Do you believe in god? the gods discussion thread

[Krispin]

Yo, I do object to your making fun and treating me or anyone else with ridicule. It is okay, just doesn't show much character on your part. I will consider the source.

Because you say something doens't make it so. I disagree with some of the conclusions you make.

Here is the last comment:
Also, you asked me very clearly to list to you the things in the Bible that are "indemonstrable core components" and I listed 6 things in a recent post. It seems that you are avoiding this post because you have no proof of anything I've listed. For your convenience, here's that list again (it's obvious to see the level of insanity Christians must have to day in and day out believe this drivel):

1.)Walking on water (no Criss Angel stuff- I mean walking on water without physical tricks);

2.)Resurrection;

3.)Turning water into wine (once again, physical magic does not qualify unless you want to compare Christ to Criss Angel);

4.)Producing multitudes of bread loves and seafood from a limited quantity;

5.)Controlled ascent into the sky without any physical support mechanism (not Criss Angel style either, unless you want to admit that Criss Angel has the same abilities as Christ supposedly does);

6.)Raising people from the dead;

Since that wasn't my part of the thread, I didn't answer it. First, I don't consider the things you listed as core componants. I Do consider the resurrection vital and can suBathmateit much proof for that but you would not accept it so why bother.

I have listed a couple books that speak of this, but you would not read them either.

YOU are asking to prove the results of Christ's life and work on earth VS Christ himself. If he was a man, just a man, then that would not matter, but he was not. He was what he claimed and you can't disprove it, probably any more than I can prove it. 2000 years have passed and he is still around and worshiped and loved. So is the Bible and you can do all you wish to distroy it but it will be here when you and I both are gone. Really I think it is grand that you believe what you do. Keep at it. You will find out one day you are wrong but it will be too late. When you want help, contact some of us who still believe the Bible and have faith in Christ. GS

My comments have not been overly harsh- I am expressing how I honestly feel. I have pity for you. I also have a difficult time respecting you since you seem to be insane (you don't address any of the logic in the central arguments and you can't mount a proper defense for what you believe yet you still believe it- that's insane).

You don't have any proof of the resurrection; whatever you have is probably either derived from the Bible itself or is in some other way circular, thus invalidating it as proof. Also, the general arguments supporting the resurrection are shaky at best, have counterarguments, and collectively still do not offer more support for the Bible than the support that exists for evolution. Therefore, it is still more reasonable to believe in evolution.

You need to wake up now or you'll spend a lifetime in delusion. Stop telling yourself that people who don't believe what you believe are "misguided" or something else to make yourself feel better. The arguments against you are real and they are devastating. Face them or forever believe in a fantasy.

-Krispin

 

[German Stallion]

Krispin, I refuse to answer someone who keeps berating the person they are discussing things with. Either I am insane or BxB has mental disorders, or you feel pity for me or some other cutting remark. Thanks for the conversation.
GS

 

[Krispin]

Krispin, I refuse to answer someone who keeps berating the person they are discussing things with. Either I am insane or BxB has mental disorders, or you feel pity for me or some other cutting remark. Thanks for the conversation.
GS

Welcome to the real world, where you have to defend your arguments against opposition. You believe in something that you cannot seem to defend. That is insane. And I feel sorry for the insane. Nothing extraordinary about my comments.

 

[BANANAxBOY]

German Stallion- thanks for backing me up buddy but i really don't mind being bashed by krispin.

Krispin- In the above posts neither you nor me or GS have proven our statements, not one of us including YOU, all I did by breaking apart your post was show that all you stated was stories about religious people being bad. NOWHERE did you prove that there is no God. That was all I pointed out.

You are right that I did not prove anything myself and if you would have the patience with me, I will have patience with you, to try and argue this out to a conclusion I would be honored to go through this with you.

This being said, in order to prove the acts of Jesus walking on water, turning water into wine, His resurrection and so forth, the bible must be validated. I would like to try and do this for you, not because I need proof but because I have hope that I wish everyone could have including yourself my friend.

I think that it would be good to go at this one step at a time and hopefully through these steps one of us or our beliefs will be proven incorrect. I will start off with the first fact being a timeline of Evolution and a timeline for Creation.

