Am I a fence sitter for being Agnostic?

[Cope]

The one truly remarkable thing about Christianity is how few of them believe in your interpretation of the Young Earth Theory. I think Christians should be commended more for their acceptance of and contributions to science and I'm sure all of us here are glad that your Young Earth Theory is dying out. Three cheers for progress.

It isn't remarkable that Christians should recognise metaphorical imagery in their own Holy text. The only "truly remarkable" thing is that despite his comical scientific illiteracy, basics is still fundamentally correct and you are not.

[basics]

Himster,

There is nothing remarkable in believing that God is so powerful to have created all things in just six days as He has had written. OK, it has to be said that there is only so much science in His description of how it all came about but there is enough to glean out more than enough to see that He wants our faith over anything else that He did do it. Of course as everything was not only up and running but the finished article as well any instrument is going to give the readings they do making for a lot of incorrect assumptions by the scientific community but not all.

As I have said when God created all things these things were in those hours much closer together meaning that the most important opposition to Him being the speed of light, that light in the sun, moon and stars was never put out so that when stretched out to their positions speed was not relevent then. We know that the moon for example is moving away from the earth but if the universe were billions of years old for sure the earth and moon would have collided or even been the one planet broken in two as some assert. So if that were the case why is the moon dead of water, oxygen, plantlife and any other attributes that are here on earth? I could go on and on but what's the point as most people are now educated to believe that there is no God. If science placed its energy on feeding the world's population rather than spending vast amounts feeding lies into it, wouldn't it be a better place?

[Himster]

Of course as everything was not only up and running but the finished article as well any instrument is going to give the readings they do making for a lot of incorrect assumptions by the scientific community but not all.

"Incorrect assumptions"?
If God directly created the universe then we find there his direct will, in the universe we see it revealed that the universe is 14.3 billion years old, this is the direct word of God. God did not create his holy books, they were written by men and are subject to infinite misinterpretation, the 6000 year old universe is not the direct word of God, it is the words of men.

As I have said when God created all things these things were in those hours much closer together meaning that the most important opposition to Him being the speed of light, that light in the sun, moon and stars was never put out so that when stretched out to their positions speed was not relevent then.

The speed of light is always relevant. If something is ten billion light years away, then the light that we see is ten billion years old. We do not see that object as it is, we see what it looked like ten billion years ago. We don't need faith to know the age of the universe because we can literally see into the past (as distant things are seen as they were long ago) a fact that is demonstrable because the speed of light is demonstrable.

Things being closer, or whatever is irrelevant, well not irrelevant, as this fact demonstrates the age of the Universe.

We know that the moon for example is moving away from the earth but if the universe were billions of years old for sure the earth and moon would have collided or even been the one planet broken in two as some assert. So if that were the case why is the moon dead of water, oxygen, plantlife and any other attributes that are here on earth?

A planet called Theia collided with the earth and the ensuing debris formed the moon. We have deduced this by careful observation of rocks found on the moon compared to rocks found here. Significant atmospheres don't last long on celestial bodies the size of the moon, especially ones without a molten core because there's no magnetic field for protection, solar winds just blow them away. Without an atmosphere there can be no water.

I could go on and on but what's the point as most people are now educated to believe that there is no God. If science placed its energy on feeding the world's population rather than spending vast amounts feeding lies into it, wouldn't it be a better place?

Science does feed the world, the more we understand about the universe and the more we reject the hamstringing effects of superstition the more effectively are people's lives improved.
Also we are educated to believe in God. Most education systems include a religious syllabus. The majority of the world is religious.
Just because science and the observable universe is incompatible with your particularly obscure religious view does not mean that science and the observable universe is incompatible with the notion of God or religion in general.

[basics]

Himster,

OK, if I took a litup xmas tree from in front of you and did not switch the lights off and proceed to walk away from you no matter how far I could get that light would still be the same uninterrupted light not aging in any way, why? Because it was never switched off. Just so with all the stars that God spread out over the galaxy because the light was never switched off. That was the direct will of God. He says that He made them to illuminate the earth, the planet that was supposed to be the centrepiece of all creation.

