Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creation
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


(1)
Message 1456 of 1482 (846010)
12-26-2018 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 1446 by AZPaul3
12-24-2018 4:10 PM


Re: Creation
Hi Paul
AZPaul writes:
And "common sense" is subjective (the Earth looks flat to me). Not good for building a model of reality.
Well I know better as I spent a lot of time on the water when I was young in the Gulf of Mexico and I could see the curvature of the earth.
Now as far as subjective, everything is subjective.
Everything you have ever been taught about creation is subject to the original assumptions being fact.
AZPaul writes:
Proof? Who said anything about proof?
What else is an experiment supposed to produce. It either proves or disproves the premise.
AZPaul writes:
... yet.
Nor will they ever.
AZPaul writes:
Why the universe exists? You mean as in purpose?
"Purpose" is a human construct, an illusion, ICANT. There is no purpose.
The universe can not have existed eternally in the past due to entropy.
Since nothing exists outside the universe according to the standard theory that requires the universe having a beginning to exist from non-existence.
Therefore a "WHY" is necessary.
AZPaul writes:
... yet.
Nor at any time that ever becomes now.
AZPaul writes:
You have to look, ICANT.
BBT, Nucleosynthesis, Genetics, Evolution all have a say in answering that one.
You left out the most important one "BIOGENESIS".
AZPaul writes:
Purpose, again.
"Purpose" is a human illusion, ICANT. There is no purpose.
Humans did not exist. Now humans exist. My question is why do they exist which requires a purpose.
AZPaul writes:
...yet.
And they will never tell me where life came from.
AZPaul writes:
And many of our theories do that exceptionally well. That is all we ask of them.And many of our theories do that exceptionally well. That is all we ask of them.
The standard theory is the only hypothesis that has reached the theory category.
I have been trying to get supporting evidence for that conclusion since the 1st post in this thread and in other threads.
Would you care to present any evidence or just continue to tell me the "theories do that exceptionally well". That statement is an assertion not evidence.
AZPaul writes:
Yes. Though we know it is not complete.
If it is not complete it should not be classified as a theory but as a hypothesis.
AZPaul writes:
Is inflation a theory?
Yes. Though we know it is not complete.
When did it reach a consensus?
One of our most outstanding cosmologist of the present Sir Roger Penrose calls "cosmic inflation a fantasy.
Do you know something that he does not? If you do present it.
At least you said string theory, and bounce theory were just a hypothetical model.
Which means it is something that is based on a guess.
AZPaul writes:
You got one right. And the hypothesis as to why/how (not purpose but operation) is dark energy. Super strong evidence that an unseen energy exists, not so strong on the actual mechanisms involved.
Dark matter and Dark energy are required for the universe to exist without flying apart. That assumption is all the evidence you have for their existence.
quote:
Colossians 1:17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
Definition of consist found here
quote:
To stand together; to be in a fixed or permanent state, as a body composed of parts in union or connection. Hence, to be; to exist; to subsist; to be supported and maintained.
You say gravity holds the universe together and since there is not enough matter and energy in the universe to accomplish that feat science invented dark matter, and dark energy.
The Bible says God holds, or binds it together. There is just as much evidence to support this hypothesis as for dark matter and dark energy.
AZPaul writes:
Did he? Is that the actual translation from the original?
Or was it something like "You bleed too hard you get dead."?
Can you show that he even was, let alone what he may/may not have said?
The Hebrew word נפש means: living being, life, breath as it had to do with God breathing the breath of life into the form He had formed from the dust of the ground in Genesis 2:7 and he became a living being.
The Hebrew word הבשר starts with the definite article translated as the , and the noun meaning flesh, body of humans and animals.
So yes I am sure the original is saying the life of the flesh is in the blood. That life being the contents of the blood which is oxygen and energy, which is transported to the cells of the body.
AZPaul writes:
No, he didn't. This smacks of desperate reaching for something "sciency" to defend the indefensible.