The Big Bang Theory

About 20 billion years ago, all of nothing in the universe gathered together into a tiny extremely hot ball of mass, and this tiny ball of mass exploded. From this explosion the theory states that hydrogen and maybe a bit of helium was shot off, they came together in different areas and created what we call sons. About 4.6 billion years ago earth was formed from this explosion from the debris.

Creation
Genesis 1:1 says this, God created the heavens and the earth. If we trace the bible and the people in it with dates we can approximately come to a conclusion of the earth being about 6000 years old.

Is this a good starting point krispin? Let’s at least agree at one starting point and go step by step please.

BxB

 

[MAXAMEYES]

Full text here:
http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48951136.html


Fascinating insight and wisdom from ancient sources (an excerpt):

[SIZE=+1]A universe with a beginning.[/SIZE]
In 1959, a survey was taken of leading American scientists. Among the many questions asked was, "What is your concept of the age of the universe?" Now, in 1959, astronomy was popular, but cosmology -- the deep physics of understanding the universe -- was just developing. The response to that survey was recently republished in Scientific American -- the most widely read science journal in the world. Two-thirds of the scientists gave the same answer: "Beginning? There was no beginning. Aristotle and Plato taught us 2400 years ago that the universe is eternal. Oh, we know the Bible says 'In the beginning.' That's a nice story, but we sophisticates know better. There was no beginning."

After 3000 years of arguing, science has come to agree with the Torah.​

That was 1959. In 1965, Penzias and Wilson discovered the echo of the Big Bang in the black of the sky at night, and the world paradigm changed from a universe that was eternal to a universe that had a beginning. After 3000 years of arguing, science has come to agree with the Torah.
[SIZE=+1]It all starts from Rosh Hashana. [/SIZE]
How long ago did the "beginning" occur? Was it, as the Bible might imply, 5700-plus years, or was it the 15 billions of years that's accepted by the scientific community?
The first thing we have to understand is the origin of the Biblical calendar. The Jewish year is figured by adding up the generations since Adam. Additionally, there are six days leading up to the creation to Adam. These six days are significant as well.
Now where do we make the zero point? On Rosh Hashana, the Jewish New Year, upon blowing the shofar, the following sentence is said: "Hayom Harat Olam -- today is the birthday of the world."
This verse might imply that Rosh Hashana commemorates the creation of the universe. But it doesn't. Rosh Hashana commemorate the creation of the Neshama, the soul of human life. We start counting our 5700-plus years from the creation of the soul of Adam.
We have a clock that begins with Adam, and the six days are separate from this clock. The Bible has two clocks.
That might seem like a modern rationalization, if it were not for the fact that Talmudic commentaries 1500 years ago, brings this information. In the Midrash (Vayikra Rabba 29:1), an expansion of the Talmud, all the Sages agree that Rosh Hashana commemorates the soul of Adam, and that the Six Days of Genesis are separate.
Why were the Six Days taken out of the calendar? Because time is described differently in those Six Days of Genesis. "There was evening and morning" is an exotic, bizarre, unusual way of describing time.
Once you come from Adam, the flow of time is totally in human terms. Adam and Eve live 130 years before having children! Seth lives 105 years before having children, etc. From Adam forward, the flow of time is totally human in concept. But prior to that time, it's an abstract concept: "Evening and morning." It's as if you're looking down on events from a viewpoint that is not intimately related to them.

 

[Krispin]

German Stallion- thanks for backing me up buddy but i really don't mind being bashed by krispin.

Krispin- In the above posts neither you nor me or GS have proven our statements, not one of us including YOU, all I did by breaking apart your post was show that all you stated was stories about religious people being bad. NOWHERE did you prove that there is no God. That was all I pointed out.

You are right that I did not prove anything myself and if you would have the patience with me, I will have patience with you, to try and argue this out to a conclusion I would be honored to go through this with you.

This being said, in order to prove the acts of Jesus walking on water, turning water into wine, His resurrection and so forth, the bible must be validated. I would like to try and do this for you, not because I need proof but because I have hope that I wish everyone could have including yourself my friend.

I think that it would be good to go at this one step at a time and hopefully through these steps one of us or our beliefs will be proven incorrect. I will start off with the first fact being a timeline of Evolution and a timeline for Creation.

The Big Bang Theory

About 20 billion years ago, all of nothing in the universe gathered together into a tiny extremely hot ball of mass, and this tiny ball of mass exploded. From this explosion the theory states that hydrogen and maybe a bit of helium was shot off, they came together in different areas and created what we call sons. About 4.6 billion years ago earth was formed from this explosion from the debris.

Creation
Genesis 1:1 says this, God created the heavens and the earth. If we trace the bible and the people in it with dates we can approximately come to a conclusion of the earth being about 6000 years old.

Is this a good starting point krispin? Let’s at least agree at one starting point and go step by step please.

BxB

I proved that it is unreasonable to believe in God; I never set out to prove that there is no God whatsoever.

Science says Earth has been around for billions of years and humans around for millions, not thousands. The Genesis account fails. Once again, the evidence shows that it is unreasonable to believe it. Therefore, you believe in something unreasonable. Therefore, you are unreasonable. Therefore, you are insane.

 

[Krispin]

Full text here:
http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48951136.html


Fascinating insight and wisdom from ancient sources (an excerpt):

[SIZE=+1]A universe with a beginning.[/SIZE]
In 1959, a survey was taken of leading American scientists. Among the many questions asked was, "What is your concept of the age of the universe?" Now, in 1959, astronomy was popular, but cosmology -- the deep physics of understanding the universe -- was just developing. The response to that survey was recently republished in Scientific American -- the most widely read science journal in the world. Two-thirds of the scientists gave the same answer: "Beginning? There was no beginning. Aristotle and Plato taught us 2400 years ago that the universe is eternal. Oh, we know the Bible says 'In the beginning.' That's a nice story, but we sophisticates know better. There was no beginning."

After 3000 years of arguing, science has come to agree with the Torah.​

That was 1959. In 1965, Penzias and Wilson discovered the echo of the Big Bang in the black of the sky at night, and the world paradigm changed from a universe that was eternal to a universe that had a beginning. After 3000 years of arguing, science has come to agree with the Torah.
[SIZE=+1]It all starts from Rosh Hashana. [/SIZE]
How long ago did the "beginning" occur? Was it, as the Bible might imply, 5700-plus years, or was it the 15 billions of years that's accepted by the scientific community?
The first thing we have to understand is the origin of the Biblical calendar. The Jewish year is figured by adding up the generations since Adam. Additionally, there are six days leading up to the creation to Adam. These six days are significant as well.
Now where do we make the zero point? On Rosh Hashana, the Jewish New Year, upon blowing the shofar, the following sentence is said: "Hayom Harat Olam -- today is the birthday of the world."
This verse might imply that Rosh Hashana commemorates the creation of the universe. But it doesn't. Rosh Hashana commemorate the creation of the Neshama, the soul of human life. We start counting our 5700-plus years from the creation of the soul of Adam.
We have a clock that begins with Adam, and the six days are separate from this clock. The Bible has two clocks.
That might seem like a modern rationalization, if it were not for the fact that Talmudic commentaries 1500 years ago, brings this information. In the Midrash (Vayikra Rabba 29:1), an expansion of the Talmud, all the Sages agree that Rosh Hashana commemorates the soul of Adam, and that the Six Days of Genesis are separate.
Why were the Six Days taken out of the calendar? Because time is described differently in those Six Days of Genesis. "There was evening and morning" is an exotic, bizarre, unusual way of describing time.
Once you come from Adam, the flow of time is totally in human terms. Adam and Eve live 130 years before having children! Seth lives 105 years before having children, etc. From Adam forward, the flow of time is totally human in concept. But prior to that time, it's an abstract concept: "Evening and morning." It's as if you're looking down on events from a viewpoint that is not intimately related to them.

Science says that modern humans have existed for hundreds of thousands of years (http://astrobiology.nasa.gov/ask-an-astrobiologist/question/?id=1522) not 6000 years. Fail.

 

[MAXAMEYES]

Did you read the entire article? I think not.

P.S. "Science" has also stated that thalidomide was harmless, Agent Orange posed no threat, depleted uranium completely safe to handle and on, and on, and on. Science, as a process to uncover truth, is not a static process and, by definition, design, and necessity, cannot deal in the realm of absolutes. Science must remain open to, even dependent upon, revision.

 

[Krispin]

Did you read the entire article? I think not.

P.S. "Science" has also stated that thalidomide was harmless, Agent Orange posed no threat, depleted uranium completely safe to handle and on, and on, and on. Science, as a process to uncover truth, is not a static process and, by definition, design, and necessity, cannot deal in the realm of absolutes. Science must remain open to, even dependent upon, revision.

