Moderator: Community Team
Viceroy63 wrote:Straight answer the Universe is approximately 13 billion years old. Period!
Now that I have answer your question maybe you would be kind enough to answer a simple one of mine...
What does that have to do with the evolution of the horse or the theory of evolution being a lie?
Any answer would suffice please.
Viceroy63 wrote:Any answer would suffice please.
Lootifer wrote:Viceroy63 wrote:Straight answer the Universe is approximately 13 billion years old. Period!
Now that I have answer your question maybe you would be kind enough to answer a simple one of mine...
What does that have to do with the evolution of the horse or the theory of evolution being a lie?
Any answer would suffice please.
We are trying to work out what part of the crazy spectrum you lie on.
betiko wrote:so if we are made "after god's kind" why do we have a coccyx? answer this simple question.
Why would we have a tale residius on our asses? why did god create us with that shit? why was "god" himself created with that shit if we were "created" after his kind?
Why do we have 5 toes per feet, when clearly they could be better designed?
If we are made after god's kind, how come our 5 senses suck that much compared to other animals?
Given how insignificant is our galaxy on the scale of the universe, do you think god would have that much time to spend on it, and create all those species? I mean our galaxy on the scale of the universe is so small that even an electron compared to our human scale would be huge. Not to mention how our planet is shit nothing on the scale of our galaxy. There is probably life out there on trillions of planets/moons, which %agewise would be absolutely nothing compared to the total amount of planets/moons existing. Do you really think we are special in the universe? How can a god so weak as the one described in the bible could have influence elsewhere than in the solar system?
Viceroy63 wrote:[ .
Here are the facts in case you are interest. The following is a very condensed version of the 14 facts posted in my Original Post. This condensed version posted below can be read in it's entirety at...
.
Viceroy63 wrote:Straight answer the Universe is approximately 13 billion years old. Period!
Now that I have answer your question maybe you would be kind enough to answer a simple one of mine...
What does that have to do with the evolution of the horse or the theory of evolution being a lie?
Any answer would suffice please.
Viceroy63 wrote:
In fact if you have an open mind I will show you something right now for you to consider. In Genesis 1:2 it reads...
"And the earth was without form, and void..."
-Genesis 1:2
That word "was" is in the original Hebrew "Hayah" and it can be used in several different ways. It is Strong's Bible Concordance word 1961. It is basically a Verb and as we know a Verb is an Action word and not a descriptive word.
Yes, I but without getting into your analysis too deeply, the real point for this thread is that its irrelevant. Evolution in no way disputes that explanatio of the creation.Viceroy63 wrote: There is more but I think you get the gist. So instead of the verse reading...
"And the earth was without form, and void..."
-Genesis 1:2
[section omitted]
Hopefully you will understand what I just wrote.
Yeah, both on the biblical front and the scientific front.Viceroy63 wrote:
So if the earth was already here and if the earth is ancient as the Bible indicates in other verses; in the Psalms and Job among others, then why could it not have life on it. Just not Modern man. Modern man is a modern creation made after the God kind 6,000 years ago. All other creations were made after their kind. But if they never existed before 6,000 years ago, then what "Kind" is the Bible referring to?
Can you answer me that?
Viceroy63 wrote:
"And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, [and] the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed [is] in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
And the earth brought forth grass, [and] herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed [was] in itself, after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good."
-Genesis 1:12
Viceroy63 wrote:
Incidentally some teach that the word "Kind" means family as in the dog kind but that is just one use for the word. A word like most Hebrew words that have multiple uses. I mean this in the sense that when it reads "after their kind" it is reading "in accordance to their families or species." But another use is "type of." So grass was created after the type of grass that had already existed before the destruction of the earth which also caused mass extinctions. Including the grass "kind."
And an indication of this is the use of the word, "his" kind and not "their" kind. Their kind would tend to indicate species while his kind tends to indicate type of. So that a blade of grass is created after his kind/type of. Just in case you look this up and try and give me this as an answer.
