Jump to content

Is God made of normal atoms?


Recommended Posts

More than likely, there is actually less than one, but whatever. Also, one book called the bible does not evidence for existence make.

 

 

 

Firstly, you are not responding to the points of the debate whatsoever. I stated the precedence factor rules concerning true monotheism. Otherwise anyone can put forth a new discovery the sun rises in the east.

 

 

 

Secondly, your link is an embarrassment for any reasonable comprehension and examination. Why would you put only one Christian version of the Hebrew texts as a fulcrum, present only a view which is fictional and has nothing whatsoever to do with the texts quoted? Let's take up the factors made in your link and check if you have examned its veracity:

 

 

 

1. The earth was created in six days; the Creation Museum is sited; the Cambrian period is boastfully countered with.

 

For your information, Genesis is the first document which stated the universe and the earth are billions of years old! A careful reading of the texts lists actions of primodial separations in the early formation of the universe: light from darkness [universal primodial action]; day from night [solar action of a unique critical focusing of light on one planet; earth]; water from land [earthly action]. These actions, totally disregarded, account for billions of years, listed prior to the advent of anticipated life on earth. As well, these are aligned with today's state of art science; introducing the advent of 'day' for the first time [as well as the 'week' later on] - well before the term billion and year yet existed. Of note that the creation days listed thereafter, prior to the emergence of life - are not 24 hour days but epochs of time: we see this when we examine the text carefully, whereby only the sun's luminosity is listed in these creational days, not the sun itself. Further, the Hebrew calendar - the oldest active one and the most accurate, begins 'AFTER' the creation cosmic days: why is that - did you even question it!?

 

Of imense interest here is, the text is open to two controversial factors, but which amazingly are correct: that the 6000 applies to the advent of a unique speech endowed life form [humans]. Please show us a 'NAME' of a human more than 6000 years old? In fact you cannot even produce any history per se older than that. The other controversial factor is that the life forms were completed yet they were not alive [animated]; this occured only after the life sustaining cycle began [such as the rains and sunlight in ch. 2]. This is analogous to a car - it does not move even when completed in the show room - it still requires a trigger action of an ignition key and the driver! It is not possible to have life withut antipatory life sustaining actions, as listed in Genesis - a difference with ToE which says the eviroment around earth produced life and all its complexities in the past 4.5 B years. This is rediculous: life is a recent occurence in the earth's life span; all space bodies have almost similar environments ad elements yet no life. The choice is between a car beig the result of careful mental input - or occuring on its own. Only one of the latter falls within a science category!

 

 

 

2. The Noah story is cited. Again, here the text is read with a most corrupted and omissive lens. Totally disregarded is the preamble in the Noah story that it relates only to "Noah and his possessions and household" [the texts!]. IOW, this was a regional flood; one which ended in the same vicinity of Mount Ararat [the first recording of this historical icon]; backed by cross-nation reporting which affirm all the earth and all humans were not affected! Here, the terms of all life and mountains being covered are descriptions how the people in that town saw this only.

 

 

 

The views of a Creation Museum in US are embarrasing, notwithstanding those Christian groups sincerely and genunely believe in their own views. But it has nothing whatsoever to do with a careful reading of the texts, which I present only from a scientific view. I have no interest in religions. I stopped reading the thrashy link half way down.

 

More than likely, there is actually less than one, but whatever. Also, one book called the bible does not evidence for existence make.

 

 

 

Firstly, you are not responding to the points of the debate whatsoever. I stated the precedence factor rules concerning true monotheism. Otherwise anyone can put forth a discovery the sun rises in the east.

