Picture of Mars vs. the earth. So how did Moses know?

[Bree]

The Bible doesn't not accurately describe the order of events and they are not "in harmony with what scientists now now."

CH801: Order of events in Genesis
https://www.huecotanks.com/debunk/genesis.html


Also, your response didn't actually address that posters points or questions.

doesnt not???

sorry lost me there lol

 

[SkepticThinker]

doesnt not???

sorry lost me there lol

Oh, pardon me.


Well, I fixed it. Perhaps you could respond now.

 

[Bree]

Oh, pardon me.


Well, I fixed it. Perhaps you could respond now.

double negatives confuse me

but i guess you mean 'genesis does not reflect' the order of creation.

I think it does. light comes from the sun and stars. So 'let there be light' indicates the beginning of the universe with the sun and stars... perhaps a 'big bang' type senario occured

then the earth was 'void and formless and waste' of course it was... the original earth was said to be covered by a sea of water
Dry land was formed from volcanos prior to any life which is quite obvious.
Vegetation which would include alga and plant based material came before anything else
Then microscopic living organisms appear and were said to 'develop' or 'evolve' into other living creatures by scientists

Of course humans were the last to appear as the bible says


The bible is a very high level brief outline of the creation order and its perfectly accurate.

 

[SkepticThinker]

double negatives confuse me

but i guess you mean 'genesis does not reflect' the order of creation.

I think it does. light comes from the sun and stars. So 'let there be light' indicates the beginning of the universe with the sun and stars... perhaps a 'big bang' type senario occured

then the earth was 'void and formless and waste' of course it was... the original earth was said to be covered by a sea of water
Dry land was formed from volcanos prior to any life which is quite obvious.
Vegetation which would include alga and plant based material came before anything else
Then microscopic living organisms appear and were said to 'develop' or 'evolve' into other living creatures by scientists

Of course humans were the last to appear as the bible says

It doesn't though. Genesis has the sun, moon and stars being created after Earth. That's not accurate.

Void and formless and waste is also not an accurate description of early earth, as another poster already pointed out. The earth being covered by a sea of water is not the same thing as the earth being "void and formless and waste."

The bible is a very high level brief outline of the creation order and its perfectly accurate.

It is not "perfectly accurate" by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[rational experiences]

Moses wrote the order of creation very accurately according to what science today knows.


first came light, then land, then vegetation, then animals, then humans


You could not honestly deny that the order of events is in harmony with what scientists now now.

A hu man reviewing an idea about life is in the exact place of their owned being.

A human whose sperm ovary two separate bodies created genetics as the baby human.

It's a human and not a God scientist who names everything in their research.

Motivation of the research is involved also. Are you inferring it because you just believe it real or does it have another purpose?

So when someone says if I know the intricacies of human Life then he says he has ideas about it.

As we exist his thoughts have no meaning to a human life unless it is about medical healing.

The truth is he is looking for a term a God. Wants it for a machine reaction. Then to burn it up resourcing.

Why look at biology and human life for when you named God as a scientist.... when planet earth owned the burning body consuming energy in space itself and is first?

The want to copy yet the want not to consume God the earth?

Then you made sin K holes.

Men said men sinned against man.
Men said men sinned against God.

What non consuming of energy as mass do you realise in a theory that doesn't use up energy?

No such status. The intent is real.

Makes no sense at all why non medical science infers ideas when machines is their focus only.

 

[YoursTrue]

The idea that the atoms of my body will reach the four corners of the world after my death and disposal of my body, does not surprise me in the least. The first thing that will leave my body are the water molecules which form around 60% of the human adult body.

And, as has been said, the energy within the atom is tremendous. Considering. I'm not an expert, I don't know how they split atoms to make a bomb or something like that, but it does sound interesting. Hopefully I'll learn about it in theory one day.

 

[YoursTrue]

A hu man reviewing an idea about life is in the exact place of their owned being.

A human whose sperm ovary two separate bodies created genetics as the baby human.

It's a human and not a God scientist who names everything in their research.

