Creationists

[UltimateReality]

What cut and pasting from Panda's Thumb can you provide to counter the assertion that Evolutionary theory cannot be falsified because it offers no real explanation. What it does rely on is circular reasoning: "the kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce are the kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce."

Loki already addressed how pointless your comment was. It once again reinforces the utter failure of creationists to present positive evidence in support of their gods so they are left to attacking science.

As we see with every post by the fundies, creationism is unsupportable. If creationists were prevented from quote mining other creationists or "quoting" from their bibles, they would be unable to provide any information on creationism at all. All of creationist "science" derives from a book written by non-scientific, pre-technological people who lived in an era where superstitions supplanted knowledge.

When asked for evidence of their claims to supermagicalism, the consistent answer from fundies is: "It says so in the bible." How do we know the bible is true? "It says so in the bible."
Super. A viciously circular argument. And one we can dismiss as such.

learning, is the process of spending energy and time to gain knowledge. It is far easier to say "I believe in creationism" than it is to study science, biology, physics and learn the mechanics of these processes. Apparently, many fundies find it easier to "believe" and to abstain from thinking. You might characterize the intellectually lazy exercise of "believing" as a way to refrain from thinking.

You are so utterly lost in your hate and twisted perceptions of people, history and the world. It makes me wonder, where did you go to college?

 

[UltimateReality]

The creationists and ID folk, in their ultimate love of God, believe he is too stupid to implement the evolutionary processes in open view on earth today and in the past.

For those of us that have a strong Christian faith and confidence in it evolution is not a threat.

But for those of weak Christian faith it is.

So what is your take on me? I am not a young earth Creationist. I believe in ID Theory and I am not falling for the scientifically anemic pseudoscience of the Darwinian Myth. If you want to believe in fairy tales, and it makes you feel better as a Christian, then by all means I am not here to "enlighten" you.

 

[Hollie]

It makes sense because you want it to make sense. Darwinism has survived due to man's sinful nature and the convenience for the purpose of denying God. Do you find it odd that so many youths in religious homes who struggle with same sex attraction seize upon the atheism that the Darwinian myth provides and wind up denying the religion of their youth? Darwinism is merely a tool to rationalize God away. If I can convince myself that God doesn't exist, then maybe I can get rid of all this guilt and shame that comes from giving into my sinful human nature.

So, you suffer from self-loathing and religion helps you through the day. Super!
Do you find it odd that so many who deny their same-sex attraction seek out gods as a way to deny that attraction?

I don't find it odd at all that you just make up this nonsense as you go along.

It can only be concluded that your posting more creationist nonsense... unless, of course, you can post some data to support your claim.

If it turns out that someone comes up with indisputable evidence proving there is no God, I can guarantee you that evolution will not be the reason we eventually find for everything that exists. One day not too long from now people will look back and wonder how so many intelligent people could have bought into such a foolish proposition as the Darwinian Myth. Even if I were to admit God didn't do it, it still doesn't change the fact that natural selection and random mutation didn't either.

There is a wealth of indisputable evidence proving there is no God. Can you prove their is not?

 

[UltimateReality]

Biology 101 and high school science would be a good start for you.
Plenty of evidence here on earth to prove that this planet has been here for millions of years.
NO ONE is saying that PEOPLE have been here for millions of years.

There is plenty evidence here on this planet and on other planets pointing to a young universe based on solid science, Now what ?

Why do you presume to believe that others will accept something as true that is known to be false? The bible says that God found his creation to be a disappointment and that he had no more patience or forgiveness, and sent a great flood to drown most of humanity. If you think this is not the very definition of evil, go drown your children. Let us know how that works out. The next time, the gods will use fire. How great is that?

Beyond the staggeringly cruel and immoral implications of that horrific story, the alleged "Great Flood' would have been such a catastrophic event that it would have left unambiguous and unmistakable traces. But none of that evidence can be found. The Flood of Noah is a complete myth. A tale and nothing more. So is the tale of a young earth. The fact is, there is no compelling evidence for a 6000 year old earth.

If you have uncritically bought into the fable that the first man was created from dust or mud, and the first woman was made from his rib, YOUR problems addressing the rational world have only just begun. Time for a reality check!

Oh Hollie. Where is the facepalm emoticon when you need one? Evolution also teaches the first man came from dirt, and the second man, and the third man, and the... so who is the really foolish one here? By the way though, which of the hominids were the first "man'? Also, the word "rib" is a mis-translation. Rib actuall stands for Ribosomes.

You probably didn't realize that's what you learned in college. By the way, where was it you attended???

 

[UltimateReality]

What cut and pasting from Panda's Thumb can you provide to counter the assertion that Evolutionary theory cannot be falsified because it offers no real explanation. What it does rely on is circular reasoning: "the kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce are the kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce."

Loki already addressed how pointless your comment was. It once again reinforces the utter failure of creationists to present positive evidence in support of their gods so they are left to attacking science.

As we see with every post by the fundies, creationism is unsupportable. If creationists were prevented from quote mining other creationists or "quoting" from their bibles, they would be unable to provide any information on creationism at all. All of creationist "science" derives from a book written by non-scientific, pre-technological people who lived in an era where superstitions supplanted knowledge.

When asked for evidence of their claims to supermagicalism, the consistent answer from fundies is: "It says so in the bible." How do we know the bible is true? "It says so in the bible."
Super. A viciously circular argument. And one we can dismiss as such.

learning, is the process of spending energy and time to gain knowledge. It is far easier to say "I believe in creationism" than it is to study science, biology, physics and learn the mechanics of these processes. Apparently, many fundies find it easier to "believe" and to abstain from thinking. You might characterize the intellectually lazy exercise of "believing" as a way to refrain from thinking.

Can you explain how those you wrote the bible had knowledge about;

The Hydrologic Cycle:

"He wraps up the waters in his clouds, yet the clouds do not burst under their weight," (Job. 26:8, NIV).

"He draws up the drops of water, which distill as rain to the streams; the clouds pour down their moisture and abundant showers fall on mankind," (Job 36:27-28, NIV)

"The wind blows to the south and turns to the north; round and round it goes, ever returning on its course. All streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is never full. To the place the streams come from, there they return again" (Ecclesiastes 1:6-7, NIV).

Within the Bible there are statements consistent with Biology, paleontology, astonomy, meteorology, anthropology, hydrology, geology and physics.

So please explain how these people would know about such things as hyperthermal vents 3000 years before before their discovery by science?

The Bible includes some principles of fluid dynamics.

Job 28:25
To establish a weight for the wind,
And apportion the waters by measure.

The fact that air has weight was proven scientifically only about 300 years ago. The relative weights of air and water are needed for the efficient functioning of the world’s hydrologic cycle, which in turn sustains life on the earth.


Science and the Bible

Don't forget the Bible's reference to "before the beginning of time". This would have been preposterous to Einstein and his crew who believed in an eternal universe, but we have since learned from the fabulous Stephen Hawkins that even time began at the Big Bang. Time did not exist before the Big Bang according to his theory.

 

[UltimateReality]

I didn't say anything about "miracles".

The hydrological cycle is a fact and is described perfectly in the Bible which was written around 64 AD.

And what about the rest of the statements consistent with science that's in the Bible?

BTW your link totally ignores Job 36:27-28, I assume it's because it doesn't fit into the agenda.

I think you're going for a bit of a stretch to claim a perfect biblical description of the hydrologic cycle. I saw no description of evaporation, evapotranspiration, etc., that fully describes the hydrologic cycle.

As far as "miracles in the bible", (which, let's be honest, is where you're going), there are any number of science based sites and how shall we say... "debunking the biblical miracles" based sites that address your claims.

How do you account for the outright falsehoods and inconsistencies that litter the bible?

When you have several people telling a story, all will see things differently and interpret what they do see differently, that accounts for the inconsistencies that exist.

What in the Bible are you claiming is a falsehood?

And as for the hydrologic cycle you have to understand this was a back before science and words like evaporation was known. Therefore it was described in terms they understood. If you cannot understand how these simple verses accurately describe the cycle of rain then you are not as bright as I thought.

Psalm 135:7
He causes the vapors to ascend from the ends of the earth;
He makes lightning for the rain;
He brings the wind out of His treasuries.

Job 36:27-29
For He draws up drops of water,
Which distill as rain from the mist,
Which the clouds drop down
And pour abundantly on man.
Indeed, can anyone understand the spreading of clouds,
The thunder from His canopy?

