On why christianity has declined in the west

[Himster]

The day that God made the sun, moon and stars they were much closer to us on earth than they are now so the light that they gave off then never waned as He spread them across space.

That is not possible. Light from an object 6500 lightyears away takes 6500 years for us to be able to see it. The speed or direction of the object is irrelevant. This is a basic, objectively verifiable, commonly known fact.

For example if you stood in front of me with a torch that you switched on and walked backward away from me I would see that light until you disappeared into the distance yet as darkness set in that light could still be seen as long as my vision allowed.

Again, matter cannot exceed the speed of light, matter can't even reach the speed of light.
The Crab Nebula is not 6500 lightyears away, it only appears to be there because that's where it was 6500 years ago, which is so because light takes one year to travel one lightyear and it was 6500 lightyears away from our current position 6500 years ago.

Therefore the illusion of billions of years is a misnomer which is only reached by man working backwards rather than accepting what God says. He made all things as up and running meaning that age had to play its part in His thinking and execution thus bringing you to believe your version.

Objective empirical verification is the basis of all science, from the facts of cosmology, the age of the universe to the fact that we are communicating through scientifically discovered phenomenon right now.

I can accept basic science but it's science through faulty measurement structures that makes me believe that God did it all and not nature if we can call evolution as that.

Theistic evolution is the most widely accepted form of evolution. The reason you don't accept evolution has nothing to do with your religion, it has to do with something else.

No, I don't accept evolution at all simply because it is built on a theory alone made by man working backwards rather than working from Genesis as many scientists are now doing and finding that their calculations fit what is written there.

If those so called scientists were truly applying the scientific method in their "findings" then they would/could/should publish them in peer reviewed journals and change the world forever. But they don't, they don't even try, because they know what they're doing is pseudo science to please the masses and make an easy buck.

If one looks at what the Bible says about what men tried to do with the Tower of Babel one can see the very same trait as he reaches out to the stars if only to find out where we came from when God has already told us.

It is the nature of man to reach and fall and reach and fall. This true whether God/Gods exist.

There never was a big bang any more than there is a Geologic column, any more than there are transitionals from any species to another in all the museums of the world.

There was a Big Bang, we can literally see through space and time, there is a geological column, it's how we can track down where coal seams and oil wells are. All fossils are transitional by definition.
But you have to realize willful self-delusion is unnecessary, there is nothing incompatible with science and your religion, you've been lied to by too many zealots, it seems, for too long: That's all. Accepting evolution, the speed limit of light and matter and the Big Bang is no different from accepting that there were rings in the trees on the first day: there is no difference.

[Sir Adrian]

You said this:

I've yet to say anything against the Catholic Church, and in fact defended it from the inanities that are Creationism.

Ok. I didn't say you made any statements about the RCC. I just gave you two pertinent examples against your argument.

[clone]

but i thought that Jesus Christ said he was only sent to Israel, as we can see from the Canaanite women's story, and also when he said "Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

i believe these mean Jesus' mission was only to the Israelites, if one was sent to the market to buy a dozen apples and on his way back, a beggar stops him and asks for two apples. he tells him that he have not been sent to give apples to beggars but the beggar starts pleading and crying and due to pity, he gives him two apples. This does not change his mission. his mission is still to bring apples for the one who sent him.

furthermore we see in Acts 11:19 that the message was preached to Jews only, now i don't believe all this suggests that Jesus' was sent to all of Mankind.

jesus didnt want to spread his message only to jews. we can learn that from the story of the roman centurion( romans who were a conquerors to the jewish people) who saved his servant from sickness when he believed in him and from the fact that his disciples were sent to spread the message the to all the known world of that time
as we learn from jesus https://www.biblegateway.com/passage...atthew%2028:19


basics

Because they have never been born of the Spirit of God to be renewed in Jesus Christ. This has nothing to do with being of any denomination, rather to do with what the Bible teaches and the experiences of all them that are born again of the Spirit.
i disagree in some points.
1 this contradicts with jesus who said that that when you feed someone (christian or not) you feed also jesus
2 oficialy orthodox church accepts extra ecclesiam nulla salus
but not 100%.*
why? because for easten orthodox church God
is all wise ,all loving and his mercy has not limits
3 some enlightened priests speak about atheists :you dont believe in god,love everyone,help everyone ,try as much as posible to live a virtuous life and it doesnt matter if you dont believe in god,god believes in you.
4 of course there are some extra conservative and moronic priests who believe that everyone who disagrees with the bible even only 1% will go to hell
5 also this is a matter of logic. why you who have been born into a christian family or at least a country where christianity exist ( and that is 90% the reason you became a christian) and someone who has never heard the word christianity will go to hell. rea

* To be honest the reason orthodox church as with every denomination in every religion the reasons they believe in extra ecclesiam nulla salus
is not 100% inoccent
1 first its the human pride or even dogmatic differences ( our church and dogma is the best
2 if people can go in heaven without being christians and more specifically members of our true church=)
what the point of our church to exist
3 if otherwise this contradicts with the image of a wise ,all loving,just god

[High Fist]

The day that God made the sun, moon and stars they were much closer to us on earth than they are now so the light that they gave off then never waned as He spread them across space.

If the sun was much closer the Earth would have fried.

The rest of the post was TL;DR, sorry but I'm tired and need to get up early, will edit this with a proper response tomorrow at some stage.

