Originally posted by sonhouseWhy don't we get back to the subject of the age of the Earth and stop insulting each other? I will present my views and reasoning and you can counter with your views and reasoning.
Your views will not sway ANYONE at NASA or even the Slatington Post office.
I accept the authority of the Word of God in Genesis as an infallible revelation from our Creator God. God has revealed that the physical heavens and the earth was created in one day, not billions of years. God spends only 6 total days to create all of His creations including all living things. Genesis also gives an early history of mankind and there is no hint of any long period of time ranging in the millions of years involved. It is clear that the time runs to at least 6,000 years, but it is a stretch to get it even to 10,000 years.
Without the influence of the lying evolutionary scientists the fossils would be recognized as the graveyard of the result of the flood of Noah's day, a few thousand years ago, and not to billions of years of death and destruction. I do not accept the words of the lying evolutionary scientist as infallible, like I do the word of God. Therefore, if there is a diffeence in the two, God's word prevails as the truth. Just because a man is given a Phd in some branch of science does not mean his knowledge is greater than God the creator of all physical things. As Dasa has said, the man with the Phd can not even create an ant!
Originally posted by RJHindsThis has been gone over a hundred times already. You have your views which will not change and I have mine, good luck on changing them. My Nasa comment was not meant as an insult, just for sure what they would think of your anti science stance when it comes to evolution and origins of life and the universe.
Why don't we get back to the subject of the age of the Earth and stop insulting each other? I will present my views and reasoning and you can counter with your views and reasoning.
I accept the authority of the Word of God in Genesis as an infallible revelation from our Creator God. God has revealed that the physical heavens and the earth was created in ...[text shortened]... l physical things. [b]As Dasa has said, the man with the Phd can not even create an ant![/b]
If indeed you actually hold those beliefs. You could just as easily be having a big laugh behind our backs while really being an atheist.
Originally posted by sonhouseNo. I really do hold these beliefs regardless of how stupid it may seem to you. Evolution is what seems stupid to me. So I guess there is not going to be any meeting of the minds on this issue.
This has been gone over a hundred times already. You have your views which will not change and I have mine, good luck on changing them. My Nasa comment was not meant as an insult, just for sure what they would think of your anti science stance when it comes to evolution and origins of life and the universe.
If indeed you actually hold those beliefs. You could just as easily be having a big laugh behind our backs while really being an atheist.
Even though I sometimes make jokes, I am not really laughing at you. And my name-calling is just meant as an attention getting type insult and not against your character. I know it must seem that way to you when we both appear to be going at each other's throats.
If you are really convinced that you are right and will not consider another point of view as possible, then there is really no point in my discussing this with you. Perhaps there is someone else I can lead to Christ. So there is no need for you to consider my posts directed at you. I am only trying to return the favor of belittling the other point of view in defense of my faith.
Originally posted by RJHindspoints of view exist regarding whether to eat or not to eat meat or about what color is best to paint one's car in.
No. I really do hold these beliefs regardless of how stupid it may seem to you. Evolution is what seems stupid to me. So I guess there is not going to be any meeting of the minds on this issue.
Even though I sometimes make jokes, I am not really laughing at you. And my name-calling is just meant as an attention getting type insult and not against your ...[text shortened]... m only trying to return the favor of belittling the other point of view in defense of my faith.
established scientific fact doesn't permit points of view, or democratic elections. you cannot hold them to a vote. if you cannot disprove something, or bring evidence to the contrary, i don't need to "consider another point of view as possible". 7 day creation, global flood, 900 year old people, pink fluffy unicorns that shoot rainbows out of their asses are all impossibilities.
Hi Zahlanzi,
The global flood appears in most ancient legends and there is some scientific
proof that something of that nature happened.
It was a global catastrophe.
Most likely it was then passed on by word of mouth to the next generations.
900 year old people. Perhaps if you use a different way to count the years.
It's not beyond reasoning some ancent people may have counted full moons as
age markers 900/12 = 75 years.
You have to keep an open on these things.
That leaves pink unicorns and the 7 day creation.
You never know we may one day discover the bones of a unicorn.
Stay open minded.
Yet no matter how hard one tries to get your head around the 7 creation thing
it's impossible.
Scientific fact has proven the book of Genisis to be nothing more than a fairy story.
I'm sure given another chance the church would have left it out of the bible.
It's an embarrassment.
The bible trips itself up all over the place. All you have to do is read
it with an open mind and look at what it actually says and claims.
