Linda,

Now I'm reasonably sure about what I've suspected all along; That you don't read the answers that I post in response to your questions. You have a long history of repeating the same arguments over and over even after I've addressed them.



I've dealt with this already in response to you in the past Linda.

Nevertheless...

You're own preconceived ideas (emotional projection) are preventing you from understanding how this works.

In short, God does know all from beginning to end. I call this entire universe and all the dimensions therein "God's shoebox project."

Now, scientists generally believe that there exists between 11 and 30 dimensions, and this information is perfectly supported by the Bible. Examples are the testimonies about angelic beings appearing and disappearing and the concept of possession. These are examples of cross-dimensional phenomenon.

Your presumption about God deciding to prevent these things from happening is another vast assumption that is being formed out of your lack of understanding about the Bible and therefore God's purposes in this project of His.

God—for His purposes—does not interfere with our own freewill and therefore does not prevent people from becoming evil (destructive). He only prevents those evil ones from causing more suffering on the good ones than the good ones can handle.

As far as God destroying the innocent, I also already dealt with this question previously and directly to you.

God does not destroy the innocent. In Noah's case, God saved the only people left on earth who's thoughts were not "only evil continually".

To understand the big picture Linda (and I've explained this all before to you), In the big picture, this life is a filter to separate the good from the evil. Also, we are here to make a decision to believe God or to not believe God.

To believe in God (in this context) means to have faith in Him, but faith is not what you believe it is.

Faith is not blind obedience. It is the ability to form a relationship based on intellect (which is normally followed by very positive emotion).

Faith is based on evidence and is the foundation of any relationship. Without faith, you cannot have a beneficial relationship with anyone. Faith is essential for this, but faith is based on evidence.

Nevertheless, there are those who will not choose to develop this relationship with God (it takes work), and therefore, God will not choose to develop a relationship with them.

Theories like evolution are myths designed by evil people who hate God so much that they deliberately try to prevent others from having a relationship with God. They do this by teaching fairy tales that—if believed—logically prevent a relationship with God.

Now, there is a lot of understanding that could be taught here, and this is not a shallow subject, but you have to grasp the ideas first before you can put them to the test. You don't have to believe them at first, you just have to comprehend them, then you can move on to determining if they are true.

So, to answer your question (again), God has no interest in "preventing" bad things from happening if people don't want God to be a part of their lives. He will not interfere with your own free will unless your free will harms one of His own beyond their ability to cope with it.

God offers a contract—an agreement—that you can accept or reject. You accept the agreement by believing that Christ is God's redeemer for our destructive nature (sin). If you reject God's agreement, you're on your own. Nearly all Christians have been on both sides of this fence. They (should) understand the difference.

When a society prevents God's terms of this contact from being posted on the wall of schools, for example, you will see a continual decline in the quality of life of a society, as we are currently experiencing.

People call this refusal to explore Biblical evidences intellectualism. God calls it rebellion, and rebellion is just like trying to swim upriver when the cookout is downstream. At its core, it's just pretty darn stupid, and certainly unproductive, but actually very destructive to society, again, as we are experiencing.

"Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way. But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also. So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares? He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn."
—Matthew 13:24-30

The tares are ultimately offspring of the fallen angels. As bazaar as this may sound, we're living in a day when the truth is right under your nose; for those who have an ear.



Wow, talk about a strawman argument. I'm going to start calling you on these Linda because you have a long history of doing it and I've been very lenient about it in the past.

I dealt with this in my previous post. Refer to it for the real answers. In reference to "hyper": Note that preprogrammed adaptation occurs more quickly than evolution would like to believe. Think in terms of Thoroughbred breeding.



This was dealt with previously in this...

The Bible talks about the destruction of:

...all flesh, wherein is the breath of life...
—Gen 6:17

and this does not include all life on Earth, not by huge margin.

These qualifiers cannot be ignored when discovering what was taken on the ark and what was not.

You have to remember that considerable periods of time have elapsed since the flood, and this time provides plenty of time for the built-in (created) adaptive abilities of these animals to reemerge.

With this in mind, you can see that pandas may not have been aboard. It is very possible that only the parent "kind" which is related to pandas were aboard. It is then possible that this particular kinds' intelligently-programmed adaptive ability enabled them to reemerge with the same attributes. It is also very likely that, if they were aboard, that they were likely able to eat things besides what you believe they currently eat today.

In short, if you can place your assumptions and projections aside long enough to take an objective view at the flood event, it is perfectly sensible and has much supporting evidence.



No, really there isn't any evidence for evolution, only massive speculation and enormous assumptions.

What we do find is an abrupt appearance, which diametrically opposes the myth of evolution.

Also, irreducible complexity is an attribute that we not only find in innumerable appearance throughout nature, but it does offer yet another enormous blow to the "cell-to-man" brand of evolutionary myths.

Simply put, these complex features have no use when only their components exist and therefore would be considered a harmful mutation leading to the destruction of the mutation. Ironically, to use this argument to support evolution is really intellectually dishonest to the core. (See the single bullet theory )



[color:"brown"]Strawman Alert[/color]

We've already dealt with this. I've explained both why I don't believe in a young Earth (although I admit that there are some very compelling scientific arguments supporting it) and why I believe the Bible does not make this claim, and I have already answered these questions.



What exactly are you expecting to find on the sea floor relating to a flood?



Again, we're not talking about all living species. First, we're talking about "kinds".

Secondly, it appears that you are expecting to find something interesting in this regard.
What other evidence are you hoping to find?

Do you have another projected idea about the way fossils should look? Are you blinding having faith in what pop science is currently telling you?

There are many issues to consider here including the accuracy of dating, the lie concerning the so-called "fossil record", and much more. So, for example, if the so-called "fossil record" is not complete, how to we make a judgment as to genetic bottlenecks?

This is simply not intellectually honest.



The problem here is that the methods are—at the very least, and by the admission of the proponents themselves—"very fragile" and they can easily be used to misrepresent the data or misused to arrive at horribly inaccurate data. There are numerous examples of this happening involving fraud and plain old "incompetence". Honestly, this is old news. Why do we keep coming back to this?



This is simply not true.

Of all the digs and research worldwide, there are sorted fossils in only a very small handful of places. This is a fact and is strong evidence—a fatal blow really—against the concept of a "fossil record". People really need to do only a small amount of homework on this point to see how deceptive this "fossil record" myth really is and how it has been used to falsely support the evolution myth for their own purposes and financial gain.



These are deep sources of fresh water. These exists the world over and are well known to be enormous sources of fresh water.

One of the largest is under one of the driest places on Earth: The Arabah Desert, which is one of the places that will become a lush farming zone shortly before the second coming of Christ. In fact, this transformation has already begun. I strongly suggest that everyone research this for themselves and prepare for the return of Messiah.



You're using myth to qualify myth.

The problem here is very easy to see, and that is that evolutionists have very interesting ways of classifying fossils. Remember, how complete mythical ideas are created about of teeth or parts of a skull.

Evolutionists make huge assumptions to support their faith, especially in this area. Search "Piltdown Man".

Very simply, categorization is the issue here. There is a long, sloppy and even fraudulent history of evolutionists offering these types of snake oil arguments.



I've offered explanations for these things previously but they continue to be ignored.


I'd also like to respond to the derogatory remarks that you (Linda) and PWCCA have made about me, particularly making comments about this being a biased forum and that I'm unfair.

What's amazing here is that I pay for, manage, moderate, and otherwise maintain this forum and freely allow you to display your opinions and religious ideas here that are in direct opposition to my own and yet you both bash me for being unfair.

I'm really not sure what you think is unfair. I guess I'll allow the many onlookers who read this to not only judge our individual character by our conduct, but to decide if they believe I'm unfair.

Amazing