Ok. I didn't say you made any statements about the RCC. I just gave you two pertinent examples against your argument.

I dunno about that. All he was saying was that the pope didn't believe in the same as "young earth creationists" as they are called. All you said was that the church contributed to astronomy and stuff.

On that note, didn't the Catholic Church condemn the research of Galileo, the "father of astronomy"?

[Gaidin]

On that note, didn't the Catholic Church condemn the research of Galileo, the "father of astronomy"?

The RCC has been around long enough to change.

[Phier]

On that note, didn't the Catholic Church condemn the research of Galileo, the "father of astronomy"?

And then later praised it for what it was.

[Sir Adrian]

I dunno about that. All he was saying was that the pope didn't believe in the same as "young earth creationists" as they are called. All you said was that the church contributed to astronomy and stuff.

On that note, didn't the Catholic Church condemn the research of Galileo, the "father of astronomy"?

Actually he said this

Hell it's even simpler. Those that believe in creationism don't try to reconcile the findings of science with religious text. They outright reject them if there's a conflict as they see it. Hence the differentiation.

I pointed out two exampels of how people who believe in creationism actively contributed to those findings. It's pretty hard to claim that they don't try to reconcile scientific findings when they helped discover them in the first place.

The problem is that he does not realize that creationism =/= young Earth BS.

[Cyrene]

Islam is a Creationist religion, but it does not promote Young Earth Creationism, there is a big difference between the two as Sir Adrian Said.

[Phier]

Islam is a Creationist religion, but it does not promote Young Earth Creationism, there is a big difference between the two as Sir Adrian Said.

Not entirely. As it is young earth creationism isn't even biblical. As a biologist you are just as wrong thinking the world was created X million/billion years ago as is, as saying it was created 6000 years ago. Geologically the second is provably wrong, biologically both are equally wrong.

[High Fist]

The problem is that he does not realize that creationism =/= young Earth BS.

He made the same mistake I did; he's not arguing what you are. He said explicitly:

Creationism is a literal interpretation of Genesis. The RC Church hasn't done that for a long long time.

To fix that, it'd be "Young Earth Creationism is a literal interpretation of Genesis. The RC Church hasn't done that for a long long time." So you can see that you've been agreeing with each other the whole time.

[basics]

" That is not possible. Light from an object 6500 lightyears away takes 6500 years for us to be able to see it. The speed or direction of the object is irrelevant. This is a basic, objectively verifiable, commonly known fact."

Himster,

That would be true if everything was in situ on the days of creation as they are now but remember what God asked Job. Was he there when God stretched out the stars and planets across the void? None of us were, indeed the stars and planets were done so on the fourth day and man not being made until the sixth day would have seen them as they were expanding away from the vicinity of the original creation spot. Because they are there now does not mean that's where they were originally. It's commonly known now because man measures these things backwards assuming that it needed lots of millions of years for them to get to where they are now. Not so with God.

" Again, matter cannot exceed the speed of light, matter can't even reach the speed of light.
The Crab Nebula is not 6500 lightyears away, it only appears to be there because that's where it was 6500 years ago, which is so because light takes one year to travel one lightyear and it was 6500 lightyears away from our current position 6500 years ago."

Yes yes, and that's all based on natural creation which is not how God describes it. He spoke and it was, everything right down to the minutest detail and all for the benefit of this particular planet.

" Objective empirical verification is the basis of all science, from the facts of cosmology, the age of the universe to the fact that we are communicating through scientifically discovered phenomenon right now."

The thing is that what you are suggesting and what most probably accept is no more verifiable than what I am suggesting.

" Theistic evolution is the most widely accepted form of evolution. The reason you don't accept evolution has nothing to do with your religion, it has to do with something else. "

You are spot on there because for one I don't have religion. All that I was originally taught came by the Lord Jesus Christ who gave me no rest for many years as night after night Scripture was unfolded to me. As I started to read other sources these did not detract from what I was learning but adding to it so much so that the word evolution raises the hackles each time I see it. There is no doubt whatsoever that God created us in six days, six twentyfour hour days and rested on the seventh that number having great connotation throughout all Scripture.

" If those so called scientists were truly applying the scientific method in their "findings" then they would/could/should publish them in peer reviewed journals and change the world forever. But they don't, they don't even try, because they know what they're doing is pseudo science to please the masses and make an easy buck. "

You've got this the wrong way round. These scientists are swimming against a current that consists of the masses you speak of even among their contemporaries. The world hates God, even the religious world that claims to follow Him. They are the ones who take in anything and everything that negates their responsibility to God. These scientists have had many books published, are available in the likes of Amazon, some can be found on Youtube, but who among the masses wants to know what God thinks?

" It is the nature of man to reach and fall and reach and fall. This true whether God/Gods exist. "

That's true. The thing is that it is a fallen nature that each one will have to give an account for when He returns.

" There was a Big Bang, we can literally see through space and time, there is a geological column, it's how we can track down where coal seams and oil wells are. All fossils are transitional by definition. "

Well ole chap that's a contradiction to what you were arguing earlier. Adam couldn't see the stars that were made just two days before himself yet we can all see through space and time. All pure assumption. As for the geologic column if it did exist would need to be literally double figured miles high into space to be reality. Regarding fossils we are not going by definition because one can define anything to be anything. All the major players in the evolution field admit there are no transitionals. That's why it is called the "missing link." It's missing. It doesn't exist.

