Why I believe Creation is factually accurate – The Reality!

Otherwise the alternative is nothing.

reply to post by edmc^2



Why does it have to be all or nothing - maybe the bible writters were doing the job as best they could with the info they had. I went to school at a church of England school so i'm familiar with the bible - i even read it once. Also most other religious texts ! Is it not possible there is a creator and he/she/it set up the initial conditions of the universe ( including evolution).As life is the only conglomorate of matter that we currently know is capable of appreciating the notion of reality would that not give us a clue as to what its all about. Maybe God's created the whole thing as a birthing ground for new gods and we as humanity are merely in the embryonic phase of such an existence. LIfe itself is the relevant thing in the universe as it's only that which is capable of thought and awareness

There's always possibilities we haven't considered and things we don't know yet and thats another problem i have with dogmatic adherence to the bible - it stops one from asking questions about why things are how they are. I think to truely ask these metaphysical questions one must free oneself from all beliefs and try and examine the situtation free from prior beliefs.

One should ask the big questions as it's that approach that's led to all the breakthroughs in human history.

I'm hopefull for the Human condition, if we don't wipe ourselves out in the next few hundred years then our potential is limitless.

edmc^2, you are making the grandest of assumptions the there was a time where nothing existed. There is no reason to believe such other than as a point for you argument that a designer exist. In order for a designer to exist, you are essentially making the giant leap from "stuff" to "nothing", without evidence or reason other than to prove that before "nothing", "something" created "nothing." That's two huge jumps in one argument.

reply to post by uva3021


If you honestly believe that I’m “making the grandest of assumptions the there was a time where nothing existed.” And that I don’t have any “reason to believe such other than as a point for [my] argument that a designer exist. In order for a designer to exist,". That I'm "essentially making the giant leap from "stuff" to "nothing", That I have no "evidence or reason other than to prove that before "nothing", "something" created "nothing."

If this is just a “huge jumps in one argument” on my part, THEN do you also consider the following statements by world renowned scientists as “making the grandest of assumptions the there was a time where nothing existed.”

Here’s what I said in the OP (if you even read them). I added a few more.

“Evidence of a beginning “

The book “God and the Astronomers,” page 14, said:

“Now we see how the astronomical evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world.”

The Hubble Telescope and other powerful instruments, higher mathematics and the brightest minds of science has confirmed this to be so: the universe had a beginning – ergo: The Big Bang.

Here's from:

Professor of astronomy David L. Block who wrote:

“That the universe has not always existed—that it had a beginning—has not always been popular.”

Now:

“Virtually all astrophysicists today conclude, that “the universe began with a big bang that propelled matter outward in all directions.” – reported U.S.News & World Report in 1997

From:

Robert Jastrow, professor of astronomy and geology at Columbia University:

“You can call it the big bang, but you can also call it with accuracy the moment of creation.”

“Few astronomers could have anticipated that this event—the sudden birth of the Universe—would become a proven scientific fact, but observations of the heavens through telescopes have forced them to that conclusion.”

“The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy.”

From:

Penzias, who shared in the discovery of background radiation in the universe, observed:

“Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing.”

“What we have found is evidence for the birth of the universe.” – COBE team leader George Smoot

“If at some point in the past, the Universe was once close to a singular state of infinitely small size and infinite density, we have to ask what was there before and what was outside the Universe. . . . We have to face the problem of a Beginning.”—Sir Bernard Lovell.

Physics professor Freeman Dyson comments:

“The more I examine the universe and study the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense must have known that we were coming.”

“Rather than accept the fantastically small probability of life having arisen through the blind forces of nature, it seemed better to suppose that the origin of life was a deliberate intellectual act.” -- British scientist Sir Fred Hoyle

From NASA:

The night sky presents the viewer with a picture of a calm and unchanging Universe. So the 1929 discovery by Edwin Hubble that the Universe is in fact expanding at enormous speed was revolutionary. Hubble noted that galaxies outside our own Milky Way were all moving away from us, each at a speed proportional to its distance from us. He quickly realized what this meant that there must have been an instant in time (now known to be about 14 billion years ago) when the entire Universe was contained in a single point in space. The Universe must have been born in this single violent event which came to be known as the "Big Bang."

