All things bright and beautiful.

GeraldtheGnome: All things bright and beautiful. Well if you know the hymn then you know what I mean. Here's a cute ad with very cute Animals in the ad with the music from that.



Now here's the thing. The word 'made' when it comes to Christianity is a problem.

The claim is that there was a beginning. Now if it was read in the true meaning of what was put in Hebrew then a plural was used that solely means gods, not god and not God (in English). So the claim is that in standard English monotheism is that a god named God created the atmosphere and The Earth after him. Well if there was a beginning, even though there wasn't, then the god if we believe that a god created those things after him, if he was around then, had an origin. The claim that he was uncreated. Well here's the problem with creation theories of Christianity and of other religions like it. If the creation theory has that there was a beginning then there first was nothing, then in the first second a god or gods formed from nothing and then created the atmosphere and The Earth from nothing. No matter what the certain start of the world was and how the atmosphere started to form and then formed is unknown.

That though doesn't explain why anyone would think that a god or gods formed from nothing or how a god or gods were around before the beginning of all, so there's a contradiction there. So here's a possible biblical timeline. A god or gods (depending on if you think that it's about monotheism or not) formed from nothing within the first second then at some time in between that second (though possibly the second after) that one created Earth and its atmosphere in either a second or it took up to some time less than six or seven hours in the darkness from nothing. All of it totally goes against the laws of science and besides it is all false.

namenotrick: Sir you're confusing theology with science; the genesis account was created way before the concept of science was even a thing so it's not intended as or should be read as a scientific explanation; It's like asking "why is the water in the kettle boiling" and expecting an explanation of how the heating element works and rejecting the answer "because I put the kettle on", the answers aren't incompatible

GeraldtheGnome: Creationists constantly use The Bible as something that they can scientifically proven, in reality they can't do that, nor can anyone else with any creation theory that has been dreamt up. So if you want to complain to anyone about confusing theology with science then tell them instead of me. One is a myth about something that happened, evolution in regards to science is

My point is that creationists have that all 'kinds' (as they put it) that are now on Earth and that have since died at some unknown point in most cases after a flood that in reality never happened, so you are damn right that any of that should be read as a scientific explanation. Their way of thinking brings about questions that they can't answer. How do they know that there even was a beginning and why do they contradict that by mentioning that a god named God or in reality that the gods and goddesses had no origin. No one can prove that any god had an origin or that it is even possible, this too applies to every Genesis one story where all that is included in that chapter, except for the gods and goddesses, were created from nothing, that includes the story about the first couple, who by the way are not the first couple even mentioned in the next chapter. Apart from the way you wrongly used quotation marks and one semi colon the rest was fine even though I don't know so far what side you are specifically on.

namenotrick: "tell them instead of me" or I could tell both them and you

GeraldtheGnome: Here's an example from what is claimed to be like something that would happen, in reality it would never happen.



I add this and stress this, this is the type of crap that I am up against.

namenotrick: I'm aware

GeraldtheGnome:

Basically if anyone wants to tell me that they are for the video then they should explain why it is true, of course those who don't like it can either tell me why they don't like it or wait for later on when I explain why (with a video) why the specific creationist video is wrong and that it's not about anything that really is scientifically true at all. Religion and science should never be mixed together in such a way.