Jeremiah 10:13
When He utters His voice,
There is a multitude of waters in the heavens:
“And He causes the vapors to ascend from the ends of the earth.
He makes lightning for the rain,
He brings the wind out of His treasuries.”

Job 26:8
He binds up the water in His thick clouds,
Yet the clouds are not broken under it.

Job 37:11
Also with moisture He saturates the thick clouds;
He scatters His bright clouds.

Dude, you are wasting your time. Manhands, aka Rugged Touch, aka Hollie, lives in a bubble and according to her, science was never done prior to 1856, the year Darwin published the Origin of the Species.

 

[UltimateReality]

When you have several people telling a story, all will see things differently and interpret what they do see differently, that accounts for the inconsistencies that exist.

What in the Bible are you claiming is a falsehood?

And as for the hydrologic cycle you have to understand this was a back before science and words like evaporation was known. Therefore it was described in terms they understood. If you cannot understand how these simple verses accurately describe the cycle of rain then you are not as bright as I thought.

Psalm 135:7
He causes the vapors to ascend from the ends of the earth;
He makes lightning for the rain;
He brings the wind out of His treasuries.

Job 36:27-29
For He draws up drops of water,
Which distill as rain from the mist,
Which the clouds drop down
And pour abundantly on man.
Indeed, can anyone understand the spreading of clouds,
The thunder from His canopy?

Jeremiah 10:13
When He utters His voice,
There is a multitude of waters in the heavens:
“And He causes the vapors to ascend from the ends of the earth.
He makes lightning for the rain,
He brings the wind out of His treasuries.”

Job 26:8
He binds up the water in His thick clouds,
Yet the clouds are not broken under it.

Job 37:11
Also with moisture He saturates the thick clouds;
He scatters His bright clouds.

You are wasting your time with Hollie the Troll. She has settled for the belief of ignorance.

Fundie Christians don't react well to challenges to their bible tales.

Simpletons don't respond to requests for their educational and science background.

 

[UltimateReality]

Hi, lonestar. I hope you don't think I'm being rude but I've addressed any number of "scientific miracles" claims before. The "hydrologic cycle miracle" is rather boilerplate so instead of updating an old post from a prior discussion, can I ask you look here:

CH133: Bible describes water cycle

I didn't say anything about "miracles".

The hydrological cycle is a fact and is described perfectly in the Bible which was written around 64 AD.

And what about the rest of the statements consistent with science that's in the Bible?

BTW your link totally ignores Job 36:27-28, I assume it's because it doesn't fit into the agenda.

What about the Biblical claims that are just plain wrong?

You are engaging in the Texas Sharpshooter's fallacy.

Here we go with the fallacies again trying to sound intelligent. Make sure you whip out your pocket Thesaurus while you are at it to.

 

[UltimateReality]

And typical of your form, you provide no verifiable evidence of such answer. No quote. No link.

No answer. As predicted.

Oh there's an answer there, Little Debbie.

You're not fooling anyone, Pumpkin.

Nonsense.

I have been sincerely asking, and you asshats have been dodging the whole while.

You provide no verifiable evidence of such answer. No quote. No link.

No answer. As predicted.

No quote. No link.

No answer. As predicted.

Nonsense.

Plenty of supportive--not CONCLUSIVE in any absolute sense--evidence has been submitted. You can stop griping about the conclusion not being expressed in an absolute sense. Ok, Cupcake?

WTF are you going on about now?

Ignored what?

Because to respond would be to admit that your belief system requires just as much faith as theism.

Nonsense.

Really convenient how you passed over that one.

Passed over what?

Hey, some guy in New Jersey found an image of Jesus in the knot of a tree and some gal in Ohio found a piece of toast with the Virgin Mary's likeness in it. If we apply the same burden of proof your pathetic Darwinist pseudoscience requires, I have just located modern day evidence for proof of God. Wake up, Loki!!! Admit what a stretch your pathetic theory is. It does not conform to REAL science.

 

[UltimateReality]

I didn't say anything about "miracles".

The hydrological cycle is a fact and is described perfectly in the Bible which was written around 64 AD.

And what about the rest of the statements consistent with science that's in the Bible?

BTW your link totally ignores Job 36:27-28, I assume it's because it doesn't fit into the agenda.

What about the Biblical claims that are just plain wrong?

You are engaging in the Texas Sharpshooter's fallacy.

