Bible: Facts or Truths? (Split)

[lvbuckeye]

No all deposits take millions of years. Likewise, not all dead trees which have not fallen over do so on land. In fact, I can easily invision a dead tree laying proped up on a rocky ledge at the bottom of some lake, which one day shall be all dried up... and exhibit different strata (in terms of definitive time lines). I'm no expert in the are... I'm just saying it makes sense to me... and I am inclined to believe those people who have made it there career to become experts in such a field. Ask BuckeyeRyn.. I watch way too much Science TV (ie Geology shows, space shows, etc.) I defer to those folks before I defer to a self serving theory of religion. To be sure, I believe in God... just not the God everyone else always seems to be talking about.

off you go speculating. as for how trees can become fossilized standing up through several layers of strata, i would recommend that you take a look at what has happened in the Mt St Helens region over the last 27 years. the evidence is there. you just have to open your eyes and your mind.

the tv shows you watch are biased.

Not tounge in cheek at all. First, I'd observe that your answer is a cop out. It does nothing more than accept from authority an exception to the rule. But, that wasn't my point... my point was... you say it's a LAW that life only comes from life... and yet, Gen 2:7 establishes otherwise. Life does not arise from life in all cases, and thus your LAW is in error.

GOD IS ALIVE. life did not come from non-life. life was breathed into the clay, and man became a living being, which was why i originally stated that you missed the second clause of the sentence.

Well, I was talking to TbuckeyeScott

okay.

I don't find there to be anything miraculous about natural processes. Life began however it began. I choose to believe (in the shortest and non technical expression) it was the long process of various combinations of nucletides becoming DNA, which ended up making single cells, which began to become multiple cells, which became multiple celled entities with specific "skills" (like, say, dissolving oxygen) these entities ended up also combining for the larger purpose of reproduction and survival... and so on..

do you have any idea how complex a cell is? a single celled bacteria contains something like 2,000 proteins, each of which contain hundreds of amino acids- all left handed, BTW, and they were supposed to just 'come together' and start living? do you have any idea how ridiculous that notion is? if the odds of anything are larger than 10[sup]-50[/sup] against, if is recognized as having zero probability, and we're talking about 10[sup]-100s[/sup] against.

I'm not asking you to believe it. I'm saying it makes sense to me. And, in all that I have learned about the natural world, appears to me to be in accord with the remainder. In any case, your unwillingness to accept the idea does not make it miraculous or sarcastically natural. It means you don't accept it, for reasons known only to you, though I would speculate it has much to do with a foundational and critical misunderstanding of what's being discussed - largely resultant to the threat such a conclusion would pose to the existence to God as you believe him to exist.

i don't accept it because it is not possible.

My understanding of God and what he truly is - is not now, nor has he ever been, threatened by abiogenesis... slef reproducing universes... chemestry... any of Hawkings Ideas... and I am able to reconsile my infinite God with the reality that things like Evolution are. That is to say, if Evolution is true and correct, my God survives. I believe you and like minded people argue so streneously against evolution because you believe your God cannot survive if Evolution is true. Your God can't exists if Evolution is true. I find the contention silly.

ah... here comes the deist position of the First Cause... which, incidentally, is where Darwin's theory has its roots.

God is pefectly free to exists and even be an all powerful infinite God no matter what is the truth or falsicity of Evolution. It seems to me, and maybe I"m wrong here, all this stems from the fear that the Bible may not be the Word of God. My God survives the Bible being Rubbish as well...

ROFL. i have absolutely ZERO fear of finding out that the Bible isn't the Word of God.

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

I bold the part I address first. There is evidence. You're presently living on the very petrie dish which establishes it. Why can't life be reproduced in the lab? Time.

You can't just use the evidence of we're here because that's the same evidence for God creating life supernaturally as I was trying to explain before. Us being here is not evidence for how just evidence that it did take place.

Of course, you may believe God can act in any way you wish to believe he might act. But... how can your God, if he must act outside of the natural rules he created, be said to be All knowing, or in contrast all powerful? He either did not foresee a consequence of his creation which requires his supernatural intervention to "fix" OR he was unable to create a natural universe which woud not later require his supernatural corrective measures, even though he foresaw the same.

