From Adam To Noah

[DiscipleDave]

Do you know what makes a great wine? AGE.
DiscipleDave said

One of Jesus miracles is He turned water into wine, and it wasn't just any wine, it was a great wine, AGED wine.
If our scientists today could travel back in time to that very day that Jesus turned water instantly to wine, and that scientist were to examine and test that wine to see how old it was, they would say "This wine is dated to be over a hundred years old" yet in reality it is but a few seconds old.

Evolution is merely a teaching satan came up with to cause people to doubt the Word of God.

At least you didn't say that the wine Jesus provided at the wedding at Cana was non-alcoholic grape juice.

Why would i say it is grape juice, the Word of God is quite clear that it is wine. You are something of a puzzle to me though, most who teach evolution are the ones who teach that the wine is grape juice. Because most those who believe in evolution do not believe God would make anything that APPEARS to be old. In other words i teach that the Earth was created in 6 days, and after He was done the EARTH in every way appeared to be billions of years old. EXACTLY like Jesus made the wine in seconds and it in every way, taste, look, smell, APPEARED to be aged wine. If then you believe it was wine and believe in evolution (hence the my puzzlement) Why can't you grasp that God did create the Earth in 6 days and it in every way APPEARED to be billions of years old, When that is EXACTLY what He did with the wine and the fish? Can you explain why the Earth could not be created in 6 days, just like the wine was created in a few seconds?

Thank God for small miracles.

It is not a miracle that one believes what the Word of God says, Well, i take that back, with this generation you are probably right.

You don't know much about wine. Wine does not age gracefully. There are very few wines that wine connoisseurs would recommend keeping for 5 years, let alone 100.

And you don't know much about what is considered a figure of speech. A figure of speech is generatlizing something usually NOT factual, such as saying a hundred years old. And who told you i don't know much about wine? Did you come up with this through the Holy Spirit or from your own thinking? Can't be from the Holy Spirit of God, because i know quite a bit about wine. You see many years ago i came across a group of people who thought it sinful for a preacher to drink wine even if it is in the confines of his own home. Also there were people who condemned a church because they actually used wine for communion. So i have studied wine extensively, how it is made, what makes it, when did it come into existence, when was the first record of its existence, the effects of wine on the mind, how it effects the cells in a body, as i said extensive research on wine. you don't know me at all, and it is wrong to assume that you did.

If Jesus made 100-year-old wine, it likely would have tasted like vinegar.

Are you saying that Jesus could NOT make a wine that is over a hundred years old taste good? Just saying. but what i said was a figure of speech.

Makes me wonder what else you don't know much about, like evolution and methods for dating fossils.

Makes me wonder how many people will now realize which one does not know much.

^i^

 

[JackH]

Why would i say it is grape juice, the Word of God is quite clear that it is wine. You are something of a puzzle to me though, most who teach evolution are the ones who teach that the wine is grape juice.

Obviously you are an expert on good weed as well as wine because I would characterize your posts as toking and joking.

The above statement I quoted by you is absurd. Do I really need to explain why? Tell that to the Pope and the Catholics who support evolution and never met a grape that wasn't fermented.

You are also clueless about methods for dating human fossils. I would suggest this link at the Smithsonian as a starting pointing for educating yourself:

Dating | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program

 

[DiscipleDave]

DiscipleDave said

Why would i say it is grape juice, the Word of God is quite clear that it is wine. You are something of a puzzle to me though, most who teach evolution are the ones who teach that the wine is grape juice.

Obviously you are an expert on good weed as well as wine because I would characterize your posts as toking and joking.

not an expert, but i do have some knowledge of weed, my brother was what people would call a pot head, So in order to understand and maybe to better help, i studied that as well. And as to your remark about toking and joking, i have only toked one time in my life, did not see what the big deal was, never did it again. and joking, i rarely ever do. Matters of fact most people who know me, say i am too serious, and i often hear the remark "you need to lighten up" if you judged the characterizing of my posts and think they are toking and joking, it seems to me, maybe you should not do that, you are not very good at it. Or maybe you are, and it was just this time that you were outer space wrong in your characterization of my posts.

The above statement I quoted by you is absurd. Do I really need to explain why? Tell that to the Pope and the Catholics who support evolution and never met a grape that wasn't fermented.

i do not know the pope, nor for that matter know any Catholics, so i can not answer for them and what they think or believe. The statement i said above is what i have gathered from talking to people who believe evolution, none of which were catholic or the pope. And it is a fact, most people that i have talked with that believe evolution, i would always ask if they thought God could create a planet in 6 days that appears to be millions of years old. Most every single person would say, He could, but He would not do that, to decieve us, or to trick us. Then i would bring up the wine, which was seconds old, yet Jesus just made it appear very old wine, fermented wine, aged wine. Did He try to deceive them too?, Then they would come back and say it was NOT fermented wine, that it was grape juice.
So to me it is a puzzle how someone can believe that Jesus turned water into aged, fermented wine, But He could not create the Earth to be millions of years old. Do you see the oxymoron here. Jesus can make seconds old AGED wine, but could not possibly have created 6 days old AGED Earth.
my point is this, if Jesus could create in a matter of second AGED WINE, why is it so hard to believe in 6 days He could not create an AGED Earth? So to me it is indeed a puzzle how one can believe the Aged wine being seconds old, but refuse to believe an AGED Earth that is 6 days old. So God can create AGED wine, but not an AGED rock. puzzle.

You are also clueless about methods for dating human fossils. I would suggest this link at the Smithsonian as a starting pointing for educating yourself:

Dating | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program

Now that is funny, give me a link to a PRO Evolution site, to teach me about dating, seriously that made me laugh.
If anyone wants to Truly learn about Dating methods, DON'T go to a Pro-evolution site, nor go to an anti-evolution site. Just find sites that are neither pro or anti evolution, but a site that specifically teaches about dating methods. lol, sends people to a pro-evolution site, that is funny indeed.

^i^

 

[JackH]

Now that is funny, give me a link to a PRO Evolution site, to teach me about dating, seriously that made me laugh.
If anyone wants to Truly learn about Dating methods, DON'T go to a Pro-evolution site, nor go to an anti-evolution site. Just find sites that are neither pro or anti evolution, but a site that specifically teaches about dating methods. lol, sends people to a pro-evolution site, that is funny indeed.

So let's see some of these neither pro nor anti-evolution sites you are talking about.

Links please.

 

[Tintin]

DiscipleDave, I'm no friend of evolution (people here no that) but there's no such thing as neutral anything, websites or otherwise.

 

[JackH]

DiscipleDave, I'm no friend of evolution (people here no that) but there's no such thing as neutral anything, websites or otherwise.

Oh I suspect DiscipleDave can come up with something. Once he lays off that 100-year-old wine he keeps babbling about.

 

[DiscipleDave]

DiscipleDave said

Now that is funny, give me a link to a PRO Evolution site, to teach me about dating, seriously that made me laugh.
If anyone wants to Truly learn about Dating methods, DON'T go to a Pro-evolution site, nor go to an anti-evolution site. Just find sites that are neither pro or anti evolution, but a site that specifically teaches about dating methods. lol, sends people to a pro-evolution site, that is funny indeed.

So let's see some of these neither pro nor anti-evolution sites you are talking about.

Links please.

Seriously? took me a few seconds by Google

Carbon Dating
Radiocarbon dating - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
How Does Carbon Dating Work

There a hundreds more sites as well. Google "How does Carbon 14 dating work" or just "Carbon 14 dating method" Tons of stuff will come up. And you will find that most of them say what i have said as well. But not all.

^i^

 

[DiscipleDave]

DiscipleDave, I'm no friend of evolution (people here no that) but there's no such thing as neutral anything, websites or otherwise.

Are you saying, that every single site talking about Carbon 14 dating is EITHER PRO evolution or anti evolution? Is that what you are saying? if it is then please look at this one stie, and tell me how it is Either Pro evolution or anti evolution, and not nuetral?

Radiocarbon dating - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

^i^

 

[DiscipleDave]

Oh I suspect DiscipleDave can come up with something. Once he lays off that 100-year-old wine he keeps babbling about.

Strange, you have mentioned it more than me, and yet you accuse me of babbling about it. Strange indeed.

^i^

 

[JackH]

Are you saying, that every single site talking about Carbon 14 dating is EITHER PRO evolution or anti evolution? Is that what you are saying? if it is then please look at this one stie, and tell me how it is Either Pro evolution or anti evolution, and not nuetral?

Radiocarbon dating - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

^i^

Your article says: "The oldest dates that can be reliably measured by radiocarbon dating are around 50,000 years ago, though special preparation methods occasionally permit dating of older samples."

Do you accept that statement?

 

[eternally-gratefull]

the flood was noted in the bible and confirmed by other historical text therefore the changes from flood would be taken into account and any earth changes wouldnt affect the solar cycles. those calculations would be the same then as now. I think lol. also all this is refering to the age of man and not the earth itself.




yes, the bible leads us to believe Adam was around 4 - 4500 BC but the bible seems to be a stand alone on this as archaeology, geology, and genealogy of ancient cultures point to a much older date. i believe the Egyptian dynastic timeline goes back 9000 bc, maybe more.

one must remember, The solar damage being done to earth now (from where science gets its age theories0 are not the same after the flood, than they were before. so all of those calculations would be flawed at best.

 

[JackH]

one must remember, The solar damage being done to earth now (from where science gets its age theories0 are not the same after the flood, than they were before. so all of those calculations would be flawed at best.

What is your source for this statement?

As in, articles from reputable scientific journals.

 

[dcontroversal]

Obviously you are an expert on good weed as well as wine because I would characterize your posts as toking and joking.

The above statement I quoted by you is absurd. Do I really need to explain why? Tell that to the Pope and the Catholics who support evolution and never met a grape that wasn't fermented.

You are also clueless about methods for dating human fossils. I would suggest this link at the Smithsonian as a starting pointing for educating yourself:

Dating | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program

HAHAHHA EVEN though we probably disagree on almost everything that was funny....LOL for sure....!

 

[dcontroversal]

You can forget it....crack in the box is set in his ways while swallowing hook, line and sinker evolution and the worldly educators that teach thus.........

Do you know what makes a great wine? AGE.
DiscipleDave said




Why would i say it is grape juice, the Word of God is quite clear that it is wine. You are something of a puzzle to me though, most who teach evolution are the ones who teach that the wine is grape juice. Because most those who believe in evolution do not believe God would make anything that APPEARS to be old. In other words i teach that the Earth was created in 6 days, and after He was done the EARTH in every way appeared to be billions of years old. EXACTLY like Jesus made the wine in seconds and it in every way, taste, look, smell, APPEARED to be aged wine. If then you believe it was wine and believe in evolution (hence the my puzzlement) Why can't you grasp that God did create the Earth in 6 days and it in every way APPEARED to be billions of years old, When that is EXACTLY what He did with the wine and the fish? Can you explain why the Earth could not be created in 6 days, just like the wine was created in a few seconds?



It is not a miracle that one believes what the Word of God says, Well, i take that back, with this generation you are probably right.



And you don't know much about what is considered a figure of speech. A figure of speech is generatlizing something usually NOT factual, such as saying a hundred years old. And who told you i don't know much about wine? Did you come up with this through the Holy Spirit or from your own thinking? Can't be from the Holy Spirit of God, because i know quite a bit about wine. You see many years ago i came across a group of people who thought it sinful for a preacher to drink wine even if it is in the confines of his own home. Also there were people who condemned a church because they actually used wine for communion. So i have studied wine extensively, how it is made, what makes it, when did it come into existence, when was the first record of its existence, the effects of wine on the mind, how it effects the cells in a body, as i said extensive research on wine. you don't know me at all, and it is wrong to assume that you did.



Are you saying that Jesus could NOT make a wine that is over a hundred years old taste good? Just saying. but what i said was a figure of speech.



Makes me wonder how many people will now realize which one does not know much.

^i^

 

[DiscipleDave]

Your article says: "The oldest dates that can be reliably measured by radiocarbon dating are around 50,000 years ago, though special preparation methods occasionally permit dating of older samples."

Do you accept that statement?

No. radiocarbon dating is extremely accurate up to 4,000 years ago. Any material older than that will not be extremely accurate.
For example, if a bone is 3,145 years old. Radiocarbon dating any given particle of that bone will register at 3,145 years old every single time. Extremely accurate.
But a bone that is 5,000 years old, take a particle from that bone and that particle will read 20,000 years old. Another particle of the same bone will read 4,500 years old. And yet another particle of that same bone will read 7,000 years old. NOTICE it is NOT extremely accurate is it?
So here is what i accept, Anything up to 4,000 years old is EXTREMELY accurate in radiocarbon dating method, Anything older than 4,000 years old, not so much.
But here is a thought. It it were absolutely True what i say above. Would scientists agree to, or want this knowledge publicized? Tell me, when have you ever heard a scientist admit they are wrong, ever? And they will never admit they are wrong if they have publicly said something was a scientific FACT. They would do so, if they were willing to throw away their entire career. This is why many Truths that come out are given to us by retired scientists which have nothing to lose any longer.

^i^

 

[DiscipleDave]

What is your source for this statement?

As in, articles from reputable scientific journals.

lol, because reputable scientific journals can NEVER be wrong, is that right? lol

^i^

 

[JackH]

Oh, I see from your post on the KJV thread today that you apparently are a KJV ONLYIST.

No wonder you think the world is around 6,000 years old.

Actually, anyone who could prove scientifically that the world is only around 6,000 years old would be an instant millionaire. Sort of like winning the lottery.

 

[DiscipleDave]

DiscipleDave asks JackH this question

But here is a thought. It it were absolutely True what i say above. Would scientists agree to, or want this knowledge publicized? Tell me, when have you ever heard a scientist admit they are wrong, ever? And they will never admit they are wrong if they have publicly said something was a scientific FACT. They would do so, if they were willing to throw away their entire career. This is why many Truths that come out are given to us by retired scientists which have nothing to lose any longer.

JackH's answer to DiscipleDave question above:

Oh, I see from your post on the KJV thread today that you apparently are a KJV ONLYIST.

Oh, i see from your statement just now, you apparently did not read ALL that i said on the KJV thread. Because if you would have, you would have seen that i am not a KJV ONLYIST as you now falsely accuse me of. i teach the Truth. Any version that can bring a person to the Lord is not a bad version. However i do teach that if you are going to study the Word of God, that you should use the version that God has protected, preserved, and sanctified for over 400 years and that is the KJV. So then if i plainly teach that any version that can bring a person to the Lord is a good version, are you correct in accusing me of being a KJV ONLYIST?

No wonder you think the world is around 6,000 years old.

Is this an example of your scientific mind that you seem to rely on a great deal? Where have you heard or seen me saying the Earth is 6,000 years old? Are you hypothetically speaking here, or did you derive this conclusion on what you think is the Truth, then state it as if it were TRUE? Yep, your definitely a scientifically challenged mind. That is what they do as well. State things that are FACT or as if they are FACT, even though they have no physical proof whatsoever, and their FACTS are based solely on hypothetical methods that have been proven to NOT be factual. Yeah, scientific indeed.

Actually, anyone who could prove scientifically that the world is only around 6,000 years old would be an instant millionaire. Sort of like winning the lottery.

i hear ya, That is exactly what a scientific mind would think. But what you don't understand. The things that are spiritual the carnal can't understand nor comprehend. The carnal rely and believe on FACTS, PROOF, and EVIDENCE, while the Spiritual rely on and believe in FAITH, NOT SEEING, and don't require evidence. Those who need the first are carnal, those who need the second are spiritual. Those who need the first can't be spiritual and those who are spiritual don't think things carnal as the first. You can't believe the Word of God and what it teaches because you are not Spiritual, you NEED proof, you NEED evidence, you NEED to SEE it to believe it. 100% contrary to spiritualism. Those who are Truly spiritual knows that a person can walk on water. Those who are not Spiritual will show you all the proof in the world, and all the evidence, and all the testing that proves that walking on water is impossible against the laws of physics, and therefore can't possibly happen, EVER.
Await your answer to the question i presented to you, or will you answer as you did here and avoid the question altogether? Which ironically is another thing many scientists do, they come up with a hypotheses of some kind, and have a tendency to ignore FACTS that prove that hypotheses to be wrong, it is only when there is MUCH evidence that is contrary that they will then give up their hypothesis.

^i^

^i^

 

[JackH]

i am not a KJV ONLYIST as you now falsely accuse me of.

you should use the version that God has protected, preserved, and sanctified for over 400 years and that is the KJV.

Where have you heard or seen me saying the Earth is 6,000 years old?

Await your answer to the question i presented to you, or will you answer as you did here and avoid the question altogether?

Do you believe that the KJV is divinely inspired and/or inerrant and/or perfect?

How old do you think the earth is?

Specifically to this thread, how long do you believe humans have been on this earth?

What question exactly are you talking that I avoided?

 

[Jeff_56]

....
Actually, anyone who could prove scientifically that the world is only around 6,000 years old would be an instant millionaire. Sort of like winning the lottery.

actually, i guess you forgot that the whole world, society, mankind, hates yahshua, hates the truth, and is controlled by the prince of the power of the air at this current time.

btw, the man who proved it, (all of them), were not honored. just like the doctors (several thousand doctors) who easily heal disease the way God provided,
they are all blacklisted, arrested, executed, sued, tortured, and their families too. just like yahshua said would happen to anyone who wants to live as he does.

and whoever trusts in the lottery as if it was anything good, well..... God says a few things about that also. none of it good.