The tower of Babel

[aik]

2 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

I'll ask both you and @walterpthefirst this question.

 

From what I'm reading it doesn't look like this reaction puts off much light. It says one can be detected from earths surface but another can only be seen using balloons. I can't imagine this light being bright enough to cause a day and night cycle that would be considered a morning and evening. 

 

Also this light would be a constant light correct? Again this light does not have a day and night pattern to it. The description the bible gives is a bright light that illuminated everything. And it alternated between light and darkness like our days and nights do. 

 

I don't believe the Bible is depicting cosmic rays. And I think it is a huge stretch to make an apologetic teaching out of it. 

 

This is for you AIK.

Does your church teach this about the cosmic rays. Or is this some conclusion you came up with?

 

DB

The Sun has its light almost constantly. for us it is constant. But we have days and nights depended on the Sun and rotation of earth. 

 

But look what i am saying to you. Read carefully. Scietists doing their discoveries along the whole history of the mankind maybe less. They are doing it doing it and doing it. Good. And every time they have found something new they say that it is another thing which disproves God.  So funny. To doscover what was created by God is ok. It is ok. O-KEY. But how many thing there are which are not known to us? If we continue studying we will have then more discoveries. 

 

May I ask you a question? What is the meaning of the word "atom"? translation. Can you tell me? 

ATOM means "the smallest". History tells us that a man who doscovered an atom thought that an atom was the smallest particle of everything. If at that time anybody said that there were particles smaller than an atom or an atom can be devided, he could be killed i think. Why, because scientists thought they know for sure. Time passed - fast forward. Now we know that atoms can be subdivided to electrons and protons etc. 

 

Do you see that you may easily be mistaken and even in ceturies you will not know simple things until it is discovered. Why do you rely your proofs about God on science? I do not understand.

 

Who is that donkey who told you that science is for disproving God? You want to know is there is God or not? It is written: Taste the Lord and see that He is Good. Taste Him. Do not talk about him. Taste Him.  

[walterpthefirst]

DB,

 

Looking deeper at aik's cosmic ray quote, here some relevant points.

 

1.

13 percent of cosmic rays arriving here are alpha particles (helium nuclei).

 

2.

But they are not directly observed on the surface of the Earth.

 

3.

Instead these helium nuclei collide with other nuclei high in the Earth's atmosphere, creating secondary particles.

 

4.

These secondary particles do reach sea level.

 

5.

But these secondary particles are neutrons and muons.

 

6.

Neutrons and muons are not photons and are not any kind of light at all.

 

7.

Neutrons and muons are invisible particles that require special instruments to detect them.

 

 

So aik is dead wrong.

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

6 minutes ago, aik said:

 

 

But look what i am saying to you. Read carefully. Scientists doing their discoveries along the whole history of the mankind maybe less.

 

But there were no scientists around during the first five days of creation to discover helium or cosmic rays.

 

 

 

 

 

[aik]

1 minute ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

But there were no scientists around during the first five days of creation to discover helium or cosmic rays.

 

 

 

 

 

Do you see now? You and DB. That both you and him are believers as I am. The only difference is that believe in God and you believe in what you are saying. 

 

Do you see it? I want to point on it. You are copypasting things that you have read them for the first time maybe, and trying to beat me by things which you do not even know. You do not know what you are talking about. Your basement is the scientific books, which are not complete up till now. They are being filled. 

But my fimament is the revelation of the Creator about Himself. I know in whom I believe. He is my Saviour. What did you gain from believing that your anscestors were monkeys? Was it able to set you free from sin and to stop evil in your life? 

[aik]

Can you tell me, what ice is?

[walterpthefirst]

Just now, aik said:

Do you see now? You and DB. That both you and him are believers as I am. The only difference is that believe in God and you believe in what you are saying. 

 

Do you see it? I want to point on it. You are copypasting things that you have read them for the first time maybe, and trying to beat me by things which you do not even know. You do not know what you are talking about. Your basement is the scientific books, which are not complete up till now. They are being filled. 

But my fimament is the revelation of the Creator about Himself. I know in whom I believe. He is my Saviour. What did you gain from believing that your anscestors were monkeys? Was it able to set you free from sin and to stop evil in your life? 

