Y'all check out this wonderful article on skin color differences between humans:

https://creation.com/skin-deep

I have problem with the question itself. You see, there's only one race: the human race. But the ungodly teachings of evolution has ingrained in us the belief that the human family may be divided along lines of "races". People are even taught to believe that probably one group of people are further advanced along the evolutionary line than the other groups. Tell me how things like slavery and racism will not be encouraged when these things are being taught? Really, every human being is the same! The only thing you see are differences in phenotypical expressions.

So, I believe you should only probably wonder at the differences in appearances among individuals. Well, Adam had enough potential within him for variation among his offspring.

Use various keywords to search creation.com and check out the answers of well qualified scientists to these and similar questions

JeromeBlack:


That is concrete bullshite. From what evidence/research/logic is that based on?

Read the third paragraph of this Hawking's lecture: http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

JeromeBlack:



The only way to test how good their arguments are is to put them up for debate.

It is easy to talk in an echo chamber. Let them face hardened atheists with their arguments first

They constantly respond to questions and counterarguments from atheists all over the whole world. Check them out. Maybe you can send them your hardened atheist questions, and they'll respond to it.

JeromeBlack:



Scientists can be wrong. And that is the opinion of one scientist.

who is this?

That is actually the opinion of many scientists, including Vilenkin and Hawking. Mind you, they're not Christians.

I would like to ask the Scientist what a state of maximum disorder looks like in a universe. By his very own argument, the big bang too should have resulted in a maximum state of disorder. Why would 2 big bangs be more disorderly than one big bang?

what do you think a state of maximum disorder means? It doesn't mean scatteredness, as in disordeliness. It means a state in which there is no more usable energy. The temperature of everywhere in the universe would be the same. No work can done in such a state because no energy is available for it.

UyiIredia:


creation.com Good site. Don't agree with the Christian stuff there as a deist but makes a good case for creation.

IKR. Any open-minded person will find it very hard to resist their arguments for creation and for the Bible. They're good.

UyiIredia:


I can't repeat this enough: an eternal cause must be unchangable.

Do you know how stupid the cyclic universe sounds: Precisely how does something that is created and destroyed be eternal?

he doesn't know. An author, writing about physicists' opinion on the beginning of the universe, put it this way:

"And Vilenkin said that while cyclic universes have an “irresistible poetic charm and bring to mind the Phoenix” (quoting the late Belgian astronomer and priest Georges Lemaître), the model was hopelessly wrong in its predictions of the universe’s level of order today. If there had indeed already been an infinite number of cycles, the universe today should be in a state of maximum disorder. As the New Scientist article pointed out:

“Such a universe would be uniformly lukewarm and featureless, and definitely lacking such complicated beings as stars, planets and physicists—nothing like the one we see around us.”3
The attempted rescue suggestion, viz. that the universe just gets bigger with every cycle, therefore isn’t yet at maximum disorder, also fails on the same point as the eternal inflation model. I.e., “if your universe keeps getting bigger, it must have started somewhere.” ".
https://creation.com/universe-had-a-beginning

Evangkatsoulis:


my point is that you (may) have been conflating philosphical concepts wih those of physics.

can you actually give a source that clearly differentiates between these "physicists' definition" and "philosophical definition"? Is Physics as a quest not under Philosophy?

That's why I always posit that clear and concise definitions of key terms (God, energy, universe, time, etc.) be stated and agreed upon before engaging in such discussions/debates otherwise we would just having one of those beer parlour discussions.

Not bad.

Evangkatsoulis:


oga, physicists definition of the universe is slightly different from philosophers definition of universe. Most physicists define the universe as all existing matter and space. Some definitions include Time; others just defines it with respect to the stars, planet etc. Basically what physics tries to study in first place.

This difficulty in agreement when time is involved, I have highlighted earlier on. What's your point though?

Evangkatsoulis:


is Usable energy the same thing as the total energy of the universe? Whether the universe is running out of usable energy or not the total emergy of the universe remains constant i.e usable energy+ unusable energy=constant. That means there was never a time there was no energyand thus never a 'time' there was no something. So I don't know how you can say the universe began to exist; it is like saying that energy began to exist.
On the other hand I think in discussions like this one should define the KEY TERMs because they are what makes or breaks your argument.
If I define universe as EVERYTHING that exists then it doesn't have a cause as that cause must first exists and by definition already part of the Universe. Methinks PHYSICISTS' definition of the UNIVERSE is limited to what physics attempts to study.

