NoToReligion and SA Huguenot creation evidence.

[SA Huguenot]

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.

Dear zone.
why would you make such claims.
Do you want me to post other pictures where scientists explains the Nebular theory?
Mine dates from 1978 and was commisioned by Nigel Henbest.
Tell me what is wrong with that one?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

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

Sure. Very easy, as a matter of fact.

Let's look at the first "point" on that graphic:

"In the beginning, God created the Heaven and Earth." What is "the Heaven?" Outer space? With Earth being only one planet among billions/trillions, why does "Earth" get singled out here? Not only this, but look at this "point" in conjunction with the second - this first says that God created "The Earth" and yet just after it states: "The Earth was without form, empty and dark." Was it "The Earth" then? How is that possible? Something "without form" is still something else? Is still "The Earth?" It says God created "the Heaven" and "Earth" - did He first create Earth as an empty darkness? That's what this graphic is stating. Why call that "The Earth" I wonder? This is you ignoring very simple logical conclusions one should draw from this terrible, confused language being used here. If something is "empty and dark" is that somehow "The Earth?" How can this be? Can you give me an answer that doesn't involve simply trying to hand-wave away this as some kind of metaphor for the scattered matter of that eventually became "The Earth" just not being brought together yet? This text is EXPLICITLY calling darkness and emptiness by the name "Earth." How does this make any sense? And why did God have to create "empty darkness" as the first stage of what would become "Earth?" Wasn't it actually already empty and dark before he put anything there or said "let there be light?" Point being, God didn't have to "create" empty darkness - and yet that's exactly what is stated IS EARTH - an empty, formless darkness. It's just dumb. Pretty language that is extremely foolish.

And then, after "let there be light," we have the 4th point, which I am sure you have heard is ludicrously inaccurate and displays the ignorance of the writers of Genesis. They name the moon as one of the lights "placed" in the sky to "shine" on Earth/atmosphere. The moon GENERATES NO LIGHT. Fact. Like it or not, the moon is not a light whatsoever. Hence the reason that it can be in any number of "crescent" phases - hence the reason you can actually see the dark-half of the moon that isn't lit by the sun on a clear, still night - hence the reason there is a "new moon" phase that reflects no light toward earth. It doesn't "shine" as the words indicate.

This picture is wrong and inaccurate in so many ways it is pathetic. It's a nice story, even with the inaccuracies... but that is all it is. A story. A story based on the incomplete knowledge who seriously thought they knew better. Kind of like I am accusing you of.

 

[SA Huguenot]

Look it shows a nebular cloud.
Then planetesimals and a growing sun, protoplanets, then a sun undergoing itself falling into its own gravity and giving off a dim red glow, then a fully fledged Nuclear fusion reflecting the Moon planets onto an atmosphere that cleared up and so on.
I think it is a good artistic rendering.
Place me one of yours, and I will look at it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Dear zone.
why would you make such claims.
Do you want me to post other pictures where scientists explains the Nebular theory?
Mine dates from 1978 and was commisioned by Nigel Henbest.
Tell me what is wrong with that one?

Are you seriously claiming that Henbest had that "firmament" line in his work? You need a link for that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Look it shows a nebular cloud.
Then planetesimals and a growing sun, protoplanets, then a sun undergoing itself falling into its own gravity and giving off a dim red glow, then a fully fledged Nuclear fusion reflecting the Moon planets onto an atmosphere that cleared up and so on.
I think it is a good artistic rendering.
Place me one of yours, and I will look at it.

Right, completely disagreeing with the Genesis myth.

 

[SA Huguenot]

"In the beginning, God created the Heaven and Earth." What is "the Heaven?" Outer space? With Earth being only one planet among billions/trillions, why does "Earth" get singled out here?

Well, is it not by co incidence that we are living in the universe that God created?
Whats your point?
Just for starters:
We have here on the earth a Bible with this description on how the Earth and solar system came into being?
Which was taken and used as a model for all the other solar systems, galaxies, and universes by scientists, but they never knew this was what the Bible said.
And you just dont like such a Biblical narative, now you dont want the Solar system to be the centre of creation.
Why the bias?
We are here, in this solar system, with our galaxy, and our books, and the Bible is here on earth.
How do you expect it to be not so?

 

[SA Huguenot]

Are you seriously claiming that Henbest had that "firmament" line in his work? You need a link for that.

Nitpicking again.
Nigel henbest said, nebular cloud...
Accretional gravitational points.
Proto planets....
dark solar system...
Sun ingnited, dim red glow...
sun underwent nuclear fusion, ....
the atmosphere, space inbetween plkanets cleared....
clear sun...
Genesis say,
Shapeless solarsustem...
gravity shaped earth...
sun shone dim....
earth shaped....
sun burned bright....
Light reflected from Moon and stars...and shon onto the atmosphere....

great stuff, isnt it!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, is it not by co incidence that we are living in the universe that God created?
Whats your point?
Just for starters:
We have here on the earth a Bible with this description on how the Earth and solar system came into being?
Which was taken and used as a model for all the other solar systems, galaxies, and universes by scientists, but they never knew this was what the Bible said.
And you just dont like such a Biblical narative, now you dont want the Solar system to be the centre of creation.
Why the bias?
We are here, in this solar system, with our galaxy, and our books, and the Bible is here on earth.
How do you expect it to be not so?

It is not coincidence. It is reinterpretation on your part.

 

[SA Huguenot]

Got to leave now.
Go and read Kant's nebular theory.
He loved science and God, just like Newton.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nitpicking again.
Nigel henbest said, nebular cloud...
Accretional gravitational points.
Proto planets....
dark solar system...
Sun ingnited, dim red glow...
sun underwent nuclear fusion, ....
the atmosphere, space inbetween plkanets cleared....
clear sun...
Genesis say,
Shapeless solarsustem...
gravity shaped earth...
sun shone dim....
earth shaped....
sun burned bright....
Light reflected from Moon and stars...and shon onto the atmosphere....

great stuff, isnt it!

You asked for errors and that was a big one. It shows you do not understand what Genesis says.

 

[SA Huguenot]

It is not coincidence. It is reinterpretation on your part.

And it is you that now say Nigel Henbest is a liar!
Well, perhaps, at least I have the nebular theory and I can use Genesis to explain it through Kant.
What do you now have that I took the Nebular theory away from the atheists arsenal?
Nothing.
Good evening.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Got to leave now.
Go and read Kant's nebular theory.
He loved science and God, just like Newton.

It is not Kant's theory. First off what he wrote barely qualified as a hypothesis. Second it was not his idea. Emanuel Swedenborg proposed it twenty one years before Kant did.

A person can love science and God and still know that Genesis is myth. Most Christians do this today.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And it is you that now say Nigel Henbest is a liar!
Well, perhaps, at least I have the nebular theory and I can use Genesis to explain it through Kant.
What do you now have that I took the Nebular theory away from the atheists arsenal?
Nothing.
Good evening.

Nope, never made that claim. Try again.

and no, you did not take away the Nebular Hypothesis. It still refutes Genesis.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Well, is it not by co incidence that we are living in the universe that God created?
Whats your point?
Just for starters:
We have here on the earth a Bible with this description on how the Earth and solar system came into being?
Which was taken and used as a model for all the other solar systems, galaxies, and universes by scientists, but they never knew this was what the Bible said.
And you just dont like such a Biblical narative, now you dont want the Solar system to be the centre of creation.
Why the bias?
We are here, in this solar system, with our galaxy, and our books, and the Bible is here on earth.
How do you expect it to be not so?

You're hilarious. You singled out the one point in my whole post that you felt you could actually defend. I am 100% confident that this is the case, and that you ignored my other points (the fact that a formless, dark void was being called "Earth" and that it stated that God had to create this formless dark void first, and the idea that the moon does not shine) because you realized you WOULD have had to apologize, as you said you would.

You have failed to impress, sir, as you always will when discussing these things with anyone who hasn't already intellectually given up and accepted The Bible's account as "fact."

 

[Subduction Zone]

Dear zone.
why would you make such claims.
Do you want me to post other pictures where scientists explains the Nebular theory?
Mine dates from 1978 and was commisioned by Nigel Henbest.
Tell me what is wrong with that one?

I have serious doubts that Henbest did such a thing. He may have commissioned the underlying painting, but I doubt if he wrote the nonsene we see on top of it. That does not square with what I have read of the man. Please provide a link for this. I searched and could not find the image with or without the wording.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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!

Post hoc rationalisations through wacky and imaginative interpretations of selective reading of some ancient nonsense coupled with selective acceptance of scientific knowledge, where the selection parameter seems to be no more then "whatever fits my narrative", is anything but impressive dude.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Post hoc rationalisations through wacky and imaginative interpretations of selective reading of some ancient nonsense coupled with selective acceptance of scientific knowledge, where the selection parameter seems to be no more then "whatever fits my narrative", is anything but impressive dude.

I wish that one creationist would take me up on my offer to cover the basics of science. Understanding the scientific method and the concept of scientific evidence. Their refusal to do so indicates that they know their beliefs are just a house of cards. The slightest breeze will topple it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I wish that one creationist would take me up on my offer to cover the basics of science. Understanding the scientific method and the concept of scientific evidence. Their refusal to do so indicates that they know their beliefs are just a house of cards. The slightest breeze will topple it.

Yep.

All they can do is cheat and glue the cards together, while stubbornly denying that they're glueing the cards together.

 

[SA Huguenot]

It is not Kant's theory. First off what he wrote barely qualified as a hypothesis. Second it was not his idea. Emanuel Swedenborg proposed it twenty one years before Kant did.

A person can love science and God and still know that Genesis is myth. Most Christians do this today.

Nope, you obviously never read what Swedenborg said about tye origins of the universe.
Dont think because someone uses the word "nebular cloud" it is the "Nebular theory".
This was clearly researches by henbest, and today every scientist admits that Kant's theory is the only one between him, Swedenborg, and laplace that corresponds to what science so far discovered on the topic.
You are not doing me any discredit by attempting to deny Kant's description of the origins of the universe. I have scientists claiming what I relay to you.
Therefore, accept this as a fact that the model of the Nebular theory was the brainchild of Kant.
The more you fight against this, the worst your argument gets.

Now, considering that you say
"A person can love science and God and still know that Genesis is myth. Most Christians do this today"
Who do you think you are fooling.
No Christian thinks Genesis is a myth!
only you and your atheist brothers would like to believe Genesis is not true.
Any Christian that say Genesis is a myth denies the sinfull nature of humans by birth into death.
all christians understand that man lost their immortality, and are under the curse of death, and needs the salvation of God to be saved.
Show me one so called christian you claim dont believe in Genesis, and I show you a liar to God!

 

[SA Huguenot]

Nope, never made that claim. Try again.

and no, you did not take away the Nebular Hypothesis. It still refutes Genesis.

Where?