 

Your are fundamentally wrong to think that science gives complete and absolute truth, aik.

 

DB and I know that science is just a tool for understanding the natural world and nothing more.

 

So you are committing the logical fallacy of false equivalence.

 

https://fallacyinlogic.com/false-equivalence-fallacy-definition-and-examples/

 

Comparing your absolute truths that you believe by faith and science's incomplete and tentative results, which we accept as objective evidence.

 

 

Oh and by the way, I do know and understand about how cosmic rays.

 

Astronomy and cosmology are things I understand quite well.

 

Please read this and you will see that I do know and understand these things.

 

https://www.ex-christian.net/topic/82597-the-failed-cosmology-of-william-lane-craig/

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

3 minutes ago, aik said:

Can you tell me, what ice is?

 

Can you provide evidence that cosmic rays and helium were the light that came before the Sun?

 

We shouldn't introduce new questions and subjects until we are finished with the ones under discussion.

 

So, we are waiting for your evidence about cosmic rays and helium, aik.

 

 

Or are you going to duck out of this challenge too?

[aik]

2 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Your are fundamentally wrong to think that science gives complete and absolute truth, aik.

 

DB and I know that science is just a tool for understanding the natural world and nothing more.

 

So you are committing the logical fallacy of false equivalence.

 

https://fallacyinlogic.com/false-equivalence-fallacy-definition-and-examples/

 

Comparing your absolute truths that you believe by faith and science's incomplete and tentative results, which we accept as objective evidence.

 

 

Oh and by the way, I do know and understand about how cosmic rays.

 

Astronomy and cosmology are things I understand quite well.

 

Please read this and you will see that I do know and understand these things.

 

https://www.ex-christian.net/topic/82597-the-failed-cosmology-of-william-lane-craig/

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

I agree. 

 

Now see what iam saying. One cannot put God under the microscope. Is it clear? It is easier to catch air by your hands.

 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

6 minutes ago, aik said:

What did you gain from believing that your anscestors were monkeys? Was it able to set you free from sin and to stop evil in your life? 

We don't believe our ancestors were monkeys. We believe that both humans and monkeys evolved from a common ancestor which is now extinct. And we have a fossil record to prove it. 

 

https://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils

 

 

DB

[aik]

4 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Can you provide evidence that cosmic rays and helium were the light that came before the Sun?

 

We shouldn't introduce new questions and subjects until we are finished with the ones under discussion.

 

So, we are waiting for your evidence about cosmic rays and helium, aik.

 

 

Or are you going to duck out of this challenge too?

What are you talking about? The Sun is a young and small star in the universe. Cosmic rays, if they come from among interstellar space and supernovas, they appeared far before the Sun. Because there were stars before the Sun. They are elder than the Sun. 

 

What do you know about a Cosmic ray if you never touched it? You could only read about it. But I am here to tell you not about astronomy. But that your hope upon scientific evidence will lead you not farther than to earth.

[walterpthefirst]

4 minutes ago, aik said:

I agree. 

 

Now see what iam saying. One cannot put God under the microscope. Is it clear? It is easier to catch air by your hands.

 

 

If you agree why did you make the comparison, knowing that it was a false equivalence?

 

And how many times have we asked you for objective evidence, aik?

 

By saying that god cannot be put under a microscope are you admitting that you have no objective evidence?

 

 

Please answer.

[aik]

Just now, walterpthefirst said:

 

If you agree why did you make the comparison, knowing that it was a false equivalence?

 

And how many times have we asked you for objective evidence, aik?

 

By saying that god cannot be put under a microscope are you admitting that you have no objective evidence?

 

 

Please answer.

I am saying that you have not got any objective evidence disproving God's existence.

[walterpthefirst]

5 minutes ago, aik said:

What are you talking about? The Sun is a young and small star in the universe. Cosmic rays, if they come from among interstellar space and supernovas, they appeared far before the Sun. Because there were stars before the Sun. They are elder than the Sun. 

 

What do you know about a Cosmic ray if you never touched it? You could only read about it. But I am here to tell you not about astronomy. But that your hope upon scientific evidence will lead you not farther than to earth.

