CREATION (1) (Page 2)

GeraldtheGnome: You’re guessing Bob, I'm not dense. I don't believe in something being certain when it is not proven, you do. Not once in Hebrew is the actual use of the name God in anyway ever used at all, the Jews as far back as you can go before the Middle Ages never used the name God once because it was made up in the Middle Ages. You don't understand science at all and your grammar is terrible too. How anything is created and how a claimed to be real god who by the way wasn't named God in Hebrew in any way whatsoever is important, you are just making excuses because you don't know the answer. Nature can not cause life from nothing and I never claimed that it did, you think some people think that, sure some do but I don't. Nothing can come from nothing, I agree, that is why if you look at the Bible properly then every creation story that isn't about life never happened unless you're just claiming that some form of gas (which is not mentioned to be what created anything that wasn't a life form in the Bible) created everything but life. Now if it is shown to be true then it would be believed by most people including myself. You haven't worked out why I mention that there was no beginning, here's a clue, everything and everyone, including any god and any known universe or at least anything in the known universe came from something or someone as did whatever or whoever brought that about and so on. There is no way of knowing that there ever was a beginning or that any god if a god is real never had a beginning himself.

There is the the possibility that we can find out if there was or wasn't a certain Jesus but so far neither of us has any way of proving that at all. However any Biblical accounts of a god and Jesus can be shown to be true or false and with that it can be worked out if the god and the certain Jesus depicted in the Bible are made up or real. Abiogenesis hasn't been proven to be false or something that never happened. You have to prove that something is false before making a claim about something that you are yet to prove. So it's you who is being dense about it, not me. Don't use naturalistically, it's a stupid politically correct term that a lot of people have stupidly adopted lately, not just those that are religious, it's mainly a far left winged term ironically, yet you of the far right are using it. Creation Science is an oxymoronic term, either something happened scientifically or it magically happened by any form of religious creationism, not just of a god of Abraham religion. Creationism is not scientific, it never has been and it never will be unless you can prove that I am wrong.

Blackshoes: No I'm not! You stand on ignorance as do all those that consider themself omniscience

GeraldtheGnome: Wrong, it's what you do. You also should have a space there and missed the full stop. The word is omniscient, not omniscience. Neither of us are omniscient and in a way you have shown that you don't have proof that any form of creation happened and that any god is proven to be real. You have to work out if a god is real or not by finding enough evidence to prove that a god came about somehow rather than use the excuse that he was always just around.

Blackshoes: So you say from your position of ignorance

GeraldtheGnome: I only ignore the temptation to state that there is at least one god who is real when I don’t have the proof that there is even one god, I want there to be at least one god and there possibly is but that still doesn’t mean that there is a god. You continuously give into the temptation of what you believe to be certain even though you are yet to prove it to anyone, including to yourself. Living on wishful thinking about some supernatural entities that are yet to be proven to be real is not the way to live your life. Just believe that a god and a certain Jesus are possibly real, but whatever you do you have to understand why even if turns out that the god of the Bible and a certain Jesus of the Bible are real (which won’t happen by the way) still won’t be enough to get most non Christians to worship them or for that matter even Christians who presently don’t worship both of them. The reason is if you read The Bible properly and fully or at least most of it then they both aren’t the types you’d want to worship if they are real, they aren’t real though. Ignore all of this as much as you like but it is true. I’m literally saying nothing with these typed messages and you do have a position of ignorance. I just ignore what is unrealistic. I’m not telling you that there never was one creator of at least one creation, but there was no intelligent designer, life and everything else in The Bible was not created, maybe something or someone created something before all that is claimed to to created and maybe a creator was created too, if so then there was always something or someone before that. How life came about is unknown and I won’t pretend that I know how it did.

Blackshoes: Open your eyes, and you'll see n' entire universe of proof!

GeraldtheGnome: Seeing the universe is only seeing that the universe is around, it doesn’t prove or disprove that there is a real creator god around somewhere right now somehow that I don’t know of and it certainly doesn’t tell me that it was or wasn’t created just by looking at stars and so on. There’s no comma before the word and by the way, leave a space also. There is also not an entire universe of proof.

m_leonora1111: Blackshoes, how you doing? Are you still taking to people that are blind and deaf? They have eyes but they cannot see, and have ear but cannot heard. This is what has happened to these people.

2 Thessalonians 2:8-12!!

There is nothing that we can do anymore for them. Search for people that want to know who is Jesus Christ and His Father God Jehovah.

Blackshoes:
m_leonora1111: They know not what they do Doesn't matter, they'll have to deal with that on their last day. Not my problem, I just do my best, to tell the truth. All their hatred and ignorance can't help themselves or others. All I can do is tell them what I know and believe n' It's all in God's hands.

Luke 9:5

“And whosoever will not receive you, when ye go out of that city, shake off the very dust from your feet for a testimony against them.”

GeraldtheGnome: Well no one is literally talking on here or anywhere else on this site so if he is talking to such people then it is not on this site. Jesus Christ is an unproven to be real character in the Bible as is the god in the Bible. You both do your best to tell the truth and you both even do think that you tell the truth even though you both fail at telling the truth. If there is a god and a certain Jesus around somewhere right now, which is possible, then we know nothing about them so nothing is in the hands of either of them, it is still possible that even a non-religious version of both of them is imaginary. I have no hatred and ignorance about those who are possibly imaginary. Jehovah and the Arian named god named God are not names that were used by the earliest Christians.

GeraldtheGnome: The others that you think have hatred and ignorance don’t have hatred and ignorance by the way.

Blackshoes:

GeraldtheGnome: What I have below this is directly from a site named biblehub.com

In the beginning בְּרֵאשִׁ֖ית
(be·re·shit) 7225: beginning, chief from rosh
God אֱלֹהִ֑ים
(e·lo·him 430: God, god pl. of eloah
created בָּרָ֣א
(ba·ra) 1254a: to shape, create a prim. root
the heavens הַשָּׁמַ֖יִם
(ha·sha·ma·yim) 8064: heaven, sky from an unused word
and the earth. הָאָֽרֶץ׃
(ha·'a·retz.) 776: earth, land a prim. root

Where did the name God appear there in Hebrew ? Because you like the King James Bible I have link here for you where you won't see the words bereshit, elohim, bara, hashamayim with the Hebrew and the word ha'aretz used on the site. The Holy Name Kings James Bible is the one there. I also partially showed it below as well.

Massoretic Text OT Hebrew Genesis 1:1 Lexicon Strong's Concordance Cross References B'rëshiyt Bärä élohiym ët haSHämayim w'ët hääretz

Massoretic Text OT Hebrew Genesis 1:1 Lexicon Strong's Concordance Cross References
In the beginning 7225 ´Élöhîm אֱלֹהִים 430 created 1254 853 z8804 the heaven 8064 and y853 the earth. 776

http://www.qbible.com/hebrew-old-testament/genesis/1.html

You have some interesting videos. Was that a photo of Trilobite ? I never knew anyone was even around to take a photo back then.

I disagree with everything I heard in those videos.

Blackshoes: GTG Immediately the first thing guy said is he doesn't know what he's doing . I agree he has anymore of a clue than you do

GeraldtheGnome: It's all of the same mistakes as usual with you. You are wrong Bob and as always you have something insulting added to the end. Bob. I have a question for you. Was your god created or born or formed ?

Blackshoes: Then prove it !
Make life from nonlife! Abiogenesis is naturalistically impossible! I'll be waiting
Show one real-time present trans kind event? a cat dog a new organ in development of a kind more eyes etc a flying whale anything! I'm still waiting

Macroevolution has no genetic avenue whatsoever to make it plausible !





"When Charles Darwin published “On the Origin of Species” in 1859, he was painstakingly aware of the fact that the fossil record diametrically opposed his theory. Ever since Darwin’s time, paleontologists have put their finger on the so-called Cambrian explosion. The term describes the fact that within one single geological era called the Cambrian era, a wide variety of fossilized animal forms shows up suddenly and without any evidence of intermediate forms preceding them in Precambrian strata. This state of affairs is hard to reconcile with Darwin’s idea that species evolved slowly and gradually over long periods of time. Darwin himself acknowledged this problem and admitted that if we assume the theory of evolution to be true, we should find an interminable number of intermediate forms in the fossil record. However, at Darwin’s time, those countless transitional forms were nowhere to be found. The leading figures of paleontology didn’t hold back with their criticism of Darwin, who, in turn, described their objections as potentially fatal to the entire theory of evolution. Yet, instead of dealing with the paleontological evidence as it presented itself to him, Darwin explained away the absence of paleontological evidence for evolution by asserting that future discoveries by paleontologists would eventually unearth those countless intermediate forms that his theory needed in order to be vindicated. Have his hopes come true? No, they haven’t. In fact, as the science of paleontology has, like any other scientific discipline during the 20th century, made huge leaps forward, the evidence that has emerged has put the theory of evolution into even greater trouble. Find out why in this very first episode of my new series on the basics of Intelligent Design.

0:00 Intro
0:52 Darwin's Theory
2:16 A Troubling Conundrum
4:42 A Milestone Discovery
5:09 Phyla and Fossils
6:38 The Blink of an Eye
7:28 Amazing Trilobite
8:22 Stubborn Paleontology
9:05 Darwin's Problem Amplified
11:23 Wrapping Up & Looking Ahead

This is the first video of an ongoing series on the Evolution vs. Intelligent Design debate. My aim is to make the basics of Intelligent Design and of critical thinking about evolutionary theory available to the uninitiated viewer. I will unpack, in a step-by-step fashion, why the complex, specified information we find in organisms of the animal kingdom is better explained by the theory of Intelligent Design than by Neo-Darwinism.

The videos in these series are based on the New York Times bestseller “Darwin’s Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design” by Stephen C. Meyer (Revised ed. Edition, San Francisco: HarperOne, 2014). In fact, the videos can be thought of as summaries of the most essential points of Meyer’s book. This video in particular relates to the content of chapters 1-2.

This series is done in partnership with the Discovery Institute, the leading Intelligent Design think tank (https://www.discovery.org/). The Discovery Institute is sometimes accused of advancing Biblical creationism disguised as science. This is an ad hominem attack that does nothing to address the actual arguments that are being put forward by Intelligent Design theorists. Besides, the accusation reveals ignorance of the fact that there is a wide range of atheist and agnostic scientists who consider Intelligent Design a legitimate scientific hypothesis. Nevertheless, one of my videos will talk about how the hypotheses advanced by Intelligent Design and creationism are fundamentally different.

I have not received formal training in evolutionary biology. However, I have spent a great amount of time studying Neo-Darwinism and Intelligent Design over the last three years. I am mentioning this for two reasons: First, this is simply a matter of transparency and intellectual honesty, which are, I believe, key, as we’re dealing with a controversial topic. Second, I’m aware that the fact of me not being an evolutionary biologist will be used by critics in the attempt to undermine the credibility of the arguments I offer here. However, the validity of an argument is not affected by the question of who advances it. Therefore, questioning my content because I’m not an evolutionary biologist (or, a scientist, for that matter) is logically fallacious. In addition, the following may be pointed out: Unless the person who offers such criticism is him or herself an evolutionary biologist, advancing such criticism is at best hypocritical and at worst self-defeating. For if the credibility of my arguments is supposedly questionable due to me not being an evolutionary biologist, why should the critic’s criticism of my arguments be any more credible, given that he or she isn’t an evolutionary biologist either?'

GeraldtheGnome: The same stuff as per usual, it meant nothing the first time and it still doesn't. Everything I've ever told you still applies. You haven't proved anything. If something is believed by you as being impossible then just tell me that it is impossible according to you. The adding an extra word doesn't make a difference, something is either impossible or it isn't, not the extra crap. Even if you were able to prove that evolution, which is something that you haven't done, then it still wouldn't rule out every form of evolution. Again you are being a fake creationist because you are partially supporting what you go against. You unknowingly are, at least Zeffur doesn't do that any more.

Unlike some of the non-religious on this site I've listened to that video and read everything on it quite a number of times now. I never know if you actually listen to the videos that I put on but I very much doubt that you have listened to even one of them.

By the way you are against abiogenesis because it's about life from non-life, it's fine to be against it but that still doesn't mean that it never happened and it also doesn't mean that it did happen either. You actually have to prove that it never happened rather than just repeatedly making claims that it never happened at all. Can you make life from non-life ? No one ever has and it's most likely that no one ever will. You're not winning an argument there, in fact where both at a stalemate there. Can you please put on your version of the book that you love so much ? All of Genesis one. Evolution is just about evolution, you can break it up into as many parts as you want to but no matter which bit of it you support it's still about evolution. Go and see Zeffur about it, he'll resolve the problem for you. At least he isn't contradicting himself about evolution.

I guess you are right. Everyone for evolution must be silly. Did sharks even evolve from some other animal ?

Blackshoes: The truth doesn't change! Abiogenesis isn't going to become possible and Macroevolution is never going to find any form of support within science !

It is what it is !

GeraldtheGnome: Abiogenesis isn't going to become possible, you are so right, it's because it possibly happened in the past. You still haven't worked out that without what you and others refer macroevolution (despite what I think about that term) it still isn't possible without microevolution., they both rely on each other and they both refer to evolution. I'll put it this way, is it true that there a small adult can be found ? You know something, as much as I don't like the term I still understand and agree with the definition of what macroevolution is about. Even though it's not a term that I like seeing you are making sure it stays around which is a good and a bad thing. Neither of us ever need two or more paragraphs all of the time despite what a far left winged extremist decided to make an issue with me about.

