Radiometric Dating.......

[Nickatwarwick]

I've just read this link posted by Scorpion a few weeks ago...

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

To me it provides conclusive evidence that proves the earth is older than a literal biblical account. Will anyone claim otherwise?

The earth's been here millions of years. Surely?

[newseed]

All I know is that God is eternal and time is not because time is only a human understanding.

Of course it is only my opinion and nothing more.

[Nickatwarwick]

I agree that time is not eternal, indeed God created it when he created the universe, just like the other spatial dimensions. But I'm not sure that time is just a human understanding, I reckon it'd still be here without the human conscience.

God started it ticking with the Big Bang, and it's been constant plodding onward ever since. There's so much evidence for an ancient universe. Why would God put all these indications there if it wasn't the case? Surely he's not taunting us for his own amusement?

[newseed]

Surely he's not taunting us for his own amusement?

I don't think so but Satan would.

[Omega]

I agree that time is not eternal, indeed God created it when he created the universe, just like the other spatial dimensions. But I'm not sure that time is just a human understanding, I reckon it'd still be here without the human conscience.

God started it ticking with the Big Bang, and it's been constant plodding onward ever since. There's so much evidence for an ancient universe. Why would God put all these indications there if it wasn't the case? Surely he's not taunting us for his own amusement?

God is not limited to time, time exists for man until the full completion of the divine purpose of Gods will is finished. Then when believers fellowship with the Almighty at the regeneration, time will no longer be necessary due to immortal life.

God Bless!

[Omega]

I've just read this link posted by Scorpion a few weeks ago...

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

To me it provides conclusive evidence that proves the earth is older than a literal biblical account. Will anyone claim otherwise?

The earth's been here millions of years. Surely?

It does not say in the bible how long ago the earth was created. Some say a day in the book of Genesis refers to a thousand years, because...2 Peter 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

AS NOT IS

Since God is Eternal, a day in the book of Genesis in the account of the creation days may and can mean a long amount of time. Man was formed after the creation of the earth on the sixth day. Who knows how long before man came into existence the earth was formed by the Spoken Word of God.

God Bless!

[Nickatwarwick]

[quote="newseed"][quote]Surely he's not taunting us for his own amusement?[/quote]

I don't think so but Satan would.[/quote]


I don't think this is the case. The properties of matter at the most basic level are fundamental to the existence of the universe. If they weren't exactly the way they are, the universe would probably not exist. God has made the physics of matter so perfectly the total understanding of it is beyond our human comprehension [Quantum Mechanics], but the results of his handiwork, such as radiometric dating are very apparent. And they still point to an ancient universe!

Don't give Satan the credit for something as amazing as the Physics of the universe!

God Bless

Nick

[Nickatwarwick]

Omega,

I'm with you on the length of a Genesis day viewpoint. I was wondering if you know which Hebrew[?] word was originally used in Genesis in this context, and how else it was used throughout the remainder of the OT?

Thanks,

Nick

[newseed]

Nick,

It's not that I give Satan credit which on the contrary he is worthy of no credit other than deception. When I read your post, I did misinterpret what you said. However, since man has made many misakes of their so called theories, one can never be sure just to how old the earth or the universe really is. Satan will use this to derail those that believe in the creation existing just 6000 years regardless as to how old the earth is. For every good that God has done, Satan can twist it.

Personal, man has existed for 6000 years. As for earth and all other things before man, I don't have a clue as to how old it may be...if such an age exist. This is one area I have no knowledge of. However, I will keep watching this post for it is somewhat interesting.

Thanks for the feedback Nick.

In His Name,
Eddie

[Omega]

Omega,

I'm with you on the length of a Genesis day viewpoint. I was wondering if you know which Hebrew[?] word was originally used in Genesis in this context, and how else it was used throughout the remainder of the OT?

Thanks,

Nick

The Hebrew word is {yohm} which means from morning to night or sunrise to sunset, or daily. It can also mean a non-specific amount of time.
The Greek counterpart is makros.

[twohumble]

Yohm is used in many contexts that reveal a long or indefinite period consistently throught Genesis, and the OT.

For instance, Genesis 2:4
"THis is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created in the day (yom) that the Lord God made the earth and heaven."

Here we see a clear example of how 'yom' was used in early Genesis to refer to a period of time for the entire creation event.

Not also that in ancient hebrew, there was no word other than 'yom', to represent ideas such as: epoch, era, generation, or other long period of time. So when you see things like "in the generations of our fathers" it uses 'yom'.

