Inspirational Scientific Discoveries! - Page 2

No wonder why Jesus talked about tares and good seed.


Btw, I care less how you approach anything.

classic shtal, and the scales come down over your eyes and the insults start.

you are so weak, sad and pathetic, one of god's failed creations.

Shtal.....

Yep, Ken Ham has a book...

a classic god of the gaps approach, and left to people like you shtal we will never get any closer to knowing the answers to these questions



I decided to touch on some basic points regarding the beginning! According to creationist view ~6,000 thousand years ago God created everything, and according to evolutionist view 13.7 billion years ago nothing exploded and it made everything…Both views assume a beginning – that’s a given! Okay…After searching through secular science text books, the ONLY text book that I saw try to get around this problem is the one that says maybe it expanse every 80 billion years you know, and contracts, and blows again…What they are doing is that they are implying that matter is eternal and we know that matter cannot be eternal; and so the creationist believe in the beginning God! And evolutionists believe all the material in the universe was in one tiny dot and all the dirt in the universe was squeeze into this dot and it exploded! Meaning secular folks believe in the beginning dirt…I already spoke many times on it and it is also very well being known for years that the whole Big Bang theory violates numerous laws of science; okay, And here is why they haven’t given up on it? They don’t have a replacement; they don’t have a new theory to explain the universe so they are going to keep the Big Bang! Here is the logic behind that? You got a guy in jail, you think he is guilty of the crime then you find evidence there is no possible way he can be guilty; okay, he wasn’t there, and he was 300 hundreds miles away, 50 people saw him, but you still don’t know who did the crime, so we are going to keep this guy in jail until we find the person who did it lol you see how dumb would that be? We know he didn’t do it, we don’t know who did so we are keeping him until we find out who did? That’s what they are doing with this Big Bang theory, scientists study, said look we know it’s NOT true but we don’t have a better explanation so we are going to hang-on to this one until the new one comes alone. If you don’t have a theory for explanation of the world, well then this is not acceptable.
 

This is what you accept as truth Shtal, is it not?

Look GSDtravels I don’t care even you post more biased video’s; I already mention many times before, it’s not that people don’t have enough evidence - there presupposition tell them what to make out of that evidence and I want to give you a silly example; there was a man that was convinced he himself was dead, he thinks he is dead and he is very upset about this and he doesn’t like being dead, who would? And his doctor trying to “convince” him look Sir, you are perfectly healthy - I mean (you know) you are not dead, you are walking and talking and the guy thinks about it and says yeah! But you know people can have muscle spasms even after clinical death and that would explain my ability walk and talk. The doctor says look I have medical charts showing you are perfectly healthy! The guy says yeah but you know who knows (that’s) if you are interpreting that properly and it indicates maybe it’s not even my chart, maybe the name got swapped? And the doctor says okay I am going to prove to you that you are not dead. Do dead men bleed? The guy thinks about it for second, well circular system would be stopped; he replied dead men don’t bleed! And doctor very quickly takes a little pin, perks the guy on hand and sure enough blood comes out to surface, the doctor says see you are bleeding…which the man responds well how about that I guess dead men do bleed…lol…Silly example but it illustrates the point! Did the doctor have evidence for his position? Absolutely! The guy can walk and talk, get medical charts and the guy can bleed, did the man find those evidence convincing? No, because he had a world view, he had presupposition that he himself was dead and that presupposition told him how to interpret each one of those evidences…He always able to come up with rescuing device and clever person always will come up with rescuing device. That’s why you can’t just throw evidence at people and expect to change there world view even though debates are interesting like “Ken Ham’s vs. Bill Nye”, there is no obligation for Bill Nye to do so (changing his position)…Secular folks just going to interpret that evidence accordingly, people just don’t need more reasons to believe, the world view challenge is where the problem I can see with debates such as “Ken Ham’s vs. Bill Nye”…Example; creationist might say see how this evidence that the Bible is true! And maybe it’s very good evidence that confirms creation and I think fossils are very good evidence that confirms world wide flood, don’t get me wrong; but that is because I am looking at properly through Biblical glasses; the secular scientists will look at that same evidence through secular glasses and what is he going to say? That’s not how I see it; he is going to come up with a rescuing device to account for that evidence according to his world view. We can also talk about Canyon formation, see canyons can form quickly; secular may say maybe that one did! But how do you know that Grand Canyon formed quickly? You don’t know that? Creationist says Oh but well we would need another/more “evidence” – look at rock layers can be deposited quickly! – Mt Saint Helens proved that… secular said well maybe those ones can form quickly – how do you know that all of them formed that way, maybe some of them slowly over billions of years? And another example: Creationist say Oh but there are comets out there they don’t last billions of years but there is Oort cloud secular says!
Now it is not wrong to show people that there is evidence that is consistence with God’s word it confirms that (like Ken Ham did), in fact I think there is value in that…but like I said this before evidence by itself never decisive because you always require world view to tell you what to make of that evidence - or in other words evidence by itself is not decisive because a person’s presuppositions tell him what to make of the evidence…

No Shtal, sorry but that's not how it works.  When you speak of wearing "Biblical glasses", what you're doing is justifying lies, one of those rules that you're not supposed to break.  When you have to lie, what you're selling isn't truth.

Uh, Shtal, the evidence for the big bang (which was not an "explosion"), is mounting and just this week, they found astonishing evidence to confirm it.  And in your scenario above, you actually state that there is "evidence", yet you are the one who discards evidence, continually.  At some point, you're going to have to meld your beliefs with reality and so far, it's not looking good.  You've painted yourself into a box that you can't escape and you'll soon find that what you have faith in is not the book you're reading, but the glasses that people like Ham place on your eyes.  You have faith in charlatans who are dishonest, greedy and evil to the core!  You have just admitted that the biggest contradictions in your position force you to LIE, to support them.  It that your morality?

Are you saying it’s wrong to teach creation; you’re lying? You want Ken Ham to stop teach creation, but of course lying implies a moral standard does in it? So you are borrowing on Christian world view to argue against it. First of all I don’t accept that teaching creation is lying, I don’t accept your claim your standard, I believe creation is true and evolution is false, Ken Ham is presenting truth, but for the sake of argument in your world view why would it be wrong to lie in debates like as this one, you would say everybody know it’s wrong to lie, well I know it’s wrong to lie because it’s contrary to God’s nature but how do you know it’s wrong to lie? I mean in evolutionary universe if people are just chemical accident why would it be wrong to lie? If it is benefit my survival value, that’s what I want to know!


It doesn’t make sense…