Astronomers combine mathematical models with observations to develop workable theories of how the Universe came to be. The mathematical underpinnings of the Big Bang theory include Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity along with standard theories of fundamental particles. Today NASA spacecraft such as the Hubble Space Telescope and the Spitzer Space Telescope continue Edwin Hubble's work of measuring the expansion of the Universe. One of the goals has long been to decide whether the Universe will expand forever, or whether it will someday stop, turn around, and collapse in a "Big Crunch?"

science.nasa.gov...

Of all physical cosmological models, the most established and widely supported is the Big Bang. Much of the scientific evidence as well as mathematical predictions converge harmoniously into this model that speaks of a primordial very hot and very dense condition, once known as the primeval atom, that blew up (hence Big Bang) into what is now the Universe.

www.universetoday.com...

Below is a conceptual illustration of the Beginning of the Universe known as Big Bang:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ab34365fa63a.jpg[/atsimg]

So you actually believe that I came to this conclusion that Creation is a fact without studying them very carefully and meticulously and accurately? I’ve been at this for a while now and still learning more. In fact to be frank – I’ve just scratched the surface.

But here’s simple question for you:

In spite of the enormous evidence available to us today, what makes you believe or what convinced you that the universe had no beginning? Have looked at the evidence with an open mind?

But if you do indeed believe that the universe had a beginning – then why are you accusing me of “making the grandest of assumptions the there was a time where nothing existed.”?

I await your reply.

Ty,
edmc2

Originally posted by edmc^2
So you actually believe that I came to this conclusion that Creation is a fact without studying them very carefully and meticulously and accurately?

Those things imply that the Universe we live in had a start, however no implication what so ever is made towards a biblical creation with the beard guy at the helm. Could just as well be the work of Allah, Vishnu, Batman or something completely natural (as it has been observed that stuff pops out into existence from vacuum all the time).

all beings,animals,humans come from the primordial ooze of mother earth, developed from single cell organisms then evolving over millions of years during the times when all the elements and atmospheres were ripe.
modern man was created from superior DNA manipulation of an unknown origin and alien species to perpetuate his growth in the universe and change him into more than animal.

Look to YellowStone for the primordial ooze and you will be on the right track

reply to post by anumohi

Originally posted by anumohi
modern man was created from superior DNA manipulation of an unknown origin and alien species to perpetuate his growth in the universe and change him into more than animal.

...or...we could just go with what the genetic data shows and realize that there's no particular evidence of external genetic manipulation, as our DNA is as it should be if we simply evolved without interference from beyond.

Look to YellowStone for the primordial ooze and you will be on the right track

Um...no. You're sort of...off about the abiogenesis part of your statements.

Those things imply that the Universe we live in had a start, however no implication what so ever is made towards a biblical creation with the beard guy at the helm. Could just as well be the work of Allah, Vishnu, Batman or something completely natural (as it has been observed that stuff pops out into existence from vacuum all the time).

What do you think Professor Robert Jastrow was talking about when he said:

“The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy.”

Or what about:

Scientist-inventor Thomas Edison, when asked his view about whether there is a God, replied:

“After years of watching the processes of nature, I cannot doubt the existence of a Supreme Intelligence. The existence of such a God can, to my mind, almost be proved from chemistry.”

Scientist Sir Isaac Newton had this to say about nature and God:

“Whence is it that nature does nothing in vain; and whence arises all that order and beauty which we see in the world? . . . How came the bodies of animals to be contrived with so much art and for what ends were their several parts? Was the eye contrived without skill in optics, or the ear without knowledge of sounds? . . . And these things being rightly despatched, does it not appear from phenomena that there is a being incorporeal, living, intelligent?”

Also:

Mathematician and chemist John Cleveland Cothran says:

“Lord Kelvin, one of the world’s greatest physicists, has made the following significant statement: ‘If you think strongly enough, you will be forced by science to believe in God.’ I must declare myself in full agreement with this statement.”

