Quantcast

The God Particle....something from NOTHING....?

snell/GOD & COUNTRY-zero cliques 2012/07/17 07:42:10

This document provided by European Organ

Start
with nothing . . . absolutely nothing. No air. No matter . . . not
even an atom. No energy. No space. No thought. No time. Just a long dead
silence. This is the evolutionist’s reality before the dawn of
something becoming everything. At some infinitesimal moment in time all
the stuff that makes up our world came into being. Like the Millennium
Falcon coming out of light speed, the cosmos appeared. Once there was
nothing, now there is everything.

Even the discovery of the Higgs
boson “God Particle” can’t save the evolutionary theorists since it’s
something rather than nothing. How did the Particle get here? Why does
it act the way it does? Why did scientists believe that it existed even
though they never observed its existence?

In 2010, the darling of
everything materialistic, Stephen W. Hawking, argued that the laws of
physics allow for the universe to have created itself . . . from
nothing. In his book, The Grand Design, Hawking states:

“Because
there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself
from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something
rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist.”

This
is science? Where are the experiments to back up the claims he
attributes to physics? The first thing a budding scientist learns is
that spontaneous generation does not happen. Louis Pasteur and Francesco
Redi’s experiments disproved the theory some time ago.

Hawking is
theorizing. But because he is a noted scientist whose speculations fit
what atheists want and need to believe in order to make their
theoretical worldview work, some people are willing to believe him.
“Stephen Hawking said it; I believe him; that settles it.”

The
religious component to atheism is evident when listening to
the high priests of the system. For example, Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion) and Steven Pinker (The Better Angels of Our Nature)
who were asked to respond to the argument that evolutionary scientists
do not allow outside criticism of the evolutionary worldview. How can
evolutionists do this when science is a discipline of open inquiry?

Stanley Fish observed something remarkable in the way Dawkins explained how scientists do science:

[W]hen
we accept the conclusions of scientific investigation we necessarily do
so on trust (how many of us have done or could replicate the
experiments?) and are thus not so different from religious believers,
Dawkins and Pinker asserted that the trust we place in scientific
researchers, as opposed to religious pronouncements, has been earned by
their record of achievement and by the public rigor of their procedures.
In short, our trust is justified, theirs is blind.

It
was at this point that Dawkins said something amazing, although neither
he nor anyone else picked up on it. He said: in the arena of science
you can invoke Professor So-and-So’s study published in 2008, “you can
actually cite chapter and verse.” ((Stanley Fish, “Citing Chapter and
Verse: Which Scripture Is the Right One?, The New York Times (March 26, 2012). ))

An odd choice of words: “chapter and verse.” Scientism is a religion with its own inspired books (“studies” by scientists).

It
doesn’t matter if there isn’t any empirical science behind anything
Hawking says on the subject, as long as they hear him say, via a voice
synthesizer designed and created by someone, “I think Science can
explain the Universe without the need for God.” Even some liberals
aren’t buying what Stephen is hocking:

In
saying this, Hawking doesn’t speak like a scientist: he speaks like a
(speculative) philosopher. . . . To say that [the universe created
itself] spontaneously is not an answer: it’s an excuse for an answer.
When Hawking says that the spontaneous self-creation of the universe
“out of nothing” is evidence that a creator was not involved, he is not
speaking as a scientist. He is not making a scientific statement. His
statement is pure theology — of the negative kind typical of atheists.
((Ervin Laszlo writing for the Huffington Post.))

And
yet, Hawking’s assertions are taken seriously as scientific fact while
someone who questions the theory of evolution — a process that has never
been observed — is made out to be anti-science.

Read more: http://politicaloutcast.com/2012/07/the-god-particle-and-some...
You!
Add Photos & Videos

Question Closed

Top Opinion

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Sherlock Dog BL - a Gazillion 2012/07/19 20:47:42 (edited)
  • srini 2012/07/19 05:20:22
    srini
    I'll hundredth Space Invader's post!
  • realist 2012/07/19 03:23:29
    realist
    For those interested in a more detailed approach to combining maths with the theory of evolution please take a read of this, its fantastic;

    http://www.mathematicsofevolu...
  • Jack Sprat 2012/07/19 01:34:09
    Jack Sprat
    +1
    I wonder if Hawkin, a well known molester of his servants, understands he has given the show over to what Believers have been saying for ever, oddly G_d has been called "the uncaused cause" of creation for some time.....as for the guy who now knows to his regret that there is a G_d and he wasn't Him........

