Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If it helps you through the day, I reject the gap theory.
I can get through the day quite well, no matter which variant of the gap theory you have devised while claiming you reject the gap theory.
So you reject the claim that all the scientifically validated Old earth dates apply all the way through from Arheon to Holocese and there is no Old earth without life, and the Young earth creation just a few thousand years old with Life? And that this fantasy is somehow to be found between Genesis 1.1 and 1.2? If you do that without trying tio wriggle around it with different labels for the same thing, I will believe that you ain't Eusebius.
It rather reminds me of the B-la-f quartet. The scherzo was supposed to have been written by Liadov, but I do not believe it for a minute. it sounds exactly like Borodin, and i'll take some convincing it wasn't he who wrote it.
...of fols youa re safe. The Amateur performances I could find were not good enough to post.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 07-28-2017 at 07:28 AM..
I don't see how you can expect people to take you seriously when you post the same mistake you were corrected on a year ago when you first joined this forum. The Theory of Evolution does not concern itself with the origin of life.
I don't expect any evolutionist to take me seriously. My main purpose is to give those who do not have their ideas on creation/evolution another prospective to consider.
I have also answered your comment about evolution not being concerned about the origin of life, but I will do it again. Originally it was, but when they could not offer a believable scientific explanation, they abandoned trying, especially after the Miller-Urey experiments resulted in failure.
People need to know that originally evolution included an explanation for the origin of life. If you didn't know that, now you do.
I can get through the day quite well, no matter which variant of the gap theory you have devised while claiming you reject the gap theory.
I don't have a variant. I reject it outright as being unBiblical.
[quote]So you reject the claim that all the scientifically validated Old earth dates apply all the way through from Arheon to Holocese and there is no Old earth without life, and the Young earth creation just a few thousand years old with Life? And that this fantasy is somehow to be found between Genesis 1.1 and 1.2? If you do that without trying tio wriggle around it with different labels for the same thing, I will believe that you ain't Eusebius.
I am not concerned about the age of the earth. You need to do some study on the problems with all methods used to date the earth.
Quote:
It rather reminds me of the B-la-f quartet. The scherzo was supposed to have been written by Liadov, but I do not believe it for a minute. it sounds exactly like Borodin, and i'll take some convincing it wasn't he who wrote it.
Put this in your pipe and smoke it---I couldn't care less about convincing you of anything.
This is not about what you claim to have. It is about what you say is not true about what I believe.
You are the one initiating an unevidenced unverifiable claim. I gave you an example of this using an invisible Godzilla in my backyard. By your standard, you cannot refute my claim, while we both know it is unevidenced and unverifiable. It is not up to you to prove my claim invalid, it is up to you to provide demonstrable proof of your claim. Now, we are both free to "believe" our claims, but neither of us can honestly claim our claims as real/fact.
I don't have a variant. I reject it outright as being unBiblical.
That wasn't what I asked. I asked whether you .." you reject the (creationist) claim that all the scientifically validated Old earth dates (that) apply all the way through from Archeon to Holocene and there is no Old earth without life, and the Young earth creation just a few thousand years old with Life?" (though I have to correct and amplify that a bit so sorry if it misled first time around.
I don't care whether you consider the Gap theory unbiblical, I care whether you consider the gap theory -or any reinvention of it by you - wrong and the scientific view of a one earth all the way through to today, with millions of years of life. Or do you hold to a genesis -liiteralist creation of all the plants and animals pretty much as they are today and over a total of under (say) 10,000 years?
Speak and do not pray, try to evade what you think by pointing at what others think and calling it 'unbiblical'
Quote:
So you reject the claim that all the scientifically validated Old earth dates apply all the way through from Arheon to Holocese and there is no Old earth without life, and the Young earth creation just a few thousand years old with Life? And that this fantasy is somehow to be found between Genesis 1.1 and 1.2? If you do that without trying tio wriggle around it with different labels for the same thing, I will believe that you ain't Eusebius.
I am not concerned about the age of the earth. You need to do some study on the problems with all methods used to date the earth.
But you raised the question of genesis 1.1 and 1.2 not me. And now you are coming under pressure you ere squirming out of it and whining that it wasn't you started it? And the "Problems" with dating methods is nothing compared to the problems of trying to make YER work with the debunks of the Potassium argon (as I recall it's called)dating the fossil -eruption dating, ice core dating, dendrochronology, and of course C14, plus pottery -typology for the last 10,000 and even DNA contributing to dating, and all of it interlocking to debunk YE Creationist claims, Genesis and the Bible itself.