Why do you say "no he didn't". I have photo copies of the Dead Sea Scrolls which is 2200 hundred years old and they used the same two Hebrew words I explained above. According to science those original scrolls are a little over 2200 years old.
The people who lived 400 years after Moses lived had scrolls with the same text written on them.
We have a record of Columbus discovering the Americas in 1492, do you question that information?
AZPaul writes:
He didn't. All he knew, and all your quote of him shows, is that he knew if you bleed too hard you get dead.
Moses was very familiar with draining all the blood from a sheep.
But usually the sheep was dead quite some time before all the blood came out, as the throat of the sheep was cut depriving the brain of blood. Moses probably did not know that the sheep died from the brains lack of blood either.
AZPaul writes:
This forum is full of such religious proclamations, yet, no evidence is ever presented.
Everything I would tell you, you would probably classify as coincidence. But with such a preponderance of coincidences in my life the evidence is overwhelming to me that God does exist.
AZPaul writes:
Ultimately unproductive but I appreciate the sentiment. Thank you.
It will produce exactly what it is supposed to accomplish. It may not produce the result I would like but non the less it will produce a result.
When you die and you will, you will stand before God and be judged by what you have done with the opportunities you had on earth to trust Him for eternal life. You will not have an excuse when you stand before Him.
God Bless,
And I continue to pray for you and yours, and everyone else.

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1446 by AZPaul3, posted 12-24-2018 4:10 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1472 by AZPaul3, posted 12-29-2018 5:51 PM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 1463 of 1482 (846028)
12-27-2018 1:04 AM
Reply to: Message 1457 by Tangle
12-26-2018 3:54 PM


Re: Ancient Wisdom & Common Sense
Hi Tangle
Tangle writes:
There in no science of creation.
That is correct. Everything is based on assumptions. There is no evidence concerning creation.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1457 by Tangle, posted 12-26-2018 3:54 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1464 by Tangle, posted 12-27-2018 3:04 AM ICANT has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 1468 of 1482 (846082)
12-28-2018 1:59 AM
Reply to: Message 1467 by Tangle
12-27-2018 2:49 PM


Re: Ancient Wisdom & Common Sense
Hi Tangle
Tangle writes:
I'm going to belittle and criticise every attempt that ICANT makes to lie about science. That's what he's doing Phat, he's lying about science. Luckily it's very easy to demonstrate how wrong he is.
quote:
Leviticus 17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.
I said the KJV Bible says "the life of the flesh is in the blood".
The quote above is from the KJV Bible.
Does the words that are enlarged say "the life of the flesh is in the blood"?
So where is the lie?
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1467 by Tangle, posted 12-27-2018 2:49 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1469 by Tangle, posted 12-28-2018 3:54 AM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 1470 of 1482 (846085)
12-28-2018 10:00 AM
Reply to: Message 1469 by Tangle
12-28-2018 3:54 AM


Re: Ancient Wisdom & Common Sense
Hi Tangle
Quote your message.
ICANT writes:
I said the KJV Bible says "the life of the flesh is in the blood".
The quote above is from the KJV Bible.
Does the words that are enlarged say "the life of the flesh is in the blood"?
So where is the lie?
Tangle to Phat writes:
ICANT is trying to say that because Moses said that life is in the blood he was telling us something science only discovered thousands of years later. Drivel.
I don't know the point you were trying to make by those two quotes as you did not state one.
But let me comment.
Moses did not say "life is in blood"
I enlarged what Moses said again so maybe you can read it.
There is a big difference in the two statements. One has been proven to be a scientific fact. The other is a lie perpetrated by Tangle.
Moses did say: "the life of the flesh is in the blood".
So stop misrepresenting what I said that Moses said.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1469 by Tangle, posted 12-28-2018 3:54 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1471 by Tangle, posted 12-28-2018 10:21 AM ICANT has seen this message but not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 1474 of 1482 (847781)
01-26-2019 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 1472 by AZPaul3
12-29-2018 5:51 PM


Re: Creation
Hi Paul
AZPaul writes:
No everything is not subjective. There are objective facts.
