The story of creation (gen 1-2:4). What does the passage mean to its original viewers?

The story of creation (gen 1-2:4). What does the passage mean to its original viewers? What is an equivalent situation today? Does it have specific teachings about god, people, the church? Is there an example? A warning? A promise?

Are you trying to find information and opinions from the folks here at Ask Me Help Desk, or just looking for information in general from any source?

Thanks!

Are you trying to find information and opinions from the folks here at Ask Me Help Desk, or just looking for information in general from any source?

Thanks!


Anywhere and everyone's opinion

It is just a story as there were so many stories around the time it was written. It was intended to provide an explanation for important questions to which at that time no scientifical and reliable answers were available!
So the Judean God was introduced to explain the origin of the universe and life in that universe.

In essence it is an identical process to that of the introduction of gods much earlier in human history for the explanation of earthquakes, vulcano's, flooding, fertility, death and afterlife, etc.

;)

It is just a story as there were so many stories around the time it was written. It was intended to provide an explanation for important questions to which at that time no scientifical and reliable answers were available!
So the Judean God was introduced to explain the origin of the universe and life in that universe.

In essence it is an identical process to that of the introduction of gods much earlier in human history for the explanation of earthquakes, vulcano's, flooding, fertility, death and afterlife, etc.

;)

These are YOUR BELIEFS.. not fact. :rolleyes:

The story of creation in the bible is the story passed down from generation to generation in oral tradition until it was latter put into writing.
Most cultures have a similar ( or somewhat simular) story or tradition, which for me says there is truth in it since it is such a world wide idea.

Also in the bible, to many scholars you will not actually two stories which for some scholars come from when Isreal was divided and latter the ancient writings were found and combined.

It shows to a christian, the power and might of God in the wonders of his work

These are YOUR BELIEFS.. not fact. :rolleyes:
Not true, sassyT !

- The Bible is indeed just a story as there were so many stories around the time it was written.
- And it was intended to provide an explanation for important questions to which at that time no scientifical and reliable answers were available!
- And the Judean God was introduced to explain the origin of the universe and life in that universe.
- And in essence it is an identical process to that of the introduction of gods much earlier in human history for the explanation of earthquakes, vulcano's, flooding, fertility, death and afterlife, etc.

These are all facts, long time supported by objective evidence.
You may "colour" those facts with a Christian-religious sauce, but facts they remain. Only your sauce is based on claims...

;)

Not true, sassyT !

[QUOTE]- The Bible is indeed just a story as there were so many stories around the time it was written.

Lol.. Credo you are making a purely subjective claims here. What evidence do you have that the Bible is "just stories".
The Bible is actually a valid historical document. Its historicity has been proven to be consistent with other Historical Documents that have been found. I will give you one example.. It is a historical fact that the Isrealites were held in captivity by the Egyptians as stated in the Book of Exodus. There isrecord of this on Ancient Egptian papyrus written by Egyptians at that time. As a matter of fact, the Egptians even wrote about a series of calamities that Egypt experienced that are consistent with the Bible's account of the 7 Plagues of Egypt sent by God. The Egyptians even wrote about their rivers turning to Blood just like the Bible states.
Read this like on the encyclopedia, particularly the section on Historicity...
Plagues of Egypt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagues_of_Egypt)




- And it was intended to provide an explanation for important questions to which at that time no scientifical and reliable answers were available!

Do you have any objective evidence for this claim?
Science is actually only beginning to catch up on what God had man record in the Bible from ancient times. The Bible never claims to be a text book on science but when it does speak on nature physics or biology it is absolutely accurate. For example, until recently has man believed the earth was flat and yet the Bible (writen thousands of years before science discovered it) had already established the earth as being spherical.
Read what Isaiah 40:22 says about God and the earth
"He sits enthroned above the sphere of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out.(Isaiah 40:22) This is just one example of the Scientific accuracy of the Bible. So Credo I think you are just really ignorant on the subject of the Bible and its credibility. I think you need to do a little more research before you continue to embarrase yourself.