[Himster]

That would be true if everything was in situ on the days of creation as they are now but remember what God asked Job.

We know that nothing can stay "still". Everything is in constant movement. It's because everything is in constant movement that we can assert with absolute certainty that nobody has ever seen the sun in real time, we've only ever seen the sun as it was 8 minutes ago. The further a thing is away the older the light.

Was he there when God stretched out the stars and planets across the void? None of us were,

Yes, yes we are. We can see the sun as it was 8 minutes ago, we can see the crab nebula as it was 6500 years ago, we can see GRB 090423: which is 13 billion light years away, which means we see what was there 13 billion years ago. We can prove this is so because we can prove the finite speed of light.

Because they are there now

They are not there now. We cannot see anything beyond Earth as it is now, only what was there thousands of years ago, millions of years ago and billions of years ago.

It's commonly known now because man measures these things backwards assuming that it needed lots of millions of years for them to get to where they are now.

There is no assumtpion, it is a demonstrable fact that the speed of light is finite.

Yes yes, and that's all based on natural creation which is not how God describes it.

No. It has nothing to do with creation, it is empirical observation, your God can fit perfectly well into the gaps left by science (even if I may disagree with your assertions).
It's the same as the rings in the tree trunk indicating the passage of time preceding what you call creation. If you believe there were rings in trees (as is empirically observed) then you can equally believe in evolution, the Big Bang, the speed of light etc.

The thing is that what you are suggesting and what most probably accept is no more verifiable than what I am suggesting.

You're wrong. The speed of light is verifiable, consistently and repeatedly. Background radiation dating back to the early universe can be observed and measured repeatedly. These are facts that have been verified millions of times with consistent results.

These scientists have had many books published, are available in the likes of Amazon, some can be found on Youtube, but who among the masses wants to know what God thinks?

Most people want their wishful day dreams confirmed, that's why these unsuccessful "scientists" can make a quick buck without putting in the scientific work by publishing fantasy books that aren't peer reviewed: Because their assertions can't pass the most basic requirements to qualify as science. Real science works by peer review, that means scientists have to test hypotheses over and over and over and over, make useful predictions and test the predictions, pseudo-science based on supernatural nonsense can't live up to that exacting standard and so fails as science. Any moron can publish any old hogwash, getting something published in a peer reviewed scientific journal requires facts backed up with more facts.

Well ole chap that's a contradiction to what you were arguing earlier. Adam couldn't see the stars that were made just two days before himself yet we can all see through space and time. All pure assumption.

No, it's not assumption, we can demonstrate the finite speed of light and we can demonstrate the distance of observable astronomical bodies. Those two facts combined demonstrate the fact that we can see through time and space.

As for the geologic column if it did exist would need to be literally double figured miles high into space to be reality.

Wow. That is an amazing example of ignorance, I can't believe you actually think that. I think if you sent that post to whatever school you attended you should be entitled to some kind of compensation.
Ok, pay attention, I'll give you a lesson on Geology 101: The rock cycle is the processes by which rocks are formed, eroded and formed again. It's like the water cycle and like our knowledge of the water cycle can be used to predict the weather our knowledge of the rock cycle can be used to predict earthquakes, eruptions etc. (thus demonstrating the accuracy of of our understanding). There are roughly three ways that rocks are formed we call these rocks: igneous (rock from volcanoes), metamorphic (rocks that have changed through heat and/or pressure) and sedimentary (eroded components reformed into new rock through pressure). Sedimentary rock is the most common on the Earth's surface, as I said it's formed when older rocks are eroded, the eroded material has to go somewhere through wind, rain and water: forming a layer of sand or dirt, organisms live and die in/on this layer. Erosion constantly happens, more eroded material covers the dead organisms, the pressure builds as new layers of sediment builds: causing the sediment to become sedimentary rock underneath looser sediment, encasing fossils in rock. Erosion happens at a fixed rate and therefore can be measured which is then confirmed by measuring the rate at which carbon decays (which also happens at a fixed rate), so time can be calculated from this process by digging deeper and deeper, exactly and precisely the same as the rings found in trees. We've mapped out these layers over the last 150 years and we've discovered that the different layers consistently hold different organisms: for instance we never find dinosaurs in newer layers and we never find humans in older layers, this is uniform throughout the Earth.

As you accept the rings would be in trees as you believe the Earth was made "mature" then you have to also accept that the Earth was made with the same "mature" layers, our DNA was made with the same "mature" layers and the Universe as a whole was made with the same "mature" layers. They're all equally demonstrable, empirically verifiable components of observable reality. It would be insane to accept the layers in the trees, but not the layers in the Earth, or the layers in our DNA. They're the same indication of "mature" existence.

Regarding fossils we are not going by definition because one can define anything to be anything. All the major players in the evolution field admit there are no transitionals. That's why it is called the "missing link." It's missing. It doesn't exist.

That is a false conspiracy theory invented by tabloids and cheap newspapers trying to make a quick buck. All fossils are transitional, all organisms are constantly changing, this is demonstrated by the fact that your children are biologically different to you, just as your parents were biologically different to you. Over thousands of generations these small changes aggregate into massive changes: As demonstrated by the fossil record and then confirmed by the records left in our DNA and the DNA of all life.

