20 Jun 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo where does the Genesis creation account mention the word 'mammal'? Here's the verse from the Watchtower's translation -
its not twitchy at all, its not my fault you cannot distinguish between a single act of
creation and a progressive action, or light in general and diffused light. Bible is 100
percent accurate as i have explained in detail, with reference.
And God went on to say: “Let the earth put forth living souls according to their kinds, domestic animal and moving animal and wild beast of the earth according to its kind.” And it came to be so. 25 And God proceeded to make the wild beast of the earth according to its kind and the domestic animal according to its kind and every moving animal of the ground according to its kind. And God got to see that [it was] good.
20 Jun 12
Originally posted by Proper KnobCan you even say 'mammal' in Hebrew? Or in whatever language this stuff was originally conceived in?
So where does the Genesis creation account mention the word 'mammal'? Here's the verse from the Watchtower's translation -
And God went on to say: “Let the earth put forth living souls according to their kinds, domestic animal and moving animal and wild beast of the earth according to its kind.” And it came to be so. 25 And God proceeded to ma ...[text shortened]... g animal of the ground according to its kind. And God got to see that [it was] good.
20 Jun 12
Originally posted by Proper Knobits not a scientific text book, please.
So where does the Genesis creation account mention the word 'mammal'? Here's the verse from the Watchtower's translation -
And God went on to say: “Let the earth put forth living souls according to their kinds, domestic animal and moving animal and wild beast of the earth according to its kind.” And it came to be so. 25 And God proceeded to ma ...[text shortened]... g animal of the ground according to its kind. And God got to see that [it was] good.
20 Jun 12
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI know it's not a scientific text book, it's you who is claiming the Genesis creation account is backed up by science, and then curiously claiming it's not a 'science text book' when it can't substantiate your spurious claims.
its not a scientific text book, please.
I take it by your refusal to answer another of my questions that you conceded the Genesis creation account makes no claims at all regarding 'mammals'?
Paraphrasing this thread:
Religious Zealot: The Bible must be divinely inspired, it is uncannily accurate and agrees with science.
Rational Thinker: But it's wrong about x, y and z. The only things it's right about are the things that are obvious to anyone with 1/2 a brain.
Religious Zealot: It's not a science text book, it should be allowed to be inaccurate and to disagree with science.
Rational Thinker: Then why are you saying that it is accurate?
Religious Zealot: la-la-la I can't hear you.
It's entertaining but quietly depressing at the same time.
--- Penguin
21 Jun 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieit's really not my fault that you can't read what it says in the bible.
its not twitchy at all, its not my fault you cannot distinguish between a single act of
creation and a progressive action, or light in general and diffused light. Bible is 100
percent accurate as i have explained in detail, with reference.
the bible got it wrong. there is no ifs ands or buts about it. it got a whole lot of things wrong and that losing streak started with the creation account on page 1.
21 Jun 12
I said this on page 1, but I think it really needs to be said again:
Creationists dispute the scientific account precisely because it disagrees with the Biblical account in genesis. To then turn around and try to validate the genesis account based on its supposed agreement with science is simply ridiculous.
21 Jun 12
Originally posted by VoidSpiritYour evolutionary scientists are the ones that have it wrong. God is always right and He was there. Where was your evolutionary scientists when the Earth, sun, moon, and stars came into existence. They were still only in God's dream with their heads up their arse.
very twitchy. what the bible really says is that the sun and stars were created after the earth, seas and vegetation. the bible got it wrong.
HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! Glory be to God!
21 Jun 12
Originally posted by RJHindsit's cosmology and geology you douche. evolutionary scientists have nothing to do with the formation of the cosmos or of the earth.
Your evolutionary scientists are the ones that have it wrong. God is always right and He was there. Where was your evolutionary scientists when the Earth, sun, moon, and stars came into existence. They were still only in God's dream with their heads up their arse.
HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! Glory be to God!
try to polish up your lackluster wit before participating in these discussions. i suggest you return to elementary school, your scientific knowledge is not even on par with a 2n'd grader.
21 Jun 12
Originally posted by VoidSpiritI bet you ain't smarter than a fifth grader.
it's cosmology and geology you douche. evolutionary scientists have nothing to do with the formation of the cosmos or of the earth.
try to polish up your lackluster wit before participating in these discussions. i suggest you return to elementary school, your scientific knowledge is not even on par with a 2n'd grader.
HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord!