Zone1 Science Confirms Biblical Creation

[surada]

As opposed to the idea that the universe has always existed?

Perhaps it has. But creation was a bronze age explanation.

 

[ding]

Perhaps it has. But creation was a bronze age explanation.

You can't see it for what it is. There have always been two mutually exclusive beliefs; the universe was eternal or the universe began. Categorizing it as a bronze age explanation misses the importance. Believing the universe began was a pretty radical idea at the time.

 

[alang1216]

Nothing means non-existence. When you refer to something as nothing you are literally referring to the non-existence of something. So it is quite easy to prove that nothing doesn't exist because the meaning of nothing is to not exist.

Semantics. The house I grew up in was demolished. There is nothing there now.

 

[alang1216]

Nothing means non-existence. When you refer to something as nothing you are literally referring to the non-existence of something. So it is quite easy to prove that nothing doesn't exist because the meaning of nothing is to not exist.

I guess you don't believe in the concept of zero either?

 

[Cougarbear]

And the mind of the vast majority of scientists.


Odd that there is no evidence for a global flood 4,500 years ago and no known natural mechanism that would enable plates to move so rapidly (they certainly don't move so quickly today). You're welcome to believe it was a work of a supernatural power but then you can't claim that science confirms the Bible. It is one or the other.

There's plenty of evidence. And, again, the scientists you quote are all in the money for this. Who can get the most from the government in grants. So, of course they are in conspiracy with each other. What else would you expect.

 

[Cougarbear]

Noah's flood is a myth from Sumer.

Don't know your friend Sumer. I'm sure he's a nice old dude.

 

[ding]

Semantics. The house I grew up in was demolished. There is nothing there now.

Incorrect. It's not semantics. Your house wasn't replaced by or with nothing because nothing doesn't exist.

 

[ding]

I guess you don't believe in the concept of zero either?

I believe in the concept of zero just as I believe in the concept of nothing but that doesn't make either of them actually exist as anything other than a negation of something which is nothing which doesn't exist.

 

[alang1216]

It's impressive how many errors you can write in just a few sentences.

There's plenty of evidence.

Feel free to share some...

And, again, the scientists you quote are all in the money for this. Who can get the most from the government in grants. So, of course they are in conspiracy with each other. What else would you expect.

That is not how things work. If a scientist confirms or adds to an existing theory, he gets to keep working. If a scientist destroys an existing theory he becomes rich and famous and can write his own ticket. He'd never again need government money.

 

[alang1216]

Incorrect. It's not semantics. Your house wasn't replaced by or with nothing because nothing doesn't exist.

Was my sentence grammar incorrect?

 

[Cougarbear]

It's impressive how many errors you can write in just a few sentences.

Feel free to share some...


That is not how things work. If a scientist confirms or adds to an existing theory, he gets to keep working. If a scientist destroys an existing theory he becomes rich and famous and can write his own ticket. He'd never again need government money.

Not a chance! Scientists have in the past gone against the grain and been blackballed from writing in publications. That's the real way it goes. No, most scientists aren't interested in the truth anymore. Just publicity and money. The way of the world. I've shared lots of things on this.

 

[ding]

Was my sentence grammar incorrect?

It's your logic that's incorrect. Nothing can only not exist. For example... your house existed. When your house ceased to exist it became nothing as in it no longer existed. Nothing can only not exist.

 

[KissMy]

1hr and 9min video and the thumbs down came within a minute or so of posting. Obviously didn't watch the video.

Idiot - That video was debunked over 3 years before you posted it. They had to turn off comments because they were so embarrassed, as you should be for believing that crap. New information does get added into DNA creating new species.

 

[KissMy]

Where did 'Mommy and Daddy come from?

Your ancestors evolved from a Chimpanzee when it's chromosome pairs #2 & 13 got fused together forming modern Human DNA.

 

[Leo123]

Your ancestors evolved from a Chimpanzee when it's chromosome pairs #2 & 13 got fused together forming modern Human DNA.

Where did the Chimp come from?

 

[KissMy]

Where did the Chimp come from?

Gorilla

 

[alang1216]

Not a chance! Scientists have in the past gone against the grain and been blackballed from writing in publications. That's the real way it goes. No, most scientists aren't interested in the truth anymore. Just publicity and money. The way of the world.

Which scientists are those? Darwin, Newton, Pasteur?

I've shared lots of things on this.

Not with me.

 

[alang1216]

It's your logic that's incorrect. Nothing can only not exist. For example... your house existed. When your house ceased to exist it became nothing as in it no longer existed. Nothing can only not exist.

Let's agree to disagree. It is too off-topic to drag on anymore.

 

[ding]

Let's agree to disagree. It is too off-topic to drag on anymore.

Is it? Existence can't come from non-existence.

 

[Cougarbear]

Which scientists are those? Darwin, Newton, Pasteur?


Not with me.

Yep! Even with you.