If you can go back in time to withNess 2 biblical events, which will you choose. For me i will choose the parting of the red sea and the Crucifiction of Jesus

1. The battle between David And Goliath

2. The murder and beheading of John the Baptist

1. To see if man was really created from dust.

2. To see if there really was a flood.

1. The feeding of five thousand with two fish and a loaf of bread.

2. The wedding at cannan where Jesus Christ turned water to wine.

My reason for choosing this two is that I no dey like dey where food no dey .

1. I would like to see the 8.7 million species on Earth entering Noah's Ark in pairs.

2. The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah would also please me to behold in anticipation of God's judgement in these End Times.

LordReed:
1. To see if man was really created from dust.

2. To see if there really was a flood.

Two things science confirms. Our body composition is very similar to earth. Sedimentary layers show flooding as very possible.

Image123:


Two things science confirms. Our body composition is very similar to earth. Sedimentary layers show flooding as very possible.

Link the scientific papers that confirm this.

LordReed:


Link the scientific papers that confirm this.

Which one? "This or these"

Firstly, I would like to witness the Exodus of the children of Israel from Egypt. That is all the things included in the Exodus from their captivity to the ten plagues to their sojourn in the wilderness and so on.

Secondly, I would like to witness the ministry of Jesus. I would like to see how he laid hands on people and how he preached and taught.

Image123:


Which one? "This or these"

These.

---When the whale swallowed Jonah---

---Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead---

1. Fallen angels, Nephilim and giants of old.

2. Jesus Christ ministry

The part where Joshua raised his hands and the earth stopped rotating that would be nuts.. people would be flying east with alacrity

LordReed:


These.

Both, great. Moses without entering any laboratory, looking at any microscope, knowing any periodic table or climbing Mt. Everest wrote accurately that man was created from the Earth crust and that there was a global flood. That is most astounding given the fact that educated professors are still agreeing to ideas till tomorrow to explain these two "puzzles". For instance, they have found marine fossils several times now on very high levels and points of the Earth. This is basic and obviously corroborates the flood story of Genesis and the earlier stance of science that there were previous ag[b]es[/b] (Ice Age and co) when Earth covered by Ice or water.
Now, they push unproven deductions, theories and ideas like ridiculosly saying animals/predators ate the marine animals and deposited them high up, or the more sensible but still unproven one that the ocean floor pushed up to the height of Mt. Everest. So of course, it again boils down to all of us using our faith to choose. Trust science not to choose the Bible and other religious book option for obvious reasons.
Like i stated, the base established fact that confirms is the presence of fossils not the deductions. Scientific deductions are known to change due to further research or "new" findings.

As for man's chemical composition i.e the human body. That is the science confirmation i referred to BTW. The similarities are quite clear. Oxygen tops the two. When you consider the addition of breathe (CO2) where the bulk of carbon probably came from, and the use of water/liquid in moulding, it easily balances.
Of course, i don't expect you to agree as that would destroy your foundations. You may now begin the rigmarole.

Image123:


Both, great. Moses without entering any laboratory, looking at any microscope, knowing any periodic table or climbing Mt. Everest wrote accurately that man was created from the Earth crust and that there was a global flood. That is most astounding given the fact that educated professors are still agreeing to ideas till tomorrow to explain these two "puzzles". For instance, they have found marine fossils several times now on very high levels and points of the Earth. This is basic and obviously corroborates the flood story of Genesis and the earlier stance of science that there were previous ag[b]es[/b] (Ice Age and co) when Earth covered by Ice or water.
Now, they push unproven deductions, theories and ideas like ridiculosly saying animals/predators ate the marine animals and deposited them high up, or the more sensible but still unproven one that the ocean floor pushed up to the height of Mt. Everest. So of course, it again boils down to all of us using our faith to choose. Trust science not to choose the Bible and other religious book option for obvious reasons.
Like i stated, the base established fact that confirms is the presence of fossils not the deductions. Scientific deductions are known to change due to further research or "new" findings.

As for man's chemical composition i.e the human body. That is the science confirmation i referred to BTW. The similarities are quite clear. Oxygen tops the two. When you consider the addition of breathe (CO2) where the bulk of carbon probably came from, and the use of water/liquid in moulding, it easily balances.
Of course, i don't expect you to agree as that would destroy your foundations. You may now begin the rigmarole.

The request was link the scientific papers confirming these. You said science has confirmed them, show where and how by linking the scientific papers that detail the confirmation.

Popesuccess:
If you can go back in time to withNess 2 biblical events, which will you choose. For me i will choose the parting of the red sea and the Crucifiction of Jesus

For me, i will prefer to stay in the lane God put me which is in the now. He knows best and put me in the best time for me to believe. Most of the people(percentage) who saw those great things perished. i could easily be one of them. When i get to Heaven, i will see everything. i am going forward fa, not to the past.

LordReed:


The request was link the scientific papers confirming these. You said science has confirmed them, show where and how by linking the scientific papers that detail the confirmation.

That would have been a waste of my time because you would only look for how to discredit the paper or link or messenger. Why should we waste such time? Face the basics given. Scientific studies and conclusions change like every decade, lol.

Image123:


That would have been a waste of my time because you would only look for how to discredit the paper or link or messenger. Why should we waste such time? Face the basics given. Scientific studies and conclusions change like every decade, lol.

