BlueSkyKing · M
View 4 more replies »
LordShadowfire · 46-50, M
@GodSpeed63
Then explain the process by which all the freshwater fish survived the influx of saltwater, and vice versa.
Then after that, explain the scientific process by which all the terrestrial plants and trees survived being underwater for an entire year.
And while you're at it, explain how Noah got between two and seven specimens of every land animal into his boat, fed them, cleaned their excrement, and kept them from eating each other.
No fair saying "God chose to suspend the laws of physics."
Since you are unable to prove that your point to be true...
Explain the scientific process by which rain can flood the entire world for an entire year.Then explain the process by which all the freshwater fish survived the influx of saltwater, and vice versa.
Then after that, explain the scientific process by which all the terrestrial plants and trees survived being underwater for an entire year.
And while you're at it, explain how Noah got between two and seven specimens of every land animal into his boat, fed them, cleaned their excrement, and kept them from eating each other.
No fair saying "God chose to suspend the laws of physics."
GodSpeed63 · 70-79, M
@LordShadowfire
Would you believe me if I told you?
Explain the scientific process by which rain can flood the entire world for an entire year.
Would you believe me if I told you?
LordShadowfire · 46-50, M
@GodSpeed63 So you can't explain it.
cherokeepatti · 70-79, F
Other animals have common traits with humans. My parakeets have a brain as small as a pea but they can learn human language and say words, phrases and questions and most times in the proper context. My parakeets learned how to use pronouns and even turn them around to use them properly. The parakeets will sometimes ask questions about something relevant I am doing or use phrases that they’ve heard on TV when it’s something relevant to what they see us doing. Both humans and parakeets can be adaptable given different situations. When a parakeet wants something they will learn the word and keep saying it till they get it. My parakeets will say Thank You when they want some greens. They will also say Thank you sometimes when I give them a compliment. And they were saying Thank You loudly and with enthusiasm one time when I took them out to the sunroom with the windows open on the first really nice day of the spring. I was working out in the yard and they kept yelling Thanksgiving over and over. Thanksgiving means “big Thank You” to these birds. It reminds me of a passage in Psalms that says one day that all of creation will be praising God.
Charity · 70-79
Well according to science of evolution either through the process of abiogenesis which means life sprung up instantaneously from chemicals and begin to evolve or the process of panspermia which means living organisms came down to Earth from space and began evolving..... If you go back far enough all life forms on Earth insects / sea life / reptiles / fowls mammals / are related and come from one SOURCE.
According to the science of evolution mammals and reptiles did evolve from fish, humans from a certain fish. (You know they had to separate humans)
HOW HUMAN EVOLVED FROM FISH | JOURNEY OF EVOLUTION FROM FISH TO HUMANS - YouTube https://share.google/x1nsLcscikk4PGuGJ
I evolution maybe man's way of understanding God's creation BUT there is a huge difference: in Scripture, which coincides with evolution, you see God told the waters and the earth to bring forth life abundantly beast and cattle //// but God himself formed man and placed man in the garden in the East of Eden which he had prepared. God did not tell the Earth to bring forth man so man did not evolve man was formed by the hand of God and God breathed himself the breath of life into man and Man became a living soul. God did not breathe the breath of life into none of his other creations.
Turtles seemingly evolved from a totally different type of fish, amphibian /
Vertebrate Evolution | CK-12 Foundation https://share.google/bFEpM4dnvnCz4RyQL
Man did not evolve from fish! Commonalities but separate.
According to the science of evolution mammals and reptiles did evolve from fish, humans from a certain fish. (You know they had to separate humans)
HOW HUMAN EVOLVED FROM FISH | JOURNEY OF EVOLUTION FROM FISH TO HUMANS - YouTube https://share.google/x1nsLcscikk4PGuGJ
I evolution maybe man's way of understanding God's creation BUT there is a huge difference: in Scripture, which coincides with evolution, you see God told the waters and the earth to bring forth life abundantly beast and cattle //// but God himself formed man and placed man in the garden in the East of Eden which he had prepared. God did not tell the Earth to bring forth man so man did not evolve man was formed by the hand of God and God breathed himself the breath of life into man and Man became a living soul. God did not breathe the breath of life into none of his other creations.
Turtles seemingly evolved from a totally different type of fish, amphibian /
Vertebrate Evolution | CK-12 Foundation https://share.google/bFEpM4dnvnCz4RyQL
Man did not evolve from fish! Commonalities but separate.
@Charity
But you said earlier that God created earth and then commanded that to create animals through evolution, and that he only created humans directly. So where's the cutoff point in that image between evolution and personal creation?
