Author Topic: Origins of the Universe. (Creation versus science. Do they contradict?)  (Read 5566 times)

Offline trdsf

Re: Origins of the Universe. (Creation versus science. Do they contradict?)
« Reply #180 on: July 12, 2018, 01:17:48 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
A straight No.
Regardless of your elaboration, the only way you can assert that is to necessarily assert that all of science is wrong.  There is no observation from any of the sciences that supports the notion that animal life (which includes humans) has existed for only 6,000 years.  Not one.  Not a single, solitary observation.  To assert that Animalia have only existed for 6,000 years means you reject science, period.

You cannot both reject science and claim a "scientific" basis for biblical creation.  If you want to accept the scientific method, you need to accept scientific results, including the ones that disagree with what you want them to be.  I mean, I would have loved to not mention the isotopic mismatch between terrestrial water and cometary water because I knew you would try to pounce on that (and eventually waste my time with a digression explaining your failure to make it relevant), but the observation is what it is.

Unlike you, I don't get to cherry-pick my data.  I respect reality and truth.

If you still want to try to do both, then you need to provide explanations for the following:

1. Why radiometric dating techniques are accurate below 6000 years before present but not above -- what mechanism changes radioactivity at that age, and in such a way that all techniques provide consistent answers despite following different decay paths.  If you do not reject radiometric dating techniques, you need to explain why we have been able to date the remains of genetically modern humans to 300,000 years ago, to say nothing of the record of billions of years of evolution for the rest of living entities.

2. Why astronomical observations of protoplanetary disks in other star systems look like the scientific model of planetary formation and not the biblical model.  If your answer is that Earth is special and these other systems aren't, you need to provide a mechanism as to why Earth is special.

The answer to neither of these can be 'because god'.  You're trying to demonstrate divine intervention here, so you may not assume it as part of your proof for it -- all that is, is saying "God did this.  My proof is that I think god did this, therefore god did this."  Divine intervention is your conclusion, so it cannot be used as an explanation for any step prior to its actual demonstration.

Neither can the answer be "I just don't buy it".  You can't handwave away repeatable, testable, verified observations without an explanation why they're wrong and how they're wrong, as well as providing a testable theory (and theory means a scientific theory, not a guess) that not only explains current observations but makes definite testable predictions about where and how future observations may vary from the currently accepted theories.
Sir Terry Pratchett, on being told about the theory that the universe is a computer simulation: "If we all get out and in again, would it start to work properly this time?"

Offline Hakurei Reimu

Re: Origins of the Universe. (Creation versus science. Do they contradict?)
« Reply #181 on: July 12, 2018, 01:18:03 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
True that it is not the Laplace theory, however, it was derived from the Laplace theory where atheists wanted to steer away from the fact that the Earth was a wet entity when it formed. Call it what you want, the Hadean epoch is the theory in question.
Bullshit. The Hadean epoch was a whole period of time lasting about 500 million years. That the zicrons put a limit of how long the Earth could remain molten doesn't mean that there was no initial melting.

Again, without an intial melting, how do you get most of the iron out of the earth's crust and into the core? Explain that. Then you get to talk about how there was no magma ocean at any time.

Quote
This is not what I say, but what scientists discovered and what I am showing you now.
No, that's your interpretation of what they say. The scientists do not claim that there was no initial melting and their evidence doesn't show that, either. You had to ignore a clause from a part of Watson's ending quote in order to get it to imply what you wanted, because it would have been fatal to your interpretation.

Quote
Why the resistance to accept that the Biblical view of a wet Earth as the Bible speaks about?
Because your wet earth is unsupported, and unlikely, given the Earth's other features, like its iron-poor crust, and the fact that the Earth is even today well approximated by a dry rock?