Could you give me just one objective fact?
AZPaul writes:
Despite what religious people like to expound there is no scientific creation theory ... yet.
The standard theory requires that the universe had an absolute beginning to exist. That would require that it did not exist in any form but began to exist.
Since that is an impossibility without a creator of some sort many have tried to come up with a way the universe could begin to exist without a creator of any sort.
Everything that has been proposed would require a prior existence, for them to be able to take place. Which would require the laws of thermodynamics to have to make exceptions to the law. Which is an impossibility.
But then maybe you are smart enough to explain to me how the impossible can occur.
AZPaul writes:
They certainly can disprove a specific premise but they can never prove one.
If I put forth the premise that water will begin to boil at 212 at sea level that premise can be proven true by causing the temperature of the water to reach 212 at sea level.
If I put forth the premise that water will boil at 211 that premise can be proved to be true also. All you have to do is move to 560 feet above sea level.
Likewise water will not begin to boil until it reaches 213 at 560 feet below sea level.
So you have absolute truth of water beginning to boil at 212 at sea level.
But the premise of what temperature water begins to boil is subject to altitude.
So how can you prove that water does not begin to boil at 212 at sea level?
AZPaul writes:
You might be right, just like they can't tell us how stars work and where all the elements come from or how time slows at really fast speeds and .
You tell me "What experiments produce is evidence, not proof." then you tell me "time slows at really fast speeds". What facts support that assertion?
AZPaul writes:
We don't know that ... yet. We have no idea what attributes, physics, laws operate(d) prior to, before, outside of, right next to, or anything beyond this present universe we inhabit.
But according to actual scientific knowledge there is non existence outside of this present universe. In fact most of the posters on this site that have answered posts of mine have tried to make sure I have heard that nothing exists outside of the universe.
AZPaul writes:
We cannot say if there is or is not anything prior/outside this universe because we have no evidence of anything that could inform us of these things one way or another.
Actually the math breaks down at what is called a singularity which is a point at which a function takes an infinite value, that produces no information. AT this point the temperature of whatever existed at 1 trillionth of a second after T=0 was 180 million trillion trillion degrees Fahrenheit.
That temperature would have to be penetrated to get any information from outside of the universe. What could produce such results?
So the only thing that produces anything one trillionth of a second after T=0 has to be produced by the imagination of mankind.
AZPaul writes:
No, it doesn't. We exist because we evolved.
What facts support evolution? Especially since you don't know how life began to exist.
If you don't know how life began to exist you can't begin to talk about how that life evolved.
AZPaul writes:
You may be right about that.
Science can not tell us how life began to exist.
But you should be able to tell me where life came from.
It is a fact that life produces life.
If you disagree give me one instance of non-life producing life.
AZPaul writes:
I guess ignorance of science tails with ignorance of scientific terminology.
I think I'll just let that one stand there and simmer a bit.
A hypothesis is an educated guess about the answer to a problem or question that is testable using the scientific method.
A theory has received a great deal of scientific support and is generally accepted as true.
True or not it is accepted as true.
That is equal to my faith in God.
AZPaul writes:
It means the model is not yet complete enough to be testable with our present technology. It is still hypothesis, not just a guess. If you cannot discern a difference I cannot help you there.
But a hypothesis is an educated guess.
AZPaul writes:
We see the effects of dark matter in the rotations of galaxies all across the universe.
You see the effect of something. Whether it is an invisible made up something or the power of God is not discernible.
AZPaul writes:
Good name for something you know is there but can't see.
You could call it the power of God that holds the universe together.
AZPaul writes:
And neither are required for the universe to exist without flying apart. They are required to explain what we see the universe doing at this moment.
I thought both were required. One to prevent the big rip and the other to prevent the deep freeze. Putting the critical mass density at exactly what is necessary for the universe to exist.
The word translated consist that Paul used means to place together, or to band together. I thought that described what was necessary.