  • Old Soldier 2012/07/18 14:44:09 (edited)
    Old Soldier
    +4
    Before the end comes, God will have shown mankind everything. How the earth was formed, and how it will end, but the problem is that onlyl a hand full of mankind (meaning Very, very, few) will actually see the truth of it all.

    Paul, more or less stated this in Romans 1:20; "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:"

    Mankind will be shown so much "that they are without excuse:" when the end comes and falls on their heads.

    Here one can understand the meaning if the symbolic; "And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb:" (Revelation 6:16)

    In a way, mankind is already saying this. It is a search to discredit God, and there by hide from the sight of God in the "rocks" of the earth.
  • snell/G... Old Sol... 2012/07/18 22:18:01
    snell/GOD & COUNTRY-zero cliques
    +3
    you speak the TRUTH!
  • Old Sol... snell/G... 2012/07/19 01:47:22 (edited)
    Old Soldier
    +1
    The Bible has the story if mankind really wants to know it. However, the problem is that for the most part, mankind will never accept their wrongs, that is to say their sins.

    "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." (1 John 1:8)

    This is the second false claim John refuted, the first being that of 1 John 1:6. Here the error is that of claiming inherent sinlessness, perfection, the absence of any need of cleansing through the blood of Christ. Such a claim is capable of deceiving the claimant, but not anyone else! Despite the effrontery of such a proposition, entire religions are founded upon just such claims. "There is no sin" - this is the proposition that underlies a great deal of current thinking. See 1 John 1:9. many scholars have supposed that John might also have had in mind the Gnostic subtlety that sin was a matter of the flesh and did not touch or defile the spirit.

    However, I believe it was from Paul that people gets that idea; consider Romans 7:16-17; "If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good. Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me."

    Did you catch that? "it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me." nevertheless, in using the conscience of the inner man...





    The Bible has the story if mankind really wants to know it. However, the problem is that for the most part, mankind will never accept their wrongs, that is to say their sins.

    "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." (1 John 1:8)

    This is the second false claim John refuted, the first being that of 1 John 1:6. Here the error is that of claiming inherent sinlessness, perfection, the absence of any need of cleansing through the blood of Christ. Such a claim is capable of deceiving the claimant, but not anyone else! Despite the effrontery of such a proposition, entire religions are founded upon just such claims. "There is no sin" - this is the proposition that underlies a great deal of current thinking. See 1 John 1:9. many scholars have supposed that John might also have had in mind the Gnostic subtlety that sin was a matter of the flesh and did not touch or defile the spirit.

    However, I believe it was from Paul that people gets that idea; consider Romans 7:16-17; "If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good. Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me."

    Did you catch that? "it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me." nevertheless, in using the conscience of the inner man to affirm the justice of the law, Paul raised another problem. We find man in a state of rebellion against God, and under sentence of death. For this unhappy situation, the law is not to blame; but neither, it now appears, am "I," for I agree with the law and disapprove of the sins I commit. Who then is to blame?

    Paul answered that problem by stating that it is not my real self who does evil works but sin dwelling in me. This fact of a person's acting out of character is seen in the inspired words of our Lord and relative to the prodigal son, of whom it was said that "when he came to himself, etc."

    It is in this verse that the theory of applying these words to Christians relies on the fact that the conscience, or inner self, of the person spoken of approves of God's law; but again, there is enough of the divine image left in every man, regardless of how reprobate, to produce this inward approval of God's law. Thus, Paul was still speaking of the noble Jew under the law is still evident, and Paul speaks of this contradiction in man, of him who is under the Law, who does not know Christ. Only he who disrupts the order of the verses can deny this. In other words, we are in need of obeying Galations 2:20;

    "I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me."
    (more)
  • Dwight PWCM 2012/07/18 14:26:32
    Dwight PWCM
    +2
    The parodox of creation is a two edged sword, and everyone who plays with it cuts their own fingers at some point.

    The idea of a "Being existing before matter is ridiculous", but matter or energy spontaniously "being" is not?

    If I am correct, in the Aramaic/Hebrew Bible Genesis 1:1 includes a word that is left out of all or most translations. I can't pronounce it but the meaning is "From Nothing".

