₦airaland Forum

timothycel: I understand your point of what it signifies.


How about I equate circumcision to water baptism. IE That is my form of repentance is that I must get circumcised. (I will be told it for the Old Covenant)
Or how about killing a goat for example. Or maybe I shave my head etc burn my old clothes etc. Or any other ritual. Water baptism is also a ritual.

Is any of these rituals above acceptable to God? (I wont say either way).

More importantly were any of these rituals commanded by God under the New Covenant? (I will have to say NO!!)

Conclusion: I think we cant just make things up because of what we think they symbolize or because of what they symbolize to us. What is important is to keep Gods word. Water baptism is akin to idolatry these days as people , it is leading people astray. People believe they will not be saved if they are not baptized with water which is incorrect. Water baptism had its use but it then expired, just like the bronze snake in the desert, it had its use, then it expired. Then the Israelites were led astray because they later worshiped the bronze snake. We are now adding to the bible when we make water baptism a requirement for everyone or Doctrine.

If I started a church and said killing a goat means repentance I would be heavily criticized and told it is not according to the bible (In fact It would be called a cult and Pagan etc). Well neither is being baptized with water in the New Covenant.

Please don't get me wrong here.

What John the baptist actually preached was repentance which he sealed with immersion of water. Change of mind does the work not actually the water! Some churches believe during water baptism they welcome the participant into their midst (whereby change of name(s) can come in). Even water baptism is not just enough that's why Apostle Paul said John only baptize in repentance that Jesus is the one who will complete the task by Holyghost baptism. Acts 19:2-6

Shalom!

superior1: John 6:40 says, "And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which SEETH the Son, and BELIEVETH on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day."

Believe

"And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house." Acts 16:31

Believe

"For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord Shall be saved."(Romans 10:13)

Believe

"For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness..." (Romans 10:10).

Believe

But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
Romans 4:5

Believe.

What saves you (makes you a born again Christian) is believing and confessing Christ. Baptism is for believers in Christ who have given their lives to Him (born again)

@OP, if you have any objection to this let me know before I continue

I don't have any problem with your points above but if you carefully read my OP you'll surely see we're in the same line though you mixed it up with word 'believe'.

The title simply read "Have you received Holyghost since you believed?" Get it right sir!

God bless you.

Pastor Olu T: I don't really get water u are saying about water baptism and would not want to misquote u?

I mean water baptism that was performed by John is just a baptist into repentance and welcome the person into new life begins by pouring water.

timothycel: Nice post. I agree with you to some extent. Let us examine some verses starting with water baptism and then moving on to spirit baptism.

John the Baptist had disciples Luke 11.1 "One day Jesus was praying in a certain place. When he finished, one of his disciples said to him, “Lord, teach us to pray, just as John taught his disciples.”"

John baptized up until he was put in prison John 3:23-24 "23 Now John also was baptizing at Aenon near Salim, because there was plenty of water, and people were coming and being baptized. 24 (This was before John was put in prison.)"

1. John only baptized Jews or people descended from the tribe of Israel.

2. John only baptized men, woman were never baptized by John.

3. It was John who baptized and not his disciples (Even though he had disciples)

4. After John was put in prison all water baptism stopped.

5. John did not leave his baptism to his disciples.

6. Johns baptism did not involve Jesus's name, it was just water but no name.

In light of the above six points how is water baptism relevant to you.

Spirit baptism is supported by the following. Acts 1.5 "5 For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.”" Jesus puts Johns Baptism in the past tense and says once the Holy Spirit has been sent by God baptism will be by the Holy Spirit.

Jesus himself did not baptize but his disciples did, John 4:1-2 " Now Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard that he was gaining and baptizing more disciples than John— 2 although in fact it was not Jesus who baptized, but his disciples."

Matthew 28:19 "19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit"

Jesus commands his disciples to baptize, he leaves his baptism to them.

1. Jesus didnt baptize people instead he sent his disciples.

2. Jesus says Johns baptism is passed and the Holy Spirit baptism is coming (John also says in John 3 that he must become smaller and Jesus Greater, ie Jesus baptism must surpass his.)

3. Jesus instructs his disciples to baptize after his death.


Nicodemus

What Jesus said to Nicodemus was true, that a person must be born by water and by spirit. But this was only true for Jews or Israelites. As John was sent to ready the way for Jesus, ie prepare the Jews for his coming. If you read about the purpose of Johns birth Luke 1 etc. So for Jews it was necessary that they be baptized by John and repent because they had broken their Covenant with God (Old Covenant, which the Gentiles were not party to).

