₦airaland Forum

[img]http://2.bp..com/_Wqo9IVCWV5E/SEW8SMNuCNI/AAAAAAAAAc0/aDP1Q8kBYkE/s1600/Pope%2BElectric%2BChair%2BWB.jpg[/img]

^^
So true. . .

^^
The christians god tells his chosen men to kill others and take what belongs to them, yet you guys see nothing wrong in that, the christian god goes around displaying tantrums like a little kid and promising to kill people for disobedience, yet you guys still do not see anything wrong with it, If the muslim god does the same, you guys will see everything wrong with it and will go ahead to label him and evil deity. . . .What is the difference between allah and the OT god?. . .NOTHING. . . .Yet people like you always go about attacking allah when your god is no different, I saw some one talking about sacrifices as part of allah's vices on another thread, does such a person know that yahweh used to request for human sacrifice in the bible?. . . . .I laugh when i read such things here. . . . .People don't even read their bibles at all. . . .

toba:
his wrath,were they causeless or were causedwas God a fighter? did he come than to fight the wars directly?

Yes according to the bible, there are passages that talk about yahweh coming down to kill people and stain his cloth with their blood while boasting and screming that he did it alone in the book of Jeremiah I think, I wonder why a god that is said to be all powerful is boasting  and beating his chest about killing people alone, I will look it up and post it up for you because I have posted the verse here on nairaland before, there are other passages that talk about Yahweh moving around with lamps in the night lookinf for people to kill, people that have offended him or broken his laws, I wonder why a god that knows everything needs a lamp to look for people.

Here are some verses that I can easily remember wbout yahewh himself coming down to kill people by himself. . . .

In that day those the LORD has slaughtered will fill the earth from one end to the other.  No one will mourn for them or gather up their bodies to bury them.  They will be scattered like dung on the ground.   (Jeremiah 25:33)

Weep and moan, you evil shepherds!  Roll in the dust, you leaders of the flock!  The time of your slaughter has arrived; you will fall and shatter like fragile pottery.  You will find no place to hide; there will be no way to escape.  Listen to the frantic cries of the shepherds, to the leaders of the flock shouting in despair, for the LORD is spoiling their pastures.  Peaceful meadows will be turned into a wasteland by the LORD's fierce anger.  He has left his den like a lion seeking its prey, and their land will be made desolate by the sword of the enemy and the LORD's fierce anger.   (Jeremiah 25:34-38)

Even the yahweh admist that he does evil in the bible. . . .

"Thus says the Lord, the God of Israel, to whom you sent me to offer your prayer: If you remain quietly in this land I will build you up, and not tear you down; I will plant you, not uproot you; for I regret the evil I have done you."   (Jeremiah 42:9-10)

Why are you trying to paint and evil God that admits himself that he sometime does evil and regrets doing it by apologizing?

The answer is NO. . .Allah is not the same deity as Yahweh which is also different From the God of the new testement because even Christians worship two different deities. The OT deity and the NT deity.  Lots of differences between the two.

@ Toba

Its 5 days already and I am still not blind, where is Yahweh to come and make me blind and show you guys that he is not imaginary?

Dereformer:
I have taken time to read some of the posts on this topic and I will respond as follows:

(1) Sincerely speaking TRUE CHRISTIANS are better off than UNBELIEVERS. If your definition of 'better-off' is in terms of wealth acquisition then you miss the point. What a genuine child of God thinks about and wishes Is completely different from what an unbeliever thinks about and wishes.
The emphasis on wealth and financial prosperity as preached by some churches today has blindfolded so many 'Christians' and has indeed taken so many away from the faith.

Why are you talking only about wealth?. . .I listed quite a lot of stuffs like good health, better protection form disasters or harm, long life, feeling of happiness etc and all you can dwell on is wealth?. . . . .

God will not allow His child to go hungry but will not give enough to push him out of faith.

On what basis did you come to this conclusion?. . . . .

(2) one of the situations when u see that a true born-again christian is better than an unbeliever is on death bed. A true Christian dies happily knowing were he/she is going. Most wealthy and evil men during death  regrets the life they lived and all the atrocities they committed. they have always wished they lived for God.

This is false because christians do not want to die, I have been around christians during times of danger and they were all praying to their God to protect them and preserve their lives. . . .True Muslims also die happily knowing where they are going to also. . . . .Who is the rich person that told you that he has always wished to have lived for God on his death bed? What study did you conduct that made you come to this conclusion?

(3) For those who do not believe in the existence of God, I have this question to ask: Let us assume that we gave our life to Christ and lived a holy life on earth, passed through persecution and finally we all died and discovered that all these talk about church and Christ were falsehood.What have we lost?

You do not need to be religious to be a good person, you don't need to believe in God to be a good person. By the way what is all these imaginary persecution complex you guys love talking about?

I have one truth as self evident "GOD EXISTS AND HIS WAYS ARE DIFFERENT FROM THE WAYS OF MEN". Naturally one believes in the existence of  God except where ones mind has been conditioned, by what one reads, sees, hears etc, to believe otherwise.

False. . . .I have seen children here whose parents did not introduce the hypothesis or belief in God into their lives and they grew up not even understanding what it means. Come over to finland I will show you 15-17 years old teenagers who do not even fully understand what the God hypothesis means. No child has ever come out of his mothers womb talking about God, people ONLY get to know about the verious versions of Gods that exist through indoctrination, and up bringing. . .NO child knows anything about any God on its own. . . .He must have to be indoctrinated and taught about the version of God his parents believe in or accept. . .

If u believe that evil exists, then it is proof that the opposite also exists and that is GOOD(which is GOD)

Where in the bible does it say that the God of the bible is the opposite of evil? The bible talks about Yahweh being the cause of evil. . . .

Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it? Amos 3:6

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. Isaiah 45:7

Hey Jesoul, whats up?

Mazaje: Suppose that you are given 2 books and told that 1 of them is "divinely inspired" while the other is not, and you are asked to identify which one is which. How could you tell? What would you look for? What differences would there be in the end result between a book that is and is not divinely inspired?

Jesoul: It's all by faith.

Isn't that subjective? Ins't that what applies to all other religious text out there?. . . .

What exactly does it mean for a text to be divinely inspired? I have noticed that when Christians go about comparing their religious text with other religious texts , they claim it is divinely inspired while that of the Muslims for example isn't divinely inspired. They point to contradictions in the koran, unscientific stuffs or some stuffs like unnecessary violence and some incoherent attributes of Allah to show that such a book could not have been divinely inspired forgetting that the bible itself is abound with contradictions, so much unnecessary violence, unscientific things, incoherent attributes or behavior of Yahweh and unhistorical events.

Given that, what would it mean for a Christian to say the text is "divinely inspired?" How would the end result be different from a text that is not divinely inspired? How would you differentiate a book that is divinely inspired from one that isn't? What specifically was done to the text and/or authors to warrant the label "divinely inspired?"

They for example point to some prophecies to show that the bible is divinely inspired. But the problem is that various people interpret the various prophecies differently such that the prophecies lead to more confusion even amongst the Christians themselves. There should be no cases where the bible says anything that is inaccurate, exaggerated, or false. It should be remarkable in its precision throughout and it shouldn't contain errors of inconsistencies. But that is not the case, so what exactly does it mean for a book or text to be divinely inspired? And how will you differentiate such a book with one that isn't divinely inspired?

beloveeed:
mazaje

welcome. wel if u want to know , nothing but if u read the post aboove u may understand,

Here is a simple definition of religion from wikipedia. . . ."Religion is the belief in and worship of a god or gods, or any such system of belief and worship[1], usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs."

So name one deity that atheist worship or believe in. Name one devotional or ritual observance that atheist adhere to. . . . .Of course there are reigions that are atheistic in nature because they worship no particular deity but atheism is not a religion no matter how many times you keep repeating the statement to yourself. . . .

What exactly is beloveeed saying?. . . .

Romeo4real:
@Mazaje -
Please show me anywhere in the Bible that teaches fanaticism and fundamentalism.

There is nothing fanatical or fundamentalist about the teachings in the Bible and the teachings of Jesus Christ

Like bindex said define fundamentalism and we can begin from there. . . . .

I don't know what you mean by "basis", but please show me a war, any war, where religion was the cause.

I have shown you places in the bible were the bibleGod commanded people to fight for the case of religion, by killing unbelievers and taking their possessions. . .

The crusade ,French wars of religion and the Hindu-Muslim conflicts are an example to wars caused by religion. . . . .

You have said it all. The parts you allude to are stories. Historical recollections and subsequent transcriptions of real events. They are not teachings, preachings, commandments, philosophies or precepts. Can you understand that?

Most of the teachings of the bible are in form of stories, no?They are teachings and commandments from the mouth of Yahweh himself. . . . .

So because God instructed some people to fight back for the land which he had given them then means that all wars are cause by religion?

Are you lying through your teeth? Where in the bible does it say that people were told to fight back for the land that was promised them by Yahweh? The story says they were commanded to fight for the land that was allegedly given to them by their all powerful God who ironically could not create a land of milk and honey for them but commanded them to go steal or take over the lands of others that was flowing with milk and honey. . . .

I am still not blind yet and its 5 minutes already, where is Yahweh, Jesus and all the Gods of the trinity that are supposed to come and make me go blind immediately as the OP says?. . . . .

@Toba

Your God remains imaginary and a man made creation (of primitive jews and their supersitions). . . .DEAL WITH IT. . . .

toba:
We cant tell oo. Lets ask from the pple concerned. I know mazaje&urself arent blind yet. Lets wait small for like 5more days to here the testimonies,

Why wait till 5 days. . .Let me repeat the challange again. . .

Jesus, Yahweh and all the Gods of the christian trinity, If you truly exist as the christians truly want us to believe then PLEASE let me go blind for ever immediately after posting this post, I want the christian God to use me as an example to show both the christians as the unbelievers that he is not imaginary, So christian God PLEASE make me blind immediately I post this so that your followers will know that you are not imaginary. . . .

I expect to go blind as soon as I post this so that people will know that the christian God is not imaginary. . . .

Romeo4real:
Fundamentalism is a malady that afflicts all sides equally. There are scientists who are "fundamentalists" in their thinking, who have gone on to do abhorrent things all in the name of science. I personally, have no time for fundamentalism of any kind or sheen.
There is nothing fanatical or fundamentalist about the teachings in the Bible and the teachings of Jesus Christ. People choose to interpret things in a way that is aligned with their initial thinking.This is a case of Don't blame the Game, Blame the Player.

My friend this is V ERY false. . . .

As you rightly pointed out, many great things have been done in the name of religion. Unrivalled acts of kindness, compassion and selflessness. These do not, can not, and must not erase the equally abhorrent things done in the name of religion.
Contrary to popular thinking, most wars are not caused by religion - A catalyst? Yes. Contributing factor? Yes, but rarely the cause. Show me any war, political unrest, rebellion or revolution, and I'll show you injustices, land grabs, genocide, ethnic cleansing and government terrorism.

This again is false, because there are many wars that were and still being fought purely on the basis of religion, Even in the bible there are passages where the bible god tells his chosen men to go and kill others only because they worshiped other gods and enticed his chosen people to worship them, the korans has similar stories too. . . .Even the holy books have many stories of wars fought purely on the basis of religion or the Gods telling people to go kill others for worshipping or practicing the "wrong" religion. . . .

I want to know how you play your games. . .

viaro:
Haha. . . you're not desperate, no? You're looking for every wind to use as your excuse for your obvious duplicity that you can't sustain, so you have to go on a long search about whether other Christians are mad at viaro, yes? Dude, I don't argue by jingoism - I notice that is the firstaid of a desperate atheist, and that's what you're doing now. Just climb off your high horse and keep to what is being discussed in this thread.

How does this not relate to the topic, Who brought the issue of other christians getting made about how he interpertes the bible?  . . .You said it yourself, so why are you crying now? . . . .

How many times have I tried to answer this question and hinted that we may not agree as to details? "[color=#000099]I don't know if I ever claimed anywhere to know [b]HOW the Universe was created in terms of the details[/[/b]color]" was what I said in post #23, and I've reminded you a couple of times that for me, the Bible does not give the details in step-by-step procedural layout. Yet, no "science" anywhere as drawn any coclusion about "God" - which is why I have been asking you to show me any such scientific research on God that should warrant your dubious assertion which you now tuck under the BB theory.

What of the passages in genesis that gives a detailed account of how the universe was created?. . . .Does the passage not say that this is the accounts of the heaven and the earth when they were created?. . . .Do you not agree with the details. . . .You were the one that said i should go to the bible for evidence of your God speaking the universe into existence, no? Evidence for your God speaking the universe into existence and not some other God or thing is WHAT? Since a lot of other Gods have also said that they created the univers. . . . .I am more interested in your evidence to show that your particular version of God created the universe and not some other Gods that also make that claim or something else. . .

viaro:
What do you mean by "science doesn't make assumptions"? The more I read your wild statements foisted on "science", the more I feel you should go back to school!

What I mean is that science isn't presumptious(assumption of something as true without really finding out if it is indeed true). . .Presumption also one of the many definitions of assumptions, no?. . . .learn to take things in context before running away chasing your tail as always. . . .

Science makes "assumptions" - scientists know this. Without these 'assumptions', you can't even begin to make any mention of the "scientific method". At the elementary level, this is the connection -

Dude, please cut to the chase and stop making unfounded assertions cooked up in your backyard! You sound more and more detarched from "science" - otherwise you would not be making the silly statements one reads from you these days.

Did you read what you posted? . . .Show me any paper that says presumption is part of the scientific methods. . . .

Philosophy of science looks at the underpinning logic of the scientific method, at what separates science from non-science, and the ethic that is implicit in science. There are basic assumptions derived from philosophy that form the base of the scientific method - namely, that reality is objective and consistent, that humans have the capacity to perceive reality accurately, and that rational explanations exist for elements of the real world. These assumptions from methodological naturalism form the basis on which science is grounded.[/b]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

You seem to be arguing with yourself here as always. . .Where in the above does it say that the scientific method makes presumptions?. . . .

Vairo you are complete waste of time. . .No wonder your fellow christians get mad at you as you said yourself for trying to find meaning outside what is being discussed. . . .Even your fellow christians as you said yourself get mad at you because they can not stand your equivocations and endless lies. . . . You are on record here to have lied that the bible does not say that the Noah's flood is a global flood . . . .Even your fellow christians could not stand that one too, lol. . .keep on chasing your long tail. . .

You're a confirmed waste of space! The BB does not say anything about God - nothing in the excerpts made about the BB says a word about "God", and I think your insisting your assertion there has become far more serious than being desperately and deliberately dubious.

The argument here is simple, you said that your version of God spoke the universe into existence and that the evidence is in the bible if I want to see, and i said that scienctific explanations for the origins of the universe  which at least has some evidence to support them can be used to compare to with what is written in the bible which you said is your evidence for your assetion of God creating the universe, We can compare how the bible says the universe came into existence and the detail explanation of creation that is written in the book to see how it agree with the observable evidence, you first tried to do that and when you saw that you had no foot to stand on there by forefully trying to change what was written you, then dedided to conclude that you don't know the details of how the universe was created.   . . . .Does the bible not offer a detailed account of how the universe(matter, space and time) was supposeldy created in the 6 days account of creation? By universe I mean the universe not some universe with some mythical angels and heaven that remain in mythical books. . . .

You say that the your version of God created the universe but you still maintain that you do not know how the universe was created even when though the bible you said was your evidence gives a detailed explanation of how the God you keep yapping about created the universe. . . .I know why defending the genesis creation account is something you dread. . . .You said the bible is your evidence that God created the universe yet you don't want to talk about how the biblical creation account fits with the observable evidence that we know. . .You just keep shouting that God created the universe and the bible is your evidence, but you don't know the details when the first page of the bible contains the alleged detailed explanation of how the universe came about . . . .If your version of God created the universe the we should be able to test the universe and see that  it was spoken into existence,no?. . . .You are joke and a waste of them. . . .

viaro:
Does the BB theory assert that God did not create the Universe? Is that the conclusion of the BB?

Sure, Where in the time line of the big bang does it state that God created the universe?. . . .

I'm waiting for your "science" that asserts that God did not create the Universe - the BB theory does not say any such things. Do you want to try another excuse again pretentiously termed your "science"?

The BB does not say that God created the universe, You said that you are waiting for any sciences that says that, where in the BB does it say any God created the universe, Where in its time line does it say any God created the universe, Show any sciences that say God created the universe since you argue that no sciences says that God did not create the universe, so the sciences that says your version of God created the universe.

"what caused the singularity to be created in the first place" is what is at the heart of this discussion.

This is false, What is at the heart of this discussion is if what we see around from scientific observations agree with how your vesion of God says he created the universe. The genesis creation account is how your God said he created the universe weather you accept it or not, You can not say that you do not know the details of how the universe came about but t yet crying that your version of God created the universe when his detailed explanation of how he allgedly created the universe is found in the bible, You said the bibleGod spoke the universe into existence and the evidence is there in the bible, does the evidence we see around agree with your God's detail story and explanation of creation? Which of the observable evidence says that the earth was created before the sun and stars as your God and bible says?. . .Which of the observations  we see shows that the moon gives out its own light as the bible says it does?. . .

Which of the observations we see says that the universe came about through spoken words?. . .Which of the observations agrees with a firmament separating the waters above from the waters below. . .That is what you keep running away from. . I know why you don't even want to discuss these, you even confessed that you fellow Christians get angry at you for your mental gymnastics by reading things into the genesis creation account, and he I was thinking I was the only person that noticed your running around, Your fellow christian brothers notice it also, no?. . .

what caused the singularity to be created in the first place?

To say the singularity came from a creator (God) is an assumption. Science doesn't make assumptions it follows the scientific method. If a God doesn't fit into the scientific method then it gets left out of the theory. You keep saying that your version of God created the universe what I want you to do is show or provide objective evidence to show the existence of the God you keep talking about and I will consider it as a possible explanation for the creation of the singularity. Otherwise, there is no reason to even seriously consider it.

viaro:
It is either you're a mischievous fellow who is absolutely clueless about "science", or you just like to make noise with that word and show nothing. Please show me where "Origins Science" has asserted what you did above there - I want the "science", not your jokes.

Here it is. . . .Lets the the BB model with is the standard model. . .

The Big Bang is the cosmological model of the initial conditions and subsequent development of the Universe  that is supported by the most comprehensive and accurate explanations from current scientific evidence and observation.  As used by cosmologists, the term Big Bang generally refers to the idea that the Universe has expanded from a primordial hot and dense initial condition at some finite time in the past (best available measurements in 2009 suggest that the initial conditions occurred around 13.3 to 13.9 billion years ago and continues to expand to this day.

Its does not say any God created the universe does it?. . .You on the other hand say that God created, will you point to anything to support it other than your basless assertions?. . .You say that orgigin sciences say that the universe was created, Will you then show that your version of God created the universe and not something else, you keep crying that you version of God created the universe, show that he did or point to the sciences that talks about him creating the universe. . . .I asked you how he created the universe from nothing, you said he spoke it inot existence, where is the evidence that the universe was spoken into existence, what language did he use, and since when does language or words turn into matter?. . .If he spoke the universe into existence we can test it and see that it was spoken into existence, no?

viaro:
Hehe, I'm actually sorry for my loss!
I thought he could be taken on seriously. . . it must be the eleventh wonder that it took me this long to realize the discussion was leading nowhere.

How can the discussion lead anywhere when you are only chasing after your long tail, biting it and crying at the same time?

toba:
Hes trying to reconstruct what u have already deconstructed. Till date science doesnt have answers to many things, yet the bible does especially on morals.

Which morals does the bible have answers to? Human sacrifice and killing of people in the name of God, lying in the name of God, stealing in the name of God, slavery in the name of good, homophobiain the name of God, racism in the name of God. . . .There are verses that have the bibleGod supporting and issuing all these "morals" in the bible, no?

Romeo4real:
I am surprised you have just come to this conclusion. This particular issue has been trashed out so many times with Mazaje. He still clings to his "observable evidence" mantra, singing it like a scratched broken record.

You at least are more honest than vairo that keeps running around arguing with himself. . . .When i had this discussion with you, you agreed that the genesis creation account may or may not be factual, but you still belief that the universe was created by God. . .That is a honest position to take IMO, not the dancing around that vairo is doing, In one sentence he says that he doesnt know how the universe was created, when the version of God he claims created the universe says how he created the universe, yet, in another sentence he argues and trys to show that the genesis creation account explains the existence of the universe by lying all over the place, by trying to say that the bible talks about the creation of planets and recodnizes that other stars are solar systems. . . . . . .He also acknowledges that his fellow christians get angry with him when he leave the book of genesis and its explanations and go to other books, that have nothing to do with what genesis is saying. I wonder why he is ONLY person that sees the connection, I have argued with so many christians here and he seems to be the ONLY person that sees things that way. . . . . . . .What an interesting person he is. . .

He disagrees, and argues vehemently with the Creationists, sometimes eloquently, mostly erratically -  but he is YET to put forward an alternative theory. The scientists and cosmologists he is quick to refer to say they do not know, and they are not sure. Yet he swears by them. He acknowledges the "observable evidence" is not dependable, yet he swears by it.

I find this funny, since its is coming from some one that says the genesis creation account may or may not be factual. . .You are not sure if the genesis creation account is factual as you said, but you still maintain that your version of God created the universe when you can not even point to the universe and what was [i]created [/i]and show how it agrees with the way Your said he created it, You do not think that the genesis creation account is factual but you keep swearing by the said God who gave his detail account of creation in genesis as the creator of the universe, when you agree that the way he said he created the universe is not dependable . . . . .

I have comprehensively deconstructed all of Mazajes assertions and arguments elsewhere on this forum. I have proven to him that the science he clings to is unreliable and inconclusive. I have shown him the most eminent scientist of our time, in the fields of Relativity, Astrophysics and Quantum Physics do not agree with his views. I have done these things, and yet he still spews out the same garbled views.

My friend you did no such thing, Which of my views did you show that eminent scientist disagree with?. . . .You did non of these things. . . .

@Mazaje -  I salute and acknowledge your right to disagree, but that is now simply not good enough. You MUST put forward a conclusive alternative theory. So far the actual science is far from conclusive, and you know that. So, I am waiting.

You have not shown or provided any evidence at all to show that your version of God created the universe, all you have done is put forward your assumption, yet you want me to provide alternative theory evidence for what exactly?. . .

viaro:
I don't think mazaje is interested in discussing in an interesting manner. If it is not jumping here and there and making false statements and dragging "science" into it, then he's turning round and saying it was all part of his "rhetorics". If you laugh it off, then again he turns round and cries that he is VERY serious!

It is not that I am not intereted in discussing in an intesting manner, its just that you don't know what you are really discussing? You keep trying to force me to argue that the universe did not have a begining some thing I never claimed, since I never claimed that, you go around claiming that the I am not interested in discussing seriously, How have you shown that you are interested in discussiing seriously since you are only trying to put words into my mouth. . . .

It is interesting to see how some of these loud mouthed atheists just assert things under "science" and end up showing that they do not have a clue what "science" they are talking about. I was waiting for mazaje to surprise me all along for the "science" - any type of "science" - that says what he said such a "science" has said! WHY has that taken so very long?

Where did I make mention of any science saying that the universe had no begining, Point to it, you keep running wild, and puting words into my mouth, that is what you are good at so keep on keeping on. . . .

When I hinted that most atheists argue and assert that the Universe has been in existence for all eternity, mazaje was worried and quibbled and danced all around between the implications of that hint. It is obvious that not all atheists everywhere at every time hold/held the view that the Universe was eternal or that it created itself; but in very fact, many atheist have held that view and celebrated it under the excuse of a "science" that only they can talk about but has never shown itself to stand anywhere! With a little help, perhaps, mazaje knows this already, but decided to dance around when challenged on that event, a few examples to the point:

Many theist also believe that the universe was created 6000 years ago, no?. . . .Is that the entire view of all theist? Its obvious you have no argument at all and as such you only clutch at straws. . . .Many theist in fact a majority of the christians believe that the universe is 6000 years old and use the excuse of the God hypothesis no?. . . .if you want to discuss then discuss based on the merits of what I have said, I never jumped off trying to force you to accept that the universe was created 6000 years ago because it remains the view of majority of the christians, I only try to discuss with you based on the claims you have made. . . .

(1) Here's one of such assertions that is just asserted out of wind with no science anywhere to show for it:
I am not saying that the above is precisely mazaje's claim or statement; but I am drawning on these things to make him take a position because they often pass to our notice that such is the ideology behind the atheist's assertion that the Universe has always existed. When such people are challenged, then begin to quibble and then turn round and forver mention "science" this and "science" that, and yet will never at any place show such a "science" that has researched 'God' to have concluded that the Universe was not created by God. Anyone who wishes might just go to that blog and read the whole page - for all the arguments of this materialist ideology, there is NO SCIENCE anywhere to show the basis of their assertion of a self-created or eternal Universe.

A majority of christian theist also believe that the universe is 6000 years old and their evidence for that is the bible, no? Where did I present any argument for any of the things you are talking about here?. . . .You are only arguing with yourself here and running baseless commentaries since I never made of such claims. . . .

However, even in recent times, some have tried to cheat along the lines in their attempts to rise to the challenge of providing the said "science" that says God did not create the Universe. An example is one Terrence A. Lynch who posits "The Infinite and Eternal Nature of the Universe as a Sinusoidal Flux in the Space-Time Continuum". In his piece, he argues:

Just so we don't risk misunderstanding what Terrence meant by an eternal universe, he goes on to explain that -

Anyone who reads such a proposition might at first sight assume that Terrence was on to something brilliant. But the so-called "science" he propounds is a cheat all the way - because he takes far too much leaps and gaps in his proposed theory and explains nothing about the nature of existence and causes. For those who just want to cut to the chase, perhaps we need to ask Terrence how he arrived at any calculations of "inifinity" where he just jumps into huge conclusions with nothing in his models to show the workable calculations for his proposition.

I can as well go to the AIG or ICR website and provide meaningless opinions, but since that is not what we are discussing here, I consider your rants a waste of time and of no use, since this is NOT what I am talking about here, If you want to discuss with me then go ahead and discuss what I have said, discussing other people's opinions that are not mine says that you are more interested in chasing your tale than discussing about anything important. . ,

However, for those who have tried to consider the same question of ORIGINS in science (I'm not talking about cheap shots from brazen atheistic loud mouths who show nothing), I am still waiting to see where any such sciences have established this run-away lie of an eternal Universe. Leaving "creation" for a while, what would theoretic physicists conclusde from their years of research? I give you an example of Stephen Hawkings:

You are still ranting and arguing with yourself here, since I have not stated any of the things you are talking about here. . . .

I'm not a scientist nor a cosmologist. But when I read atheists arguing for an eternal Universe that had no beginning in its existence, I become very interested indeed to see what theorems they have propounded to draw such conclusions. Atheists may argue that the Universe was not created; but SCIENCE does not come to that conclusion at all anywhere.

Which atheist argues for an eternal universe on this thread? . . .Pls learn to stop running after your shadow. . . .You never argued for the universe being 6000 years old even though a majority of christians theist believe it is, and as such you can never see me arguing about it because you never stated it, I only argue the points you have raised but you keep arguing with yourself. . . .

The above is by no means all there is to the subject - but where someone is saying that "origins science says" thus and thus, it would help greatly if such people lay aside their own atheism and show us where any research in ORIGINS SCIENCE has ever SAID what they want to force into "science". To keep making such assertions and showing nothing is quite mischievous - and we can leave it at that.

I was not talking about origin sciences. My argument is a simple one and the argument is that scientific observations did not match or agree with the genesis creation account, Like the sun and stars coming into existence after the earth was created as very clearly stated in genesis to which a lot of christians agree to that fact. Since some of the scientific explanations have evidence for them and the evidence do not match with the genesis creation account, It simply means that the genesis creation account is false and if it is false then the universe was not created by the God of the bible because the genesis creation account remains his account of creation. . . . .This is my argument not the shadow chasing that you have been doing all along. . . .

I have referred to and discussed them earlier. However, I also pointed out several times that before verse 14 to 16, Genesis 1:3 mentioned LIGHT. What did you say on that? Oh, I didn't forget - you excused it on your own story-telling about your pallying with YECs who yada-yada on that verse! I salute with three cheers!

And what evidence do you have to show that the light is nothing other than just light? Where does it say that the light is something else other than just light?

That's true - I noted that the Bible does not conclude that the earth was created before the stars, and to show you why I said so, I went to other verses to point out that the Universe was much earlier than the earth, no?

Where in the bible does it say that the universe is older than the earth? All you did was show a verse that talks about angels witnessing the creation of the earth, since when did the angles become part of the universe? Where in the universe do the angles reside? By universe I mean the universe that comprises everything perceived to exist physically, the entirety of space and time, and all forms of matter and energy. The bible says that the stars, were created after the earth. . . .

Ahem, mazaje. . . you argued repeatedly that the stars were set in the firmament SOLELY to give light upon the earth; and I pointed out to you that you were skipping verse 14 which shows other purposes besides giving light on earth - I hope you haven't forgotten?

Where the stars created solely help the earth divide day and night and to determine years, days and seasons?

I believe there is a coherence in all these; however, many people just stand at Genesis 1 and never seek to compare with other verses on what is being said about God's creation. When I mention the "contellations" and "planets" which are recognized in other verses outside Genesis (that is, other books of the Bible, not outside the Bible), you can't even imagine my surprise at Christians who get upset with me for finding those things outside Genesis 1!!

There you have it, other christians do not share your hypothesis because that is not what those passages are talking about at all, You for example takes a verse in Isaiah that talks about the destruction of babylon to mean that it was talking about creation. . . How will your fellow christians not get upset with your for clearly twisting what was written? . . .You are a joke. . . .

I tried to ask them what could possibly be the problem with recognizing that the Bible acknowledges the existence of PLANETS?!? I should spare you their reactions.

The only things is that the bible does not state any where that it acknowledges the existence of any planets, very soon, I know you will be here telling us that the bible recognizes the existence of black holes, cosmic back ground radiation and cosmic inflation etc. . .The bible does NOT talk about any planet, if you have any where where it talks about planets then just point to it, Since when does constellation mean planets?

In all these things, the best you can do is disagree with me in the way I comapre other verses with the Genesis 1 account - not that I'm trying to fault them; but rather because I see a coherence in them that brings out the fact that the Universe was indeed CREATED! And yes, not created by a "thing", but by God the Creator of all things.

How come its only you that is "seeing" the coherence, How come a lot of christians are not seeing this coherence? compare your hypothesis to that of noetic for example in his topic why genesis is better than science and see how your hypothesis matches with his. . .Your evidence that your particular version of God created the universe and not some other God or some other thing is what? I want to see the verifiable and objective evidence not some baseless assumptions. . . .I really wonder why it is only you that is seeing things that others aren't. . .Keep on deluding yourself. . .

To this end, if you have any science or ORIGINS research to show that the Universe was not created, that would be useful to consider for your argument. The basic point is not whether you are agreeing with me half-way through - but as a Christian theist, I believe in CREATION; and I suppose that at the heart of your atheism, we find a materialist notion that asserts the Universe was not created! This is the basic point - and often is the case that many atheists will say that their reason for a "not-created" Universe is "science" - and if that's what you are on about, I want to see that "science". Your excuses that you were not arguing "origins" or "origins science" or "creation" is all bull and makes your posts meaningless. If you do want to discuss origins or creation (which I suppose is what this thread is about), then I'm willing to engage you.

Where did I assert on this thread the universe did not have a beginning? Where does any atheist say that science says that the universe did not have a beginning?. . .

viaro:
Please stop breaking your neck on Isaiah 13:10. This is what I said when I quoted that verse for you in post #26:

[list][li]For one, Isaiah 13:10 indeed mentions "the constellations" of the heavens besides having mentioned the stars, but this 'constellations' is not specifically mentioned in Genesis.[/li][/list]

What has the creation accounts in genesis one got to do with a verse in Isaiah that talks about the stars not giving their light and the moon not giving its light? When will the stars stop to give their light and since when does the moon produce its light?. . . . , You keep jumping from one mythical narrative to another, So what if the constellations was not mentioned in genesis? The heavens were mentioned in genesis and that also, includes the constellations ,no?

[list][li]I will mention Isaiah 13:10 once again - "the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof" - this should help you understand that the Bible recognizes what you're on about the "other stars" being "solar systems like ours".[/li][/list]

Same tired old lies again, since when does constellations mean planets?. . . .Does constellation mean solar systems?

If you can't understand the meaning of "mention" and "recognize" then you're beyond being helped indeed! The "stars of heaven" are part of God's creation, "the constellations" are also part of God's creation - this is what the Bible recognizes if you're perturbed about "OTHER STARS" being solar systems like ours! That it appears in Isaiah 13:10 in a passage talking about judgement on sinners (cf. verse 9 - 'he shall destroy the sinners') does not mean therefore that the stars and the constellations are not part of His creation!

Stars are part of which creations, Your evidence to show that the stars were created by the bible God is what?. . .Did he appear to you and told you that he created the stars, do you have any video recording of him creating the stars, does any of the stars have his name written on them? you based your assumption on the writings of tribal men that say that the moon produces its light, and that their God will make the stars to stop giving their light over babylon?. . .   . . .You are a joke. . . .

In other passages dealing with judgement on sin and sinners, similar language is used about the sun, the moon, the stars and the bright lights of heaven being darkened (Ezekiel 32:7-, so what? That the sun and moon shall be darkened does not mean that they were not part of God's creation.

When exactly will the sun and the moon be darkened?. . . What drivel are you talking about here?

In the same way, when Isaiah 13:10 says that the stars and the contellations shall not give their lights, it does not mean therefore that we could not point out that they are part of God's creation as well - and the mentioning of the "constellations" in that verse should have helped you see that the Bible recognizes the "other stars" like our solar system which you were noising earlier! Your petty excuses are beginning to bore me!

When does constellation mean other stars are solar systems? Now you are lying through your eyes as I can see. . . .

Bottomline: you were on about "other stars" being solar systems like ours, no? I cited those references to show you that the mentioning of the stars and the constellations shows that the Bible recognizes those "other stars" you were on about! When again you check the Ezekiel 32:7-8 just cited above, you find indeed that these "others" you were on about are also recognized in the Bible - the sun, the moon, the stars, and the 'All the bright lights of heaven' (or as in NIV - 'all the shining lights in the heavens')

Sure the bible talks about stars, Any body that goes out in the night will see the stars, no?. . . .

- the Bible also recognizes that there are planets as part of God's creation (2 Kings 23:5). So how is my pointing out these things to you churn you on the inside to allege that I was lying through your teeth?

Where does the bible mention the word planets, it talks about stars, lights, when in the creation account does it say that the planets were created?. . . .How many planets does the bible talk about?. . . .On which day of creation were the planets of the solar system created according to the bible, I want you to show me specifically where the bible talks about the creation of planets. . . .

viaro:
Now mazaje,

That is absolutely bunk! You've been trying to argue "science" into the ORIGINS of the Universe - and that was why I obliged you a discussion to see where you derived your "sciences" from to argue your assertions about the Universe not having been created! Any "science" would do - whether cosmology, origins science, astronomy, or theoretical physics (including quantum theory) - ANY SCIENCE would do, as long as it would have shown any substance for your assertion that God did NOT CREATE the Universe!

It is your assertions that is bull since NO origin sciences says that any God created the universe, Which of the origin sciences says that any God created the universe?. . . .I say

I even obliged you to pick any ORIGINS SCIENCE of your choice (Google if you please) and let me know which one of them has ever researched "God" and what their conclusions could have been as to assert that God did NOT CREATE the Universe. Rather, you quibbled and quibbled and never even attempted showing any difference between what you are arguing and ORIGINS SCIENCE or ORIGINS or CREATION!

The origins of the universe from the BB model which has observable evidences is there for all to compare with the creation accounts available in your bible, no?

Your argument that you're not discussing "origins" or "origins science" etc., is pure bull! It would mean all that you've been sweating to do here is a cheap run under which you can hide, because you know that you have absolutely NOTHING to show from any science that the Universe created itself; nor any science to show ORIGINS research discussing and concluding anything about "God"; nor any science where all origins research terminate at a conclusion that the Universe was NOT CREATED.

Where did I say here on this thread that the universe created itself, pl show me. . . .Keep on chasing shadows. . .

Where is your evidence for a Universe that self-created itself? NONE. Where is your evidence for ORIGINS SCIENCE? None. You're not discussing "origins". . . and how is that different from the origins and creation and origins science we have been talking about? If you are neither here nor there, what is the use trying to make any sense from what you're arguing?

Where in this thread did I say that the universe self created itself?. . . .Where did I say that origin sciences says that the universe created it self? keep on running around chasing your tail and arguing with yourself. . .Just show me where I said in this thread that the universe created it self. . .show me on this thread. . .

A[b]nd does the so-called "scientific" evidence conclude that the Universe was not created[/b]? Even where I have tried to be amicable on that point as in post #29 and allow for some deference (*not 'difference'), the basic point from your argument was what? If you're saying that God did not create the Universe, I wanted scientific evidence that discusses 'God' and showing that the Universe was not created. That is because as an atheist who hides behind "science", you're committed to pure materialism/naturalism - and that is why I wanted you to use that same "science" from whereever you may and show me that the Universe was not created.

Where did I say any of such? Which science says that the universe was created by a God?. . . .Which sciences says that the universe did not have a beginning? And where did I say that any sciences say that the universe was not created? It seems you just enjoy arguing with yourself, no?. . .

We may differ in details - but so far, none of what you argue has given anyone reason to conclude that the Universe was not created. I went that far to point you in the direction of current researches in that field, for which I have often mentioned "origins science". If perhaps you have any other "science" that points to origins and therefore show that the Universe was not created, I was also ready to oblige you a discussion. Where is your 'science' for origins or the creation of the Universe?

Where did I say on this thread that the universe was created or not created, Show me?

Please tell me: why did Genesis 1:3 mention LIGHT before the latter verses 14-16 that mention other lights? I have not read a single line from you dealing with verse 3, even though I have mentioned it a couple of times. Do you care to do so now?

And where In genesis 1:3 does it say that the light are the stars? Pls show where it says that the light it was talking about refer to the stars, I asked you a simple question but as usual you ran way form it, In which day of created did it say that God also created the stars after creating the two great lights?. . . . .It specifically said that light was created on the first day of creation and also specifically stated that the stars were created on the fourth day of creation, no?. . . .Keep on lying with your teeth. . . .

Both you and those who are pandering to are a bigger joke. Where is it found "as it is written" that God was the source of the light that was shining on earth before the sun was created? What verse? You just accept their word and conclude that is precisely "as it is written" so that you can applud your cheap arguments. No wonder.

You are a joke, Where did I say that they claim that their explanations was written any where in the bible, all I said was that they claim or offer explanations that the bibleGod was the source of the light that was talked about that was created in the beginning. So light means stars eh, but the bible was clear and specifically stated that the stars were created on the 4th day, no?. . . .On which day of creation were the stars mentioned to have been created?

But I have a question for you and your cheats. Genesis 1:3 says "And God said, Let there be light: and there was light." The bolded words ('let there be') is an act of creation - it was created light; so all the trash about they said this and that would just simply come down as an excuse. I've asked some of these YECs what they mean by "God is the source of the light in Genesis 1:3". . and some of them say that HE was that light! Can you imagine the idiocy of these guys? I remarked that if God was that light in verse 3, then was He creating Himself AFTER the creation of the heavens and the earth?!?

So what was this created light you are talking about? It just says light and it ends there, where in the text does it say that the light means anything beside just light?. . . .Your evidence to show that the light talked about is something else beside just light is what?. . . .

You mazaje, are one piece of a joke! You like them YECs not because theyr are showing you what is written - but because they are cheaper shots for you to take a swing at! I wonder why you never for once asked them to show you what verse 3 was saying and whether God was creating Himself in that verse before coming down to verses 14-16 to talk about other lights!

I like them because they, say it as it reads, not like you that keep denying all that is written. . . .The last time I checked you were also denying that the bible says that Noah's flood wasn't a global flood, no? . . .keep on chasing your tail. . . .

No, that explanation of the YECs on the preceding LIGHT in verse 3 is a joke beyond reason. Next opportunity you have, please ask them sensible questions rather than assume theyr are telling you stuff "as it is written".

And your explanations that says the light is anything else other than just light is what?. . . .You are a joke. . . . .

viaro:
I think this is where a lot of people get it mixed up. If you go back to what I said in reference to the angels, I noted again and again that they were also created; and as such, were already in existence in the created Universe (even though the heavens where they reside are also part of God's creation). . . and as such, the Bible clearly indicates that these created angels who reside in the part of God's created Universe also witnessed the creation of the EARTH. This is why I often quoted Job 38:4-7, here are the relevant verses I was referring to:

In which part of the universe do the angels reside?. . .The bible says that the angels reside in heaven, a spiritual realm that has nothing to do with the universe since the comprises of everything perceived  to exist  physically ie the entirety of space and time, and all forms of matter and energy.

When God laid the foundations of the EARTH, the angels were there and witnessed this event - but MAN was not yet created at that time. If the angels were already created so as to have witnessed the creation of the EARTH, where could they have been? If we say "heaven", that is correct, but then I ask: were the "HEAVENS" not also CREATED by God?

What has this drivel you have written got to do with the fact that genesis says that the stars were created on the fourth day of creation after the earth was already in existence?. . . .

The point is this: we all should understand that the Universe is MUCH MORE OLDER than the Earth - the angels were there in the created Universe and in time witnessed the formation of the EARTH and other planetary bodies. That is the point I wanted to get across to mazaje.

Where does the bible say that the universe is much older than the earth? Which passage or verse does it say so?. . . .

Therefore, if the angels were there and witnessed the creation of the Earth, where were the stars and the "constellations" already referred to?

Where does it say that the angels witnessed the creatation of the earth after the constellations were in existence?

Some assume they were in a thick/solid dome just above the ground - but is that what Genesis means by "the firmament of HEAVEN"? Of course not! Other verses outside Genesis make it so clear that the CONSTELLATIONS are not on the earth just above the ground - and that is the problem with people who read their own misgivings into the Genesis account. What I am calling for is a collective picture and not biases that simply refuse to be reasonable.

Genesis talks about the firmanment as a solid dome, if other verses talk about the firmament as something else and not a solid dome then, that is all part of the man contradictions that abound in the bible, the bible is known to contradict itself in so many places, no?. . . .By the way it just talks about constellation and does not say if they were above or below the earth. . . .

In any case, where is the ORIGINS SCIENCE that mazaje presents for his assertion that God did NOT CREATE the UNIVERSE? That is what he has categorically danced away from and making excuses now that he was not talking about "origins". I have asked him to explain the difference between "origins" and "creation" - and that wait is now eons old.

Origin science says that God did NOT create the universem Which part of the BB says that God created the universe, pls bring it on lets see. . . .

No, you did not elucidate mazaje's pioint - more so because you missed out the very fact that I have tried to highlight - that the Bible does not conclude that the Universe and the Earth are of the same age - that was the point in Job 38:4-7.

Sure according to the bible the earth was created before other parts of the universe like the sun and the stars. . . .

The heavens and the earth did not happen all at once; and the earth came later into the picture,

Which heavens are you talking about? The spiritual realm or what?. . .If by heavens you are referring to the universe then the bible clearly states that the earth came before the stars, moon and the sun . . . . . 

even though Genesis 1:1 announces them in a summary statement as God's creation "in the beginning". This is why I have pointed out the fact that Genesis 2:4 speaks of the epoch of the event as "the generations" of the heavens and the earth when they were created - and we all know that a generation is not the same as a 24 hour day!

it does NOT speak about generations but history or account. . . . .Gen 2: 4 This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.(NKJV)

Gen 2: 4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created. When the Lord God made the earth and the heavens( NIV). .
where is the generation written here, .

viaro:
That's a super-contradiction. If you're not interested in whether a "day" is 24 hours or not, how come you want to force a literal meaning of just 6 "days" for what you argue? It's like saying you don't want to know whether or not we both speak English, but you just want to insist it is English that goes between us! Mazaje, you make me laugh!

No its not, The fact still remains that the bible talks about 6 days, You provided some examples that suggest that a day is like a thousand years to the bible God, if that is so then 6 days mean 6000 years, no? Will I then be wrong to say that the universe was created in 6000 days according to your submissions with regards to the verse that says a day is like a 1000 years?. . . .

The YEC will apply a 24 hr interpretation for all mention of a "day" into the Genesis account for creation - but when it comes to Genesis 2:4 that mentions the "generations" in the "day" when the heavens and the earth were created, they are either so silent, or excuse the meaning of a "generation" and sweep it under accounts/history.

They are not sweeping it but stating what is written in their bibles, no? Accounts is what is written in their bible and not generations, no?. . .Unless if you mean to tells me that all the people that translated the other versions of the bible don't know what they were doing. . .

NONE of them will apply the same 24hrs-day for "generation"; and that is why people do not like to read beyond Genesis when dealing with all aspects of the creation. . . even when Job 38 shows that the angels witnessed the creation of the earth, even though we know that they (angels) were also created and yet Genesis says not a word about the creation of the angels! What I'm trying to point out is this: one should look at the whole picture to get an understanding of creation - YECs and others may not like to do so, and that is why they often run into problems.

Which generations are you talking about that does not appear in their own bibles?. . . .They read accounts or history, no?. . . .When does history or account equates to generations?. . . .

viaro:
Oh comon, you dunce! Are the angels NOT part of CREATION? Did they create themselves? Are they not part of all that were created? Oh, it is convenient for you to talk about man as part of creation because you can't think outside your little box - but even if you never thought of the creation of the angels, don't take a heart attack: I only cited relevant verses to show you what was happening BEFORE the earth was created. Oh dear, mazaje. . . I doubt you even for a minute considered what I wrote before rushing to complain emptily!

Can you point to one angle?. . . .I don't have time for your mythical beliefs. Where in the genesis creation account does it say that the angles were created together with the universe?. . . .What is this redundant angles drivel to do with anything?. . . .

Good boy! Did you not read that the heavens were also created?

The heavens according to many translators mean the universe, celestial bodies etc. . .If we are to go by what you are inferring, where is this heaven, that was created along side the earth, since it says that God created the heavens and the earth?. . . .

Wait mazaje! You are just one pitiful grumbler! What exactly is your original argument?? I have waited long and hard to see you show that the UNIVERSE was NOT CREATED! Choose any source for your ORIGINS SCIENCE and show me that the Universe was NOT CREATED. Your pitiful grumbling here is okay if that is what you can produce for all your arguments - but after reading every line of your objections, I notice you have cleverly dodged that one request I offered you! WHY DID YOU JUST EXCUSE THAT ONE, mazaje? WHY?!?

My original argument is that observations that have been made through the scientific method does not support the creation account in genesis. . .Where did I say on this thread that the universe was not created?. . . .Keep on chasing your tail. . . .

So, this excuse and complaints is all you have for the fact that the Bible recognizes and talks about "constellations"? I'm not even trying at all - without effort I can laugh at your silly jokes!

So constellations now mean stars with planets revolving around them eh? . . . .What exactly is a constellation?. . . .And how does it help your ridiculous lies that the writers of the bible have an idea or other stars as solar systems?. . . .You are just trying too hard. . .

If one wants to be too technical and pedantic with you, I would say that you're lying and farting all at once. Genesis 1 does not mention a word about the "sun", so what is the verse in Genesis 1 that "specifically" mentioned the SUN?

True it doesn't meantion the sun, but a simple reading of the verse clearly shows that it was talking about the sun. . . .The footnote for the English Standard Version says that the sun and the moon were not mentioned by name because they were worshipped by others when the genesis account was written. . . .

The point is that one could infer that the sun is indirectly inferred in that chapter - and UNLESS YOU GO OUTSIDE Genesis 1, you cannot see that it is actually the sun. That is simply the reason why I went outside Genesis 1 to give you a collective picture of the chronology of Creation. It is for this reason that I mentioned verse 3 that ALREADY mentioned "light" - but no, you will forever ignore that one and pretend that it is not there in the same Genesis 1 you're so eager to force your misgivings into, no?

The sun was directly inferred. . . .You don't have to go outside genesis 1 to see anything because genesis one clearly infers to the sun and the moon. . . .You did not go outside genesis to give me any chronology of creation. . .You alluded to a verse in Isiaiah that was talking about the destruction of babylon when the stars and the moon will stop giving off their light, and some verses in Job that says that a thousand years is like a day in the eyes of the bible God. . . . .How exactly did you give a collective picture of the chronology of creation when everything was already given in the book of genesis? The entire 6 days it took Yahweh to create the universe was talked about in detail in genesis, no?. . .

viaro:
How am I lying, mazaje - because you really don't have anything to show for the simple request I made? I don't think the discussions I have been having with you is rhetorical - in fact, if you were not discussing "ORIGINS" as you said, what then are you discussing?

When I say I am not discussing about origins I meant to say, I was not discussing about origin sciences, that I have been clear about but just observable scientific evidence we can use to compare to the genesis creation account. . . .

It's simple really: if you don't want to discuss either creation or origin, I am willing to let it be. But if you want to keep driving your baseless arguments and showing nothing for your assertions, I am also willing to let you drive along your rhetorics and let it be. That does not mean therefore that I was "lying" - in fact, it is such a laugh to read you allege that and yet produce absolutely NOTHING from science to show what you argue on ORIGINS.

You have made the point yourself, you asked a question about origin science and I simply stated that I was not talking about origins, by origins I meant origin science, I was careful to talk about scientific observable evidence and how it compares to the genesis creation account. . .

It mentions only that "He created the stars also", not that the stars were specifically created after the earth came into existence. This is why I went on to show you other verses and discussed them. I am more interested in you discussing those verses I pointed out rather than exploding all over the place and evading them.

Nice try, but the more you keep lying through your teeth, the more ridiculous your equivocations look. One which day of creation did it say that the stars were also created? The passage did not "only" state that the he also made the stars, it says after the two great lights were created(sun and the moon), the stars were created also, and it also says there were created on the 4th day of creation, It states very clearly that the plants were created in the earth on the 3rd day of creation before the stars, sun and the moon were created on the 4th day, Keep lying because that is the only thing you seem to know how to do very well. . . .

I like the YEC for one thing, they state it as it was written, what they do is that they try to say that it is the science that is wrong, since the bible to them is the word of their God, they believe its words are the ultimate, If you visist the AIG or ICR website, they say that God was the source of the light that was shining on the earth before the sun was created, I have had this same arguments with sincere people like davidylan, noetic and olaadegbu, david and ola both say that since no body was there, they believed that God was the source of the light, and since God created, it is not impossible for him to create the earth before the sun. . . They read it as it is written and do not try to waste their time lying to themselves. . .You my friend are a joke. . .

I have not made a different meaning in the CREATION account in the Bible - which is why I cited and discussed verses both from Genesis and other verses that point to creation. Even if the verse in Isaiah is your nightmare,

Is this a joke or what? What verse in Isaiah points to creation?

Isa 13:10 For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine.

How is the complete joke written above my nightmare? . . .How do the stars not give off their light?. . . .Since when does the moon cause her light to shine? The moon is a rock that does not produce its light, The moon light we see is simply a reflection of the sunlight on the moons surface, so how is this mythical narrative my night mare, a narrative that talks about the stars giving not giving off their light or the moon not causing its light to shine. . .Which part of this verse talks about or points to creation?. . .The in text subject heading from the NKJV I have here talks about the coming destruction of Babylon. . .How does the coming destruction of Babylon point to creation? . . . My man you are a complete joke. . .

what did you say about Genesis 2:4 that shows that the account in Genesis 1 is not a literal 24hr reckoning? In your own tutelage, does a generation amount to just 24hours? And yes, Isaiah mentions "contellations" - since you have been harping like a brainless dump about "other stars" being "solar systems like ours", what is all this flaring up and skidding you're boiling yourself all over again for? Please discuss them - your farting all over the place and polluting the air!

Which generation is that? The bibles I have here in front of me do not mention any generation. . . .

Gen 2: 4 This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.(NKJV)

Gen 2: 4 This is the account [/b]of the heavens and the earth when they were created. When the Lord God made the earth and the heavens
where is the generation written here, ( NIV). . .
Gen 2: 4 This is the [b]account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven.(NASB)
Gen 2:4 This is the[b] account[/b] of the creation of the heavens and the earth. When the LORD God made the heavens and the earth (NLT). .
Gen2:4These are births of the heavens and of the earth in their being prepared, in the day of Jehovah God's making earth and heavens;YNG

Which generations are you talking about since it does NOT appear in any of these versions?. . .Does that not tell you that the version you are using got it wrongly since many other versions do not mention the word generations at all but account or history?. . . .I have posted 5 other versions that say your version is wrong, no?. . . . .Even if we are to go by the version you posted, How does it help you assertion that the universe was not created in 6 days?. . . .

No verse in Genesis says that the stars were created on the 4th day - it only says that He created the stars also, and I have not changed anything precisely as it is written.

You are a joke. . .On what day of the biblical day of creation were the stars created? Pls tell me. . . .

The bible says you are a pathetic lair. . .

Gen 1: 16Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also.
Gen 1: 17God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth,
Gen 1: 18and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good.
Gen 1: 19 So the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

Does this not appear in your bible?. . . . . . .Keep on trying to run faster than your shadow and lets see how successful you will be at it. . .

You on the other hand are too desperate to read your argument into what is before yours eyes, that is why you cannot show any verse that says that the stars were created SOLELY to give light upon the earth. This is why atheists will jump about anything and yet we have as many different shades of atheism as well, no?

You just said that the bible did not say that the stars were created on the fourth day of creation . . .I have shown you the verse where it says that after creating the stars, The bible God them in the firmament to give light to the earth. . . .

Oh dude, wake up. I mentioned that Psalm 90:4 shows that time is relative - and here is the verse: "For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night" (KJV). That was a reference to show that what people have argued into Genesis does not necessarily make it so - not even your own misplaced atheism argued into the Bible.

OK if were are to go by that passage that says that a thousand years is like a day in the eyes of the bibleGod then 6 days will be like 6000 days and that will mean that the universe was created in 6000 years, no?. . . .

That's what you have done - reading your own "SOLELY" repeatedly for the stars and never once showing where it was so written in any verse, no? But when I try to discuss, the best (or worst) you can do is disagree - and I don't give two scoobies besides. I have not tried to change anything, and if in any line I had quoted another thing that was not written, then point them out.

Here is what the verse says, "God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth," You can run all you can but you can never run faster than your shadow. . . . .

A "day" is NOT ALWAYS a 24hour division of time - I have shown why that is so in Genesis 2:4 which declares "the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created" - I don't know how many Young Earth Creationists sincerely tell you that a generation = 24 hours time reckoning! You find one, let me know.

You did not show me anything, you showed me a very poorly translated verse that has been made redundant by other better translations, Even the NKJV changed that translation. . . .The YECnist at least do not go about adding meaning into the bible and lying all over their mouths as you have been doing here. . . .

You're becoming a hypocrite! If a version does not suit you, you say it is by the way. But if something is pointed out, you begin to skid and dance around, no? It may well be suited to some to use other words such as you cited, but just so we don't risk funny games here, I deliberately left you the word translated generation (תּלדה / תּולדה - tôledâh). Okay, the hypocrisy here is also 'by the way', lol.

Its not about a version suiting me, The verse was corrected in the NKJV, no? There are more bible translation without the word generation than there are bible versions with the word generation, what does that tell you, since the NKJV also had to change the generation translation and replaced it with account?. . . .Majority carries the day any where, no?. . . . I'll go with the majority and the majority of the translations do not have the word generations. . . .

viaro:
. . . and what infact shows in the Bible that the planets were not formed? Not only do we read of the sun, the moon, the planets, and all the host of heaven (2 Kings 23:5) and the "contellations" of heaven (Isaiah 13:10), we also read that even where God was creating what exists, He did so by ALSO "forming" them:
[list][li]the LORD God formed (יצר - yâtsar) man of the dust of the ground [Gen. 2:7][/li]
[li]out of the ground the LORD God formed (יצר - yâtsar) every beast of the field [Gen. 2:19][/li]
[li]God 'formed (יצר - yâtsar) the earth and the world' [Psalm 90:2][/li]
[li]He is "The great God that formed (יצר - yâtsar) all things" [Prov. 26:10][/li]
[li]'For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed (יצר - yâtsar) the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed (יצר - yâtsar) it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else' [Isaiah 45:18][/li][/list]

The argument about "planetary formations" just does not cut it for you. Planets were "formed", and so what? That "proves" that they were NOT CREATED? In fact, we understand that some of these cosmological entities are called "planets" by arbitrary rules, which is why some hold that there are 9 planets rather than 12 planets held by some (a recent concensus says that Pluto is no longer to be regarded as a "planet". The so-called "evidence" of planetray formations does not negate what we read in Scripture about God "forming" these things.

You are just arguing with yourself here, pls learn to read. . . .I made a very simple point and the point is that planetary formations shows that the sun which holds the planet in orbit comes first before the planets, and that does not agree with the genesis account that says the sun was cteated before the earth, how you gave that a life of its own and ran away arguing with your self is what I just can not understand. . .  .

I laugh at your last line above ^^ : 'evidence that shows that the stars are not placed or hanging in some elusive firmament as the bible puts it' - that is a big whopper, dude. What is the firmament, mazaje? From Roget's Thesaurus, the firmament is known as 'the celestial regions as seen from the earth', which yields the understanding of the heavens or space. [Wikipedia - 'The term "heaven" may refer to the physical heavens, the sky or the seemingly endless expanse of the universe beyond, the traditional literal meaning of the term in English']. So, if the stars are not placed in the firmament as the Bible puts it, where are they placed, mazaje?

Will you stop lying? From wikipedia. . . ."The Firmament is the usual English translation of the Hebrew "raqiya`" (pronounced /raki'ja/ in English) meaning an extended solid surface or dome, considered to be a hemisphere above the ground[1]  in many Near Eastern cosmologies". 


Hebrew

The word is derived from the Hebrew raqa, meaning "to spread out" by stamping, stretching, beating, or making broad,, e.g. the process of making a metal bowl by hammering metal flat, or "to make a spreading (of clouds)".[1] Thus, in the Bible, Elihu asks Job "[b]Can you beat out [raqa] the vault of the skies, as he does, hard as a mirror of cast metal[/b] (Job 37:18)?"
[edit] Biblical Illustrations

The word is mentioned in the King James Bible, in the course of the Genesis creation narrative of (Genesis 1:6–:

    God said, "Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

According to Genesis 1.20, the firmament is above the Earth:

    Then God said, "Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let the birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heavens".

The Jewish Encyclopaedia describes the firmament as follows:

    The Hebrews regarded the earth as a plain or a hill figured like a hemisphere, swimming on water. Over this is arched the solid vault of heaven. T[b]o this vault are fastened the lights, the stars. So slight is this elevation that birds may rise to it and fly along its expanse[/b].[1]
.

Which firmament is it that separates the waters above from the waters below?. . . .Where is that firmament?. .

Both these questions/objections have been addressed above - but as we can see, not in one verse does the Bible concludes that the stars were created SOLELY (or "specifically" as you now argue) just for giving light upon the earth - unless you just want to skip Genesis 1:14 which you quoted, so you can keep arguing your misgivings unfairly into the texts in front of your eyes.

It does . .  .Here it is again. . .

Gen 1:16  And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
Gen 1:17  And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

Thanks for that lecture - but dude, you tend to argue blindly these days. Although you may never have read the Bible talking about the "CONSTELLATIONS" of the heavens (Isaiah 13:10) apart from other cosmological entities like the sun, the moon, the stars, etc.; yet in very plain fact the Bible actually recognizes these extensions of the galaxies as in that verse just quoted. I have also pointed out that the earth was not created before the stars, in so far as the Bible acknowledges that the angels were already present in the created Universe and witnessed the creation of the Earth (Job 38:4-7).

You are lying, what have the angles got to do with anything? Earth was already in existence before the sun  and the stars were  created on the fourth day of creation. . .

The Universe did not just have a "cause" - to let it stand at that is sheepish indeed, because we know that even astronomy and cosmology talk about this "cause" and point to a 'singularity'; yet they know that the singularity did not create itself, and the only thing we can safely say now from their researches is that they are unable to formulate theories that go back before or earlier than the singularity.

Sure they are making progress, only time will tell how far they go, as i have said earlier it was just about 10 years ago that we started to discover that some of the stars were solar systems like ours. . . .

What people like me are interested in, however, is not the pretentious argument you've been making and then excusing yourself from ORIGINS SCIENCE. The densest thing to ever appear in your post is for you to argue about "origins"  and yet say that you are not arguing "origins" - when I asked you to explain the difference, I don't read ANYWHERE that you have tried to explain any difference, or have you?

Origins of the universe is inconclusive as long as scientist have shown but they are making progress. . . . So we'll wait and see. . . .

Nothing new - but at least they all know that the Universe did not create itself; nor did it emerge completely on its own without having been brought into existence. You hide behind your atheist excuse and produce nothing other than the noise so far that makes me laugh.

Sure the universe had a cause, Since you claim to know the cause can you then provide evidence to show that your God is the cause and not some other God that also claims to be the cause too?. . . .

Please stop skidding with your repeated excuses. Just flat out deny as you did earlier that NO ATHEIST ever thought the Universe was eternal - just try. I did not conclude that ALL atheists everywhere made the same inference; but you keep waving this excuse everytime I challenge previous assertion, and something just tells me you're either deliberately being mischievous or just plain ignorant of what you tend to argue.

Stop chasing your tail and crying at the same time, how does the view of some atheist help your argument? So what if some atheist hold that view? Some theist still believe that the earth is flat ,no? keep on chasing shadows, i have noticed that is the only thing you are good at. . .