    Maybe some scholar can refute or confirm that.
  • Cliff Dwight ... 2012/07/18 19:18:37
    Cliff
    +4
    Matthew Henry's Commentary written between 1710 to1712 may shed some light:

    There was not any pre-existent matter out of which the world was produced. The fish and fowl were indeed produced out of the waters and the beasts and man out of the earth; but that earth and those waters were made out of nothing. By the ordinary power of nature, it is impossible that any thing should be made out of nothing; no artificer can work, unless he has something to work on. But by the almighty power of God it is not only possible that something should be made of nothing (the God of nature is not subject to the laws of nature), but in the creation it is impossible it should be otherwise, for nothing is more injurious to the honour of the Eternal Mind than the supposition of eternal matter. Thus the excellency of the power is of God and all the glory is to him.(4.) When this work was produced: In the beginning, that is, in the beginning of time, when that clock was first set a going: time began with the production of those beings that are measured by time. Before the beginning of time there was none but that Infinite Being that inhabits eternity. Should we ask why God made the world no sooner, we should but darken counsel by words without knowledge; for how could there be sooner or later in etern...
    Matthew Henry's Commentary written between 1710 to1712 may shed some light:

    There was not any pre-existent matter out of which the world was produced. The fish and fowl were indeed produced out of the waters and the beasts and man out of the earth; but that earth and those waters were made out of nothing. By the ordinary power of nature, it is impossible that any thing should be made out of nothing; no artificer can work, unless he has something to work on. But by the almighty power of God it is not only possible that something should be made of nothing (the God of nature is not subject to the laws of nature), but in the creation it is impossible it should be otherwise, for nothing is more injurious to the honour of the Eternal Mind than the supposition of eternal matter. Thus the excellency of the power is of God and all the glory is to him.(4.) When this work was produced: In the beginning, that is, in the beginning of time, when that clock was first set a going: time began with the production of those beings that are measured by time. Before the beginning of time there was none but that Infinite Being that inhabits eternity. Should we ask why God made the world no sooner, we should but darken counsel by words without knowledge; for how could there be sooner or later in eternity? And he did make it in the beginning of time, according to his eternal counsels before all time. The Jewish Rabbies have a saying, that there were seven things which God created before the world, by which they only mean to express the excellency of these things:—The law, repentance, paradise, hell, the throne of glory, the house of the sanctuary, and the name of the Messiah. But to us it is enough to say, In the beginning was the Word,
    (more)
  • Dwight ... Cliff 2012/07/18 20:18:05
    Dwight PWCM
    +2
    Intresting and I'll have to read that myself. Thanks for bringing it into the discussion, I don't think that will help our scientific-atheist though.
  • Old Sol... Cliff 2012/07/19 02:01:04
    Old Soldier
    I have read both versions of Matthew Henry's Commentaries, and this part you show here;

    "but that earth and those waters were made out of nothing." Is incorrect. What does Genesis 1:2 state? "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."

    We are into science that no man can understand here; "the earth was without form and void"--or in "confusion and emptiness," as the words are rendered in Isaiah 34:11. This globe, at some undescribed period, having been convulsed and broken up, was a dark and watery waste for ages perhaps, till out of this chaotic state, the present fabric of the world was made to arise.

    "The Spirit of God moved"--literally, continued brooding over it, as a fowl does, when hatching eggs. The immediate agency of the Spirit, by working on the discordant elements, combined, arranged, and ripened them into a state adapted for being the scene of a new creation. The account of this new creation properly begins at the end of this second verse; and the details of the process are described in the natural way an onlooker would have done, who beheld the changes that successively took place. However, one must read the Generations of this creation (Genesis 2:4), before thay can fully understand exactly how God created the Earth, herbs, man, fish, fowl, and cattle, which Adam named before Eve was created (Genesis 2:15-23).
  • Cliff Old Sol... 2012/07/19 18:44:23
    Cliff
    You got your sequence of events screwed up. But nevermind that since it appears that all you really care about is hearing yourself talk.
  • Old Sol... Cliff 2012/07/19 20:47:01
    Old Soldier
    Like I said, if you don't read chapter two of Genesis, then you will never understand chapter one.

    Genesis 2; Verses;

    15. “And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.”

    16. “And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:”

    17. “But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.”

    Now, pay close attention, Look at what is being stated. You will note that Eve is not yet created.

    18. “And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.”

    19. “And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.”

    20. “And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.”
    Thus, it is now that God creates Eve;

    21.” And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;”

    22. “And the rib, which the LORD God had t...

















    Like I said, if you don't read chapter two of Genesis, then you will never understand chapter one.

    Genesis 2; Verses;

    15. “And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.”

    16. “And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:”

    17. “But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.”

