|
|
Science Perspective: World's Creation According to Bible
[Copy link]
|
|
|
Well Kaiser honey, looks like you failed you chemistry, huh.
Your definition of hydrogen atoms then 108 elements sound alot like the genesis you are reading about.
Does not go a to b to c, but a to h to y.
Atoms are atoms with a nucleus of protons and neutrons and a singular or number of circling electrons.
Atoms cohese together to forms molecules and then the 108 elements you speak of.
We are carbon based creatures ie or base molecule is made of hydrocarbon chains ie consisting only of carbon and hydrogen atoms.
Pick up a chemistry for dummies book if you want to continue with this topic. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Originally posted by nightlord at 29-1-2005 02:59 PM:
Well Kaiser honey, looks like you failed you chemistry, huh.
Your definition of hydrogen atoms then 108 elements sound alot like the genesis you are reading about.
Does not go a to b to c, bu ...
probably you can open your chemist book and explain about unstable isotops of hidrogen, and carbon each... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
yes, perhaps I could admit that chemistry isn't my field, as I have physics and religion studies by my side.. well, thanks for the info, then. Actually, the question does not arise, as the comparison is not made, as per se by the topic.... You only just trying to smear greekgod's credibility, knowing BBT is not his field...
How about the "real question", then? If our present theory os wrong, perhaps there is some proof u would like to show that support the Creation Narrative of Bible? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why the great lenghts to steer this forum away from its topic? I could ask a fellow chemist to show you the reactions, as you requested, but it is far from our target of the topic...
Don't try to beat around the bush... Trying to show off your knowledge by bringing unrelated challenge is just like what a ignorant person would do.
Perhaps it is time you answer MY questions of the comparison that I made... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Originally posted by greekgod at 2005-1-30 03:13 PM:
probably you can open your chemist book and explain about unstable isotops of hidrogen, and carbon each...
There are no unstable isotopes of hydrogen. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well Kaiser baby logical deductions are made with clear knowledge and facts.
Since you admittedly do not understand basic chemistry terms and processes isnt it foolish for you to even try.
Pick up a chemistry book and learn first, then theorise.
And debmey is right, in our natural world there are no unstable hydrogen molecules as they are most reactive with other molecules.
Since you use the word isotope Greeky, then you must understand that isotopes are man - made and hydrogen isotopes are highly unstable(though in some cases there are stable isotopes of elements), ie they always want to convert back to its own stable form.
So before you begin logical thought, pls equip yourself with knowledge first. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Originally posted by Debmey at 30-1-2005 05:29 PM:
There are no unstable isotopes of hydrogen.
really?
you must have not taken your physic chemist.
since hidrogen only has one electron, it is special that it is half-stable. it supposed to have at least two electrons at the outer circle.
therefore, hidrogen is called as electron donor. it can exists in two other isotopes hidrogen-2 and hidrogen-3
where, this is the foundation of hidrogen-bomb, where again, unstable isotopes will randomly collided with other isotopes and in return an energey being exerted.
im half remember.. but, i used to read about hidrogen bomb, and debmey.. please.. please... read something about chemist, then later you can speak about it.... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
nightlord, do you mind to tell debmey, other isotopes of hidrogen that exists in this world?
i think (??) that you must have learned about chemistry during your STPM and pass that with flying colors as well!!!
[ Last edited by greekgod on 31-1-2005 at 07:20 AM ] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MM... Yes, deductions are made with knowledge and wisdom... But trying to porve one's worth, it is not the case here... What's the use of this thread being made, if one should discuss about those hydrogen?!
I think you are aware the facts, buut why ask others to prove it? It is you whom sould prove the inability of the Theory to co-exist with the Bible.... I did lay out the comparison....
Instead of wasting time to stray from the topic, then shuould you *defend* the Biblical Narrative. If you know much about the Theory, then what is YOUR STAND on the topic? The BBT and evolution or Bible?
There is no use discussing of the chemical compunds and other things if I do not see your stand in the topic.
Yous seem to allude yourself with victory? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This are the isotopes: deuterium, tritium... Puas hati? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
it still does not explain how hydrogen atom form into carbon atoms. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
as we talk about world's creation, and debmey insisted much to know how hidrogen can form into larger atom... he himself, did not answer any other question led to him.
i hope im not straying from the topic.... how do you explain, the human creation, from sperm (smallest cell in men), form into larger and growing human?
i think, kaiser will explain something about hidrogen to you, or i should wait for another friend to accept invitation to come and answer this for you.
at the mean time, why dont you spend sometime to think about my question for you debmey...
you may quote any verse(s) in bible, only if it exists.... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We are talking about the creation of the world.
BBT does try to theorise how the world was created.
And if yu can't even justify the most basic part of the BBT, how can you hope to stand by it? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, if you do not think the BBT does not explain how the world came to being.... Then you must prove the BBT is wrong!
Then, what is your stand on this topic? Care to ellaborate the Creation theory that satisfy you? Perhaps we can discuss on YOUR side of the theory.
[ Last edited by KaiserPheonix on 1-2-2005 at 11:26 AM ] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The BBT is wrong simply because it is unscientific. There is just no way for BBT to happen because it violates the laws of physics. Thats why its impossible for hydrogen to form into larger atoms such as carbon.
Follow the thread from the start. Since the fiurst posts says that Bible is wrong because it contradicts BBT, and since I have proven that BBT itself is unscientific, the case against the Bible becomes invalid.
The Bible case for creation is simple. God Almighty created, period. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Originally posted by Debmey at 1-2-2005 08:17 AM:
The Bible case for creation is simple. God Almighty created, period.
Everyone can say that god is almighty.
There must be some strong, even better than short passage verses that could explain the world's creations in details.
Give some science perspective to backup your reasoning.. as this thread say:
Science Perspective: World's ......
(the topic itself suggest pro and contra, where it does not heavier to any side) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
God's creative power overides science. Thats why creation is a miracle.
You can't explain creation with science, but yu can never disprove it by science either cos that will make u fall flat on ur face, just like yu did using the BBT. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ok.. i got an answer for BBT.
But, before i give the answer...
i'd like to know, where did debmey, got his idea for his question.. how does hidrogen form the carbon?
i need to know the source, or else debmey has just created that himself...
answer that to me, and i shall put an answer, and please get ready your point to shield your bible from my words.
ok deb..
and i wonder, a student from science stream, like nightlord, could only nod his head when he sees that somebody is trying fool with others.. probably, that is christian teaching! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Like I say, its BBT. BBT says that hydrogen became bigger atoms and this is clearly unscientific. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Post time 29-1-2005 08:59 PM
Author