GeraldtheGnome:

Blackshoes: OMG same Bull Sh.t different day, I wish a had a dollar for every time I've heard that we don't understand or we're uninformed. As if TOE is too hard to comprehend

It didn't happen! If it had happened or was happening, we would have observed it within the fossil record and present time!

We would have a reasonable biological and genetic avenue to support it .

Nope! Nothing! Why is that simple fact so hard for the fanatics to understand and comprehend?

I'll answer that for You! Because TOE outside of *Microevolution is a religion masquerading as science that the sheep cannot or will not accept the facts!
Therefore whenever real science is shown that clearly refutes and shows how false ToE is presented. The fanatics lean back on their faith, that eons of time and unscientific unobserved n' imagine processes make their fairytale a fact in their minds
Never or refusing to accept that there is a far more reasonable alternative: than their faith in Naturalism and Humanism

Rather than just simply saying that all we have is a theory or that we disagree

Evolutionists are determined to endlessly preach their religious assumptions and opinions down everyone else throat and indoctrination as many as possible!

Abiogenesis Is Naturalistically IMPOSSIBLE!

Macroevolution is unscientific and has Never Never Never been observed!






* adaptational change within the genetic limitation of a kind !

GeraldtheGnome: You've run out of anything original and just keep repeating the same disproven stuff over and over again. If you proved everything that you assume about creation, evolution, abiogenesis and so on then you wouldn't be repeating the same videos over and over again. Now if we look at abiogenesis that may have possibly happened and at your imaginary creation story there's the case that all new life is claimed to have come from non-life. You can try getting around that as much as you want but it's unavoidable. Since you don't believe that life ever came from non-life you just ruled out not only abiogenesis but also every life creation story in your damn book. So in reality by your own words it's all considered to be impossible by you.

Blackshoes: DITTO You support and prove my post with your every word Just keep yapping

GeraldtheGnome: What you came out with is entirely wrong. Basically in your own way you repeatedly tell everyone that something cannot come from nothing, well here’s the thing so far at least no one has been to heaven and no one has seen heaven so at best it’s possibly true that there is a heaven and it’s possibly true that there isn’t a heaven, it’s something that at least so far there is no evidence that proves that it is a real place. What makes it worse for you is that there isn’t even one Bible that tells anyone that heaven was created from something.

Sure you can tell me that a god created it but then it doesn’t tell you what it was created with by that god. So that one is claimed to be something created from nothing. Nothing is the only thing that is created from nothing. Some versions or maybe at least mistranslated versions of Hebrew have that what really is about the sky, that doesn’t make it any better. The non-religious belief by some that the verse about heaven or the heavens (as some versions have it) is a reference to the universe/cosmos/space doesn’t make it any better either. I also disagree with them. The reality is that no one really knows what the anonymous author meant. Then there’s exactly exactly the same claim that the Earth was created from nothing, even those who claim that it’s just about the ground or the soil still cannot explain how something was created from nothing. Again, despite the myth that something came from nothing the reality is that the Earth came from something. Since the Christian Bible originated from what’s in the Tanakh it means that both books are about false claims that something came from nothing.

So the Earth wasn’t created from nothing, so if you factor that in then there was no Earth. Almost everything that is known about beyond Earth’s atmosphere formed billions of years ago, I don’t agree with the age method used to roughly tell how many billions of years ago but it was. When is unknown, what is known is that the sun and most other stars that are known about were around billions of years ago. So your story starts with that there was a god at the beginning that created things from nothing. That never happened. This means that everything claimed to be created from nothing is about something that never happened, that every form of life that is claimed in it to have been created/spontaneously generated from non-life never was created therefore there was no Adam, no Eve and no one else mentioned in the book. It also means there’s no Earth, no anonymous authors and that every human born from and including each anonymous author to whoever has just been born are all imaginary. The problem is that we exist and everyone before everyone alive did exist. Your probably thinking now that I wasn’t able to rule out the creator god, with what I put here you are right. Stop it with the rude stuff too. You really have to stop being childish and grow up.

m_leonora1111: You are completely wrong. Jesus Christ come from heaven, and has return to heaven, after He has made possible the best way and only way that people can entered heaven.

Again my friend. Till today you don't know what the word "GOD" means.

Go on Wikipedia and try to understand what the word "GOD" means!!