    Now, pay close attention, Look at what is being stated. You will note that Eve is not yet created.

    18. “And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.”

    19. “And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.”

    20. “And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.”
    Thus, it is now that God creates Eve;

    21.” And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;”

    22. “And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.”

    Alright, when and where was Adam created?

    Genesis 2, Verses;

    5. “And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.”

    6. “But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.”

    7. “And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.”

    8. “And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.”

    Alright, now where was Adam created? That is explained in Genesis 3:23; “Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.”

    Note what is said! Adam was sent to, “till the ground from whence he was taken.” Therefore, Adam was NOT formed in the Garden of God, he was driven out to the land from which he was created.

    You will note that I do not talk unless I have something to say.
    (more)
  • Cliff Old Sol... 2012/07/20 00:32:07
    Cliff
    As I said, all you really care about is hearing yourself talk, and having nothing to say, does not slow you down at all. Do you know where the word laity comes from. It comes from a word meaning cripple. If you are a member of the laity, it is apt. If you have a higher level of authority in a church family, it is clearly not a calling.
  • Old Sol... Cliff 2012/07/20 03:10:28
    Old Soldier
    Laity;
    1 : the people of a religious faith as distinguished from its clergy

    2 : the mass of the people as distinguished from those of a particular profession or those specially skilled

    All calling comes from the Word of God, the Bible. As to that calling, if you are a Christian, then you should know there is no authority on the earth higher than the Lord Jesus Christ (the Word of God), and His Father.

    I finally went to a Christian Church to escape the Apostation of the older Churches, and I know that if the church I am now with begians to vex my Spirit, I will have to leave it as well.

    Most churches will be over come by that man of sin, the son of perdition (II Thessalonians 2:3), and shall fall away from the truth that he will be revealed.

    That man of sin is the same as the "lawless one" in 2 Thess. 2:8, with this distinction, that "the man of sin" refers to a progressive development of an anti-Christian influence, whereas "the lawless one" is thought by many to refer to some terminal and final embodiment of evil. The interpretation presented here is that the man of sin has indeed appeared. The man of sin sitteth in the temple; he exalts himself; he is a false apostle, the son of perdition; names of blasphemy are upon his head; and he is drunken with the blood of the martyrs of...

    Laity;
    1 : the people of a religious faith as distinguished from its clergy

    2 : the mass of the people as distinguished from those of a particular profession or those specially skilled

    All calling comes from the Word of God, the Bible. As to that calling, if you are a Christian, then you should know there is no authority on the earth higher than the Lord Jesus Christ (the Word of God), and His Father.

    I finally went to a Christian Church to escape the Apostation of the older Churches, and I know that if the church I am now with begians to vex my Spirit, I will have to leave it as well.

    Most churches will be over come by that man of sin, the son of perdition (II Thessalonians 2:3), and shall fall away from the truth that he will be revealed.

    That man of sin is the same as the "lawless one" in 2 Thess. 2:8, with this distinction, that "the man of sin" refers to a progressive development of an anti-Christian influence, whereas "the lawless one" is thought by many to refer to some terminal and final embodiment of evil. The interpretation presented here is that the man of sin has indeed appeared. The man of sin sitteth in the temple; he exalts himself; he is a false apostle, the son of perdition; names of blasphemy are upon his head; and he is drunken with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus; but his course is not yet run. The final usurpation of the Spirit of God himself on earth has not yet taken place.

    A persecutor of the church exalts himself against God in the person of his followers; a perverter of the word of God exalts himself against God in his word. Therefore, whenever and wherever the "man of sin" appears it will be in the church apostate!
    (more)
  • Cliff Old Sol... 2012/07/20 03:25:26
    Cliff
    +1
    I would say that the vexation has begun.
  • Old Sol... Cliff 2012/07/20 03:38:31
    Old Soldier
    It hasn't yet, but it is close. However, if you know your Bible, then you know Paul said that there would still be true Christians alive when Jesus returns. (see I Thessalonians 4:15-17)
  • Lanikai Dwight ... 2012/07/18 21:54:27
    Lanikai
    +2
    The common rendering 'heavens' has no authority. Hebrew shamayim is plural (or dual) in form (a singular form does not exist in biblical Hebrew). Actually, shamayim means nothing more than 'sky,' and this should perhaps have been the term employed here. ... It should be kept in mind that our notion of 'heaven(s),' with its theological associations, is foreign to our verse. 2



    Is this what you were referring to?? "shamayim" nothing?

