Reth's All-Inclusive Church

[Rethel34]

Yep. Meaning I don't discriminate against denomination. Why should I? Just as long as you can admit that you're a sinner and genuinely repent of your sins, believe in Christ Jesus as the Son of God, and confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord of all, you're my brother or sister in Christ.

If you don't believe in what Christians do, I ask that you not swear or curse in this topic. That's actually part of why I posted it. It get's kind of annoying watching people use language that offends my Father in Heaven, and by extension, offends me, and I've no doubt that others feel the same way.

So anyway, yeah, I'm sticking my neck out, but this is how evangelism works. You put your beliefs out there, not forcing others, but simply offering guidance so that they may come to repentance. And I think I'm going to pull out some end-time prophecy studies soon, so I needed a place to share some of this. I think I'm going to start with one of the most-discussed points in the Book of Revelation: the Four Horsemen. I'll tie Revelation 6 to other places in the bible to help give a thorough explanation that will either give credit to the beliefs you already have, or change what you believe drastically.

Anyway, for now, let's just have some friendly chatter.

[Wayne]

I'm definitely the hugest sinner I personally know, but I've recently decided to give Christianity another shot. I like to keep it private, but I believe in Jesus Christ as my lord and savior, and I've finally figured out for myself how the whole Trinity works.

Just gotta take baby steps.

[Rethel34]

Truedat. c:

I've only been saved for just over a year, so I can relate. It's a process that takes work and time, but even with the cruelty in the world, it tends to make a person happier to know s/he has eternal salvation.

[Rethel34]

Discussion 1: The First Horseman of Revelation
Revelation 6:1-2
[1] Then I saw the Lamb open one of the seven seals, and I heard one of the four living creatures say with a voice like thunder, “Come!” [2] I looked, and there was a white horse. The horseman on it had a bow; a crown was given to him, and he went out as a victor to conquer.
(HCSB)

There has been a great controversy as to whom this figure exactly is throughout the course of history, as a name is not directly given. However, in comparing this passage of Scripture to other passages and symbols, a conclusion can be drawn as to this horseman's identity and purpose.

Firstly, it is quite blatantly seen that the second and forth horsemen are destructive. I mean, the second one is described as holding a great sword and being able to disrupt the peace of the earth. Then the fourth is called Death. I think that explains itself. Then it's not hard to find that the prices given to the third describe a famine, which we will cover later. If the other three are destructive, why wouldn't the first be destructive as well.

I know, it seems like some really crummy logic, but stick with me. My true reasoning has to do with the term "seal". Throughout the Bible, something that is "bound" or "sealed" is in that state for a VERY good reason. There are angles bound (or sealed) at the river Euphrates that are released at the sixth trumpet who kill a third of the remaining human populace with an army of 200 million horsemen. Not good. Satan, at the return of Jesus, is sealed in the abyss for 1000 years. He certainly isn't a good thing. Death, war, and famine aren't good things, and they are contained behind seals. A great earthquake that moves every mountain and island on earth is contained behind a seal, which certainly is NOT good. Long story made short: If something is contained by a seal, 99% of the time it probably has destructive force and will bring about destruction when its seal is broken.

Okay, so let's give this horse the benefit of the doubt for a minute and assume that it might be one of the few things contained behind a seal that MIGHT be good. We can see that this horseman is given a crown and is riding a white horse, causing many to assume that this figure is Jesus, the Holy Spirit, the Word, or the Gospel. The color white can be a symbol for purity, righteousness, and conquest, the third of these being especially evident to this horseman's purpose in the latter part of verse 2, which says "he went out as a victor to conquer." Then we think of crowns, and we imagine a king.

Now, we compare this to Jesus saying that the Gospel must be spread throughout the earth, and we instantly assume that this is Jesus as King of the world. However, let's take this passage and compare it to Jesus' appearance on His white horse later on in Revelation to see if they line up.

Revelation 19:11-16
[11] Then I saw heaven opened, and there was a white horse. Its rider is called Faithful and True, and He judges and makes war in righteousness. [12] His eyes were like a fiery flame, and many crowns were on His head. He had a name written that no one knows except Himself. [13] He wore a robe stained with blood, and His name is the Word of God. [14] The armies that were in heaven followed Him on white horses, wearing pure white linen. [15] A sharp sword came from His mouth, so that He might strike the nations with it. He will shepherd them with an iron scepter. He will also trample the winepress of the fierce anger of God, the Almighty. [16] And He has a name written on His robe and on His thigh:

KING OF KINGS
AND LORD OF LORDS.
(HCSB)

Firstly, let me say that if you didn't get that this is describing Jesus, then read John 1. If I go into explaining that I'll get way off track. Otherwise, what distinct differences are there between Jesus' appearance here and the other white horseman?
- He uses an iron scepter to harvest nations, not a bow to conquer.
- A sharp (double-edged) sword comes from His mouth to strike his enemies.
- He already has many crowns rather than a single crown which must be given to him.

