God's Creation, and Some Misconceptions

[Subduction Zone]

ERROR, just like the bible states, Call evil Good, and Good EVIL.

NO.

101G.

No, the error was on your part.

If you want to make that sort of silly argument you should limit your posts to the Christian DIR's. Here you have to support your claims. You do not get to assume that a book that is full of myths, mediocre history at best, and bard morals as the "word of God". You actually have to support those claims and the fact that you fail at it abysmally tells others that your version of God is almost certainly incorrect.

 

[Subduction Zone]

now the pre-Adamic race misconception. scripture Acts 17:26 "And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;"

question, "When God formed Eve, the Woman from the Man/Adam, did Adam have blood when Eve was taken out of him. read the account in chapter 2

101G

A rather silly question since both can be shown to be mythical. Made up. A fairy tale. Or if you want to make it useful a morality tale.

 

[101G]

silly argument

another personal opinion, Oh dear.....

Here you have to support your claims

I did,

You do not get to assume that a book that is full of myths, mediocre history at best, and bard morals as the "word of God". You actually have to support those claims and the fact that you fail at it abysmally tells others that your version of God is almost certainly incorrect.

and?
U have no clue when the world was "created", now how and where any laws governing the universe came from or how they happen to be.

so evidence support, theory is not one.

101G

 

[101G]

A rather silly question since both can be shown to be mythical. Made up. A fairy tale. Or if you want to make it useful a morality tale.

so tell us where is the first human in time period. be precise.

101G

 

[101G]

A rather silly question since both can be shown to be mythical. Made up. A fairy tale. Or if you want to make it useful a morality tale.

well that's better than a straight out LIE. science said Lucy was the oldest fossil found of humans, well that and other proved that fairy tail is just that. a fairy tail. even back in 2009 they new that was wrong, Oldest Skeleton of Human Ancestor Found
yes, scientist lie, for they don't know. finds are every day occurrence

so fairy tales are for scientist, just like this one, 7.2-million-year-old pre-human remains found in the Balkans: New hypothesis about the origin of humankind suggests oldest hominin lived in Europe

they will find more. so don't hold your breath.

101G

 

[Subduction Zone]

another personal opinion, Oh dear.....

No, an observation. but thank you for admitting that you were wrong.

I did,

No, you did not. The Bible is not support until you demonstrate that it is reliable. Until you do that it is just a book of myths.

and?
U have no clue when the world was "created", now how and where any laws governing the universe came from or how they happen to be.

so evidence support, theory is not one.

101G

No, that is projection on your part . And first off you should not use biased language. If you want to claim that it was "created" the burden of proof is upon you. We know how old the Earth is because there are reliable methods to day it. Your inability to understand those methods i is not a refutation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

well that's better than a straight out LIE. science said Lucy was the oldest fossil found of humans, well that and other proved that fairy tail is just that. a fairy tail. even back in 2009 they new that was wrong, Oldest Skeleton of Human Ancestor Found
yes, scientist lie, for they don't know. finds are every day occurrence

so fairy tales are for scientist, just like this one, 7.2-million-year-old pre-human remains found in the Balkans: New hypothesis about the origin of humankind suggests oldest hominin lived in Europe

they will find more. so don't hold your breath.

101G

An uncertain find does not make anything a "fairy tale". Scientists at times overvalue their own discoveries or even make errors. That is why one paper is never the scientific consensus. It is weak to even claim that it is "science". It would not be that until multiple people had tested it and confirmed this. Right now this is just an unconfirmed find. It does not change anything yet.

If you want to learn how to use articles properly I can help you with that. Since you have almost zero understanding of the science right now all that you can do is to demonstrate your own lack of knowledge.

It is not a "lie" since scientists never claimed that Lucy was the oldest fossil found of humans. Every claim in your post is wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

so tell us where is the first human in time period. be precise.

101G

The "first human" simply does not exist. You ask a question that demonstrates your ignorance. Even the first "human species" is only a matter of opinion. What is the one definitive trait of being a human? No one can really answer that.

Reality does not conform to your myths. So asking questions of that nature are incorrect questions.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Why not? do not the bible also contain Science also?

101G.

No, it doesn't.

 

[101G]

GINOLJC, to all.

No, that is projection on your part . And first off you should not use biased language. If you want to claim that it was "created" the burden of proof is upon you. We know how old the Earth is because there are reliable methods to day it. Your inability to understand those methods i is not a refutation

first you and no one else knows how old the Earth is, nor the rocks themselves. just like man you don't know.

but in the beginning, "GOD" created the Heavens and the Earth. now, when you get in fron of his judgment seat then you can ask him.

understand SZ, this is a created world, and not the real world, you know nothing of either..... (smile)..... YIKES!.

101G.

 

[101G]

An uncertain find does not make anything a "fairy tale".

it do while it's unknown.... (smile).

Scientists at times overvalue their own discoveries or even make errors.

in layman's terms .... they lie. because if they followed the data, they would say nothing until it is confirmed. and that's the problem with some scientist today, not all, but many.

If you want to learn how to use articles properly I can help you with that.

thanks but no thanks.

Since you have almost zero understanding of the science right now all that you can do is to demonstrate your own lack of knowledge.

like you with the bible? lol, lol, lol,

It is not a "lie" since scientists never claimed that Lucy was the oldest fossil found of humans.

they did. and got caught in stupidity.

101G.

 

[101G]

The "first human" simply does not exist.

your first ERROR of the Day

Even the first "human species" is only a matter of opinion.

LOL, LOL, LOL, now that science for you. U don't know, do U? ..... lol, lol, lol, Oh dear.

101G.

 

[101G]

101G said:
Why not? do not the bible also contain Science also?

101G.

Shadow Wolf, he said, "No, it doesn't."

well let's see,
the hand writing on the wall was it Holographic? or something better that what we know about.

or, the appearing and disappearing of the Lord Jesus after his resurrection, which in quantum physics is describe as "the collapsing of the field"

or in quanta the wave function as a particle when observed. as in the Double-slit Experiment.

so we reject your misleading statement

101G

 

[Subduction Zone]

GINOLJC, to all.

first you and no one else knows how old the Earth is, nor the rocks themselves. just like man you don't know.

but in the beginning, "GOD" created the Heavens and the Earth. now, when you get in fron of his judgment seat then you can ask him.

understand SZ, this is a created world, and not the real world, you know nothing of either..... (smile)..... YIKES!.

101G.

No, where did you get that crazy idea from? All sorts of people that understand basic geology know how old the Earth is. We know because we can test our ideas and explain them. You only have a mere belief in a book of myths.


And if there is a God he will not be happy with you claiming that he is a liar.

 

[Subduction Zone]

your first ERROR of the Day

LOL, LOL, LOL, now that science for you. U don't know, do U? ..... lol, lol, lol, Oh dear.

101G.

Yes, of course I know. Have you never studied any science at all? How old are you?

 

[Subduction Zone]

101G said:
Why not? do not the bible also contain Science also?

101G.

Shadow Wolf, he said, "No, it doesn't."

well let's see,
the hand writing on the wall was it Holographic? or something better that what we know about.

or, the appearing and disappearing of the Lord Jesus after his resurrection, which in quantum physics is describe as "the collapsing of the field"

or in quanta the wave function as a particle when observed. as in the Double-slit Experiment.

so we reject your misleading statement

101G

Amazing, you do not even understand your book of myths. The writing on the wall was seen in a dream. It was not real. But real enough to the dreamer that he called up Isaiah to translate his dream for him.

 

[Subduction Zone]

it do while it's unknown.... (smile).

in layman's terms .... they lie. because if they followed the data, they would say nothing until it is confirmed. and that's the problem with some scientist today, not all, but many.

thanks but no thanks.

like you with the bible? lol, lol, lol,

they did. and got caught in stupidity.

101G.

No, they do not lie in any terms. And how were they "caught in stupidity".


Remember, people that live in glass houses should not throw stones.

 

[101G]

No, where did you get that crazy idea from? All sorts of people that understand basic geology know how old the Earth is. We know because we can test our ideas and explain them. You only have a mere belief in a book of myths.

even carbon dating is not arcuate, it's a guess. as said the Rocks don't know how old they are. just as with humans U still don't know nor with the Earth itself, U don't know.

now once again the time factor. all know the universe have a beginning, either your big bang, or God's CREATION. light travel the same speed for all observers. if the beginning is ground zero, then the time of light in all direction are the same. and as a WAVE until observed it's a particle/MATTER, correct. well now if that's the case, the matter farmost from the center of the beginning should be the oldest. from the center point of view vs the point of view from fairest. remember we're measuring from our point of View.

until man can measure from the center point of vire them all dats are inaccuriate from the center point of view.

101G.

 

[Subduction Zone]

even carbon dating is not arcuate, it's a guess. as said the Rocks don't know how old they are. just as with humans U still don't know nor with the Earth itself, U don't know.

now once again the time factor. all know the universe have a beginning, either your big bang, or God's CREATION. light travel the same speed for all observers. if the beginning is ground zero, then the time of light in all direction are the same. and as a WAVE until observed it's a particle/MATTER, correct. well now if that's the case, the matter farmost from the center of the beginning should be the oldest. from the center point of view vs the point of view from fairest. remember we're measuring from our point of View.

until man can measure from the center point of vire them all dats are inaccuriate from the center point of view.

101G.

Do you even know what the word "accurate" means? That does not appear to be the case.

All measurements have a margin of error. There is no measurement that is absolutely precise. Carbon dating, when done correctly, is quite accurate.

But since carbon dating is only good for about 50,000 years it cannot measure the age of the Earth.

Rocks do not"know" since they are not sentient. But then a clock does s not know what time it is either. Rocks can often be used to tell us the age of a strata. Just as a clock on a wall can tell us what time it is.

 

[Astrophile]

Amazing, you do not even understand your book of myths. The writing on the wall was seen in a dream. It was not real. But real enough to the dreamer that he called up Isaiah to translate his dream for him.

I am afraid that this is not correct. The story of Belshazzar's feast and the writing on the wall (Daniel 5:1-30) is represented as something that really happened. I think that you are confusing it with the stories of Nebuchadnezzar's dreams in Daniel 2:1-49 and Daniel 4:4-27. Daniel, by the way, not Isaiah.