It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why Creation Is The Only Logical Explanation...

page: 11
42
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 06:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheLamb
a reply to: edmc^2

I admire your fortitude. It's tough taking a stand for God sometimes. Just know that He is watching and He's right behind us. He'll even lend a hand when the time is right. Apply some logic to this and follow the steps. Can you see GOD in the second graphic at the bottom?





They say that I picked the numbers to stack the outcome. What do you think?


I see Batman.

Could it be? Batman is our god, and he used humans to write a "comic" book explaining his life. Only Explanation.




posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 06:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2

Oh I see, more ridiculous assumptions.

God said himself he can't lie. So he has a limit.



That's all I've seen from you as well. I guess that makes us even then.

He certainly does have limits, no argument there.



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 06:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

Barcs, c'mon... edmc^2 has been making the same thread or two over and over again since I've been on ATS. I actually start to miss his "creationism is logical" and "the Bible is scientifically accurate" nonsense if I have to go more than a year without seeing a new thread of his.



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 06:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2

But what if the "possible" is based on science fiction or philosophical mumbo-jumbo, what then?

Blindly believe? I hope not. Otherwise, it'll turn out to be "Blind Faith".

No, we should believe on what's true, otherwise we can easily be swayed by anyone.


Mumbo Jumbo is subjective and only dependent on someone who considers a string of thoughts through to the end.

Can you prove the following is not possible? Is it mumbo-jumbo:

The Idea of Something came to be because a small particle of Something materialized and it had the potential to cause other Ideas to materialize.

Material Ideas cause other material ideas to spontaneously exist in Space and Time (For example, a sperm and an egg causes a new idea of a life to divide and multiply at a cellular level.) It is like magic compared to our Ideas that don't materialize spontaneously.

Ideas in Minds (like ours or a creator) do NOT cause material ideas to spontaneously exist in Space and Time. Minds have a unique ability to only cause Ideas to spontaneously exist in the dimension of Time -- not Space.

The first particle of Something was limited in that it had to bring about the Idea of itself and the Idea of Nothing (to define itself).

The first particle of Something carried other Ideas with it. For example, it had unique qualities that Another Thing does not have. It exists in a Unique Position in Space. It moves or does not move relative to two more Things, etc..

Those Unique Ideas Materialized and brought New Ideas about Other Things causing New Ideas about Other Things to materialize -- one after another in the smallest increments of Time.

Every Idea before Minds leads to the Idea of Nothing -- which could only exist in Minds. Nothing could not materialize Itself, yet it has to coexist with the Idea of Something.

The Idea of Nothing only exists in the dimension of Time as a fleeting thought caused by the Idea of neurons firing in the dimensions of Space and Time.

The Idea of Nothing came to be in the Dimension of Time as the result of a long equation of Ideas that Absolutely led to the Idea of Nothing .

The Universe is Ordered and follows Physical Laws because it must contain every Idea from the Idea of Something to the Idea of Nothing...and ALSO the ability to exist perpetually in Time thanks to an endless ability to produce Ideas from other Ideas in Space and/or Time.



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 06:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Isurrender73


Yeast adapted to work together. Yeast is still yeast.

You claimed that single celled organisms have never been observed to evolve to multicellular organisms. I have provided evidence to the contrary. Now you move the goalposts in an effort to call my evidence that directly and objectively contradicts your position irrelevant? That's just dishonest.


The experiment with yeast is a start but does not prove anything beyond a single cell organisms clumping to work with it's own kind, while remaining it's own kind.

What's a "kind"?


Many scientists don't except this as proof of anything.

Who? You claim that with no evidence. Name the scientists who don't "except" that as proof of anything.


Belief/Faith - a semantics game not worth playing. The definition of both words is nearly identical and they are accepted as synonyms.

I agree, that's why I decided to use them interchangeably.


If you don't understand that our universe i s governed by perfect mathematical laws I suggest you should do some research.

Explain what you mean by "perfect" and then provide your evidence to that effect. Otherwise, you're just blabbering on.


If there is no creator. Then from then from the big bang to man was an act of Chaos.

There are only 2 choices life arose by intelligent design or by randomly generated chaos. There is no third option.

If that's all you can see, then you are as narrow-minded as you accuse atheists of being.



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 07:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Titen-Sxull

Thanks Titen-Sxull for an interesting post.

But first, let me say this, I don't subscribe to William Craig, but some of what he says align with mine.

For instance, I don't subscribe to the belief or teaching that God is omnipresent or present everywhere. Otherwise, Jesus would not tell his followers to pray the "Father who is in heaven" (Mat 6:9,10).

As to my bad logic, I don't see it. My argument is simply with the two world views or my world view against the atheistic worldview.

The atheist's world view that "nothing created the universe" and the Christian worldview that God created the universe, hence the only logical explanation.

The later makes sense and logical to me for the simple fact that we have evidence supporting it.

Evidence after evidence that can be both conducted and analyzed. It has nothing to do with the Greek gods or any philosophical ideas posited by atheist scientists.

Simply put, my evidence for Creation is a fact. It's not a mere invention of mine. Hence, I invite anyone to prove me wrong.

But so far, all I'm getting are attacks and off-topic babbles - from the opposite side of the argument.

So again I ask, why is my evidence for creation by God not facts?

Why is it false to say/believe/posit/expound that God was the source of life when both scientific findings and logic confirm that:

Life can only come from pre-existing life?
That Law requires a law giver?
and that Intelligence require a mind?

Is it because they can't physically see God? Or is it something else?

I'd like to get your point of view.



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 07:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: edmc^2

But what if the "possible" is based on science fiction or philosophical mumbo-jumbo, what then?

Blindly believe? I hope not. Otherwise, it'll turn out to be "Blind Faith".

No, we should believe on what's true, otherwise we can easily be swayed by anyone.


Mumbo Jumbo is subjective and only dependent on someone who considers a string of thoughts through to the end.

Can you prove the following is not possible? Is it mumbo-jumbo:

The Idea of Something came to be because a small particle of Something materialized and it had the potential to cause other Ideas to materialize.

Material Ideas cause other material ideas to spontaneously exist in Space and Time (For example, a sperm and an egg causes a new idea of a life to divide and multiply at a cellular level.) It is like magic compared to our Ideas that don't materialize spontaneously.

Ideas in Minds (like ours or a creator) do NOT cause material ideas to spontaneously exist in Space and Time. Minds have a unique ability to only cause Ideas to spontaneously exist in the dimension of Time -- not Space.

The first particle of Something was limited in that it had to bring about the Idea of itself and the Idea of Nothing (to define itself).

The first particle of Something carried other Ideas with it. For example, it had unique qualities that Another Thing does not have. It exists in a Unique Position in Space. It moves or does not move relative to two more Things, etc..

Those Unique Ideas Materialized and brought New Ideas about Other Things causing New Ideas about Other Things to materialize -- one after another in the smallest increments of Time.

Every Idea before Minds leads to the Idea of Nothing -- which could only exist in Minds. Nothing could not materialize Itself, yet it has to coexist with the Idea of Something.

The Idea of Nothing only exists in the dimension of Time as a fleeting thought caused by the Idea of neurons firing in the dimensions of Space and Time.

The Idea of Nothing came to be in the Dimension of Time as the result of a long equation of Ideas that Absolutely led to the Idea of Nothing .

The Universe is Ordered and follows Physical Laws because it must contain every Idea from the Idea of Something to the Idea of Nothing...and ALSO the ability to exist perpetually in Time thanks to an endless ability to produce Ideas from other Ideas in Space and/or Time.



If you're saying that IDEAS came from nothing, then I say it's mumbo-jumbo, nonsense. For how could nothing produce an idea when there was nothing to begin with? It's simply illogical.

But if you're saying that IDEAS came from something, then you'll have to define what that something is. Otherwise, it becomes mumbo-jumbo, nonsense. Is it alive or not? An entity or not?



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 07:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: iterationzero
a reply to: Barcs

Barcs, c'mon... edmc^2 has been making the same thread or two over and over again since I've been on ATS. I actually start to miss his "creationism is logical" and "the Bible is scientifically accurate" nonsense if I have to go more than a year without seeing a new thread of his.


The reason why I keep making similar threads is your refusal to answer direct questions. So here's your chance to shut me up:

So again I ask, why is my evidence for creation by God not facts?

Why is it false to say/believe/posit/expound that God was the source of life when both scientific findings and logic confirm that:

Life can only come from pre-existing life?
That Law requires a law giver?
and that Intelligence require a mind?

???



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 07:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: edmc^2

But what if the "possible" is based on science fiction or philosophical mumbo-jumbo, what then?

Blindly believe? I hope not. Otherwise, it'll turn out to be "Blind Faith".

No, we should believe on what's true, otherwise we can easily be swayed by anyone.


Mumbo Jumbo is subjective and only dependent on someone who considers a string of thoughts through to the end.

Can you prove the following is not possible? Is it mumbo-jumbo:

The Idea of Something came to be because a small particle of Something materialized and it had the potential to cause other Ideas to materialize.

Material Ideas cause other material ideas to spontaneously exist in Space and Time (For example, a sperm and an egg causes a new idea of a life to divide and multiply at a cellular level.) It is like magic compared to our Ideas that don't materialize spontaneously.

Ideas in Minds (like ours or a creator) do NOT cause material ideas to spontaneously exist in Space and Time. Minds have a unique ability to only cause Ideas to spontaneously exist in the dimension of Time -- not Space.

The first particle of Something was limited in that it had to bring about the Idea of itself and the Idea of Nothing (to define itself).

The first particle of Something carried other Ideas with it. For example, it had unique qualities that Another Thing does not have. It exists in a Unique Position in Space. It moves or does not move relative to two more Things, etc..

Those Unique Ideas Materialized and brought New Ideas about Other Things causing New Ideas about Other Things to materialize -- one after another in the smallest increments of Time.

Every Idea before Minds leads to the Idea of Nothing -- which could only exist in Minds. Nothing could not materialize Itself, yet it has to coexist with the Idea of Something.

The Idea of Nothing only exists in the dimension of Time as a fleeting thought caused by the Idea of neurons firing in the dimensions of Space and Time.

The Idea of Nothing came to be in the Dimension of Time as the result of a long equation of Ideas that Absolutely led to the Idea of Nothing .

The Universe is Ordered and follows Physical Laws because it must contain every Idea from the Idea of Something to the Idea of Nothing...and ALSO the ability to exist perpetually in Time thanks to an endless ability to produce Ideas from other Ideas in Space and/or Time.



If you're saying that IDEAS came from nothing, then I say it's mumbo-jumbo, nonsense. For how could nothing produce an idea when there was nothing to begin with? It's simply illogical.

But if you're saying that IDEAS came from something, then you'll have to define what that something is. Otherwise, it becomes mumbo-jumbo, nonsense. Is it alive or not? An entity or not?






There was a possibility that the Idea of Nothing and Something could exist in the way they exist. So they do exist. The proof is all around us.



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 07:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: edmc^2

But what if the "possible" is based on science fiction or philosophical mumbo-jumbo, what then?

Blindly believe? I hope not. Otherwise, it'll turn out to be "Blind Faith".

No, we should believe on what's true, otherwise we can easily be swayed by anyone.


Mumbo Jumbo is subjective and only dependent on someone who considers a string of thoughts through to the end.

Can you prove the following is not possible? Is it mumbo-jumbo:

The Idea of Something came to be because a small particle of Something materialized and it had the potential to cause other Ideas to materialize.

Material Ideas cause other material ideas to spontaneously exist in Space and Time (For example, a sperm and an egg causes a new idea of a life to divide and multiply at a cellular level.) It is like magic compared to our Ideas that don't materialize spontaneously.

Ideas in Minds (like ours or a creator) do NOT cause material ideas to spontaneously exist in Space and Time. Minds have a unique ability to only cause Ideas to spontaneously exist in the dimension of Time -- not Space.

The first particle of Something was limited in that it had to bring about the Idea of itself and the Idea of Nothing (to define itself).

The first particle of Something carried other Ideas with it. For example, it had unique qualities that Another Thing does not have. It exists in a Unique Position in Space. It moves or does not move relative to two more Things, etc..

Those Unique Ideas Materialized and brought New Ideas about Other Things causing New Ideas about Other Things to materialize -- one after another in the smallest increments of Time.

Every Idea before Minds leads to the Idea of Nothing -- which could only exist in Minds. Nothing could not materialize Itself, yet it has to coexist with the Idea of Something.

The Idea of Nothing only exists in the dimension of Time as a fleeting thought caused by the Idea of neurons firing in the dimensions of Space and Time.

The Idea of Nothing came to be in the Dimension of Time as the result of a long equation of Ideas that Absolutely led to the Idea of Nothing .

The Universe is Ordered and follows Physical Laws because it must contain every Idea from the Idea of Something to the Idea of Nothing...and ALSO the ability to exist perpetually in Time thanks to an endless ability to produce Ideas from other Ideas in Space and/or Time.



If you're saying that IDEAS came from nothing, then I say it's mumbo-jumbo, nonsense. For how could nothing produce an idea when there was nothing to begin with? It's simply illogical.

But if you're saying that IDEAS came from something, then you'll have to define what that something is. Otherwise, it becomes mumbo-jumbo, nonsense. Is it alive or not? An entity or not?








There was a possibility that the Idea of Nothing and Something could exist in the way they exist. So they do exist. The proof is all around us.


But you need to explain or define what this "nothing" is.

Otherwise, you're talking in vague terms.

What is "Nothing" in relation to "Something"?

Ideas are not nothing. They come from the mind. They products of an intelligent mind.

Just like 1+1 = 2 is an idea based on numerics/mathematics.

So what is this "nothing" you're talking about?



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 07:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: edmc^2



"Life comes from pre-existing life" vs "Out of nothing, something".

That is a very bad dichotomy.
One is speaking of the origin of life the other is the origin, apparently, of the Universe.

While, obviously, there could not be life without the Universe, upon what do you base the claim that life can only come from life?

BTW, the scientific claim is not that something came from nothing.



Ya they avoid the toughest questions altogether, we noticed.

Let us know when they are allowed to actually look for something interesting.



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 07:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: edmc^2

But what if the "possible" is based on science fiction or philosophical mumbo-jumbo, what then?

Blindly believe? I hope not. Otherwise, it'll turn out to be "Blind Faith".

No, we should believe on what's true, otherwise we can easily be swayed by anyone.


Mumbo Jumbo is subjective and only dependent on someone who considers a string of thoughts through to the end.

Can you prove the following is not possible? Is it mumbo-jumbo:

The Idea of Something came to be because a small particle of Something materialized and it had the potential to cause other Ideas to materialize.

Material Ideas cause other material ideas to spontaneously exist in Space and Time (For example, a sperm and an egg causes a new idea of a life to divide and multiply at a cellular level.) It is like magic compared to our Ideas that don't materialize spontaneously.

Ideas in Minds (like ours or a creator) do NOT cause material ideas to spontaneously exist in Space and Time. Minds have a unique ability to only cause Ideas to spontaneously exist in the dimension of Time -- not Space.

The first particle of Something was limited in that it had to bring about the Idea of itself and the Idea of Nothing (to define itself).

The first particle of Something carried other Ideas with it. For example, it had unique qualities that Another Thing does not have. It exists in a Unique Position in Space. It moves or does not move relative to two more Things, etc..

Those Unique Ideas Materialized and brought New Ideas about Other Things causing New Ideas about Other Things to materialize -- one after another in the smallest increments of Time.

Every Idea before Minds leads to the Idea of Nothing -- which could only exist in Minds. Nothing could not materialize Itself, yet it has to coexist with the Idea of Something.

The Idea of Nothing only exists in the dimension of Time as a fleeting thought caused by the Idea of neurons firing in the dimensions of Space and Time.

The Idea of Nothing came to be in the Dimension of Time as the result of a long equation of Ideas that Absolutely led to the Idea of Nothing .

The Universe is Ordered and follows Physical Laws because it must contain every Idea from the Idea of Something to the Idea of Nothing...and ALSO the ability to exist perpetually in Time thanks to an endless ability to produce Ideas from other Ideas in Space and/or Time.



If you're saying that IDEAS came from nothing, then I say it's mumbo-jumbo, nonsense. For how could nothing produce an idea when there was nothing to begin with? It's simply illogical.

But if you're saying that IDEAS came from something, then you'll have to define what that something is. Otherwise, it becomes mumbo-jumbo, nonsense. Is it alive or not? An entity or not?








There was a possibility that the Idea of Nothing and Something could exist in the way they exist. So they do exist. The proof is all around us.


But you need to explain or define what this "nothing" is.

Otherwise, you're talking in vague terms.

What is "Nothing" in relation to "Something"?

Ideas are not nothing. They come from the mind. They products of an intelligent mind.

Just like 1+1 = 2 is an idea based on numerics/mathematics.

So what is this "nothing" you're talking about?






Nothing is exactly what Something is not.


And no. Ideas that spontaneously materialize do not come from minds. The only ideas that spontaneously materialize are Ideas brought into existence by other material Ideas.

Name one idea born in a mind that suddenly materialized.

On the other hand, there are an infinite amount of material Ideas that brought other material Ideas into existence.



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 07:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2
The answer is right at the very beginning of the book.

It says in Gen 1:1 "[Gen 1:1 ESV] 1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."

Then the following verses described the process / stages when the earth was prepared for habitation.

But what does Gen 1:1 tell you about the age of the earth? Well nothing but opens up the possibility that the earth can be billion years old. In other words, it doesn't conflict with current scientific data.


It seems to me that you really don't know your book.

Creation of earth according to your legend is like this - from moment 0.




Genesis 1
1. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
3. And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.
4. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness.
5. God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

So there is your time reference - 1st day. Seems to me you kind of miss that point... not billions of years... not thousands of years but 1 day?!

Why 1 day you may ask?!

Because those writing it had particular idea... they knew of longer periods of time, week, seasons, years, but they choose for specific reason ONLY 1 day - so that their creation appears powerful and omnipotent.

Please note, nowhere they say he created water... but somehow he ended up hovering over water?! So they knew HE WAS HERE?? How? Where you there to witness it? Where those writing/telling those stories there??

Don't blame me for telling you 'your' truth... but reason they don't mention dinosaurs, 4 billion years of creation of earth and sun, or that both earth and sun were created of start dust of star that exploded before them... simple - they did not know it. They did not know that we humans will find dino's bones, or that we will have spacecraft roaming where they believed angry little man resides.

What they wrote in bible is is best they knew... make stories to amuse folks like you...

So what else we learned in this first 5 lines of genesis... that they did not know that in order to have light you need sun - star.

And yes, you can read your book any way you want... hiding parts you don't like... and still you get the same results... has nothing to do with science, how we got here... or moral or existence of life on earth...

Your tries are funny... and yes, we offer here on ATS bible studies... if there is more things you don' know or are trying to modify 'God's' words... just let us know, we are here to help you...

Your friendly atheists that apparently know more about bible then you...

SF
edit on 2-10-2015 by SuperFrog because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 07:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: ParasuvO

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: edmc^2



"Life comes from pre-existing life" vs "Out of nothing, something".

That is a very bad dichotomy.
One is speaking of the origin of life the other is the origin, apparently, of the Universe.

While, obviously, there could not be life without the Universe, upon what do you base the claim that life can only come from life?

BTW, the scientific claim is not that something came from nothing.



Ya they avoid the toughest questions altogether, we noticed.

Let us know when they are allowed to actually look for something interesting.


What does science say about what something came from?

Which scientist is it who get the honor of being the one With the right answer?



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 07:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: ParasuvO

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: edmc^2



"Life comes from pre-existing life" vs "Out of nothing, something".

That is a very bad dichotomy.
One is speaking of the origin of life the other is the origin, apparently, of the Universe.

While, obviously, there could not be life without the Universe, upon what do you base the claim that life can only come from life?


BTW, the scientific claim is not that something came from nothing.



Ya they avoid the toughest questions altogether, we noticed.

Let us know when they are allowed to actually look for something interesting.




While, obviously, there could not be life without the Universe, upon what do you base the claim that life can only come from life?


I thought I've given an answer to this question already?

"upon what do you base the claim that life can only come from life?"

or to be exact - "Life comes from pre-existing life"

Simple. It's a scientific fact. Experience and countless experiments have shown that you can only get life from pre-existing life.



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 08:01 PM
link   
Why is it false to say/believe/posit/expound that God was the source of life when both scientific findings and logic confirm that: 

Life can only come from pre-existing life? 
That Law requires a law giver? 
and that Intelligence require a mind?


I do not hold the belief you do. But it's not false to believe the things you do concerning a creator. There very well may be one I have no idea. I do think that belief causes some problems with the logic your trying to present.
To my knowledge we know of no life that has come from something non living. That lack of knowledge doesn't discount the possibility of it. As mankind has progressed in various sciences we have come to discover many things we couldn't fathom a generation before. So for me personally to say with a resounding no on this topic I simply can't.
So taking into consideration the staggering amount of knowledge we haven't even the slightest notion of I have to say the jury is still out on our origins. Would you agree that you've made your conclusions on what information you have yes? Would you also agree that information is not complete?
As far as a law giver or intelligence those both infer a being that exists already not the creation of one. Again were left with a incomplete amount of information to give a definitive answer as to what can be.


a reply to: edmc^2



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 08:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: thedeadtruth
I think your opinion is based on a misconception / simplification you have. To make yourself look or feel better.

I have not heard one scientifically minded person claim they know how the universe was created. Quite the opposite. They theorize and openly admit they will never understand all of it.

You are the one pretending to understand an omnipotent beings methods and motives.



Did God give you common sense ? Then tell me who sounds like they have an inflated ego and delusion's of genius out of those two camps.


So its interesting to theorize and use systems that are limited in scope and thinking to understand how something works ??

Common sense is the problem, it is CONTROLLED and BORING, and is based in making sure no one steps outside too far.



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 08:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2
I thought I've given an answer to this question already?

"upon what do you base the claim that life can only come from life?"

or to be exact - "Life comes from pre-existing life"

Simple. It's a scientific fact. Experience and countless experiments have shown that you can only get life from pre-existing life.




This is ridiculous spin -- not that I think you intended it that way.

Life comes from the PHYSICAL BODIES OF PRE-EXISTING LIFE. Not from an IDEA in their Minds.

Life comes from a sperm and an egg in the case of humans. Not the combinations of Ideas inside the Minds of biological mothers and fathers.



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 08:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: SuperFrog

originally posted by: edmc^2
The answer is right at the very beginning of the book.

It says in Gen 1:1 "[Gen 1:1 ESV] 1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."

Then the following verses described the process / stages when the earth was prepared for habitation.

But what does Gen 1:1 tell you about the age of the earth? Well nothing but opens up the possibility that the earth can be billion years old. In other words, it doesn't conflict with current scientific data.


It seems to me that you really don't know your book.

Creation of earth according to your legend is like this - from moment 0.




Genesis 1
1. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
3. And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.
4. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness.
5. God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

So there is your time reference - 1st day. Seems to me you kind of miss that point... not billions of years... not thousands of years but 1 day?!