It is amazing to hear the creationists' claims that the Bible is more scientifically accurate than modern day academic science books.
The book of Job claims that the heavens control the earth, "fix their rule" on the earth.
I love reading the book of Genesis but it teaches that man was made from dust. Dust is particles and man was made with chemicals.
Elementary science.
Leviticus instructs us "all flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you".
Well, that is an easy Bible command instruction to follow because no such things exist.
And of course the scientific knowledge of God stands out again in Chronicles with "Tremble before him, all the earth. The earth is firmly established, it can not be moved" The earth rotates and does move.
Psalm claims the earth rests on pillars. Isiah claims the moon gives light instead of reflecting light.
Corinthians claims dead seeds will grow.
The Bible, the greatest book on earth was NEVER INTENDED to be a science book.
It is a collection of teachings about God, morality and other things with the intent of saving souls as opposed to demonstrating scientific knowledge.
Those who would argue for the reliability of the Bible on scientific matters, and there is no shortage of those here, are divorcing it from it's historical context, blatantly ignoring and omitting passages that contradict their absurd claims and preconceived bias, thus distorting the very scriptures they CLAIM to admire so much.
Bottom line for those of us that have studied the Bible for almost half a century: The Bible is NOT a scientific book and it does NOT pretend to be. All of the scientific facts supposedly described in scripture were not discovered by devout Bible readers, but by scientists performing experiments. When it comes to scientific predictions it has inspired NO legitimate discoveries. For all of the off the wall, vague, unscientific and misunderstood statements, as indicated here, that may seem to accord with modern science there are far, far too many blatantly contradictory statements of bad and/or unscientific "science".

Strawman!!! [Hey, Loki look at me. woo hoo]

 

[LOki]

I didn't say anything about "miracles".

The hydrological cycle is a fact and is described perfectly in the Bible which was written around 64 AD.

And what about the rest of the statements consistent with science that's in the Bible?

BTW your link totally ignores Job 36:27-28, I assume it's because it doesn't fit into the agenda.

What about the Biblical claims that are just plain wrong?

You are engaging in the Texas Sharpshooter's fallacy.

Here we go with the fallacies again trying to sound intelligent. Make sure you whip out your pocket Thesaurus while you are at it to.

Nope.

Just demonstrating you're just fucking wrong. Fractally Wrong.

 

[UltimateReality]

This is a deliberate reductionist mischaracterization. Not surprising at all that it should come from you.

"The kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce, are the kinds of organisms with traits best suited for survival and reproduction in their environment."

Yeah, exactly what I said.

No, not exactly the same. Your complaint about your strawman expression of natural selection was that it is circular and not falsifiable; what I have provided for you in it's place, is falsifiable and not circular.

Please provide a scientifically workable definition of fitness to be applied to these "traits" to make this falsifiable. Also, please show me definitive proof of even one trait that is responsible for a species surviving not in the last 10,000 years?

 

[LOki]

Yeah, exactly what I said.

No, not exactly the same. Your complaint about your strawman expression of natural selection was that it is circular and not falsifiable; what I have provided for you in it's place, is falsifiable and not circular.

Please provide a scientifically workable definition of fitness to be applied to these "traits" to make this falsifiable.

Fuck you.

All you have to do is identify an organism whose traits are suited to surviving in the environment it lives in, and then put that organism in an environment that the organisms traits are NOT suited to survive in.

If the organism survives anyway, then "fitness" is falsified.

Can you grasp that, Skippy?

Also, please show me definitive proof of even one trait that is responsible for a species surviving not in the last 10,000 years?

No.

I'm done chasing down your retarded questions. If you had the decency of intellectual integrity to answer just one of mine, I would treat you differently. But I have answered all of your dumbass "stumpers" and what do I get in return when I ask you a question?

NOTHING. No quote, no link, no fucking answer.

 

[Hollie]

There is plenty evidence here on this planet and on other planets pointing to a young universe based on solid science, Now what ?

Why do you presume to believe that others will accept something as true that is known to be false? The bible says that God found his creation to be a disappointment and that he had no more patience or forgiveness, and sent a great flood to drown most of humanity. If you think this is not the very definition of evil, go drown your children. Let us know how that works out. The next time, the gods will use fire. How great is that?

