KingEbukasBlog:



First Account : Divine purpose stated or announced

Second Account : The actual creation of new inhabitants of the restored earth was done . The second one is the "true one " and in that order

Lol I like how you've appointed yourself defender/explainer of God's supposed message. Let me enlighten you. Genesis is patched job of legends and myths of early Jews. There are two principal authors, and this is just a simple example of the hatchet job done in the compilation of the bible. Way too many contradictions and discrepancies. Not to start with the aspects disproven by science.

@ OLAADEGBU - So what happens to the wisdom , knowledge and understanding God wants us to pursue ? What happens to "study to show yourself approved " . The earth is not six thousand years age - no , not anything close to that .

Chizzled06:


Lol I like how you've appointed yourself defender/explainer of God's supposed message. Let me enlighten you. Genesis is patched job of legends and myths of early Jews. There are two principal authors, and this is just a simple example of the hatchet job done in the compilation of the bible. Way too many contradictions and discrepancies. Not to start with the aspects disproven by science.

"I'm sorry you caught me off guard " would have been a noble response which I expected . Sorry for the embarrassment though . I mean I had to

You can lay your ludicrous complaints here though

davidylan:


On the contrary, i was quite sure that you did not include biology because clearly you know that it does not support your theory of some random earth just appearing out of nowhere. That is the trick that people pull all the time, they rush to their safe havens (astronomy, physics) - esoteric sciences where they can spin things as they want, knowing that 99% of the people they are talking to have no clue so of course they can never be wrong (they can just invoke the fallacy of appeal to authority when found wanting).

I find it odd that you have chosen to not study the subject that is most fundamental to the creation of man - biology and the theory of evolution.

lol perhaps you also dismiss Newton's laws since he believed every word of the bible too? I believe every word of the bible (of course i question some parts) but how that has any relevance to a scientific analysis of your own viewpoint leaves me wondering.

You might find it odd, but when you understand the the vastness of the cosmos and the observable universe and realise how insignificant our existence is compared to the timeline and scope of events, you might understand my lack of deep interest in biology.

However I have a lot of respect for Darwin. Evolution remains the only rational explanation to the existence of life forms on earth. Fossil discoveries in Paleontology and DNA technology have only strengthened his theory

Isaac Newton did not believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ, that's as far as his doubts took him. Coming from a time when religion and education were intertwined, there's not much else you can expect. Newton, like many revolutionary scientists during his time was a victim of the religous thought process and lack of scientific knowledge/data that dominated his era. Still, you might want to read about his rather interesting religious views.

Chizzled06:



You might find it odd, but when you understand the the vastness of the cosmos and the observable universe and realise how insignificant our existence is compared to the timeline and scope of events, you might understand my lack of deep interest in biology.

Vastness of the cosmos and the observable universe that popped out from nowhere - "Omo guys I don show "

However I have a lot of respect for Darwin. Evolution remains the only rational explanation to the existence of life forms on earth. Fossil discoveries in Paleontology and DNA technology have only strengthened his theory

KingEbukasBlog:


Its like knowing an answer (presence of fossils) to a question in math ( modern man & animals ) , you dont know how to get the answer and you had to develop a very convincing shitty solution to the question (evolution ) . C'mon ... you did that sh.it in sec sch .. didnt you

[s][/s]

Isaac Newton did not believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ, that's as far as his doubts took him. Coming from a time when religion and education were intertwined, there's not much else you can expect. Newton, like many revolutionary scientists during his time was a victim of the religous thought process and lack of scientific knowledge/data that dominated his era. Still, you might want to read about his rather interesting religious views.

Source : Dikipedia ?

Chizzled06:

You might find it odd, but when you understand the the vastness of the cosmos and the observable universe and realise how insignificant our existence is compared to the timeline and scope of events, you might understand my lack of deep interest in biology.

The vastness of the cosmos is meaningless without life itself. Biology helps us understand how that life came about and what guides its interaction with the cosmos. You're trying to put the cart before the horse... largely because you either dont understand biology or you do and realize that it contradicts your point of view. Hiding behind the "vastness of the cosmos" is just useless IMO.

Chizzled06:

However I have a lot of respect for Darwin. Evolution remains the only rational explanation to the existence of life forms on earth. Fossil discoveries in Paleontology and DNA technology have only strengthened his theory

You really dont want to go down the road of the fossil record because i am quite certain you have never studied it at all. If you did, you would stay quite clear of using it as proof for evolution... there is a reason no one is talking it up. If the fossil record for intermediate life forms existed (as would be expected if indeed evolution occurred) no one would be debating the theory today.