Cothran further states that:

“The material realm not being able to create itself and its governing laws, the act of creation must have been performed by some nonmaterial agent. . . . Hence our logical and inescapable conclusion is not only that creation occurred but that it was brought about according to the plan and will of a Person endowed with supreme intelligence and knowledge (omniscience), and the power to bring it about and keep it running according to plan (omnipotence). That is to say, we accept unhesitatingly the fact of the existence of ‘the supreme spiritual Being, God, the Creator and Director of the universe,’ mentioned in the beginning. . . . The advances that have occurred in science since Lord Kelvin’s day would enable him to state more emphatically than ever: ‘If you think strongly enough, you will be forced by science to believe in God.’”

Chemist Roger J. Voskuyl says:

“As a scientist, it is more reasonable for me to believe in a Creator than in an eternally existing cosmos. . . . One cannot rightly know God from the natural world alone. The scientist may work for an eternity, but he will never come to know God and all His attributes. . . . Man is but a creature of a Creator; therefore, man cannot learn about God by investigation of His creation alone, but he needs a special revelation. That special revelation is God’s Word, which has been given in the Scriptures.”

Any idea what else are they talking about if not “towards a biblical creation”?

Also, what would you think will happen to rest of the great scientific minds if they publicly say that God was responsible for the “big bang” or the beginning of the Universe?

For instance:

British scientist Sir Fred Hoyle

“Rather than accept the fantastically small probability of life having arisen through the blind forces of nature, it seemed better to suppose that the origin of life was a deliberate intellectual act.”

Former Physicist John Polkinghorne:

“When you realize that the laws of nature must be incredibly finely tuned to produce the universe we see, that conspires to plant the idea that the universe did not just happen, but that there must be a purpose behind it.”

Will you laugh at them and ridicule them if the say that the "intellect" or the "purpose behind it" is God? I hope not. But will they get banned from the scientific community?

One scientist concludes the obvious:

“Scientists and others sometimes use the word ‘God’ to mean something so abstract and unengaged that He is hardly to be distinguished from the laws of nature,” --Steven Weinberg (Nobel laureate for his work on fundamental forces)



As for Allah, Vishnu, Batman – if you believe they did then nobody’s stopping you.


Ty,
edmc2

reply to post by edmc^2


Argument from authority.

So what if people who were really good at science or other things believed in a deity? That in itself proves nothing. Their positions stand on the merits of their arguments and evidence, nothing more. Newton's achievements didn't happen because he merely believed them to be so.

F = ma wasn't a statement of faith, it was a scientific point. No such proof is provided by any of these scholars, they merely assert something.

Hell, anyone who is familiar with Genesis 1 would point out that the whole 'light' thing doesn't come about until after Earth is created....

Anyone who actually considers the Bible to be any sort of a scientific resources ought to chuck their computers out the window...

reply to post by edmc^2


Thank you for posting yet another great example for a fallacious argument...the so called "argument from authority". In every single one of the quotes you posted, those scientists are stating a BELIEF, not a scientific theory they backed up with objective evidence. Just because their scientific theories are brilliant, doesn't mean everything they say is the truth

Apart from that...

Professor Robert Jastrow

Has been proven to be very adapt at distorting facts...there's an entire book about it on Amazon. He also hasn't done any meaningful research since the 80s...not that it matters given how blatantly he misrepresents facts

Thomas Edison

...had the knowledge of someone who died in the 1930s.

Hell, we didn't even know about background radiation and a ton of other stuff back then...

Sir Isaac Newton

And back in time we go

Isaac Newton died in 1727, and even though is theories are arguably brilliant, in the quote you posted he an opinion he didn't back up with evidence like his theories. Again, just because his theories are brilliant, you shouldn't automatically accept anything they say without objective evidence backing it up.

Lord Kevin

...died in 1907. And once again was stating and OPINION, not a scientific theory backed up by evidence.

John Cleveland Cothran

...died in the 70s, and his entire argument is a great example of god of the gaps

Roger J. Voskuyl

...hasn't conducted any meaningful research since the 60s, and once again, the quote you posted is an OPINION and not backed up by scientific research.

Sir Fred Hoyle

...made some great discoveries, in the 50s (!!). His last research in the early 90s didn't hold up to peer reviews though. And again, he didn't have a ton of the knowledge we have today and clearly stated a belief not a scientific fact.

John Polkinghorne

Retired in the 70s...and just like all the others stated a BELIEF in the quote you posted, he didn't back it up with facts

Will you laugh at them and ridicule them if the say that the "intellect" or the "purpose behind it" is God? I hope not. But will they get banned from the scientific community?

Of course I won't laugh at them, most of them made great scientific discoveries...discoveries they backed up with objective evidence (at least in most cases, Jastrow didn't, lol). But that doesn't mean everything they say is the truth, which is what you're implying. It's a very common fallacious argument.

In short, your argumentation is SERIOUSLY flawed, and your post isn't evidence of anything

Why do persons on this thread immediately go from 'I believe in a Creator' to 'I believe in Yahweh the clan god of the Jews in the Bible' as if they are the self-same thing?

Has not ANYONE on this thread paused to consider that although there might very well be a COSMIC MIND behind the physical universe BUT --- that the Cosmic Mind behind our physical Universe has NO THING what-so-ever to do with the vicious clan- god of Israel as he/she appears in the Hebrew Bibile (and whose favourite hobby seems to be exterminating Amalekites and genociding Jebusites) ?

Perhaps we need to remove the term 'god' and the idea of an ancient middle eastern desert 'clan god' from further discussion and concentrate on what seems to be something VERY different than how pre-Scientific (read: superstitious) clan-god priests depicted their own rather politically clumsy (and out of date) pagan-hotchpotch of a deity....

Just a thought.

reply to post by Sigismundus


Um...yes, and the idea of a cosmic mind of some sort is hardly any more viable than the idea of the Hebrew deity. Why? Well...where's the damn evidence?

Because a believer does not see sense and reason in black and white. This can only be compared to seeing forms at night when the light is not present. In the day, you see clearly. God is the light to the mind. If the light is shut out, you only see shadow. God is visible to the believer, despite the shadow that must be ever-present. This is the same God that all true believers see, regardless of the mirror they use to reveal the image. The Bible just happens to be the clearest image. I also enjoy the teachings of Rumi the Sufi. Here is an example:

The real Soul is lost to view, and seems far off;
Thou art like a pitcher with full belly but dry lip;
How canst thou ever see red, green, and scarlet
Unless thou seest the light first of all?
When thy sight is dazzled by colors,
These colors veil the light from thee.
But when night veils those colors from thee,
Thou seest that colors are seen only through light.
As there is no seeing outward colors without light,
So it is with the mental colors within.
Outward colors arise from the light of sun and stars,
And inward colors from the Light on high.
The light that lights the eye is also the heart's Light;
The eye's light proceeds from the Light of the heart.
But the light that lights the heart is the Light of God,
Which is distinct from the light of reason and sense.
At night there is no light, and colors are not seen;
Hence we know what light is by its opposite, darkness.
At night no colors are visible, for light is lacking.
How can color be the attribute of dark blackness?
Looking on light is the same as looking on colors;
Opposite shows up opposite.
The opposite of light shows what is light,
Hence colors too are known by their opposite.
God created pain and grief for this purpose,
To wit, to manifest happiness by its opposites.
Hidden things are manifested by their opposites;
But, as God has no opposite. He remains hidden.

Originally posted by Sigismundus
Why do persons on this thread immediately go from 'I believe in a Creator' to 'I believe in Yahweh the clan god of the Jews in the Bible' as if they are the self-same thing?

Has not ANYONE on this thread paused to consider that although there might very well be a COSMIC MIND behind the physical universe BUT --- that the Cosmic Mind behind our physical Universe has NO THING what-so-ever to do with the vicious clan- god of Israel as he/she appears in the Hebrew Bibile (and whose favourite hobby seems to be exterminating Amalekites and genociding Jebusites) ?

Perhaps we need to remove the term 'god' and the idea of an ancient middle eastern desert 'clan god' from further discussion and concentrate on what seems to be something VERY different than how pre-Scientific (read: superstitious) clan-god priests depicted their own rather politically clumsy (and out of date) pagan-hotchpotch of a deity....

Just a thought.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by edmc^2

 

Argument from authority.

So what if people who were really good at science or other things believed in a deity? That in itself proves nothing. Their positions stand on the merits of their arguments and evidence, nothing more. Newton's achievements didn't happen because he merely believed them to be so.

