• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Humans did NOT evolve from the common ancestor of Apes

Ben West

Member
One word for you nucleosynthesis. Look it up.

What your saying is NOT physically possible and you have left out the formation of the actual elements and you have even interpreted Genesis wrong. There is nothing in the bible about multiverses you added that with YOUR interpretation.

Dear shawn, The first Creation elements (not chemical elements) were simple, and consisted of heaven (air) and earth (ground). Gen 1:1 Water came from the air since it is a mixture of two gases. Jesus took some of these creation elements and Inflated them at the Big Bang of our Cosmos, which was on the THIRD Day, Gen 2:4 some 13.77 Billion years ago, in man's time.

The elements we all are composed of today, came from the first Stars of our Cosmos, which did NOT put forth their light until the FOURTH Day. Gen 1:16 Can you explain HOW ancient men KNEW this and correctly wrote this thousands of years before Science? I doubt it. Fool me. God Bless you
 

Ben West

Member
"You are confused because you don't know that Adam's Earth was made on the SAME Day as the Big Bang of our Cosmos."

Your very confused and what your saying is made up by you.


Big Bang Conditions Created in Lab


7 trillion degrees Fahrenheit (4 trillion degrees Celsius).

These scorching conditions are enough to melt the protons and neutrons into their constituent parts — namely fundamental particles called quarks and gluons.

This soup of quarks and gluons is thought to have filled the universe a few microseconds after the Big Bang that may have created it about 13.7 billion years ago. After that point, the matter would have cooled and condensed to form the protons and neutrons that make up the matter we see today.

Big Bang Conditions Created in Lab

Dear shawn, Sorry, but there were two other Days/Ages BEFORE the Big Bang of our Cosmos. You can read about the events of those Days, each of which lasted for some 4.5 Billion years, in Genesis 1:1-13 This is because the Big Bang was late on the 3rd Day Gen 2:4 and the First Stars of our Cosmos didn't put forth Light until the 4th Day. Gen 1:16 which was some 380 thousand to a Billion years AFTER the Big Bang, depending on which scientist you believe. God Bless you
 

leibowde84

Veteran Member
Dear shawn, The first Creation elements (not chemical elements) were simple, and consisted of heaven (air) and earth (ground). Gen 1:1 Water came from the air since it is a mixture of two gases. Jesus took some of these creation elements and Inflated them at the Big Bang of our Cosmos, which was on the THIRD Day, Gen 2:4 some 13.77 Billion years ago, in man's time.

The elements we all are composed of today, came from the first Stars of our Cosmos, which did NOT put forth their light until the FOURTH Day. Gen 1:16 Can you explain HOW ancient men KNEW this and correctly wrote this thousands of years before Science? I doubt it. Fool me. God Bless you
Wait, I'm confused. What are you asking? What did they know? In actuality, there is an abundantcy of lack of understanding. With a lot of help from you, the best you could possibly say of them is that they got the days in order correctly. They did not accurately describe anything that actually happened. And, you are obviously subjective in your interpretation of the story, as are we all, and there are plenty who would disagree with you about what was said for each "day."

Even according to you, they merely happened to put the days in the right order, which is definitely up for debate. But, that isn't impressive at all. It could very easily be coincidence, seeing how they were not specific in the least. No mention of the Big Bang, atoms, stars, elements, etc. So, they shoul certainly not get any credit for describing those things. You are merely putting scientific terms into the mouths of men who had no knowledge of them.
 

Ben West

Member
Can you provide a link to information linking LISA to the idea of a multiverse?

Dear Leib, All I have is an old Video from 2008 by Michio Kaku and it's some 10 minutes into the Video when he links L.I.S.A. to confirming or refuting that we live in a Multiverse.Parallel universes. [VIDEO]

I have posted this for many years online and it's just about to be confirmed by Science, Last March, another scientist confirmed the gravitational waves are indeed in our Universe. Now, it time for L.I.S.A. to confirm what is written in Gen 1:6-8 and Gen 2:4 which shows that God make at least 3 HeavenS, two on the 3rd Day and one on the 2nd Day. God Bless you
 

Ben West

Member
Wait, I'm confused. What are you asking? What did they know? In actuality, there is an abundantcy of lack of understanding. With a lot of help from you, the best you could possibly say of them is that they got the days in order correctly. They did not accurately describe anything that actually happened. And, you are obviously subjective in your interpretation of the story, as are we all, and there are plenty who would disagree with you about what was said for each "day."

Even according to you, they merely happened to put the days in the right order, which is definitely up for debate. But, that isn't impressive at all. It could very easily be coincidence, seeing how they were not specific in the least. No mention of the Big Bang, atoms, stars, elements, etc. So, they shoul certainly not get any credit for describing those things. You are merely putting scientific terms into the mouths of men who had no knowledge of them.

Dear leib, What is exciting about this account is that it AGREES in every way with every discovery of Science and History.Today is the 6th Day in the Creation of the 3rd Heaven. God Bless you
 

leibowde84

Veteran Member
Dear Leib, All I have is an old Video from 2008 by Michio Kaku and it's some 10 minutes into the Video when he links L.I.S.A. to confirming or refuting that we live in a Multiverse.Parallel universes. [VIDEO]

I have posted this for many years online and it's just about to be confirmed by Science, Last March, another scientist confirmed the gravitational waves are indeed in our Universe. Now, it time for L.I.S.A. to confirm what is written in Gen 1:6-8 and Gen 2:4 which shows that God make at least 3 HeavenS, two on the 3rd Day and one on the 2nd Day. God Bless you
So, am I correct in assuming that you do not know how L.I.S.A. will be able to prove the multiverse theory? I've read a lot about it, and I see this quoted, but no one provides reasoning for why this would be proof of 3 universes instead of a multitude. In other words, where do you get that L.I.S.A. would prove that there are 3 instead of another number that would disprove your hypothesis.
 

leibowde84

Veteran Member
Dear leib, What is exciting about this account is that it AGREES in every way with every discovery of Science and History.Today is the 6th Day in the Creation of the 3rd Heaven. God Bless you
How long is a "day?" We can reason, at least, that if God is using a unit of measurement, that it would be pointless unless each unit was the same length.
 

leibowde84

Veteran Member
Dear leib, What is exciting about this account is that it AGREES in every way with every discovery of Science and History.Today is the 6th Day in the Creation of the 3rd Heaven. God Bless you
I apologize, but I am a bit frustrated with your use of circular logic. Instead of looking at the Creation story objectively, you go above and beyond trying to explain how it can be manipulated to fit in with scientific theory. Your hypothesis rests on the unproven notion that the Bible is trying to provide a history of creation rather than a metaphore, which seems much more likely. Why do you feel that the Bible was ever intended to provide a historical account of creation? Why were so many scientific facts omitted?

Most importantly, why do you feel that being able to explain away the differences between scientific discovery and the creation story gives merit to the creation story when, in actuality, it merely refutes specific arguments (which you are quite good at, I might add), not providing validity to the Bible, but rather providing invalidity to claims against it. I apologize if I am not being clear.
 

leibowde84

Veteran Member
Dear leib, What is exciting about this account is that it AGREES in every way with every discovery of Science and History.Today is the 6th Day in the Creation of the 3rd Heaven. God Bless you

Simply stated, mere explanations that resolve issues with scientific theory do not provide substantive evidence for creationism, it merely makes it plausible. But, if it ends up being the same scientific explanations, what's the point of understanding it in the first place? Why not just stick with scientific theories like the Big Bang and Evolution?
 

`mud

Just old
Premium Member
hey Ben,
Two big 'IF's' there...... (one) I am that old....(two) there is no 'IF'.
In answering that post I'll have to ask if you've been arguing with idiots ?
Or.....
As to that silly judgment crap....I'd say: "Hey God, how's it hanging,"
and "what are you doing down here !"
~
nuff stuff
~
'mud
 

Ben West

Member
So, am I correct in assuming that you do not know how L.I.S.A. will be able to prove the multiverse theory? I've read a lot about it, and I see this quoted, but no one provides reasoning for why this would be proof of 3 universes instead of a multitude. In other words, where do you get that L.I.S.A. would prove that there are 3 instead of another number that would disprove your hypothesis.

Dear leib, From the Video. It's the very last part when Michio tells that if the numbers of the physicists don't match when LISA detects the first shock waves from the Big Bang, it will be the greatest discovery since Copernicus. I post it now so unbelievers can see that God told us that we live in a Multiverse in Genesis Gen 1:6-8 and Gen 2:4 and today's Science is on the verge of confirming it. It's PROOF of God. God Bless you
 

Ben West

Member
How long is a "day?" We can reason, at least, that if God is using a unit of measurement, that it would be pointless unless each unit was the same length.

Dear leib, Each of God's Days/Ages is some 4.5 Billion years, in man's time. God has but 6 Creative Days and 1 Festival Day, the Age of Joy, the 7th Day which is Eternity. Today is the 6th Day because God is STILL creating Adam (Heb-mankind) in His Image which IS Christ. God Bless you
 

Ben West

Member
I apologize, but I am a bit frustrated with your use of circular logic. Instead of looking at the Creation story objectively, you go above and beyond trying to explain how it can be manipulated to fit in with scientific theory. Your hypothesis rests on the unproven notion that the Bible is trying to provide a history of creation rather than a metaphore, which seems much more likely. Why do you feel that the Bible was ever intended to provide a historical account of creation? Why were so many scientific facts omitted?

Most importantly, why do you feel that being able to explain away the differences between scientific discovery and the creation story gives merit to the creation story when, in actuality, it merely refutes specific arguments (which you are quite good at, I might add), not providing validity to the Bible, but rather providing invalidity to claims against it. I apologize if I am not being clear.

Dear leib, It's because God HID the details of His Truth from men until the time of the end. Here is what He tells Daniel:

Daniel 12:4
But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

See? IF God is the Supreme Intelligence of Creation and He is, then don't go looking for Him to be as ancient men THOUGHT Him to be. God reveals Himself in His writing of Genesis just as all of us do, on these boards. ONLY God could have written the Scientific Details into Genesis Chapter ONE and gotten EVERY detail in total AGREEMENT with what Science has learned. God Bless you
 

Ben West

Member
Simply stated, mere explanations that resolve issues with scientific theory do not provide substantive evidence for creationism, it merely makes it plausible. But, if it ends up being the same scientific explanations, what's the point of understanding it in the first place? Why not just stick with scientific theories like the Big Bang and Evolution?

Dear leib, Because believing the theories of science leads to death and rot. Right? When will you realize that God told us the latest scientific Truth more than 3k years ago, in Genesis, which we are just now beginning to understand? This knowledge leads to Immortality or Life Eternal. How do you ever get anyone to swallow your silly notion that this is all there is? I suppose an atheist's biggest Nightmare is waking up at the Judgment. God Bless you
 

Ben West

Member
hey Ben,
Two big 'IF's' there...... (one) I am that old....(two) there is no 'IF'.
In answering that post I'll have to ask if you've been arguing with idiots ?
Or.....
As to that silly judgment crap....I'd say: "Hey God, how's it hanging,"
and "what are you doing down here !"
~
nuff stuff
~
'mud

Dear mud, I misunderstood since I get called an idiot more than anything else. How you doin? old friend?
 

shawn001

Well-Known Member
Dear shawn, Sorry, but there were two other Days/Ages BEFORE the Big Bang of our Cosmos. You can read about the events of those Days, each of which lasted for some 4.5 Billion years, in Genesis 1:1-13 This is because the Big Bang was late on the 3rd Day Gen 2:4 and the First Stars of our Cosmos didn't put forth Light until the 4th Day. Gen 1:16 which was some 380 thousand to a Billion years AFTER the Big Bang, depending on which scientist you believe. God Bless you


"Dear shawn, Sorry, but there were two other Days/Ages BEFORE the Big Bang of our Cosmos."

Its like you want to learn about cosmology and astronomy, following some parts of the science and then twisting them, but have it all wrong because your making it fit Genesis using your interpretations. Once again the Earth could not have formed, one before the universe, two before atoms, 3 before the first stars and nucleosynthesis and then our sun and we know quite a bit about how our solar system formed. In fact we know the Earth is made from recycled material, from one star a supernova, not the sun and probably from two supernovas.

"and the First Stars of our Cosmos didn't put forth Light until the 4th Day. Gen 1:16 which was some 380c to a Billion years AFTER the Big Bang, depending on which scientist you believe. "

Almost entirely wrong, the only thing you have somewhat right is the first stars at 380 thousand years after the bang. There was a process called Recombination.

The gravity waves experiment did not find the waves. It would have given more support to the inflation theory and possibly multiverses. The CMB might give support to multiverses, but hasn't yet.
 

HiEv

Citation Needed
In all honesty, it seems to me that the word species is quite simply another word for kind. In fact, it is often defined as "kind", and people were speaking of kinds of creatures for centuries, and perhaps even millenniums.

species - "kind; sort", " an individual or kind belonging to a biological species"
Species - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

So you ignored all of the specific definitions at that site, and just used the ones that had the word "kind" in them? That's a bit dishonest, IMHO.

The first definition which actually appears there is, "biology: a group of animals or plants that are similar and can produce young animals or plants : a group of related animals or plants that is smaller than a genus".

kind - a group united by common traits or interests.
Kind - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Thus us talking about species of lifeforms is little different than our ancient ancestors talking about kinds of lifeforms.

I guess you utterly failed to notice that the definition of the word "kind" completely lacks the specificity of the word "species". So no, there's actually a huge difference between the very specific meaning of the word "species" and the far more general word "kind".

For example, in the Bible, bats are a kind of bird (Leviticus 11:13-19). That's because they both have wings and fly, so with the loose terminology of "kind" that's acceptable. However, with the more precise terminology of "species", they are very clearly not birds.

Even Answers in Genesis, that bastion of anti-science creationist rhetoric, agrees that "kind" and "species" don't mean the same thing (for example here).

So, no, "kinds" and "species" don't mean the same thing at all.

Yes, evolution is descent with modification; it is change in gene frequency within a population of species over time.

Congratulations, you accept the fact of evolution. Because that's all the fact of evolution is.

And it certainly might be true that species do change over time. In fact, species might even change to such an extent that they fall in to a new classification category of species as presently defined.

Yup, this is pretty much the inevitable result of accepting the fact of evolution. Given enough generations, differences will accumulate, thus, by definition, new species will slowly emerge.

The Big Bang was the light event caused by God speaking light into existance. "Let there be light".
In the beginning once God spoke, there was no matter at all. It was all light. And over time it all began to condense into matter which clustered due to gravity and formed the stars and other physical celestial bodies.

Uh... Have you read the Bible?

God creates the heavens and the Earth first (though somehow the Earth is "formless and empty", yet God manages to hover over its waters anyways). It's only after that when God says, "Let there be light." Somehow God separates this light into day and night on day 1, but He doesn't get around to creating the Sun until day 4.

How can the Earth be "formless and empty" yet have water? How can you have day and night without the Sun? How can you have light without a light source? How can you "separate light from the darkness"?

If you really think about it, this all makes no sense.

The Bible sometimes defines God as Light. "This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all."
(1 John 1:5)

Yeah, and sometimes God is surrounded by darkness:

"Then Solomon said, 'The LORD has said that He would dwell in a dark cloud;'" - 1 Kings 8:12 and 2 Chronicles 6:1

"The LORD reigns, let the earth be glad; let the distant shores rejoice. Clouds and thick darkness surround Him; righteousness and justice are the foundation of His throne." - Psalm 97:2

"In my distress I called to the LORD; I cried to my God for help. From his temple He heard my voice; my cry came before him, into his ears. The earth trembled and quaked, and the foundations of the mountains shook; they trembled because he was angry. Smoke rose from his nostrils; consuming fire came from His mouth, burning coals blazed out of it. He parted the heavens and came down; dark clouds were under His feet. He mounted the cherubim and flew; He soared on the wings of the wind. He made darkness his covering, His canopy around him-- the dark rain clouds of the sky." - Psalm 18:6-11

(There's a version of God you don't see depicted very often! Sounds a lot like Zeus.)

The dictionary defines the word "day" as "a time of light".

If God is present, as He was during epochs of creation, it was day.

A morning is defined as the early portion of a day.

Evening is defined as the latter portion of a day.

This is incorrect. Evening, specifically after sunset and three stars are visible, was the start of the new day in the Hebrew tradition. So evening was both the end and the beginning of the day according to the people who wrote Genesis. (source)

God is the light of the 7 day creation, not the sun, not reflections from the moon; It was God.

But that's not what Genesis actually says. It says, that in the beginning "darkness was over the waters of the deep", which is exactly where God was "hovering" at that time (Genesis 1:2). Light only came into existence in Genesis after God creates it. If God is the light, then it makes no sense that God would have to create the light, nor that God could be exactly where the darkness was. Heck, that passage is just more support for the "God dwells in darkness" argument.

Furthermore, Genesis 1:14-19 specifically says that the Sun, Moon, and stars were created on day 4 to give light to the Earth. So Genesis 1 specifically says what the lights are on day 4, and I see not a single suggestion that God is the light referred to there.

It looks like you're making things up which the Bible doesn't actually say, and in fact, the Bible suggests the opposite.
 

Bunyip

pro scapegoat
So you ignored all of the specific definitions at that site, and just used the ones that had the word "kind" in them? That's a bit dishonest, IMHO.

The first definition which actually appears there is, "biology: a group of animals or plants that are similar and can produce young animals or plants : a group of related animals or plants that is smaller than a genus".



I guess you utterly failed to notice that the definition of the word "kind" completely lacks the specificity of the word "species". So no, there's actually a huge difference between the very specific meaning of the word "species" and the far more general word "kind".

For example, in the Bible, bats are a kind of bird (Leviticus 11:13-19). That's because they both have wings and fly, so with the loose terminology of "kind" that's acceptable. However, with the more precise terminology of "species", they are very clearly not birds.

Even Answers in Genesis, that bastion of anti-science creationist rhetoric, agrees that "kind" and "species" don't mean the same thing (for example here).

So, no, "kinds" and "species" don't mean the same thing at all.



Congratulations, you accept the fact of evolution. Because that's all the fact of evolution is.



Yup, this is pretty much the inevitable result of accepting the fact of evolution. Given enough generations, differences will accumulate, thus, by definition, new species will slowly emerge.



Uh... Have you read the Bible?

God creates the heavens and the Earth first (though somehow the Earth is "formless and empty", yet God manages to hover over its waters anyways). It's only after that when God says, "Let there be light." Somehow God separates this light into day and night on day 1, but He doesn't get around to creating the Sun until day 4.

How can the Earth be "formless and empty" yet have water? How can you have day and night without the Sun? How can you have light without a light source? How can you "separate light from the darkness"?

If you really think about it, this all makes no sense.



Yeah, and sometimes God is surrounded by darkness:

"Then Solomon said, 'The LORD has said that He would dwell in a dark cloud;'" - 1 Kings 8:12 and 2 Chronicles 6:1

"The LORD reigns, let the earth be glad; let the distant shores rejoice. Clouds and thick darkness surround Him; righteousness and justice are the foundation of His throne." - Psalm 97:2

"In my distress I called to the LORD; I cried to my God for help. From his temple He heard my voice; my cry came before him, into his ears. The earth trembled and quaked, and the foundations of the mountains shook; they trembled because he was angry. Smoke rose from his nostrils; consuming fire came from His mouth, burning coals blazed out of it. He parted the heavens and came down; dark clouds were under His feet. He mounted the cherubim and flew; He soared on the wings of the wind. He made darkness his covering, His canopy around him-- the dark rain clouds of the sky." - Psalm 18:6-11

(There's a version of God you don't see depicted very often! Sounds a lot like Zeus.)



This is incorrect. Evening, specifically after sunset and three stars are visible, was the start of the new day in the Hebrew tradition. So evening was both the end and the beginning of the day according to the people who wrote Genesis. (source)



But that's not what Genesis actually says. It says, that in the beginning "darkness was over the waters of the deep", which is exactly where God was "hovering" at that time (Genesis 1:2). Light only came into existence in Genesis after God creates it. If God is the light, then it makes no sense that God would have to create the light, nor that God could be exactly where the darkness was. Heck, that passage is just more support for the "God dwells in darkness" argument.

Furthermore, Genesis 1:14-19 specifically says that the Sun, Moon, and stars were created on day 4 to give light to the Earth. So Genesis 1 specifically says what the lights are on day 4, and I see not a single suggestion that God is the light referred to there.

It looks like you're making things up which the Bible doesn't actually say, and in fact, the Bible suggests the opposite.
I think it was Jonathon Swift who said that you can't reason a man out of a position he was not reasoned into in the first place.
 
Last edited:
Top