Quote
Well, no right minded atheist will give an inch to the validity of anything from the Bible.
In this instance, atheists are entering, not into informative facts, but total denial!
But, if you want to remain on your stance, be my guest.
Projection is an ugly thing. The only person here who has been twisting facts and ignoring inconvenient facts is you. Here's a partial list of things you can't explain:

* You can't explain, if the earth intially was so wet as to be a mudball, where the other volitiles went. Particularly the two volitiles that outmassed the rest of the material in the protoplanetary disk by a factor of 99. Ie, you can't explain why the Earth isn't a gas giant, or what mechanism would remove the hydrogen and helium but leave the water alone.

* You can't explain why the moon is so large and orbiting close to the eliptic without a giant impactor, like Theia. You provide no explanation at all for the origin of the moon, other than a shrug.

* You can't explain where all that water went. At present, the mass of the ocean is less than a thousanth of that of the Earth, rather than the maybe >10% we would expect from a mudball earth. Where did it go? It's not in any body beneath the Earth or in the atmosphere. Last time I looked, water doesn't disappear. It changes forms, but it doesn't cease to exist. So, where is it?

* You can't explain why the crust is so iron-poor. In case you haven't noticed, solids don't like to go through each other. Even iron can't go through light silicates. So how did most of the iron get out of the crust and into the core without it melting. Hell, why do we have a molten interior now when we hadn't before?

Quote
And the Impactor Thea is no where to be found, neither are there any Radiological matter to use as a clock to find out where Thea came from, and where it might now be.
Wrong. It's EVERYWHERE to be found. You're living on it.

And again, before you squawk otherwise, how do you distinguish Theia from Gaia (pre-impact Earth) without pristine samples of Gaia?

Quote
Theory, after theory does not mean fact.
Misinterpretation of fact aren't fact either. Without pristine samples of Gaia, Earth and the Theia/Gaia amalgam are indistinguishable.

Quote
And it seems as if I can present you page after page of evidence, You will not regard the worlds' foremost scientists as scientists.
Wrong. I listen to the scientists. I simply use my own interpretations of their conclusions and not the misinterpretations you are spoonfeeding me. Find me a real scientist that says that the earth began as a mud ball, and reference his peer review paper where this is claimed, and show me that it is a well-referenced and thus regarded as mostly correct. I challenge you to do this.

If you succeed, you might have a point. Until then, my own council, I shall keep.

Quote
And atheists have this notion that Christians are narrow minded?
You seem to have trouble grasping my ideas in their full and finding problems with it. That's usually the sign of narrow-mindedness.

Quote
So, to conclude, what do you say, the Sun was never just a dim red light glowing until it became mature?
No. It's was just over and done with that stage before the Earth could reasonably said to have been formed. For fuck's sake, this is not difficult.

Quote
Oh no sorry, you do say the sun was shining very faint in the beginning (like the Bible says).But, you are trying to say that when the Sun did shine flat out, it would have removed all the volatile matter, therefore if it was not so, the Earth would have been a gas giant. Funny that you do not take into account that most of this volatile matter was also grabbed by the Sun.
Because it wouldn't happen to just the volitiles. Gravitational accretion would grab everything, volitiles and non, because gravity doesn't play favorites. If the sun really depleated the 99% of volitiles in the protoplanetary disk, it would deplete everything else by approximately the same margin. It would leave the composition of the disk mostly unchanged. The only difference is that there wouldn't be an Earth at all, because the sun would have vacuumed up EVERYTHING.

Quote
Furthermore, during the formation of the Sun, rocky planets, and Gas Giants, there was a stage where the gravitational field of the Sun and planets were weaker than now, and the further away from the Sun, the more lighter material would have acreted on those planets.
The above assumes that the sun would have sucked down the volitiles preferentially in the inner solar system, but a gravitationally driven process would not discriminate. Every process able to differentiate the protoplanetary disk as you describe is driven by the sun's radiation and/or solar wind. That requires the sun to be shining as a main sequence star.