The other words in Genesis when it refers to "morning and evening" these words are "boger, and ereb", and they also can mean "the closing of a day, or era or epoch" or "the beginning of a day, era or epoch".

Don't be confused by what YEC's force upon scripture. This does not imply a 24hr creation day in the slightest.

[Nickatwarwick]

That just makes SO much sense!
Why oh why did somebody choose to translate it as day?

It means the first thing anyone who picks up a Bible for the first time reads is ever so slightly misleading [sadly, most DO start at the beginning!], and immediately puts off those who have a secular education. Also, the insistance of fundamentalists on the literal meaning of this wording is very off putting as well.

It's such a simple answer, it's just a shame it's been misconstrued.


God Bless

Nick

[Light]

Couldn't you also say then that Jonah was three thousand years in the belly of the whale?

Also, that quote from 2 Peter states only that God is outside of time. If you were to take the "one day as a thousand years" line and multiply it, you still wouldn't come close to the purported age of the Universe put forward by most scientists.

[twohumble]

Couldn't you also say then that Jonah was three thousand years in the belly of the whale?

You could, but the context would not lend itself to an "age" interpretation. Hence, that would be poor exegesis.

Also, that quote from 2 Peter states only that God is outside of time. If you were to take the "one day as a thousand years" line and multiply it, you still wouldn't come close to the purported age of the Universe put forward by most scientists.

You will note that it says "as a thousand years" and not "is a thousand years". Peter is giving an analogy not an actual figure. A thousand years to most people, is as distant as 13 billion, for all intents, and purpose, the analogy fits, no matter how far off the actual number is.

[Chrysoprasus]

Interesting perhaps, but by no means conclusive.
http://origins.swau.edu/papers/geologic/geology/

http://www.radiocarbon.com/labmethods.htm

There simply is never going to be an accurate scientific method one can have complete faith in that is able to tell about a time that no human can know for sure ever even existed. How can one provide evidence that can be trusted about something that hasn't been experienced?
That's simplistic I know, but I cannot conceive of scientists attempting to gain any solid proof that one would trust as more than half accurate when there is absolutely no comparison model that could come close to being useful in such a study.
Chrys

[twohumble]

Interesting perhaps, but by no means conclusive.
http://origins.swau.edu/papers/geologic/geology/

http://www.radiocarbon.com/labmethods.htm

There simply is never going to be an accurate scientific method one can have complete faith in that is able to tell about a time that no human can know for sure ever even existed. How can one provide evidence that can be trusted about something that hasn't been experienced?
That's simplistic I know, but I cannot conceive of scientists attempting to gain any solid proof that one would trust as more than half accurate when there is absolutely no comparison model that could come close to being useful in such a study.
Chrys

Chrys, I am not sure your take on this subject from the above post, but it seems that both papers you linked are supporting the relative accuracy of Old Earth theory. Science deals with repeatability, and preponderance of evidence. Scripture relies on Gods character as trustworthy and never deceiptful. Here is a quote from your second link:

"Experimentation has determined that the rate of production of radiocarbon in the earth's atmosphere is not constant. This is due to variations in the heliomagnetic modulation of the galactic cosmic radiation. Differences of several percent have been observed in the radiocarbon concentrations of contemporary plants. Dating errors, independent of statistics or laboratory procedures, caused by these variations in the sun's magnetic field, can be as much as several hundred of years. It is generally considered that four radiocarbon dates on a specific feature is sufficient to identify the occurrence of this error."

All this report is saying is it takes more than one test to get within a small window of accuracy, it does not say they are not reliabable tests.

Maybe you can clerify for me where you stand on this issue.

[Chrysoprasus]

twohumble, the links weren't meant to disprove it, but to simply show that it is not a fool proof method or one that should be taken as able to give conclusive evidence for one to solidly base a position on.

I have no solid stand on anything as far as anything in the cve debate and related items go.

Chrys

[twohumble]

twohumble, the links weren't meant to disprove it, but to simply show that it is not a fool proof method or one that should be taken as able to give conclusive evidence for one to solidly base a position on.

I have no solid stand on anything as far as anything in the cve debate and related items go.

Chrys

Chrys
There is nothing 'full proof' , Newtonian physics was overturned by General Relativity, yet its still used to calculate most of our space mission landings and tragectories. It is not 100% correct...but its reliable to within an acceptable margin of error. Just as the dating issue goes.