- And the Judean God was introduced to explain the origin of the universe and life in that universe.

Yes and this is your belief unless you have objective evidence to prove that God Himself did not inspire the writeing of the Bible.


- And in essence it is an identical process to that of the introduction of gods much earlier in human history for the explanation of earthquakes, vulcano's, flooding, fertility, death and afterlife, etc.

And how do you know that God does not exist and is a mere man made concept? Do you have evidence? Or do you just believe he does not exist?


These are all facts, long time supported by objective evidence.
You may "colour" those facts with a Christian-religious sauce, but facts they remain. Only your sauce is based on claims...

Claiming something is fact without providing the evidence that qualifies it as FACT, does not make it a fact Credo. Please provide the Objective evidence for the above claims. Otherwise I will just consider your claims declarations of FAITH.

Creden and Sassy, YOU GUYS ROCK!! Lol

:D

Credo you are making a purely subjective claims here. What evidence do you have that the Bible is "just stories". The Bible is actually a valid historical document. Its historicity has been proven to be consistant with other Historical Documents that have been found.
It is NOT a valid historical document. It is NOT a valid support for religious claims. The bible is full of faults, inaccuracies, and contradictions.
Just selecting something that suits you does not say anything about the rest of the Bible.
If the bible is the word of your deity, than it should be perfect, and obviously the Bible is not.

SassyT : please restrain your points to max. 2 or 3. May be you have time for endless posts, but I still have a real life off-line...

;)

Creden and Sassy, YOU GUYS ROCK!!! lol

:D ;) :) :rolleyes: :o :D

It is NOT a valid historical document.(In Your opinion, not a fact) It is NOT a valid support for religious claims. The bible is full of faults, inaccuracies, and contradictions.

Like I said before Credo, unless you give me objective supporting evidence for your claim, I will continue to consider the claims as opinions and/or declairations of FAITH. If you want to quallify you beliefs as fact, please provide the appropriate supporting evidence.



Just selecting something that suits you does not say anything about the rest of the Bible.

That was just one example of 500 more I can give you. Do you have time?


If the bible is the word of your deity, than it should be perfect, and obviously the Bible is not.(in your opinion, not fact)

External evidence from both archaeology and non-Christian writers confirms that the Bible--both Old and New Testaments--is a trustworthy historical document. The internal evidence reveals the Bible IS consistent. The Bible was written by over 40 authors, in 3 languages, on 3 continents, over a span of 1,500 years, and covers hundreds of controversial subjects. Yet, the authors all spoke with agreement; there are NO contradictions. From Genesis to Revelation, there is one unfolding story--God's redemption of mankind.


SassyT : please restrain your points to max. 2 or 3. May be you have time for endless posts, but I still have a real life off-line ?????...

... lol.. mmm... coming from someone who has over 790 posts in just the last 90days, its hard to believe you have a real life off line. :D

It is NOT a valid historical document.(In Your opinion, not a fact) It is NOT a valid support for religious claims. The bible is full of faults, inaccuracies, and contradictions.


Like i said before Credo, unless you give me objective supporting evidence for your claim, i will continue to consider the claims as opinions and/or declairations of FAITH.

Ok. OK. But I expect board management will not like it very much. Here is a small part of a long list of Bible faults, inaccuracies, and contradictions.

Lets focus on Gospel Contradictions:

1) How many generations were there between Abraham to David? Matthew 1:17 lists fourteen generations. Matthew 1:2 lists thirteen generations.

2) Is Paul lying? In Acts 20:35 Paul told people "to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, 'It is more blessed to give than to receive.'" Since Jesus never made such a biblical statement, isn’t Paul guilty of deception?

3) When did the leper become not a leper? (Matthew 8:13 & 8:14) Jesus healed the leper before visiting the house. (Mark 1:29-30 & 1:40-42) Jesus healed the leper after visiting Simon Peter’s house.

4) Who approached Jesus? (Matthew 8:5-7) The Centurion approached Jesus, beseeching help for a sick servant. (Luke 7:3 & 7:6-7) The Centurion did not approach Jesus. He sent friends and elders of the Jews.