Quote
Look, there are many scientific reasons to why the inner planets are not huge gas planets, and to claim that the Earth somehow formed later than the Sun from the same nebulous cloud, after the Sun's radiation blew the space of our planetary system away, would also mean there would not have been an proto planet Earth to form from nebulous matter.
Bullshit. There are many scientific reasons, but they are all contingent on the sun shining. Gravitational influences alone are not sufficient, because gravitational forces are not dependent on material. They affect all materials equally. The differential formation of rocky worlds and gas giants boils down to differentiation of material, and that requires the influence of an interaction that differs according to the material.

Quote
A simple reason is this, if the Earth was not a proto planet in the same nebulous cloud with the Moon, other planets, and Sun, it would not have formed at all.
The Earth formed from the same cloud as the rest of the solar system, but the cloud had to differentiate chemically before the Earth and the other inner planets formed proper. Otherwise, they would have followed the same processes as formed the gas giants and become gas giants themselves. This did not happen, so the differentiation occured. But the only thing that could have caused that differentiation is the radiation and solar wind from the young sun.

The sun provides a clear mechanism for why the inner worlds differ from the outer worlds. If you come up with an alternate scientific mechanism that doesn't depend on the sun, I'm all ears. Until then, it's just your empty posturing.

Quote
Please take time and consider what science say, and compare the above statement.
The Sun and planets were all taking shape at the same time. It is called a proto Sun and Proto Planets.
Even using logic, you will see that the Sun did not shine bright when it was a proto sun.
I do not argue that the sun was not at one point a protostar, nor do I argue that the Earth did not form out of the same protoplanetary disk as the other planets. What I do argue is that the sun moved out of the protostar stage and became a full, hydrogen-burning main sequence star before the Earth and other inner worlds formed. There is nothing about the definition of either protoplanets or protostars that says that they MUST form at the same time, or take the same time forming.

Quote
ALL SCIENTISTS AGREE TO THIS FACT THAT THE PLANETS AND SUN DEVELOPED FROM A DARK CLOUD WHEN THE SUN WAS STILL NOT SHINING.
No scientist will agree with you that these events need take place at the same time. That's part of your problem right there. You keep insisting that, because they are the first in sequence of their respective processes, that they must begin simultaneously. Why? Why should they do so?

Indeed, I don't think they can start at the same time because if they did, by feeding of the very same nebulae, those "planets" would grow just as fast as the forming star and would ignite as well as hydrogen-burning stars along with the sun. We would be living in a binary (or more) system, not the single star we do now.

Quote
THE ONLY REASON WHY YOU WILL NOT ACCEPT SCIENCE IS BECAUSE OF THESE WORDS:
THE EARTH WAS DARK THROUGHOUT ITS DEEP, AND THE SPIRIT OF GOD HOVERED ABOVE THE WATERS.
AND GOD SAID: LET THERE BE LIGHT!"

WHY IS IT SO PAINFULL?
I like how you envision me to be in pain and blinded by the light, asswipe. It just goes to show that all of you knobheads are actually sadists and horrible people.

But moving on:

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Now we are getting somewhere.
A short period of the Earth melting.
But what was before this Melting epoch you are talking about.
A wet acretion of Ice and space dust perhaps?
No. Planetesimals. By any reasonable description, hunks of rock.

Quote
Darkness?
Wet?
Familiar?
No. The differentiation of the protoplanetary disk requires a shining sun. Ergo, no darkness. The planetesimals and resulting protoplanets were dry as a bone by any conventional description.

Quote
I might not have any scientific background, but so far We found from your own words that the Earth must have been a collection of Water, Gas and Matter.
No, that didn't happen. The inital components of the Earth were by any conventional description dry rocks. This "my own words" malarkey is something you made up, as if you know the vision in my head better than me. You don't get to do that.

Quote
We also found you agree with the fact that the Sun was very faint when it started to produce fusion. You call it 10 million years, enough to fit in with a Biblical description that there was light, and then a Sun.
Under no circumstance would you call the radiation from a protostar "light." It would be infrared radiation, which you can't see. Significant visible radiation from the sun began when it's nuclear furnace started up. Ergo, Sun, then light.