Those Jews who refused Johns baptism by choice you will find are the very Jews who refused Jesus. If they had accepted John they would have accepted Jesus.

All this water baptism happened under the Old Covenant as Jesus was still alive and as such the New Covenant was yet to take effect. John died before Jesus and as such did not baptize anyone under the New Covenant.

Conclusion: How then does any person baptize another with water under the New Covenant given the above? Aside from John no one was given power to baptize with water. Who claims to have been given this power today? And if they do, what is written about them in the Prophets?

You're right but remember what I equate water baptism to in my OP. The fact is that people that are doing water baptism today is just to welcome the partaker into their midst (sometimes they change the person's name) not necceasryly mean the person has changed. what should be our paramont concerned as a Christian is how to received a geniue repentance.

Alfa Seltzer: Don't woory, if He wants you to know who He is, He will show you Himself, like He did to me. Unlike you christians, we Satanists don't evangelize. We don't need to explain our Master or force Him upon others. He does that Himself. Unlike your hiding god, Satan is not lazy. He is working all round the clock 7 days a week. No "I'm tired, let me rest" on 7th day bullshit.

Still beating around the bush!

udatso: Lets take a look at the following events
1.John and the Priests
In the Chapter of John, some Jewish priests quizzed John the Baptist about three people
who they were informed about in their scriptures. They asked him:
“Who are you?” John confessed (he didn’t deny but confessed), “I’m not the Christ.” They asked him, “Then who are you? Are
you Elijah?”
John said, “I’m not.” “Are you the Prophet?” John answered, “No.” [John 1:19-21]
So they then asked him, “Why do you baptize if you aren’t the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?” [John 1:25]
The priests were expecting three people as prophesied by their books, so they asked
about Christ, Elijah and ‘the Prophet’. So who
is ‘the Prophet’ they are referring to here? The holy spirit?
This cannot be a reference to Jesus as he is the Christ.
Looking at a copy of the Bible with cross- referencing, we find that the words ‘the Prophet’ which occur in John 1:25 refer to
the prophecy of Deuteronomy 18:18 in the Old Testament, which also mentions a forthcoming Prophet and not a holy spirit.
According to Deuteronomy 18:18 God speaks to Prophet Moses and tells him that he will raise up a new Prophet who has certain
clearly identifiable characteristics: I will raise up for them a Prophet like you from among their brethren, and will put My words in His mouth, and He shall speak to them all that I command Him. And it shall be that whoever
will not hear My words, which He speaks in My name, I will require it of him.
[Deuteronomy 18:18-19]
In this prophecy God is telling Moses that he will raise a Prophet like him, who will be
from ‘among their brethren’. Please note that am not trying to prove that the comforter is prophet muhammad but to prrove that the comforter is a prophet and not a spirit

So who is now the prophet promised by Jesus Christ?

superior1: Why don't you answer my question since I asked one first?

To your question I say YES! remember what I equate my water baptism to in my OP.

Alfa Seltzer: My destiny and His are linked. I don't need to prove anything as I have submitted myself to Him in this life and the next.

Sometimes over too known is a disease, did I ask for a prove?

I just said who satan is? and you failed to provide answer and keep beating about the bush.

superior1: Are you saying you only get born again when you received the Holy Ghost/water baptism?. Are there no people who haven't been baptised by both water and Holy Ghost and yet are born again?

What does it mean to born again to you sir?

Alfa Seltzer: The one that holds your destiny in His hands.

You err, why can't you put 'MY' instead of 'YOUR'?

Alfa Seltzer: In the presense of Satan, all the above is gibberish.

Who satan is?

In his journey through upper coast to Ephesus; 'Apostle Paul' saw about twelve desciples claiming to be a Christian and asked them the same question:

Acts 19:2 "He said unto them, Have ye received the HolyGhost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost".

Their responds baffles Paul to the point that he asked them again;
Acts 19:3 "And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism".

In the Book of John 3:5 Jesus talks about two categories of baptism that every believers should past through in life:

1. Water baptism
2. Holyghost baptism

1. Water baptism - This is called baptism of repentance-Acts 19:4 it was first performed by 'John the baptist' repentance here signifies total 'submission of heart from old path(way) to embrace the new ways of God' -Rom 12:2

2. Holyghost baptism- This signifies coming of Holyghost into the life of someone who has prepared his/her life to meet with the Lord and to have part in Christ Jesus; Rom 8:9 "But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his". And to testify of Jesus as the 'Son of the living God'.

