Creationists

[newpolitics]

I said a minimum of 10,000 years ago spanky. Any nitwit knows what happens to a fish out of water. Ha! Kind of like you in this thread.

And yeah, I am grasping your circular reasoning loud and clear, Crunchy Jif.

There's no circular reasoning, except for that invented by you in the construction of your strawman caricature of natural selection.

Oh, do tell. Survival of the Fittest is not part of Natural Selection?

I dont' know why you are bringing up circular reasoning in regards to demonstrating a point like fitness, which their example clearly did.

 

[LOki]

I said a minimum of 10,000 years ago spanky. Any nitwit knows what happens to a fish out of water. Ha! Kind of like you in this thread.

And yeah, I am grasping your circular reasoning loud and clear, Crunchy Jif.

There's no circular reasoning, except for that invented by you in the construction of your strawman caricature of natural selection.

Oh, do tell. Survival of the Fittest is not part of Natural Selection?

It is. However, your strawman caricature is not.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

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.



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

Can you prove you have any formal education?

May I ask what difference does that make?

Is no one allowed to reasearch and think for themselves they have to be taught what to think?

Does a high or low level of education have an effect on forming an opinion on peer reviewed material?

I have seen many highly educated people with absolutely zero common sense.

 

[ima]

Can you prove you have any formal education?

May I ask what difference does that make?

Is no one allowed to reasearch and think for themselves they have to be taught what to think?

Does a high or low level of education have an effect on forming an opinion on peer reviewed material?

I have seen many highly educated people with absolutely zero common sense.

Says the guy with the confederate flag as his avatar.
You sure got that right.

 

[ima]

Nothing about Creation can be proven. Get over it already.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

May I ask what difference does that make?

Is no one allowed to reasearch and think for themselves they have to be taught what to think?

Does a high or low level of education have an effect on forming an opinion on peer reviewed material?

I have seen many highly educated people with absolutely zero common sense.

Says the guy with the confederate flag as his avatar.
You sure got that right.

You have something against southern heritage? Or are you just a bigot?

 

[Youwerecreated]

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.

What challenge have you offered ,you run from my questions, you copy and paste things that have nothing to do with my ????. You are bold writing some of the things you write knowing people are reading this thread.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Yes. Define your terms. Some of the more blatant falsehoods in the bible would include a global flood, dead men who don't stay dead, seas parting, etc.

What you seem to object to is anyone pointing out that the bible could be infallible or contains errors. I submit that both are true. Since it is you who in insisting that the bible is not contradicted by science, you are the only one who is actually required to prove anything. Apologists understand this and that's why we are constantly confronted with the most profoundly silly examples of "scientific proofs" of the bible. These "proofs" are not proofs at all and require the believer to be ignorant of both the bible and science to believe them.

We can all imagine that if the gods had really given us a book, they would have managed to drop in a real proof now and then, like, say, the chemical structure of a few of the elements or a comprehensive description of the process of nuclear fusion that powers our sun. But we don't, obviously. Instead we get dumb stuff such as global floods and bushes spontaneously bursting in flames. That's just awful. The people who are propagating that nonsense are slandering your religion. Don't be an accomplice.

My terms need no defining.

What evidence do you have that there was no great flood or no one ever rose from the dead and the sea never parted?

Marine Team Finds Surprising Evidence Supporting A Great Biblical Flood


As researchers prove the Red Sea really could have parted... How science backs the Bible's best stories

Once again you're putting words in my mouth.

I never made the claim that the Bible was not contradicted by science. I simply stated that statements in the Bible are consistent with science.

Why do you insist on distorting what I've said?

God could have done the things you mentioned but it would have fell on deaf ears because man was not equipped at the time to understand scientific principles.

God gave us the ability to seek out and discover the information ourselves at our pace.

Ah, yes. With your first sentence you have employed the "you can't disprove it", tactic.

It really is a standard ploy for those whose arguments are intellectually bankrupt and bereft support or substantiation.

So yes, I have proof that there was no great flood, that no one ever rose from the dead and the sea never parted.

Prove I don't.

To add to that you can't prove naturlistic processes that converted nonliving matter to living organisms.

 

[Hollie]

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.

What challenge have you offered ,you run from my questions, you copy and paste things that have nothing to do with my ????. You are bold writing some of the things you write knowing people are reading this thread.

That, of course, is false. Your questions are not questions at all but endless copying and pasting from fundie creationist websites including Harun Yahya. You really offer nothing but copy and paste material which you demand others "refute".

I've written about this before: your lack of integrity and failure to understand the "stuff" you copy and paste.

 

[ima]

Says the guy with the confederate flag as his avatar.
You sure got that right.

You have something against southern heritage? Or are you just a bigot?

Pining to get your slaves back?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

You have something against southern heritage? Or are you just a bigot?

Pining to get your slaves back?

I have no use for slaves. I prefer to do my own work.

Thank you for the offer though.

Oh and why did you ignore the questions?

I politely answered yours.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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.

So loki where are all the supposed transitional species that were better adapted to pass on their traits from one species to a destinctly new organism ? Why do we have the beginning species and none of of the transitional species that passed on their better adapted traits ?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I'm a creationist and according to my notes, the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old.

Just saying...

 

[Youwerecreated]

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.

I can't say what the light was before the sun and moon was created but clearly he described a day as we see it. If you do not trust the bible what are your beliefs in God based on ? Why are elements still found in rocks that should have been gone in an old world view ? That is supposedly what the age of the earth is based on correct ? At the rate the moon and earth are receding that to is a problem for old earth views. If the bible was inspired by God that is the only book that provides an eyewitness to creation and the beginning. If would put text books ahead of what the bible say's in a sense what is being done ?

 

[newpolitics]

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.

What challenge have you offered ,you run from my questions, you copy and paste things that have nothing to do with my ????. You are bold writing some of the things you write knowing people are reading this thread.

YWC, if you want to use the bible as a credible source, it has to be demonstrated as being a credible source first. You, nor anyone else, can do that, because it simply is not, just like the Koran is not a credible source, or the Bhagavad Gita. It is special pleading to simply ask people to accept the bible as authority without justification. There is plenty reason to think the bible is not credible. It is an ancient book. We know none of the authors, have no signatures, and they are all translations or translations of copies of translations by authors with an agenda. You can not demonstrate empirically that any of it is the word of god, and therefore, that any of it, is actually true, hence why you must take it on faith. So, stop using the bible in this thread as if it means anything here in terms of proving you're point, because it doesn't. You can't use the bible to prove the bible.

You can't demonstrate that all of those different authors, are who they say they are. The historicity of the bible does not even bear out with what we know to be true about history, which is another indictment against its credibility. For instance, Matt, Mark, Luke and John, were not the authors of their respective gospels. We have no signatures on those documents. Those names were assigned to those gospels later. Who's to say the same wasn't done to books in the OT? Until you can provide justification for someone else to believe the bible is credible, citing passages from it is really pointless.

 

[ima]

Pining to get your slaves back?

I have no use for slaves. I prefer to do my own work.

Thank you for the offer though.

Oh and why did you ignore the questions?

I politely answered yours.

Do I have something against a southern heritage? Aside from inbreeding, pig fucking and bad moonshine? No.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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.

Sorry UR i have to ask this,you get onto evolutionist using maybe's, might haves, and possible faulty assumptions for evolution but you don't have that same view on the same explanations for the age of the universe and earth, why ?

 

[Hollie]

My terms need no defining.

What evidence do you have that there was no great flood or no one ever rose from the dead and the sea never parted?

Marine Team Finds Surprising Evidence Supporting A Great Biblical Flood


As researchers prove the Red Sea really could have parted... How science backs the Bible's best stories

Once again you're putting words in my mouth.

I never made the claim that the Bible was not contradicted by science. I simply stated that statements in the Bible are consistent with science.

Why do you insist on distorting what I've said?

God could have done the things you mentioned but it would have fell on deaf ears because man was not equipped at the time to understand scientific principles.

God gave us the ability to seek out and discover the information ourselves at our pace.

Ah, yes. With your first sentence you have employed the "you can't disprove it", tactic.

It really is a standard ploy for those whose arguments are intellectually bankrupt and bereft support or substantiation.

So yes, I have proof that there was no great flood, that no one ever rose from the dead and the sea never parted.

Prove I don't.

To add to that you can't prove naturlistic processes that converted nonliving matter to living organisms.

To add to that, you can't supermagical gods without an entire hierarchy of super - supermagical gods.

The problem you have is believing that a gap in scientific knowledge somehow proves your gods. That, if course, is a false assumption on your part. It really is much less a problem than you are able to comprehend. In terms of defining the origins of life, molecular biologists have made much progress. If you consider that the origin of life is an event that occurred billions of years ago and that experiments must be made using material that was in the early atmosphere, the success that scientists have achieved thus far, limited though it is, is amazing.

What causes fundies so much angst is that experiments continue and bit by bit, science has taken away the fears and superstitions that fundies require for literal belief in their gods.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Well there is evidence that shows some of those things did happen or were at least possible.

Not really. Not consistent with the Bible story. Sorry.

For good reason.

You weren't there either. Explain yourself.

Right. You need neither verifiable evidence nor valid logic to hold your belief, but you insist upon absolute conclusive proof to change your mind.

We are well aware of the intellectual dishonesty practiced by the faithful.

You have absolutely nothing to support your argument other than "it didn't happen".

Nonsense.

C'mon Loki!! Noah "might have" built an ark [we see many modern day men building ships] and he "could have" taken two of every animal in with him [we see lots of animals rounded up by men for modern day zoo's] and a flood that covered the whole earth "might have" happened [we've seen some pretty big modern day floods with the tsunami's and all]. Sheesh, that sounds just like one of them there just so Darwin stories you are always spoutin' off about. Guess I've outlaid irrefutable scientific evidence of Noah and the Ark using some good old Darwinian magic. Yep, it's a fact alright.

In fact, by some mistake on Noah's part, the giraffe's cages had no food. They had to try and get food from the Hippo's pen above. Only the giraffe's with the long necks survived the boat ride. The short necked giraffes on the Ark died of starvation.

Either we believe the scriptures or we do not.

 

[ima]

Either we believe the scriptures or we do not.

Science has shown that the/a world can't be made in 6 days. THE FIRST FUCKING PAGE!!!!!!