We know this because the dimmest stars are very very faint, especially in the visible spectrum, and as such would only cast the faintest of shadows, and any substantial object on its way to nuclear fusion must be fainter still. A protostar stops collapsing and becomes a star because it's generating enough power to support itself. Until that point, it just doesn't glow. Furthermore, it takes a minimum of a million years for the energy generated in the core of a star like our own to reach the surface. Ergo, Sun, then light.

But let's say I accept your spurious "light, and then a Sun" order; it still takes a bright star to cause the protoplanetary disk to differentiate enough to produce an inner solar system with predominantly rocky worlds. Ergo, nothing recognizable as the Earth exists yet. So it's light, then sun, then Earth.

Sorry, chum, there is no circumstance where your order works.

Quote
And obviously you are also welcome to disregard whatever scientific discoveries was found to disprove  Thea impact.
As I point out in a previous message, those discoveries do not disprove the Theia impact, but only require its modification. Without Theia, you have a hard time explaining why we have such a large moon orbiting on the eliptic. In case you haven't realized, that's a big deal.

Quote
Fact is that we now moved from an accusation that the Biblical explanation of the Bible should be discarded as any scientific relation, to you agreeing to Genesis, but with different timelines.
Bullshit. What you have posted is only scientists sorting out the relatively small stuff. Your Biblical "theory" would require huge changes in our understanding of the universe in order to be true. Like I said before, you're calling upon me to remove the sliver in my eye, when there's a huge fuck-off log in yours.

Quote
I love this.
Well, mastochism is a thing. If you want to be clubbed, who am I to argue?

Quote
No more ancient sheep herders night fire stories and Mythological accusations.
Even a sheep hearder has eyes, and if they saw it, they would have known that their Bible was indeed myth.

Quote
Oh but it will!
Wait for it!
Promises, promises.

You are merely grandstanding at this point. You have no conception of what you're reading, and so you reject my explanations even though I've given you proper interpretations of your own goddamned sources.

Seriously, fuck off. You have nothing to teach us.
« Last Edit: July 12, 2018, 02:03:15 PM by Hakurei Reimu »
Warning: Don't Tease The Miko!
(she bites!)
Spinny Miko Avatar shamelessly ripped off from You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Re: Origins of the Universe. (Creation versus science. Do they contradict?)
« Reply #182 on: July 12, 2018, 02:09:56 PM »
In a perfect world we could just shoot these guys.
We 'new atheists' have a reputation for being militant, but make no mistake  we didn't start this war. If you want to place blame put it on the the religious zealots who have been poisoning the minds of the  young for a long long time."
PZ Myers

Re: Origins of the Universe. (Creation versus science. Do they contradict?)
« Reply #183 on: July 12, 2018, 02:13:00 PM »
In a perfect world these guys wouldn't be here to need shooting.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
“Truth is not what you want it to be; it is what it is, and you must bend to its power or live a lie.”
Miyamoto Musashi

Re: Origins of the Universe. (Creation versus science. Do they contradict?)
« Reply #184 on: July 12, 2018, 02:16:54 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
In a perfect world these guys wouldn't be here to need shooting.
Shoot enough of them and they won't be here.
We 'new atheists' have a reputation for being militant, but make no mistake  we didn't start this war. If you want to place blame put it on the the religious zealots who have been poisoning the minds of the  young for a long long time."
PZ Myers

Offline Baruch

Re: Origins of the Universe. (Creation versus science. Do they contradict?)
« Reply #185 on: July 12, 2018, 06:47:54 PM »
If y'all didn't have chew toys, all your teeth could fall out (a lot of us are elderly).
שלום