 

I still don't know how old you think creation is, aik.

 

You say that you are a Young Earth Creationist.

 

But you say that objects in deep space that are much older than the Earth.

 

So perhaps I'd better ask you two questions.

 

 

How old do you believe the universe is?

 

How old do you believe the Sun and Earth is?

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

1 minute ago, aik said:

I am saying that you have not got any objective evidence disproving God's existence.

 

Agreed.

 

And I never said that I had any.

 

What I'm asking you is that is you say that god can't be put under a microscope are you then admitting that YOU have no objective evidence for his existence?

 

 

Well, do you have any?

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

3 minutes ago, aik said:

I am saying that you have not got any objective evidence disproving God's existence.

 

But I want to know if you have any to support your claims about his existence.

 

 

Well?

 

 

Do you?

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

9 minutes ago, aik said:

What are you talking about? The Sun is a young and small star in the universe. Cosmic rays, if they come from among interstellar space and supernovas, they appeared far before the Sun. Because there were stars before the Sun. They are elder than the Sun. 

 

What do you know about a Cosmic ray if you never touched it? You could only read about it. But I am here to tell you not about astronomy. But that your hope upon scientific evidence will lead you not farther than to earth.

The sun and the stars were created the same day according to the Bible. And according to the Bible they were also within earths atmosphere. We already went over this AIK.

 

[aik]

1 minute ago, DarkBishop said:

The sun and the stars were created the same day according to the Bible. And according to the Bible they were also within earths atmosphere. We already went over this AIK.

 

If one takes the Bible to study astronomy or chemistry, then Yes. I guess he would imagine the origin of universe in the way you said. Maybe the second one will be able to imagine more crazy picture of it. But if I take the Bible to find God, I know that there is no idea what was the first heaven verse 1, and the firmament, they are obviousely not the same. What happened between creating heaven in the beginning and creating earth. What happenned between creating the Sun, and the Moon and starts, and what was the order of creation. What distance was from the surface of the earth to waters above the heaven. And again, which heaven? People who burnt Kopernicus they thought that the Earth was flat basing it by the Bible i think, but they forgot that according to the Book the Earth was hanged on nothing and the Lord was sitting on the circle of the globe (maybe iam wrong in wording, excuse me). Those people maybe were reading the Bible many times and because of lack of information they had no idea what do the words "hanged on nothing and a circle of globe" mean. There are many questions. 

 

But it never disproves faith in God. Because faith in God is not about scientific knowledge. It is about unification with Christ. About knowing God, a spiritual being. Having the life which God gives. And having eternal life with Jesus Christ. About death and resurrection. And for these things I have spiritual evidence from God.

 

For example my family saw what kind of changes God did in my behaviour, way of thinking, attitude to them and to others. But there is an evidence unseen for anyone. Only me that know it, and out from it all other evidences seen to others come out.  It is the evidence of the Holy Spirit. And this is the strongest evidence world ever had. 

 

When my wife started to believe in Jesus, repented, it was something new for me to see her after 10 years of living together. She was changed at once and is continuing it. She started avoid every untruthfullness, lies, unrighteousness. Not because she was afraid to go to hell. Not at all. But because she started to hate sin. She started to be ashamed of wearing such clothe which led do desire. I never forced her to do anything with it. But I saw that God's spirit helped her to overcome sin, not to be afraid of some cases in our life we had. 

 

These are evidences we can see together with trees, flowers, water, flame, an infant growing is evidence too. But the core evidence is the one which is unseen but living. And it cannot be broken because it is God's work. 

 

I am with Jesus not because I have scientific evidences. guys. But because I have more and the stronger evidence, which is the blood of Jesus Christ. Here I heard that some people try to prove Jesus never was. It is close to craziness taking into account what God was telling us from the very beginning, and what He did in Jesus, and what He is doing now. 

 

God is alive. Praised be the name of Jesus Christ.

 

[walterpthefirst]

1 minute ago, aik said:

If one takes the Bible to study astronomy or chemistry, then Yes. I guess he would imagine the origin of universe in the way you said. Maybe the second one will be able to imagine more crazy picture of it. But if I take the Bible to find God, I know that there is no idea what was the first heaven verse 1, and the firmament, they are obviousely not the same. What happened between creating heaven in the beginning and creating earth. What happenned between creating the Sun, and the Moon and starts, and what was the order of creation. What distance was from the surface of the earth to waters above the heaven. And again, which heaven? People who burnt Kopernicus they thought that the Earth was flat basing it by the Bible i think, but they forgot that according to the Book the Earth was hanged on nothing and the Lord was sitting on the circle of the globe (maybe iam wrong in wording, excuse me). Those people maybe were reading the Bible many times and because of lack of information they had no idea what do the words "hanged on nothing and a circle of globe" mean. There are many questions. 

 

But it never disproves faith in God. Because faith in God is not about scientific knowledge. It is about unification with Christ. About knowing God, a spiritual being. Having the life which God gives. And having eternal life with Jesus Christ. About death and resurrection. And for these things I have spiritual evidence from God.

 

For example my family saw what kind of changes God did in my behaviour, way of thinking, attitude to them and to others. But there is an evidence unseen for anyone. Only me that know it, and out from it all other evidences seen to others come out.  It is the evidence of the Holy Spirit. And this is the strongest evidence world ever had. 

 

When my wife started to believe in Jesus, repented, it was something new for me to see her after 10 years of living together. She was changed at once and is continuing it. She started avoid every untruthfullness, lies, unrighteousness. Not because she was afraid to go to hell. Not at all. But because she started to hate sin. She started to be ashamed of wearing such clothe which led do desire. I never forced her to do anything with it. But I saw that God's spirit helped her to overcome sin, not to be afraid of some cases in our life we had. 

 

These are evidences we can see together with trees, flowers, water, flame, an infant growing is evidence too. But the core evidence is the one which is unseen but living. And it cannot be broken because it is God's work. 

 

I am with Jesus not because I have scientific evidences. guys. But because I have more and the stronger evidence, which is the blood of Jesus Christ. Here I heard that some people try to prove Jesus never was. It is close to craziness taking into account what God was telling us from the very beginning, and what He did in Jesus, and what He is doing now. 

 

God is alive. Praised be the name of Jesus Christ.

 

 

Two points before i go off to my afternoon tea, aik.

 

 

Copernicus was not burned at the stake.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolaus_Copernicus

 

Toward the close of 1542, Copernicus was seized with apoplexy and paralysis, and he died at age 70 on 24 May 1543. Legend has it that he was presented with the final printed pages of his Dē revolutionibus orbium coelestium on the very day that he died, allowing him to take farewell of his life's work. He is reputed to have awoken from a stroke-induced coma, looked at his book, and then died peacefully.

 

 

The rest of your post is not objective evidence.

 

It is subjective and we dismiss it as such.

 

Objective evidence is independent of your faith.

 

 

Byeee!

 

 

[aik]

1 minute ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Two points before i go off to my afternoon tea, aik.

 

 

Copernicus was not burned at the stake.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolaus_Copernicus

 

Toward the close of 1542, Copernicus was seized with apoplexy and paralysis, and he died at age 70 on 24 May 1543. Legend has it that he was presented with the final printed pages of his Dē revolutionibus orbium coelestium on the very day that he died, allowing him to take farewell of his life's work. He is reputed to have awoken from a stroke-induced coma, looked at his book, and then died peacefully.

 

 

The rest of your post is not objective evidence.

 

It is subjective and we dismiss it as such.

 

Objective evidence is independent of your faith.

 

 

Byeee!

 

 

Yes, sure. I was not tryin to impress you by objective evidence. You asked me if I have evidence. Yes I do.

 

About kopernicus I could be mistaken. Maybe it was galileo. But anyway from school I knew about inquisition.

[aik]

4 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Two points before i go off to my afternoon tea, aik.

 

 

Copernicus was not burned at the stake.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolaus_Copernicus

 

Toward the close of 1542, Copernicus was seized with apoplexy and paralysis, and he died at age 70 on 24 May 1543. Legend has it that he was presented with the final printed pages of his Dē revolutionibus orbium coelestium on the very day that he died, allowing him to take farewell of his life's work. He is reputed to have awoken from a stroke-induced coma, looked at his book, and then died peacefully.