    From this website:

    http://www.religioustolerance...
  • Dwight ... Lanikai 2012/07/18 23:19:39
    Dwight PWCM
    +1
    No, it's a word from Gen. 1:1. I can't remember how to pronounce ot so can't spell phoneticle even. But it supposedly means "from nothing", as in "God created from".....
  • snell/G... Dwight ... 2012/07/18 22:25:29 (edited)
    snell/GOD & COUNTRY-zero cliques
    +2
    I claim to be no scholar - however - for those who disclaim your comment:

    Ideas are just [that] - IDEAS - emanating from the brain. Obviously they've never read Genesis - or if they did it didn't make sense....there again 'the brain' is engaged.

    To me even 'thinking' - in logical terms, (apart from ANY 'faith' or 'spiritual' concept), is - how [else] did ANYthing come into being (matter OR energy) unless it/they EXISTED ahead and by which/whom everything [else] was made that is in or has ever been in our existence.
  • Dwight ... snell/G... 2012/07/19 21:44:09
    Dwight PWCM
    +1
    Agreement here. But no one can explain Spontanious Existance, or Pre-Existance. So to me it becomes a matter of personal choice, and that means faith, which some believe regressive even when it's obvious in their own enlightened choice.
  • Old Sol... Dwight ... 2012/07/19 22:42:22
    Old Soldier
    +1
    "Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God is one Lord."

    From these words the Hebrews not only learned a great spiritual truth, but derived intellectual freedom. For by these words they were taught that all the host of heaven and of earth were created things—merely "things," not divinities--and not only that, but that the Creator was One God, not many gods; that there was but one law-giver; and that therefore there could be no conflict of laws. These first words of Genesis, then, may be called the charter of all the physical sciences, for by them is conferred freedom from all the bonds of unscientific superstition, and by them also do men know that consistent law holds throughout the whole universe. If the truth be told, it is the intellectual freedom of the Bible that the scientist of today inherits. He may not indeed be able to rise to the spiritual standpoint of the teaching of the Bible, and consciously acknowledge that;

    “Thou, even Thou, art Lord alone; Thou hast made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth, and all things that are therein, the seas, and all that is therein, and Thou preservest them all; and the host of heaven worshippeth Thee.”

    But he must at least unconsciously assent to it, for it is on the first great fundamental assumption of a complete r...

















    "Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God is one Lord."

    From these words the Hebrews not only learned a great spiritual truth, but derived intellectual freedom. For by these words they were taught that all the host of heaven and of earth were created things—merely "things," not divinities--and not only that, but that the Creator was One God, not many gods; that there was but one law-giver; and that therefore there could be no conflict of laws. These first words of Genesis, then, may be called the charter of all the physical sciences, for by them is conferred freedom from all the bonds of unscientific superstition, and by them also do men know that consistent law holds throughout the whole universe. If the truth be told, it is the intellectual freedom of the Bible that the scientist of today inherits. He may not indeed be able to rise to the spiritual standpoint of the teaching of the Bible, and consciously acknowledge that;

    “Thou, even Thou, art Lord alone; Thou hast made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth, and all things that are therein, the seas, and all that is therein, and Thou preservest them all; and the host of heaven worshippeth Thee.”

    But he must at least unconsciously assent to it, for it is on the first great fundamental assumption of a complete religion as stated in the first chapters of Genesis, that the fundamental assumption of all his scientific reasoning depends. There are other stories of the creation, but none as complete as that of Genesis. But problems with science will always remain in the mind of mankind. Why?

    Well, there are several reasons, but one is the fact that scientific reasoning and scientific observation can only hold good so long and in so far as the Law of Causality holds good. We must assume a pre-existing state of affairs which has given rise to the observed effect; we must assume that this observed effect is itself antecedent to a subsequent state of affairs. These facts also includes the Creationist. Their science nor any science can go back to the absolute beginnings of things, or forward to the absolute ends of things. It cannot reason about the way matter and energy came into existence, or how they might cease to exist; it cannot reason about time or space, as such, but only in the relations of these to phenomena that can be observed. It does not deal with things themselves, but only with the relations between things.

    Science indeed can only consider the universe as a great machine which is in “working order,” and it concerns itself with the relations which some parts of the machine bear to other parts, and with the laws and manner of the “working” of the machine in those parts. The relations of the various parts, one to the other, and the way in which they work together, may afford some idea of the design and purpose of the machine, but it can give no information as to how the material of which it is composed came into existence, nor as to the method by which it was originally constructed. This includes the “Cell”, the “Atom” and all the parts and counterparts that have been discovered through medical and scientific research. Like the Universe, the Body is a machine, though that may offend many, nevertheless, it is the truth. Once started, the machine comes under the scrutiny of science, but the actual starting lies outside its scope. And here we find a great difference between the science of God, and the science of man. God has the far greater power of understanding that man cannot comprehend, because God knows how to perform cosmic scientific creation as easily as folding a piece of material (Hebrews 1:12)

    Men therefore cannot find out for themselves how the worlds were originally made, how the worlds were first moved, or how the spirit of man was first formed within him; and this, not merely because these beginnings of things were of necessity outside his experience, but also because beginnings, as such, must lie outside the law by which he reasons. Mankind is told;

    “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. (Isaiah 55:8-9)

    By no process of research, therefore, could man find out for himself the facts that are stated in the first chapter of Genesis. They have been revealed, but science cannot inquire into them for the purpose of checking their accuracy; it must accept them, as it accepts the fundamental law that governs its own working, without the possibility of proof.

    And this is what has been revealed to man:–that the heaven and the earth were not self-existent from all eternity, but were in their first beginning created by God. As the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews expresses it: “Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.” And a further fact was revealed that man could not have found out for himself; is that this creation was made and finished in six acts, comprised in what the narrative denominates “days.” It has not been revealed whether the duration of these “days” can be expressed in any astronomical units of time.

    Since under these conditions science can afford no information, it is not to be wondered at that the hypotheses that have been framed from time to time to “explain” the first chapter of Genesis, or to express it in scientific terms, are not wholly satisfactory. At one time the chapter was interpreted to mean that the entire universe was called into existence about 6,000 years ago, in six days of twenty-four hours each. Later it was recognized that both geology and astronomy seemed to indicate the existence of matter for untold millions of years instead of some six thousand. It was then pointed out that, so far as the narrative was concerned, there was more than likely a period of duration that is impossible for man to examine between its first verse and its fourth; and some have suggested that the six days of creation were six days of twenty-four hours each, in which, after some great cataclysm of time that ended 6,000 years ago, in which God shaped the face of the earth and replenished for the habitation of man, the preceding geological ages being left entirely unnoticed. However, we have some that say man was in parts of the world far more than 6.000 years ago.

    Some writers have confined the cataclysm and renewal to a small portion of the earth’s surface–to “Eden,” and its neighborhood. Other commentators have laid stress on the truth revealed in Scripture that “one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day” (2 Peter 3:8; Psalm 90:4), and have urged the argument that the six days of creation were really vast periods of time, during which the earth’s geological changes and the evolution of its varied forms of life were running their course. Others, again, have urged that the six days of creation were six literal days, but instead of being consecutive were separated by long ages. And yet again, as no man was present during the creation period, save Adam, it has been suggested that the Divine revelation of it was given to Moses in seven successive visions or dreams, which constituted the “six days” in which the chief facts of creation were set forth, and a seventh day on which God rested.

    So, until we can answer the above questions with facts instead of assumptions, we will never be able to completely understand the global warming and cooling that brings Ice ages, any more than we can understand the ways of God (Isaiah 55:8-9). All I can say with any known certainty is that God never changes (Malachi 3:6), but man is always chasing Change.
    (more)
  • Old Sol... Dwight ... 2012/07/19 19:54:11
    Old Soldier
    +1
    Dwight, the key words in Genesis 1.1, is "beginning, created, heaven, and earth." Many expressions of earth and heaven are found in the Hebrew mind.

    Earth
    The term is used in two widely-different senses: (1) for the material of which the earth’s surface is composed; (2) as the name of the planet on which man dwells. The Hebrew language discriminates between these two by the use of separate terms, adamah for the former, erets for the latter.

    1. Adamah is the earth in the sense of soil or ground, particularly as being susceptible of cultivation. (Genesis 2:7)
    2. Erets is applied in a more or less extended sense-- (1) to the whole world, (Genesis 1:1) (2) to land as opposed to sea, (Genesis 1:10) (3) to a country, (Genesis 21:32) (4) to a plot of ground, (Genesis 23:15) and (5) to the ground on which a man stands. (Genesis 33:3) The two former senses alone concern us, the fairest involving an inquiry into the opinions of the Hebrews on cosmogony, the second on geography.
    3. cosmogony. -- (1) The Hebrew cosmogony is based upon the leading principle that the universe exists, not independently of God, nor yet co-existent with God, nor yet in opposition to him as a hostile element, but dependently upon him, subsequently to him and in subjection to him. (2) Creation was regarded as a p...























    Dwight, the key words in Genesis 1.1, is "beginning, created, heaven, and earth." Many expressions of earth and heaven are found in the Hebrew mind.

    Earth
    The term is used in two widely-different senses: (1) for the material of which the earth’s surface is composed; (2) as the name of the planet on which man dwells. The Hebrew language discriminates between these two by the use of separate terms, adamah for the former, erets for the latter.

    1. Adamah is the earth in the sense of soil or ground, particularly as being susceptible of cultivation. (Genesis 2:7)
    2. Erets is applied in a more or less extended sense-- (1) to the whole world, (Genesis 1:1) (2) to land as opposed to sea, (Genesis 1:10) (3) to a country, (Genesis 21:32) (4) to a plot of ground, (Genesis 23:15) and (5) to the ground on which a man stands. (Genesis 33:3) The two former senses alone concern us, the fairest involving an inquiry into the opinions of the Hebrews on cosmogony, the second on geography.
    3. cosmogony. -- (1) The Hebrew cosmogony is based upon the leading principle that the universe exists, not independently of God, nor yet co-existent with God, nor yet in opposition to him as a hostile element, but dependently upon him, subsequently to him and in subjection to him. (2) Creation was regarded as a progressive work --a gradual development from the inferior to the superior orders of things.
    4. Geography. --There seems to be traces of the same ideas as prevailed among the Greeks, that the world was a disk, (Isaiah 40:22) bordered by the ocean, with Jerusalem as its centre, like Delphi as the navel, or, according to another view, the highest point of the world. As to the size of the earth, the Hebrews had but a very indefinite notion.

    Heaven
    There are four Hebrew words thus rendered in the Old Testament which we may briefly notice.

    1. Raki’a , Authorized Version, firmament.
    2. Shamayim . This is the word used in the expression "the heaven and the earth," or "the upper and lower regions." (Genesis 1:1)
    3. Marom , used for heaven in (Psalms 18:16; Isaiah 24:18; Jeremiah 25:30). Properly speaking it means a mountain as in (Psalms 102:19; Ezekiel 17:23)
    4. Shechakim , "expanses," with reference to the extent of heaven. ( 33:26; Job 35:5)

    Paul’s expression "third heaven," (2 Corinthians 12:2) had led to much conjecture. Grotius said that the Jews divided the heaven into three parts, as follows;

    1. The air or atmosphere, where clouds gather;
    2. The firmament, in which the sun, moon and stars are fixed;
    3. The upper heaven, the abode of God and his angels, the invisible realm of holiness and happiness the home of the children of God.

    However, as to #3, Jesus Christ refutes that in Revelation, chapters 21. In chapter 21 we find in verse 1; “And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away;”
    And in verse 2; “And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven,”

    That pretty well says that God’s abode is not on this earth, or the next at its creation. Verse 2 makes it clear that the New Jerusalem is the abode of God, called Sion in Hebrews 12:22, and that this city will come down out of Heaven and be placed on the New Earth.

    Now, as to the “creation” of the New Earth, I would imagine that it will be similar to the way this earth was created in Genesis, chapter 1. Peter gives a very graphic picture of how this cursed earth will end, saying; “the elements shall MELT with fervent heat” in verse 10, and “wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall MELT with fervent heat?” in verse 12. (2 Peter 3:10-12)

    That will leave the earth without form, void, and in darkness. At the creation of the New Earth, it will again be; “And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” (Genesis 1:2)
    (more)
  • Dwight ... Old Sol... 2012/07/19 21:45:55
    Dwight PWCM
    +1
    A friend tells me the word I'm looking for is pronounced (phoneticly) het in the hebrew/aramaic.
  • Old Sol... Dwight ... 2012/07/19 23:13:17
    Old Soldier
    It is possible that it is in the "Aramaic", but I can find no note of it in the Hebrew Lexicon.

    However, the Book of Genesis is a book of foundation, not science. It was never meant to explain all the science of God, or how God himself came to be. The things about the Father of Jesus Christ is found in several scriptures, like in Daniel 7:13, where He is referred to as "the Ancient of days".

    Another referance to God the Father is in Zechariah 3:1-9, and there he is only referred to as the LORD, with his son and Satan standing before the Angel of the Lord.

