There is no proof of God ...

[OupaPiet]

Now we have 2 theories which needs a Miracle..
1. The origins of the first living cell.
2. And the origins of a zygote that did not need the male Y chromosome to develop into a fetus.
Guess what?
If I want to reason like you in a way where we take facts on surface level, check this out.

There are many examples of Parthenogenesis.
Here we have the female living cells of Mary, which somehow was able to change from an X X Chromosome, to a XY Chromosome.
All evolutionists claim that the changes in DNA can priduce different species, but when they hear about the cell change of Jesus, they will vehemently try to deny that it can happen.

This is silly at best.
There are many examples of cell change in Nature, and ZERO of spontaneous Cell genesis.

Sorry mate. The evidence that Jesus could have turned out from a Futus that was from a non male interferance, is still much more viable than the evolutionary claim.
You see, Evolution needs a primordial soup, in a hostile environment, certain chemicals that will destroy other life needed proteins.
IOW, It is impossible for a cell to develop from the environment, whilst it is highly probable that a cell can change in the womb which is a much more protective natural environment than any laboratory on Earth.

Therefore, attempting to tell me that Evolution can explain the origin of the first living cell, is a pure lie.
However, thinking of the propability that a child can be born from a cell that had a natural or Miracilous change, is much more acceptable than you god of Evolution.

 

[RJM]

Every sub-atomic particle in the universe (if one takes it that way) is alive and eternal.

Wikipedia defines life as: a quality that distinguishes matter that has biological processes, such as signalling and self-sustaining processes, from matter that does not ... All life over time eventually reaches a state of death

But does all life have to be material and biological? And does all life end in death?

 

[OupaPiet]

The change does not take place so fast. It took 63 million years from being a haplorini (dry-nosed apes) to being a human.

Timeline of human evolution - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I never said anything about more human or less human. We are governed by self-interest unless out behavior is modified by family and society.
Our descendants of far future also will be like that, and family and society will modify their behavior to match the requirements of the day.

Haplorhini

A machine has a life time. The DNA and parts of body also makes mistakes in their life. So, death is inevitable in most life forms.
Evolution has ensured continuation of the species barring catastrophic events (like a huge asteroid striking the earth). That is what it is concerned with. What happens to an individual is of no concern to life. One goes, many come. Look at the Salmon.

I am sure you believe that Adam lived for 930 years even after the fall.

Yip.
He lived almost a thousand years due to the fact that his DNA was still perfect with no errors.
Then he started to age due to the physical change in nature. Ultraviolet and cosmic radiation started to take its effect.
This was because the Atmosphere changed from a very wet entity to what we have today.
Therefore, if we look at C14 dating methods, it is easy to understand why humans age.
Our cells are damaged due to radiation.
on C14 tests, the Bible is 100% correct to say that life can not be older than 10 000 years. If the C14 C12 equilibrium was mainly C12 6 000 years ago, It would test as over 25 000 years in age.
Therefore, any living residue, such as bones, charcoal, even coal and Diamonds will give an older age, yet it will fit properly with an age of no more than 6 000 years.
There is ample evidence that if one eats C14 free food, you will live much longer than the rest of us. There are companies that are now producing grain in C14 free tunnels, and selling this food to the ultra rich. This is science which comes straight out of the Bible.

Furthermore, your own pre Cambrian theory and explosion of fully developed animal fossils it the best evidence that Evolution does not exist.

And as time passes, we find hundreds of animals in rock layers dating 65 million to 170 million Years, and they did not change in the least bit!
The Bible also says the Earth was wet and a swamp.
Today it is clear that the large dinosaurs were living in water and swamps.
They would not have supported their weight on land, but as amphibians.

The Earth's oceans were much shallower, and the Earth much lower than today.
The Earth was one huge swamp, and almost 80% was swamp land.

Guess which book gave this description 3 400 years ago?


Oh, I see you plkaced a picture of your great grandfather.

 

[OupaPiet]

Start quoting actual statements from your heroes. If you can prove the existence of a God, then you would be the first.

