The Seed

[Apple Sky]

That's just what an A.I. bot would say.

I can beat it at chess too, not ........

 

[David Lamb]

And why do these scientists not know God's truth ? Take the likes of Bill Nye or Neil Degrass Tyson or even Richard Dawkins do not really believe in God's creation & NASA's Masonic leaders most certainly didn't except for Van Werner Braun he may have done in the end.

Like people generally, some scientists don't believe in God, let alone that He is Creator, and some do. You name three who don't, but I can name several who do, including such as Professor Stuart Burgess, Professor Andy McIntosh and Henry Morris. (There are many others). They are not at all like Richard Dawkins and the rest.

 

[David Lamb]

Get over it, a fish eyed lens causes everything to appear circular & round. Amen .........

But we've been shown a picture of a grid taken with a fish eye lens, which shows that the central horizontal and vertical lines are straight. Also, you have yet to demonstrate that a fish eye lens would turn a flat disc like a CD or DVD, or indeed your supposed flat disc earth, into a sphere.

 

[David Lamb]

What do you mean, they are all Masons including ol Buzz.

But you said they were Masonic leaders, not merely masons. They weren't all masons anyway.

 

[David Lamb]

Prove that they walked on the moon.

How does that answer the post to which you were replying?

 

[Apple Sky]

Also, you have yet to demonstrate that a fish eye lens would turn a flat disc like a CD or DVD, or indeed your supposed flat disc earth, into a sphere.

Too which is does, you've seen the images, open your eyes.

 

[Apple Sky]

But you said they were Masoenic leaders, not merely masons. They weren't all masons anyway.

No I checked, your right they weren't, my apologies

 

[David Lamb]

Too which is does, you've seen the images, open your eyes.

To which what does? Are you saying that a fish eye lens makes something that is unquestionable a flat disc, like a coin or a CD, look like a globe? Have you got any evidence that such a thing would happen - an actual photo of a coin taken with a fish eye lens, for example?

 

[Apple Sky]

To which what does? Are you saying that a fish eye lens makes something that is unquestionable a flat disc, like a coin or a CD, look like a globe? Have you got any evidence that such a thing would happen - an actual photo of a coin taken with a fish eye lens, for example?

There are loads, just google it.

 

[David Lamb]

There are loads, just google it.

I did Google it. I could not find a single fish eye lens photo of something that is unquestionably a flat disc. Perhaps you could link to just one of the loads you say exist, but remember, it must be something that everybody agrees is a flat disc, like a coin or a DVD.

 

[Apple Sky]

it must be something that everybody agrees is a flat disc, like a coin or a DVD.

Why when a disc is round anyway ?
I've showed you the earth taken with a fish eyed lens, this should be proof enough.

 

[HantsUK]

-

​

Science's Big Lie

Globe earth, outer space, evolution, big band, sun is a star/stars are suns, the existence of planets. None of theses lies by science are Biblically supported

This is a very short list. Some more that you've missed out:

Atoms, electrons, nuclear model, ions, electricity, quantum mechanics, speed of light, electromagnetic radiation (radio waves, light, UV etc), radioactive decay.​

Presumably technology based on these scientific claims is a hoax. They claim that the latest 'silicon chips' have parts 'drawn' on them are smaller than 5nm (that is 1 / 5,000,000 of an inch!). Really? The only photos of these 'chips' showing what is on them are computer generated. Even the most powerful microscopes cannot magnify things that small because it is less than the wavelength of light - how convenient! Then there is the so-called fibre optic communications that use infrared light (i.e. light you cannot see - so you cannot prove it exists) which is fed down a glass pipe with an inner core of 0.000009m diameter.

And there is no mention of:

North America, South America, Australia or New Zealand in the Bible.​

Anyone who lives in one of these claimed continents (yet another non-Biblical false idea) must be lying or deceived and thus brainwashed by NASA. NASA is very clever - some people have even been brainwashed into thinking NASA is a conspiracy.

------

Question: why reject some science but then accept other areas of science? If science is a lie, then to be consistent, you need to reject all science and all technology that is based on the fruits of science. No radio, no TV (not because of the content but because of the underlying technology). No telephones. No cars. No computers. No internet. Some groups of people do reject all modem 'technology'.

 

[David Lamb]

Why when a disc is round anyway ?
I've showed you the earth taken with a fish eyed lens, this should be proof enough.

Because that is what you keep claiming - that photos showing a globe earth are trick photos and are really photos of a flat earth taken with a fish eye lens. So you saying, "I've showed you the earth taken with a fish eyed lens, this should be proof enough." is not proof. Show me a fish eye lens photo of something that everybody agrees is a flat disc. If such a photo shows a globe, you might have a point. At the moment, you have not given any evidence that a fish eye lens would turn a disc into a globe.

 

[d taylor]

This is a very short list. Some more that you've missed out:

Atoms, electrons, nuclear model, ions, electricity, quantum mechanics, speed of light, electromagnetic radiation (radio waves, light, UV etc), radioactive decay.​

Presumably technology based on these scientific claims is a hoax. They claim that the latest 'silicon chips' have parts 'drawn' on them are smaller than 5nm (that is 1 / 5,000,000 of an inch!). Really? The only photos of these 'chips' showing what is on them are computer generated. Even the most powerful microscopes cannot magnify things that small because it is less than the wavelength of light - how convenient! Then there is the so-called fibre optic communications that use infrared light (i.e. light you cannot see - so you cannot prove it exists) which is fed down a glass pipe with an inner core of 0.000009m diameter.

And there is no mention of:

North America, South America, Australia or New Zealand in the Bible.​

Anyone who lives in one of these claimed continents (yet another non-Biblical false idea) must be lying or deceived and thus brainwashed by NASA. NASA is very clever - some people have even been brainwashed into thinking NASA is a conspiracy.

------

Question: why reject some science but then accept other areas of science? If science is a lie, then to be consistent, you need to reject all science and all technology that is based on the fruits of science. No radio, no TV (not because of the content but because of the underlying technology). No telephones. No cars. No computers. No internet. Some groups of people do reject all modem 'technology'.

-

​

Yep! you are building your foundation on man which is the same as building on sand.

 

[Hentenza]

-

​

Yep! you are building your foundation on man which is the same as building on sand.

All made by God so more nonsense.

 

[d taylor]

-

​

Divide and the symbol for divide. Could actually be the two dots representing the waters above and below the raqia and the bar represents the raqia. Never seen a circular divide symbol. So dividing must happen on a flat plane/plain

Then God said, “Let there be a raqia in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.”

 

[Hentenza]

-

​

Divide and the symbol for divide. Could actually be the two dots representing the waters above and below the raqia and the bar represents the raqia. Never seen a circular divide symbol. So dividing must happen on a flat plane/plain

Then God said, “Let there be a raqia in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.”

View attachment 375481​

Nonsense.

 

[prodromos]

Divide and the symbol for divide. Could actually be the two dots representing the waters above and below the raqia and the bar represents the raqia. Never seen a circular divide symbol. So dividing must happen on a flat plane/plain

Then God said, “Let there be a raqia in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.”

View attachment 375481​

The form of the obelus as a horizontal line with a dot above and a dot below, ÷, was first used as a symbol for division by the Swiss mathematician Johann Rahn in his book Teutsche Algebra in 1659. This gave rise to the modern mathematical symbol ÷, used in anglophone countries as a division sign. This usage, though widespread in Anglophone countries, is neither universal nor recommended: the ISO 80000-2 standard for mathematical notation recommends only the solidus / or fraction bar for division, or the colon : for ratios; it says that ÷ "should not be used" for division. The ambiguity of mathematical expressions that involve the obelus and implicit multiplication has become a subject of Internet memes.

This form of the obelus was also occasionally used as a mathematical symbol for subtraction in Northern Europe; such usage continued in some parts of Europe (including Norway and, until fairly recently, Denmark).In Italy, Poland and Russia, this notation is sometimes used in engineering to denote a range of values (for example, "24.1÷25.6" means the range of values between 24.1 and 25.6).

Obelus - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[FreeinChrist]

ADVISOR HAT

This thread had a clean up of some problem posts and responses to those posts.

Please remember the flaming rule. ​

 

[Luke81718]

I'm genuinely curious. I have no idea what percentage of Christians embrace the theory of evolution. I would guess its about the same as the christian divorce rate, which is approximately 50/50. And yet, the number of christians who agree with evolutionary cosmology is without a doubt significantly higher, probably well above 90%. Presuming that roughly 50% of christians disagree with evolutionary biology. How is it that so many more of them do not have the same issue with evolutionary cosmology. It seems to me a bit inconsistent.

If God were able to form man from the dust of the earth, and woman from a rib taken from his side, which is clearly what the bible teaches, and not through millions years of evolution, then how do those same christians so readily accept the idea that the observable cosmos could not have also been created in the exact way that scripture teaches?

Modern science tells us that the earth is a ball, spinning at roughly 1000 mph at the equator, while orbiting the sun at approximately 66.6 thousand mph, in a solar system traveling near the outer edge of a galaxy at approximately 500,000 mph, which itself is rocketing through an ever expanding infinite universe. All of this being the result of a massive explosion billions of years ago, where an inconceivable amount of condensed matter exploded into everything that now is, or what is known as the Big Bang.

Whether or not this is an accurate and factual account of our reality is not the point. But rather, if one does subscribe to this world view, then by default, the account of the creation of the sun, moon, stars and earth as recorded in Genesis must be dismissed completely out of hand. There is truly no other option available.

According to the Genesis record, earth and water existed prior to the formation of the sun, moon and stars.

The Spirit of God moved upon the face of formless earth and watery abyss on day one. This is the day that He spoke the light into existence and divided it from the darkness.

On the second day He created the firmament to divide the waters above from from the waters below.

It was not until the fourth day that he created the sun, moon and stars and placed them within the firmament.

God called the firmament heaven. We know because Paul told us, that there are multiple heavens, or at the very least that heaven is made of tiers.

The creation account recorded in Genesis is in complete contradiction to that set forth by evolutionary cosmology. And yet, it is evolutionary cosmology which supposes and proposes the ball earth, solar system, galaxies etc.

If one chooses to believe the accepted science, he must flatly reject the divinely inspired account provided by the greatest prophet who ever lived, with the exception of John the Baptist according to Christ.
There's no way around it.

So back to the question of the creationists among us. If one trusts the divinely inspired word of God concerning biblical creation, rejecting evolutionary biology according to the scriptures, then how can this same person reject the divinely inspired account of created cosmology according to those same scriptures? The very same scriptures being used to justify one argument, while denying the other.

If anyone could reasonably and rationally explain for me this glaring incongruity of thought, I'm all ears.

Genesis 1:2-19 (KJV) And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
And the evening and the morning were the third day.
And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for years:
And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.