Where would the USA have been if it was not for the lies against Trump?

[Subduction Zone]

Well, I dont believe you understand the Bible better than I.
and as for your scientific method you want me to study, how about answering a simple uneducated man just one silly question.
What was the appearance, in Biblical terms, of the Earth on the morning of the 3rd day.

remember now, I am a very simple minded man, with no education, and I am asking you the highly educated scientific brain this very simple question.
Please assist me in puzzling this oue out.

It does not really matter what a book of myths says about the Early Earth. It has been shown to be wrong when interpreted literally. But just in case you forgot God made plants on th Earth on the third day. Of course this is one of the biggest of errors in Genesis. What did he make the fourth day?

 

[ecco]

Nope, Your error was that you told me that the God of the Bible was bound by time.

I will be glad to continue to expose your abject failure to comprehend English:

Previously...

Even if I were to accept your unsupportable assertion, we are faced with two, and only two possibilities:

1. God existed long before He created time and the universe 6000 years ago.
2. God popped into existence 6000 years ago.

Please try to comprehend item #1 before you continue making a fool of yourself.

Therefore i showed you your error, God created
Time
Space
and Matter.
Therefore you were attacking the God of the Bible with a false attribute.
That is an error and you did as a matter of fact not touch YHWH at all, but destroyed a strawpuppet you built yourself
THINKING you destroyed YHWH.
Sorry mate.
It is the Umpteenth time you made such ERRORS!

Silly boy.

 

[SA Huguenot]

It does not really matter what a book of myths says about the Early Earth. It has been shown to be wrong when interpreted literally. But just in case you forgot God made plants on th Earth on the third day. Of course this is one of the biggest of errors in Genesis. What did he make the fourth day?

Jaaaa!!!
I know you want to tell me about Light and photosynthesis, I got that lame old argument in 2 000 from Zakir Naik.

But I, the silly boy, the uneducated Christian that knows nothing about science asked you the highly intelligent Atheist a simple questoin.
Now, if you cant even understand what the Bible say on a simple thing such as "How did the Earth appear on the MORNING of the 3rd day", dont you think you should :::
Think Harder!
Think!
Think!
help me to understand the Bible you know so well.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Jaaaa!!!
I know you want to tell me about Light and photosynthesis, I got that lame old argument in 2 000 from Zakir Naik.

But I, the silly boy, the uneducated Christian that knows nothing about science asked you the highly intelligent Atheist a simple questoin.
Now, if you cant even understand what the Bible say on a simple thing such as "How did the Earth appear on the MORNING of the 3rd day", dont you think you should :::
Think Harder!
Think!
Think!
help me to understand the Bible you know so well.

Sorry, but you simply do not know enough to be able to demand to steer the conversation. If you succeed at learning the basics of science you can then try to do that.

Can you keep your fear under control long enough to learn the basics?

 

[ecco]

Over 175 years everything he described was proven scientifically correct.

Hmm...

http://users.clas.ufl.edu/burt/spaceshotsairheads/Kantuniversalnaturalhistory.pdf
I am of the opinion that it is just not necessary to assert that all planets must be inhabited, even though it would be nonsense to deny this in regard to all or even only most of them.​

That might make sense if one wanted to show that God was busy all the time. But it is clearly no scientifically correct.

http://users.clas.ufl.edu/burt/spaceshotsairheads/Kantuniversalnaturalhistory.pdf
Perhaps our Earth existed for a thousand or more years before it was constituted so as to support people, animals, and plants. Now, that a planet arrives at this perfection several thousand years later does not detract from the purpose of its existence.​

Several thousand years? I thought it was closer to a billion years.

And then there is this profound observation:

http://users.clas.ufl.edu/burt/spaceshotsairheads/Kantuniversalnaturalhistory.pdf
that the excellence of thinking natures, the sprightliness of their ideas, h the clarity and liveliness of the concepts they receive through external impressions, along with the faculty to put them together, and finally also the agility in the actual exercise, in short, the entire extent of their perfection stands under a certain rule, according to which they become more and more excellent and perfect in proportion to the distance of their domiciles from the Sun.​

Kant's dreams and speculations are nothing more than the dreams and speculations of a man of the 18th century. Of course, some people are directed to read a paragraph or two and come away with "support" for their own fantastical and flawed ideas.

 

[ecco]

And guess where Kant got his information from?
THE BIBLE!

That is your WAG. That is your incorrect WAG.

In http://users.clas.ufl.edu/burt/spaceshotsairheads/Kantuniversalnaturalhistory.pdf Kant never mentions the Bible. He never mentions Genesis. Please show why you conclude that Kant got his information from the Bible.

The editor's introduction reads, in part...

Various limitations attach to his project – he drew on the views of various predecessors (such as Descartes, Whiston, Buffon, Bentley, Maupertuis, Wright of Durham, Bradley, and of course Newton) such that his position was not completely original; his descriptions and methods of argumentation were not rigorously quantitative (in the way in which Newton’s Principia was), but rather depended quite extensively on qualitative analogies; he did not even attempt to undertake the kinds of experimental observations that would be required to provide empirical support for his main conclusions (as Herschel would later do); many of his central claims and detailed assertions are, as a result, untenable from a contemporary perspective.​

 

[ecco]

Its not nice for an Atheist to learn that a Christian took the Bible and formulated the scientific model of the Nebular theory, isnt it?

It's not nice to lie. But Christians do that often in defense of the beliefs.

See post #426 above for a refutation of your blatantly erroneous comment.

 

[ecco]

Why dont anyone refer to Kant's natural History of the Heavens when it concerns the Nebular theory?
Oh, because it comes from the Bible!

I did. There was nothing in his work that referenced the Bible.

Stop pretending.

 

[ecco]

1. You believe God has eternally existed.
2. You believe God "created Matter, Space for matter to exist in"
3. You believe: it does say that Life is 6000 yo.

How silly and convoluted. So, my "calculation" that your god sat around doing nothing for 99.9999999999999999999999% of His existence is valid.

What, in your esteemed opinion, did He do for all of eternity if He didn't create life until 6000 years ago? Did it take Eternity minus 6000 years to "create[d] Matter, Space for matter to exist in"

You really need to try to consider the logical implications of your beliefs.

If you believe in 1., 2., and 3. above you must admit, even to yourself, that your God did next to nothing for most of his existence.

Ecco,
Your logic is as stuck to your views as gum to your hair.
if you agree that Matter, space and Time is something that did not exist before it came into being, you will have to admit that in Mere Christian explanations, God is:
not in matter;
not in space;
and therefore also not in time!

You are caught up in matter, because you are matter.
You occupy space, because you are matter.
therefore you are bound by time due to matter moving in relation to each other.
Now, why would you bound the Christian God to Time only, but not to Matter and Space?
Willfull Bias obviously.

God is the I AM, the existing NOW.
We are by caught in Time and age and move through the ages.
If you think Time ran for 12.5 billion years since the Big Bang, and it is evidence that God waited that time to create life 6 000 years ago, it is your opinion.
The fact is that God are not bound by that 12.5 billion years of time, just as he is not bound by the 6 000 years we are living in, and also not by the eons of no time before the Big bang is what I find God telling me.
He is not bound by His creation period.

There you go again. A whole lotta words. None of which address my comments or questions. You are quite good at ducking and dodging. Is that taught in Creationist schools? Why can't you address actual questions honestly?

Yes, that was rhetorical. We all know why you can't address actual questions honestly. Among other things, it would force you to look into a mirror.

 

[Shad]

Swedenborg had a theory where the spacedust whirled around like a vortex and his theories are proven incorrect by any mathematical means.

Irrelevant as Kant acknowledges he got the idea from Swedenborg. and developed it further. More so Kant was still wrong.

The same with laplace.
You obviously did not read what kant wrote, but searched the origins of the nebular theory.

Wrong. I read his book on it. Try again.

laplace, Swedenbork and Kant each wrote their theory, but Kant was correct ant it was because he used the biblical account.

Wrong. He never quoted the Bible once in support of the idea. Kant was still wrong as he thought star were fixed in place. Read his book and try again.

Ond wow!
You found one thing Kant postulated on, and now you proved him wrong.

He was proven wrong decades ago.

let me give you another error, perhaps you can use ti to sooth the atheist mind on the fact that the Biblical account of creation is incorrect, Kant said there are people on other planets.

Babble to deflect from my take down of your assertions which you made without a single quote in support.

Come on man, in stead of simply getting the smallest error possible, you had to split a hair to proove your bias.

Yawn. You clearly never read his book. Try again son.

 

[SA Huguenot]

I did. There was nothing in his work that referenced the Bible.

Stop pretending.

Then it is clear.
You did not read it at all.

 

[SA Huguenot]

Wrong. He never quoted the Bible once in support of the idea. Kant was still wrong as he thought star were fixed in place. Read his book and try again.

And again, you did not read what kant wrote at all.

 

[ecco]

did. There was nothing in his work that referenced the Bible.

Stop pretending.

Then it is clear.
You did not read it at all.

Well, it's really easy to clear this up.

Here is the book...
http://users.clas.ufl.edu/burt/spaceshotsairheads/Kantuniversalnaturalhistory.pdf


Ctrl-F works. Search on "Bible" or "Genesis".

Report back with all the references Kant made. Show how and where Kant basis his, often incorrect, views on the Bible.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Then it is clear.
You did not read it at all.

It should be super easy to prove them wrong by providing some direct quotes from Kant's work that reference Genesis and the Bible. That's if your claim is true.

 

[Shad]

Then it is clear.
You did not read it at all.

Wrong.

It would be easy to prove me wrong. Quote something from his book which show Kant using the Bible in support of his idea.

 

[Shad]

It should be super easy to prove them wrong by providing some direct quotes from Kant's work that reference Genesis and the Bible. That's if your claim is true.

Bingo.

Kant quotes the Pope. Kant mentions believers often in the form of ridicule. He does not quote the bible in support of his idea.

 

[SA Huguenot]

Bingo.

Kant quotes the Pope. Kant mentions believers often in the form of ridicule. He does not quote the bible in support of his idea.

Kant did never quote "The Pope"!
He quoted Pope, the writer!

 

[Shad]

Kant did never quote "The Pope"!
He quoted Pope, the writer!

Still waiting for that bible quote

 

[SA Huguenot]

Still waiting for that bible quote

Dont be so lazy.
Go and read everything Kant wrote pal.
You will find how he praises the God of the Bible whilst he explains the Nebular theory, how he refers to the Global flood being part of the Theory, how the Earth had a ring of Ice, ahow the steps of the formation of the Solar system fits in with the Biblical description etc.
Just go and read what he wrote man.
You will like it, I am sure!

 

[Shadow Link]

Trump is real like the true democrat with a keen understanding for American conservatism, hated-on by anything not extreme enough from both ends of the political spectrum...
Cambria CEO Marty Davis: “You cannot have free trade with a dictatorship that is harvesting the prosperity of an American Democracy”… | The Last Refuge