand canyon is a good example of uniformitarian processes.

I find the combination of uniformity and catastrophe interesting. I could share examples from the area in which I live. I like that because with those example I can check up on the authorities and see if what they talk about is really there. We had a giant flood that involved the valley I live in as well as other valleys in the region. (actually there were multiple repeats of this flood)
But Nipper there is no point in discussing the real world I live in. You do not believe that our world is a result of events in time. You believe that God created things as they are in a moment by command. You believe this was done at least twice. The flood involved recreating the world after the crust broke up . Everything was reformed to look just as if it was millions and millions of years old. I suppose you could say that if one was going to do that at all one might as well do it completely without mistakes. That would explain why geology finds patterns of events fitting together as if they happened one after the other over huge stretches of time.

You can hardly blame people for being convinced of great age by such a thorough invention.

The vast MAJORITY of fossils found throughout the world are not possible except under very select conditions. If an animal dies and lays out in the open, it is consumed. There were no fossils found of victims of the Titanic --- just empty shoes and that was all even by the 1990's (not even 80 years after the sinking). Uniformatarians basically were men who wanted to prove the Flood never happened. Their belief was that the Grand Canyon was the result of the river wearing away the rock of millions and millions of years. We now know that there was a trapped lake that suddenly emptied and this is what eroded the land and formed the canyon.