It's amusing that you say that the Bible was devised by men and so cannot be the word of God yet a few lines down you claim a planet called Theia collided with the earth thus forming the moon so what words are these of? As far as the Bible is concerned the writings were records of men experiencing God in their lives but where is the experience of anyone associated to this collision to make our moon?

Unfortunately science contributes to the ripping off of nations making them unable to feed their populations properly.

The problem with the observable universe is that science sees it from looking back as it might have been had their theory of evolution been correct. Looking forward as many scientists are now doing draws a different picture to them and why many have turned to God as the real answer. Their objections can be readily seen on Youtube and from all I've seen and read are scientifically sound.

[Sogdog]

"Himster,


Because He made all things up and running in a matured fashion"

So why do we need vaccines?
Why do christian kids need to be circumcised?
Why are some kids born deformed?

I could go on but you get my meaning. I call rubbish on your statement basics.

[Himster]

OK, if I took a litup xmas tree from in front of you and did not switch the lights off and proceed to walk away from you no matter how far I could get that light would still be the same uninterrupted light not aging in any way, why? Because it was never switched off. Just so with all the stars that God spread out over the galaxy because the light was never switched off. That was the direct will of God. He says that He made them to illuminate the earth, the planet that was supposed to be the centrepiece of all creation.

That's not how light works. If you were to shine a light onto the moon for example, it takes 1.26 seconds to get there because light takes time to travel. When you look at the moon, you are literally looking into the past. 1.26 seconds into the past, to be precise. For Mars it takes 12 minutes or 14 minutes sometimes, hence the delay and difficulty in controlling the robots there directly. For Objects that are a thousand lightyears away, it takes a thousand years for its light to reach us. We have no idea what is happening to that object right now, we can only see what was happening there when Cnut the Great was king of England. When we see something a million light years away we are looking at what it looked like a million years ago.

You often say, that we can't speak of what happened millions of years ago because we were not there. I'm sorry, but we are there, we can see billions of years into the past by looking at the stars.

It's amusing that you say that the Bible was devised by men and so cannot be the word of God yet a few lines down you claim a planet called Theia collided with the earth thus forming the moon so what words are these of?

If God created the world, then that rogue planet crashing into the earth to form the moon is literally the word of God. Those words were carved in to the rock of our planet, to be read and deciphered by the scientific method.

As far as the Bible is concerned the writings were records of men experiencing God in their lives but where is the experience of anyone associated to this collision to make our moon?

If God created the Universe, then science reveals his direct word. Books can only be, by necessity, indirect and therefore inferior.

The problem with the observable universe is that science sees it from looking back as it might have been had their theory of evolution been correct. Looking forward as many scientists are now doing draws a different picture to them and why many have turned to God as the real answer. Their objections can be readily seen on Youtube and from all I've seen and read are scientifically sound.

Every generation sees fewer and fewer scientists turning to God and religion. Quite the reverse of what you have just said.

[basics]

Himster,

That is true because the light I shine was brohen to begin with but when God made the stars they were lit and much closer to us He then spread them across the galaxies which in their movement never stopped shining. It never switched off meaning that light was always seen no matter how far away it got.

What proof is there that there ever was a rogue planet that collided with the earth millions of years ago which timeframe covers up any evidence for that? The thing is that science onl can imagine what happened, not what really happened. Just watched a youtube of Spike Psarris explaining why it never happened using scientist's remarks on your side. They admit that they just don't know unlike you.

God gave Moses the task of putting into writing the why's and how's of creation so that a disobedient people might know the mighty works of God and so since scientists of a certain bent might disagree with what has been written there are many who do agree. Oh they might well be in the ascendancy but surely history tells you that that has been the case with almost every discovery, the discoverer being alone in his assertions. It is written that the one world system will try to eradicate Christianity as is already being seen in our schools so it's all going to plan just as God predicted.

[Himster]

That is true because the light I shine was brohen to begin with but when God made the stars they were lit and much closer to us He then spread them across the galaxies which in their movement never stopped shining. It never switched off meaning that light was always seen no matter how far away it got.