 

 

 

Secondly, your link is an embarrassment for any reasonable comprehension and examination. Why would you put a Christian version of the Hebrew texts, present only a view which is fictional and has othing whatsoever to do with the texts quoted? Let's take up the factors made in your link and check if you have examned its veracity:

 

 

 

1. The earth was created in six days; the Creation Museum is sited; the Cambrian period is boastfully countered with.

 

For your information, Genesis is the first document which stated the universe and the earth are billions of years old! A careful reading of the texts lists actions of separations: light from darkness [universal primodial action]; day from night [solar critical action of focusing light on earth]; water from land [earthly action]. These actions, totally disregarded, account for billions of years, listed prior to the advent of anticipated life on earth; are aligned with today's state of art science; introducing the advent of 'day' for the first time [as well as the 'week' later on] - well before the term billion and year yet existed. Of note that the creation days listed thereafter, prior to the emergence of life - are not 24 hour days but epochs of time: we see this when we examine the text carefully, whereby only the sun's luminosity is listed, not the sun itself. Further, the Hebrew calendar - the oldest active one and the most accurate, begins 'AFTER' the creation cosmic days: why is that - did you even question it!?

 

Of imense interest here is, the text is open to two controversial factors, but which amazingly are correct: that the 6000 applies to the advent of a unique speech endowed life form [humans]. Please show us a 'NAME' of a human more than 6000 years old? In fact you cannot even produce any history per se older than that. The other controversial factor is that the life forms were completed yet they were not alive [animated]; this occured oly after the life sustaining cycle began [such as the rains and sunlight in ch. 2]. This is analogous to a car - it does not move even when completed in the show room - it still requires a trigger action of an ignition key and the driver!

 

 

 

2. The Noah story is cited. Again, here the text is read with a most corrupted and omissive lens. Totally disregarded is the preamble in the Noah story that it related only to "Noah and his possessions and household." IOW, this was a regional flood; one which ended in the same vicinity of Mount Ararat [the first recording of this historical icon]; backed by cross-nation reporting which affirm all the earth and all humans were not affected! Here, the terms of all life and amountains being covered are descriptions how the peple in that town saw this only.

 

 

 

The views of a Creation Museum in US are embarrasing, notwithstanding those Christian groups sincerely and genunely believe in their own views. But it has nothing whatsoever to do with a careful reading of the texts, which I present only from a scietific view. I have no interest in religions. I stopped reading the thrashy link half way down.

Edited by IamJoseph
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 56
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Sounds like another question that could revolve around omnipotence. If God can do anything He wants, even circumvent His own physics, then His atoms could be made of _____________________, which is a

I don't think there's somebody out there that could answer you, but he said that his kingdom isn't physical in the bible...

Well, it's not really possible to say. We have no idea whether such a being exists, so it's sort of a fruitless endeavor to speculate about what it is made of. You may as well be asking if unicorn f

Firstly, you are not responding to the points of the debate whatsoever.

False. I did, but I stopped as soon as it became clear you were not approaching the discussion in good faith.

 

Secondly, your link is an embarrassment for any reasonable comprehension and examination. Why would you put only one Christian version of the Hebrew texts as a fulcrum, present only a view which is fictional and has nothing whatsoever to do with the texts quoted? Let's take up the factors made in your link and check if you have examned its veracity:

Secondly, nothing. Clearly, you have issues with reading comprehension. I've shared zero links throughout this thread.

 

 

For your information, Genesis is... <snip> A careful reading of the texts lists... <snip> we see this when we examine the text carefully <snip> Of imense interest here is, the text is open to two controversial factors

I'll say this again since you missed it the first time. One book called the bible does not evidence make.

 

Would you like me to start pointing to all of the parts that are incorrect, or which do NOT align with reality, or would you prefer we let you continue cherry-picking to support your ridiculous points?

Link to post
Share on other sites

False. I did, but I stopped as soon as it became clear you were not approaching the discussion in good faith.

 

 

One book called the bible does not evidence make.

 

 

 

I'd say your bad on both counts. One book introduced the universe as finite - the evidence says its expanding. That's a QED conclusion. I think it would be blasphemy for you to admit that.

 

 

 

 

Would you like me to start pointing to all of the parts that are incorrect, or which do NOT align with reality, or would you prefer we let you continue cherry-picking to support your ridiculous points?

