12 Nov 09
Originally posted by Proper Knobeasy, genesis was made for the shepherds of those times. genesis is filling for the more important lessons from the bible. genesis is filled with metaphors.
I would be intrigued to read what a Chrisitian evolutionist believes. Obviously you accept the account of how old the universe and the Earth is, you accept the process of evolution . How do you fit the story of Genesis, for example, with what science tells you?
a lot of explanations can be found. explanations that don't contradict the laws of the universe put forth by god in the first place.
12 Nov 09
Originally posted by PinkFloydstill doesn't fit in. the "days" depicted in the genesis would have to be of different lengths. the order also doesn't add up. it says that the earth was created before the stars and the sun. the plants were created before the sun.
I'm one of those gap theorists, for starters. A "day" to the Lord could be far more than 24 hours. I also look at much of Genesis as a morality tale and not a science lesson. But Verse 1--"In the beginning God created..." I believe wholeheartedly, and to me, that makes me a creationist, albeit one who believes God utilized a naked singularity to do so.
also it is pretty odd that god would create light before any source of light.
12 Nov 09
3 edits
Originally posted by Zahlanziyou have learned nothing from the discussions! the thread title is truly applicable, sigh, and before you indulge in your usual tantrums the entire account was discussed in another thread which in each and every instance, adequately addressed these points, but alas it was lost on you Zappy.
still doesn't fit in. the "days" depicted in the genesis would have to be of different lengths. the order also doesn't add up. it says that the earth was created before the stars and the sun. the plants were created before the sun.
also it is pretty odd that god would create light before any source of light.
12 Nov 09
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe part of his brain dealing with evolution is missing. He is not able to learn anything about evolution. He is a fundamentalist creationist.
you have learned nothing from the discussions! the thread title is truly applicable, sigh, and before you indulge in your usual tantrums the entire account was discussed in another thread which in each and every instance, adequately addressed these points, but alas it was lost on you Zappy.
12 Nov 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobiethe prospect of possibly learning something from you is improbable. maybe at chess but i would be better off with fabian and he would be a much pleasant company.
you have learned nothing from the discussions! the thread title is truly applicable, sigh, and before you indulge in your usual tantrums the entire account was discussed in another thread which in each and every instance, adequately addressed these points, but alas it was lost on you Zappy.
and yes, i still remember that attempt at explaining genesis. you made such idiotic logical blunders that i contemplated the thought of watching some homer simpsons or spongebob in order to attenuate the stupid inflicted on me with milder displays of stupid.
12 Nov 09
Originally posted by Zahlanziand i thought it was your lack of scriptural understanding that was posing a problem for you to comprehend what was being stated, sigh!
the prospect of possibly learning something from you is improbable. maybe at chess but i would be better off with fabian and he would be a much pleasant company.
and yes, i still remember that attempt at explaining genesis. you made such idiotic logical blunders that i contemplated the thought of watching some homer simpsons or spongebob in order to attenuate the stupid inflicted on me with milder displays of stupid.
12 Nov 09
Why do you all get so personal in these posts? I 'am sure there is a good reason you keep coming back for more. Hopefully not just to insult each other.
I am new to this. But I believe that there is no way that I will be able to convince any other party to what I believe or don’t. Not in these forums. Not that I think this is useless. Just ineffective. The smarter we get the less we know. See... now I am trying to be smart. ha
I hope you all find what you are looking for.
12 Nov 09
Originally posted by RiaansHi there🙂, I enjoy the put-downs at times-they can be quite revealing but sometimes people go to far. Oh well-alls fair in love and war and all that. Keep it coming everyone. Proper Knob, Robbie,etc. You are now my new soap opera...........Lol
Why do you all get so personal in these posts? I 'am sure there is a good reason you keep coming back for more. Hopefully not just to insult each other.
I am new to this. But I believe that there is no way that I will be able to convince any other party to what I believe or don’t. Not in these forums. Not that I think this is useless. Just ineffective. Th ...[text shortened]... we know. See... now I am trying to be smart. ha
I hope you all find what you are looking for.
12 Nov 09
3 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI'd like someone to nail down a strict definition of truth where it pertains to science or religion.
if science is truth and religion is truth why cannot they be reconciled? for is not truth universal?
How can anyone assert that religion is truth? Firstly, "religion" is an umbrella term for a set of "religions", with each of these being an umbrella term for a set of denominations of these religions. There are conflicting ideas about what "God" is/does attached to to these little subsets and so it surely cannot be possible that their union is something which is factually correct from any frame of reference or perspective!
Before I'm accused of being biased how can someone claim science is truth? As I understand it science (at least in the physical sense such as physics, chemistry, psychology, etc...) is, in short, an endeavour on the part of humans to describe why and how what happens/has happened takes place in the universe we exist in based on tangible evidence, sound reasoning, and assumptions limited by the extents of current technology and our facility to make sense of/work with the data we currently have. What we say is correct or truth in physical terms is surely subject to the proviso that it is correct only within a certain error margin (not necessarily known). Science deals with trying to reduce this margin.
I say science and religion cannot be reconciled btw.