Genesis I and Genesis II conflict with the order things were created.
In Gen 1. It's plants. fish, birds, animals. man (then from a rib) woman.
In Gen 2. the order is man, plants, animals, birds then woman.
(no fish in Gen 2.....they just happened along later.)
You have to wonder about this rib bit.
We have a god that creates elephants, lions, whales, crocodiles, crows,
vultures, rats, cats, dogs and snakes....
You would have thought producing a woman would have been easier than
removing a rib from a man.
(how did he do all the females of all the other species he created, more
rib removals? )
And what about insects? No mention at all of insects.
I'd like to know who come up with the idea of the mosquito?
Malaria has killed more humans than all the wars that ever have been fought
together. Add in all the humans killed through natural disasters and still malaria
comes way out in front.
Of course when producing this fact to your Christian you get the famous answer.
It is God's will.
This idiotic answer to answer to everthing that cannot be explained cannot
in their mind be refuted. It's their perfect answer.
The Rib.
I've no doubt one day cloning a replica human from a rib can be done
(dolly the sheep was cloned).
Can the clone actually change sex from man to woman.
Yes.
We all all female in the womb. I think the tough bit will be to produce a cloned man.
Why create a woman from a man and then have the woman as the only one
who can produce a man? It's all arse about face.
Oh I forgot. It's God's will.
Originally posted by greenpawn34You seem to be like those smark alecks in the Holy Bible that are referred to as wise in their own eyes. 😏
Hi Zahlanzi,
The global flood appears in most ancient legends and there is some scientific
proof that something of that nature happened.
It was a global catastrophe.
Most likely it was then passed on by word of mouth to the next generations.
900 year old people. Perhaps if you use a different way to count the years.
It's not beyond reasoning so ...[text shortened]... ne
who can produce a man? It's all arse about face.
Oh I forgot. It's God's will.
Originally posted by ZahlanziAnother smark aleck who is wise in his own eyes. 😏
points of view exist regarding whether to eat or not to eat meat or about what color is best to paint one's car in.
established scientific fact doesn't permit points of view, or democratic elections. you cannot hold them to a vote. if you cannot disprove something, or bring evidence to the contrary, i don't need to "consider another point of view as po ...[text shortened]... eople, pink fluffy unicorns that shoot rainbows out of their asses are all impossibilities.
Originally posted by RJHindsit's ok, i didn't expect you to understand anyway. it is just funny that you whine about us not giving you a chance when in fact it is the other way around.
You seem to be like those smark alecks in the Holy Bible that are referred to as wise in their own eyes. 😏
how many times did the atheist and non insane theists have taken the time to patiently explain to you how a literal interpretation of the bible is insane? we researched, we brought proof. we disproved any wacko "scientist" supporting your theories. and each time you packed up your bags and left, leaving one of your stupid and childish one-liners behind.
Originally posted by greenpawn34a global flood leaves proof. geological, not stories.
Hi Zahlanzi,
The global flood appears in most ancient legends and there is some scientific
proof that something of that nature happened.
It was a global catastrophe.
Most likely it was then passed on by word of mouth to the next generations.
900 year old people. Perhaps if you use a different way to count the years.
It's not beyond reasoning so ...[text shortened]... ne
who can produce a man? It's all arse about face.
Oh I forgot. It's God's will.
the global flood stories are simply another way to portray god's (or gods'😉 wrath in a world they didn't understand. all cities were founded on rivers, floods were happening. it was sufficient for a bigger flood to happen one year and this event to be exaggerated over the years. so a quite large flood that probably left some people without homes between euphrat and tigres became later a flood that SWALLOWED THE WORLD!!! OMG!.
that's a better explanation to all those stories of a global flood than an actual global flood that leaves no geological evidence.
You never know we may one day discover the bones of a unicorn.
Stay open minded.
i have a vague mention of jesus, and i believe in god. i am very open minded. i don't need to consider the possibility an animal i just invented might have existed. and i certainly won't build a unicorn rainbow fart collector machine to power my unicorn rainbow fart airplane in the hopes that a pink fluffy unicorn that shoots rainbows out of his ass might be discovered.
Hi Zahlanzi
God.
I have severe doubts that have gone was past credibility.
All athiests are winners.
If there is a God and a heaven then OK. we will glow and we'll be glad.
If not not. Then we won't care will we.
The flood.
Possibly when what we call Atlantis went up in smoke due to a huge volcanic eruption.