Motivation of the research is involved also. Are you inferring it because you just believe it real or does it have another purpose?

So when someone says if I know the intricacies of human Life then he says he has ideas about it.

As we exist his thoughts have no meaning to a human life unless it is about medical healing.

The truth is he is looking for a term a God. Wants it for a machine reaction. Then to burn it up resourcing.

Why look at biology and human life for when you named God as a scientist.... when planet earth owned the burning body consuming energy in space itself and is first?

The want to copy yet the want not to consume God the earth?

Then you made sin K holes.

Men said men sinned against man.
Men said men sinned against God.

What non consuming of energy as mass do you realise in a theory that doesn't use up energy?

No such status. The intent is real.

Makes no sense at all why non medical science infers ideas when machines is their focus only.

While the point I was making about the fabulousness of the heavens was denigrated here by someone, yes, I do believe that the heavens speak of the glory of God. And, when analyzed, so does the body, human or otherwise. The body also speaks of God in other ways, perhaps to be discussed later. Have a nice day.

 

[rational experiences]

While the point I was making about the fabulousness of the heavens was denigrated here by someone, yes, I do believe that the heavens speak of the glory of God. And, when analyzed, so does the body, human or otherwise. The body also speaks of God in other ways, perhaps to be discussed later. Have a nice day.

Our heavens is O earths heavens first only.

The state a complete heavens for humans in theories is by use of the meaning. The word used and the explanation..... if you say my life is holy by my words and I believe it holy.

Hence you cannot infer any other type of theory as you would be lying. Unless a conscious psyche reviewed says you are self destructive by personality type.

By not believing in the balances kept for where you personally exist.

Reason for the word holy.

So if you say dusts are holy they are varied natural holiness.

Mineral dusts holy as we use minerals to be healthy.
Radiating dusts as we don't control them. Holy by non change.

Rational a humans highest wisdom not lying for another purpose such as inventive want.

Inventive want never holy.

Pretty obvious if you use and believe in common meaning most of humans agreed awAreness.

Father as a God explanation. First highest human DNA man adult owner before the heavens were changed by inventive machine designed by men changed the heavens.

Explanation for human presence is balanced equal the human.

You only equal your own answer for those humans as non intelligent advisors.

What the discussion meaning a wise human meant as a wise human knowing they were wise for human life continuance.

 

[Brian2]

Bacteria are not plants, if you have bother to understand the differences in the cells (prokaryotic vs eukaryotic cells), which I have already to explain, a single cell cannot make a plant “living”, but bacteria can live as a single cell, and that’s because prokaryotic cell is sufficient to support a life of a single bacteria or single archaea.

I don’t know how many cells there are with a single plant, but I’d guess there be millions of cells. And different anatomy parts of a plant, like root, stem or trunk and branches, leaves, flowers, etc, would have different properties and functions.

Those fossils discovered on the stromatolites, were bacteria, not plants. If you keep calling them plants, then you would be wrong.

You should call them by the right names.

Both cars and planes have engines and wheels. But just “planes” have an “engine” and “wheels”, you wouldn’t call them “cars”, would you or vice versa?

And just because both birds and planes have wings, you wouldn’t call a “bird”, “plane”, would you?

It is not word game, to use the correct words, because it is best to avoid confusion.

Those fossils of microbes are bacteria (referring to the stromatolites you have brought up), those microbes are not fossils of plants.

Do we really need to continue this farce that you know what you are talking about?

All you are doing, is confusing yourself, because you are too stubborn to admit your mistakes, and worse, to stubborn to learn from your mistakes.

Blue/green algae is an early stage of plant life even though bacteria.
Plant Life: Stromatolites
It seems that certain things in the blue green algae bacteria entered the plant eukaryotic bacteria when plants were evolving.
Blue-green Algae | Encyclopedia.com
You seem to want the descriptions of things from over 3000 years ago to be the same as modern scientific descriptions.

 

[Aupmanyav]

And, as has been said, the energy within the atom is tremendous. Considering. I'm not an expert, I don't know how they split atoms to make a bomb or something like that, but it does sound interesting. Hopefully I'll learn about it in theory one day.

Yeah, you will, certainly, if you happen to read the necessary information. But you are so busy with your book that you do not have time to read anything else, not even the latest news.

You seem to want the descriptions of things from over 3000 years ago to be the same as modern scientific descriptions.

Brian2, what you say is not wrong - "over 3,000 years ago". Only that you have understated that by a factor of "One Thousand Thousands". It is not just 3,000 years, Cynobacteria is 3 billion years old on Earth.

"Stromatolites provide ancient records of life on Earth by fossil remains which date from 3.5 Ga ago."
Cyanobacteria - Wikipedia
Stromatolites, Life on Earth

 

[YoursTrue]

Yeah, you will, certainly, if you happen to read the necessary information. But you are so busy with your book that you do not have time to read anything else, not even the latest news. Brian2, what you say is not wrong - "over 3,000 years ago". Only that you have understated that by a factor of "One Hundred Thousand". It is not just 3,000 years, Cynobacteria is 3 billion years old on Earth.

"Stromatolites provide ancient records of life on Earth by fossil remains which date from 3.5 Ga ago."
Cyanobacteria - Wikipedia
Stromatolites, Life on Earth

View attachment 59007

At this point, there is simply nothing that someone who does not believe that God is The Creator can say to convince me that it all just came about.

 

[Aupmanyav]

At this point, there is simply nothing that someone who does not believe that God is The Creator can say to convince me that it all just came about.

I know, I know. Theists don't do it. It is like the surrender of German forces to Allies. Sort of shameful to accept the obvious facts.

 

[Brian2]

Yeah, you will, certainly, if you happen to read the necessary information. But you are so busy with your book that you do not have time to read anything else, not even the latest news. Brian2, what you say is not wrong - "over 3,000 years ago". Only that you have understated that by a factor of "One Thousand Thousands". It is not just 3,000 years, Cynobacteria is 3 billion years old on Earth.

"Stromatolites provide ancient records of life on Earth by fossil remains which date from 3.5 Ga ago."
Cyanobacteria - Wikipedia
Stromatolites, Life on Earth

View attachment 59007

Sorry I meant the description is from over 3000 years ago.

 

[Brian2]

I know, I know. Theists don't do it. It is like the surrender of German forces to Allies. Sort of shameful to accept the obvious facts.

Have you any evidence that the universe with the "obvious" design and conscious matter, just happened or is that something that you got from intuition?

 

[YoursTrue]

I know, I know. Theists don't do it. It is like the surrender of German forces to Allies. Sort of shameful to accept the obvious facts.

I could insult you at this point, I will, however, desist from doing so. Have a nice day, etc. And keep thinking about the universe. And keep telling yourself and others that it just happened, came about, etc.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Have you any evidence that the universe with the "obvious" design and conscious matter, just happened or is that something that you got from intuition?

Obvious design? For whom? Certainly not humans who can only inhabit some areas of one tiny planet in one tiny little section of that universe. Maybe it was designed for someone/thing else?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Sorry I meant the description is from over 3000 years ago.

I have corrected my post. The understatement is not of an order of a hundred thousand but of the order of a thousand thousands (i.e., a million). Huuuuuuuuuuuge.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Have you any evidence that the universe with the "obvious" design and conscious matter, just happened or is that something that you got from intuition?

There is no design. Matter interacts. But its action cannot be compared to human consciousness. Nothing is dead / inert in the universe, it is a very dynamic universe.

 

[Aupmanyav]

And keep telling yourself and others that it just happened, came about, etc.

It does seem to have come about. Out of what? Science does not have the answer. It will be decades or centuries before we know that. But there is no reason that I could say "God brought it out of his hat".

 

[YoursTrue]

It does seem to have come about. Out of what? Science does not have the answer. It will be decades or centuries before we know that. But there is no reason that I could say "God brought it out of his hat".

It does seem to have come about, right? So sorry, but the human mind does not fathom. (Have a nice day.)