Beyond the staggeringly cruel and immoral implications of that horrific story, the alleged "Great Flood' would have been such a catastrophic event that it would have left unambiguous and unmistakable traces. But none of that evidence can be found. The Flood of Noah is a complete myth. A tale and nothing more. So is the tale of a young earth. The fact is, there is no compelling evidence for a 6000 year old earth.

If you have uncritically bought into the fable that the first man was created from dust or mud, and the first woman was made from his rib, YOUR problems addressing the rational world have only just begun. Time for a reality check!

Oh Hollie. Where is the facepalm emoticon when you need one? Evolution also teaches the first man came from dirt, and the second man, and the third man, and the... so who is the really foolish one here? By the way though, which of the hominids were the first "man'? Also, the word "rib" is a mis-translation. Rib actuall stands for Ribosomes.

You probably didn't realize that's what you learned in college. By the way, where was it you attended???

You have managed to get every statement wrong.

You should try actually opening a science text instead of spending so much time worshipping at the altar of Harun Yahya.

 

[Hollie]

Oh there's an answer there, Little Debbie.

You're not fooling anyone, Pumpkin.

Nonsense.

I have been sincerely asking, and you asshats have been dodging the whole while.

You provide no verifiable evidence of such answer. No quote. No link.

No answer. As predicted.

No quote. No link.

No answer. As predicted.

Nonsense.

Plenty of supportive--not CONCLUSIVE in any absolute sense--evidence has been submitted. You can stop griping about the conclusion not being expressed in an absolute sense. Ok, Cupcake?

WTF are you going on about now?

Ignored what?

Nonsense.

Really convenient how you passed over that one.

Passed over what?

Hey, some guy in New Jersey found an image of Jesus in the knot of a tree and some gal in Ohio found a piece of toast with the Virgin Mary's likeness in it. If we apply the same burden of proof your pathetic Darwinist pseudoscience requires, I have just located modern day evidence for proof of God. Wake up, Loki!!! Admit what a stretch your pathetic theory is. It does not conform to REAL science.

It actually does conform to proof of the gods.

 

[LOki]

Oh there's an answer there, Little Debbie.

You're not fooling anyone, Pumpkin.

Nonsense.

I have been sincerely asking, and you asshats have been dodging the whole while.

You provide no verifiable evidence of such answer. No quote. No link.

No answer. As predicted.

No quote. No link.

No answer. As predicted.

Nonsense.

Plenty of supportive--not CONCLUSIVE in any absolute sense--evidence has been submitted. You can stop griping about the conclusion not being expressed in an absolute sense. Ok, Cupcake?

WTF are you going on about now?

Ignored what?

Nonsense.

Really convenient how you passed over that one.

Passed over what?

Hey, some guy in New Jersey found an image of Jesus in the knot of a tree and some gal in Ohio found a piece of toast with the Virgin Mary's likeness in it. If we apply the same burden of proof your pathetic Darwinist pseudoscience requires, I have just located modern day evidence for proof of God.

No. You are quite literally using the same burden of proof your superstitious creationism uses to justify it's validity.

Wake up, Loki!!!

Indeed, your stupidity has become rather boring.

Admit what a stretch your pathetic theory is.

You are confused. Your strawman of the theory is most certainly a stretch.

It does not conform to REAL science.

Your strawman of the theory, just like ID, does not conform to REAL science.

 

[LOki]

What about the Biblical claims that are just plain wrong?

You are engaging in the Texas Sharpshooter's fallacy.

It is amazing to hear the creationists' claims that the Bible is more scientifically accurate than modern day academic science books.
The book of Job claims that the heavens control the earth, "fix their rule" on the earth.
I love reading the book of Genesis but it teaches that man was made from dust. Dust is particles and man was made with chemicals.
Elementary science.
Leviticus instructs us "all flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you".
Well, that is an easy Bible command instruction to follow because no such things exist.
And of course the scientific knowledge of God stands out again in Chronicles with "Tremble before him, all the earth. The earth is firmly established, it can not be moved" The earth rotates and does move.
Psalm claims the earth rests on pillars. Isiah claims the moon gives light instead of reflecting light.
Corinthians claims dead seeds will grow.
The Bible, the greatest book on earth was NEVER INTENDED to be a science book.
It is a collection of teachings about God, morality and other things with the intent of saving souls as opposed to demonstrating scientific knowledge.
Those who would argue for the reliability of the Bible on scientific matters, and there is no shortage of those here, are divorcing it from it's historical context, blatantly ignoring and omitting passages that contradict their absurd claims and preconceived bias, thus distorting the very scriptures they CLAIM to admire so much.
Bottom line for those of us that have studied the Bible for almost half a century: The Bible is NOT a scientific book and it does NOT pretend to be. All of the scientific facts supposedly described in scripture were not discovered by devout Bible readers, but by scientists performing experiments. When it comes to scientific predictions it has inspired NO legitimate discoveries. For all of the off the wall, vague, unscientific and misunderstood statements, as indicated here, that may seem to accord with modern science there are far, far too many blatantly contradictory statements of bad and/or unscientific "science".