Offline aitm

Re: Origins of the Universe. (Creation versus science. Do they contradict?)
« Reply #186 on: July 12, 2018, 08:55:59 PM »
all of this sciencey  stuff to try to prove his god exists....albeit one a little terrified by a woman's menstrual cycle. Hey! What good is a god what knows about that stuff eh? He dropped 2/3rds of the stars to the earth and barely a dent...now THATS a god........oy.
A humans desire to live is exceeded only by their willingness to die for another. Even god cannot equal this magnificent sacrifice. No god has the right to judge them.-first tenant of the Panotheust

Re: Origins of the Universe. (Creation versus science. Do they contradict?)
« Reply #187 on: July 13, 2018, 02:34:54 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Oh, don't tell me. He thinks that scientific theories are just unsupported guesses, and those theories turn into laws when they're proven right.
And dont tell me you are under the impression that Theories is proven fact, even without any supportive substance or any scientific fact.
Wow, how scientific practices have changed in the Atheistic camp.
And they accuse Christians in believing in fables, when they simply believe a Theory is fact!
Evolution, the religion whereby one believes your children more human, and your parents more ape, than you!

The Human Mind, if it has nothing to do with Evolution...What an incredible entity...
If it does, what a waste!

Atheism, what a wonderful religion, where one believe to believe is erroneous.

Offline Cavebear

Re: Origins of the Universe. (Creation versus science. Do they contradict?)
« Reply #188 on: July 13, 2018, 02:44:38 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
That sounds awfully nuanced and complicated.  Goddidit fits better on a bumpersticker.

Bumperstickers are usually inaccurate.  I have none on MY car.
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Re: Origins of the Universe. (Creation versus science. Do they contradict?)
« Reply #189 on: July 13, 2018, 03:08:48 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Regardless of your elaboration, the only way you can assert that is to necessarily assert that all of science is wrong.  There is no observation from any of the sciences that supports the notion that animal life (which includes humans) has existed for only 6,000 years.  Not one.  Not a single, solitary observation.  To assert that Animalia have only existed for 6,000 years means you reject science, period.
I dont agree with your statement. On the contrary, I full hardheartedly agree with any scientific dating techniques to determine the age of organic material.
What I do not agree with is assumptions made by Atheists on the results.
But I will get to that point where you will see what I mean.
Actually, Just as with the Nebular Hypostesis, tests such as C14/C12 are evidence to Bblical descriptions.
I know you will like what I will show you.
Quote from: trdsf
You cannot both reject science and claim a "scientific" basis for biblical creation.  If you want to accept the scientific method, you need to accept scientific results, including the ones that disagree with what you want them to be.  I mean, I would have loved to not mention the isotopic mismatch between terrestrial water and cometary water because I knew you would try to pounce on that (and eventually waste my time with a digression explaining your failure to make it relevant), but the observation is what it is.
I never said I reject scientific facts. I might not listen to Theories, but scientific dating tequniques are verry well established in science, and anyone claiming that, say Carbon 14 testing is incorrect, is a fool.
I will never make such a mistake, because atheists will then use my error to prove me wrong.
Quote from: trdsf
Unlike you, I don't get to cherry-pick my data.  I respect reality and truth.

If you still want to try to do both, then you need to provide explanations for the following:

1. Why radiometric dating techniques are accurate below 6000 years before present but not above -- what mechanism changes radioactivity at that age, and in such a way that all techniques provide consistent answers despite following different decay paths.  If you do not reject radiometric dating techniques, you need to explain why we have been able to date the remains of genetically modern humans to 300,000 years ago, to say nothing of the record of billions of years of evolution for the rest of living entities.
And these tests are 100% correct, I have never claimed otherwize.
But we will get there too.
Quote from: trdsf
2. Why astronomical observations of protoplanetary disks in other star systems look like the scientific model of planetary formation and not the biblical model.  If your answer is that Earth is special and these other systems aren't, you need to provide a mechanism as to why Earth is special.
and what I showed is that the Biblical description and the scientific discoveries are exactly the same. We went through all the informatiion where I showed you that science are using the Nebular Hypothesis postulated by Immanuel Kant in 1755.
With the 'age of enlightenment' many atheists attempted to produce any philosophy to counter the 'Biblical taste' of Kant's claim. They were all proven incorrectly, but atheists still forced this Hadean epoch into the Nebular Hypothesis. Now, as you have seen, one after the other discovery shows that Kant was correct, and his Nebular Theory which he found from Biblical descriptions, are what science now know to be correct.
Do you see the problem with atheists' claims that the Bible is wrong in its description with what science today knows about the origins of the universe?
Atheists are using the Biblical description to disprove the Bible!
It is hilarious!

