Why Creation Is The Only Logical Explanation...

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

You keep using the word Creationist in a derogatory fashion. Basically as name-calling.

But I wonder, do you even know what the word means? Because it means something other than what you think it does. I am not a creationist. And while, I would not call them names, I respect their right to believe the way they want, I am not one. And would like it if you stop calling me on.

And also would like it if you actually took the time to learn the meaning of the word.

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

You are the one taking what I said out of context. I was not trying to state that the atmosphere was the same as Venus is. I realize what will happen to you on the surface. I was trying to help you visualize what the surface of the earth must have looked like at that point, if you as an observer were there.

Why is that so hard to grasp? Are you trying to deflect from what I was really trying to open your mind's eye to understand? Who really is doing the deflecting?

a reply to: LifeisGrand
Sorry, but Genesis, Koran, Vedas etc. are not scientific arguments. They are "divine" scriptures. They are valid sources in field of cultural anthropology and historiography. They can be valid sources in astronomy (if dated), psychology etc. But not in astrophysics, quantum mechanic or chemistry.

I like to discuss theology, but you present really retrogate version of it.

Vatican sounds like a base of reason in comparision to your propositions.

Round and round the argument goes, where it will end, nobody knows.
When the last sun in the last galaxy dies, the question will still not be answered.

originally posted by: LifeisGrand
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

You are the one taking what I said out of context. I was not trying to state that the atmosphere was the same as Venus is. I realize what will happen to you on the surface. I was trying to help you visualize what the surface of the earth must have looked like at that point, if you as an observer were there.

Why is that so hard to grasp? Are you trying to deflect from what I was really trying to open your mind's eye to understand? Who really is doing the deflecting?

Then if you knew how horrible the atmosphere of Venus is, why mention it??? Why not just say 'a very thick atmosphere'???
And don't talk to me about deflection. You are guilty of that little sin far more than I am. I note that you still refuse to mention the water problem, in that if the poles melted, along with all the ice sheets, the sea level would only rise 216 feet. That's not enough to cover the landmasses of the Earth. That was in my link. Not that you bothered to look at it I'll bet.
Oh and creationists use the word to describe themselves. Here's a great little guide. There's even an Institute for Creation Research. It's run by a load of religious lunatics who fail at some many aspects of science that it's impossible to deny that their faith outweighs every fact they don't like.

a reply to: JanAmosComenius

Not at all. Actually when viewed from the viewpoint of science it is accurate.

Explain how Moses knew the universe had a beginning as stated in verse 1.

Explain how he knew the earth's surface was dark at a certain point of time, no light from the sun could penetrate it as stated in verse 2.

Show us how he knew the arrival of life on earth in the correct stages, plant life, trees, sea life, birds, land animals, and man.

The fossill record proves that everything he stated came about as he said. And it was not gradual. But rather, there were sudden bursts of life when the different forms of life appeared on earth.

And he also said that every form of life multiplies according to its kind. While there may be a variety in a kind, for example, a variety of dogs, or cats, or finches...they do not break the barrier to reproduce a different form of life.

Darwin thought his theory of evolution was proved because he observed finches reproducing into a variety, certain ones with longer beaks, or what have you. But even today those finches all reproduce among each other, and are still finches.

Nothing I explained to you is illogical or unpronounceable by science.

The creationist viewpoint is WRONG. And to call me a Creationist that throws out science and doesn't believe in science is wrong as well.

I understand your point of view as well. I have spent many years pondering these things. And was helped to see the logicalness to it all.

Perhaps one day you will too. That would be nice. I remember back in my school days I would have long drawn out conversations with my biology teacher, who like many evolutionists was a zealot for her beliefs.

But over the course of a year I reasoned with her and opened her mind up to realize what she was teaching and believed in was not sound. As well as a few classmates. That was many years ago now.

I used to relish debating evolutionsts. Could spend hours at a time doing it. They all like you, always started out thinking I knew nothing, and were usually very arrogant and haugty in their tones. And most of them would never listen to reason. And I left them alone.

Today I don't do that. IF I see an evolutionist, I might take the time to see if they have an open-mind. But if it is closed I leave them be. My time is better off spent elsewhere.

It is the same with Catholics and the Trinity doctrine among others. I will take the time to see if they will listen to reason, share a couple Scriptues with them about God being one, and his son being below him, but if they don't reason with logic, I don't argue I just let them go.

I got tired of arguing and debating a long time ago.

I just wanted to add the correct understanding of the Genesis account and how it harmonizes with science.

Not to show off my knowledge or how much I know, or to name call, belittle and put other people down.

I know that is what the majority of people who believe in evolution and atheists do. Not all, but a large majority of them are haughty and arrogant.

There are, I realize a lot of people who just believe in evolution because that is all they know. And may be very reasoning, and wonder what the purpose to life is, and searching for answers to life's questions. I am looking for that individual.

It is very satisfying opening their minds eye up to the truth, and to bring them hope and purpose and real meaning.

a reply to: LifeisGrand

BTW do you understand old Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew languages? Because those are sources of modern Genesis script. Are you sure that nothing important was lost in translation?

originally posted by: LifeisGrand
a reply to: JanAmosComenius

Show us how he knew the arrival of life on earth in the correct stages, plant life, trees, sea life, birds, land animals, and man.

He forgot Archaea which are not plants nor trees etc ... but for sure predating all of them. Divine scripture is not scientific diary.

Disclaimer: I'm not a-theist because its just same nonsense as being theist (in your sense). I can not proof Gods existence nor I can disprove it. As rational person I'm giving up on judgment in this area hence I'm a-gnostic. I do not have enough info and YOU will for sure not persuade me.

You are mixing science and believe in most vulgar way. There are many scientists who are (Christian, Muslim, Hindu, ...)believers and I like to hear theirs opinions. But yours views on world are simply bad joke.

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

This will be my last reply to you.

I mentioned it the way I did, because I realize that there are a variety of people who may not all comprehend things the same way.

Where you go wrong is in assuming everyone thinks and views things the way you do. I took into consideration that not all people think like me.

When you grow older, and mature, perhaps you too may broaden your mind the same way. If you don't understand this, as you haven't anything else, I accept that. And accept there may come a day that it may be different.

If not, that is okay too. I care about you because you are alive and a human. I am compelled to love you as a neighbor. And try to help you. But I do not have to force you to understand something. I lose nothing by your attitude. You on the other hand are missing out on so much. I realize that you disagree. I understand that. But I also know you may change one day. And we may be brothers one day.

I'll leave you to argue and debate with anyone else here you want.

I have made it a rule of mine, if after one or two replies, the person isn't reasoning and name-calling and deflecting, to just avoid replying.

I don't say that to disrespect you. I just see no further need to comment with you the way you have been treating me. And for the record, I did not treat you in the same fashion.

a reply to: LifeisGrand

Your entire post boils down to 'I know better than everyone else, because only I know scripture and science correctly'. So - now who's being haughty and arrogant?

a reply to: LifeisGrand

Oh and I note that you still haven't addressed the water problem.

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

this thread is still active? must be a slow day...

Maybe we can start by answering simply question: Why are you citing Genesis and not Vedas? Why have Genesis higher validity than Vedas?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Raggedyman

The Hebrew word "Deep" in context can mean water, abyss and lifelessness and they are not even descriptions of the Hebrew word

So, it's sufficiently vague to cover any possibility. Expert metaphysics.

Oh really

Yet you want to qualify it

Step back and listen to yourself

It's quantified by you, qualified by you then you talk about expert metaphysics

Heads up, you don't know, stop pretending you do

It sounds like a fool trying to fool someone who they think are as foolish as they are

No one is pretending the answer is simple except for you

So...No brand new life has been found?

Everything alive today has roots going back to stromatolites?

I ask because it would be strange if life was so easy to make, it seems life should be being made every day, no?

If it's not made everyday and only once, over 3.5 bil ya, that would be extremely suspect in terms of pure chance.

The earth is only around 4 bil yo, right?

How old are the rest of the planets?

originally posted by: burgerbuddy
So...No brand new life has been found?

Everything alive today has roots going back to stromatolites?

I ask because it would be strange if life was so easy to make, it seems life should be being made every day, no?

If it's not made everyday and only once, over 3.5 bil ya, that would be extremely suspect in terms of pure chance.

The earth is only around 4 bil yo, right?

How old are the rest of the planets?

We all have a common ancestor - we have ascended (so to speak) from bacteria. And the rest of the planets are the same age as the Earth.

a reply to: burgerbuddy

Do you ask for age of other planets in Solar system? They were formed at same time as Earth.

There were many planets now pulverized by dying stars, there are many planets of many ages and many planets are formed just now across universe.

Sorry for using term "now" - its term from human experience of "natural world" and have nothing to do with cosmology, where relativity is best known concept. Term "con-current" is somehow valid on small scales, not on scale of Solar system or universe.

BTW I have no problem with creationism in question of Big bang. But it is also no answer. "God did Big bang" have same validity as "Universe came from nothing". Now we can not imagine anything before Big bang at least because time is property of universe which was not before Big bang.

Universe is 13.8 billion years old - at least our measurements says so. Why God waited 13.7999999999 billion years till he created the master of creation - human - and other 100.000 years till He enlightened us with various divine (and very fuzzy) scriptures? This God have to be great joker. And this God also created those (Muslim) terrorists ... he is cruel joker.

And those Muslim terrorists worship same God(-1/3) as Christians do. What a mess.

So I'll stay with a mass/energy and speed of light. Its enough to send spacecraft to Mars. And astronauts (believers or not) will be glad that I did not based my calculations on Genesis.

How can one belive that GOD is without beginning
and end...

And not the universe?!?

There is NO evidence on the BigBang..Indications and theories yes.
But NO EVIDENCE.....

found another gem:

"(Genesis 1:2) . . .Now the earth was formless and desolate, and there was darkness upon the surface of the watery deep, and God’s active force was moving about over the surface of the waters."

Sun was shining long before liquid water emerged on Earth surface. Maybe Gods eternal presence shielded Earth from sun rays in this period.