It would have cause a massive tsunami. Things like that would linger in
the mind for generations.
There is evidence of such an event in the Med thousands of years ago.
Unicorns.
You never made up unicorns. (the bit about firing arrows out of their bums yes)
but the creature no. It's been in legends for years.
It was around a long time before the idea of a single God idea popped up.
A God that forgave all sins and promised eternal life.
Who ever came with up that one hit pay dirt.
Little wonder such a God found followers that killed off all the other Gods
(and their followers if they did not rapidly convert.)
As a betting man I'd give lower of odds on a unicron being discovered than
that of a God that created everything existing.
I would never expect to pay out on either bet.
Jesus.
Wthout a doubt such a lad walked this earth.
Jesus said do unto others as you would have them do to you.
That's the code I go by.
I don't think you need much more than that to get along in this life.
Of course if everyone thought like that then there would be no need for
churches and multi million dollar operations like organised religions would
not exist.
Then you start to see why the church had to put this lad to death.
Follow the money Zahlanzi. Who really profited from the death of Jesus?
Originally posted by ZahlanziOf the billions of fossils that are buried just beneath the Earth’s surface, the vast majority are fossil fish. These fossil fish are found buried atop the highest mountain ranges on the planet. How did they get up there and why are there so many fossil fish?
a global flood leaves proof. geological, not stories.
the global flood stories are simply another way to portray god's (or gods'😉 wrath in a world they didn't understand. all cities were founded on rivers, floods were happening. it was sufficient for a bigger flood to happen one year and this event to be exaggerated over the years. so a quite large floo ...[text shortened]... hopes that a pink fluffy unicorn that shoots rainbows out of his ass might be discovered.
There are two opposing perspectives on this: traditional catastrophism and neocatastrophism. Both perspectives derive their discrepant conclusions largely from the same body of evidence which they interpret differently.
http://www.allaboutcreation.org/fossil-fish-faq.htm
If you get an old 1828 Noah Webster’s Dictionary, which is the very first edition dictionary that Webster came out with about 200 years ago, and look up the word “unicorn” it says:
Unicorn – An animal with one horn; the monoceros. this name is often applied to the rhinoceros.
If you look up the word “rhinoceros” in the same dictionary it says:
Rhinoceros – A genus of quadrupeds of two species, one of which, the unicorn, has a single horn growing almost erect from the nose. This animal when full grown, is said to be 12 feet in length. There is another species with two horns, the bicornis. They are natives of Asia and Africa.
According to Noah Webster, back in the early 1800’s it was understood that there were two species of the rhinoceros. The one-horned species was called “unicorn,” and the two-horned species was called “bicornis.”
Today it is understood that there are five species of the rhinoceros, three of which have two horns, and two of which have one horn.
So basically, if you get a 200-year-old Noah Webster’s dictionary and look up the word “unicorn” it says “rhinoceros,” and if you look up the word “rhinoceros” it says “unicorn.” That was just 200 years ago. The King James was translated 400 years ago in 1611. One does not have to be good at math to figure this out.
The Holy Bible does not describe the animal that the KJV translates as "unicorn" as a mythical horse with one horn. There is no indication of how many horns the animal had. It is only a matter of interpretation by the translator and reader at the time.
http://www.creationtoday.org/why-does-the-bible-mention-unicorns/
Originally posted by RJHindsWell lets see about that fish fossil on the mountain top thing. Could it be the fossils are older than the mountain and when the land was flat, was part of an ocean? Nah, who would ever think such a thing? The land buckling up to become a mountain under the extreme force of colliding continents? Shocking display of stupidity, eh.
Of the billions of fossils that are buried just beneath the Earth’s surface, the vast majority are fossil fish. [b]These fossil fish are found buried atop the highest mountain ranges on the planet. How did they get up there and why are there so many fossil fish?
There are two opposing perspectives on this: traditional catastrophism and neocatastrophi ...[text shortened]... d reader at the time.[/b]
http://www.creationtoday.org/why-does-the-bible-mention-unicorns/[/b]
Originally posted by sonhouseI said that is one point of view, but the evidence is the same reguardless of which point of view you choose to believe. 😏
Well lets see about that fish fossil on the mountain top thing. Could it be the fossils are older than the mountain and when the land was flat, was part of an ocean? Nah, who would ever think such a thing? The land buckling up to become a mountain under the extreme force of colliding continents? Shocking display of stupidity, eh.