[Papay]

I think the writing is on the wall when all that is required to increase disbelief and suspicion toward religion is how much else you know about the existence surrounding you based on empirical evidence.

But this empirical evidence is not neccessarily true. Scientific theories that we take for granted today, are going to be altered in the future. We are naive if we believe that in the year 3000, scientific theories will be the same. So the empirical evidence you claim is nothing more than faith

The key words being 'far', 'more' and 'trained'. Also about borrowing things from the Church, that is a stretch. Comparing fasting to dieting is also odd, diet is all about what you eat, it is not about not eating at all for long periods of time, which is unhealthy.

The meaning of fasting is to have a healthy life. Church says that you must watch out what you eat in order not to become fat, modern logic says eat whatever you want till you become fat and then start diet. Secularism has borrowed many things from the church. Or tried to solve issues without acknowledging that the church has already tried to find sollutions

More common? It is just easier to speak out against them today as others here have already mentioned, because they have lost so much of their power and social status. Long gone are the days when all you needed to replace some church windows was to accuse a few Jewish merchants of eating children, gather the mob into a frenzy cross in hand, kill them and steal their belongings.

"Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel." ~ Deuteronomy 17:12

Nope. In the old days priests had faith and people relied on them. Today they do not have because they are all basically secularists-turned-priests and they act like civil servants. So its easier for them to "sin" in various ways

Do you really want people acting on everything that is written down in the Bible?

Bible is good. The problem is how you interpretate it

Everything could be a waste of time, that is one of the reasons why religion was invented, to have something to throw in the face of Debbie-downers. 'There is meaning, if you listen to what god says through me'.

Well religion says that life is not a waste of time. Non-religious people will claim that it is and will fill their life with useless activities

That does not bother you at all, that your religion only works when things are not going so well? You do not find that a little telling about the human animal?

Religion was a human invention, a tool to move men for the purpose of the few.

The problem you fail to see is that the same can be applied for everything. We condemn religion because "it is used as a tool to control" but then we want to waste time on other things that could also be characterised as ways to control the masses. Football, Cinema, Music all these things are "tools of control". Do you imagine being a peasant during the medieval times and coming here and seeing people in front of their TVs and PCs watching commercials and other things? He would believe that we are all brainwashed(and to an extent this is true). But we are used to it and it doesnt bother us

[basics]

" i disagree in some points.
1 this contradicts with jesus who said that that when you feed someone (christian or not) you feed also jesus
2 oficialy orthodox church accepts extra ecclesiam nulla salus "

clone,

My understanding of Jesus' words here are that if you feed someone with whom you have no particular affiliation with you are doing exactly what He Himself would do in the same situation and therefore pleasing Him.

As for anyone being saved outside of the church I would have thought that this was and still is how the church is being built. One can't be in the church unless one is a saved sinner. That's what being born again entails.

" but not 100%.*
why? because for easten orthodox church God
is all wise ,all loving and his mercy has not limits "

Well, here's what the writer to the Hebrews says. Once a person is born again, God doesn't even remember them as having been sinners. Now that is the crux of salvation. Once sin has been shown to be gone by regeneration God doesn't see sin on that person anymore, indeed has never seen sin on them, how? Because it was washed away by the blood of Christ at Calvary in a once only act by Jesus Christ our Lord. So, if we stumble and fall during our journey towards glory, God the Father doesn't see these, He only sees what His Son accomplished for us by His blood. Therefore in God's eyes we are 100% pure. Of course in our own eyes we don't feel that way but we should if our faith was only as big as a mustard seed.

" some enlightened priests speak about atheists :you dont believe in god,love everyone,help everyone ,try as much as posible to live a virtuous life and it doesnt matter if you dont believe in god,god believes in you."

Lovely words but alas rather naive. Good works do not get people into heaven. A man has to be born again if that is to happen and it only happens if God draws men and women to Jesus and that usually by the preaching of the Gospel for it is the power of God unto salvation. A person, good or bad, has to be brought to the realisation that he or she falls short of the glory of God, is a sinner. Once there then God can regenerate.

" of course there are some extra conservative and moronic priests who believe that everyone who disagrees with the bible even only 1% will go to hell "

That 1% could be the practice of dipping or sprinkling of people with water then telling them that they are now Christian. That would be enough to send them to hell because they in reality have been deceived, are not really Christian but in name only. The book of the Revelation of Jesus Christ tells of that as do the parables of the wheat and tares, sheep and goats. 1% can therefore be quite catastrophic.

" also this is a matter of logic. why you who have been born into a christian family or at least a country where christianity exist ( and that is 90% the reason you became a christian) and someone who has never heard the word christianity will go to hell."

Until I went into a little church in Hopeman, I had never heard the Gospel. Yes, for a little while I went to Sunday school, was dragged along to some Billy Graham type meetings and eventually to get my boys baptised, I myself had to be sprinkled but as for being Christian that was in the mind only. When I heard the Gospel in Hopeman, every word was like red hot daggers piercing my heart and I was compelled to go back, to find out why? That's how God drew me to Jesus.

As for them that may not have heard the Gospel, the Bible tells us through Paul, that God has kept in every person ever born knowledge of Himself deep in them plus all that they see around them in creation so that even they have no excuse. From Noah on mankind has had that knowledge no matter where he finds himself and no matter how diminished it might be now, it is still there. The story may well have changed but even the most primitive man sees the supernatural in something.

Finally, no man, no matter whom, cannot enter heaven without the renewal of their hearts. God provided mercy in Jesus Christ that whosoever believes on Him will be saved and since these are the words of Peter I can't forget to say that he adds, as many as the Lord God calls. Therefore salvation is all of God.

" If the sun was much closer the Earth would have fried."

High Fist,

I think you are assuming that all was stationary way back then, but it wasn't. He made the sun, moon and stars and that done He spread them into the positions that He wanted. Do you know if the sun was made at the intensity of heat that it has now because I don't? All I know is that we are all here without as yet being fried. But God does also say that one day in the future, perhaps nearer than we think, it all will be fried to be replaced by a new heaven and a new earth.

" The rest of the post was TL;DR, sorry but I'm tired and need to get up early, will edit this with a proper response tomorrow at some stage."

Look forward to it although I have to admit I don't know what TL;DR means.

[clone]

" also this is a matter of logic. why you who have been born into a christian family or at least a country where christianity exist ( and that is 90% the reason you became a christian) and someone who has never heard the word christianity will go to hell."

Until I went into a little church in Hopeman, I had never heard the Gospel. Yes, for a little while I went to Sunday school, was dragged along to some Billy Graham type meetings and eventually to get my boys baptised, I myself had to be sprinkled but as for being Christian that was in the mind only. When I heard the Gospel in Hopeman, every word was like red hot daggers piercing my heart and I was compelled to go back, to find out why? That's how God drew me to Jesus.
.

you were born in a country that the gospel could be heard.do you thing if you were born in contry like north korea you would be christian?
so according to you everyone who isnt christian will go to hell. i wish then your children turn atheists when they grow up.
then we will see how easily you will be able to tell crap like "everyone how isnt christian will go to hell"
"Lovely words but alas rather naive"
better naive rather psycopath

[basics]

" We know that nothing can stay "still". Everything is in constant movement. It's because everything is in constant movement that we can assert with absolute certainty that nobody has ever seen the sun in real time, we've only ever seen the sun as it was 8 minutes ago. The further a thing is away the older the light."

Himster,

Theoretically that is quite correct and no-one is arguing against that especially from today's perspective. But we are talking of 6,000 years ago when out of nothing God spoke us into being. Everything was made of an age so that the planet could produce all that was necessary for life and so it was. What it meant on the sixth day when God made Adam was that had Adam been able to see through the water mantle which made the firmament above, he would have seen the light of the sun and stars because they would in effect have been only two days away in their dispersion across the galaxy.

" Yes, yes we are. We can see the sun as it was 8 minutes ago, we can see the crab nebula as it was 6500 years ago, we can see GRB 090423: which is 13 billion light years away, which means we see what was there 13 billion years ago. We can prove this is so because we can prove the finite speed of light. "

That's the theory if creation came about by chance but that's not how things came about.

" They are not there now. We cannot see anything beyond Earth as it is now, only what was there thousands of years ago, millions of years ago and billions of years ago."

But they are there now because we can see them as your argument goes. The problem you have is that you assume that they are billions of years of age and therefore must be reconciled as being the answer that God couldn't have created all things in the six days He said He did. Once God had placed them in situ, light years away, doesn't detract from the fact according to Him that by today's time they are little older than six thousand odd years of age but made to look much older.

" There is no assumtpion, it is a demonstrable fact that the speed of light is finite."

No-one's arguing against that at all.

" No. It has nothing to do with creation, it is empirical observation, your God can fit perfectly well into the gaps left by science (even if I may disagree with your assertions).
It's the same as the rings in the tree trunk indicating the passage of time preceding what you call creation. If you believe there were rings in trees (as is empirically observed) then you can equally believe in evolution, the Big Bang, the speed of light etc."

For sure I could if I didn't believe God. Put it this way, if you and I stood together at one spot on the planet, both aged the same, and then you moved away to the exact opposite spot on the same planet, would you have aged more than me? Of course you wouldn't and you wouldn't have aged any more had you gone to the moon, sun or any stars, assuming you could stay alive that long. You would still be the same age as me. Because God took these things and placed them at points in the void of space didn't and doesn't make them any older than the age they would be according to the same calendar.

" You're wrong. The speed of light is verifiable, consistently and repeatedly. Background radiation dating back to the early universe can be observed and measured repeatedly. These are facts that have been verified millions of times with consistent results. "

Of course it is, but what your instruments are measuring is only the age that these things were when God made them and placed them more or less where they are now. The whole of creation is governed by scientific laws which themselves couldn't possibly have come about by chance. God is not a God of chaos, but One of specific order even so as all creation is now in a fallen state. Nothing can make something out of nothing and certainly not a precise as creation is.

" Most people want their wishful day dreams confirmed, that's why these unsuccessful "scientists" can make a quick buck without putting in the scientific work by publishing fantasy books that aren't peer reviewed: Because their assertions can't pass the most basic requirements to qualify as science. Real science works by peer review, that means scientists have to test hypotheses over and over and over and over, make useful predictions and test the predictions, pseudo-science based on supernatural nonsense can't live up to that exacting standard and so fails as science. Any moron can publish any old hogwash, getting something published in a peer reviewed scientific journal requires facts backed up with more facts."

