On the subject of Hell and Salvation

[MilesAbbott81]

Fair enough, I'm asking for proof now, do you have any to support your original claim that dinosaurs lived a few thousand years ago ?

Do you really believe that the finds of soft tissues support your case,  no one doing the research into this has has revised the age that Dinosaurs lived in, why are you ?  Even Mary Schweitzer a devout christian and leader in this research is disgusted by the way that YEC's have used this information.

Meanwhile, Schweitzer’s research has been hijacked by “young earth” creationists, who insist that dinosaur soft tissue couldn’t possibly survive millions of years. They claim her discoveries support their belief, based on their interpretation of Genesis, that the earth is only a few thousand years old. Of course, it’s not unusual for a palaeontologist to differ with creationists. But when creationists misrepresent Schweitzer’s data, she takes it personally: she describes herself as “a complete and total Christian.”

What makes you think I care what Schweitzer claims or thinks? She has no definitive explanation, either.

Leviathan
(in biblical use) a sea monster, identified in different passages with the whale and the crocodile (e.g. Job 41, Ps. 74:14), and with the Devil (after Isa. 27:1).

Behemoth
an animal, perhaps the hippopotamus, mentioned in Job 40:15–24.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/behemoth

Not dinosaur like at all, where are you getting your descriptions from ?

I'm getting my descriptions from the Bible, not dictionary.com.

Correct, my bad they are described like everyday animals we recognise today.

Not necessarily. Besides, I never said these were definitely referring to dinosaurs, just that they could be. Perhaps you should read the descriptions in the Bible.

The belief in huge creatures that inhabited the deep was widespread throughout the ancient world. In the Old Testament there are several allusions to a primordial combat between God and a monstrous adversary variously named Leviathan or Rahab. Although the references to Leviathan usually indicate a dragon-like creature, the name has also been used to denote a sea monster in general
https://www.britannica.com/topic/sea-serpent#ref280397

Psalm 74:14

Again, you're just speaking ignorantly here. The Scripture referenced here has nothing to do with some silly mythical sea-battle. It's once again a metaphorical reference, this time to the destruction of Pharoah in the Red Sea in the book of Exodus.

Then why have them at all ? what are they a metaphor for exactly, they are ridiculous creatures. Why not just speak plainly, you are after claiming a god inspired the writers, why all the nonsense. ?

Is this supposed to be an argument? Complaining about something you have absolutely no understanding of?

Well the bible quotes them, is that reliable enough ?
Won't your god give at least one of you wisdom to interpret it ?  

No, certain translations translate certain words in certain ways. The Hebrew word was obviously not referring to unicorns, it was simply translated that way because someone chose to translate it that way. God gives understanding for these things when and where needed, and He also gives faultfinders such as yourself plenty of rope with which to hang themselves.

Well I would start with accredited scientific institutions, and then the scientific consensus perhaps, To say that a person must be an expert in a particular field to see who university's and accredited scientific institutions listen to is silly.
I actually work in aerodynamics, and work for a major sports car company designing Formula race cars.

As I wrote before:

You say idiotic things like "look at the consensus of all of these smart people." It's really a consensus of people with the same agenda, who are not only fully invested intellectually in their theories and thus ensnared by their pride (which won't allow them to admit they're wrong), but often they are also financially invested in their theories because they receive funding for research based upon them.

-----

Why should I trust "accredited scientific institutions" when I have evidence (I cited Climategate as just one example) that men from such institutions are untrustworthy?

Hang on you believe that a society that is dedicated (by it's own admission) to deny scientific knowledge, no matter the source or the expertise or credibility of its proposers, if it disagrees with the bible as a reliable source.

Show me those considered the leaders in their fields in the scientific community who work there perhaps, have you any names and their work ?

Again, who are you to determine that they're not leaders or at the very least credible? Who's to say those claiming to be leaders are? You take these people at their word, on faith? Not very wise, at least if you're going to out of hand dismiss everything from men who have the same kinds of degrees from the same institutions. 

I agree, and this does not give you pause for thought ?

No. In fact, it makes me wonder why men with doctorates from prestigious institutions are so readily dismissed while others are listened to unquestioningly. And this from people who the vast majority of the time know next to nothing of the discipline in question, such as yourself. This is why I ask you and basically everyone else here why you think you're qualified to judge the veracity of your side's claims while dismissing out of hand the other side. It's actually totally ridiculous that you do so.

Well as i say, I would have to look at any particular claim and test it against the claims of other scientists and accredited university studies perhaps, then at least I could get an idea.

Very true, and exactly my point. If you haven't done so yet, then how are you currently qualified to judge anything at all? How are any of you?

What's humble about accepting something that you know you cannot give consideration because of your pre conceived beliefs, you tak as though that should be a credit to them.

Why, creationism ( I mean Y.E.C in this case) really does seem to be nonsense, there are so many ways it fails and why so many do not believe it. what makes you assert it's the word of a god, wouldn't a divinely inspired account of the earth fit in with what we find ?
There really is no reason at all why the findings of science and a truth declared by god would be any different in a world that god created.

Sounds to me like we've well established that you have no business calling anything about YEC nonsense until you're qualified to judge the science for yourself, which by your own admission you're not.

You might say the same thing of me. How am I qualified? I'm not qualified, either, at least to judge the science itself. I believe the Word of God. The difference between us is that you put your faith in men, who are corrupt. I put my faith in the righteous and perfect Almighty God.

And really, many of the scientific arguments I cite as proof, such as the astronomical implausibility of evolution, aren't even contradicted by your side. But if there IS a contradiction, it virtually always boils down to who you're going to believe.

Of course, that's for the scientific arguments. Logical arguments are a different story altogether.

Actually no, finding 'hanging flesh' and 'tissues' are very different things, one is on the outside of the body the other found in the inside of the bones and in very rare cases, hopefully more will be found to allow us to increase our knowledge of the past.  As already noted even the scientists finding this have not revised their age that dinosaurs lived in as a result of this.

I never said "hanging flesh." I said "attached." So I was a bit incorrect, who cares? You're splitting hairs and ignoring the point I was making, which is that no one knows how the tissues have survived. The ages not being revised merely means they're choosing to ignore the problem, from what I can tell. Can you prove otherwise?

I see your 'Peace which passeth all understanding'' is a bit shaky here, lets try and help each other out a bit and go back to your original claim and see if I'm correct, how's that sound?  Let's see if we can clear this up instead of getting all upset.

I understood you claimed that Yahweh or your god is the earliest god mentioned in archaeology,  that in your claim is that all other gods come after (in archaeological finds) , is this in fact correct ?

If not then please correct me.

You still changed your argument, regardless of what I said. You made an assertion, then claimed you were saying assertions shouldn't be made concerning the thing you originally asserted.

I'm not doing the work for you on this one. Find it yourself.

---

How do you know this ? Why do you assume it was created ?

1. According to natural laws, existence is impossible.
2. We exist.
3. Therefore, the source of existence is supernatural (God).