Chizzled06:

Isaac Newton did not believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ, that's as far as his doubts took him. Coming from a time when religion and education were intertwined, there's not much else you can expect. Newton, like many revolutionary scientists during his time was a victim of the religous thought process and lack of scientific knowledge/data that dominated his era. Still, you might want to read about his rather interesting religious views.

To say Newton was a victim of a lack of scientific knowledge that dominated his era is dishonest at best or stupid at worst. Take a look at the 3 laws of motion again and please explain how that is evidence of an era that lacked scientific knowledge.

The problem with such ridiculous nonsense is that it is typical of those who like to hide behind the facade of "enlightenment" when in fact they are simply empty suits.

davidylan:


The vastness of the cosmos is meaningless without life itself. Biology helps us understand how that life came about and what guides its interaction with the cosmos. You're trying to put the cart before the horse... largely because you either dont understand biology or you do and realize that it contradicts your point of view. Hiding behind the "vastness of the cosmos" is just useless IMO.



You really dont want to go down the road of the fossil record because i am quite certain you have never studied it at all. If you did, you would stay quite clear of using it as proof for evolution... there is a reason no one is talking it up. If the fossil record for intermediate life forms existed (as would be expected if indeed evolution occurred) no one would be debating the theory today.



To say Newton was a victim of a lack of scientific knowledge that dominated his era is dishonest at best or stupid at worst. Take a look at the 3 laws of motion again and please explain how that is evidence of an era that lacked scientific knowledge.

The problem with such ridiculous nonsense is that it is typical of those who like to hide behind the facade of "enlightenment" when in fact they are simply empty suits.

The laws of motion must really impress you. There's a reason his works are classified under "classical" physics. Do you know that Newton practiced alchemy? There was a lack of understanding of the fundamental building blocks of matter during his time. That you can somehow ignore the fact he didn't have access to discoveries and technology that the likes of Bohr or Einstein would later enjoy is beyond me.

If you trust scientist views so much, why stop at Newton who lived centuries ago? How many prominent living physicists currently share your biblical convictions? The simple answer is ZERO.

Missing fossil links don't undermine Darwin's theory. That they haven't been found doesn't mean they never existed or they'll never be found. Have you bothered to check how many biologists currently DEBATE Darwin's theory? We're talking about one of the most widely accepted scientific theories OF ALL TIME.

The ignorance of mankind created religion. The intelligence of mankind is calculated to destroy it

lepasharon:


How do you know this pls ?

Because He said so and besides he has shown himself so.

Chizzled06:


Because it was drilled into me from birth. At home, School, sunday school. Endless cycle of brain washing. Yeah and there's the little fact that I live in a society dominated by religous based ideologies.
I believe religion does more harm than good for humanity. That's why I've decided not to ignore it. The atrocities commited in the name of your Gods are unspeakable. I've lived a lot better since I had no devils to blame for immoral, inhumane and irrational actions

It doesn't matter bro.....you can reject religion and that will not harm you like I have rejected religion but you can't reject God, if you do so you will die spiritually.

davien:
Ah... but it is our duty to keep ourselves that way of our own free will...

Without me ye can do nothing

vooks:

It's not that you can't as yet, it's just that 'in the begining DIRT...' is the most ret@rded thing ever.

I have never understood why evolutionists divorce Origins from their theories. Who is supposed to account for origins? Orang-utans?

You're right, dirt or dust is a silly origin story.. and what did the Bible say about dirt becoming man?

OLAADEGBU:


Are you saying Genesis 1:31 is not Scripture?



When did disease enter the earth?



Ezekiel did not tell you that, it is a figment of your own imagination.



That idea was concocted by the devil who will have us believe that he and God evolved out of the primeval waters which had been the environment of his first consciousness when God created him. This is the suggested as you are also referring us back to Genesis 1 but also in all the pagan theories of creation such as Sumeria and Egypt to mention a few. Satan's corrupted wisdom devised this primeval system of pantheistic evolutionism and this is what he is using to deceive the world since Eve.



If you are saying that sin, sickness and death entered the earth before Adam then you are contradicting the Scriptures which says:

"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned" (Romans 5:12).

The above scripture proves that there was no death before sin entered the world through Adam. God's finished work was "very good" and didn't contain any dead bones of diseased men. It was after Adam sinned that God brought the curse of decay and death upon Adam and the earth.