 

 

 

 

Sure, go ahead - don't forget to make a comparison with any other writings. However, you would be seen as more credible if you listed 5000 correct parts - from its millions of credible facts strew across its verses. Upto you, but its a sound idea for a thread of ticks on one side and crosses on another.

 

Q. Name the first population cencus and the first alphabetical book?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say your bad on both counts. One book introduced the universe as finite - the evidence says its expanding. That's a QED conclusion. I think it would be blasphemy for you to admit that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sure, go ahead - don't forget to make a comparison with any other writings. However, you would be seen as more credible if you listed 5000 correct parts - from its millions of credible facts strew across its verses. Upto you, but its a sound idea for a thread of ticks on one side and crosses on another.

 

Q. Name the first population cencus and the first alphabetical book?

 

You are failing to listen to anyone else's point of view. You are not going to convert people on a Science forum to creationism.

 

You are entitled to your beliefs, I hope they make you happy but do not push them on other people. It's rude.

 

You don't see any of us joining religious disscussion groups and spamming their boards with posts about evolution.

 

If you are unable/unwilling to look at any other point of view (even when evidence is provided) then this is not a discussion, it is a rant.

 

You keep asking for evidence against your belief but you are unwilling to look at it or you dismis it completely

 

Where is your evidence? Lets see you back up claims that clearly dont fit with Observed reality -

Edited by Tres Juicy
Link to post
Share on other sites

You are failing to listen to anyone else's point of view. You are not going to convert people on a Science forum to creationism.

 

You are entitled to your beliefs, I hope they make you happy but do not push them on other people. It's rude.

 

You don't see any of us joining religious disscussion groups and spamming their boards with posts about evolution.

 

If you are unable/unwilling to look at any other point of view (even when evidence is provided) then this is not a discussion, it is a rant.

 

You keep asking for evidence against your belief but you are unwilling to look at it or you dismis it completely

 

Where is your evidence? Lets see you back up claims that clearly dont fit with Observed reality -

 

 

!

Moderator Note

IamJoseph, note these questions and points, ignoring them is not a path that will create a long lasting user on these forums.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Would you like me to start pointing to all of the parts that are incorrect, or which do NOT align with reality?
Sure, go ahead

Here are 101 contradictions in the bible: http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~wwu/YaBBAttachments/101__Contradictions_In_The_Bible.pdf

 

 

Here is a list of some more contradictions, and a sampling of factual errors in the bible: http://www.freethoughtdebater.com/tenbiblecontradictions.htm

 

 

Here are a few of the historical inaccuracies: http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~bbennett/bible/histinac.html

 

 

 

... and there are many more. The challenge, of course, is that you're choosing to ignore these and cherry pick those that support your preconceptions. This is part of the reason I've suggested you are not approaching the discussion in good faith, part of the reason I am so comfortable dismissing you, and part of the reason why I'm bored with you... Much as I would be after repeatedly explaining something to a toddler.

Link to post
Share on other sites
!

Moderator Note

OK, this is pointless. It's obvious that IamJoseph is simply denying every bit of evidence shown to him, and supporting none of his own arguments in a way that is consistent with the rules he agreed to when he joined this science forum.

Occasionally we get creationists who are simply parroting what they've heard or been taught, but actually read replies that offer insight into the misinformation they've gathered to that point. These people sometimes concede that they really haven't delved into theories like Evolution or Big Bang enough to deride them the way they've been taught, and those discussions are meaningful in their helpfulness.

However, when someone is simply denying every rebuttal, no matter how insightful, it's clear that no benefit is gained, and much time and energy is lost. I can hope that someone else will read the kind of dogmatic denialism that IamJoseph has displayed here and question whether shouting loud enough to drown out your detractors is a valid process for earning knowledge.

Thread closed, good bye IamJoseph, sorry you chose to ignore our rules.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.