Link it first then we can discuss whether or not it validates your statement. You can't say science confirms something then when asked for the evidence backtrack with some sly refusal. Link the scientific papers let's discuss it like adults.

LordReed:


Link it first then we can discuss whether or not it validates your statement. You can't say science confirms something then when asked for the evidence backtrack with some sly refusal. Link the scientific papers let's discuss it like adults.

You need a science paper that says marine fossils are found on mountains or that show the chemical compositions of Earth and the human body? Isn't that the root of the "discussion" in the first place? When i say science confirms, that's what i refer to and these are in consonance with the Bible.
Deductions are varying as you well know. i have no reason or motivation to look for a deduction that agrees with me only for you to leave the deduction and try discrediting the source/messenger. If your definition of adult discussion is rigmarole, count me out, i am just an embryo.

Image123:


You need a science paper that says marine fossils are found on mountains or that show the chemical compositions of Earth and the human body? Isn't that the root of the "discussion" in the first place? When i say science confirms, that's what i refer to and these are in consonance with the Bible.
Deductions are varying as you well know. i have no reason or motivation to look for a deduction that agrees with me only for you to leave the deduction and try discrediting the source/messenger. If your definition of adult discussion is rigmarole, count me out, i am just an embryo.

Yes I do. You can't claim science confirms something then expect me to accept it without showing the source of your claim. It doesn't matter what the deductions are, the data will be the same. So once again please link the scientific papers that support your claim.

LordReed:
1. To see if man was really created from dust.

https://www.physicscentral.com/explore/poster-stardust.cfm

There's a tonne of information on this site. It may or may not answer your question

An extract:
The human body is about 60% water and hydrogen only accounts for 11% of that water mass. Even though water consists of two hydrogen atoms for every oxygen, hydrogen has much less mass. We can conclude that 93% of the mass in our body is stardust.

Stardust is a scientific term referring to refractory dust grains.

PastorMIsBack:


https://www.physicscentral.com/explore/poster-stardust.cfm

There's a tonne of information on this site. It may or may not answer your question

An extract:
The human body is about 60% water and hydrogen only accounts for 11% of that water mass. Even though water consists of two hydrogen atoms for every oxygen, hydrogen has much less mass. We can conclude that 93% of the mass in our body is stardust.

Stardust is a scientific term referring to refractory dust grains.

So the bible was referring to stardust?

LordReed:


So the bible was referring to stardust?

You do know that the language back then is not English and the Bible was translated and it's very difficult to get the exact language? I'm pretty sure you know this. I'm pretty dayum sure

People back then who had never seen an aeroplane would not know how to describe it nor explain it nor have the word for it.

Let's not be pedantic my friend

LordReed:


Link the scientific papers that confirm this.

Without even links, the decomposition of the dead bodies proves it, even when they are buried in containers.

This is the case where the end proves the beginning.

PastorMIsBack:


You do know that the language back then is not English and the Bible was translated and it's very difficult to get the exact language? I'm pretty sure you know this. I'm pretty dayum sure

People back then who had never seen an aeroplane would not know how to describe it nor explain it nor have the word for it.

Let's not be pedantic my friend

It doesn't matter what the language is/was, omi and water refer to the same thing. So again was the dust in the Bible referring to stardust?

Dtruthspeaker:


Without even links, the decomposition of the dead bodies proves it, even when they are buried in containers.

How does the the decomposition of bodies prove it?

LordReed:


How does the the decomposition of bodies prove it?

When graves of all the things made from dusts are dug up eg persons, animals, trees are dug up, you find only dust.

In fact the easiest proof is we all see that when dead rats are discovered, (those dead and dried) we see they dust up and dissolve into dust when our fingers touch them.

And we have all seen these things and without a doubt we all remembered that the Bible did say that we are made from the earth and its dust thereof.

Dtruthspeaker:


When graves of all the things made from dusts are dug up eg persons, animals, trees are dug up, you find only dust.

In fact the easiest proof is we all see that when dead rats are discovered, (those dead and dried) we see they dust up and dissolve into dust when our fingers touch them.

And we have all seen these things and without a doubt we all remembered that the Bible did say that we are made from the earth and its dust thereof.

If it was the case then it would be virtually impossible to carry out forensic analysis on dead bodies yet it is done relatively frequently.

LordReed:

If it was the case then it would be virtually impossible to carry out forensic analysis on dead bodies yet it is done relatively frequently.

Forensic Analysis is done on REMAINS! (LEFT BEHINDS)

which means WHERE DID THE REST GO?

LordReed:


Yes I do. You can't claim science confirms something then expect me to accept it without showing the source of your claim. It doesn't matter what the deductions are, the data will be the same. So once again please link the scientific papers that support your claim.

Science clearly confirms that marine fossils are found on the tops of the highest mountains. The presence of limestone and ocean marine fossils at the top of these mountains is one of the key pieces of evidence cited that advanced the idea of plate tectonics.

Dtruthspeaker:


Forensic Analysis is done on REMAINS! (LEFT BEHINDS)

which means WHERE DID THE REST GO?

The rest have decomposed into more simpler molecules which can still be analysed.

LordReed:

The rest have decomposed into more simpler molecules which can still be analysed.

Dust too is a molecular!