They were closer. But closer is still billions of light years away and if something "is" billions of lightyears away it takes billions of year for the light to get here.

What proof is there that there ever was a rogue planet that collided with the earth millions of years ago which timeframe covers up any evidence for that?

It's because of the strange materials the moon is made of and an analysis made in 2016 demonstrating the link that is otherwise unexplainable. The other proof is the size of Earth's molten core, which by the laws of thermodynamics should have cooled and shrunk eons ago, a large impact is required to explains its continued size.

The thing is that science onl can imagine what happened, not what really happened. Just watched a youtube of Spike Psarris explaining why it never happened using scientist's remarks on your side. They admit that they just don't know unlike you.

It depends on one's definition of knowledge and truth of course and the scale of one's analysis. The universe can always be an illusion and therefore true knowledge is necessarily impossible.

]God gave Moses the task of putting into writing the why's and how's of creation so that a disobedient people might know the mighty works of God and so since scientists of a certain bent might disagree with what has been written there are many who do agree. Oh they might well be in the ascendancy but surely history tells you that that has been the case with almost every discovery, the discoverer being alone in his assertions. It is written that the one world system will try to eradicate Christianity as is already being seen in our schools so it's all going to plan just as God predicted.

Moses interpreted visions and afterwards transcriptions followed transcriptions, each copy leading to new imperfections, stained by the fallen state of each generation, accumulating to the mess of Abrahamic religions we have today. The indirect word of God at best. On the other hand we have the direct word of the creator God written in the stone of the earth and the fire of the sky, in his own hand. The fact that anti-scientists, like Psarris, exist is evidence of nothing.

[basics]

They were closer. But closer is still billions of light years away and if something "is" billions of lightyears away it takes billions of year for the light to get here.

It's because of the strange materials the moon is made of and an analysis made in 2016 demonstrating the link that is otherwise unexplainable. The other proof is the size of Earth's molten core, which by the laws of thermodynamics should have cooled and shrunk eons ago, a large impact is required to explains its continued size.

It depends on one's definition of knowledge and truth of course and the scale of one's analysis. The universe can always be an illusion and therefore true knowledge is necessarily impossible.

Himster,

Only if the light is switched off and on again otherwise it remains a continuous stream.

If the earth's molten core should have dried up eons ago that only proves that the earth is not as old as you are making out and as God has told us.

The universe is not an illusion so what remains is that scientists have no backup when guessing these things and passing them on to our children as if they were fact. Oh and by the way, every scientific law had to be in place before anything happened or happens in our galaxies that's the dilemma that many on your side have had to face up to because we just cannot have an Intellegent Designer.

Where is Psarris ant-science?

Moses interpreted visions and afterwards transcriptions followed transcriptions, each copy leading to new imperfections, stained by the fallen state of each generation, accumulating to the mess of Abrahamic religions we have today. The indirect word of God at best. On the other hand we have the direct word of the creator God written in the stone of the earth and the fire of the sky, in his own hand. The fact that anti-scientists, like Psarris, exist is evidence of nothing.

[Himster]

Only if the light is switched off and on again otherwise it remains a continuous stream.

That makes no sense. There is absolutely no way for light to be turned off in the manner you are suggesting. The continuous stream of light from distant objects takes billions of years to reach us. We can see billions of light years away and therefore we can demonstrably see billions of years into the past.

If the earth's molten core should have dried up eons ago that only proves that the earth is not as old as you are making out and as God has told us.

Well, no. We can demonstrate that carbon decays at a steady rate. We can calculate the age of an object by looking at how decayed the carbon is. (It is accurate and reliable enough to be used to convict criminals of various crimes.) We can further confirm this by dating uranium to be absolutely sure. Which is further confirmed by comparing rock samples from the moon and is confirmed further, yet again, by observing how other celestial bodies coalesce and form elsewhere in the universe. Meaning that a veritable mountain of objectively and independently verified facts from the separate disciplines of; physics, cosmology and chemistry exists. All of which combine with one conclusion: The Earth is 4.54 billion years old.