What if we have science discovering that the Universe had a beginning, and the Earth came in existence afterwards.
And the Earth was a collection of Gas, Liquid and solids.
Then they learn that this big ball of mud and gas turned upon an axis, resulting in day and night.
Then the Gasses escaped along with a lot of water vapor, and created an atmosphere with a mud ball Earth remaining.
And this Mud ball Earth separated due to Gravity and left Land and sea.
Thereafter we will see plants in the geological column, followed by crustaceans. aquatic animals and vertebrae.
Then we find huge beds of coal with inclusions of fossils spanning continents which meant they were all subdued in sea after they were on dry land.
And we see evidence that even Mnt Everest had aquatic life some time ago.
And we deduct that there must have been one huge deluge creating the mountains when the Earth's crust was pulled in upon itself, and pulled that masses of water vapor from the Atmosphere?

Then a man came in 1755 and wrote an essay telling us that we can conclude that if the Earth separated from a Mud Ball, into Water and Land, we can conclude that the Earth was originally inclusive of Gas and Mud, which was a collection originating from a Nebular cloud.
He then discovers that this cloud is represented bu what we can see in space.
He deducts that this space dust was collected due to gravitational points that developed in this nebular cloud, pulling the matter together, creating small thistle balls, that changed into proto planets, with the largest collection of matter in the centre.
Eventually this proto planets will grab more matter into itself, creating these Gas, Water and solid mud balls.

This man will then deduct that this big collection in the center of the nebular cloud will end up so big, it will fall into its own gravitational field, and ignite first as a dim red glow.
After a considerable time, this huge ball will now ignite due to nuclear fusion to its fullest, and become a star.

This man also noted that Time does not exist. It is just a observation of where this light falls on the Earth turning around its axis, and around the Sun.

He noted that if the Sun did not shine, and everything was dark, we will not even know about time as we measure it.
Therefore, the description that there was a first day, is a formidable description if anyone said that a couple of thousand years ago.
Who was this man?
Emmanuel Kant.
Where did he get this information?
Genesis!

 

[OupaPiet]

You can take the scientific description of the Origins of the Solar System, as well as Emmanuel Kants' essay, and paste it in the KJV, and there will be no contradiction between astronomy and the Biblical description of the origins of the Universe.

 

[OupaPiet]

This is what the Bible say. I love it when Atheists realize they never read the Bible, but made assumptions about its description of the origins of the Universe.

 

[OupaPiet]

Just check all the details in a simple yet intricate version on the origins of the Universe in Genesis.
Check this out!

 

[RJM]

@OupaPiet
Perhaps start a new thread to discuss these creationist theories?
With links to secular evidence ...

This isn't the thread to go in depth into all this Discovery Institute stuff, imo

 

[Aupmanyav]

What if we have science .. couple of thousand years ago.
Who was this man?
Emmanuel Kant.
Where did he get this information?
Genesis!

Is this taught in school and colleges in South Africa? If it is, then I am deeply pained.

 

['Amir Alzzalam]

What if we have science discovering that the Universe had a beginning, and the Earth came in existence afterwards.
And the Earth was a collection of Gas, Liquid and solids.
Then they learn that this big ball of mud and gas turned upon an axis, resulting in day and night.
Then the Gasses escaped along with a lot of water vapor, and created an atmosphere with a mud ball Earth remaining.
And this Mud ball Earth separated due to Gravity and left Land and sea.
Thereafter we will see plants in the geological column, followed by crustaceans. aquatic animals and vertebrae.
Then we find huge beds of coal with inclusions of fossils spanning continents which meant they were all subdued in sea after they were on dry land.
And we see evidence that even Mnt Everest had aquatic life some time ago.
And we deduct that there must have been one huge deluge creating the mountains when the Earth's crust was pulled in upon itself, and pulled that masses of water vapor from the Atmosphere?

Then a man came in 1755 and wrote an essay telling us that we can conclude that if the Earth separated from a Mud Ball, into Water and Land, we can conclude that the Earth was originally inclusive of Gas and Mud, which was a collection originating from a Nebular cloud.
He then discovers that this cloud is represented bu what we can see in space.
He deducts that this space dust was collected due to gravitational points that developed in this nebular cloud, pulling the matter together, creating small thistle balls, that changed into proto planets, with the largest collection of matter in the centre.
Eventually this proto planets will grab more matter into itself, creating these Gas, Water and solid mud balls.

This man will then deduct that this big collection in the center of the nebular cloud will end up so big, it will fall into its own gravitational field, and ignite first as a dim red glow.
After a considerable time, this huge ball will now ignite due to nuclear fusion to its fullest, and become a star.

This man also noted that Time does not exist. It is just a observation of where this light falls on the Earth turning around its axis, and around the Sun.

He noted that if the Sun did not shine, and everything was dark, we will not even know about time as we measure it.
Therefore, the description that there was a first day, is a formidable description if anyone said that a couple of thousand years ago.
Who was this man?
Emmanuel Kant.
Where did he get this information?
Genesis!

What If? LOL . . .
Emmanuel Kant by the way has more to do with the Western Left Hand Path than any other Belief System. In other words, he would be on OUR side if he were alive today.

 

[RJM]

.
Emmanuel Kant by the way has more to do with the Western Left Hand Path than any other Belief System. In other words, he would be on OUR side if he were alive today.

That's an interesting observation. Thank you

 

[Adam’s Cowboy]

God Doesn't Exist

If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.
If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.
If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.
If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.
Evil exists.
If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn’t have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn’t know when evil exists or doesn’t have the desire to eliminate all evil. Therefore . . .

God Doesn’t Exist

That statement attributed to Epicurus, overlooks the concept that God is allowing it (evil, suffering) to occur, for a reason.

An in-depth study of Genesis 3, when rebellion began, tells us the reason: it reveals the issues that were raised and that required answers.

And for some issues to reach resolution, it takes time.

Even though mankind has suffered much turmoil, the longest any individual has suffered is only 70 to 90 years.

If you’d like to discuss this further, I suggest we start a new thread, my cousin.

 

[Adam’s Cowboy]

What if we have science discovering that the Universe had a beginning, and the Earth came in existence afterwards.
And the Earth was a collection of Gas, Liquid and solids.
Then they learn that this big ball of mud and gas turned upon an axis, resulting in day and night.
Then the Gasses escaped along with a lot of water vapor, and created an atmosphere with a mud ball Earth remaining.
And this Mud ball Earth separated due to Gravity and left Land and sea.
Thereafter we will see plants in the geological column, followed by crustaceans. aquatic animals and vertebrae.
Then we find huge beds of coal with inclusions of fossils spanning continents which meant they were all subdued in sea after they were on dry land.
And we see evidence that even Mnt Everest had aquatic life some time ago.
And we deduct that there must have been one huge deluge creating the mountains when the Earth's crust was pulled in upon itself, and pulled that masses of water vapor from the Atmosphere?

Then a man came in 1755 and wrote an essay telling us that we can conclude that if the Earth separated from a Mud Ball, into Water and Land, we can conclude that the Earth was originally inclusive of Gas and Mud, which was a collection originating from a Nebular cloud.
He then discovers that this cloud is represented bu what we can see in space.
He deducts that this space dust was collected due to gravitational points that developed in this nebular cloud, pulling the matter together, creating small thistle balls, that changed into proto planets, with the largest collection of matter in the centre.
Eventually this proto planets will grab more matter into itself, creating these Gas, Water and solid mud balls.

This man will then deduct that this big collection in the center of the nebular cloud will end up so big, it will fall into its own gravitational field, and ignite first as a dim red glow.
After a considerable time, this huge ball will now ignite due to nuclear fusion to its fullest, and become a star.

This man also noted that Time does not exist. It is just a observation of where this light falls on the Earth turning around its axis, and around the Sun.

He noted that if the Sun did not shine, and everything was dark, we will not even know about time as we measure it.
Therefore, the description that there was a first day, is a formidable description if anyone said that a couple of thousand years ago.
Who was this man?
Emmanuel Kant.
Where did he get this information?
Genesis!

Science believes the Earth was formed by accretion, a gradual process.

(Such a theory, accepted by many scientists, should only be an hypothesis; it doesn’t realistically take into account the Sun’s immense gravitational pull!)

 

[Aupmanyav]

(Such a theory, accepted by many scientists, should only be an hypothesis; it doesn’t realistically take into account the Sun’s immense gravitational pull!).

Accepted by many is still a hypothesis. All theories in science are open to improvement.
If there was any evidence of God, soul, etc., science would have investigated that too.
Sun's immense gravitational pull also has its limitations, otherwise there would not have been any planets or earth.

 

[RJM]

it doesn’t realistically take into account the Sun’s immense gravitational pull!

Whoops! The guys who created the James Webb space telescope forgot to think about gravity, lol

Sun's immense gravitational pull also has its limitations, otherwise there would not have been any planets or earth.

It works in inverse square proportion, otherwise the solar system would fall into the sun, and the sun would fall into the black hole at the galactic centre

 

[OupaPiet]

What If? LOL . . .
Emmanuel Kant by the way has more to do with the Western Left Hand Path than any other Belief System. In other words, he would be on OUR side if he were alive today.

Yes indeed. The side where he laid down the origins of the Universe using Genesis, which incidentally Atheists never knew about.
It is hilarious to see how stunned atheists are when they learn the science they want to use against Christians, CAME FROM THE BIBLE.

 

[RJM]

Yes indeed. The side where he laid down the origins of the Universe using Genesis, which incidentally Atheists never knew about.
It is hilarious to see how stunned atheists are when they learn the science they want to use against Christians, CAME FROM THE BIBLE.

@'Amir Alzzalam has started a new thread:

Emmanuel Kant on the Self and Western LHP

Here:

Emmanuel Kant on the Self and Western LHP

Kant's perspective on the Self suggests that it should be perceived more as an activity rather than an entity, thus circumventing any strict categorization. Essentially, Kant posits that selves are distinguished by experiences, meaning that any entities collectively responsible for integrating...

www.interfaith.org

 

[OupaPiet]

That statement attributed to Epicurus, overlooks the concept that God is allowing it (evil, suffering) to occur, for a reason.

An in-depth study of Genesis 3, when rebellion began, tells us the reason: it reveals the issues that were raised and that required answers.

And for some issues to reach resolution, it takes time.

Even though mankind has suffered much turmoil, the longest any individual has suffered is only 70 to 90 years.

If you’d like to discuss this further, I suggest we start a new thread, my cousin.

I do think your reasoning is valid.
But I would also want you to not make up your own rules and regulations about the God of the Bible.
What you said is not what the God of the Bible says He is.
First of all, God did not create Death and Evil.
This is something one finds in the Quran and not to be confused with YHWH's creation.

Your reasoning of deduction will work ONLY if YHWH created death and Evil.
If He did not, your deduction fails.
It will be the easiest thing to deny God if He made us to age, grow ill, die, get hurt etc.
Allow me explain in simple terms what I learned about YHWH and the reason he created humans with this detrimental result of corruption.

With God there is no time, time does not exist.
God existed as a creative power and the ultimate knowledge of everything, and is therefore capable to create order out of Chaos.
1. God decided to make Man to be His friend.
2. But He did not want to create a pre-programmed robot, that will play by His pre programmed whims to please Him.
3. God wanted a friend who will love Him and who will be a genuine ...yes a friend!
NB. That is why He decided to make man with free will, to ensure that the friendship God gives are also representative of the friendship Man returns to God.
God knew that Satan (Who was also created as God's friend with free will) will become jealous of this human God will make, and Satan rebelled against God.

Now, this is where your reasoning comes in.
If God knew that Satan will rebel, and deceive the human, and many humans will hate God, why did God then anyhow make the human to go through this suffering?
The answer is:
We as humans think we are clever and will even sometimes come up with wisdom.
One which can be applied here is:
If you love someone, set it free.
If it comes back you will know it loves you,
If it does not, know it would never be.
But God being omniscient and omnipotent will know exactly what the future will hold.
Therefore, God knew that if he created the Human, He will unmask the hatred of Satan, and will find many humans hating Him,...
But, He also knew there will be many who will love Him, and will return to Him as His friend.

Now the deduction is complete.
I am of opinion that even if there were to remain ONLY 1 HUMAN THAT WILL LOVE GOD,
God will have the right to create all humankind for destruction, to find that one person.

Will the whole of creation be worth His while to have only ONE PERSON to survive?
No Question about that.
1 best friend, the destruction of all hate and deception of Satan.
Yes, it was worth God's effort to save 1.
We do know that there are not only one, but many who are in the loving hands of YHWH.
Those who deny YHWH, condemned themself, not God.

 

[OupaPiet]

Science believes the Earth was formed by accretion, a gradual process.

(Such a theory, accepted by many scientists, should only be an hypothesis; it doesn’t realistically take into account the Sun’s immense gravitational pull!)

Oh, but the Nebular theory does take that in account.

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. and the sun would fall into the black hole at the galactic centre.

Perhaps not. The two catastrophic events that the solar system will face in about 5 billion year's time are: 1. Sun turning into a Red Giant, and 2. Collision with Andromeda galaxy.