The sword is very distinctive here. In fact, every time the Word of God is described as a weapon, it is a double-edged sword. For example, when Paul describes the full armor of God, he makes reference to the "sword of the Spirit, which is God's word." If the first sealed horseman were the Word of God, don't you think it would be holding a sword and not a bow?

Believe it or not, the seals that can be observed on earth are explained by Jesus in Matthew 24:3-8. That link contains a three-way parallel between the NKJV, HCSB, and NLT versions of the Bible. He describes false prophets, wars, famines, pestilences (or disease), and earthquakes. The three middle points are flatly stated in the fourth seal, and earthquakes in the sixth. However, none of the seals describe false prophets outright.

However, Jesus says that many will come in His name, claiming to be the Messiah. Suddenly we have something that ties together here. The white horse gives an outward appearance of righteousness as many would try to portray in saying that they are messiahs. The seemingly minuscule differences between the sealed white horseman and Jesus shows that false prophets will go to any length to make themselves seem similar.

The bow actually has some significance, especially considering it has no arrow to accompany it. My theory is that this horseman has a powerful appearance, but does not use brutal physical destruction to conquer, merely intimidation and diplomacy. He will have the ability to conquer, and will conquer, without the use of weapons of war, though he will have them at his disposal.

You ask what makes him destructive, then? Well, let's look at 2 Peter 3:16. He begins with referring to Paul's teachings, which he says the "untaught and the unstable twist . . . to their own destruction, as they also do with the rest of the Scriptures." It's not physical destruction that this horseman brings, but spiritual destruction to all those who fail the test he is allowed to bring upon the inhabitants of the earth.

Then we return to the crown and make a full circle. The crown, as mentioned before, gives us the indication that this person is a king. If he is a false prophet, wouldn't that make him the king of false prophets commonly referred to as Antichrist? However, if he didn't come out of the seal as a king, then he has to work his way up the ladder, right? He will "earn" his place as a "king of the world", having conquered everything in the world physically, and bringing a test to all the earth's inhabitants, urging people to worship him, claiming to be a messiah or a god. Do not listen to anyone who claims this, as when Jesus returns, He will not have to earn his right as King, as He already has His right to the throne granted to him by His Father. He will come as quickly as a flash of lightning, and His people will be taken to heaven at the seventh trumpet, first those who have "fallen asleep in Christ" (those whose bodies have died, but whose spirits will live eternally with the Lord), then those of His followers who still live on the earth in the first resurrection, also commonly known as the Rapture. Then at his arrival, heaven and earth shall pass away (or be destroyed) and give birth to a new heaven and a new earth. But that's another story for another day.

Feel free to post any questions or comments you may have, but I request that you keep them clean.

[Kaga]

Posting here so I remember to come back when I'm not as busy.

This seems like an interesting place to discuss such matters - and one of the few threads here on RPG where I'd feel comfortable doing so.

[Rethel34]

Here's something for people to ponder until I pull up the next discussion:

Without God and His promises, do we have a guarantee that the laws of logic (such as "The Law of Non-Contradiction" which explains that the statements, "The light is red," and, "The light is not red," cannot both be true simultaneously while referring to the same light) and the laws of physics (such as "The Law of Gravity") will be the same tomorrow as they are today?

Yeah, I'm going to get really technical and scientific to explain that God exists beyond a shadow of a doubt.

[Wayne]

Sounds good to me.

[Rethel34]

Discussion 2: The Source of Logic

So here's the deal. We all know that the same light cannot be both "red" and "not red" at the same time. It's common sense, right? And what about the law of gravity that keeps us from floating around in the air? These are theories that scientists come up with, but unless you are a Christian, you have no guarantee that these laws are going to be the same tomorrow as they are today.

You say, "But it's always been that way. According to the Theory of [insert-name-of-some-theory-that-says-laws-of-physics-and-logic-can't-change-here], these laws will never change because they have always been the same."