 

 

The rest of your post is not objective evidence.

 

It is subjective and we dismiss it as such.

 

Objective evidence is independent of your faith.

 

 

Byeee!

 

 

Have a nice tea time my friend. Looks pretty good. 

[walterpthefirst]

41 minutes ago, aik said:

Yes, sure. I was not tryin to impress you by objective evidence. You asked me if I have evidence. Yes I do.

 

About kopernicus I could be mistaken. Maybe it was galileo. But anyway from school I knew about inquisition.

 

No,aik.

 

You were mistaken about Copernicus.  There's no 'could be' in it.  You were wrong.

 

And you are also wrong about Galileo.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei

 

Galileo continued to receive visitors until 1642, when, after suffering fever and heart palpitations, he died on 8 January 1642, aged 77.  The Grand Duke of Tuscany, Ferdinando II, wished to bury him in the main body of the Basilica of Santa Croce, next to the tombs of his father and other ancestors, and to erect a marble mausoleum in his honour.

 

 

How can we trust what you write if, when you make a mistake, you won't admit it?

 

But you can start to gain our trust by admitting that you were wrong about Copernicus and Galileo.

 

Neither of them were burned at the stake.

 

 

So, were you wrong about Copernicus and/or Galileo being burned to death?

 

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

46 minutes ago, aik said:

Yes, sure. I was not tryin to impress you by objective evidence. You asked me if I have evidence. Yes I do.

 

About kopernicus I could be mistaken. Maybe it was galileo. But anyway from school I knew about inquisition.

 

 

Yes, you do have objective evidence?

 

Good.

 

Then please let us see it.

 

But before you go ahead and post it aik, please be very sure that you understand what we mean by objective evidence.

 

Perhaps you could define what you mean by objective evidence, before you post your example?

 

That way we can see if we do agree as to what constitutes objective evidence.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

 

[aik]

4 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

No,aik.

 

You were mistaken about Copernicus.  There's no 'could be' in it.  You were wrong.

 

And you are also wrong about Galileo.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei

 

Galileo continued to receive visitors until 1642, when, after suffering fever and heart palpitations, he died on 8 January 1642, aged 77.  The Grand Duke of Tuscany, Ferdinando II, wished to bury him in the main body of the Basilica of Santa Croce, next to the tombs of his father and other ancestors, and to erect a marble mausoleum in his honour.

 

 

How can we trust what you write if, when you make a mistake, you won't admit it?

 

But you can start to gain our trust by admitting that you were wrong about Copernicus and Galileo.

 

Neither of them were burned at the stake.

 

 

So, were you wrong about Copernicus and/or Galileo being burned to death?

 

 

 

Are you blind or are you playing somewhat? 

[walterpthefirst]

1 minute ago, aik said:

Are you blind or are you playing somewhat? 

 

Not at all.  I simply want to you to tell the truth.

 

You wrote this... People who burnt Kopernicus they thought that the Earth was flat basing it by the Bible i think, 

 

I showed you objective evidence that Copernicus was not burned at the stake.  He died peacefully.  Then you switched to Galileo, saying... 

 

About kopernicus I could be mistaken. Maybe it was galileo. But anyway from school I knew about inquisition.

 

But Galileo died peacefully too and was not burned at the stake.

 

So you were wrong, twice.

 

And I'd like you to admit that because doing that is telling the truth.

[aik]

3 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

 

Yes, you do have objective evidence?

 

Good.

 

Then please let us see it.

 

But before you go ahead and post it aik, please be very sure that you understand what we mean by objective evidence.

 

Perhaps you could define what you mean by objective evidence, before you post your example?

 

That way we can see if we do agree as to what constitutes objective evidence.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

 

Look what I have for you, Walter. I am not here to provide you evidences. I am here to let Jesus catch you out of the devil's hands by his power.  I am here to let Jesus crush your current foundation in front of your eyes by truth. 

 

If Jesus fails to do it, then you will fail having freedom from your slavery.