Quote from: trdsf
The answer to neither of these can be 'because god'.  You're trying to demonstrate divine intervention here, so you may not assume it as part of your proof for it -- all that is, is saying "God did this.  My proof is that I think god did this, therefore god did this."  Divine intervention is your conclusion, so it cannot be used as an explanation for any step prior to its actual demonstration.
Ok, so atheists for over 100 years never knew that the Nebular Hypothesis came smack bang out of Genesis.
They then carried on to discover the real origins of the universe, and never knew about Kant's claim.
Now Atheists have to accept that what they hold so dear as evidence that the Bible can be proven wrong, is actually a Biblical description written up 3 000 years ago by people who in their chronological existence, received this information from their ancestors 4500 years ago!
So, perhaps you can explain how Kant in 1755 used the Bible to formulate the Nebular Hypothesis written 4500 years ago, and science are today using and providing evidence to the accuracy thereof?
I guess this was the one thing that made me realize that somehow this Author of Genesis, are definitely the Divine Creator who told us how HEDIDIT!

Quote from: trdsf
Neither can the answer be "I just don't buy it".  You can't handwave away repeatable, testable, verified observations without an explanation why they're wrong and how they're wrong, as well as providing a testable theory (and theory means a scientific theory, not a guess) that not only explains current observations but makes definite testable predictions about where and how future observations may vary from the currently accepted theories.
And as promised I will obviously come to the age of Life on Earth.
I was very concerned about the Biblical claim, but once I found that science supported the age of life according to Biblical claims, I had to accept that YHWH exists!
Evolution, the religion whereby one believes your children more human, and your parents more ape, than you!

The Human Mind, if it has nothing to do with Evolution...What an incredible entity...
If it does, what a waste!

Atheism, what a wonderful religion, where one believe to believe is erroneous.

Re: Origins of the Universe. (Creation versus science. Do they contradict?)
« Reply #190 on: July 13, 2018, 03:22:37 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
In a perfect world we could just shoot these guys.
And here we have the true mentality of Atheists on a grand display.
The exact words of Stalin, Pot Pol, Mau Tse Dong, Castro, Samorrah Machell, and all the atheists of the world who collecttively murdered over 100 million people.
Atheists are well known to shoot those that proves them wrong!
LOLMAO
Evolution, the religion whereby one believes your children more human, and your parents more ape, than you!

The Human Mind, if it has nothing to do with Evolution...What an incredible entity...
If it does, what a waste!

Atheism, what a wonderful religion, where one believe to believe is erroneous.

Offline Cavebear

Re: Origins of the Universe. (Creation versus science. Do they contradict?)
« Reply #191 on: July 13, 2018, 03:28:28 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
And here we have the true mentality of Atheists on a grand display.
The exact words of Stalin, Pot Pol, Mau Tse Dong, Castro, Samorrah Machell, and all the atheists of the world who collecttively murdered over 100 million people.
Atheists are well known to shoot those that proves them wrong!
LOLMAO


The old claim that atheists are ll communists is too false to even worry about.

And "Ok, so atheists for over 100 years never knew that the Nebular Hypothesis came smack bang out of Genesis" is so innacurate.  The biblical account of Genesis is falsifiable, lacking any evidence, and scientifically innaccurate is SO many ways.  Do you think or do you just "believe".  Let's go from there.
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Re: Origins of the Universe. (Creation versus science. Do they contradict?)
« Reply #192 on: July 13, 2018, 04:10:21 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The old claim that atheists are ll communists is too false to even worry about.