Without these two no one can enter the kingdom of God through Christ.

*How can a Christian claim that God exist without the Spirit of God in him/her, what evidence do you have then?

*How can you know the things of God without God's spirit in you? 1 Cor 2:11 "For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God".

*How can you become a son of the most High God without the Holyghost in you? Rom 8:14 "For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God".

*How can you speak in tongues or prophesied without being filled with the Holyghost? Acts 19:6 "And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied". and many more......

Scince you claimed to be in Christ or born agian, have you received the baptism of the Holyghost?

Are you still like those twelve desciples who claims to be Christ-like but never have part in Christ?

Roman 12:1 says "......that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice (which is the Holyghost in you), to make you (holy) throughout your lifetime, and your work to be (accepteble unto God), which is your reasonable service" Emphasis added!

This verse made it clear that going to church to serve God won't be in vain with the help of the Holyghost and to succeed in this Christian's race you need Holyspirit.

Shalom!

FearGodAndLive: The Spirit of God is upon all his children.

Who are the children of God?

Why do christian need Holyghost baptisn?

benalvino: I don't understand what you mean by holyghost baptism... Sir

But about the gift of the tongue... It simply means gift of languages
for communication between 2 people.it is never said to be used in the
sense of praying to God

I mean when the spirit of God come upon you.

benalvino: We have already done it. Plus the last verse I quote about they should keep quiet if no one is there to interprete it. But you keep ignoring it.

Ok you take it verse by verse to verse 20

Ben just one question for you, have you ever received Holyghost baptism?

PhenomenonVFX: Dude. Dont even bother trying to reason with that Emusan guy. He is the god of pseudoscience. And he will never concede.

I'm not a god but man with full evidence of God Almighty existence.

I do conceed or reason with other people but the reality of nature with evidence of personal contact with God will never allow me to agree with any fairytale of atheist scientist.

I only try to let other christians who has not had personal encounter with God and ready to compromise their faith in God because of the lies of personal interpretation of facts by some people in our universe like some atheist on NL do to KNOW that not everything......completed in my signature!

Shalom!

mkmyers45: Do you know how ridiculous the bolded sounds? So fishes, microbes, WHALES, sharks, crayfish, and what not survived the flood but Aquatic dinosaurs didn't?

What does the bold mean? I couldn't get you.

But just try to understand a message before you post.

I said:

emusan: For aquatic dinosaurs even the global flood account made it clear that the water at the deep burst forth first before the windows of heaven was opened. the aquatic lives will first of all affected before cripple lives.

@bold-affected is different from 'distroyed' if what you mean @bold in your post is that all lives in water died.

Some will die and some will survive because they live in water and water covers all the face of the earth.

mkmyers45: I was making a point....

What point?

Now did he? Can you point to me in your works where he did?

Go back to the OP

Dont make me laugh...Do you even know the impact of “fossil” magnetism on your whole argument? Do you full grasp the concept of magnetic pole reversals or do we go by your logic and assume that in just 168 years the earth's magnetic field have gotten 0.0595238095238095% weaker per year? of course we then extrapolate back and we have 1680+5 years for 100% depletion wont we?

Even ooman did the samething....how can I describe that?(I mean this your interpolation) did I say this 10% is constant over the years?

See what I said in my Op

emusan: Again, magnetic field of earth goes against billions years because if Carl Friedrich could notice it in 1845 and today it's ten times weaker than what he observed in 1845 then if earth is billions years the magnetic field would have faded out.

what does the bold tell you?
Please always read and digest message before you jump into conclusion.

My question is, did magnetic field fading up or not?

mkmyers45: Tree-ring dating gives us a wonderful check on the radiocarbon dating method for the last 8000 years. That is, we can use carbon-14 dating on a given tree-ring (the 8000-year sequence having been assembled from the overlapping tree-ring patterns of living and dead trees) and compare the resulting age with the tree-ring date. A study of the deviations from the accurate tree-ring dating sequence shows that the earth's magnetic field has an important effect on carbon-14 production. When the dipole moment is strong, carbon-14 production is suppressed below normal; when it is weak, carbon-14 production is boosted above normal. What the magnetic field does is to partially shield the earth from cosmic rays which produce carbon-14 high in the atmosphere.