The universe is not an illusion so what remains is that scientists have no backup when guessing these things and passing them on to our children as if they were fact.

Careful empirical observation without bias is the best and most reliable measure of what constitutes fact.

Oh and by the way, every scientific law had to be in place before anything happened or happens in our galaxies that's the dilemma that many on your side have had to face up to because we just cannot have an Intellegent Designer.

Of course we can have an intelligent designer, it's perfectly compatible with science. Around a third of scientists accept something like a creator deity. As opposed to the 0.1% who believe in the Young Earth Creationist idea like you do.
If God made the universe, then science is the most reliable source of his direct word, meaning that the direct word of God has objectively stated that the universe is 13.8 billion years old. Who are you to disagree with the direct word of God? Is Moses' interpretation of a dream more reliable than God's own direct word manifested in his precise design?

[basics]

Himster,

God gave Moses to write down how we got here and why, so what Moses wrote are the words of God. In six days He created them, the heavens and the earth and on the seventh day he rested saying all was good. Jesus said, " before Moses was I AM," and being God it followed that He, Jesus, backed up what Moses put on parchment. This was the God/man who parted the Red Sea, parted the Jordan, calmed storms and walked on water never mind raising the dead so why would He need billions of years to create at all? As He said to Job, " Were you there when I spread the stars across the heavens?" They already were shining light and for some six thousand years have continued to do that so science has missed out somewhere along the lines about the sheer power of Almighty God.

During creation week we see that God separated the waters from the waters creating a firmament above and around the planet, why? Because the sun, moon and stars were closer to us at that point of creation and so the firmament above protected the earth before He spread them out. Now that's good science for you. That firmament was to play another role when He brought the great flood associated with Noah which would cover the whole earth and change its figure for all time. So my friend if scientists do believe in a grand Designer why do they put their science before His?

[Himster]

God gave Moses to write down how we got here and why, so what Moses wrote are the words of God.

Perhaps. But it must also be noted that those words were transcribed, copied and mistranslated (sometimes corrected, but not always) through the millennia. While the universe, being the creation of God, is replete with the direct word of God. In terms of reliability of information: one is superior.

why would He need billions of years to create at all?

I'm not saying he needed to. But if God created this universe, then that's exactly what he did, as can be demonstrated directly from his creation.

As He said to Job, " Were you there when I spread the stars across the heavens?"

The answer is yes. The greater the distance, the further back in time we can see. So, even right now we are in a time when we can see what happened billions of years ago.

So my friend if scientists do believe in a grand Designer why do they put their science before His?

Because the ancient writings of men are of inferior utility to what can be demonstrated. If God created the universe, then we can demonstrate how he did that, writings from the distant past (subject to mistranslations and limitations of human language as such things necessarily are) are secondary in terms of reliability.

[basics]

Himster,

So on day seven everything was in place and said to be good meaning that the stars were in place where God meant them to be, appearing as everything else up and running and mature.

[Himster]

Himster,

So on day seven everything was in place and said to be good meaning that the stars were in place where God meant them to be, appearing as everything else up and running and mature.

And by "mature" you can only mean already 13 billion years old.
If God created the universe, then studying his creation is studying his word and his word has demonstrated that the universe is 13 billion years old.

[basics]

And by "mature" you can only mean already 13 billion years old.
If God created the universe, then studying his creation is studying his word and his word has demonstrated that the universe is 13 billion years old.

Himster,

Yes, appearing to be that old but not being that old at all. No, not at all because His word says that the earth is only around 6.500 years old and that backed up only two thousand odd years ago when the Word came to this planet as a human. John, who idolised Him tells us that, " There was nothing made that was made but by Him." meaning He was the Creator of everything and notice that when He had finished creation all was mature or up and running. There was no " hang on" with this God at all. He can speak things into being and they will be so the speed of light was not important to His commands. Notice that the opposition began with, " God doesn't really mean what He says..." and so that has been the banner call ever since, man thinking they know as much or better than God. We have proof they say but thinking themselves wise they have become fools as Paul writes to the Romans and today is no different. Nothing is impossible with God.