And "Ok, so atheists for over 100 years never knew that the Nebular Hypothesis came smack bang out of Genesis" is so innacurate.  The biblical account of Genesis is falsifiable, lacking any evidence, and scientifically innaccurate is SO many ways.  Do you think or do you just "believe".  Let's go from there.
Have I said Atheists are communists?
Is it a fact that all communists are Atheists?
Is it a fact that an Atheist on this forum said I should be shot?
Is it a fact that Atheists in communist countries are a collection of atheists, that loves to kill christians, intellectuals, and anyone that might ask questions against Atheism.
Do you see how indoctrinated you are when and Atheist threatens someone to be shot?
If I were you I would not attack a person that is expressing you what he believes in, but I expect that you should have defended my right to an opinion, even if you do not agree!
However, you simply express your Atheistic character to join into the utopia of atheism, murdering of anything Christian!

Shame on you!

Evolution, the religion whereby one believes your children more human, and your parents more ape, than you!

The Human Mind, if it has nothing to do with Evolution...What an incredible entity...
If it does, what a waste!

Atheism, what a wonderful religion, where one believe to believe is erroneous.

Re: Origins of the Universe. (Creation versus science. Do they contradict?)
« Reply #193 on: July 13, 2018, 04:34:59 AM »
OK, so far we saw that the claim that the biblical description is incorrect on the Origins of the Universe, and the age of the Universe, is in contradiction with science; is not true at all.
As a matter of fact, a the claim that the Genesis description is incorrect, such as that the Biblical claim that the Universe to be 6 000 years old, is totally incorrect when one read the times as "Before the First day' which is clearly an expression that the age of the Earth is unknown, and definitely older than 6K.
I also showed that the Nebular Hypothesis is the only solid scientific explanation substantiated by scientific experiments and discoveries, that atheists are using as an explanation that the Bible is incorrect. What the Atheist obviously never knew, was that this Nebular Hypothesis, that is constantly proven correct as time passes, was compiled by Emmanuel Kant, which grasped as a Biblical student of Hebrew scriptures!
Now, I do not want any atheist to simply believe me, or to decide that I am either correct or wrong, but I expect one to at least go and find out for yourself!

To conclude on the matter of the Universe and Genesis.
I do not say any of my findings is cast in concrete, but what I do say is:

Dont ever again claim that the description on the Origins of the Universe from the Bible is derived from Mythology, or ancient simple camel herders, or Sumerian creation epochs, or whatever.

What I demonstrated, even though you will never agree, and you have the right too disagree, (I wont wish you to be shot) but that I, a simple man, can take your claim and keep you busy for a week and still show you that your point of opinion is bias.
Now, If we were to hold a court case, such as the Monkey trial, I am sure that a Jury will agree that any claim of non intellectual creation from Genesis based on my description, can not be claimed. Just as I will not be able to claim the existence of Divine creation.

So sue me and lets test my claim.
 :police: :laugh:
 


Evolution, the religion whereby one believes your children more human, and your parents more ape, than you!

The Human Mind, if it has nothing to do with Evolution...What an incredible entity...
If it does, what a waste!

Atheism, what a wonderful religion, where one believe to believe is erroneous.

Online Munch

Re: Origins of the Universe. (Creation versus science. Do they contradict?)
« Reply #194 on: July 13, 2018, 05:16:16 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
And here we have the true mentality of Atheists on a grand display.
The exact words of Stalin, Pot Pol, Mau Tse Dong, Castro, Samorrah Machell, and all the atheists of the world who collecttively murdered over 100 million people.
Atheists are well known to shoot those that proves them wrong!
LOLMAO


Using your own logic, every christian is a child abuser, because of what the Sisters of Nazareth did for decades to children
« Last Edit: July 13, 2018, 06:23:58 AM by Munch »

 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk