Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Tell that to Philip II.
My --- that opened a Pandora's Box of questions, didn't it?It was an "act of God" that destroyed the Armada.
I diden't destroy the armada, i don't know what your talking about. as God, I claim no responsibility.Tell that to Philip II.So would you also say that God brought down vengeance and wrath to the people of New Orleans? Are all deaths the will of God? If we compared the deaths of those responsible by Lucifer and that of God, who would win?
My --- that opened a Pandora's Box of questions, didn't it?
Not so funny now, is it, MoonLancer?
Not so funny now, is it, MoonLancer?
Thank you --- this is the sort of mindset that I would want my challenge to bring out. It's a quid pro quo challenge: since you guys claim the Gospels were written after the fact, I can do the same thing with the [fairy?] tales about the Spanish Armada.
In reality though --- and this is Paul Harvey's "rest of the story" --- contrary to what most people think, the English did not put the sockdolager on the Spanish Armada.
This was well-documented on the History Channel.
Are you kidding me, Tom? The Armada didn't even exist. It was written by Medieval Age bull runners to make it look like they were fulfilling their part of the Reinassance.You've only substituted one after-the-fact account for another. Was this arbitrary, or was there something more compelling about the History Channel account? What eveidence did the History Channel present that conviced you that the earlier writings were not factual?
You act as if somehow it's a mystery as to why a substance would be a good candidate for human composition, and we know it without having analyzed every chemical composition in our bodies. this is chemistry 101.I am thinking. It is not an easy question.
To say that human is made of carbon is not correct either. The best way to say it is that human is made of oxides. However, if you will, silicates is also a type of oxides. (definition of oxide: anything contains oxygen)
So, unless we spell out the exact chemical composition of a human being, we will give a wrong answer anyway. And I know for sure that every human, or even every life, would have different composition (to the third decimal of all elements).
God intends to use "material" to make human beings (unlike angels). So, the consideration is that what kind of material is the best choice? Whether the created being would operate based on the property of that material may not be the most important consideration. Because magic is gong to happen anyway in making that object become alive.
Using silicates to make Adam, could only mean to use "the most common earth material" to make Adam, instead of using Jupiter's material (which could probably be more realistic). So Adam belongs to the earth which is also God's unique creation.
Well, sure, you might suggest the latter. If you're completely and utterly ignorant of science.
To illustrate this, name me one theologian who predicted a scientific discovery based upon Genesis 1. Just one.
You act as if somehow it's a mystery as to why a substance would be a good candidate for human composition, and we know it without having analyzed every chemical composition in our bodies. this is chemistry 101.
carbon is the lightest substance that can make four chemical bonds. it can also make up to three bonds with another carbon. the result of this is long, large, and complex carbon compounds. you can achieve very long chains of carbon compounds. there is probably no limit to the size that a carbon compound can achieve. DNA has many billions of base pairs each of which contain several carbons, hydrogens, nitrogens, and oxygens. that's why carbon is uniquely qualified to be the basic material for life. no other element has equivilent capability to make such long complex polymers with itself.
Are you kidding me, Tom? The Armada didn't even exist. It was written by Medieval Age bull runners to make it look like they were fulfilling their part of the Reinassance.
[Note to my Spanish friends: I'm being facetious here --- no offense intended --- I'm just giving these guys a taste of their own medicine.]
QV posts 55 & 68 before you judge my coherence --- thank you.Your coherence is at an all-time low. I don't even know what point it is that you're trying to make anymore.... *Shrug* maybe tomorrow will be a better day for you, and we can try again.
QV posts 55 & 68 before you judge my coherence --- thank you.
1. That's false (the universe wasn't dominated by radiation until after inflation ended).You can have more than one. But the one you wanted is here:
The very first detectable existence is the light.
2. Can you name me a person for theological reasons who predicted any specific feature of the big bang theory?
You mean silence --- as in --- the universe expanding, or Amos calling the Pleiades the "seven stars", instead of the "six stars"? Or David mentioning submarine ocean currents?I have asked av on many occasions to produce instances where the bible comes to a scientific conclusion before science does but that question is always answered with silence.
1. That's false (the universe wasn't dominated by radiation until after inflation ended).
2. Can you name me a person for theological reasons who predicted any specific feature of the big bang theory?
Of course said source would have have to come before the scientific source, otherwise its a case of interpreting after the fact, which is all too common.
I have asked av on many occasions to produce instances where the bible comes to a scientific conclusion before science does but that question is always answered with silence. To my knowledge no theological christian thinker has used the bible as a source for understanding the universe before a scientist using the scientific method discovered it first. anything already known to the people of long ago would not count, as this would be a case of the bible simply recording what is already known.
You mean silence --- as in --- the universe expanding, or Amos calling the Pleiades the "seven stars", instead of the "six stars"? Or David mentioning submarine ocean currents?
What if the Bible describes some natural features that are only discovered recently?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?