You missed the part where I say I have no reason to doubt that God could have done it the way you think is more powerful. What I am saying is that for some reason God chose to do it in a way that He supernaturally caused things to happen. And you say "fixed", but that's not how I see it. I see everything as part of a divine plan. Like I said I can only surmise why He did it the way He did. But just because He chose to do it one way doesn't mean that He couldn't have chosen to do it a different.

I don't mean to sound like an arrogant prick, but I'm gonna take that risk. My contention isn't about the "best" way to do anything. My contention is, given the choice between these two alternatives (The God who would act within the laws of nature and he who does not), the way I believe is in support of a more powerful God... A God, as I was getting at in my statements above, who must perform miracles is either not all knowing, or not all powerful in his ability to create. My God is. Therefore, I worship my God over any other poser.

I disagree that a God who performs miracles is any less powerful or all knowing than one who doesn't. That is just how He chose to do it.

 

[GoBucks89]

89 -

I see we're arguing the same thing in part... notably, this entire discussion is ridiculous because none of us have any way of establishing anything because our contentions will always break down to "Well, it's just your opinion" or "That's just a theory."

I'm unsatisfied with your unwillingness to provide any external support as it relates to your understanding of the Bible... but... that's fine.. it's not like you owe me an answer or anything.

External evidence is not persuasive to me, since I was convinced by the internal evidence of the Bible itself. Like the evolutionists, I already had my beliefs firmly in place before I took a hard look at the evidence. I can't tell you what could convince an objective person since I have never been an objective person myself.

Sure... I can live with that.. but... why must he do so in a way that would run afoul of those rules which he created?

It's not that he "must", God is not bound by anything other than His own word. The reason He sometimes steps in and performs miracles in our material world is so that He will gain glory from it. It is a voluntary act, not something He is forced into doing.

I have no issues with God acting in the universe... I just don't see any reason why he'd do so in a way which would be noticed.... at least noticed in terms of the act being unnatural.

He did it to gain glory for Himself. He communicated it to the world so that we could know Him, but only for the purpose of glorifying Himself.

 

[Gatorubet]

ROFL. i have absolutely ZERO fear of finding out that the Bible isn't the Word of God.

Inspired by God yeah, but literal??? You'd have to ignore the biblical scholarship that shows how part of the Bible is a clear cut and paste job. And while that does not negate divine inspiration and the faith of the men who wrote it down, it does deal a moral blow to inerrancy, IMO

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

off you go speculating. as for how trees can become fossilized standing up through several layers of strata, i would recommend that you take a look at what has happened in the Mt St Helens region over the last 27 years. the evidence is there. you just have to open your eyes and your mind.

I get it... I'm speculating... I suppose when you compile your rationale for believing, for example, that 9/11 was a US plot against itself you're doing something different than speculation. More power to you, I guess. As far as open minds go, well... never mind.. it's not worth the effort, and would be ineffective in any case.

the tv shows you watch are biased.

Of course...

GOD IS ALIVE. life did not come from non-life. life was breathed into the clay, and man became a living being, which was why i originally stated that you missed the second clause of the sentence.

God is alive? Prove it.

do you have any idea how complex a cell is? a single celled bacteria contains something like 2,000 proteins, each of which contain hundreds of amino acids- all left handed, BTW, and they were supposed to just 'come together' and start living? do you have any idea how ridiculous that notion is? if the odds of anything are larger than 10[sup]-50[/sup] against, if is recognized as having zero probability, and we're talking about 10[sup]-100s[/sup] against.

i don't accept it because it is not possible.

What was that you were saying about open minds? I suppose we could also say that the universe isn't big enough to contain as many stars as it does. Not that this link will have any effect on you It doesn't much matter, LV... it's occurred to me that the point of these discussions is not for either one of us to convince the other, it's more to convince those who might be on the fence.

ah... here comes the deist position of the First Cause... which, incidentally, is where Darwin's theory has its roots.

You suggest God wasn't the first cause of the reality around us, I take it (being that you're so sour on evolution)?

ROFL. i have absolutely ZERO fear of finding out that the Bible isn't the Word of God.

Only because you don't consider that a possibility. Again, with the open mind thing.....

89 - FWIW I never said God would be incapable of performing an unnatural thing.... just that he doesn't have to. Actually, the fact is, I believe time doesn't have any meaning to God, so God wouldn't "act" now as it were. Likewise, he can't fail to act at any time but now.

For the purposes of glorifying himself... eh... that sorta rubs me wrong. Narcissistic gods I can do without. Seems like this god has a striking lack of self confidence.

You can't just use the evidence of we're here because that's the same evidence for God creating life supernaturally as I was trying to explain before. Us being here is not evidence for how just evidence that it did take place.

Sure I can. If it's fair for your side to point to the Bible, you shouldn't expect me to do more than point at reality.

On the continued supernatural discussion...
"What I am saying is that for some reason God chose to do it in a way that He supernaturally caused things to happen. "

OK... sure... prove it. You're presupposing a supernatural explanation while at the same time heartedly denying the actual reality which surrounds you. Why you do this, I have no idea. I can only conclude that you do so because if reality is actually the way Science describes your God does not exist. Otherwise, you'd naturally accept reality and its nature instead of looking for supernatural exceptions.

I disagree that a God who performs miracles is any less powerful or all knowing than one who doesn't. That is just how He chose to do it.

It is? He chose to create reality in a way that is unlike the reality I see around me as explained/examined by the sciences? Surely you jest.

The simple fact is this... we can debate God's existence (and we're on the same side in that regard) and this and that and such and so... but.. aside from rather childish philosophical quandaries to the contrary the inescapable FACT is reality is out there, and it is precisely the way it is. We can either seek to understand it (Science, while still glorifying God (In the way 89 actually intended the remark above ) ) or we can hang on to explanations that defy our natural experience(s). I choose the former.

If subatomic particles behave as science says they do, I do not see God disappear. If evolution is the vehicle of life, God remains.... I just simply don't understand why people would deny the very reality around them in the attempts to give meaning to 2,000 year old words which one desperately wants to believe establish some sort of personal connection with God.

I have said before, and say again now.. If God is out there, he does not live on the pages of some book.... much less a book that has been bastardized by translation and error for centuries. I see God more in a sunset than I do in anything written in the Bible. I truly don't understand why this (God being evidenced via reality and not words) isn't obvious to people. I truly don't understand the need for some to require supernatural "evidence" The perfect Glory of God is that there IS. Not that there is something we think should be.

Of course, I'm closed minded and watch nothing but biased TV shows. So, take my discussions with the appropriate amount of salt.

 

[lvbuckeye]

gatorubet, i think you need to do a little research into where the Gilgamesh tablets were found, and think about the implications.

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

BKB, I think I'll likely fully respond later, not tonight because I've got friends leaving town. Not tomorrow- playing Golf. Maybe this weekend (because I'm on break from after work college) but not likely because while in general I like conversating with you even when we disagree my wife and kids need my attention. Likely Monday.

But In the meantime nothing in the reality I see doesn't fit in with the Bible. Nothing from the acual evidence from the Earth, fossils and universe we live in has a problem with the way the Bible sees creation. I keep saying we all have this same earth, fossils, universe as evidence. Our conclusions are based on what we believe about that evidence.

 

[lvbuckeye]

I get it... I'm speculating... I suppose when you compile your rationale for believing, for example, that 9/11 was a US plot against itself you're doing something different than speculation. More power to you, I guess. As far as open minds go, well... never mind.. it's not worth the effort, and would be ineffective in any case.

what i think about 9/11 now is somewhat different that what i thought about 9/11 two years ago. but my thoughts on 9/11 are irrelevant to THIS discussion. daydreaming isn't exactly part of the scientific method.

Of course...

do you deny it?

God is alive? Prove it.

what good would it do?

What was that you were saying about open minds? I suppose we could also say that the universe isn't big enough to contain as many stars as it does. Not that this link will have any effect on you It doesn't much matter, LV... it's occurred to me that the point of these discussions is not for either one of us to convince the other, it's more to convince those who might be on the fence.

i read it. amusing that the author of the rebuttal appeals to laws of nature and chemistry. who is the Author of those laws? equally amusing to me is that the evolutionist's answer is always to throw more time at it. at what point in time does a replicating strand start laying the foundation for respiration, energy use, etc, etc, etc? where does that information come from? not to mention the fact that protein strands always consist of left handed amino acid chains, and nucleic acid strands are always right handed... which adds even more improbability... at what point does the mythical self replicating left handed strain suddenly change hands and start printing out the blueprints for life?

keep throwing more time at it.

You suggest God wasn't the first cause of the reality around us, I take it (being that you're so sour on evolution)?

i absolutely think that God is the first cause. He's also the last cause, and every cause in between. "He is before all things, and all things were created by Him." what i was speaking to was Charles Darwin's grandfather Erasmus Darwin's philosophy. he was a deist who believed in God only as the first cause. young Charles was greatly influenced by his grandfather, and modeled his theory after old Erasmus' musings, which, incidentally were constructed to form an alternative religious philosophy independent of Biblical Christianity.

Only because you don't consider that a possibility. Again, with the open mind thing.....

no. because if i'm wrong, it won't matter.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

BKB, I think I'll likely fully respond later, not tonight because I've got friends leaving town. Not tomorrow- playing Golf. Maybe this weekend (because I'm on break from after work college) but not likely because while in general I like conversating with you even when we disagree my wife and kids need my attention. Likely Monday.

But In the meantime nothing in the reality I see doesn't fit in with the Bible. Nothing from the acual evidence from the Earth, fossils and universe we live in has a problem with the way the Bible sees creation. I keep saying we all have this same earth, fossils, universe as evidence. Our conclusions are based on what we believe about that evidence.

Fair enough.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

what i think about 9/11 now is somewhat different that what i thought about 9/11 two years ago. but my thoughts on 9/11 are irrelevant to THIS discussion. daydreaming isn't exactly part of the scientific method.

Indeed day dreaming is not. Which, of course, is unlike what I was doing when you raised the issue. What I was doing was supporting my explanation with a rationale as I understand the issues germane to the discussion. In any case, it would be fair for me to call whatever theory you advance speculation under your rationale. Zero sum... I don' t understand your having brought up the obvious, in that case.

do you deny it?

Seems to me that there is a bias towards offering information and explanations for why things are observed to be so. Last night I watched Geological Journey. I can't tell you if either of the two men featured were practicing Christians (or any other religion) or if they were not. But, at no time did they let it slip "the existence of this particular mineral establishes God doesn't exist" So... on the topic at hand, yes.. I'd deny it.

what good would it do?

Humor me. But, be careful not to speculate.

i read it. amusing that the author of the rebuttal appeals to laws of nature and chemistry. who is the Author of those laws? equally amusing to me is that the evolutionist's answer is always to throw more time at it. at what point in time does a replicating strand start laying the foundation for respiration, energy use, etc, etc, etc? where does that information come from? not to mention the fact that protein strands always consist of left handed amino acid chains, and nucleic acid strands are always right handed... which adds even more improbability... at what point does the mythical self replicating left handed strain suddenly change hands and start printing out the blueprints for life?

keep throwing more time at it.

Well, I think you'll have to agree no human experiment has had the benefit of upwards of 4 Billion years. The "throw more time at it" explanation seems fair given the time frame involved.

Is the universe big enough to contain the number of hydrogen atoms it contains? Seems highly improbable that 10[sup]57[/sup] is possible... and yet, they say there's far more than that FAR FAR more... Hell, 10[sup]57[/sup] describes a single star, not even the number of stars in our own galaxy... and considerably less than the 100 billion galaxies out there which each contain hundreds of billions of stars.

Big impossible numbers... Unimpressed with your rationale.

no. because if i'm wrong, it won't matter.

Well, we agree there. Of course, I say this with the full intention that God still exists. It still doesn't matter. The converse, however, is why I once called Christianity too exclusive a club. If I have to believe the literal word of an ancient text, which if taken literally, is at odds with the reality that surrounds me to be saved.... well... so be it.

Ultimately, though, even if you're right, it doesn't matter. If God is as petty a being as one who would damn his creation for being too stupid to figure it out, you can have him too.

 

[lvbuckeye]

Indeed day dreaming is not. Which, of course, is unlike what I was doing when you raised the issue. What I was doing was supporting my explanation with a rationale as I understand the issues germane to the discussion. In any case, it would be fair for me to call whatever theory you advance speculation under your rationale. Zero sum... I don' t understand your having brought up the obvious, in that case.

i brought it up because that's what you are doing. every time that modern science brings to light such information that would render the theory null, proponents talk their way around it by speculating. at what point do you step back and ask yourself, "maybe he was wrong?" the fossil record nullifies his theory, biogenesis nullifies his theory... in his own words Darwin stated that if anything could be shown to possess a complexity that could not be achieved through incremental steps his theory would fall flat. a living cell is that thing. some guy in a lab tweaking an experiment to synthesize a few random amino acids (which would have immediately been destroyed by the environment in which they were synthesized had they not been trapped) is not evidence that it can happen naturally. the first amino acids and protein strands would never have had a chance to replicate in the first place, neverminding the fact that they replicate per instructions which is written in their very DNA code. so which came first? the DNA or the proteins? you can't have one without the other, and the environment necessary for the production of one destroys the other. it is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE for it to happen 'naturally,' except within the confines of the living cell.

Seems to me that there is a bias towards offering information and explanations for why things are observed to be so. Last night I watched Geological Journey. I can't tell you if either of the two men featured were practicing Christians (or any other religion) or if they were not. But, at no time did they let it slip "the existence of this particular mineral establishes God doesn't exist" So... on the topic at hand, yes.. I'd deny it.

it's not the explicit statements, it's the underlying belief system that shapes their view.

Humor me. But, be careful not to speculate.

no.

Well, I think you'll have to agree no human experiment has had the benefit of upwards of 4 Billion years. The "throw more time at it" explanation seems fair given the time frame involved.

have you ever done a math equation and one of the steps was "wait a billion or so years?"

Is the universe big enough to contain the number of hydrogen atoms it contains? Seems highly improbable that 10[sup]57[/sup] is possible... and yet, they say there's far more than that FAR FAR more... Hell, 10[sup]57[/sup] describes a single star, not even the number of stars in our own galaxy... and considerably less than the 100 billion galaxies out there which each contain hundreds of billions of stars.

you are missing the point. we are not addressing the number of hydrogen atoms in the universe, what we are addressing here is probability. i'm sure you are aware that probability is not the same as counting.

if you wrote a computer simulation which randomly flipped a coin, and ran it a quadrillion times and it came up heads every single time would you be more inclined to trust that extremely improbable chance, or would you think that maybe someone messed with your code?

Big impossible numbers... Unimpressed with your rationale.

you need to do some research. i won't bother posting a link, because it will be immediately dismissed as/by prejudice.

Well, we agree there. Of course, I say this with the full intention that God still exists. It still doesn't matter. The converse, however, is why I once called Christianity too exclusive a club. If I have to believe the literal word of an ancient text, which if taken literally, is at odds with the reality that surrounds me to be saved.... well... so be it.

Ultimately, though, even if you're right, it doesn't matter. If God is as petty a being as one who would damn his creation for being too stupid to figure it out, you can have him too.

no helping you there.

 

[Gatorubet]

gatorubet, i think you need to do a little research into where the Gilgamesh tablets were found, and think about the implications.

I was mostly referring to the Documentery Hypothesis and to the JEPD source research. Can I correctly assume that you follow the oral history view, that holds that the different use of "Elohim" and "Yahweh" does not indicate different source authorship?

And it not so much "where" as "when"...

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

I was mostly referring to the Documentery Hypothesis and to the JEPD source research. Can I correctly assume that you follow the oral history view, that holds that the different use of "Elohim" and "Yahweh" does not indicate different source authorship?

And it not so much "where" as "when"...

I think that's just funny. I' ve never even heard that theory before. Elohim was Jewish word for God, while Yaweh was the name God gave Moses on Sinai that the Isrealites were not to speak alloud. Yaweh in Hebrew simply means "I am". That is the reason for the 2 names. Not a crafted together book.

 

[Gatorubet]

I think that's just funny. I' ve never even heard that theory before. Elohim was Jewish word for God, while Yaweh was the name God gave Moses on Sinai that the Isrealites were not to speak alloud. Yaweh in Hebrew simply means "I am". That is the reason for the 2 names. Not a crafted together book.

Documentary hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

this is the most basic of discussions of it

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

i brought it up because that's what you are doing. every time that modern science brings to light such information that would render the theory null, proponents talk their way around it by speculating. at what point do you step back and ask yourself, "maybe he was wrong?" the fossil record nullifies his theory, biogenesis nullifies his theory... in his own words Darwin stated that if anything could be shown to possess a complexity that could not be achieved through incremental steps his theory would fall flat. a living cell is that thing. some guy in a lab tweaking an experiment to synthesize a few random amino acids (which would have immediately been destroyed by the environment in which they were synthesized had they not been trapped) is not evidence that it can happen naturally. the first amino acids and protein strands would never have had a chance to replicate in the first place, neverminding the fact that they replicate per instructions which is written in their very DNA code. so which came first? the DNA or the proteins? you can't have one without the other, and the environment necessary for the production of one destroys the other. it is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE for it to happen 'naturally,' except within the confines of the living cell.

First, you assume that I don't ask these questions and second you assume that I believe the fossil record nullifies any theory. You're wrong on both accounts. There plenty of things I hear as scientific discoveries that I do not believe for one reason or another.

As for proteins and DNA and so on, I'm inclined to accept the views of mainstream science on the matter. Mostly because I do not believe there is some vast anti-God conspiracy, in my own review of what they're saying it sounds sensible, and frankly, your understanding of basic concepts surrounding the beginnings of life strike me as highly underinformed and biased towards creationism... Sadly I am also no expert. But, I do know enough about the concepts to know that your understanding of them is simply incorrect. You ask me about bias.... It's pretty clear to me as between creationists and scientists who's acting on a bias and who's simply trying to uncover how reality works.

Regardless of if there is a God, the world works the way it works. The is no escaping it. And, I will continue to defer to those that have earned their expertise in a field when they satisfy the scrutiny I put them under in terms of validity of position across disciplines.

it's not the explicit statements, it's the underlying belief system that shapes their view.

Seems to me you're making the assumption that these particular geologists were atheists. You have no reason to so believe, and I would suggest to you that perhaps it is YOU who oughta open your mind a little bit. For all we know these men are more religious than either you or I. You immediately fail safe to them trying to mislead me. I don't suffer from a similar paranoia.

no.

I can't say I'm surprised. Not so easy when it's your hand to the fire.

have you ever done a math equation and one of the steps was "wait a billion or so years?"

No. Of course, a science experiment isn't a math problem, so your objection is misplaced as you suggest here:

you are missing the point. we are not addressing the number of hydrogen atoms in the universe, what we are addressing here is probability. i'm sure you are aware that probability is not the same as counting.

The improbable happens with disturbing regularity. Indeed, what are the chances that I should exist? Of all the things that had to happen for me to even be here... and to exhibit the characteristics I do.... incalculable. In any case, You're not using Borel's law correctly (and contrary to Borel's Probability and Certainty itself (See p. 124-126) as you make - like the author of the linked site says - "probability estimates that ignore the non-random elements predetermined by physics and chemistry are meaningless." (ie how peptides bond, etc.) You also ignore time, and the number of reproductions within any span of it and any consideration of mutation rate. Another site (FWIW, I don't really provide these links for you, since as before, I don't have any designs on converting you to some other position. But, for those out there who are on the fence of this argument oughta have a chance to see where your specious arguments originate and why they fail.)

if you wrote a computer simulation which randomly flipped a coin, and ran it a quadrillion times and it came up heads every single time would you be more inclined to trust that extremely improbable chance, or would you think that maybe someone messed with your code?

Like you would do to me when I try and make an example, I'll just say we're not talking about computer codes.

But seriously, now... Your example is off point. Life's origin and its evolution are not at all like a computer program. In discussion of evolution, there is no suspicion of tampering ... in a computer program, of course one would suspect tampering. And, I guess that's kinda the point... Do you believe that scientists are somehow tampering with the way the universe runs?

you need to do some research. i won't bother posting a link, because it will be immediately dismissed as/by prejudice.

LV, as strongly as you seem to think I need to do some research, I cannot express to you in terms which truly announce the severity in which I would return the same to you. Your understanding of even the simplest of evolutionary concepts are completely mangled. You exhibit some sort of anti-science paranoia as if there is some kind of unified conspiracy of godless schmucks trying to ruin the universe for God. As above.. you quickly default to geologists having an underlying sinister motive. Unfortunately I am not so well versed in the area of evolution that I can explain it to you in some air tight package (and even if I could, I seriously doubt you'd be willing to accept something other than what you already believe at this point). But, I do know enough about it to know that you're mistaken on a great many things.

no helping you there.

Wasn't asking for any. Wouldn't want it if you were giving it away. I am at peace with God and I don't need anyone else's confirmation or approval.