Don't worry about it.

davien:
You're right, dirt or dust is a silly origin story.. and what did the Bible say about dirt becoming man?

It's silly. Tell me something wise

you are right. And in the life circle of planets that means its almost middle aged. It has a life expectancy of 10 billion years...according to scientists.

plaetton:
I can believe that you people are still saying the Earth is millions of years old.

Why not simply ask google ?.

The earth is approximately 4.7 BILLION years old.
The Universe is approximately 14 Billion years old.

vooks:

It's silly. Tell me something wise

That your chromosome #2 is a fusion site of two ape chromosomes..

frosbel2:

Why in this 21st century of science and knowledge do Christians still believe in this fable of 6000 years ?

Probably for the same reasons you believed it yourself.

That's a clue for a lot I haven't said.

Guess who's back, the OLA is back.

And he still has those pictures. It's amazing.

davidylan:


The vastness of the cosmos is meaningless without life itself. Biology helps us understand how that life came about and what guides its interaction with the cosmos. You're trying to put the cart before the horse... largely because you either dont understand biology or you do and realize that it contradicts your point of view. Hiding behind the "vastness of the cosmos" is just useless IMO.

The cosmos is still vast and the entire earth is still insignificant at the cosmic scale. Actually, the cosmos came before the earth and the earth came before life. Personal interest is a personal preference. What exactly is being contradicted by biology?

davidylan:

You really dont want to go down the road of the fossil record because i am quite certain you have never studied it at all. If you did, you would stay quite clear of using it as proof for evolution... there is a reason no one is talking it up. If the fossil record for intermediate life forms existed (as would be expected if indeed evolution occurred) no one would be debating the theory today.

Actually the fossil record is one of the lines of evidence for evolution and actually scientists still discuss it. Well there are fossils of intermediate life forms and the theory's explanatory power is still strong.

davidylan:

To say Newton was a victim of a lack of scientific knowledge that dominated his era is dishonest at best or stupid at worst. Take a look at the 3 laws of motion again and please explain how that is evidence of an era that lacked scientific knowledge.

But it is true. Newton also had lots of misguided ideas and had no knowledge of the current theories that are more accurate than his.

davidylan:

The problem with such ridiculous nonsense is that it is typical of those who like to hide behind the facade of "enlightenment" when in fact they are simply empty suits.

Yet we have Christians who still think the earth is 6000 years old give or take a few centuries or that there is some God out there who cares what humans wear and who sleeps with who. What is the problem with that sort of ridiculous nonsense?

starlingslimnet:
It doesn't matter bro.....you can reject religion and that will not harm you like I have rejected religion but you can't reject God, if you do so you will die spiritually.

You can only "die spiritually" when you believe in the supernatural. I understand that you might need the presence of a supreme being watching/judging for it to all make sense. I don't. And I'm more alive than I've ever been

Chizzled06:

The laws of motion must really impress you. There's a reason his works are classified under "classical" physics. Do you know that Newton practiced alchemy? There was a lack of understanding of the fundamental building blocks of matter during his time. That you can somehow ignore the fact he didn't have access to discoveries and technology that the likes of Bohr or Einstein would later enjoy is beyond me.

I'm assuming by considering his works "classical" you mean they are now obsolete? Quite absurd really. I dont know about you but Newton's laws of universal gravitation is quite impressive... the stupidity of thinking that somehow his works are less impressive than those of Neil's Bohr basically leaves me constantly flummoxed.

I hope you realize that one definition of classical (in physics!) is - relating to or based upon concepts and theories that preceded the theories of relativity and quantum mechanics; Newtonian.

Chizzled06:

If you trust scientist views so much, why stop at Newton who lived centuries ago? How many prominent living physicists currently share your biblical convictions? The simple answer is ZERO.

The usual fallacy of appealing to authority. How many of these physicists do you personally know? Are you privy to their personal faith? So because some physicists do not think the bible is true automatically means they are right? Just how many of those physicists share the current hypothesis on chronic traumatic encephalopathy? My guess would be zero... so i guess CTE does not exist then. Bravo.

Chizzled06:

Missing fossil links don't undermine Darwin's theory. That they haven't been found doesn't mean they never existed or they'll never be found. Have you bothered to check how many biologists currently DEBATE Darwin's theory? We're talking about one of the most widely accepted scientific theories OF ALL TIME.

Actually they do... perhaps you assume we will find them in 2567?

thehomer:

But it is true. Newton also had lots of misguided ideas and had no knowledge of the current theories that are more accurate than his.

If Newton were atheist, i'm guessing he would be one of the brilliant minds you would be quoting no? Quite silly really. Where are your theories and how do they match up with Newton's?

davidylan:


If Newton were atheist, i'm guessing he would be one of the brilliant minds you would be quoting no? Quite silly really. Where are your theories and how do they match up with Newton's?

Well he would be less likely to believe in the other weird stuff he believed in. Whether or not I would quote him in that hypothetical situation would depend on what he said. What's silly here is your ignorance of modern scientific theories like the theory of relativity, and quantum field theory. They are more accurate.

thehomer:


Well he would be less likely to believe in the other weird stuff he believed in. Whether or not I would quote him in that hypothetical situation would depend on what he said. What's silly here is your ignorance of modern scientific theories like the theory of relativity, and quantum field theory. They are more accurate.

Considering i have not said anything about these theories at all neither have had any reason to since the topic is not on physics theories... i wonder what you mean by my "ignorance". Other than the typical cheap insult, i'm not sure where you get the idea that i am "ignorant" of these theories...

The idea that these theories are "more accurate" is quite a useless comparison. Its like saying that Gregor Mendel's laws of genetics are now obsolete since we now know what the structure of DNA is. Frankly many of the statements here are just bizarre.

davidylan:


I'm assuming by considering his works "classical" you mean they are now obsolete? Quite absurd really. I dont know about you but Newton's laws of universal gravitation is quite impressive... the stupidity of thinking that somehow his works are less impressive than those of Neil's Bohr basically leaves me constantly flummoxed.

I hope you realize that one definition of classical (in physics!) is - relating to or based upon concepts and theories that preceded the theories of relativity and quantum mechanics; Newtonian.



The usual fallacy of appealing to authority. How many of these physicists do you personally know? Are you privy to their personal faith? So because some physicists do not think the bible is true automatically means they are right? Just how many of those physicists share the current hypothesis on chronic traumatic encephalopathy? My guess would be zero... so i guess CTE does not exist then. Bravo.



Actually they do... perhaps you assume we will find them in 2567?

Your limited (clouded) understanding of science is quite evident now. FYI Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation has now been superseded by Einstien's general relativity. I love Newton, but the poor guy never even got to learn about how atoms make up everything.

On the bible, I suggest you study christian history; the canonization, early christian versions, synoptic gospels, lost scrolls etc. You might understand why no serious scientist can take the book seriously.

Faith is belief without proof. Like many others, I left that path because I prefer rational thinking, logical reasoning based on evidence.

Humans invented Gods to attribute concepts beyond their comprehension. Science has offered by far the best explanation of concepts surrounding life and existence than any fairytale religious book ever will.

Open up your mind and educate yourself.

Chizzled06:


Your limited (clouded) understanding of science is quite evident now. FYI Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation has now been superseded by Einstien's general relativity. I love Newton, but the poor guy never even got to learn about how atoms make up everything.

On the bible, I suggest you study christian history; the canonization, early christian versions, synoptic gospels, lost scrolls etc. You might understand why no serious scientist can take the book seriously.

Faith is belief without proof. Like many others, I left that path because I prefer rational thinking, logical reasoning based on evidence.

Humans invented Gods to attribute concepts beyond their comprehension. Science has offered by far the best explanation of concepts surrounding life and existence than any fairytale religious book ever will.

Open up your mind and educate yourself.

Which is quite funny that the same science has never offered a cogent explanation as to how life began. By all means keep hiding under the fig leaf of physics. It seems to be the only area of science that you have a fair bit of understanding.

Chizzled06:

Open up your mind and educate yourself.

I did. I spent 5 years earning a phd in molecular biology, which promptly dispelled the silly myth that science had the answers to life and the origin of man. But of course... be my guest explaining that to us.

Chizzled06:


On the bible, I suggest you study christian history; the canonization, early christian versions, synoptic gospels, lost scrolls etc. You might understand why no serious scientist can take the book seriously.

Pfft !!! Im 100 %percent sure and its very obvious that you know nothing about lost scrolls and early christian versions of the bible .

Faith is belief without proof.

Dumb statement again . Ive experienced many instant miracles . Yes ... me ... myself . But please I need a logical explanation for that aside from the usual "supernatural intervention " aka God's power

And again

1. A widely accepted theory -The Big Fraud Theory- denies the First Cause ( an evidence of an always supernatural being )
2. Life coming forth from inorganic matter / non living . Evidently this requires supernatural intervention to become possible .

Like many others, I left that path

This confirms the scripture - written by "primitive men " :

1 Timothy 4:1 :

Now the Spirit speaketh expressly that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils

... because I prefer rational thinking, logical reasoning based on evidence.

But Lo and behold God does not need to impress you with "rational " actions and decisions . He would have done it any other "rational " way
1 Corinthians 1:27

27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

Humans invented Gods to attribute concepts beyond their comprehension. Science has offered by far the best explanation of concepts surrounding life and existence than any fairytale religious book ever will.

This is what happens when people misinterpret the roles of Science and Religion in life . The study of nature - science - and its application - technology - are acknowledged even in the bible .

Open up your mind and educate yourself.

About what exactly . He's a scientist . The last time I checked atheism is simply the unbelief in the existence of God/gods . Dumb idiots can choose to disbelieve in God/gods .

Is his belief in an almighty creator now a yard·stick to attest to his level of knowledge or intelligence ?

Statistically , America and Germany have an average of 75 percent of their total population who identify themselves as religious . From your way of reasoning - close to 360 million people should open their minds and educate themselves just because they are religious .

Analytically , there is a highly probability that these people are better educated than you are ! (That's the fun part )

davidylan:


Considering i have not said anything about these theories at all neither have had any reason to since the topic is not on physics theories... i wonder what you mean by my "ignorance". Other than the typical cheap insult, i'm not sure where you get the idea that i am "ignorant" of these theories...

Pointing out your ignorance isn't insulting you when you're actually ignorant. I wonder why you're wailing when you were unable to show what was silly about anything I said. I got the idea that yopu were ignorant because you were asking for theories that compared to Newton's and I gave you a few of them.

davidylan:

The idea that these theories are "more accurate" is quite a useless comparison. Its like saying that Gregor Mendel's laws of genetics are now obsolete since we now know what the structure of DNA is. Frankly many of the statements here are just bizarre.

No it isn't useless. They more accurately predict the movement of bodies in space which was the aim of Newton's theories. That is why I find your responses here not just bizzare but ignorant.

davidylan:


I did. I spent 5 years earning a phd in molecular biology, which promptly dispelled the silly myth that science had the answers to life and the origin of man. But of course... be my guest explaining that to us.

Did that PhD dispel the theory of evolution? I'm generally suspicious of people who drop claimed titles on anonymous forums. And I'm really suspicious of this degree you claim. When and where did you earn this PhD?

davidylan:


Which is quite funny that the same science has never offered a cogent explanation as to how life began. By all means keep hiding under the fig leaf of physics. It seems to be the only area of science that you have a fair bit of understanding.

[b]You see for a person who always blows his trumpet of having a PhD almost all the time, your posts are mostly disappointing. .

Nobody knows the origin of life YET, yes but we didn't even know what the sun was before.
Science means study, and there can only be studies only when there are questions unanswered.

Science never knew much about the cosmos and now we know more than we used to and this was through study, observations and experimentations and there are still many more that are to be known that are not known yet.

So lacking knowledge of how life began is still an open ground for intense study, scrutinization of available datas and through these careful means we will definitely come to ascertain how it actually begun no matter how long it takes.

And not employ unfounded myths of ancient men who never knew the sun was outside the earth. .
We can only learn by studying what is and not by sheepishly believing ludicrous myth of ancient primitive men.

If you never studied biology there is no way you can know biology same way man can never learn how life began if we do not study to know it[/b]

jayriginal:


Probably for the same reasons you believed it yourself.

That's a clue for a lot I haven't said.

noted !

I agree with Davidylan that the bible actually supports an older earth. 

An older earth does not necessary mean agreement with evolution. 

Chizzled06 is your REALITY in the 'vastness of the cosmos' or on earth? Evolution has NO rational explanation to the existence of life forms on earth.
Evolution is ONLY an attempt to 'rationally' explain observed order on earth. 

I want to believe that you are sure that at best evolution is a theory and nothing more. You must know what a 'theory' in this context means. That must be why you mentioned that:
"Biological science hasn't (yet) concluded on the definitive process of the origin of living matter on earth"

It (evolution) is, along with 'intelligence of mankind', more of 'ridiculous nonsense' than a belief in an intelligent creator for earth and the universe.