I don't know about what God your talking about, but not of God in Bible. Because the God in bible loves us so much that he sent hes own sun to die for us. Yes, he does test you. But that doesn't mean he is bad.

John 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

Romans 5:8 but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
Ephesians 2:4-5 But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, evenwhen we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ— by grace you have been saved—

1 John 4:9-11 In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him. In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another.

1 John 4:7-8 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love.

Psalm 86:15 But you, O Lord, are a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness.

Read more: http://www.whatchristianswanttoknow....#ixzz2ZIH00mx4

Ok, then proove me that evolution is right.
1)Fossils don't count as evidence, because only thing you know about it that it died. You don't know it had any kids. And even if you count. They prove Noah flood as much as evolution.
2)similarity proves one creator.
3)All human stages are disproven.

In an effort to perhaps glean something interessting from this:

It often seems that "bible-truthers" have a rather haphazard way of quoting scripture. Basically, whatever kind of relates to the point being discussed seem good enough to be quoted as support for the position that's being defended/argued.

Why is that? The trivial answer would be lack of knowledge and inability to critically examine positions. But perhaps it's something more? Maybe if you believe the bible to be the very words of God, then every word is, basically, Truth. Whether the verse is applicable on a literary level or not doesn't matter so much insofar you're always applying Truth, so to speak, to whatever position is being argued.

In any case - there seems to be a curious correlation:

Those who defend the literal Truth of the biblical word tend to be rather lenient when selecting scriptural evidence.
Those who are rigorous when quoting scipture, tend to be rather lenient when it comes to its literal Truth.

Sigh... this is why we laugh at Hovind. He's an idiot:

If the bible is the divinely inspired word of god, and god lives in an eternal present, how is it unlikely that the bible contains facts that couldn't have been known, by the writers, at the time of writing?

I'm pretty sure he was referring to carbon dating.

Fascinating. Can you present the argument in a form that can't be fatally undermined by the theory of plate Tectonics?

Trying to talk about this in terms of "likely" is framing the entire discussion in a silly way. It's like saying "God is omnipotent, so how likely is it that he would make humans walk upright?" All you're doing here is making the same theological missteps of how you think about and handle scripture as OP is doing with his claim.

You're both welcome to be stupid in how you read the Bible. But if you choose stupidity, you shouldn't expect reasonable responses.

Yes i have heard of Thunderf00t. He just hates Bible and creationists. As I say earlier. We can leave Hovind out of discussion. Theres hundreds of other and even better scientists that protect Bible. Yes, he made mistakes in his videos. But evolutionists are even more amazing. And that’s why:
1) Funny try to find human evolution
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4ylfLqiyRo this is just funny. Guys are just desperate to find proof of there evolution/religion 3min
2) Proof that dinosaurs turn to birds are just super funny
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IiUPbqBxvr0 11:30 min
3) And even funnier is what they really believe. They believe that nothing exploded and produces everything and life started from a rock that turned in to soup and come alive-They call this science, i call this not normal thinking.
4) Darvin watched birds and realized they are from same ancester(really good, you just proved what bible says). And then thought that birds are related to bananas(Ok, this is not normal, sorry)
watch on evolution before you decide about creation.
For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old.2 Peter 3:5

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fpp37iJogFI Just watch this

stupid in how you read the Bible??? How is that? Scientific facts are all directly said and there is no question what is ment

You can choose whatever wording you like, likely, reasonable, possible... The point is that bible is the divinely inspired word of a deity that lives in an eternal present and to whom everything is known.

That there would be facts in the bible that couldn't have been known to the writers is therefore not surprising. The source of those facts could, and should, be the god who's word the bible is.

I dont think you understand what evolution is claiming. Perhaps you should investigate it further before dismissing it.

Also , the ridiculousness of their claims is irrelevant as far as the truth of the claim. That is, if the claims are true, then they're true whether the claim seems ridiculous or not.


I watched, now what?

Right... and if you had asked the original authors of the passages what they meant, they would tell you there's no question that they were referring to scientific facts that they couldn't even imagine.

For example...

There has been some discussion regarding my CAT Scan post.

If someone says he was an atheist who believed evolution and other scientific theories are an accurate reflection of reality and then suddenly turns into a fervant zealot of biblical literalism and young earth creationism I am genuinely concerned how this radical change in personality came about. Assuming he wasnt lying I think we should rule out a brain tumor.

[QUOTE=neeeel;39385897]I dont think you understand what evolution is claiming. Perhaps you should investigate it further before dismissing it.
Ok, lets brake it down. Evolution:

1) Cosmic evolution-big bang, time creation,creation of matter
2) chemistry evolution-how all chemical elements ware created
3)Planet evolution-how planets ware created
4)Organic evolution-how life started
5) Macro evolution-from dogs to other type animals
6) Micro evolution-
Only one of this proven in science is micro evolution. Yes, all dog kinds are from one dog and bible states the same, but all other parts of evolution aren't proven.
Cosmic evolution problems

1) How did matter where crated,
laws of physics started,where did energy come from?
2)Why does planets and even galactic spin backwards. That just doesn't make sense because of conservation of Angular momentum.
3) Why there still are comets?? They cant survive so long
4)The first law of thermodynamics tells us the mattery can not be created or destroyed and And the second rule says when all the time going against extinction. For example, the building eventually collapsing
5)Supernovas(destroyed stars) can survive for millions of years, but we can see only about 7000 years old them

chemistry evolution problems

1) The big bang created hydrogen and helium, but how could develop other elements
Planet evolution problems

1)You know that moon has really big effect on Earth climate and in time when dinosaurs lived would have terrific climate
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMAC0ZZxZC4
2)Why we don't see stars forming but only blowing up?
Organic evolution-no proof how it started only theory
Macro evolution-no fossil evidence how can one kind of animal can produce other. We have evidence of micro evolution, but not micro. And about wale and bird fossils (the only 2 prof of macro evolution)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IiUPbqBxvr0 bird
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_pSnYzbIlY whale

Also , the ridiculousness of their claims is irrelevant as far as the truth of the claim. That is, if the claims are true, then they're true whether the claim seems ridiculous or not. Yes but thats only theory. There no proof

Read yourself
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Science_Confirms_the_Bible
http://www.eternal-productions.org/101science.html
And there is nothing anti scientific in Bible. How that just can be?

Not as fast. It took a year. I was sceptic too long of Bible

You need to look into these for yourself, it seems clear to me that the theories of how chemical elements were created for example, is a well formed and well supported theory.

Lets say I agree with you that its all false, that evolution is a lie, and that none of it happened the way that science says. That STILL doesnt get you to "god of the bible is true"

[url]http://www.examiner.com/article/growing-list-of-scientists-who-consider-young-earth-creationism-yec-a-fact-and-evolution-as-bunk

I never claimed that the Bible was anti-scientific.

Is the choice of your name a deliberate reference to the Islamic 'Allahu Akbar'? I know it doesn't translate exactly as 'God is great', actually it's 'god is greater' but it's still very close.

Are you also considering Islam or have you settled on Christianity? What other religious belief systems did you consider?

The wording matters. You can't just randomly substitute one word for another and pretend like it communicates the same thing.

I agree with this statement.

Think about it... You want to jump from likely to reasonable to possible to surprising... as if these all mean basically the same thing. They don't.

^I thought the previous version was more to the point.

???? No only Christianity. Had no idea of that when made it up