Why 1 day you may ask?!

Because those writing it had particular idea... they knew of longer periods of time, week, seasons, years, but they choose for specific reason ONLY 1 day - so that their creation appears powerful and omnipotent.

Please note, nowhere they say he created water... but somehow he ended up hovering over water?! So they knew HE WAS HERE?? How? Where you there to witness it? Where those writing/telling those stories there??

Don't blame me for telling you 'your' truth... but reason they don't mention dinosaurs, 4 billion years of creation of earth and sun, or that both earth and sun were created of start dust of star that exploded before them... simple - they did not know it. They did not know that we humans will find dino's bones, or that we will have spacecraft roaming where they believed angry little man resides.

What they wrote in bible is is best they knew... make stories to amuse folks like you...

So what else we learned in this first 5 lines of genesis... that they did not know that in order to have light you need sun - star.

And yes, you can read your book any way you want... hiding parts you don't like... and still you get the same results... has nothing to do with science, how we got here... or moral or existence of life on earth...

Your tries are funny... and yes, we offer here on ATS bible studies... if there is more things you don' know or are trying to modify 'God's' words... just let us know, we are here to help you...

Your friendly atheists that apparently know more about bible then you...

SF


To the contrary SuperFrog, you're the one who missed it.

You combined 1:1 with the rest while Hebrew experts say that it's a totally separate statement.

In other words, the Hebrew experts are saying, Gen 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." allows for long periods of time. It can encompass billions of years.

But at this stage, while the earth existed (for eons of time), it was not fit for habitation. Hence V2 says:

2. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

Also, the Hebrew word according to Hebrew experts say it has different meaning - according to application.

For example, The "day" the earth stood still is about the time when the earth stood still.
In "the day" of my forefathers is another use of the word "day".
One "day" from today has another meaning.
"The First Day" might mean different things, depending on the occasion or circumstance. So you have to ask, "the first day" of what? daylight? 24 hrs, or the "first day" of creation?
When it comes to "creative day" it's not just one 24 hr day but an unknown amount of time period / eons.

You have much to learn my friend.



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 08:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2
To the contrary SuperFrog, you're the one who missed it.

You combined 1:1 with the rest while Hebrew experts say that it's a totally separate statement.

In other words, the Hebrew experts are saying, Gen 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." allows for long periods of time. It can encompass billions of years.


On contrary, it clearly states 1st day. There are time reference where they were due... and your statement 'Hebrew experts' is equal as saying - I don't know, but some people think white is black...

It seems to me that you are stuck with a day, as IT DOES NOT states billions of years as you think... It's simple and sorry, but it does not fit your misuse of God's words. Ask Ken Ham if you don't trust me!





originally posted by: edmc^2
But at this stage, while the earth existed (for eons of time), it was not fit for habitation. Hence V2 says:

2. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

Also, the Hebrew word according to Hebrew experts say it has different meaning - according to application.

Seems to me that you don't believe in God's words... continue... find someone stretching words of omnipotent being...


originally posted by: edmc^2
For example, The "day" the earth stood still is about the time when the earth stood still.
In "the day" of my forefathers is another use of the word "day".
One "day" from today has another meaning.
"The First Day" might mean different things, depending on the occasion or circumstance. So you have to ask, "the first day" of what? daylight? 24 hrs, or the "first day" of creation?
When it comes to "creative day" it's not just one 24 hr day but an unknown amount of time period / eons.

You have much to learn my friend.

Day is a day... and you are wrong...
Let's continue with lesson... you might get it...



6. And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.”
7. So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so.
8. God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

Note - second day!

Earth stood still as you say.. there is now water, atmosphere, no Sun yet, but you have next day?!

Back to people 2-3K years ago not knowing basics of Astronomy. Ancient Greek KNEW about planets, Egyptians knew its size... but those writing bible did not know anything...

I think its clear who has to do some learning...
edit on 2-10-2015 by SuperFrog because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
42
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join