That's not good enough evidence to a Christian, just the same as the "Bible proving itself" holds no water against a non-Christian, though the Bible does prove itself when you look at it not as one book, but the mixture of sixty-six different books and multiple authors that it really is. But that's not what we're here to discuss.

See, a Christian can actually give a better explanation than that. The Laws of Logic (for example, the "Law of Non-Contradiction") have never changed and never will change because we have a God who the bible tells us is unchanging (Job 23:13, Malachi 3:6, Hebrews 13:8) and is the source of knowledge, which is the source of logic (Genesis 2:9). Because God is the source of all logic and is unchanging, then His logic will never change, and the laws of logic shall ever stay constant.

Similarly we can say the same for the Laws of Physics, which were created because of God's logic. Therefore because God's logic is unchanging, He has also made the Laws of Physics unchanging.

However, if you do not believe in God, the only explanation you can give is "it's never changed before", which holds no water because things have changed before according to science, because no scientific law or theory that is currently in effect can explain how the universe came to be, yet it obviously did, so the laws and theories had to work in reverse so that the universe and the earth and life could be created, which somehow happened to reverse just in the nick of time so that asteroids suddenly created craters rather than mountains, and life began to degrade and stopped evolving, etc. It's easier just to believe in God. I don't know how anyone thinks this other stuff makes sense.

And yes, I used science to prove God exists. Kind of. I should do this more often; it's fun.

[Rethel34]

Next Week's Discussion: "Theory on Dinosaur Fossils"

[Wayne]

This is great. I really like how you explain things.

[Rethel34]

Thank you. But this is not directly me; it's God's wisdom that brought this to my heart.

[Wayne]

He's an awesome guy.

[Rethel34]

So, I haven't had much chance to write this up until now, but here it is.

Discussion 3: Dinosaurs: How do They Fit?

We've all gone to the museum and seen dinosaur fossils at some point in our lives, right? Those big, mean, nasty creatures with fangs sharper than your pocketknife. Well, maybe some of them weren't quite so vicious, but I believe I have some degree of an explanation.

A scientist would have you believe that fossils formed over a long period of time, having taken years and years of sediment to compress them into the fossils that they are. However, if you've ever buried a pet in your backyard, then accidentally dug up where it once was, you know that it decays far too quickly for any such thing as a fossil to form from it. So how do they form? It would have to be a very rapid compression of layers of sediment falling on top of creatures and burying them alive. This is not supported by any evidence given by an asteroid colliding with the earth and sending up a massive dust cloud. The only debris such as that that has ever formed anything close to a fossil was when Mount Vesuvius erupted and buried Pompeii. Unfortunately, even those results, as close as they were, did not form legitimate fossils. Mere casts were left behind of people buried in the soot and debris. Sorry, but asteroids don't cut it.

See, we've all read the story of Noah; we know about the flood, that he took animals on the ark in pairs (1 pair of all unclean animals and 7 pairs of all clean animals), that between the waters of the sky and the vast expanses of water beneath the earth's crust, the earth was completely covered in water, destroying all life left on its surface. To add to this, water is the only force capable of displacing so much sediment so quickly so as to bury creatures alive and form fossils. You've probably heard of fossils of water-dwelling creatures being found on mountains and in deserts, right? Then people try to explain it away as, "Oh, about a million years ago, this used to be a lake." I'm sorry, but the world's only been around for about 6,000 years. Add to that, a desert or a mountain is not going to have been a lake. It just doesn't happen that way. The only plausible explanation for those fossils is the flood described in the Book of Genesis.

So you say: "How do dinosaurs fit in here?" I'm getting to that soon enough. Genesis 6:2-4 says that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful and took them as wives, also describing that their offspring were powerful men known as the Nephilim. If it is saying that the "sons of God" saw that the "daughters of men" were beautiful, then only one explanation remains: the sons of God were God's angels, but not just any angels, as normal angels would not commit sexual immorality with daughters of men. No, these would be fallen angels, who followed Satan.

These Nephilim would have been people such as giants, and other breeds of powerful men, bred by Satan for destruction. Notice how I said "bred", not "created". If Satan was capable of breeding powerful men, would he not have also been capable of breeding powerful destructive animals such as dinosaurs? Then you start to think about how the non-violent dinosaurs fit into the equation. This is actually quite simple. The appetites of the herbivores would have been enormous. They would have easily been capable of consuming tons of vegetation, destroying the resources of the ancient people, while the carnivores would terrorize mankind by consuming the people themselves. Then when we consider that Noah and his family were the last righteous people on earth at that time, perhaps it was not because of a falling away of mankind completely, but perhaps many of the righteous were destroyed by Satan's concoctions.

The dinosaurs being bred by Satan also gives an explanation as to why they wouldn't have been on the ark, as even the unclean animals created by God were allowed a place on the ark, yet the Nephilim were not allowed with Noah and his family. Similarly, I think these villainous dinosaurs would have been in a category with the Nephilim: Destroyed with water under God's wrath. As water is the most powerful force of erosion, a flood across the whole earth could have displaced as much sediment as entire mountains to bury these creatures alive with as much pressure as the bottom of the ocean (which is basically what is required to form a fossil), leaving us with their remains. This would also give an explanation for some dinosaur fossils being incomplete, as the force of rushing water could very easily have ripped them apart (Sorry for the graphic terminology, but it gets the point across). Thus, given the factors of the flood, we see that there was no Jurassic era or any other such period of time when dinosaurs roamed the earth. Just what God has given us in His Word . . . and a little bit of reading between the lines and using some evidence given in our world.

Anyway, I think that's about it. I hope this all makes sense, but it is, after all, just a theory. However, this is the best explanation I can give concerning the question too many people have: "How do dinosaurs fit into the Bible?" Enjoy, and God bless! :)

[Chapatrap]

"How do dinosaurs fit into the Bible?"

Dinosaurs weren't mentioned in the bible, so we can therefore assume they never existed at all and that God put strangely shaped rocks in the ground for us to find (at least, that's my take on it). Silly scientists! They know nothing of Gods work.

[gorgenmast]

I really don't understand why you fundies have such an aversion to evolution when so many other sciences and theories agree that the Old Testament is complete horseshit. The Young Earth Creationists devote all this time to trying to prove that evolution is some kind of satanist hoax or whatever, but then forget that the simple fact that humans have been to space and have satellites that orbit around the Earth contradicts the very first chapters of Genesis. The firmament cosmic model proposed in the first 10 or so verses of Genesis, where you have a flat world encased by a domelike firmament that surrounds the sky from "above waters", is obviously wrong as hell. According to Genesis, there is no space to even go to - rockets would just crash into this big dome above the world. Clearly, that's not how the sky/space works, seeing as we have a fleet of satellites whizzing over our planet that relay weather information, satellite photography, and the very telecommunications signals that make this post possible.

So why don't I see you fundies trying to boycott NASA? Clearly space is a lie by Satan to trick little children away from going to church.

Seriously, though. Why can;t you people just join the Catholics, Lutherans, etc. and agree that evolution is the only working explanation for the diversity of life on Earth?

[Rethel34]

@Chapatrap: Also possible. I mean, if God created the world, why not create something to test our faith, right? After all, he allowed Job to endure much worse testing than just finding items that supposedly proved God nonexistent. Of course, if this theory is correct, they would likely not have called them "dinosaurs" in Noah's day as we do today, given the fact that the term was coined in the modern age. This is just another idea for those who don't like the idea of "God placed them there." Either way could make sense, and honestly I don't see it changing our salvation whether we believe this or that about the dinos. :)

@gorgenmast: Nothing is said in the Bible concerning any "dome" or "flat world". No one ever said anything about space being a "lie by Satan" here. As far as evolution goes, here're my thoughts on that:

1) The inventor of the theory himself admitted it was wrong.
2) If evolution happened, then how on earth do we have birds. If it was from desire, that wouldn't work because humans desired flight for ages and never actually grew wings and feathers. If it was from necessity, the amount of time required for said evolution would leave most species of birds extinct.
3) No one has found the missing link.
4) The odds of earth forming on its own and evolution happening just exactly as it supposedly did with such perfect balance to the ecosystems are so much more against it happening than the odds of Jesus fulfilling all the prophecies written about him. Laws of Physics and of Nature and whatever else scientists say describe that as time progresses, nature is going to degrade, not evolve and form from nothing. Try it yourself. Create a completely empty vacuum in a little ball and see how long it takes for something to be created from that nothing. Nothing will ever happen. So why shouldn't I believe in God if science contradicts everything, including itself, while the Bible contradicts nothing? I can see no reason.

In a nutshell. This isn't me forcing my beliefs on you. After all, it was your choice to click here. This is me stating my opinion as far as my beliefs, as it is the job of Christians to proclaim their beliefs. If you don't agree, no one is forcing you to sit around on this topic and complain about this, that or the other. Also, I would suggest reading the Scriptures before you attempt to say they are invalid. Please. I don't desire to bicker meaninglessly over this. If you actually read the Bible and decide it is untrue, then it's your soul, your choice. I have no power over that.

[gorgenmast]

@gorgenmast: Nothing is said in the Bible concerning any "dome" or "flat world". No one ever said anything about space being a "lie by Satan" here. As far as evolution goes, here're my thoughts on that:

"And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so." Genesis 1:6-7 KJV

Here's a graphic depiction of this model I found on google images that's pretty consistent with what I was told in an Introduction to the Old Testament class.

As far as evolution goes, here're my thoughts on that:

Ho lordy.

As someone that graduated with a degree in Biology from a reputable university, let me go through each of those points and tell you why they're wrong.

1) The inventor of the theory himself admitted it was wrong.

No he didn't. Charles Darwin never said anything to that effect.

2) If evolution happened, then how on earth do we have birds. If it was from desire, that wouldn't work because humans desired flight for ages and never actually grew wings and feathers. If it was from necessity, the amount of time required for said evolution would leave most species of birds extinct.

Well, I agree, you can't just 'will' something to evolve. Bird feathers evolved and become more complex as a result of more effective competition and favorable selection. Bird feathers, like reptile scales that they evolved from, are growths of epidermal keratin - the same material that comprises the majority of human skin and hair. Feathers originally grew out as a sort of peachlike fuzz on dinosaurs that helped Jurassic dinosaurs thermoregulate (stay warm). It's widely hypothesized that arboreal(tree-living) dinosaurs developed more complex feathers for gliding and flying by leaping down from the trees in the same way a flying squirrel does. This is supported by what is probably the most famous missing link fossil of all: Archaeopteryx, which shows both characteristics of both dinosaurs and birds.



This segues perfectly into your next point...

No one has found the missing link.

Yes they have. There are THOUSANDS of missing link fossils. Paleontologists have found missing link fossils between dinosaurs and birds, otter-like predators and whales, toothed whales and baleen whales, and hundreds of specimens between humans and their apelike ancestors. One of my professors and actually wrote a book devoted entirely to missing link fossils. You might consider getting a used copy and educate yourself on the topic you're trying to explain.

4) The odds of earth forming on its own and evolution happening just exactly as it supposedly did with such perfect balance to the ecosystems are so much more against it happening than the odds of Jesus fulfilling all the prophecies written about him. Laws of Physics and of Nature and whatever else scientists say describe that as time progresses, nature is going to degrade, not evolve and form from nothing. Try it yourself. Create a completely empty vacuum in a little ball and see how long it takes for something to be created from that nothing. Nothing will ever happen. So why shouldn't I believe in God if science contradicts everything, including itself, while the Bible contradicts nothing? I can see no reason.

Life is not something that is perfectly crafted for a perfectly designed planet. Life is develops through trial and error and fortunate accidents - it is not built or balanced immaculately. It is more like a gallon of water being poured into a vase - filling up little niches and spaces and equalizing itself out at the surface and forming itself perfectly to every little contour of its container. Life was not designed for this planet - it developed and molded itself to thrive on this planet.

It is true that in a closed system, entropy will prevail and ordered systems will tend to disorder as per the Second Law of Thermodynamics. But Earth is not a closed system. The biosphere of our planet is affected by solar energy from above and geothermal warmth from within. This input of energy makes it thermodynamically favorable for complex organisms to exist. The Earth is not a vacuum in a sealed ball - your analogy is not consistent with the state of the Earth's biosphere.

...Anyway, I realize you are not trying to proselytize and even if you did, I wouldn't care. I don't care what you think for yourself. If you want to believe this tripe then be my guest. But once you spout a bunch of psuedoscientific horseshit about how the world works and try to pass it off as the truth, you better believe that as a biologist I'm going to call you out on it. Also, I'd like to add that I've studied the Bible for myself - probably more rigorously than you have. Just saying.

[Chapatrap]

I now believe in dinosaurs.

[Rethel34]

Showing me a diagram of how someone interpreted the words of the Bible does not prove anything about it saying the world being flat with a dome around it. The Hebrew word translated as "firmament" is also capable of being translated as "expanse", and the word used in the description of the "heavens" in said passage is capable of being translated as "sky". This is talking about the creation of the clouds. Besides, we have figured out by now that heaven is not on the top of some cloud, as clouds dissipate. Heaven, for quite some time, has been assumed to be extra-dimensional.

That given, there is still not ANYTHING in the Bible that says anything about the world being flat. If you reference the passages stating "from the four corners of the earth", there are some who hypothesize that this is referring to earth's four tallest mountains. In fact, Job 26:7 says . . . *ahem* . . . let me pull out the old King James Version (that I never use; I prefer HCS Version, but whatever). It says: "He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing." This concept was largely unthought of until people began circumnavigating the world.

The analogy of the little ball in a vacuum was not to be an analogy to the earth's biosphere, but to the "Big Bang Theory". Seriously, if you try that experiment, nothing will ever happen. Not on its own. Say we throw some dust in that empty space. Will it gravitate together and form a planet? Nope. It'll just stay floating dust, incapable of anything. And we've even given it more to go off of than what the universe supposedly had in the first place: dust AND time. Therefore, how is evolution possible? You haven't found the fur of these dinos that supposedly evolved into birdies. You've found flying dinosaurs that you claim are your "missing link." Excellent, but there are still some problems.

1) If we evolved from monkeys like what evolution is taught, then why is our DNA closer to that of a mouse?
2) If we evolved from monkeys and birds from dinosaurs, then why are there still monkeys but not dinosaurs?
3) If what you are saying is true, then how did fossils form? Because the ONLY force capable of burying dinosaurs alive and forming fossils would be the flood. Honestly, try to form a GENUINE fossil on your own. Don't carve it or make some indention on a piece of clay like you do in elementary school. Seriously sit down with an animals skeleton and lots of dirt and see if you can get that to form a fossil. A fossil has to be formed quickly, not over an extended period of time, under massive amounts of pressure which would not be available any other way.

Also, I'd like to add that I've studied the Bible for myself - probably more rigorously than you have. Just saying.

If this is the case then I would expect you to believe. After all, there are at least seven witnesses whose accounts are given in the Bible (and at least two other written accounts that I can think of that weren't included in the Bible) as those who were eyewitnesses to Jesus' existence that I can think of, yet not one account is given being a witness to evolution.

And I would greatly appreciate it if people would please avoid cursing in this thread. Thank you.

Honestly, if people would open up their eyes, they'd see that the only thing the Bible disproves in science is the "Theory of Evolution", and all that stuff that says the earth is millions of years old. Notice the word "Theory". Key word there. But the Big Bang? It was God's voice. See discussion 2 for more on the topic of the Bible relating to science. It's not a hindrance to science. If people would accept what it says, they'd realize that the Bible actually STRENGTHENS science.

If we think about the world being created in the sense of what the Bible says, we don't have to worry about the silliness of something like a temperature snap or membranes touching and forming the universe. Besides, without matter, isn't it impossible for temperature to exist? And if time didn't exist when the Big Bang happened, then how could membranes move? Time is defined by movement, and if there was no time, then there was no movement, and the membranes would have have to have begun touching each other, and that's a paradox, because if something came from these membranes, then where'd the membranes come from? Are they living? Otherwise how would they have been set in motion?

See, the Bible tells us that God created through speaking, all except the humans made in His image, which He molded with His hands from the dirt of the earth. If he spoke it into existence, and the Bible describes God's voice as being like a multitude or like thunder, would you not imagine that His speaking would essentially be a "Big Bang"?

Anyway, no point in beating a dead horse. I just ask that if you do not believe as I that you not enter this place using foul language that we wouldn't want young kids saying, so why should we use the same language?

Also, I will be describing soon how Biblical prophecy is coming true. Don't believe me? Read about the Four Horsemen (starting in Revelation 6:1) and the Olivet Prophecy (starting in Matthew 24:3). These signs are here. All of them, rather than just some. And you mean to say that the Bible doesn't have any legitimacy? Earthquakes, wars, false prophets claiming to be the returned Jesus or a Messiah. They're here. Killing by plague? Ebola. Don't know what it does? Rots you alive and turns your innards to soup. Not fun. Killing by the beasts of the earth? How about the recent rising of shark attacks and brown recluse bites? Not in the sense you'd think, but they're still scientifically in the Animal Kingdom, correct? Disrupted peace? Flip on the news. Crime is on the rise. 'Nuff said.

How much more do I have to describe? I hope I've gotten my point across. This stuff's real, and it's happening. Just know that when Jesus returns, though we do not know the day or the hour, it WILL BE MADE KNOWN. All the sources of light in the sky will fall dark and the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the night. But by then, it will be too late for the inhabitants of the earth who have not followed Jesus. Then in an instant the vials will be poured out, and these are not fun. The earth will be destroyed by the presence of Jesus with the vial/bowl judgments, as the Bible says that heaven and earth fled from His presence. Then a New Heaven and a New Earth will be made and those taken at the seventh trumpet will reign for 1,000 years, during which those who refused to repent will live out their sentence in the lake of fire.

Then, Satan is released and the second resurrection occurs, during which the people who participated in the first resurrection will be immune to the tests of Satan, but those who endured their sentence in the lake of fire will face his trials, but this is their final chance, from what I have interpreted. Don't be fooled, though. Despite there being a second chance, I doubt it will be as easy as the life we are given now. God is gracious, but once you've seen His power for yourself, He allows the testing to understand who will turn away from their sin and love Him. Those who fail this final test are, to the best of my knowledge, returned to the lake of fire, or hell, which, despite what the movies will portray, is no party, unless you enjoy your limbs being ripped off and being in a continual state of having an asthma attack and your chest being ripped open and worms burrowing inside your flesh. Yeah, that's what happens when you follow in Satan's footsteps and curse God. You follow that devil right into the lake of fire, and trust me, God doesn't like to see people have to endure that. After all, it is not God's will that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9).

[Vilageidiotx]

The inventor of the theory himself admitted it was wrong.

This story is interesting, actually. It was made up by a woman who wrote a religious column (if I recall right) in the late 19th century. She claimed that she had been with Darwin on his death bed, and that he had recanted and got hella into the Jesus and all that. In reality, she hadn't actually known Darwin, let alone did she ever have a chance to be with him at his deathbed. She drew quite a bit of fire from his estate for it, but there were enough people reading and publishing her claims that is spread. Didn't help that there wasn't a Snopes at the turn of the century.

If we evolved from monkeys like what evolution is taught, then why is our DNA closer to that of a mouse?

Is it mice now? When I was growing up the lies all the old ladies kept trading back and forth was cats. I suppose you gotta change it up or you get caught.

What you are mixing up is the fact that we are genetically similar to mice. Not more similar to them than monkeys. Just more genetically similar to mice.

If we evolved from monkeys and birds from dinosaurs, then why are there still monkeys but not dinosaurs?

Well, first off this isn't a video game. Its not like evolution works by clicking a button on a tech tree and watching as everything just sort of moves to the next level simultaneously. Populations that are permanently divided do not usually follow the same path, partially because their needs are different and partially because there was so many other variables involved. Dinosaurs were big. They required more of everything to thrive. When the Cretaceous Cataclysm put a whoopin' on the Earth, they couldn't survive the squeeze for resources that followed. The birds and proto-birds did manage to thrive. Those birds had descended from previous dinosaurs. It wasn't like the Cataclysm happened and all of the dino's panicked and sprouted wings. We are talking about millions of years of shit going down, after all.

If what you are saying is true, then how did fossils form? Because the ONLY force capable of burying dinosaurs alive and forming fossils would be the flood. Honestly, try to form a GENUINE fossil on your own. Don't carve it or make some indention on a piece of clay like you do in elementary school. Seriously sit down with an animals skeleton and lots of dirt and see if you can get that to form a fossil. A fossil has to be formed quickly, not over an extended period of time, under massive amounts of pressure which would not be available any other way.

Because fossilization isn't as simple as "Put something in a lot of dirt and check on it right before you go to bed."

And yes, scenes from bad water-world fanfic are not the only thing that can quickly pressurize something. You got yourself some landslides, some earthquakes regular type floods that are violent enough to bury... there are a few options.

If we think about the world being created in the sense of what the Bible says, we don't have to worry about the silliness of something like a temperature snap or membranes touching and forming the universe. Besides, without matter, isn't it impossible for temperature to exist? And if time didn't exist when the Big Bang happened, then how could membranes move?

Metaphysics. This isn't something where scientists actually have a lot of guidelines written up because, as of now, scientific inquiry is stuck investigating the physical world because that is all we can interact with at this point. Time, space, and the current rules of physics as we know them are defined by each other within the universe. Before the big bang, these things didn't exist, and neither did the laws. There is no way to know what came before. Could it be a creator? Yes. It seems more likely, in my opinion, to have been something weirder, but when we are dealing with metaphysics even the nature of what an intelligence is becomes muddled. There are a lot of people hypothesizing about how we can break past this barrier, but to my knowledge we haven't been able too.

Hell, who knows, if we do manage to break out of the universe we could go do something completely wild. If there is a God, we could go kill the bastard. That would be fun.

Also, I will be describing soon how Biblical prophecy is coming true. Don't believe me? Read about the Four Horsemen (starting in Revelation 6:1) and the Olivet Prophecy (starting in Matthew 24:3). These signs are here. All of them, rather than just some. And you mean to say that the Bible doesn't have any legitimacy? Earthquakes, wars, false prophets claiming to be the returned Jesus or a Messiah. They're here. Killing by plague? Ebola. Don't know what it does? Rots you alive and turns your innards to soup. Not fun. Killing by the beasts of the earth? How about the recent rising of shark attacks and brown recluse bites? Not in the sense you'd think, but they're still scientifically in the Animal Kingdom, correct? Disrupted peace? Flip on the news. Crime is on the rise. 'Nuff said.

The problem is that these things have been going on fairly regularly since as far back as there have been people ( at least). Earthquakes are sort of a fundemental force of nature. Wars go back at least to ancient Sumeria, probably further than that. If anything, we've been dealing with less wars recently. We've went seventy years without a full-scale war between major powers. That might just be a record. Plagues, likewise, are not only old-news but also rather calm now. Ebola has killed a handful of people in Liberia. The Black Plague wiped out 30% of Europe.

And... rises in shark attacks are so rare that they would make a poor herald to the end of the world. You get a couple a year, maybe. I would expect an apocalyptic animal attack to look like Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, but nothing that cool has happened. Just a few brown recluses giving people nasty sores. This is the God that flooded the entire world so badly it drowned the unpopular fish! This is the God that parted the Red Sea with nothing but a stick-wielding jew and a little chutzpah. I gotta see that pizazz before i'm sold, man. Lions wielding lances from cattle-back! A whale with an Uzi and a bone to pick! THAT might put the fear of god into me. All the brown reculse thing does is put the fear of sheds into me.

Also, crime isn't the same everywhere. In the US, it has been (per capita at least) on the decline since 1980. Nancy Grace drumming up a wailing and gnashing of teeth every time a little white girl sneezes funny is what has been on the rise.

How much more do I have to describe? I hope I've gotten my point across. This stuff's real, and it's happening. Just know that when Jesus returns, though we do not know the day or the hour, it WILL BE MADE KNOWN. All the sources of light in the sky will fall dark and the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the night. But by then, it will be too late for the inhabitants of the earth who have not followed Jesus. Then in an instant the vials will be poured out, and these are not fun. The earth will be destroyed by the presence of Jesus with the vial/bowl judgments, as the Bible says that heaven and earth fled from His presence. Then a New Heaven and a New Earth will be made and those taken at the seventh trumpet will reign for 1,000 years, during which those who refused to repent will live out their sentence in the lake of fire.

The thing is, this is what unsells your beliefs more than anything. There is no real-world reference for any of this. The streetlights go out, a big neon "J" appears in the sky, and all of a sudden the few people on earth who still use vials are suddenly inconvenienced. And then we all blow up and everybody except for Kirk Cameron and Billy Graham are tortured. That... just... isn't going to sell. Not to competent people in the twenty first century.

Now, if I do recall right, Jesus did at some point in time say.when addressing his buddies, that "“For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and will then repay every man according to his deeds. Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.“

This seems to suggest that he's late. Or did he addressed the reader while giving a speech? Because that would seem... awkward, for Jesus to have a Frank Underwood moment. Or, perhaps one of them are still kicking it? That would be sort of cool I guess, a two thousand year old man who looks at the calender and sighs, hoping that today will be the day that he has been waiting for all these years, holding on to that last shred of hope in the back of his mind only to swallow two thousand years worth of sadness every night before he goes to bed.

But, if we are to assume that the Christian mythos did take place, the future still looks bleak. Like, it sort of looks like God forget about us. He got busy making Christina Hendricks and it slipped his mind. Maybe he figured he would let us keep going because we keep making such awesome stuff. I could see God up there, thinking "I'll... I'll send in the horsemen after GRRM finishes A Dream of Spring. Or... maybe when the TV show is finished." I dunno. I wouldn't blame him. End of the world means he has to spend the rest of eternity socializing with all the really dull people who are in his fan club. Sinners seem to do all the cool stuff that would be worth watching from the heavenly seat. I dunno.

... or maybe Nietzche did manage to kill him.