F = ma wasn't a statement of faith, it was a scientific point. No such proof is provided by any of these scholars, they merely assert something.

Hell, anyone who is familiar with Genesis 1 would point out that the whole 'light' thing doesn't come about until after Earth is created....

Anyone who actually considers the Bible to be any sort of a scientific resources ought to chuck their computers out the window...

Argument from authority

This is a ‘one old tired counter argument to a valid argument’.

That is, the reply was in answer to this argument, that:

no implication what so ever is made towards a biblical creation

But as for “statement of faith” vs. “a scientific point”,

Do you believe that the statement “Life can only come from Life” is “a scientific point” or “statement of faith”?

What about this one:

F = ma -> does this formula require intelligence or not?

If does require intelligence, does it mean then that someone put it together?

If yes - then who put it together? Is it Sir Isaac Newton or someone else higher than him? If it is Newton only then where did he based the idea from? Is it Nature? But where did nature came from? Evolutionists say nowhere, it just came to be. Yet Newton himself believed otherwise.

Note what he said about nature:

“Whence is it that nature does nothing in vain; and whence arises all that order and beauty which we see in the world? . . . How came the bodies of animals to be contrived with so much art and for what ends were their several parts? Was the eye contrived without skill in optics, or the ear without knowledge of sounds? . . . And these things being rightly despatched, does it not appear from phenomena that there is a being incorporeal, living, intelligent?”

Was he merely stating a “statement of faith” or making “a scientific point”?

But if I say F=ma is based on nothing because the laws of nature came from nothing– is that statement scientific or is it a “statement of faith”? Yet that’s what evolutionists believed.

So which one then is scientific? F=ma has no designer or has a designer? Which one is a “statement of faith” and which one is “scientific point”?

Yet I say that nature and the universe has a designer, a Creator. Is that scientific or a “statement of faith”?
Does it make sense to you? Of course not since you don’t accept logic as part of the equation then such logic is nonsense.

As for:

Anyone who actually considers the Bible to be any sort of a scientific resources ought to chuck their computers out the window...

My advice is not to do it. In today’s economy doing something like is not wise.
But like what I said before and will say it again – Although The Bible Is Not a Scientific Textbook, it’s in Harmony with Science.

Like when it says the Universe and the Earth had a beginning (Genesis 1:1). Science Agree.

But if you still want to throw away a good working computer out of the window, nobody is stopping you – just be careful not to hit anyone.

Ty,
edmc2

reply to post by edmc^2
Your "statement of faith" vs "scientific point" dirges are worthless. The assumption apparently has already been made that god exist, therefore because nature exist, god exist.

F = ma requires no faith. The value of multiplying an object's mass by its acceleration results in what we call a Force, merely by conventions of language and mathematics.

That "Life can only come from life" is an argument based upon ignorance, not any amount of evidence or knowledge. The phrase is demonstrably wrong when used in this context, because we exist. If the phrase were right, we wouldn't be here. Unless you think god wasn't alive. But obviously he is because that's your whole claim. If "Life can only come from life" then some form of life had to create god, which you would obviously not assert. I'm fairly certain you have attempted to refute the infinite regress scenario many times, and without a doubt you believe to your satisfaction. This is typical, a Creationist or believer, cherry picks arbitrary phrases devoid of any properties of evidence or reason, or sometimes even pertinence, in order to resolve as much of the argument as possible with a putrefaction of recalcitrance.

Again, your "argument" covers two points:

1. Things are so pretty, therefore Judeo-Christian God
2. I don't understand, therefore Judeo-Christian God

(To be fair to Pasteur, the originator of the quote above, he was only trying to explain how life does not arise spontaneously, and current life forms come from pre-existing life forms. Before Pasteur the consensus was life was generated spontaneously, and fungi and bacteria just sort of pop up occasionally to prevent humans from eating rotten meat that decomposed through some other unknown means. In no way did it imply anything about the conditions of the Earth 4.5 billion years ago. Thus you shouldn't cling to concepts that are 150 years old without supporting evidence).

Originally posted by edmc^2
If does require intelligence, does it mean then that someone put it together?

If yes - then who put it together? Is it Sir Isaac Newton or someone else higher than him? If it is Newton only then where did he based the idea from? Is it Nature? But where did nature came from? Evolutionists say nowhere, it just came to be. Yet Newton himself believed otherwise.

Note what he said about nature:

“Whence is it that nature does nothing in vain; and whence arises all that order and beauty which we see in the world? . . . How came the bodies of animals to be contrived with so much art and for what ends were their several parts? Was the eye contrived without skill in optics, or the ear without knowledge of sounds? . . . And these things being rightly despatched, does it not appear from phenomena that there is a being incorporeal, living, intelligent?”

Was he merely stating a “statement of faith” or making “a scientific point”?

He was trying to make a "scientific point" based on his "faith". This proves nothing. Much like you this is what this man believed based on his observations. Doesn't make it true although it did make it true for him.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by edmc^2

 

Argument from authority.

So what if people who were really good at science or other things believed in a deity? That in itself proves nothing. Their positions stand on the merits of their arguments and evidence, nothing more. Newton's achievements didn't happen because he merely believed them to be so.

F = ma wasn't a statement of faith, it was a scientific point. No such proof is provided by any of these scholars, they merely assert something.

Hell, anyone who is familiar with Genesis 1 would point out that the whole 'light' thing doesn't come about until after Earth is created....

Anyone who actually considers the Bible to be any sort of a scientific resources ought to chuck their computers out the window...

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. (Perfect)

Genesis 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. (Result of Judgment-Fall of Lucifer) Correlation - Jeremiah 4:23
I beheld the earth, and, lo, [it was] without form, and void; and the heavens, and they [had] no light.


Genesis 1:3 And God said, Let there be light; and there was light. (= Regeneration / Re-Creation)

If you or someone you know are confused by claims that the earth is only 6,000 years old, then you have come to the right website. Many people think the six creation days in Genesis are a description of the Earth's geologic history. They are not! The geologic record shows that the Earth existed long before the six days and long before Adam. There is a time-gap between the first two verses of Genesis.

On this website you will learn about a controversial, lesser known literal interpretation of the Genesis narrative that does not contradict the scientific evidence for an Old Earth. Commonly called the "Gap Theory" or Ruin-Reconstruction interpretation, it is a theological interpretation much older than Darwin's Theory of Evolution. It is based on the Scriptural fact that in the second verse of Genesis, the Holy Bible simply and clearly states that the planet Earth was already here (but in a ruined state) before the Divine process described in those six days even begins. Understanding this Biblical mystery begins with the precise wording of this New Testament cross-reference:

"For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men."
(2 Pet 3:5-7 KJV)

Contrary to popular interpretation, the above passage is NOT a reference to Noah's flood. (See Introduction Pages for specifics.) And the only other place in the Bible where the Earth was covered in waters is Genesis 1:2. The ramifications are obvious: The literal wording suggests that the "heavens and the earth, which are now" (made during the seven days) was not the first-time creation of all things as is traditionally assumed. The Word of God appears to be telling the reader there was a previous populated world on the face of this old Earth before God formed the present world of modern Man. This invalidates the popular Doctrine of Young Earth Creationism.

The Bible itself provides insight into a great mystery in Earth's natural history at what is known as the Pleistocene - Holocene boundary. Science remains at a loss to definitively explain the Ice Age and the anomaly of the mysterious mega fauna extinctions across the face of the Earth about 12,000 to 10,000 Radio Carbon years ago. Geologic evidence from that period indicates extraordinary global massive volcanism, gigantic tidal waves, seismic activity on a vast scale, and extreme temperature swings on the Earth over a geologically brief period of time. It is no coincidence that the Bible at Genesis 1:2 describes the Earth as flooded, desolate, and in darkness in the timeframe closely corresponding to these catastrophic events in the Earth's natural history. Clearly, these two mysteries are linked.

Why the old "world that then was" ended, and why God made a new world and modern Man, requires a study into the ancient origins of Satan and the Angels. The Earth has an ancient natural history that can be deciphered from the geologic record, but it also has an equally important ancient spiritual history that can only be deciphered from Rightly-Dividing the Holy Bible. Knowledge of both is required to correctly reconcile Geology and the Book of Genesis. We pray you will find this material useful in your study of God's Holy Word.

These are the generations [ ] of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
(Genesis 2:4 KJV)

www.kjvbible.org...

reply to post by Faith2011


No evidence. For your claims. That's really all I can say.

And day-age creationism? That's only slightly less illogical than regular ol' young Earth stuff. You're still accepting supposition...and you're tossing Lucifer into Genesis 1:2 without any proper reasoning for it. There's no connection between the two passages.

reply to post by MrXYZ


Well thank you for researching when they died but I’m not sure if it’s even useful. At least you found that “most of them made great scientific discoveries...discoveries they backed up with objective evidence“ - xept for one.

Thanks again.

Robert Jastrow

Let's see what he said:

“You can call it the big bang, but you can also call it with accuracy the moment of creation.”

“Few astronomers could have anticipated that this event—the sudden birth of the Universe—would become a proven scientific fact, but observations of the heavens through telescopes have forced them to that conclusion.”

“The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy.”

en.wikipedia.org...

In any case these quotes were in response to a question that somehow the statements made by prominent scientists have “no implication what so ever is made towards a biblical creation“.

So taken into context there’s no difference with the other quotes?

Of course I won't laugh at them, most of them made great scientific discoveries...discoveries they backed up with objective evidence (at least in most cases, Jastrow didn't, lol). But that doesn't mean everything they say is the truth, which is what you're implying. It's a very common fallacious argument.

Of course because it doesn’t conform to your preconceived erroneous ideas thus you view them as “fallacious argument”. That’s understandable, but since you can’t disprove what they said as “fallacious argument” then their statement stands.

In short, your argumentation is SERIOUSLY flawed, and your post isn't evidence of anything

Since you haven’t prove any of the evidence as unfounded or false then they stand tall.

Btw, I’m still wondering why you ignored my simple questions in response to your earlier post.

Here it is again:

To be scientifically precise – 'He OBSERVED Gravity' - is the correct scientific explanation. It's like the wind although invisible to the naked eye we know it's there because we can OBSERVE its effects. Just like magnetic force – we know it's there because we can OBSERVE its effects. Just like radio waves – we know it's there because we can OBSERVE its effects.

You can also use MEASURED, SENSE or DETECT.

Are my statements above scientifically correct in comparison to your statement that Newton “SAW gravity”?
It's a simple Q but why can't you answer it?

Are you somehow apprehensive of proving me correct? If you say I’m wrong that’s fine too, at least we now know where you credibility stands.

Ty,
edmc2

Originally posted by edmc^2
Of course because it doesn’t conform to your preconceived erroneous ideas thus you view them as “fallacious argument”. That’s understandable, but since you can’t disprove what they said as “fallacious argument” then their statement stands.

In short, your argumentation is SERIOUSLY flawed, and your post isn't evidence of anything

Since you haven’t prove any of the evidence as unfounded or false then they stand tall.

I see that part of the problem is that you define proof in a different way. For you if something is proposed and can't be disproved it makes it true. That's not the way science works.

reply to post by SuperiorEd

Hi SuperEd--

Exactly to which clan-god are you referring when you post the word 'god' in your comments?

For most English speaking persons to-day, when a generic term like 'God' is used without qualification, they generally refer to the clan god of post-Exilic Yisro'el (i.e. YHWH) aka Yahweh, the racist, xenophobic, sexist, bigoted, spiteful male (?) deity who likes nothing better than to genocide Amalekites in his spare time, aka the 'God of the Bible' (by which most persons on this thread mean, 'the Hebrew Bible')

Is this the same 'god' to which you refer in your post, or is there perhaps a more universal god/goddess you had in mind?

Certainly the 'clan god' of post Exilic Judaeism is of little relevance to us 21st century 'moderns' who take umbrage at being told that we have to be exterminated and genocided because we are of a different belief system than the priestly writers of say the Torah, especially e.g. Deuteronomy chapter 7 or chapter 13 or chapter 20 etc.

Kindly explain yourself if you would..we have to be en guarde to any generalisations - it's always best to use the exact ancient (or modern !) clan-god's full name when discussing such matters...it helps clarify your points...