What you pictured is the theory of evolution, that is man's science, not God's. All of God's design!
But you said earlier that God created earth and then commanded that to create animals through evolution, and that he only created humans directly. So where's the cutoff point in that image between evolution and personal creation?
Hawkins that said before the Big bang theory nothing existed.
No, he didn't. Scientist can't even make their mind up on that.
The reason why science works, is because it adapts to new information. That doesn't mean scientists don't know what to think about the information they have available at any given time.At one point they didn't know how RNA came into existence, which is the building block of life, now they just attributed the existence of RNA to whatever theory concerning the origin of life they choose to use.
Great example! At one point they didn't know. Then they got more information and wrote an explanation that fits all that. And if even more information comes in that shows that first explanation doesn't explain some things, they adapt it so it explains those too. If you believe mankind evolved from a fish, into a form of primate, then into man - good for you - keep on believing that.
Thanks, I'll do that. It's a much better explanation than some invisible being creating everything from nothing. The major flaws in the human body make perfect sense as a result of random changes over many generations, but not as so called intelligent design by an all powerful entity.
Charity · 70-79
@NerdyPotato
Stephen Hawking says nothing was around before origin of universe - Xinhua | English.news.cn https://share.google/dvx1jUTsQvjOfaOdo
[media=https://youtu.be/Iw4lJzoadh0?si=BcCEpRugycQmaHnH]
He created man in the form of what we call man: What does "Man" look like from your view? According to science since all humans including the neanderthal are descendants of the homo erectus, what did the homo erectus look like? There are so many different pictures, less ape, like more ape like even try to give them white skin. OUT OF AFRICA. Your a sarcasm is lacking
[media=https://youtu.be/G25X4m1gPwc?si=6LdcxZ8AEpHO3Axb]
Homo erectus | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program https://share.google/MQfK0e5SD7bINRBnL
I have taken and is taking education from those who report (reporters) on the writings of those who did the studying called scientists. Your input has no meaning for me.
Good, then you are a walking, thinking, talking fish.
And I'll leave you with this - and I know you will not grasp the connection.
[media=https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OwSkXDmV6Io]
[media=https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8-S-OE_-AH0]
[media=https://youtu.be/rO_M0hLlJ-Q?si=CsvnWnBQzseOlYjF]
Stephen Hawking says nothing was around before origin of universe - Xinhua | English.news.cn https://share.google/dvx1jUTsQvjOfaOdo
[media=https://youtu.be/Iw4lJzoadh0?si=BcCEpRugycQmaHnH]
He created man in the form of what we call man: What does "Man" look like from your view? According to science since all humans including the neanderthal are descendants of the homo erectus, what did the homo erectus look like? There are so many different pictures, less ape, like more ape like even try to give them white skin. OUT OF AFRICA. Your a sarcasm is lacking
[media=https://youtu.be/G25X4m1gPwc?si=6LdcxZ8AEpHO3Axb]
Homo erectus | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program https://share.google/MQfK0e5SD7bINRBnL
I have taken and is taking education from those who report (reporters) on the writings of those who did the studying called scientists. Your input has no meaning for me.
Good, then you are a walking, thinking, talking fish.
And I'll leave you with this - and I know you will not grasp the connection.
[media=https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OwSkXDmV6Io]
[media=https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8-S-OE_-AH0]
[media=https://youtu.be/rO_M0hLlJ-Q?si=CsvnWnBQzseOlYjF]
@Charity if you actually read the article you shared, you'd have known he said the Big Bang originated from a singularity without space or time, and that he explicitly said the Big Bang did not create the universe from nothing.
"There was never a Big Bang that produced something from nothing. It just seemed that way from mankind's perspective," Hawking said
I have taken and is taking education from those who report (reporters) on the writings of those who did the studying called scientists.
If you stop at the interpretation of journalists, and dummy even read that all the way through, that explains a lot. Those often misrepresent the study results for an interesting headline, as perfectly demonstrated by your previous example about the universe being created out of nothing. When I see a report about a study, the first thing I therefore do is look for the source and read what the scientists themselves claim they found, how they did that and what limitations the study had.Your input has no meaning for me.
Thank you for your honesty. Then I will not answer any further questions.
ImperialAerosolKidFromEP · 51-55, M
I'm afraid science doesn't belong to God; it belongs to men. Tyson makes a similar mistake
Science is true, even if you don't believe it.