Quote:
Put this in your pipe and smoke it---I couldn't care less about convincing you of anything.
Well, that's good, because convincing the Other side hase not been the game for a long time. It is making the best case for those looking in. You may have a mind as open as a glass marble, but there are those out there willing to be persuaded by the besy case. You log on here, whether you intended it or not, you become a spokesbod for your view or position on the god -claim, and if you run away, you may feel you save your own face, but you left Biblegod with egg all over His. Which is why we spend time debating with people like yourself who have no understanding, no logical reasoning, often little understanding of the subject (evolution or Bible) and no intellectual integrity whatsoever, because such debates with the dunderhead end of Bible/ Creationist apologetics fraternity is worth several divisions to us.
The vast majority of Christians are mindless zombies defending the most absurd religion.
Here is where you do go from attempts to stick to the facts to wildly opining. An opinion you are entitled to, sure, but certainly others would have equally opposite and valid opinions on "the vast majority being mindless zombies." This is also where these forums go from an intellectual debate / friendly discussion to simple mud-slinging.
Quote:
You like the many, do not scrutinize your religion as you would others.
See, I would venture to guess people attempting to post intelligent explanations have indeed actually attempted to learn and scrutinize their religion (vs. the other mindless zombies).
Quote:
You will claim the Bible does not sanction slavery, which it clearly does. You will not admit there are contradictions in the Bible. These are clear evidence you and most Christians do not think for yourselves.
It's possible to pull a lot of random quotes out of the bible and make a case against some stuff that is just not right in the world today. But does Christianity today endorse slavery? No. Is every scenario that happened in biblical times applicable today? No. Does that make everything in the bible irrelevant? Again, no. So not sure what you seem to be after here. Does this mean those passages have not been read and discussed and understood in context to the era and to the larger bible as a whole, as you insinuate? Nope.
Did some things change between the old and new testament? Yep. Does that invalidate the whole book? Nope.
That wasn't what I asked. I asked whether you .." you reject the (creationist) claim that all the scientifically validated Old earth dates (that) apply all the way through from Archeon to Holocene and there is no Old earth without life, and the Young earth creation just a few thousand years old with Life?" (though I have to correct and amplify that a bit so sorry if it misled first time around.
I don't care whether you consider the Gap theory unbiblical, I care whether you consider the gap theory -or any reinvention of it by you - wrong and the scientific view of a one earth all the way through to today, with millions of years of life. Or do you hold to a genesis -liiteralist creation of all the plants and animals pretty much as they are today and over a total of under (say) 10,000 years?
Speak and do not pray, try to evade what you think by pointing at what others think and calling it 'unbiblical'
But you raised the question of genesis 1.1 and 1.2 not me. And now you are coming under pressure you ere squirming out of it and whining that it wasn't you started it? And the "Problems" with dating methods is nothing compared to the problems of trying to make YER work with the debunks of the Potassium argon (as I recall it's called)dating the fossil -eruption dating, ice core dating, dendrochronology, and of course C14, plus pottery -typology for the last 10,000 and even DNA contributing to dating, and all of it interlocking to debunk YE Creationist claims, Genesis and the Bible itself.
Well, that's good, because convincing the Other side hase not been the game for a long time. It is making the best case for those looking in. You may have a mind as open as a glass marble, but there are those out there willing to be persuaded by the besy case. You log on here, whether you intended it or not, you become a spokesbod for your view or position on the god -claim, and if you run away, you may feel you save your own face, but you left Biblegod with egg all over His. Which is why we spend time debating with people like yourself who have no understanding, no logical reasoning, often little understanding of the subject (evolution or Bible) and no intellectual integrity whatsoever, because such debates with the dunderhead end of Bible/ Creationist apologetics fraternity is worth several divisions to us.
My personal feeling is that omega is basically arguing that 2+2 = 3 because the Bible says so. Of course nobody, not even the sane Creationists, take such a proposition seriously anymore, but omega is arguing such simply to get a rise out of us by yanking our chains. I've dealt with this type of poster numerous time. I believe he doesn't really believe the earth is 6000 years old anymore than you do. Some posters are like voyeurs--they love to observe the frustration realists suffer when attempting to cope with (t)his type of mentality. When you dispute them you feed their addiction to making outlandish statement purely for shock effect. Pointless to try to convince them because they're (heh-heh) already secretly convinced.
Here is where you do go from attempts to stick to the facts to wildly opining. An opinion you are entitled to, sure, but certainly others would have equally opposite and valid opinions on "the vast majority being mindless zombies." This is also where these forums go from an intellectual debate / friendly discussion to simple mud-slinging.
See, I would venture to guess people attempting to post intelligent explanations have indeed actually attempted to learn and scrutinize their religion (vs. the other mindless zombies).
It's possible to pull a lot of random quotes out of the bible and make a case against some stuff that is just not right in the world today. But does Christianity today endorse slavery? No. Is every scenario that happened in biblical times applicable today? No. Does that make everything in the bible irrelevant? Again, no. So not sure what you seem to be after here. Does this mean those passages have not been read and discussed and understood in context to the era and to the larger bible as a whole, as you insinuate? Nope.
Did some things change between the old and new testament? Yep. Does that invalidate the whole book? Nope.
There it is. Show us exactly what you have that convinces you Jesus was a real person. It cannot be from the Bible because those writings are not considered historical evidence by non-biased Biblical scholars.
Go on. Show us something extra-Biblical that proves Jesus existed--ANYTHING, artifacts, a grave, a monument, an ossuary containing his bones, a relief, just anything-- and then let us examine it and if it is convincing I know that I will change my belief and say that he truly was the Son of God.
Go ahead!
1. Jesus does not actually have to be a "real person." This wasn't the point of the Gospel. Much of the Bible if not all, is allegorical. As in, there does not need to be a real Moses, Noah, Abraham, etc. It isn't the historical person but the lesson of their life that is important.
Noah is an allegory for a New Earth, and God's ability to recreate even when things seem hopeless.
Moses is an allegory for God's rescue from death and "adoption" to new life.
Abraham is an allegory for our inheritance, even when it seems like our line will die out, and that we have inheritance in Heaven as well.
And Jesus is to remind us that death is an illusion, and that God is with us (the meaning of Jesus's name Emmanuel). We do not need a historical Jesus.
2. They actually did find a tomb ascribed to Jesus's brother James. If there is no Jesus, why is there a brother James? The fact of the matter is, Jesus had very weak historical presence. (1) His parents likely appeared on the census, but they were one among thousands. (2) He was born near Jerusalem, but likely even not even noted as having been born, since within days of his birth, they fled for the hills of Egypt. (3) He returned to Judea, into a very small town years later. (4) He was officially a carpenter's son, but carpenters were not as we understand them today. They had a class of people known as tektōn (τέκτoν) which basically meant "wandering worker." In addition, he was likely trained in rabbinic tradition since it was shown that at a young age he was incredibly knowledgeable about the Torah. But again, he wandered a pretty vast area of land and was unlikely to show up on any town population records. (5) Not only did he wander ALOT, not only was he kinda small-time except for crowds of outsiders (he didn't rise the rabbinical ranks), but there was a strong reason to actively erase his name from Roman history.
3. You are completely, totally, and majorly missing the point. Jesus is the son of God. Holding Jesus to human standards, such as a person is born with a father and mother, has a death date, has a fixed appearance, all of this is putting Jesus into a human box of historiability. All of these are not givens. In fact, whenever Jesus is shown to natives, they not just sometimes but almost always make Jesus look like themselves.
I don't expect any evolutionist to take me seriously. My main purpose is to give those who do not have their ideas on creation/evolution another prospective to consider.
I have also answered your comment about evolution not being concerned about the origin of life, but I will do it again. Originally it was, but when they could not offer a believable scientific explanation, they abandoned trying, especially after the Miller-Urey experiments resulted in failure.
People need to know that originally evolution included an explanation for the origin of life. If you didn't know that, now you do.
I'll reserve judgement on that until I see something from a scientist that confirms it. I've never seen a scientist say that the Theory of Evolution ever included origin of life, and we've had a few skilled scientists post in this forum over the years, yet, they never mentioned it. I'm not an evolutionary scientist, and I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, so I'll wait to hear from one.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
already secretly convinced. 