What are you trying to prove here?
Do you mean carbon-14 dating ratio is correct or what?

Dr Libby's experiment is based on the fact that the rate of removal and deposition is the same but the evidence for the earth’s having a progressively stronger magnetic field in the past is based on reliable historical measurements and “fossil” magnetism trapped in ancient pottery.

Yes! then if the magnetic field is stronger in the past than it is now, why did Libby conclude carbon-14 in the atmosphere is in equilibrium?
This equilibrium is the major discrepancy in Libby's work not the dating method.

So how do you make you calculations when the best estimates indicate that the earth’s magnetic field was twice as strong 1,400 years ago, and possibly four times as strong 2,800 years ago?

Thank God you even mention of a strong magnetic field in past than now, then what makes the difference? I said about 200 years ago you said about 1,400 years. how many 200 years generations do we have in 1,400 years?


You never get my point up till now...hmmmmmm

mkmyers45: Nope. There is a lot of fossil evidence and it tells quite a story. First off, we can see many different types of dinosaurs that existed during different times. Even if you do not trust the current dating methods, the simple logical analysis of the fossils shows that certain types of dinosaurs are never found in the same layers. A Cretaceous dinosaur would not ever be found in a Triassic layer. This shows that the layers were put down at quite different times. Enough time to allow one type of dinosaur to live and breed and die out and then for another type to come along. By the way, this ties into evolution.

Next up, is the world lacks a consistent layer that would be created by a worldwide flood. A worldwide flood should have put a single layer of sediment around the world. We would be able to find it all over and it would be pretty darned easy to spot. It is not there. We can see world wide layers for other actions in the past. For instance, there is a layer at the KT boundary that is believed to be fallout from a very large asteroid hitting the planet. It is a very ancient layer though. There is no layer that indicates a world wide flood. Since we can find dinosaur fossils all over the planet then it would take a worldwide event to wipe them all out. If it was a flood then there should be a worldwide layer. That is not there so it could not have been a flood that did the job.

Another piece of evidence against the idea of a worldwide flood killing the dinosaurs is that they are found in a lot of different types of deposits. Paleontologists have found fossils in all kinds of layers that were deposited under a variety of methods and under a variety of circumstances. There are fossils that were quickly covered over by floods, there are some that sank into swamps, there are some that were covered over by landslides. Each of these will leave different chemical characteristics in the layer. If a flood killed all of the dinosaurs then there should be a single type of layer or at least a predominant type of layer.

Also what happened to aquatic dinosaurs?

If you read my post carefully especially those verses you will discover that verse 17 says "they shall lie together" which simply means it didn't happen in a day but in different occasions and a fossil of different creature can be found together.


For aquatic dinosaurs even the global flood account made it clear that the water at the deep burst forth first before the windows of heaven was opened. the aquatic lives will first of all affected before cripple lives.
shalom!

Kudos to OP and other people who has contributed with their little knowledge.

But the book of Isaiah has been dated no matter how less than 150BC by skeptic and it's a book of prophecy (things that has happened and things to come).

Isaiah says something in:
Isaiah 43:16-17 "16Thus saith the LORD, which maketh a way in the sea, and a path in the mighty waters; 17 Which bringeth forth the chariot and horse, the army and the power; they shall lie down together, they shall not rise: they are extinct, they are quenched as tow.

Verse 17 clearly stated how fossil had formed and how lives had gone into extinction(including Dinosaur).

Scientist has recorded that 98% of lives(including Dinosaur) had gone into extinction which it can be traced back to Genesis global flood (for a creationist).
And generally speaking, a fossil is any evidence of past plant or animal life that is preserved in the material of the Earth's crust. But when most people talk about fossils, they mean a specific subsection of this group -- fossils in which the shape of the animal or plant has been preserved, while the actual organic matter of its body is gone.
Though Dinosaur was not mentioned in the Bible but if you can pay close attention with that verse 17 you will discover that Dinosaur falls within the text.

With such certainty only God could vividly know that some lives has gone extinct and formed fossilize materials about 3000 years ago when this book was written when NO MAN could've conceived the ideas of fossilized matterials because He made it happened that way for a known reason best to Him.

mazaje: The OP is just an ignorant young earth creationist that relies on the LIES and STUPIDITY of peusdo scientist that cal themselves creation scientist. . .Can the OP show us any peer reviewed scientific method opf dating from his lying creation scientist tht shows that the earth is 6000 years old?. . .

All these crazy looneys of yours know that the earth isnt 4 billion years old and they haven't shown us and won Nbel peace prices already, eh?. . .Keep deluding yourself. .

Very soon you will claim you become an atheist not on any scientific evidence but always try to defend any scientist reseachs.

You disown your faithful evolution birth ape-to-mazaje just because you have seen the future of evolution. I won't say much!

plaetton: I keep saying that you guys are deaf and dumb. the whole theory of Abiogenesis is to try to show plausibility.

Remember, after successful outcome of Miller-Urey experiment it being published in journals, books, medials that scientist have successfully demostrated how life could've started in early Earth inwhich some years back Plaetton also believe that life started in on earth. If you're not deaf and dumb as you say in your post why can't you ask yourself if scientist don't know the origin of LIFE, how do they know only a single cell started it all?

They did their best simulate a prehistoric environmental condition. They did not have to get it 100% right.

They been awarded for the outcome of their experiment hope you know that.

Any one with an open mind would know that 3.5 billion years ago, the earth and our solar system could have been in another part of the galaxy as the sun carries us along her 250 billion years cycle around the galactic center.
So the conditions could have been totally different and perhaps, unique.

No wonder scientist couldn't account for rotation of the planet like Venus & Uranus that rotate clockwise on their axis while the rest like Earth, Mercury e.t.c rotate anticlockwise despite that all planet are control by same SUN.

It is also possible, again for any one with an open mind, that the actual first process that generated life could have very well occurred in another planet or in another galaxy before being accidentally or deliberately transported to earth via meteorites or comets.

I will slap you from my Phone for you to mention 'DELIBERATELY', do you realise that deliberate is an action from a purposeful mind set?

Quite frankly, anyone who is not open minded enough to consider(not necessarily accept) such scenarios is not qualified to see him or herself as a seeker of knowledge, a discussion of this sort a waste of time.

Imagine Plaetton as an open minded still believes in one cell turns to billions of lives we can see today, when the Chernobyl Nuclear Reactor accident in Russia is still producing disease in the local population because it increases the radiation and causes high mutations.

It does not matter to me the technical shortcomings of an idea as long as the general idea is scientifically plausible.

which scientific idea?

The very fact that other eminent scientists can find fault in the experiment speaks volumes about the superiority of the scientific system.
It is laughable that one wants to use scientific rationalism to dismiss a scientific notion, and then tries to substitute with non-scientific invisible hand hokus pokus.

lol...

If you dismiss the theory of Abiogenesis on flimsy technicalities, then you must offer a more reasonable and plausible scientific notion that we can work with.

Let me tell you the secret behind LIFE and why atheist scientist have not found the origin of LIFE.

Life is an immaterial which atheist don't believe in.
Cells are not life natural death proves it.
Life can only come from life.
Life isn't a chemical formula.

These four points are all true about LIFE take it or leave it.

[quote author=Area_boy]@ OP.. See your problem? you base all your argument from one book. Hmmmmm that sounds familiar [/quote]Which book?

Slap Dr in front of Libby and immediately, everything he says has to be correct. Do the right thing by quoting other books and also quote counter arguments from other books for a comprehensive research then draw your conclusion.

Now that Dr. Libby's work has been refuted atheist begin to reject his work as usual like Miller-Urey remember Libby is an atheist not creationist.

Anyway it's normal atheist behavious, now natural selection is getting old but 'puntuated equilibrium' is the next on evolution.

Why art thou unstable like the moring star your great father?

ooman: another mumu post.

Hmmm...

if earth's magnetic field goes by 10% in less than 200 years, then at this rate, the earth will be 2000 years. do you even realize that before posting mumu things here.

Ooman you too funny, who says the 10% is constant over the years and did everything about earth has been in a regular condictions since its birth?

I believe you do know that?

ooman: ode xtians...

Must you be abusive before you comment? Anyway that's how you've been taught in your religion.

if NASA find life on Mars, then evolution is even more supported as it has been hypothesized that life formed on Mars and got to earth by meteors.

After life originated from land &ocean have been refuted, now it is space. Don't you know that cell is not life but it carries life itself. Life is immaterial!

You still believe in this your RM & NS hmmm....if I ask now why evolution of ape to man has not occured...ooman will say it takes a long time....but if I ask is evolution ever occur..ooman will say it happens around him....