Strawman!!! [Hey, Loki look at me. woo hoo]

I see you.

I see that you have no idea what the term "strawman" refers to.

 

[UltimateReality]

After about 30 minutes of going through all my created threads, I found it...
http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...ing-and-or-purpose-of-life-to-an-atheist.html


Care to weigh-in on my old thread there buddy?

The following is really for YWC and Jimmy Jam. Haters like Manhands need not respond.

As a Christian who does not believe in a literal, 7-day Creation, I am curious why there is such a fervor to defend the 6,000-year-old earth claim. Why is the Creation story taken literally by Creationist Christians, but not the command by Jesus to gouge your eye out if it causes you to stumble?

Genesis is widely acknowledged to have been written by Moses. Moses more than likely included my concepts of Jewish religion that had been passed down for generations in the account of Creation story outlined in Genesis. Why do Creationists feel like the story has to conform to (7) 24-hour periods? Upon reading the story, it is readily apparent the story isn't meant to be a literal, Chronological account. Day and night are created on the first day and the sun and moon not until day four. Lights are referred to in the firmament but then stars named as well. However, I do believe there are many concepts that are conveyed that are absolute accurate accounts of God's manipulation of the earth over Billions of years. Genesis refers to the waters gathering into one place as well as the land. This is an obvious reference to Pangaea, along with indication Pangaea was not the first super continent, since Genesis refers to the waters gathering in one place, meaning they were separated prior to Pangaea forming. The Genesis story also clearly indicates animals were created prior to man. One could also infer that the humans, male and female, referred to in the original Creation story outlined in Genesis chapter one were "soul-less". Homo Sapien is not created until AFTER the 7 "days" of Creation, when God creates a humanoid with a soul. This occurs in Genesis 2:7 after Creation is complete. If the story is read chronologically, one would absolutely have to acknowledge that there were many, many humans created prior to Adam. After Creation, a humanoid is placed in the garden, and this one, unlike the other species before him, is given a soul. I believe this "man" to be modern day Homo Sapien. And I do believe him to have originated sometime between 6,000 and 10,000 years ago based on the "un-disputable" fossil evidence.

My viewpoint, as is the viewpoint of many others in the ID movement, is that the Creation story was NEVER meant to be taken literally my modern Christians in the 21st Century. In fact, the quickest way to rob the Bible of its power is to pretend like the literary works weren't for REAL people in REAL cultures at specific times in history. Genesis was intended for the Israelites, after their Exodus from Egypt. The Creation story is written for them with their limited knowledge at the time, and meant to convey specific principles God wanted them to understand, such as, the concept of original sin and man's sinful nature. For us to take the same specific writing, intended for a very specific people at a specific time in history, and try to apply to our modern day understanding, again, robs the Bible of its power, and sends us into a predicament of having to defend something that was never intended, nor can it be logically understood by our culture.

We must understand the Bible in the context of who the individual 66 works were in intended for. One example of this is Paul's many letters to individual churches after Christ's Resurrection. In one letter to the church at Corinth, Paul addresses woman wearing head coverings. Does this mean that women in the modern church should cover their heads? We learn that at that time many Gentiles and Jews were becoming Christians and joining the Church at Corinth. The Jewish women brought with them the tradition of covering their head in the synagogue, but the Gentile women came from no such tradition. Paul's letter was less about head coverings and more about humility and eliminating divisiveness in the church. Since it was important to the Jewish women, Paul instructed the Gentile women to comply and cover their heads. Are we, as modern day Christians, supposed to loose the deeper meaning of this story and immediately command all women in our modern day congregation to begin wearing head coverings at church? Absolutely not. By the same token, we shouldn't try to view the Creation story as if it was written to us. It wasn't.

I welcome comments from Creationists.

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form and empty. And darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved on the face of the waters.
Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light. And there was light.
Gen 1:4 And God saw the light that it was good. And God divided between the light and the darkness.
Gen 1:5 And God called the light, Day. And He called the darkness, Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

If God created with lengthy days that means death happened before the punishment was handed down to man for sin.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n042X-Fuihg]Astounding Evidence for a Young Earth - Bruce Malone - YouTube[/ame]

YWC, I've watched the video and listened to some of his assertions and I just don't agree with them. He is basing his points of HIS interpretation of the Creation story outlined in Genesis. He says that the you can't refute the fact that Genesis refers to 7 solar days, but for the first three "days" of Creation, we don't even have the sun yet. Also, he claims the author is repeating himself when talking about man twice. I get the whole argument about the dating methods and their inaccuracy. Even Loki would admit they are scientifically proven for the short timeframe we can measure and account for. However, I've been to the Grand Canyon. I've seen an overwhelming amount of evidence that points to a much older earth. But back to the story: If I want to take the Creation story literally and chronologically, I have to consider the fact the story about Adam comes later after Creation and after spirit-less hominids, male and female, roamed the earth, and multiplied. There are two stories, one in which male and female are created in a day, and another in which Adam was created, hung out with the animals in the garden for a while and then got lonely. Does it only take Adam 24 hours to name the animals and realize he needs a woman? The speaker has not considered this. He tells me to take the Bible exactly as it is written, but then he does not do so himself. If male and female were created in a solar day, then this does not reconcile with the Adam and Eve story. I believe God did place his new Creation, Homo Sapien, in the garden. Again, let's take the Bible exactly as it is written. We are told Adam and Eve have two sons. We are not told of any other children prior to this. Yet Cain goes to another land and takes a wife. The guy in your video wants to make up the fact that Adam and Eve had other children, but how can this additive story reconcile with the Bible? It can't. Again, your speaker is not taking the Bible for what it exactly says, but is filling in the blanks to make HIS version of the story fit his interpretation. Cain took a Neanderthal wife and there is dna evidence to back this up. Also, this interpretation of the story can be reconciled with fossil evidence, and it doesn't cram all of Creation into 6,000 years. Creationists are locked into as 6,000 year old earth, because they cling to the notion everything was made in six earthly days, including Adam, and then they lock themselves into the calculations of times for the genealogy of Christ. However, if they actually read Genesis for the information it conveyed to the Jews at the time it was written, they would realize that the earth could have existed for billions of years, and the garden of Eden only in the last six to ten thousand years. They also miss the Jewish tradition of leaving un-noteworthy individuals out of the family tree, so the genealogy fails to account for missing generations. I put the garden at 10,000 years ago and believe God visited the earth to create them both with a new dna structure. Adam would be different than all the hominids before. They would be given the choice. He would no longer act on instinct, but would choose to have God's knowledge of good and evil. An animal does not care that it is naked. An animal has no remorse over killing its food. Adam and Eve would be different. They would see things through God's eyes. Once they ate of the tree, they immediately realized they were naked.

Some of the points I've made can be crammed fit into the Creation story. Yet, I don't really even feel the need to do that to a point. Jesus was fond of telling parables that conveyed a deeper meaning. How do we, as modern day Christians, know that Moses was writing down a literal story. Maybe it was a parable told to generations of Jews to convey the deeper principles of the fall. The Jews at the time could have no the story was a metaphor, but over the course of thousands of years, someone along the way decided it was literal. Who was that? And again, my question for you, who decided Christ command to gouge out your eye was not literal? There are alot of Christians that just want a little neat black and white story that doesn't beg any questions. They need to fit Christianity into a little box because they don't want to think about the bigger questions. I do want to think about the bigger questions. While I believe the Bible is true, God is not the Bible. And God cannot be contained in the Bible. The Bible says God spat stars out of his "mouth" [I don't believe God has a mouth. The Bible also says God is spirit. Obviously, I believe Jesus had a mouth while he was on earth ]. Do you have any idea how big Star R136a1 is? I don't need to make my massive God fit in 66 tiny little books. I believe the Bible is inspired scripture, but it isn't God. It was written by man, and it can't contain God, or even begin to describe how awesome and how massive our Creator is. If most Christians really had a feel for the reality of that, they would be alot more humble, myself included.

 

[UltimateReality]

It is amazing to hear the creationists' claims that the Bible is more scientifically accurate than modern day academic science books.
The book of Job claims that the heavens control the earth, "fix their rule" on the earth.
I love reading the book of Genesis but it teaches that man was made from dust. Dust is particles and man was made with chemicals.
Elementary science.
Leviticus instructs us "all flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you".
Well, that is an easy Bible command instruction to follow because no such things exist.
And of course the scientific knowledge of God stands out again in Chronicles with "Tremble before him, all the earth. The earth is firmly established, it can not be moved" The earth rotates and does move.
Psalm claims the earth rests on pillars. Isiah claims the moon gives light instead of reflecting light.
Corinthians claims dead seeds will grow.
The Bible, the greatest book on earth was NEVER INTENDED to be a science book.
It is a collection of teachings about God, morality and other things with the intent of saving souls as opposed to demonstrating scientific knowledge.
Those who would argue for the reliability of the Bible on scientific matters, and there is no shortage of those here, are divorcing it from it's historical context, blatantly ignoring and omitting passages that contradict their absurd claims and preconceived bias, thus distorting the very scriptures they CLAIM to admire so much.
Bottom line for those of us that have studied the Bible for almost half a century: The Bible is NOT a scientific book and it does NOT pretend to be. All of the scientific facts supposedly described in scripture were not discovered by devout Bible readers, but by scientists performing experiments. When it comes to scientific predictions it has inspired NO legitimate discoveries. For all of the off the wall, vague, unscientific and misunderstood statements, as indicated here, that may seem to accord with modern science there are far, far too many blatantly contradictory statements of bad and/or unscientific "science".

Strawman!!! [Hey, Loki look at me. woo hoo]

I see you.

I see that you have no idea what the term "strawman" refers to.

Whatever, Little Debbie. You know exactly what Gadawg is doing here. I don't know why I am even dignifying your childish BS argument with a response, but Gadawg has built up a strawman of claims that myself, or the Texan, aren't making so he can tear them down. I know exactly what a strawman argument is. I just don't need to run around trying to impress everyone because I stayed up late one night memorizing all these so I could impress a bunch of strangers with how educated I am.

Fallacies*[Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]

Isn't this about the time you get frustrated and move on?

 

[UltimateReality]

It is amazing to hear the creationists' claims that the Bible is more scientifically accurate than modern day academic science books.
The book of Job claims that the heavens control the earth, "fix their rule" on the earth.
I love reading the book of Genesis but it teaches that man was made from dust. Dust is particles and man was made with chemicals.
Elementary science.
Leviticus instructs us "all flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you".
Well, that is an easy Bible command instruction to follow because no such things exist.
And of course the scientific knowledge of God stands out again in Chronicles with "Tremble before him, all the earth. The earth is firmly established, it can not be moved" The earth rotates and does move.
Psalm claims the earth rests on pillars. Isiah claims the moon gives light instead of reflecting light.
Corinthians claims dead seeds will grow.
The Bible, the greatest book on earth was NEVER INTENDED to be a science book.
It is a collection of teachings about God, morality and other things with the intent of saving souls as opposed to demonstrating scientific knowledge.
Those who would argue for the reliability of the Bible on scientific matters, and there is no shortage of those here, are divorcing it from it's historical context, blatantly ignoring and omitting passages that contradict their absurd claims and preconceived bias, thus distorting the very scriptures they CLAIM to admire so much.
Bottom line for those of us that have studied the Bible for almost half a century: The Bible is NOT a scientific book and it does NOT pretend to be. All of the scientific facts supposedly described in scripture were not discovered by devout Bible readers, but by scientists performing experiments. When it comes to scientific predictions it has inspired NO legitimate discoveries. For all of the off the wall, vague, unscientific and misunderstood statements, as indicated here, that may seem to accord with modern science there are far, far too many blatantly contradictory statements of bad and/or unscientific "science".

Where has anyone said the Bible was MORE scientifically accurate than modern day academic science books?

Either provide the proof or retract your accusation.

That's a rather naive claim. It's abundantly clear that bible literalists believe the bible to be more scientifically accurate than science texts.

Keep dreaming, Man-hands. What school did you go to?