There are 8 independent tests for the age of the Universe, and they all agree. The bible tells us of Gods antiquity, and the antiquity of His creation. We are told to "ask nature" by the Psalmist. I don't think science should ever be considered complete....but, it is merely a representation of Gods nature, and He reveals Himself, and His purpose in His Creation. Therefore, we can be sure that it is not deceptive. Science is not Christianity's enemy...its our friend. Big Bang cosmology does more to prove the God of the Bible than anything evolution did to destroy it. The atheist world is rocking trying to find any way out of the Big Bang. Kant, and many others who would like to deny the personal God of the Bible, have for nearly a century, tried to get out of a beginning for the universe. They cannot, the science is too strong. Only the God of the bible stands as a credible option to the beginning of things. No other religion offers any rational god choice.

[DMP]

Chrys and Twohumble...I'm impressed by your academic knowledge. It took time for you to acquire it.
I'm just a preacher. But as far as determining the age of the earth or universe would it be near impossible to determine the age if it was existing in a perfect state with God where nothing including time could be applicable?
And speaking of time...Genesis says that God put the lights in the firmament... one great and one lesser light to rule...also the stars...and they were to mark days, seasons, and years. And this was on the 4th day of creation that (marked) time would begin. This I assume would be for man's benefit but existing before sin. So it could be hard to date an earth that did not deterioate or as the Bible would say...an earth that did not wax old as it would after sin.
I would love both of your inputs please. You have very sharp minds and I want to learn. I doubt you could learn from me but I can use your expertise in my sermons and Bible studies. So don't be offended by any of my statements or questions I might ask.

Thanks

DMP

[Jovaro]

How would you define deterioating DMP?
The rotting of trees which provides nutritious earth for other trees?

I don't think life itself is possible without deterioating, but maybe that depends on how you define it, so that is why i am asking.

[twohumble]

Chrys and Twohumble...I'm impressed by your academic knowledge. It took time for you to acquire it.
I'm just a preacher. But as far as determining the age of the earth or universe would it be near impossible to determine the age if it was existing in a perfect state with God where nothing including time could be applicable?
And speaking of time...Genesis says that God put the lights in the firmament... one great and one lesser light to rule...also the stars...and they were to mark days, seasons, and years. And this was on the 4th day of creation that (marked) time would begin. This I assume would be for man's benefit but existing before sin. So it could be hard to date an earth that did not deterioate or as the Bible would say...an earth that did not wax old as it would after sin.
I would love both of your inputs please. You have very sharp minds and I want to learn. I doubt you could learn from me but I can use your expertise in my sermons and Bible studies. So don't be offended by any of my statements or questions I might ask.

Thanks

DMP

DMP
In Genesis 1 we see this outline :
vs 1, summary of the creation event.
vs 2, a description of the perspective of narration. God is narrating, NOT, from Heavens perspective, but from "hovering above the face of the earth".
vs 3, Lights were formed, and set in the firmament.

This occured long before the 4th day. On the forth day, the light 1st became visible to an observer who was narrating from the perspective of 'hovering on the surface, looking up". Dont mistake that in Genesis 1:3, the lights were already there.

In recognizing early primordial atmospheric conditions, we know that early earths atmosphere was opaque and would totally block the sun and moon. Only after dissapation of the primordial atmosphere, would the 'sun and moon' be visible. This does not mean that they were just formed at that time.

Proper exegesis needs to understand the verb tenses in Hebrew, and the word used in day 4 for creation of the sun and moon, can be a past tense verb. Or denoting something that has already happened.

Understanding the perspective of narration is critical to understanding Genesis 1, and the creation event.

The laws of physics are set up so that this universe is finite and will end. I am sure that is all in Gods plan.

God bless.

[DMP]

Great reply Jovaro...your point is well taken.
I'm wondering just how much different, though, life was before sin entered the world. Did things have to die to give life to another? Was the laws of nature different before sin? There is some thought that proposes for example that the Earth itself changed its polarity as well as the direction it now rotates after Noah's flood. It's as though creation itself was put in reverse of its original purpose. Much like Hell being the opposite direction from Heaven.
You see...Jesus himself was born under a law in order that he might suffer death. He grew older; his skin cells had to be recycled (a type of death to give life); he even died to give us life. When he ressurected from Calvary laws changed for him. He now was reborn (the firstborn from the dead) above the laws that Adam fell under and caused us to be born under. He will not die anymore. He now, as Adam once did, lives above all principalities and powers.
I wonder, was Jesus referring to this when he said behold, I make all things new when heading to Calvary. Could it be that the reason creation itself groans to be delivered (waiting for the Sons Of God) would also fall into this category. Things use to be different for them. It was different for Adam. Adam, before sin, never had to work by the sweat of his brow. He worked by the power of his word (when he spoke...it was so).
God hates death. That is...death as we know it. So I'm wondering...is death, today in nature, different than it was before the sin of Lucifer, Adam and Eve?
It's also interesting to note that when Adam sinned the Sonship of God escaped him. It was only after God came in flesh to meet John the Baptist at river Jordan that we hear the Lord refer to Himself by saying "this is my Son"...as though there were no Sons of God. Another example..."For God so loved the world that He gave His "only" begotten Son". And another where He says "now ye are the Sons of God" before his ascension...which is what happens when one is born again.
Again all inputs are welcomed and asked for.

Thanks Jovaro

DMP

[DMP]

Wow...awesome Twohumble. I just now saw your reply. I love it. Give me time to respond with more questioning as I find time for it please. This is great! Thanks a million!

DMP

[Nickatwarwick]

Were laws of nature different before sin?

Personally, I doubt it. I think a distinction needs to be made between the laws of nature, call them "Physics", and the spiritual laws which transcend human experience and understanding, call them "Religion". To say physics changed when sin entered the world doesn't make sense to me. Sin has little bearing on the microscopic workings of the universe. Indeed, most of it would work if we, humans, weren't here.

What happened when Jesus raised himself from the dead went beyond this. It was something so different, so radical, that it was practically unfathomable even to those closest to Jesus.

Jesus didn't just die and come back to life again, like Lazarus. His resurrection goes far beyond that. Laws far more important than those of physics were shattered and replaced. The change was so incomprehensible that the disciples themselves don't even recognise Jesus. He's changed beyond imagination, beyond recognition.

Jesus' death and resurrection changed EVERYTHING. It shook up the very concept of religion. It's wonderful, beautiful and awe inspiring, albeit confusing on occasion. All we can do, as humans, is praise God that it did happen, and that it happened for each one of us.

God Bless,

Nick

[DMP]

Listen fellows...you have to help me learn how to place the quote I desire to refer to and not the whole statement..

Thanks for your input Nickatwarwick (and I wish you had a shorter name.....just kidding). You are forcing me to think deeper and now my head hurts. Twohumble does this to me to. But I'll be the better person for it.
Now, would you elaborate further on the comment "To say physics changed when sin entered the world doesn't make sense to me. Sin has little bearing on the microscopic workings of the universe. Indeed, most of it would work if we, humans, weren't here".
My belief has been that the original creative purpose of animals changed when sin entered. Animals eating animals, etc.

Thanks so much

DMP

PS. Alright Twohumble...where are you on this one...hehehehe

[twohumble]

Regarding death before sin...this is a deep subject that books have been written on...but, here is a link that I think does a nice job on the subject.

http://www.reasons.org/resources/apolog ... e_the_fall

http://www.reasons.org/resources/apolog ... _mortality

Both are excellent discussions of this topic

[DMP]

Thanks Twohumble...these sites are now part of my Favorites on the computer.
I have read each site to get an overview of their thoughts. I do have a few difficulties with some of the expressed views but not enough to warrant further discussion here. I am extremely pleased with what I have gleaned. They were very helpful. Many thanks for your generosity and kindness.

DMP

[Nickatwarwick]

Hi there,

In terms of the purpose of animals changing after sin entered the world, I think i'm right in saying a literal Bible view states this happened after the flood. [Genesis 5 Chp 2] Clearly a long time after the entrance of sin.

But the very concept of animals suddenly changing into carnivores just after the flood is a surely an erroneous one. There's a lot of people out there who would have you believe Noah took dinosaurs and sabre tooth tigers onto his ark with him. The bones of dinosaurs such as T-rex, clearly carnivores, have been reliably dated before the flood. Animals have been eating other animals pretty much since life started, and to claim otherwise doesn't make sense!

To elaborate on my previous statement about Physics changing upon the entrance of sin. Sin entered the world just after Adam, which everyone can agree was less than 2 million years ago. Assuming the universe is much, much older than that, Physics would have changed relatively recently.

Basically, Physics at present can be reduced to 2 main theories, Quantum Mechanics, which governs the very small, and General Relativity, for the really really big. The main goal of modern physics is to find a theory which unites these 2, a so called "Theory of Everything". This would mean all the phenomena we observe in Nature could eventually be boiled down and explained by a particular theory.

If this theory was "changed" [by sin for example], the ramifications would be huge. If they'd changed in the recent past, things would surely be very noticable. Indeed, our universe is set up very delicately and would probably just plain not work if anything about it's governing laws were changed!

I've probably just clouded the issue, but i think that's what i think, if you know what i mean......


P.s. Call me Nick

[Nickatwarwick]

Doh, don't know what I was thinking when I quoted that verse, I meant to write Genesis Chapter 9 Vs 2.
Must be the stress of finals

Nick

[DMP]

Thanks for allowing me to call you Nick.
Thank you for your response and further clarification on death before sin and did it change the animals.

I was just watching the news and guess what ...another theory from new studies that caused the extinction of dinosaurs. This time it was not simply the climate change alone from a meteorite. It was the temperature difference that caused a sex change in many to give an overwhemingly male populace. This resulted in their extinction the study said.

I'm impressed by your answers Nick though finals at college for me ended 29 years ago. Good luck.
A scientist on the Learning Channel or Discovery gave a good presentation a while back that T Rex was actually a scavenger by explaining differently about purpose of his hands and arms as well as his teeth.

Everyone can have an opinion based on study and faith. I have one too. But my goal is to gather information by asking questions and making statements probing for answers to help my ministry.

We agree that E=MC squared and that light travels in a straight line at the speed it does. But now we know through someones study and experimentation that light may actually be influenced to behave differently than previously thought. Certain outside forces bend and even slow its speed of travel in some instances. Again, whatever influence it is that effects it.

My point is... things visible and invisible...natural and supernatural could be influenced even effected by the introdution of another principle, law or power. And if there is no ruling King, Word, Force (Savior?) that gives the command for order, alignment and purpose...then some things if not all are given to eventual chaos.

The earth was without form and void (no order or limits...no rightful purpose) and the result was darkness on the face of the deep.
So could it be that God, who is Alpha and Omega (beginnings and endings), begins the process of how things will operate and to whom creation will be accountable by standing on the water covered earth (and some say this can't be done)...looking up... begins to Voice (sound) as a conductor uttering commands that have to be obeyed. God begins to divide and dominate. This priviledge was given to that which imaged God which was Adam (a man). This would begin the relationship of Father and Son. But when sin entered Adam...the dominator became dominated by every power he once ruled and commanded because the Sonship...the priviledged relationship was now absent or lost. That would result in God coming with Sonship to save, deliver, that which was lost, without form and void, and in terrible darkness. So, now again...the earth is without form and void so to speak and the reslult is darkness again (if you know what I mean).

So when I said that sin changed laws is incorrect. It's better for me to say laws were affected by sin. So it is possible, in my humble opinion, that nature was left to pursue a course of action without direction and proper accountabillity. Personally, I have no problem with death existing before the sin of man. Death before sin would have been, to me, beautiful and constructive. Maybe the word sleep would be a more applicable term as God putting Adam to sleep (death?) to bring from him Eve. And this was done before Adam sinned. Death after sin is grossly painful and destructive to bring to pass the opposite course originally purposed and desired. Even a celestial creature (Lucifer) was found with sin before man. I wonder what effect he had on things? Some powers have a slow effect while others may have a sudden effect. One wonders.

Your "theory of everything" is very interesting. That which would unite. Could it be when the sons of God take their rightful place with their Father that we will see these things be? A lot of theories to go between now and then.

Thanks Nick...your input is valuable to me. I can't express myself in the scientific domain as so many of you can chemically and physically. I deal in the spirit realm which I believe affects everything. I don't know all the theories and faiths that are out there. So be gentle with me.

Now I await for someone to pick this to pieces. hahahha (the nature of things)........... And I know Twohumble lurks about ..

DMP

[twohumble]

DMP wrote:

We agree that E=MC squared and that light travels in a straight line at the speed it does. But now we know through someones study and experimentation that light may actually be influenced to behave differently than previously thought. Certain outside forces bend and even slow its speed of travel in some instances. Again, whatever influence it is that effects it.

Hi DMP, I won't pick your post apart, but I will comment on this "speed of light" thing. The speed of light has never been shown, by any experiment, to change. There have been different calculations, over time, that appear different. This is more a result of our accuracy with testing today, than in earlier studies.

Light is affected by gravity, and we have identified "dark matter" by the gravitational effect it has on light. It 'bends' light as it light travels by strong gravitational fields. It does not slow it, however.

The idea that the speed of light has changed over time is erroneous, and a poor ploy of YEC's camp.

God bless, and enjoy the wonderful adventure of studying Gods creation. As you know, He reveals Himself to us in His Word, and in His creation. Both represent Him, and both are accurate.

[DMP]

Greetings Twohumble...

I'm glad you responded so soon. Now I can go to bed ..

Thanks for the info on the speed of light. I don't have a clue about YEC's though.

But listen, how about a little more info on "dark matter" being identified by gravities influence on it. I had always taught that darkness in the scriptures was a form of light energy, etc....and that God is Light but in Him there is no darkness at all.

I'll read any reply tomorrow. Darkness now awaits me. It's 1:06 here in Tennessee.

Goodnight and Bless you Big

DMP

[Nickatwarwick]

What can sometimes be confusing is that light does change it's speed depending on the medium through which it's travelling. That's why we see diffraction in glass, and why prism make such pretty patterns. The most important notion in Physics, which Eistein realised in the early 1900s, is that the speed of light in a vacuum [which makes up most of space], is constant.

This doesn't just mean it stays the same wherever you measure it in the universe. Oh no.

Imagine someone throwing a cricket ball at you. Say they throw it at 10 metres a second. Say it takes 1 second to reach you. If you wanted to catch it in less than a second, you would run towards it. You running would make the speed of the ball faster RELATIVE to you, and you could catch it, say 0.8 seconds after it was thrown.

Light doesn't do this. It's crazy. Say someone shines a torch at you. Say the light takes a nanosecond to reach you. Now you run towards the light, or run away from it. You can even get in a spaceship and zoom off at millions of km per hour. The light will still take exactly one nanosecond to reach you. The speed of light is constant. Practically all of modern Physics depends on this.

Now for why light bends as it travels through space. This is also down to Einstein. He was after all, a rather bright chap. His 2nd Theory of Relativity, General Relativity, brought gravity into the equation.

Imagine space as a great big rubber sheet. Now chuck a bowling ball into the middle to represent a massive object like a star. The sheet will bend under the ball, creating a well or curved surface. Now take a small ball bearing, to represent light. Ping it across the sheet at a good speed. If the sheet was flat, without the bowling ball, the bearing would move in a perfectly straight line. With the bowling ball, the bearing will move in a curved path, that is it bends as it passes close to the "sun". This is what happens with light. It's been experimentally verified, and is one of the most successful scientific theories ever.

Using this, you can search for matter in the universe, as well as things like black holes. If you see light bending when it shouldn't, there's likely to be a big massive object doing the bending.

As for the notion of God being light, that's an interesting one. But i've got to go and revise. Less science, more religion in tonight's posts!

Cheers

Nick

[twohumble]

Nick

Nice explanation. Yes, you are very correct, my comment was directed at the YEC that light has changed its speed over time, and was one time much different than today, which is absurd. Light does travel at different speeds through different conditions, and that is well verified.

DMP

Dark matter is interesting, and here is a link.

http://www.astro.queensu.ca/~dursi/dm-tutorial/dm1.html

[DMP]

Thanks Twohumble

DMP

[Nickatwarwick]

OK,

1st exam over. Now let's look at whether human existence and the resurrection of Jesus has a bearing on nature.

I think not.

Science, particularly astronomy, has been documented since before the death of Christ. If the death of Christ, the most important event in the history of mankind [along with his resurrection], changed the laws of nature, someone would have noticed, and written it down. This hasn't happened.

I think the purpose of Jesus transcends the physical laws of this world, leaving them intact, and changing far more important spiritual concerns. Insomuch, I hope you can share some of your knowledge with us scientist scum DMP, just as we can with you!

God Bless,

Nick

[DMP]

Hi Nick...hope you made a 100 on the exam.

How many hours do you need to accomplish your goal?

Thanks for your reply and nice words of invitation in the exchange of knowledge and sometimes opinions. I don't know what or how much I would have to offer but I know that I can always receive.

I'll make a deal with you. You teach me your knowledge from a scientific point (and religious) and I'll share with you a little from the Spirit dimension.

Really, thanks for sharing yourself with me.


Until later...
Bless you Big

DMP