Just go and defend yourself in '@Deepsight' thread.

So if NASA finds life on mars, which is likely, then earth bound creation of life is destroyed....am not counting on it sha

Why?

ROSSIKE: One last thing: Never ever in your life make the assumption that one's rejection of the bible 'God' equates to rejection of God the Creator. The bible 'God' is NOT God, and cannot possibly be the Almighty.

Hummm....which god is the creator again that has troubled Rossik's mind so much to open this thread?

Many religions much older than christianity believe in an Intelligent Creator, and reject the Bible 'God'. How dare you equate their rejection of your phantom, bloodthirsty tyrant with the rejection of the INTELLIGENT source of all life? This is the arrogance borne of bone-headed ignorance and dumbitude we're talking about.

No wonder you keep getting sleepless night about this same God.

Remember you purposefully open this thread about this Bible God Almighty NOT older religions gods.

If I may ask, what make you think and quietly sat down and begin to type to ask this question? Is it not because you don't have rest of mind everyday about this God?
Have you ever asked yourself why your mind keeps poundering about this God every night & day and not other religions gods.

To your op, I can see you misunderstand God when you think He begs for your worship NO! But He created you for you to obey Him and recognise Him as the only God.

mkmyers45: Radiocarbon dating (or simply carbon dating) is a radiometric dating technique that uses the decay of carbon-14 (14
C) to estimate the age of organic materials, such as wood and leather, up to about 58,000 to 62,000 years.[1] Carbon dating was presented to the world by Willard Libby in 1949, for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry. Since its introduction it has been used to date many items, including samples of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Shroud of Turin, enough Egyptian artifacts to supply a chronology of Dynastic Egypt,[2] and Ötzi the Iceman.[3]

The dating technique is based on the fact that carbon is found in various forms, including the main stable isotope (12
C) and an unstable isotope (14 C) in all organic matter. Through photosynthesis, plants absorb both forms from carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. When an organism dies, it contains a ratio of 14C to 12C, but, as the 14
C decays with no possibility of replenishment, the ratio decreases at a regular rate. This rate is known as the half-life of 14C. The measurement of 14C decay provides an indication of the age of any carbon-based material (a raw radiocarbon age).[4] However, over time there are small fluctuations in the ratio of 14C to 12C in the atmosphere, fluctuations that have been noted in natural records of the past, such as sequences of tree rings and cave deposits. These records allow for the fine-tuning, or calibration, of the indications derived from measuring the carbon ratio. A raw radiocarbon age, once calibrated, yields a calendar date.

One of the most frequent uses of radiocarbon dating is to estimate the age of organic remains from archaeological sites.

Samples older than the upper age-limit cannot be dated because the small number of remaining intrinsic 14C atoms will be obscured by the 14C background atoms introduced into the samples while they still resided in the environment, during sample preparation, or in the detection instrument. As of 2007, the limiting age for a 1 milligram sample of graphite is about ten half-lives, approximately 60,000 years.[41] This age is derived from that of the calibration blanks used in an analysis, whose 14C content is assumed to be the result of contamination during processing (as a result of this, some facilities[41] will not report an age greater than 60,000 years for any sample).

A variety of sample processing and instrument-based constraints have been postulated to explain the upper age-limit. To examine instrument-based background activities in the AMS instrument of the W. M. Keck Carbon Cycle Accelerator Mass Spectrometry Laboratory of the University of California, a set of natural diamonds were dated. Natural diamond samples from different sources within rock formations with standard geological ages in excess of 100 Ma yielded14C apparent ages 64,920 ± 430 BP to 80,000 ± 1100 BP as reported in 2007.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating

Where does the 5,000 year limit come from when the same method you describe is been used to date material 60,000 years old which is much more 'older' than the 30,000 years you talk about as equilibrium.

Mr. Too know we've seen you, the conutless words you put up here and the OP what make the different?

The blind glass you put-on couldn't allow you to see clearly where it was written that Dr. Libby's work ignored the descripancy of nonequillibrium which is later true.

In a simplest form nonequillibrium means the production rate of carbon14 is not equall the removal rate of carbon14 which it has been found out to be true but at the initial work of Dr. Libby he noticed that for carbon14 to reach equillibrium it will take 30,000yrs but ignore this and proceded to assume ratio 14/12---Is it clear to you now?

My question is if carbon14 is it out of equillibrium till today and it will take carbon14 30,000yrs to reach this equillibrium, does earth old or young?

plaetton: The truth is that all the points can be answered in plain language.
The problem I find is that people will not accept what they dont want to accept no matter how you present it to them.

I believe something went wrong when you're typing this statement....hummm!

Do you believe the same thing happen when a theist try to explain God in a simple language?

For example, when one goes into deeper aspects of micro-biology to explain certain things, the majority will shut their ears and dismiss it simply because they dont understand micro-biology and have little inclination to do so.
They would rather sit in their comfort zone and hold on to whatever beliefs they have already accepted.

I can smell something here! Don't you believe atheist lack some SPIRITUALITY concept which they fail to verified? The samething apply here.

For example, I laid out the processes of how simple organic molecules form chains of complex molecules, and which through several chemical processes self-replicate, and how the processes continue until another complex molecule is formed to store the replicating information, a form of rudimentary intelligence, so to speak.
I went in some detail to show how these repeating processes could have led to the first protolife and eventually to the first simple micro-organism.
But my friend Deepsight turns a deaf ear to that scientific information and is still asking for an explanation as to how life started.

People are being speaking in tongues, people have provided afterlife expirence, many verses have been quoted from Bible. Yet pleaton still asking for evidence.

It then became obvious to me that everyone, including the very intelligent among us, are seeking a magical explanation.

Wowww.... What do pleaton want again after many simple language about God?....I guess magical explanation......Christians should go to heaven and bring God and present Him to pleaton ritght..

The very complex and rigorous processes of biology, chemistry and physics is too much for most people to comprehend, let alone accept.
That is the problem.

The very complex and powerful manifestation of God is too much for atheist to comprehend...they resorted to NO GOD that's the point.

[quote author=Area_boy]The point coming out of this is simple. We are here because the condition is right for us to be here (if it wasn't, we wouldn't be here) and not the other way around.[/quote]This point of yours really shows how blind atheist arguement are.

In my thread titled "Amazing Fact about earth that just right for life" 'evilbrain' claims the conditions of earth is not right for life but LIFE itself adapt to meet the conditions it found itself inwhich other atheist endosed. NOW you come here to claim the conditions of earth is right.

If this is your claim then 'natural selection that evolutionist claim is useless'

Nothing was made perfect for us, rather we live in a habitable lump of rock.

It's a pure lie, earth was designed for life.
*Earth rotate 1000 miles per hour at eguator, if it to be rotate lesser than 1000 NIGHT and DAY will be too long, if is to be rotate higher than 1000 NIGHT and DAY will be too short.

*If the atmosphere were thinner than at present, millions of meteors which are burned up in the air would fall to earth and cause terrible fires.

*Liquid water, if it exists elsewhere, is rare. Most of the universe consists of flaming gasses or frozen desolation:

For you to ignore earth being designed for life you're wrong.

https://www.nairaland.com/1309629/amazing-facts-earth-cant-happen

This will be made clearer when scientist get evidence of life on other planets and I can assure you we wont have to wait long.

We're waiting!

hisblud: Thanks bros, but from what i have researched on, of recent is this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZbQBajYnEc

If you watched it, you would observe that while speaking in tongues, the part of the brain, that speech occurs is not responding? why?

Secondly, have you wondered why of all the gifts [charisma] of the Spirit, only tongues was not used in the old testament?

Thirdly, why would Christ Jesus [Yashua] specifically stated that this signs [one of it is speaking in tongues] will follow those that believe, later on completely stop it in a period of time like ours? Is Christ not the same yesterday, today and forever?

Fourthly, yes people in acts 2, heard the disciples speaking in thier own languages but have you read where some heard gibberish as you called it?

classic!!!

@op, you didn't add the huge genetic information(software of life) in our DNA molecule, why?

I always wonder why evolutionist who doesn't know the origin of life know much about LIFE itself.

My question is, how do they sure that only a single cell started it all since they don't know how, where, when of life?

Evolutionist believe that cell is LIFE but natural death has proved it wrong because during natural death the person will first undergo what we know as CLINICAL death where the heartbeat, breathing and circulation of blood stoped, 4-6minutes later the brain cells will begin to die due to lack of oxygen. Moreover if someone died a natural death within some few hours (before decomposition begins) all the cells are still there like normal living being but what we notice is the same trillions of cells lying down with absent of LIFE. Where does this immaterial LIFE come from? Nobody knows!