Viceroy63 wrote:
All of creation, plants and animals, were created after their kind. If God had said the same thing about Man, 6,000 years ago, "Let us make man after his kind," then the only creature that would have been created would have been Neanderthal man, again. Modern man was created in the image of God and not after the man kind and this gave us a form of intelligence that the animal and vegetable kingdom does not possess. Because we possess this special intelligence (because we are modern man in the image of God) we can grow and created in ways that no other species can. This is what I meant by man being created after the God kind.
Viceroy63 wrote:
We are not stupid animal neanderthal man, but God like man, so we are able to go beyond what animals can do. Neanderthal man could never write books or go to the moon or create Music or art, but we, man in God's image, can do all of that and much more.
PLAYER57832 wrote:Uh.. Neaderthal were not stupid. Latest thinking has that they might well have had music, even some kind of religion. BUT.. and this is important, we are not and did not come from Neaderthals.
any who reads the bible....
betiko wrote:taking something allegorically or metaphorically in this context means more or less the same doom. I guess you meant literally vs metaphorically.
DoomYoshi wrote:betiko wrote:taking something allegorically or metaphorically in this context means more or less the same doom. I guess you meant literally vs metaphorically.
No, I didn't.
Viceroy63 wrote:Straight answer the Universe is approximately 13 billion years old. Period!
Now that I have answer your question maybe you would be kind enough to answer a simple one of mine...
What does that have to do with the evolution of the horse or the theory of evolution being a lie?
Any answer would suffice please.
betiko wrote:DoomYoshi wrote:betiko wrote:taking something allegorically or metaphorically in this context means more or less the same doom. I guess you meant literally vs metaphorically.
No, I didn't.
well i doesn't make sense to me. Taking the bible allegorically would mean that they used concrete concepts to illustrate abstract concepts, and taking the bible metaphorically would mean using comparable concepts (generally concrete, which would be the case in the genesis) to illustrate a concept (in this cas I believe abstract).
DoomYoshi wrote:Finally, the conversation has entered the only realm I know better than evolutionary Biology.
Between the years the Bible was written and around the 5th century AD, all arguments around the Bible centered around whether it was to be taken allegorically or metaphorically.Even then, only a few crackpots even toyed with the idea of biblical literalism. Then the reformation happened.
Now, the reformation was ridiculous. The canonization of the Bible had one reason and one reason only: to declare the Catholic Church as the only church. So, if you accept the Old Testament with the New, if you accept the books in the order often presented, you are affirming that the Catholic Church is the only church. However, the reformists ignored this inconvenient piece of history and started worshipping God instead of the Bible. Now, Christianity has deviated so far, that Joel Olsteen is the most recognizable religious face in America (he, of course, became famous by promising people riches if they donated to his church).
With these bullshit reformations came reading the Bible literally. I repeat, this is a completely modern invention, as removed from Jesus as internet porn over Wi-Fi.
So sure,any who reads the bible....
Once again, legerdemain based on the fact that those who read the bible are getting a skewed viewed, which is missing the most important historical contexts.
On religious and historical (completely non-scientific) grounds, biblical creationism (or any other literalism) makes no sense.
Lootifer wrote:DoomYoshi wrote:Finally, the conversation has entered the only realm I know better than evolutionary Biology.
Between the years the Bible was written and around the 5th century AD, all arguments around the Bible centered around whether it was to be taken allegorically or metaphorically.Even then, only a few crackpots even toyed with the idea of biblical literalism. Then the reformation happened.
Now, the reformation was ridiculous. The canonization of the Bible had one reason and one reason only: to declare the Catholic Church as the only church. So, if you accept the Old Testament with the New, if you accept the books in the order often presented, you are affirming that the Catholic Church is the only church. However, the reformists ignored this inconvenient piece of history and started worshipping God instead of the Bible. Now, Christianity has deviated so far, that Joel Olsteen is the most recognizable religious face in America (he, of course, became famous by promising people riches if they donated to his church).
With these bullshit reformations came reading the Bible literally. I repeat, this is a completely modern invention, as removed from Jesus as internet porn over Wi-Fi.
So sure,any who reads the bible....
Once again, legerdemain based on the fact that those who read the bible are getting a skewed viewed, which is missing the most important historical contexts.
On religious and historical (completely non-scientific) grounds, biblical creationism (or any other literalism) makes no sense.
Quoting an awesome post.
Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,
Users browsing this forum: No registered users