With total energy = usable + unusable energy, I believe you're referring to the conservation of energy. However, physicists actually now assert that the universe(which of course includes energy) has a beginning. As Alexander Vilenkin put it, All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.” (Grossman, L., Death of the eternal cosmos, New Scientist 213(2847):6–7, 14 January 2012.)

Also check out this lecture by Stephen Hawking: http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

johnydon22:
I'm ironically lacking atheists with meaningful contributions to this thread.

One would expect atheists to be logical and what not as we have always posited on this board.

Seems the atheists on this board shy away from discussions that puts them in an uncomfortable position.

Who knows which atheist is which to tag to this thread?

Doctor Alien do you?

I don't know any, honestly

JeromeBlack:


You do realise that time is an abstract contstruct? Matter, space and energy have no bearing on time. Time exists metaphysically without the constraint of materiality.

Time is many things to many people. Surely time is not easy to deal with when origins arguments is brought on. But whatever, the case, there still has to be a beginning for time.

Just sit down and think of the paradox you just put yourself into. You said that there was no time before the big bang. But mathematically that is nonsensical-

If Time at the big bang is represented by T
If Time 1 hour after the big bang is represented by T+1
Then, we have to ask about what happened at T-1 (1 hour before the big bang)


A simple question of causality can also illustrate the point- WHAT CAUSED THE BIG BANG? If something caused the big bang, then it must have happened before the big bang.

There is a concept called Simultaneous Causation, and with that, the cause of time's beginning occurred when time began, i.e. cause and effect were simultaneous.

JeromeBlack:



LIES!

Our universe has a beginning if only you assume that the big bang is a beginning.

Also, note that the usable energy is meaningless in the grand scheme of things. There will always be energy just not the ones useful to humans. Remember that humans are less than 0.01% of the universe.

When it is said that the universe had a beginning, it is meant that there was a time when the universe (matter/energy, space and time) began to exist. They were not formerly in existence. If there was a time when the universe(the totality of everything) began to exist, how is that not a beginning?

johnydon22:


It's basically self explanatory. A closed system without external influence.

I'm sorry but how does this relate to the unarguable fact that the universe right now is running of usable energy, and thus could not have been here since forever, or else it would have run out of usable energy a long time ago?

Ihedinobi3:
Good to see you, DoctorAlien. Have you been well?

Yes brother. Good to see you too. Hope you've been well too.

johnydon22:
Uuuhm, no, not if it is a self-contained system.

So, do you agree with everything physicists say or only when it suits your argument?

Because there are several other things they say in the pravailing cosmological model that you most likely do not believe or agree with.

what is this self-contained system?

JeromeBlack:



What an abuse of reasoning.


What if Proposition #1 is true?


I believe in the eternal existence. My reasoning is that there will always be something in the future (even when our sun dies out and blows up everything in our galaxy thousands of years from now) why couldnt it be that there has always been something in the past?


There are scientists that are working with a theory of a cyclical universe in which there is constant creation and destruction

If you understand that the universe is currently running out of usable energy, then you'd know that proposition 1 cannot be true. For if the universe has always been here, then it would have run out of usable energy a long time ago.

But even more than that, physicists now agree that the universe had a beginning. Even theories of "multiverses" and cyclic "universes "cannot be extended indefinitely into the past. A beginning must necessarily occur at one point.

LordReed:


Ah yes, the bible doesn't mean what it says, it means what you say. LMFAO!

If that is what you understand from my post, fine.

johnydon22:


If you believe some part of the scriptures and not the others, it is not the scripture you believe but yourself.

~Saint Augustine

This shows you didn't understand what I wrote. Did you read the part where I said that my belief occupies a position of harmony between all the verses talking about the judgment of the wicked in the Bible?

LordReed:


Revelation 14
10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:

11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.

Revelation 20
10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

I hold my belief even with the knowledge of these verses. And I believe that my belief about the judgment of the wicked occupies a position of harmony between these verses you quoted and the other verses talking about the matter in the Bible. Jude v.7 is an example of such other verse.

I believe that sinners will be annihilated by the fire of hell. That means that I don't believe that there is a place burning right now where the evil dead go. All the evil dead lie in their grave now and await the judgment of God which will put them out of existence. They will not be alive forever burning. That would mean that they have everlasting life too, just in another location different from Heaven. But everlasting life is something reserved for only the righteous. Instead the fire of hell will destroy sinners, and they will stop existing. I believe too that the scene of that great conflagration will be this Earth.

LordReed:


Yes you understand Armageddon is a war and on whose side have you been told you'll be fighting on?

It is not a physical war, and I am on the side of Christ.

Everlasting punishment for finite crimes is the result of people who could not think of what a transcendent being would do. It is nonsensical it the light of how developed our justice systems have become. So this your god has no way to rehabilitate its supposedly creation yet you think it all powerful? LMFAO!

Many Christians have many views of hell, and mine May differ from others.

Which justice system has developed? Lol. The moral compass of the Children of God has ever been set and is immutable. Only you atheists try to adopt a moral system which in your worldview has no basis on which it can be said to be binding on all.

All powerful must mean many things to you unbelievers. I will not be surprised if I see an argument like "God cannot sin, therefore He's not all powerful". Anyway, God cannot rehabilitate anyone against the person's will and without the person's cooperation. There is still chance for you to be rehabilitated today. It's just that God cannot wait for sinners forever, and the probation has to end one day.

LordReed:


That it was yesterday is irrelevant, you are despicable. Its the same justification you'll give if tomorrow your church leaders rose up to say Armageddon has commenced kill all nonbelievers. The same justification you think hell is righteous judgement. You actually support killing people because they don't believe, your it was yesterday or it is tomorrow excuse is as weak as wet tissue paper.

Except that my church leaders will not rise up today to say that Armageddon has commenced. We understand very well what the Armageddon is.

The annihilation of sinners that will take place in the fires of hell is a righteous judgment. Even you have to agree. Does evil have any right to exist forever?

LordReed:


Was it your ghost that typed this:

Now who are these Canaanites? They are wicked people that should have been totally wiped out of existence

You agree that certain people deserved to be wiped out and turn around to say you don't embrace genocide. What's going on in your head?

Your post to me meant that I am in support of genocide in this present day. And I am not in support of people killing each other today.

I agree that the Canaanites deserved to be wiped out because they were wicked. And when I say wicked, these people did really abominable things. Child sacrifice by mothers was a common thing among them. God noted it, and commanded their destruction Himself. That is the only reason I am in support of it.

LordReed:


Look at how readily you embrace genocide and you are busy forming being against slavery. Such sick thinking. Not surprised though this religions put sick ideas into peoples minds and softens them enough to think they are good ideas. I spit on such nonsense.

I don't embrace genocide I am as anti-violence as anything you can think of. I only tried to explain what happened in the Bible.

LordReed:


Exodus 21 English Standard Version (ESV)

21 “Now these are the rules that you shall set before them. 2 When you buy a Hebrew slave,[a] he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing.

Leviticus 25:44-46 English Standard Version (ESV)
44 As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. 45 You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property. 46 You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. You may make slaves of them, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly.


The good treatment was reserved for Hebrew slaves while the ones bought from strangers are basically property.

Here is one thing about slavery in the Bible that perhaps isn't immediately apparent whenever the topic is raised: the fact that a set of people who were made slaves to Israelites were the Canaanites. (That is apart from the fact that at the time of Leviticus, some people of foreign origin were dwelling with the Israelites. Some of them even came up with Israel out of Egypt.) Now who are these Canaanites? They are wicked people that should have been totally wiped out of existence, because God reckoned that their cup is full. God commanded the Israelites to totally wipe out these wicked people and take their land for a possession. Later the Israelites would fail to do this, and the Canaanites would dwell "round about" them, (Lev. 25:44) and even with them. People like the Gibeonites would later deceive their way into dwelling permanently among the Israelites, though strangers.

Coming to Lev. 25:44-46, I believe that God did not consign the heathen and the strangers among the Israelites to a life of perpetual servitude. We are talking about perpetual servitude here only because some Israelites desired to have bondmen and bondmaids. Of course it is no news that bondmen and bondmaids could be kept as possessions and transferred as inheritance to offspring. God told them that they could not have bondmen and bondmaids of their fellow Israelites. But they could buy and have bondmen and bondmaids from among the heathen and the strangers that dwelt with them.

But for a people that should have been justly wiped out of existence, is coming into perpetual servitude to the Israelites (the people of true God) not a far better option? I believe one big reason why God allowed for foreigners to be held as bondservants forever is for them to be eventually become circumcised and be integrated into the family of the children of Israel, who worshipped and received of the riches and goodness of the knowledge of the true God(indeed knowledge of God is priceless), and looked forward to the coming of the Messiah, even though they may be servants. It is better for them that way than to eventually perish in their sinful cultures.

There is also another twist to it. Strangers were not allowed to own land in Israel. (We could see God providing for them by, for example, asking the children of Israel not to thoroughly glean their fields or go through their field two times when they are harvesting.) Some strangers who sojourned in Israel must have found it far more comfortable to stay as bondmen to the family of rich people, than to live in abject poverty on their own.

So the god could not categorically tell them stop slavery but had time to tell them not to eat shrimp.

They understood what? That slavery was OK? Even Paul doesn't tell masters to free their slaves but here you are telling me they understood, they understood to continue slavery right?[quotes] Rants

[quote]Edit: Yes Jesus was supposed to be more compassionate because he supposedly came to show the love of god as opposed to the constant judgement god made in the old testament. You can deny it all you want but it is clear from your book of fairytales.

Not according to Bible-believing Christians. We children of God cannot say that "Jesus was supposed to be more compassionate than His Father"

LordReed:


LoL! I read what you wrote which is why I mentioned the beatitudes. Only in the old testament does the god care to tell people, not how to live without slaves but to acquire more and treat the ones who are Israelites better.

I doubt you read my post, with this "not how to live without slaves" comment of yours. Anyway you have to prove that God told the Israelites to treat Israelite slaves "better" than the ones who are not Israelites.

Then the supposedly more compassionate son shows up thousands of years latter and completely forgets to even mention slavery not to talk of discussing the subject but to you those are reflections of love and mercy. What tripe. LMFAO!

First off, we Christians don't claim that Christ is more compassionate than His Father. Nor is the Father more compassionate than the son. The three divine Beings in the Godhead are filled with infinite compassion.

Maybe Christ did not open the topic of slaves in the beatitudes because the reality of slavery and God's take on it were well understood, just like God's people understand them today, and they needed no overflogging?

Yet, we the children of God, when we read the beatitudes and indeed other words of Christ in the Bible, still see the general principles of love and mercy that should guide relationships between humans in the words of Christ.

I'm not surprised you cannot see them.

LordReed:


The god couldn't command its followers to abandon slavery neither does its purported son. Slavery was obviously of no priority to this god.

Did you even read my first post on this thread before posting this? Because this retort of yours was expected and answered in that post. You unbelievers are very predictable.

Unsurprisingly lacking in meaningful arguments.

LordReed:


Which of the 10 commandments or the beatitudes talks about slavery?

How does one of the commandments or beatitudes talking about slavery affect my argument?

There they go again with this old and worn out "slavery in the Bible" argument. That slavery is recorded in the Bible does not mean that God is pleased with it. In fact God's will is that every unnatural class barriers separating between human beings be erased. But slavery is only one of the sad realities of the Fall. However, when we mention slavery in the Bible, there is a whole lot about it that people don't know. You unbelievers capitalize on the fact whenever slavery is mentioned today, the first thing that comes to mind is the gruesome and barbaric transatlantic slavery, to peddle false arguments. Do you even know that in the Bible you have instances of people submitting themselves to become servants to others because of maybe poverty or something else?

But the biggest rebuttal to your baseless arguments is the fact that God in His infinite mercy and love always made it clear right from time that "slaves" are to be treated with dignity. Since abolishing servant-master relationships is unrealistic and may not be for the overall good in this fallen world, God gave clear principles that should guide servant-master relationships. God commanded that the weekly rest from labour is also for manservants and maidservants. God commanded that "slaves" should not be maltreated, reminding the Israelites that they themselves were once slaves in Egypt. The love and care of God for slaves have always been manifested in the way He and His faithful servants dealt with slaves in the Bible.

So find another argument please.

Check out creation.com to see what some scientists have to say about evolution.

MuttleyLaff:
Be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be "inebriated" with the Spirit;

Death, is one of life building blocks that is not at all arbitrary.
Without it we wouldn't value life.

Even you, if you're honest, sincere and truthful,
will be the first to admit that, you so much value of life, that you want to arrive at your death, late.
Life afterall, to you, has a meaning then

There is more to life than just breathing.
And as for the earlier mention of depression
well, depresion, can be something, hard to understand

If my memory serves me right, I thnk its JK Rowling that said;
"Depression isn't just being a bit sad.
It's feeling nothing. It's not wanting to be alive anymore."

---

---

---

http://www.veoh.com/watch/v363280nFSFMC66
Ihedin obi3 & DoctorAlien just watch the pilot, watch the one link above alone
cc Ranch hoddas, budaat um, you both & francis2 47 can give thanks later
Dont forget to click on to 102
and the rest to watch the whole series

Okay. Thanks.