    In another place, Isaiah44:6, we find; "Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God."

    Here, Jesus refers to his Father as the LORD of hosts, so this messes people up who say that Jesus is the "LORD of hosts", when here Jesus pointedly states his Father (Redeemer) is the "LORD of hosts".

    Now, Jesus is our God in the referance of a redeemer, because Jesus is the redeemer of Mankind, but not for Himself, but for His Father. This is also explained in the Bible in the Gospels and also in the book to the Hebrews.

    All mankind needs to know is that Jesus is the Son of the LORD of Host, and that Jesus has the only Name that can provide acceptance of a person to His Father. There is no other source of salvation, which is another strong teaching of the Bible.
  • Dwight ... Old Sol... 2012/07/20 17:16:27
    Dwight PWCM
    +1
    I agree.
  • Old Sol... Dwight ... 2012/07/20 18:59:24 (edited)
    Old Soldier
    +1
    I am not saying there is not a history in the Bible, nor do I say there is no provable prophecy either, because the Bible Contains both. However, to understand what is recorded, one must read and study the complete Bible. A truth may be raised in one book, yet be completed in another. A good example is the first chapter of Genesis. That chapter can never be understood without the second chapter, because it is the Generations of the Creation. That fact is found in Genesis 2:4; "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,"

    Every tale has a beginning, a middle, and an end, in other words, I could not be born before my grandfather. Generations give an order to the story that is being told.
  • Dwight ... Old Sol... 2012/07/20 19:17:31
    Dwight PWCM
    +1
    Preaching to he choir, brother.
  • Old Sol... Dwight ... 2012/07/20 19:43:03
    Old Soldier
    +1
    Figured that, just wanted to make a clearer point to the posts that I have given here.
  • Dwight ... Old Sol... 2012/07/20 19:49:32
    Dwight PWCM
    +1
    Not complaining.
  • Lanikai 2012/07/18 14:09:30
    Lanikai
    +3
    Hawking has areas of brilliance and a VAST area of sheer stupidity.

    Nothing could not possibly have become everything. Even a scientist SHOULD know that.

    I choose to believe GOD. God, the Creator.

    I wonder how these Godless clowns explain laminins.

    Copied from Laminin, A Protein website:

    ummary of the eRumor:
    The eRumor talks of a substance called "laminin" that is described as part of a family of proteins that "hold us together." Then there is a picture of laminin---which looks like a cross.
    The Truth:
    This story leads into complex considerations of science and biology but the main questions it prompts are whether laminin is as important as the eRumor claims and does it have a shape like a cross.

    The simple answer to both questions seems to be yes.

    Laminin is defined by the Webster Medical Dictionary as a "glycoprotein that is a component of connective tissue basement membrane and that promotes cell adhesion." In other words, looking at laminin as a kind of glue isn't far from the truth. There are several different laminins.

    laminin
  • snell/G... Lanikai 2012/07/18 22:35:51 (edited)
    snell/GOD & COUNTRY-zero cliques
    +1
    Ive seen pics of our deep intraspace galaxies to which the above 'cross' is seen - etched into the sparkling universe for all to see. To which i can Praise Him above ALL that is above the heavens! the Creator's signature - The Cross to come (Yeshua).
  • gldynmd BTO-t-BCRA-F 2012/07/18 03:32:18
    gldynmd BTO-t-BCRA-F
    +4
    I believe the word of God but I am also fascinated at man's desire to prove things.

    Genesis 1
  • snell/G... gldynmd... 2012/07/18 22:37:44
    snell/GOD & COUNTRY-zero cliques
    +3
    Man's brain, (i.e., mind) is his downfall....
  • Pearlie Momi♥Patriot Warrior♥ 2012/07/18 03:21:04
    Pearlie Momi♥Patriot Warrior♥
    +7
    I believe in God all things are possible.I believe in God. Amen...
  • snell/G... Pearlie... 2012/07/18 22:38:02
    snell/GOD & COUNTRY-zero cliques
    +2
    ...and AMEN!
  • keeper 2012/07/18 02:45:27
    keeper
    +8
    One thing that these scientists are missing is the fact that "Nothing" came from somewhere.... THAT is the True God Particle that Higgs was searching for.
  • ReconMa... keeper 2012/07/18 02:51:07
  • keeper ReconMa... 2012/07/18 16:30:17
    keeper
    +3
    Thank you, ReCon~~
  • ReconMa... keeper 2012/07/20 09:09:16

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/09/02 19:20:11

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals