That's a scarecrow. God is a scarecrow? Interesting development.
Printable View
Thankfully you can get a free eye test at most local opticians:-
SKY IMAGE LAB report the following....
Hubble Cross
"Sometimes known as the Hubble Cross or Cross of Hubble.
This image of the core of the nearby spiral galaxy M51, taken with the Wide Field Planetary camera (in PC mode) on NASA's Hubble Space Telescope, shows a striking, dark "X" silhouetted across the galaxy's nucleus. The "X" is due to absorption by dust and marks the exact position of a black hole which may have a mass equivalent to one-million stars like the sun. The darkest bar may be an edge-on dust ring which is 100 light-years in diameter. The edge-on torus not only hides the black hole and accretion disk from being viewed directly from earth, but also determines the axis of a jet of high-speed plasma and confines radiation from the accretion disk to a pair of oppositely directed cones of light, which ionize gas caught in their beam. The second bar of the "X" could be a second disk seen edge on, or possibly rotating gas and dust in MS1 intersecting with the jets and ionization cones.
The size of the cross in universe is 1100 light-years."
How much bigger does God have to make it before you can see it clearly?
Well He HAS put it nearer. In fact He has placed it in every one of the trillions of cells of your body. Without Laminin you and I would be a lump of jelly on the ground; Laminin holds each of our cells together just like steel in concrete.
In the Bible God claims to 'hold all things together' - Christ is universally identified in all cultures by the symbol of the Cross.
This is a scientific diagram of Laminin (if you don't trust me then go to Google images and type 'laminin'....)
Attachment 4692
Attachment 4693
There we go, an actual image and not a diagram. Not very cross shaped is it?
Here’s the science. The actual thing and not a diagram.
Attachment 4694
Do you also think protons are a sign from god too because the drawings in science books have crosses on them?
That protein thing is ****ing nuts :hehe:
Your argument would be perfect if the cross had not been purely produced by science - the lense through which you view the world - unless of course you hate the view, then you can brush it under the carpet out of view.
Everyone knows what laminin literally looks like, but the image the world sees re it is the one I shared, just like the London Underground Map TO SCALE isn't the one anyone uses when travelling around London - so nice try, but no cigar.
Oh so you don’t need accuracies or truth to believe in God? Anyone could write and draw an inaccurate diagram or passage and you’ll accept it if it fits your view. Interesting.
You said people dying of AIDS was their own fault, you’ve still not answered my question about cancer? My mate died at 19, care to explain how that was his fault?
If you read what I said carefully I never once said "it was there OWN fault" - I said that they inherited a rebellious nature which led them to sin which in turn leads to suffering and eventually death for us all.
Now if that were the end of the story then Basil Fawlty was correct! We are all guilty, and ALL require God's forgiveness - see the difference?
However he isn't, as the Manufacterer actually intervened* to launch His Mission to save misereble ungrateful slime like you and me, which is why we started sung carols and eat mince pies :sherlock:
* We are also free to ignore this intervention and enjoy Christmas once a year and give no thought to it whatsoever.
You have posted diagrams of scientific matter because it is shaped like a cross, you choose to believe that science.
The same science, I'll mention it again in capitals THE BIG BANG as my ONE, cheers for the selection offer there, the big bang is widely accepted in science to be absolutely ****ing true. The big bang kind of pisses all over the god creating earth part of your belief. But you probably don't believe that science as it doesn't suit your belief and doesn't have lots of pretty crosses.
As you said "absolutely ****ing true" then it must be a fact.
What you mean is this, as I've been told since I was in short trousers that scientists believe this is how things started, then it must be correct. Let's go to National Geographic, a scientific publication that has never knowingly supported the Bible and in fact once produced a 15 page article celebrating a 'verified' fossil of a dinosaur with feathers!! (in a later edition it had to apologise for jumping the gun as the fossil turned out to be a hoax of a bird fossil stuck onto a dinosaur fossil).
So much for science speculation turning out to be utterly reliable:-
Before we look at one statement, here is the entire article >> ORIGINS OF THE UNIVERSE EXPLAINED
"Here’s the theory: In the first 10^-43 seconds of its existence, the universe was very compact, less than a million billion billionth the size of a single atom. It's thought that at such an incomprehensibly dense, energetic state, the four fundamental forces—gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces—were forged into a single force, but our current theories haven't yet figured out how a single, unified force would work. To pull this off, we'd need to know how gravity works on the subatomic scale, but we currently don't".
Given that in this short paragraph we have:-
* Here's the theory
* It's thought that..
* but our current theories haven't yet figured out how a single, unified force would work.
* we'd need to know how gravity works on the subatomic scale, but we currently don't".
So your "absolutely ****ing true" is hanging on so much uncertainties that I fail to see how any honest individual - scientist or not - could claim it to be an absolute?
Yes, I like what science says about the big bang. I agree.
So.your account goes back 6000 years, that's when it all started? I've not been one in this thread to jump on the bibles back fella, so I won't need to disprove what I haven't claimed is drivel, cheers.
Humans have walked the earth for 100s of thousands of years. 360,000 to be a little more on the dot.
Some trees are 5000 years old.. then there's this
"A clonal colony can survive for much longer than an individual tree. A colony of 48,000*quaking aspen*trees (nicknamed*Pando), covering 106 acres (43*ha) in the*Fishlake National Forest*of*Utah, is considered one of the oldest and largest organisms in the world. Recent estimates set the colony's age at several thousand (up to 14,000)*"
Double your bible in one colony of trees. Who knew.
Shall we get into really big numbers with dinosaurs or don't you want all them 0s?
The Earth is categorically 4.5 billion years old. They’re couldn’t be much more proof.