Well, since most of the writers that I have read quote scientists of the evolutionary bent, these quotes being their own misgivings about many different aspects of the theory that just don't add up, like Darwin's no transitionals confirmed by Gould and Paterson. Look at it another way why would a scientist go on Youtube with his or her specific evidence refuting evolution on many levels? The reason? Because the establishment has ring-fenced evolution as being factual whether anyone disagrees with it or not. Now I don't know if you have read any of their books and there are many hundreds of them, but these are based on their own investigations, their research, that makes them speak out. Perhaps you should look at the list of scientists to see if they qualify as being the numpties you are making out.

" No, it's not assumption, we can demonstrate the finite speed of light and we can demonstrate the distance of observable astronomical bodies. Those two facts combined demonstrate the fact that we can see through time and space."

But it is assumption based on the unprovable theory that out of nothing came a big bang. As I said, this creation even in its fallen state is so precise as to have needed an Intelligent Designer to ensure its workings even right down to the smallest molecule. Indeed it still needs that same Supernatural Being, God, to sustain it.

" Wow. That is an amazing example of ignorance, I can't believe you actually think that. I think if you sent that post to whatever school you attended you should be entitled to some kind of compensation.
Ok, pay attention, I'll give you a lesson on Geology 101: The rock cycle is the processes by which rocks are formed, eroded and formed again. It's like the water cycle and like our knowledge of the water cycle can be used to predict the weather our knowledge of the rock cycle can be used to predict earthquakes, eruptions etc. (thus demonstrating the accuracy of of our understanding). There are roughly three ways that rocks are formed we call these rocks: igneous (rock from volcanoes), metamorphic (rocks that have changed through heat and/or pressure) and sedimentary (eroded components reformed into new rock through pressure). Sedimentary rock is the most common on the Earth's surface, as I said it's formed when older rocks are eroded, the eroded material has to go somewhere through wind, rain and water: forming a layer of sand or dirt, organisms live and die in/on this layer. Erosion constantly happens, more eroded material covers the dead organisms, the pressure builds as new layers of sediment builds: causing the sediment to become sedimentary rock underneath looser sediment, encasing fossils in rock. Erosion happens at a fixed rate and therefore can be measured which is then confirmed by measuring the rate at which carbon decays (which also happens at a fixed rate), so time can be calculated from this process by digging deeper and deeper, exactly and precisely the same as the rings found in trees. We've mapped out these layers over the last 150 years and we've discovered that the different layers consistently hold different organisms: for instance we never find dinosaurs in newer layers and we never find humans in older layers, this is uniform throughout the Earth. "

And what you have just written is what transpired during the flood. What you do find is that the supposed older layers are sometimes sitting on younger layers. But, as I said before, if this column actually existed on the planet in just one single example, it would reach double figures in miles up into the sky. So, it is no more than a figment of the imagination to try to prove evolution into the minds of children especially so that God can be wiped from their minds forever.

" As you accept the rings would be in trees as you believe the Earth was made "mature" then you have to also accept that the Earth was made with the same "mature" layers, our DNA was made with the same "mature" layers and the Universe as a whole was made with the same "mature" layers. They're all equally demonstrable, empirically verifiable components of observable reality. It would be insane to accept the layers in the trees, but not the layers in the Earth, or the layers in our DNA. They're the same indication of "mature" existence. "

That would be fine were the earth before the flood exactly the same as it is now. But vast amounts of water as well as earthquakes worked this world into a completely different shape to what it was then. The dead and the dying during that time would not necessarily have accumulated together owing to the composition of their bodies at the time of death and the buoyancy after. So yes, we will find layers for different types as ascertained by the different pressures that would have applied in different areas. The thing is that out of all the fossils there is not one, not one, transitional to prove evolution.

" That is a false conspiracy theory invented by tabloids and cheap newspapers trying to make a quick buck. All fossils are transitional, all organisms are constantly changing, this is demonstrated by the fact that your children are biologically different to you, just as your parents were biologically different to you. Over thousands of generations these small changes aggregate into massive changes: As demonstrated by the fossil record and then confirmed by the records left in our DNA and the DNA of all life."

As DNA is a code made by God to determine that life goes on, what we find is that by the fall, degeneration has come into play. So, we expect genetic adaptions but the highest percentage of these is scientifically proved to be detrimental, not advantageous, to life. The Laws of Thermodynamics prove this. Evolution is supposed to advance man but these Laws say different as does God. Hence the rise of disease and disaster. Until man turns back to God this process will continue and not only continue but get worse until Jesus Christ returns to finalise what is at the moment creation.

" you were born in a country that the gospel could be heard.do you thing if you were born in contry like north korea you would be christian?
so according to you everyone who isnt christian will go to hell. i wish then your children turn atheists when they grow up. then we will see how easily you will be able to tell crap like "everyone how isnt christian will go to hell" "Lovely words but alas rather naive" better naive rather psycopath."

clone,

Right now Bibles are being smuggled into North Korea, why? Because there are believers in that country. Man might try to eliminate many things but when Jesus Christ is in the heart, nothing on earth can suppress that. All across this world men are trying just that and that applies to my country as well when it comes to Christianity. As Paul says, there isn't a man on the planet that does not know of God if only by creation alone, so he has no excuse when it comes to seeking Him or not. The choice between heaven and hell has been around since the very beginning so there is no argument about it.

[clone]

so you believe that people already know god inside them but for some reason they reject him. haha you are delusional.
personally i cant remember what i ate yesterday not my "creation" as you say"

basics=Right now Bibles are being smuggled into North Korea, why?Because there are believers in that country.

right now porn or episodes of game of thrones are also being smuggled into north korea,so?
plus when someone becames a christian,a believer he doesnt do this because suddenly he believes in god that he knew from start deep in him rather because that specific religion fullfilles some needs or came on the right times. if the protectors of south korea wasnt usa (and west in general) rather was soudi arabia and muslim misionaries reached them first and not christians,do you thing that the rates of christians would have increased so much south korea?

[Himster]

Theoretically that is quite correct and no-one is arguing against that especially from today's perspective. But we are talking of 6,000 years ago when out of nothing God spoke us into being. Everything was made of an age so that the planet could produce all that was necessary for life and so it was. What it meant on the sixth day when God made Adam was that had Adam been able to see through the water mantle which made the firmament above, he would have seen the light of the sun and stars because they would in effect have been only two days away in their dispersion across the galaxy.

Ok, I think we've found what you're not understanding: It is impossible for matter to travel faster than the speed of light. Meaning if all the stars and galaxies (ie. the vast majority of existence) could not have moved from being two-light-days from Earth to billions of light years away in 6000 years. If your God made the Universe 6000 years ago, he had to have made the stars billions of lightyears away (to deliberately trick scientists for some reason) and he would have had to have made all of the photons from these celestial bodies already in transit. It is a rather convoluted creation story that doesn't really make sense, but hey, that's religion for you.

That's the theory if creation came about by chance but that's not how things came about.

I'm afraid not. That is a demonstrable fact, it can be proven by measuring the constant and unalterable speed of light, which is something any child can do with relatively simple equipment. There is no chance, it is materialistic determinism.

But they are there now because we can see them as your argument goes. The problem you have is that you assume that they are billions of years of age and therefore must be reconciled as being the answer that God couldn't have created all things in the six days He said He did. Once God had placed them in situ, light years away, doesn't detract from the fact according to Him that by today's time they are little older than six thousand odd years of age but made to look much older.

We can see them, but we can prove that what we see is an illusion, because the speed of light is finite and measurable. There is no assumption, it is a deduction, the starting point is that we know and can prove the speed of light, we know and can prove the distance of stars. From these two verifiable and re-testable phenomenon we can accurately calculate the distance of observable objects and at what point in time what we see actually happened.

No-one's arguing against that at all.

You certainly seem to be trying to argue against that.

For sure I could if I didn't believe God.

If you believe the observable indicators of time existed at the moment of creation (ie. the rings in trees) then you also have to believe in the other observable indicators of time the finite speed of light, the background radiation from the Big Bang etc. To believe one and not the others is hypocritical.

Put it this way, if you and I stood together at one spot on the planet, both aged the same, and then you moved away to the exact opposite spot on the same planet, would you have aged more than me? Of course you wouldn't and you wouldn't have aged any more had you gone to the moon, sun or any stars, assuming you could stay alive that long. You would still be the same age as me. Because God took these things and placed them at points in the void of space didn't and doesn't make them any older than the age they would be according to the same calendar.

This is getting into a more complicated field of general relativity of time. Time literally does move differently according to momentum and/or gravity. It is far more complicated that the relatively simple finite speed of light.
Let's keep it simple. This is how we were able to go to Mars: light has a finite speed, like sound. I'm sure you've seen an airplane take off and after a little while you hear the sound of that take-off. Well light moves faster than sound, but it's still finite. As you "saw" the plane take-off the plane was already in the air (assuming you were a sufficient distance away), that doesn't necessarily mean time was moving at a different rate for the people on the plane: it means it took a split second for the photons being reflected off the plane to reach your eyes. On the Earth we hardly notice that light has a finite speed. But gong to Mars, there was a full 3 minute delay, when something happened to the mission it took a full 3 minutes for the light to reach Earth, or 13 minutes for radio signals. But Mars is so close to us, in the context of the Milkyway, our entire solar system is barely even a pixel and that's just our galaxy, there are billions of Galaxies, many far larger than ours. We measured that Mars is 3 light-minutes away, just as we can measure stars that are 13 billions light years away and were therefore there 13 billion years ago, we have landed man-made objects on Mars proving that our measurements are incredibly accurate, proving yet again without any shadow of a doubt that we can see 13 billion years into the past.

Well, since most of the writers that I have read quote scientists of the evolutionary bent, these quotes being their own misgivings about many different aspects of the theory that just don't add up, like Darwin's no transitionals confirmed by Gould and Paterson. Look at it another way why would a scientist go on Youtube with his or her specific evidence refuting evolution on many levels? The reason? Because the establishment has ring-fenced evolution as being factual whether anyone disagrees with it or not. Now I don't know if you have read any of their books and there are many hundreds of them, but these are based on their own investigations, their research, that makes them speak out. Perhaps you should look at the list of scientists to see if they qualify as being the numpties you are making out.

The scientific "establishment" operates on the basis of peer-reviewed scientific evidence. If your so called scientists could meet the minimal requirements of science, then hey presto creationism becomes the established theory. This kind of "science" has consistently failed to live up to the minimal requirements for the last 150 years. It has dug it's own grave as a conspiracy theorist fringe group.

But it is assumption based on the unprovable theory that out of nothing came a big bang.

That is not part of the Big Bang theory.
We can observe matter in the Universe is moving away from eachother at particular speeds, we can measure these speeds and calculate when matter was likely concentrated into one point. The number we consistently get is 13.7 billions years ago. This is confirmed again by background radiation, again confirming the 13.7 billion year calculation, we can measure the most distant celestial objects, again confirming 13.7 billion years.

As I said, this creation even in its fallen state is so precise as to have needed an Intelligent Designer to ensure its workings even right down to the smallest molecule. Indeed it still needs that same Supernatural Being, God, to sustain it.

I disagree as to its necessity, but that's fine. I can agree that it is a valid hypotheses, as any other. It's still not incompatible with the big bang theory or evolution.

But, as I said before, if this column actually existed on the planet in just one single example, it would reach double figures in miles up into the sky.

No, no it wouldn't. The geological column isn't made of material from space (well some of it is obviously from space), but practically all of the rocks we see today are simple the recycled components of older rocks, there's no stacking of new material, the Earth's mass stays the same. We can observe the rock cycle, make useful predictions and confirm findings through molecular analysis, radio-carbon dating.

So, it is no more than a figment of the imagination to try to prove evolution into the minds of children especially so that God can be wiped from their minds forever.

Actually it happened the other way around. Geological time was well known long before Darwin. In fact that's what Darwin's main interest was, when he traveled on the Beagle and in the Andes.

That would be fine were the earth before the flood exactly the same as it is now. But vast amounts of water as well as earthquakes worked this world into a completely different shape to what it was then. The dead and the dying during that time would not necessarily have accumulated together owing to the composition of their bodies at the time of death and the buoyancy after. So yes, we will find layers for different types as ascertained by the different pressures that would have applied in different areas. The thing is that out of all the fossils there is not one, not one, transitional to prove evolution.

For water to have shaped the Grand-canyon into it's shape in the time you assume, the water would have to have traveled faster than the speed of sound consistently for 300 years without stopping, and then the Grand canyon would be a straight line. This us not what we find, what we find is slow erosion, slow sediment build-up, slow tectonic shift. We never find T-Rexs outside the cretaceous layer, we never find humans in the cretaceous layer. All fossils are deomstrably transitional, all organisms are constantly changing as confirmed by the discovery of DNA: DNA was the final nail in the coffin of young-earth creationism. The debate is over: science won. Decades ago.

As DNA is a code made by God to determine that life goes on, what we find is that by the fall, degeneration has come into play. So, we expect genetic adaptions but the highest percentage of these is scientifically proved to be detrimental, not advantageous, to life.

As predicted. Natural selection selects for the best adapted.

The Laws of Thermodynamics prove this.

If you want to misappropriate an irrelevant law. The second law of thermodynamics applies to closed systems. A species is not a closed system, energy and information comes from the sun, the environment, competing species etc. etc.
However a conservation of energy does apply: the simplest form will thrive, the more efficient species will out-perform the less efficient.

Evolution is supposed to advance man but these Laws say different.

No they don't.
Creationist pseudo-scientists like to pretend they do, because it's easier to sell books on pseudo-science to the gullible rather than do actual research and go through the trouble of publishing in a peer reviewed journal for unrestrained-objective-criticism by experts.

Still, my point stands: You believe that time began 6000 years ago with the Universe "made" mature, with rings already in trees, that's no different from accepting the finite speed of light,Evolution and the Big Bang.

[basics]

so you believe that people already know god inside them but for some reason they reject him. haha you are delusional.
personally i cant remember what i ate yesterday not my "creation" as you say"

basics=Right now Bibles are being smuggled into North Korea, why?Because there are believers in that country.

right now porn or episodes of game of thrones are also being smuggled into north korea,so?
plus when someone becames a christian,a believer he doesnt do this because suddenly he believes in god that he knew from start deep in him rather because that specific religion fullfilles some needs or came on the right times. if the protectors of south korea wasnt usa (and west in general) rather was soudi arabia and muslim misionaries reached them first and not christians,do you thing that the rates of christians would have increased so much south korea?

clone,

Well, Paul tells us in Romans that that is the case. That each person has the built in knowledge of Him just by all that surrounds them which they have turned into objects of worship. All that is part of human history and North Korea is just a continuation of it by elevating its leader to the status of a god. How that is rectified is by the Gospel of Jesus Christ which is reaching some in that country.

[conon394]

As DNA is a code made by God to determine that life goes on, what we find is that by the fall, degeneration has come into play. So, we expect genetic adaptions but the highest percentage of these is scientifically proved to be detrimental, not advantageous, to life. The Laws of Thermodynamics prove this. Evolution is supposed to advance man but these Laws say different as does God. Hence the rise of disease and disaster. Until man turns back to God this process will continue and not only continue but get worse until Jesus Christ returns to finalise what is at the moment creation.

Umm raises hand - how and why are you applying Thermodynamics to DNA?

" So, we expect genetic adaptions but the highest percentage of these is scientifically proved to be detrimental, not advantageous, to life"

You need to clarifly that do mean random mutation or what? Why would you think random mutations to be in aggregate advantageous?

"Evolution is supposed to advance man"

According to who, how and how do you mean 'Advance'

"Hence the rise of disease and disaster"

Pretty much par for the course as far as the evidence exists.