Yes I did read the entire article. The points you mentioned (agent orange, thalidomide) may have been reclassified, but the age of the Earth and the time of human appearance has been confirmed over and over and over and over again. It is therefore more reasonable to believe it than to believe the contradictory Biblical account. Therefore, you believe in something unreasonable. Therefore you are insane.

 

[BANANAxBOY]

I proved that it is unreasonable to believe in God; I never set out to prove that there is no God whatsoever.

Science says Earth has been around for billions of years and humans around for millions, not thousands. The Genesis account fails. Once again, the evidence shows that it is unreasonable to believe it. Therefore, you believe in something unreasonable. Therefore, you are unreasonable. Therefore, you are insane.

Are you afraid to go into this in detail? Again you did not prove anything, you just said that the earth is billions of years old and said i was wrong. You are the one that keeps telling me to back myself up, you are currently being hypocritical, or is it just my mental illness in the way again.

Please krispin, i just want to argue this through like respectable men, can we not do that? Can we not go off my previous post?

BxB

 

[Krispin]

Are you afraid to go into this in detail? Again you did not prove anything, you just said that the earth is billions of years old and said i was wrong. You are the one that keeps telling me to back myself up, you are currently being hypocritical, or is it just my mental illness in the way again.

Please krispin, i just want to argue this through like respectable men, can we not do that? Can we not go off my previous post?

BxB

I've already discussed this in detail (read previous posts). Go prove the resurrection to me before you want me to believe in your garbage.

 

[MAXAMEYES]

Yes I did read the entire article. The points you mentioned (agent orange, thalidomide) may have been reclassified, but the age of the Earth and the time of human appearance has been confirmed over and over and over and over again. It is therefore more reasonable to believe it than to believe the contradictory Biblical account. Therefore, you believe in something unreasonable. Therefore you are insane.

What I find so amusing about a little fella like you is that you're just sooooo anxious to denigrate and condemn that you feel obligated, for whatever self-absorbed reasons, create an issue where there is none.

I espoused no belief, on either side of the supposed argument, yet you attributed such to me by your own volition.
Sad, sad and somewhat desperate.
Your premature supposition that my contribution somehow stands in direct opposition to your own stated position and is then somehow even a threat to same is not only fallacious but also irrational given the content of my post.
And the use of the appellation "insane" is not only simply a hollow, self-serving deprecation, it's also just plain immature.

(This is a forum for adults, to discuss adult issues in an adult fashion. If you are unable to comport yourself properly perhaps you should explore the option of leaving before you are "asked" to leave. Your profile contains no age information, yet you list yourself as a student; you must be 18 years of age to obtain membership in MOS.)

You claim both reason and sanity as your method, you also claim to have read the entire article I cited, yet if these were actually true (presuming you have the requisite intelligence to understand the article's intent, of course) then you would have realized that the scientist who posted this article presented an entirely plausible explanation, using almost universally accepted precepts and methodology (Newtonian & Einsteinian physics in general) to offer proof as to how simple mistranslations from the source document and academic hubris have, in aggregate, over time, created a conceptual rift in understanding wherein none exists in actuality.

To simplify for you: the oft cited, and at times heated, dichotomy between the respective viewpoints, each, in turn, espousing and/or derrogating various ancient observations then modern deduction and religious establisHydromaxent, are, in fact, simply symptomatic of the diametricity imposed via rampantly divergent perspectives, aggravated by obdurate adherence to arbitrary paradigms, quite frequently in the presence of viable alternatives, and propagated to this very day due to blatant hostility from each party toward the other replacing healthy, rational intellectual discourse between adults.

Closing ones mind to new sources of insight and information is pathetic enough; closing ones mind to the possibility of new sources of same existing is pitiable and regressive.

From now on ensure someone has actually stated a position before you attempt to attack it in so specious a fashion. A reply on your part is neither warranted, nor invited, yet inevitable I imagine; take care to ensure it is salient and mature.

 

[BANANAxBOY]

I've already discussed this in detail (read previous posts). Go prove the resurrection to me before you want me to believe in your garbage.

I told you, I CAN NOT until I prove that the bible is true. If you don't give me the chance how can i do this?

You did not use one fact other than the scientists said it was so. If my friend tells you that there is a God are you you going to believe, I don't think so. You continue to say that scientists have proven over an over again, this is not proof.

Use one fact krispin, until you do, you are not proving yourself. You are also giving up. By the way, the link to the cartoons was amusing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...tional_fossils).

The Big Bang Theory
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><o> </o>
About 20 billion years ago, all of nothing in the universe gathered together into a tiny extremely hot ball of mass, and this tiny ball of mass exploded. From this explosion the theory states that hydrogen and maybe a bit of helium was shot off, they came together in different areas and created what we call sons. About 4.6 billion years ago earth was formed from this explosion from the debris.
<o> </o>
Creation

Genesis 1:1 says this, God created the heavens and the earth. If we trace the bible and the people in it with dates we can approximately come to a conclusion of the earth being about 6000 years old.
Now, do I have your side of the story right?

BxB

 

[Krispin]

What I find so amusing about a little fella like you is that you're just sooooo anxious to denigrate and condemn that you feel obligated, for whatever self-absorbed reasons, create an issue where there is none.

I espoused no belief, on either side of the supposed argument, yet you attributed such to me by your own volition.
Sad, sad and somewhat desperate.
Your premature supposition that my contribution somehow stands in direct opposition to your own stated position and is then somehow even a threat to same is not only fallacious but also irrational given the content of my post.
And the use of the appellation "insane" is not only simply a hollow, self-serving deprecation, it's also just plain immature.

(This is a forum for adults, to discuss adult issues in an adult fashion. If you are unable to comport yourself properly perhaps you should explore the option of leaving before you are "asked" to leave. Your profile contains no age information, yet you list yourself as a student; you must be 18 years of age to obtain membership in MOS.)

You claim both reason and sanity as your method, you also claim to have read the entire article I cited, yet if these were actually true (presuming you have the requisite intelligence to understand the article's intent, of course) then you would have realized that the scientist who posted this article presented an entirely plausible explanation, using almost universally accepted precepts and methodology (Newtonian & Einsteinian physics in general) to offer proof as to how simple mistranslations from the source document and academic hubris have, in aggregate, over time, created a conceptual rift in understanding wherein none exists in actuality.

To simplify for you: the oft cited, and at times heated, dichotomy between the respective viewpoints, each, in turn, espousing and/or derrogating various ancient observations then modern deduction and religious establisHydromaxent, are, in fact, simply symptomatic of the diametricity imposed via rampantly divergent perspectives, aggravated by obdurate adherence to arbitrary paradigms, quite frequently in the presence of viable alternatives, and propagated to this very day due to blatant hostility from each party toward the other replacing healthy, rational intellectual discourse between adults.

Closing ones mind to new sources of insight and information is pathetic enough; closing ones mind to the possibility of new sources of same existing is pitiable and regressive.

From now on ensure someone has actually stated a position before you attempt to attack it in so specious a fashion. A reply on your part is neither warranted, nor invited, yet inevitable I imagine; take care to ensure it is salient and mature.

Not anxious at all to denigrate anything; just pointing out the obvious that your position is weak and that you believe in an explanation that has been discredited countless times. That's unreasonable. Peppering high-sounding words throughout your little rant does not change the poor state of your arguments; it just makes you sound moronic, pathetic, and annoying.

 

[Krispin]

I told you, I CAN NOT until I prove that the bible is true. If you don't give me the chance how can i do this?

You did not use one fact other than the scientists said it was so. If my friend tells you that there is a God are you you going to believe, I don't think so. You continue to say that scientists have proven over an over again, this is not proof.

Use one fact krispin, until you do, you are not proving yourself. You are also giving up. By the way, the link to the cartoons was amusing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...tional_fossils).

The Big Bang Theory
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><o> </o>
About 20 billion years ago, all of nothing in the universe gathered together into a tiny extremely hot ball of mass, and this tiny ball of mass exploded. From this explosion the theory states that hydrogen and maybe a bit of helium was shot off, they came together in different areas and created what we call sons. About 4.6 billion years ago earth was formed from this explosion from the debris.
<o> </o>
Creation

Genesis 1:1 says this, God created the heavens and the earth. If we trace the bible and the people in it with dates we can approximately come to a conclusion of the earth being about 6000 years old.
Now, do I have your side of the story right?

BxB

Science states that humankind and the Earth are both much older than 6000 years. Science has more evidence in support of its claim than the Bible. Therefore, science is the stronger explanation; believing in the alternative is unreasonable and unfounded. There, I just destroyed your entire philosophy, and on Christmas Eve nonetheless!

 

[MAXAMEYES]

Not anxious at all to denigrate anything; just pointing out the obvious that your position is weak and that you believe in an explanation that has been discredited countless times. That's unreasonable. Peppering high-sounding words throughout your little rant does not change the poor state of your arguments; it just makes you sound moronic, pathetic, and annoying.

I'll speak in a manner you can understand:
Dumb-ass:
I took no position.
I have no position.
My post took no position.
A position that doesn't exist cannot be unreasonable,
it cannot be reasonable,
it cannot be attacked,
it cannot be defended,
it can't BE anything,
because it is NOT anything.

Did you catch all that?
Could I be any clearer?

Were those words small and "low-sounding"
enough for you to understand?
Read slowly and it won't hurt so much; I can't type any slower.

 

[BANANAxBOY]

Science states that humankind and the Earth are both much older than 6000 years. Science has more evidence in support of its claim than the Bible. Therefore, science is the stronger explanation; believing in the alternative is unreasonable and unfounded. There, I just destroyed your entire philosophy, and on Christmas Eve nonetheless!

Again no fact krispin, just your defensless opinion. Why won't you go into detail with me, I made a nice little post that starts at the start? You leave no other explanation than you are afraid to be proven wrong, and that is ok because i have no intention to hurt you or make you feel bad. I simply want to bring you the hope that I have.

Love BxB

 

[Krispin]

I'll speak in a manner you can understand:
Dumb-ass:
I took no position.
I have no position.
My post took no position.
A position that doesn't exist cannot be unreasonable,
it cannot be reasonable,
it cannot be attacked,
it cannot be defended,
it can't BE anything,
because it is NOT anything.

Did you catch all that?
Could I be any clearer?

Were those words small and "low-sounding"
enough for you to understand?
Read slowly and it won't hurt so much; I can't type any slower.

Hey, psycho, get this through your mentally deranged mind: YOU ARE INSANE. How's that sound, huh? Got any more questions you want me to answer? Your arguments were destroyed- Merry Christmas.

P.S. Also, my attack on your writing pattern worked quite well- you lost your nerve and control of your temper. I would decimate you in public debate, mark that.

 

[Krispin]

Again no fact krispin, just your defensless opinion. Why won't you go into detail with me, I made a nice little post that starts at the start? You leave no other explanation than you are afraid to be proven wrong, and that is ok because i have no intention to hurt you or make you feel bad. I simply want to bring you the hope that I have.

Love BxB

Lol...my "opinion" is supported by volumes of scientific data and rudimentary logic. Your beliefs are defenseless and INSANE. You are INSANE, got that? In a few hours, you'll be waking up to the cold realization that your day of celebration has turned into a day of destruction. If this argument had been public, you would have been HUMILIATED. Merry ****ing Christmas B~).

 

[BANANAxBOY]

The Big Bang Theory

About 20 billion years ago, all of nothing in the universe gathered together into a tiny extremely hot ball of mass, and this tiny ball of mass exploded. From this explosion the theory states that hydrogen and maybe a bit of helium was shot off, they came together in different areas and created what we call sons. About 4.6 billion years ago earth was formed from this explosion from the debris.

Creation

Genesis 1:1 says this, God created the heavens and the earth. If we trace the bible and the people in it with dates we can approximately come to a conclusion of the earth being about 6000 years old.


Ok, I'll continue...


So, I think I've given this statement a long enough time for someone to disagree, so lets continue assuming this statement is true. If anyone feels obligated to jump in and argue, please do! Lets just try and be respectful about this.

The Big Bang Theory: Response

1. I would like someone to show me where in science that "nothing" becomes something.

2. Gasses do not just "come together". Try and blow hydrogen and helium together and see if they attract and create new mass.

3. If the earth is supposedly 4.6 billion years old and human's have been around for a lot more than 6 thousand years than how come we are not so advanced? ( we invented car's, planes, cellphones, computers and many more in just 100 years)

Creation: Response

We have Earth, which proves this first verse in the bible correct.