NoToReligion and SA Huguenot creation evidence.

[SA Huguenot]

What science do you imagine atheists "so dearly hold"? Atheism doesn't necessitate any regard for any science. As for science being plagiarised from genesis, I can only assume that's a joke. There is no science in genesis.

But why assume it is a joke?
Did you at least read the sources of the Nebular theory?
1. The Bible
2. "Natural history of the heavens on the principals of Newton, by Kant?

You see, it is so simple, even Nigel Henbest did a study to find the scientific sources onthe explanation of the origins of the universe in the 1970's.
he traced it all back to Kant!

 

[ratiocinator]

But why assume it is a joke?
Did you at least read the sources of the Nebular theory?
1. The Bible
2. "Natural history of the heavens on the principals of Newton, by Kant?

You see, it is so simple, even Nigel Henbest did a study to find the scientific sources onthe explanation of the origins of the universe in the 1970's.
he traced it all back to Kant!

There is no nebular theory in the bible. And you need to provide references if you're going to make claims.

 

[ChristineM]

If you think I worship a God of the gaps, and use such a entity to explain how things got into being, you are so wrong, it is actually mindbogling how you can allow yourself to reason in such a box.
I will be the first Christian to deny a god made up to explain an occurance.

Your error is as such...
You think I have a problem explaining how the universe came into existance, and you then build this straw puppet called "I created a god that might have made it!"
On the contrary,
I traced the scientific explanations on how the Universe came into existence, and learned about Swedenborg, Kant and Laplace.
Then I followed the scientific discoveries by scientists over the past, say 250 years, and took the recently model of the nebular hypothesis, discoveries such as silver isotopes, zircon crystals, the Cola drill hole, The scablands and lake Missoula, cosmology comets, asteroids, meteorides, and all the nice things we can use to understand how the universe were shaped.

And guess what?
I learned that Kant was correct in 1755 in all his explanations, except of corse that life exists on mars, and he actually credited his Nebular hypothesis on the Bible and God!

Now this is not some claim to be lightly discarded!

No ways, it actually means that what is written in Genesis was a simplistic and minimalistic explanation of how God created the Universe!

Therefore your strawpuppet is burned!
I took science and realised science plagerised from the Bible!

No one knows how the universe came into existence including you so why gripe at science for doing what it is designed to do?

I am afraid 250 year old explanations made of best guess from ignorance dont cut it.

Show god exists, show god magic exists, show god created the universe with god magic then present your paper and lets let if its accepted as one of the valid hypothesis of how the universe came about

Until that time you can attempt to disparage my knowledge of cosmology all you want but you have just the same authority as a gnat.

And so it seems from your very confused diatribes above. You are naming various artifacts that can only have occured after the BB.

FYI. See the latest research on the understanding of how the BB occured here
We May Finally Understand the Moments Before the Big Bang | Live Science

We are talking yesterday, not 250 years ago

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Realllllyyyyy!

Yes.

So what do you say?
There were white apes, yellow apes, black apes, red apes etc?

yea, you're informed.......................................

for crying out loud....
Different ethnicities within the species of homo sapiens are just variations within the species. These ethnicities evolved over time by genetic isolation of migrating tribes.

Caucasians and black africans, have the same human ancestors.

Please.... again, inform yourself.

So do you then believe like the original racist evolutionists that some races were not yet fully evolved?

All species and races are just as evolved as any other extant living thing.
The very notion of "more evolved" is actually yet another piece of evidence that you have no clue what you are talking about and that you have no grasp of what evolution theory really is all about.

Remember how evolution made the black man out as a barbaric lower life form.

Ignorant humans did that.

If you claim whole populations of different apes evolved into humans, do you say:

No, that's not what I said.

1. this was all one species?

A species that comes about through speciation, is a sub-species of the ancestral species.

2 different species are not going to evolve into 1 species.
Just like person A and B will not be producing your siblings, if your parents are persons X and Y.

Seriously, have you ever read a basic biology textbook???

2. or different spiecies of homonids?
if different species, DNA markers dont agree!
3. If you say one species you will be correct.
4. But then, it is impossible for all the members of one homonid species to have changed into more human,

What part of "evolution works on populations, not on individuals" didn't you comprehend?
Evolution is not an individual changing into another species.
Evolution is not an individual of species Y giving birth to a member of species X.

Evolution is a gradual process that works on populations.

Consider how latin evolved into spanish (among others).
Do you think that every single latin speaker started developing / speaking spanish independently of the rest of the population?

Mit DNA disagrees to such a claim, and there was only one female parent.

Mitochondrial eve is not what you seem to think it is.
Yes, all humans can trace there mtDNA to a single woman that lived some 150.000 years ago, before the dispertion out of africa. She wasn't the only woman around then. Nore was she the only one to have kids. It's just that over the generations, the other mtDNA lines died out.

There's also a Y-chromosome Adam, who's older then mtDNA Eve. They lived thousands, probably 10s of thousands, of years apart.

Once more: you really should inform yourself from some proper scientific sources.

5. in this case, who was the male parent?

Y-chromosome adam, if you mean a single male ancestor that extant humans can trace there DNA to. And it's the same story as with mtDNA Eve. It's not that this male ancestor was the only male alive then or the onle one that had kids.

6. cant be all of the other male from this species, because the gradual changes should also have occured on the male.

Once again: while changes are introduced by individuals through mutation, for evolution to take place those changes must achieve fixation. ie: they must end up in pretty much everyone's DNA. This takes quite a long time. EVERY individual has mutations. Every. Single. One. It's a part of evolution, but it's only the beginning. You need to pass on your mutated genes and over the generations, those mutated genes need to spread throughout the population.

The accumulation of such changes that achieve fixation, is what eventually results in speciation.
It's a slow, gradual process that works in populations, not in individuals.

7. now we have one male and one female parent.

...to which we can trace back our lineage, and which lived thousands of years apart from one another. And as already noted, they were hardly the "only" female or male in their generation. As previously said in this thread, there is a genetic bottleneck in the human genome that can be traced to the Toba catastrophe some 70.000 years ago, and still the population consisted of several thousand individuals.

You seem to be trying very very hard to force fit the science into your creationistic beliefs, but it seems you are required to seriously misrepresent the science to be able to do that - and even then it doesn't really work.

Whole populations of hominids did not work in evolving into humans.
The whole populations of hominoids needed one male and one female parent!

Hopefully you know better now then this nonsense
But for some reason, I don't have my hopes up.

 

[SA Huguenot]

There is no nebular theory in the bible. And you need to provide references if you're going to make claims.

There is no nebular theory in the bible. And you need to provide references if you're going to make claims.

So you never actually read Genesis.
let me show you what Genesis says then.
1. On the 3rd day, land and water seperated, which means
on the morning of the 3rd day, land and water were mixed into each other. (I call it a mud ball earth.
2. On the second day, this mud ball earth had a "Firmament" covering it, and there were waters above, and below this firmament. Therefore, the firmament was this mud ball earth's surface, and gasses percipitated out of it creating an atmosphere.
3. this means on the first day, the Earth was a sphere collection of gas liquid and solids, turning on its axis having a first day and night.
4. Then we find a description of the appearance of the earth before the first day that it was "Shapeless, dark, and covered with water".

here you have the Nebular theory in the most simplest form explained.

1. The Earth was a shapeless collection of Gas, liquid and solids.
2. It started to take the form of a sphere, resulting into a day and night, therefore it turned on its axis.
3. Gasses escaped first, leaving a mud ball earth and a firm surface inbetween the atmosphere and enterior mud ball.
4. the solids collected into what we now call a "continent", and the bible is clear, 'one' continent. (Gondwanaland?) and the waters into one ocean.
5. Then the Sun Moon and Styars shone into the atmosphere.

Now, considering that the earth had a first day, and so on, ment the sun shone and the first day occured.
Which deducts by description, what happened on the Earth, would have happened on the other planets, as well as on the sun.
Taking into consideration that the Earth was without shape, would also mean the Sun and planets were without shape, and this was where kant found his Nebular cloud idea.

Now let me show you some interesting simplicity on Genesis and its description.
The Sun started to shine at the beginning of the first day, but not to its fullest extend. only on the 4th day did the sun ignite to full blast nuclear fusion, and cleared the inner solar system of debris and allowed sunlight to enter the atmosphere for the first time.
Funny that all the scientific books claim the exact same that the Sun gave off a dim red glow, and eventually ignited to its fullest as the Bible say.

Great, here we have the nebular theory, explained by someone 3500 years ago, picked up by Kant in 1755, used by science today.

We can now go to how Newton saw Genesis explain Gravitational forces to him, and why kant deducted the Nebular theory on the origins of the universe on Newtons' principles.
Just look at what the nebular theory says in artistic presentations, and note the callouts I inserted into the pictures.
heck man, I can put this in the KJV, and it will be an summary of what it says!

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So you never actually read Genesis.
let me show you what Genesis says then.
1. On the 3rd day, land and water seperated, which means
on the morning of the 3rd day, land and water were mixed into each other. (I call it a mud ball earth.
2. On the second day, this mud ball earth had a "Firmament" covering it, and there were waters above, and below this firmament. Therefore, the firmament was this mud ball earth's surface, and gasses percipitated out of it creating an atmosphere.
3. this means on the first day, the Earth was a sphere collection of gas liquid and solids, turning on its axis having a first day and night.
4. Then we find a description of the appearance of the earth before the first day that it was "Shapeless, dark, and covered with water".

here you have the Nebular theory in the most simplest form explained.

1. The Earth was a shapeless collection of Gas, liquid and solids.
2. It started to take the form of a sphere, resulting into a day and night, therefore it turned on its axis.
3. Gasses escaped first, leaving a mud ball earth and a firm surface inbetween the atmosphere and enterior mud ball.
4. the solids collected into what we now call a "continent", and the bible is clear, 'one' continent. (Gondwanaland?) and the waters into one ocean.
5. Then the Sun Moon and Styars shone into the atmosphere.

Now, considering that the earth had a first day, and so on, ment the sun shone and the first day occured.
Which deducts by description, what happened on the Earth, would have happened on the other planets, as well as on the sun.
Taking into consideration that the Earth was without shape, would also mean the Sun and planets were without shape, and this was where kant found his Nebular cloud idea.

Now let me show you some interesting simplicity on Genesis and its description.
The Sun started to shine at the beginning of the first day, but not to its fullest extend. only on the 4th day did the sun ignite to full blast nuclear fusion, and cleared the inner solar system of debris and allowed sunlight to enter the atmosphere for the first time.
Funny that all the scientific books claim the exact same that the Sun gave off a dim red glow, and eventually ignited to its fullest as the Bible say.

Great, here we have the nebular theory, explained by someone 3500 years ago, picked up by Kant in 1755, used by science today.

We can now go to how Newton saw Genesis explain Gravitational forces to him, and why kant deducted the Nebular theory on the origins of the universe on Newtons' principles.
Just look at what the nebular theory says in artistic presentations, and note the callouts I inserted into the pictures.
heck man, I can put this in the KJV, and it will be an summary of what it says!
View attachment 34242

ow boy.....

 

[ratiocinator]

So you never actually read Genesis.

I have actually, but I read it to see what it said, not to confirm what I already 'knew' or to try to make it fit with science - which it obviously doesn't.

Your attempt to connect it is hilarious. Just as an example:

The Sun started to shine at the beginning of the first day, but not to its fullest extend. only on the 4th day did the sun ignite to full blast nuclear fusion, and cleared the inner solar system of debris and allowed sunlight to enter the atmosphere for the first time.

Yeah, and in between (on the third day), we have modern vegetation, before life in water. Then we get life in water and birds before any land animals.

It's incredible that some religious types can actually make themselves believe that Genesis 1 is anything but a pre-science creation myth. The level of self-deception and doublethink is truly breathtaking.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Gets under your skin doesnt it?

Yes. It honestly makes me question my faith in humanity. You so obviously have very little knowledge about the subjects you try to tackle, and yet you honestly seem to think you are one of the only ones who actually gets it. It's mind-boggling. I admit that I don't know much about a lot these topics, but I know enough to be able to see that you just completely misrepresent the subjects and issues at hand because of a monumental ignorance with which you forge ahead and state falsehoods as if they were "common sense." You need to get right with knowledge - stop twisting things to fit your own narrative and meet your own agenda.

 

[SA Huguenot]

I have actually, but I read it to see what it said, not to confirm what I already 'knew' or to try to make it fit with science - which it obviously doesn't.

Your attempt to connect it is hilarious. Just as an example:


Yeah, and in between (on the third day), we have modern vegetation, before life in water. Then we get life in water and birds before any land animals.

It's incredible that some religious types can actually make themselves believe that Genesis 1 is anything but a pre-science creation myth. The level of self-deception and doublethink is truly breathtaking.

This is interesting.
You are actually making the scientific and philosophical works of Newton and kant off as nothing.
Well, why didnt you come up with it then.
Again, what is the problem you have about vegetation and aquatic life?
I did not say anything about biological descriptions in the Nebular theory.
All I did is to show you what Genesis says, and you already jump on another wagon hoping to slither away from the fact that Kant came up with the Nebular theory, and he got it from the Bible.
You did not even know that!
Again, please explain how the description on the nebular theory and Genesis came about if with other means.

It is a fact, like bacon comes from pork, the nebular theory comes from Genesis, and you can cry as much as you wish, you cant change it.

Whats more, to rub more salt on the atheist wound, even if you demand that Kant never took the Nebular theory from Genesis, which he did, I have a theory that does derive from Genesis and does relay the Nebular theory.

 

[SA Huguenot]

Yes. It honestly makes me question my faith in humanity. You so obviously have very little knowledge about the subjects you try to tackle, and yet you honestly seem to think you are one of the only ones who actually gets it. It's mind-boggling. I admit that I don't know much about a lot these topics, but I know enough to be able to see that you just completely misrepresent the subjects and issues at hand because of a monumental ignorance with which you forge ahead and state falsehoods as if they were "common sense." You need to get right with knowledge - stop twisting things to fit your own narrative and meet your own agenda.

OK, if you can prove that I am twisting some facts to fit my narative, I will apologise.
Show me where I am wrong in this picture!

 

[SA Huguenot]

ow boy.....

Hope you enjoyed the very simple, ancient, minimalist, Biblical, Christian observation on the origins of our solar system.
Such a simple narative, yet the atheist thought they had the nebular theory as evidence the Bible is non compatable with science, when in fact science plagerised this simple, ancient, minimalist theory from the Bible.
This is what I ment when I said, God is not the excuse for creation, He is the Explainer of Creation.
Not the God of gaps!
but...
the gaps of God!

 

[Subduction Zone]

But why assume it is a joke?
Did you at least read the sources of the Nebular theory?
1. The Bible
2. "Natural history of the heavens on the principals of Newton, by Kant?

You see, it is so simple, even Nigel Henbest did a study to find the scientific sources onthe explanation of the origins of the universe in the 1970's.
he traced it all back to Kant!

What makes you think that Kant got his inspiration for his Nebular Hypothesis from Genesis? Citation needed.

Did you already forget your other error regarding that.hypothesis that I already corrected you on? Since you are good at making claims but bad at supporting them I may have to do your homework for you again.

 

[SA Huguenot]

Allow me to place this artistic representation of the creation of Space, Time and Matter as per the Biblical description.
Ol Newton had it right all the time!

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK, if you can prove that I am twisting some facts to fit my narative, I will apologise.
Show me where I am wrong in this picture!View attachment 34244

No firmament for Earth. Who made that joke of a picture?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Allow me to place this artistic representation of the creation of Space, Time and Matter as per the Biblical description.
Ol Newton had it right all the time!
View attachment 34245

Reinterpreting the Bible after the fact does not mean that that info is in their. This is a practice that Muslims are even better at than Christians.

There are quite a few errors for such a short series of pictures.

 

[SA Huguenot]

What makes you think that Kant got his inspiration for his Nebular Hypothesis from Genesis? Citation needed.

My dear Zone.
It seems as if you do agree that Kant did formulate the nebular theory which science uses today.
You only want to argue that he did not get it from Genesis!
well, there is the following to consider.

1. Kant was a Pietist.
2. He knew Hebrew and Greek.
3. He knew most of the Bible from memory.
4. he referes to the Bible continiously in his essay.
5. and you are so welcome to go and read what Kant said, but I think you will find it utterly painfull to see how he regards God and the Bible as the source of all scientific knowledge.

tell you what, dont go and google "Kant and the Bible", you will not find any support about Kant on the Bible, the atheist world of today dont want you to knoe that Kant was a Bible believer!
Nope, they will rather lie to you and tell you Kant was an agnostic and only started to become a serious philosopher at the age of 50, when in fact Kant was never an agnostic.
Here, go and read for yourself:
http://users.clas.ufl.edu/burt/spaceshotsairheads/Kantuniversalnaturalhistory.pdf
Note, for your convenience I did not use a creationist website.

Did you already forget your other error regarding that.hypothesis that I already corrected you on? Since you are good at making claims but bad at supporting them I may have to do your homework for you again.

What error?

 

[SA Huguenot]

Reinterpreting the Bible after the fact does not mean that that info is in their. This is a practice that Muslims are even better at than Christians.

There are quite a few errors for such a short series of pictures.

is this the best arguments you can give?
Muslims are better, joke of a picture, and, and, and....
Pal the first picture I placed is the standard one all scientist publications uses.
All I did was to place callouts on it to show you I can put it in the Bible as a summary.

I see you are in a cramping situation having a painfull spirit knowing that christians have an explanation on the origins of the unicerse!
Something the Atheist dont!
Your own nebular theory you thought destroys the Bible, actually destroys atheists because your theory came from Genesis!
ouch!!!!

 

[Subduction Zone]

My dear Zone.
It seems as if you do agree that Kant did formulate the nebular theory which science uses today.
You only want to argue that he did not get it from Genesis!
well, there is the following to consider.

1. Kant was a Pietist.
2. He knew Hebrew and Greek.
3. He knew most of the Bible from memory.
4. he referes to the Bible continiously in his essay.
5. and you are so welcome to go and read what Kant said, but I think you will find it utterly painfull to see how he regards God and the Bible as the source of all scientific knowledge.

tell you what, dont go and google "Kant and the Bible", you will not find any support about Kant on the Bible, the atheist world of today dont want you to knoe that Kant was a Bible believer!
Nope, they will rather lie to you and tell you Kant was an agnostic and only started to become a serious philosopher at the age of 50, when in fact Kant was never an agnostic.
Here, go and read for yourself:
http://users.clas.ufl.edu/burt/spaceshotsairheads/Kantuniversalnaturalhistory.pdf
Note, for your convenience I did not use a creationist website.


What error?

To answer your last question first your false accusations against Laplace.

And I don't care what superstitious beliefs Kant had. Please quote from your source. It looks a bit wonky, and I am not going to read all of it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

is this the best arguments you can give?
Muslims are better, joke of a picture, and, and, and....
Pal the first picture I placed is the standard one all scientist publications uses.
All I did was to place callouts on it to show you I can put it in the Bible as a summary.

I see you are in a cramping situation having a painfull spirit knowing that christians have an explanation on the origins of the unicerse!
Something the Atheist dont!
Your own nebular theory you thought destroys the Bible, actually destroys atheists because your theory came from Genesis!
ouch!!!!

You make yourself a joke by posting such poor and ignorant things as that picture. And yes, you make the same mistakes that Muslims do. By your poor 'logic' you should be one.

Can you reason rationally? That is all that I want to know. If so please write rational posts.

And please do not make false claims about others. You would not want to break the Ninth Commandment.

 

[SA Huguenot]

To answer your last question first your false accusations against Laplace.

And I don't care what superstitious beliefs Kant had. Please quote from your source. It looks a bit wonky, and I am not going to read all of it.

Well dont read it, I did. I read it when I still questioned God as an atheist, and it was painfull sure enough. I hated every page where he tells me how God did this, how powerfull god is, etc....
He then explained where the water of the Flood came from, that there is other universes, which no one knew at that time, and so many facts that I never wanted to accept.

and please refresh my error on Laplace.