Science is not true. In fact, from time to time, it's false. Science is a wonderful discipline for understanding how God's universe works, but it's not perfect. Otherwise, it wouldn't need to change, so Tyson doesn't even really understand what science is. (The more I listen to celebrity scientists, the less surprised I am)
@ImperialAerosolKidFromEP I'd like to thoughtfully respond to what you said, as I think it's important, and feedback is always good.
I think I understand what you’re saying—that science is something humans practice, develop, and refine over time. I don’t disagree with that at all.
But from my perspective, science and God aren’t separate. Science is the method we use to study the natural world, but as to the laws and order we’re studying, I believe God is the source of that order.
So while science may “belong to men” in the sense that we practice it, what it reveals (the structure, consistency, and design of the universe)—points beyond us.
To me, science explains the *how*, but God explains the *why*. They don’t compete—they complement each other.
I think I understand what you’re saying—that science is something humans practice, develop, and refine over time. I don’t disagree with that at all.
But from my perspective, science and God aren’t separate. Science is the method we use to study the natural world, but as to the laws and order we’re studying, I believe God is the source of that order.
So while science may “belong to men” in the sense that we practice it, what it reveals (the structure, consistency, and design of the universe)—points beyond us.
To me, science explains the *how*, but God explains the *why*. They don’t compete—they complement each other.
ElwoodBlues · M
GodSpeed63 · 70-79, M
@ElwoodBlues
That's a question, not a statement.
Has Ken Ham finally admitted that ancient turtle fossils are 200 million years old?? That's a step in the right direction!!
That's a question, not a statement.
@GodSpeed63 how do you know your interpretation isn't the one out of order if it belongs to God and not you or them?
GodSpeed63 · 70-79, M
@NerdyPotato
It's not my interpretation of science that matters but It is God's interpretation of science that matters most since He's the one that created it to benefit mankind. I', a born again believer in Jesus Christ and God's Holy Spirit dwells within me just like He can with you if you'd allow Him to.
how do you know your interpretation isn't the one out of order if it belongs to God and not you or them?
It's not my interpretation of science that matters but It is God's interpretation of science that matters most since He's the one that created it to benefit mankind. I', a born again believer in Jesus Christ and God's Holy Spirit dwells within me just like He can with you if you'd allow Him to.
@GodSpeed63 so only God knows which interpretation of his science is right and you just believe to know better because you believe your religion is the only real one, like every religious person despite every religious person believing something different to be real. Got it!
LordShadowfire · 46-50, M
@LordShadowfire It's not a big deal here in the UK.
Also an actual scientist (secular university not diploma mill) Joshua Swamidass proves you can have it all- evolution, Adam and Eve and crucially original sin.
Oh, and BTW I'll never agree with himre God, obviously but I enjoy Aron Ra's natural history videos.
And to add Zambia tourist guides assume natural history, not a big deal there either
Also an actual scientist (secular university not diploma mill) Joshua Swamidass proves you can have it all- evolution, Adam and Eve and crucially original sin.
Oh, and BTW I'll never agree with himre God, obviously but I enjoy Aron Ra's natural history videos.
And to add Zambia tourist guides assume natural history, not a big deal there either
LordShadowfire · 46-50, M
@BritishFailedAesthetic I'm aware that one does not necessarily disprove the other, but our friend here is not. He's fully convinced that Ken Ham (who looks like he didn't evolve, by the way) is 100% correct when he says that evolution isn't real and that the planet is only 6,000 years old, and crucially that the ark story literally happened exactly as it is written in the Bible.
You, on the other hand, are capable of understanding that some things are metaphor or parables or what have you, and not to be taken literally.
You, on the other hand, are capable of understanding that some things are metaphor or parables or what have you, and not to be taken literally.
GoFish ·
turtles were created by God less than 6k years ago so No to millions of years bs fictional evolution stories
ItsMeMorgue · 46-50, F
ItsMeMorgue · 46-50, F
@GodSpeed63 So, I should only care about whether Yahweh exists if you personally believe in it?
GodSpeed63 · 70-79, M
@ItsMeMorgue
What you should care about is whether or not that you're believing in the Truth. From your standpoint, if your invisible pink unicorn is real, the believe in her. But, if Yahweh is real real, believe in Him.
o, I should only care about whether Yahweh exists if you personally believe in it?
What you should care about is whether or not that you're believing in the Truth. From your standpoint, if your invisible pink unicorn is real, the believe in her. But, if Yahweh is real real, believe in Him.
ItsMeMorgue · 46-50, F
@GodSpeed63 Do you believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn?
CorvusBlackthorne · 100+, M
Have you been able to finally provide evidence to support your claim that George the Galactic Troll is not real?