AZPaul writes:
Where do you get all this wrong stuff?
Are you trying to tell me the critical mass density of the universe which is maintained by this imaginary dark matter and dark energy is not what causes the universe to stay together rather than end by flying apart or in a big crunch?
AZPaul writes:
No, ICANT, Moses, if he even existed at all, may have said some words, maybe even those very words you used (though given the state of the sources I would doubt that) but that does not in any way translate into Moses demonstrating some deep knowledge of hematology in the way you suggest.
According to historians who lived 2800 years ago Moses did exist.
But whether Moses or somebody else made the statement "the life of the flesh is in the blood" that statement was recorded in a book that is called the Bible.
Something that was said that 2300 years later is proven to be a scientific fact would be classified as a prediction or a prophecy. And it would not make any difference whether they knew what they said meant or not. It still was a true statement.
AZPaul writes:
When you and I both die, and we will, our energies will be diffused back into the global environment and our bodies will break down into their constituent molecules and atoms to be used in other systems living and otherwise. Nothing will remain of us here or anywhere except in memories and after a few hundred years not even there.
About 60% of your body will evaporate, as it is water. The flesh will return to dust. The spirit will return to face its maker.
But if you are correct nothing will make any difference.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1472 by AZPaul3, posted 12-29-2018 5:51 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1475 by AZPaul3, posted 01-27-2019 12:04 AM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 1476 of 1482 (847871)
01-28-2019 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 1475 by AZPaul3
01-27-2019 12:04 AM


Re: Creation
Hi Paul
AZPaul writes:
Our perception of reality is governed by our senses, which are limited and flawed.
This is an objective fact.
Which is subject to your personal biases.
AZPaul writes:
Not quite. Present theory posits that this universe may have had a beginning. We do not know what that beginning looked like or what may have, if anything, preceded it.
What hypothesis has become a consensus that replaces the Standard Theory?
I will agree there are several different things that have been mentioned to do away with the requirement of there being a beginning to exist of the universe. Hawking's instanton, string (theory) hypothesis, bounce (theory) hypothesis to mention a few. But none of those have reached any where near a consensus to be called a theory.
The thought is Science can't agree with the Bible so the universe couldn't have a beginning to exist. That is what the Bible says.
The laws of thermodynamics has to be suspended in the past in order for the universe not requiring an absolute beginning to exist, due to entropy.
So how is any other way other than a beginning to exist possible?
AZPaul writes:
Impossibility? How so? You don't know such "was an impossibility" because you don't know what, if anything, came before. No one does.
According to the second law of thermodynamics the universe had to have a beginning to exist, in order to support life today. It could not have existed eternally in the past.
Everything mentioned by scientist to produce our universe require something to exist in order for the universe to begin to exist.
With that something producing the universe.
It is a fact non existence can not produce existence.
I have said on this web site many times that whatever produced the universe would be God. God is said to be all powerful, all knowing, and present everywhere. That is what it would take to produce the energy that produced the mass of matter that is found in the universe.
AZPaul writes:
Thermodynamics appears to be a property of this universe. Since the properties of any supposed "prior existence" are unknown you cannot say such a prior anything was constrained by our views of thermodynamics or not.
If my memory serves me, Sir Arthur Eddington said "if your theory disagrees with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, it is in bad trouble."
Everything Scientist have put forth as a possible producer of the universe requires a vacuum for them to appear in and do their thing. A vacuum is part of this universe of which the laws of thermodynamics is also a part of. If they existed outside the universe then thermodynamics would also exist outside the universe.
AZPaul writes:
Again, you cannot say that creation of this universe without a creator is impossible since you, me, no one knows squat how this creation took place.
I agree we are limited as is science in what we know about the universe and how or when it began to exist.
There are two possibilities:
1. The universe has existed eternally in the past.
That can only happen if entropy does not exist outside of the universe we know.
2. The universe had a beginning to exist.
Science says the universe is all there is and nothing is outside of it. Therefore the universe would have to begin to exist from non existence. Which is impossible.
There would have to be something outside of the present universe that could provide everything to form the universe for it to exist.
AZPaul writes:
You have evidence that water boils at certain temperatures at specific altitudes.
You can do the experiments for yourself.
But I am a steam engineer and had to study water and its relationship to heat quite a bit.
AZPaul writes:
Look up "time dilation". We have a great deal of confidence in the efficacy of this well demonstrated phenomenon.
Time dilation is a fairy tale.
AZPaul writes:
I don't know where you're getting this stuff, Reverend, but this piece of tripe is not from the scientific community. First, we can't even say there is such a thing as outside this present universe let alone what properties may or may not exist in it if there is.
So you disagree with cavediver and Son Goku. They both assured me and made a lot of fun about my making a statement about standing on the outside fabric of the universe. They assured me there was non existence (nothing) outside this universe. As I understand it they both were practicing and teaching cosmologist.
AZPaul writes:
That's what I said, ICANT. We have no evidence of anything that could inform us of these things one way or another.
And I am saying anything beyond that break down has to come from the imagination of mankind. That includes string theory, bounce theory or anything else. To talk about it is dabbling in faith.
AZPaul writes:
If you don't know how life began to exist you can't begin to talk about how that life evolved.
Sure we can. We do this all day long and twice on Sundays.
I know you do. But if God created life as put forth in the Bible it would evolve a lot different that it would if it began to exist any other way. Especially since that way has not been discovered.
AZPaul writes:
Oh, BS. There is no "should" to it. Right now "we don't know" because we don't know.
I thought it was a scientific fact that life produces life. Due to all the experiments trying to create life.
I do know if I breed a male and a female cat they will produce kittens provided both of them are alive. If they are lifeless it is a no go, unless I got the sperm of the dead one in storage.
AZPaul writes:
That's what I said, ICANT. We can see the effects,
No that is not what you said.
You said: "We see the effects of dark matter ". You were identifying and unidentified substance which has not been discovered yet.
AZPaul writes:
I wouldn't since I would rather wait and see what the science produces on the issue rather than jump at some "majik sky daddy" explanation in our present state of ignorance.
Then tell me why dark energy and dark matter was proposed to fix the problem? They could have waited until they had the answer.
AZPaul writes:
There is a whole lot more to this science stuff than you are aware.
Why can't I get by with that when I say "faith and belief is a lot more than you are aware of." But I don't remember saying that to you in those exact words until now.
But I like to keep all things simple. Einstein said "if you can't explain your theory well enough to be understood, you don't know your theory well enough".
AZPaul writes:
They both are required to explain what we see the universe doing around us today. The eventual effects of each on the future of the universe are proposed scenarios dependent on what detailed properties these phenomena end up having which are presently speculated but are still unknown.
They are touted to be the be all end all of the problem that is observed.
AZPaul writes:
No, it wouldn't. It would be called wishful thinking on the part of the preacher trying to push it as some deep understanding of physiology when in fact it was only the well known fact that if you bleed too much you die. Period.
So Moses realized the life of the flesh was in the blood. The KJV translators did not even know that the life of the flesh was in the blood.
But that does not make it any less a scientific fact that the life of the flesh is in the blood.
AZPaul writes:
The water we know about. The flesh we know about. The spirit thing is fantasy.
Only if life came into existence from not existence, as there was no life form to produce life.
I wonder what the odds of that are.
No known extant life which involves three distinct types of interdependent macromolecules (DNA, RNA, and protein), could have arisen in current form. This led researchers to hypothesize mechanisms whereby the current system might have arisen from a simpler precursor system.
No experiment has produced any results yet.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1475 by AZPaul3, posted 01-27-2019 12:04 AM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1477 by AZPaul3, posted 01-29-2019 12:25 AM ICANT has replied
 Message 1478 by Pressie, posted 01-29-2019 4:53 AM ICANT has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 1479 of 1482 (848608)
02-12-2019 2:17 AM
Reply to: Message 1477 by AZPaul3
01-29-2019 12:25 AM


Re: Creation
Hi Paul
AZPaul writes:
Lambda-CDM model
Which requires cold dark matter, and dark energy. Which may or may not exist as no one has found any nor do they know what it is.
Because certain things take place that can not be accounted for the phrase dark energy and dark matter was proposed to solve the problem.
Just like inflation was proposed to solve a lot of problems with the Standard Model. Sir Roger Penrose says inflation is a fantasy. He is one of the most noted cosmologist of my lifetime.
AZPaul writes:
How? We don’t know.
And neither do you.
The universe having a beginning to exist requires a cause for that beginning.
We have scientist who have been devising all kinds of thing to produce the universe and everything in it all of my life and they are no closer to an answer today than on the day I enter this world, from my mothers womb.
Bounce theory has been proposed, string theory has been proposed the BBT has been proposed and many proposals to be added to the front end of the BBT has been proposed. Everyone of them require existence in order for them to begin to exist. Branes require a vacuum as does Hawking's instanton in which to pop into existence.
The others require the universe to be eternal in existence which the second law of thermodynamics says can not be, as the universe is expanding.
So my argument is just as valid as any other. You have a great opportunity in this thread to prove me wrong.
AZPaul writes:
But not to quibble. Yes, this universe may have had, and probably likely did have, an actual beginning meaning, maybe, just maybe, this whole blob of spacetime was sparked from "we have no idea."
But you do have an idea and you are very vocal about it.
On the other hand I have an idea and am very vocal about it.
In the long run it does not matter what you or I think. The universe could prove both of us to be wrong. We just have to keep reading the pages as we find them and reach our own decisions.
If you are right neither of us will ever know the correct answer. But if I am right I will know the correct answer.
AZPaul writes:
In that case this entire modern electronic world is being driven by a fairy called GPS.
Do you mean because the element of the atom called cesium vibrates faster the further it is away from sea level? That is not proof of time dilation, only that gravity affects things which we know.
AZPaul writes:
Ohh, yes, I saw how you misunderstood what was said.
What is there to understand about there being no outside of the universe?
Do you mean it is expanding into something? If so what?
AZPaul writes:
Just like all our other theories. Most proud of those big ones like SR, GR, QED, QCD, Lambda-CDM, the list goes on.
Would you care to try and explain how any information can be discovered that is beyond the point that the temperature was trillions of degrees K?
Or is that a misrepresentation of 1 billionth of a second after T=0?
AZPaul writes:
I don’t have that handicap.
Then present the evidence to support your assertions.
AZPaul writes:
We just need a few more decades . or more.
A few billions years will not produce life from non life.
AZPaul writes:
Or are you trying to imply the Illuminati made them up in their on-going lust to control the rest of the universe just like we . they did with time dilation?
Oh no I believe there is a power that holds the universe and everything in it in place. In fact certain laws control the orbits of everything in the universe. Colossians. 1:17
Gravity affects clocks at elevation above sea level. Time does not speed up, clocks just run faster with less gravity.
AZPaul writes:
When talking with other learned adults, that’s one thing. When talking with children, that’s another.
If you can't tell it to where the children can understand it how do you expect adults to understand it. The children have no preconceived ideas the adults have already made up their mind what they believe. And they don't want you to bother them with the facts. I learned that from preaching.
AZPaul writes:
We just DO NOT KNOW.
Are you sure it is not just some form of energy?
AZPaul writes:
Oh, I’m pretty sure if we could ask those folks, “What happens when you bleed too much?” they would answer, “You be dead!” Yeah, they knew.
What does bleeding have to do with the statement "the life of the flesh is in the blood"? That does not say the blood is the life of the flesh.
AZPaul writes:
Again, give us time. We’ll find it. But don’t wait up. It’ll be a bit, yet.
I don't have much time left at my age.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1477 by AZPaul3, posted 01-29-2019 12:25 AM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1480 by AZPaul3, posted 02-12-2019 5:02 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024