5) Was she dead or just dying? (Matthew 9:18) He asked for help, saying his daughter was already dead. (Luke 8:41-42) Jairus approached Jesus for help, because his daughter was dying.

6) Just what did Jesus instruct them to take? (Matthew 10:10) Jesus instructed them not to take a staff, not to wear sandals. (Mark 6:8-9) Jesus instructed his disciples to wear sandals and take a staff on their journey.

7) When did John find out Jesus was the Messiah? (Matthew 11:2-3) While imprisoned. John the Baptist sent followers to Jesus to inquire if Jesus was the messiah. (Luke 7:18-22) While imprisoned. John the Baptist sent followers to Jesus to inquire if Jesus was the Messiah. (John 1 :29-34,36) John already knew Jesus was the Messiah.

8) Who made the request? (Matthew 20:20-21) Their mother requested that James and John, Zebedee’s children, should sit beside Jesus in his Kingdom. (Mark 10:35-37) James and John, Zebedee’s children, requested that they should sit beside Jesus in his Kingdom.

9) What animals were brought to Jesus? (Matthew 21:2-7) two of the disciples brought Jesus an and a colt from the village of Bethphage. (Mark 11:2-7) They brought him only a colt.

10) When did the fig tree hear of its doom? (Matthew 21:17-19) Jesus cursed the fig tree after purging the temple. (Mark 11:14-15 & 20) He cursed it before the purging.

11) When did the fig tree keel? (Matthew 21:9) The fig tree withered immediately. And the disciples registered surprise then and there. (Mark 11:12-14 & 20) The morning after Jesus cursed the fig tree, the disciples noticed it had withered and expressed astonishment.

12) Was John the Baptist Elias? "This is Elias which was to come." Matthew 11:14 "And they asked him, what then? Art thou Elias? And he said I am not." John l:21

13) Who was the father of Joseph? Matthew 1:16 The father of Joseph was Jacob. Luke 3 :23 The father of Joseph was Heli. Christians shall try to LIE and tell you that one is the heritage of Mary and the other Joseph. This is utter bull, the Hebrew and Greek cultures NEVER regarded the bloodline of the mother. They were patriarchal societies which only concerned themselves with paternal lineage.

14) How many generations were there from the Babylon captivity to Christ? Matthew 1:17 Fourteen generations, Matthew 1:12-16 Thirteen generations.

15) Matthew 2:15, 19 & 21-23 The infant Christ was taken into Egypt. Luke 2:22 & 39 The infant Christ was NOT taken to Egypt.

16) Matthew 5:1-2 Christ preached his first sermon on the mount. Luke 6:17 & 20 Christ preached his first sermon in the plain.

17) John was in prison when Jesus went into Galilee. Mark 1:14 John was not in prison when Jesus went into Galilee. John 1:43 & 3:22-24

18) What was the nationality of the woman who besought Jesus? Matthew 15:22 "And behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, Have mercy on me, 0 Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil." Mark 7:26 "The woman was a Greek, a Syrophenician by nation, and she besought him that he would cast forth the devil out of her daughter."

19) How many blind men besought Jesus? Matthew 20:30 Two blind men. Luke 18:35-38 Only one blind man.

20) Where did the devil take Jesus first? (Matthew 4:5-8) The Devil took Jesus first to the parapet of the temple, then to a high place to view all the Kingdoms of the world. (Luke 4:5-9) The Devil took Jesus first to a high place to view the kingdoms, then to the parapet of the temple.

21) Can one pray in public? (Matthew 6:5-6) Jesus condemned public prayer. (1 Timothy 2:8) Paul encouraged public prayer.

22) If we decide to do good works, should those works be seen? Matthew 5:16 "Let your light so shine before men that they may see your good works." 1 Peter 2:12 "Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that ... they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation." This contradicts: Matthew 6:1-4 "Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them…that thine alms may be in secret." Matthew 23:3-5 "Do not ye after their [Pharisees'] works... all their works they do for to be seen of men."

23) Who did Jesus tell the Lord’s Prayer to? (Matthew 5:1, 6:9-13 & 7:28) Jesus delivered the Lord’s Prayer during the Sermon on the Mount before the multitudes. (Luke 11:1-4) He delivered it before the disciples alone, and not as part of the Sermon on the Mount.

24) When was Christ crucified? Mark 15:25 "And it was the third hour and they crucified him." John 19:14-15 "And it was the preparation of the Passover, and about the sixth hour; and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your king…Shall I crucify your king?" John 19:14-15.

25) The two thieves reviled Christ. (Matthew 27:44 & Mark 15:32) Only one of the thieves reviled Christ. Luke 23:39-40.

26) In 1 Corinthians 1:17 ("For Christ sent me [Paul] not to baptize but to preach the gospel") Paul said Jesus was wrong when he said in Matthew 28:19 "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them…" Clearly one of these people is wrong, either way, it’s a contradiction.

27) When did Satan enter Judas? Satan entered into Judas while at the supper. John 13:27 Satan entered Judas before the supper. Luke 23:3-4 & 7

28) How many women came to the sepulcher? John 20:1 Only one woman went, Mary Magdalene. Matthew 28:1 Mary Magdalene and the "other Mary" (Jesus’ mother) went.

29) Mark 16:2 It was sunrise when the two women went to the sepulcher. John 20:1 It was still dark (before sunrise) when Mary Magdalene went alone to the sepulcher.

30) There were two angels seen by the women at the sepulcher and they were standing up. Luke 24:4 There was only one angel seen and he was sitting down. Mark 28:2-5

31) How many angels were within the sepulcher? John 20:11-12 two, Mark 16:5 one.

32) The Holy Ghost bestowed at Pentecost. Acts 1:5-8 & 2:1-4 The holy Ghost bestowed before Pentecost. John 20:22

33) Where did Jesus first appear to the eleven disciples? In a room in Jerusalem. Luke 24:32-37 On a mountain in Galilee. Matthew 28:15-17

34) Where did Christ ascend from? From Mount Olivet. Acts 1:9-12 From Bethany. Luke 24:50-51

35) Can all sins be forgiven? (Acts 13:39) All sins can be forgiven. Great, I’m happy to know God is so merciful, but wait (Mark 3:29) Cursing or blaspheming the Holy Spirit is unforgivable.

36) The Elijah mystery: (Malachi 4:5) Elijah must return before the final days of the world. (Matthew 11:12-14) Jesus said that John the Baptist was Elijah. (Matthew 17:12- 13) Jesus insists that Elijah has already come, and everyone understood him to mean John the Baptist. (Mark 9:13) Jesus insists that Elijah has already come. (John 1:21) John the Baptist maintained that he was not Elijah.

37) Who purchased the potter’s field? Acts 1:18 The field was purchased by Judas. John 20:1 The potter’s field was purchased by the chief priests.

38) Paul’s attendants heard the miraculous voice and stood speechless. Acts 9:7 Paul’s attendants did not hear the voice and were prostrate. Acts 22:9 & 26:14

39) Who bought the Sepulcher? Jacob, Josh 24:32 Abraham, Acts 7:16

40) Was it lawful for the Jews to put Christ to death? "The Jews answered him, we have a law, and by our law he ought to die." John 19:7 "The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death." John 18:31

41) Has anyone ascended up to heaven? Elijah went up to heaven: "And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven." 2 Kings 2:11 "No man hath ascended up to heaven but he that came down from heaven, even the son of man." John 3:13

42) Is scripture inspired by God? "all scripture is given by inspiration of God." 2 Timothy 3:16 compared to: "But I speak this by permission and not by commandment." 1 Corinthians 7:6 "But to the rest speak I, not the Lord." 1 Corinthians 7:12 "That which I speak, I speak it not after the Lord" 2 Corinthians.

It is NOT a valid historical document.(In Your opinion, not a fact) It is NOT a valid support for religious claims. The bible is full of faults, inaccuracies, and contradictions.


Like i said before Credo, unless you give me objective supporting evidence for your claim, i will continue to consider the claims as opinions and/or declairations of FAITH.

Ok. OK. But I expect board management will not like it very much. Here is a small part of a long list of Bible faults, inaccuracies, and contradictions.

Lets focus on Historical Bible Errors :

Deut. 18: 21-22, "21 And you may say in your heart, 'How shall we know the word which the Lord God has not spoken?' 22 When a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the thing does not come about or come true, that is the thing which the Lord has not spoken ...."

Num. 23: 19, "19 God in not a man, that He should lie, nor a son of man, that He should repent: has He said, and will He not do it? Or has He spoken, and will not make it good?"

I Sam. 15: 29, "29 And also the Glory of Israel will not lie or change His mind; for He is not a man that He should change His mind."

Many have heard these passages read in their churches, and have read it for themselves in the bible. This is the measure to use in measuring any statement, because it is apparent that God would not inspire a vain pronouncement. Unfortunately, there are such vain pronouncements and prophecies in the bible. We will look at the false pronouncements of the Book of Ezekiel. The pattern I will follow is to quote the verses in question, and provide an observation based on easily attainable historical information, and provide a conclusion based on the truth. I have no reason to lie about what follows, the bible itself proves its own unreliability. I have even incorporated several apologetics, and pointed out their mistakes; judge for yourself.

Ezekiel 26: 1-13, "Now it came about in the eleventh year ... that the word of the Lord came to me saying, 2 son of man, because Tyre said concerning Jerusalem ... 3 therefore, thus says the Lord God, 'Behold I am against you, O Tyre, and I will bring up many nations against you, ... 4 and they will destroy the walls of Tyre and break down her towers' ... 7 for thus says the Lord God, 'Behold I will bring upon Tyre from the north Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, king of kings ... 9 and the blow of his battering rams he will direct against your walls, and with his axes he will break down your towers. 10 ... when he enters your gates as men enter a city that is breached, 11 with the hoofs of his horses he will trample all your streets. He will slay your people with the sword; and your strong pillars will come down to the ground. 12 Also, they will make a spoil of your riches and a prey of your merchandise, break down your walls and destroy your pleasant houses, and throw your stones and your timbers and your debris into the water. 13 So I will silence the sound of your songs, and the sound of your harps will be heard no more. 14 ... for I the Lord have spoken,' declares the Lord God."

Apologetic: Several. The most bizarre is the appealing that the Persian Empire forced Tyre to submit.
Rebuttal: The prophecy had nothing to do with Persia, it was about Nebuchadnezzar, a specific Babylonian king. Persia would have yet to arise.
Observation: This passage clearly has God saying that Nebuchadnezzar would move against Tyre and successfully lay siege to the city and sack it so completely that it would be utterly destroyed; but that never happened, Tyre withstood Nebuchadnezzar siege for years, and in the end the Babylonian king withdrew. Check out an encyclopedia for more information on Nebuchadnezzar failure to sack Tyre. Even for those who refuse to look outside the bible for information on the ancient world, cannot change the FACT, that even the bible does not admit that the prophecy came true.
Conclusion: According to the measure of Moses, this is a false prophecy.

Eze. 29: 18, "18 Son of man, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon made his army labor hard against Tyre; every head was made bald, and every shoulder was rubbed bare. But he and his army has no wages from Tyre for the labor that he had performed against it."

Apologetic: Few. The most common is that Nebuchadnezzar changed his mind, after Tyre submitted to him.
Rebuttal: The prophecy had stated that he would destroy Tyre, not come to an agreement with it. The prophecy has the population of Tyre destroyed in the streets by the army of Nebuchadnezzar, that never happened.
Observation: This is a direct contradiction of the previous passage. God supposedly prophesied all kinds of horrors for Tyre and its population at the hand of Nebuchadnezzar, and now God cannot make it come to pass! This passage proves the prophecy of Ezekiel 26: 1-13 to be errant, and therefore the bible errant. This passage supports the information that can be found in any good encyclopedia.
Conclusion: According to the measure of Moses, the previous was a false prophesy.

Eze. 29: 1-19, "In the tenth year ... the word of the Lord came upon me saying, 2 'son of man, set your face against Pharaoh, king of Egypt, and prophesy against him and against Egypt ... 9 and the land of Egypt will become a desolation and waste. Then they will know that I am the Lord ... 11 ... and it will not be inhabited for forty years. 12 So I shall make the land of Egypt a desolation in the midst of cities that are laid waste, will be desolate for forty years, and I shall scatter the Egyptians among the nations and disperse them among the lands ... 15 It will be the lowest of the kingdoms; and it will never again lift itself up above the nations' ... 19 Therefore, thus says the Lord God, 'Behold, I shall give the land of Egypt to Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon. And he will carry off her wealth, and capture her spoil, and seize her plunder; and it will be wages for his army.'"

Apologetic: None offered to date.
Rebuttal:
Observation: This prophecy has several major problems: v. 9 is false, Egypt was never turned into a desolate waste: v. 12 is false, Egypt was not made desolate, and her people were never scattered among the nations; v. 15 is false, Egypt would know great power and wealth under the Ptolemies, and Egypt would be the grain basket for the ancient world, and its city of Alexandria was the greatest city in the Hellenistic world; v. 19 is simply untrue, Nebuchadnezzar never got into Egypt, never carried off her wealth, or her spoil, or plundered her to pay his army. Read up on it is any encyclopedia. Even for those who refuse to look outside the bible for information on the ancient world, cannot change the FACT, that even the bible does not admit that the prophecy came true.
Conclusion: According to the measure of Moses, this is a false prophecy.

Eze. 30: 10-12, "10 Thus says the Lord God, 'I will also make the multitude of Egypt cease, by the hand of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon. 11 He and his people with him, ... will draw their sword against Egypt and fill the land with the slain. 12 Moreover, I will make the land desolate, and all that is in it, by the hand of strangers; I the Lord have spoken.'"

Apologetics: Prove he did not destroy Egypt.
Rebuttal: There is no evidence that Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Egypt, such a major event could not have been hidden from history. Read up on Egyptian history and check under the history of Egypt during the NeoBabylonian period. Even the bible does not admit to the fulfillment of this prophecy, and considering that the Greeks were trading in Egypt, they make no mention in any of their writings to such an event.
Observation: Nebuchadnezzar never butchered off the Egyptian population, he never managed to get into Egypt, his army was not strong enough for the task. Egypt was never made desolate. Read up on it in any encyclopedia. Even for those who refuse to look outside the bible for information on the ancient world, cannot change the FACT, that even the bible does not admit that the prophecy came true.
Conclusion: According to the measure of Moses, this is a false prophecy.

So who are you going to believe? Your preacher? Your bible? Moses? The facts? That I leave to you, it is sufficient that the bible was proved to be in error, that prophecies attributed to God, were false words put into His mouth. The bible itself fails to admit that any of the above actually came to pass, and in the case of Ezekiel chapters 26 and 29, a direct contradiction between prophecy and event is established. If these prophecies reflect the type of information prophets like Ezekiel preached, it is no wonder they ended up dead when the prophecy was shown to be false. According to Moses, false prophets were to be stoned, and if Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel preached errors like this, Moses himself would have stoned them as frauds.

;)

It is NOT a valid historical document.(In Your opinion, not a fact) It is NOT a valid support for religious claims. The bible is full of faults, inaccuracies, and contradictions.


Like i said before Credo, unless you give me objective supporting evidence for your claim, i will continue to consider the claims as opinions and/or declairations of FAITH.

Ok. OK. But I expect board management will not like it very much. Here is a small part of a long list of Bible faults, inaccuracies, and contradictions.

Lets focus on Bible contradictions and other Errors :

Contradictions

2 Kings 8:26 says "Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign..." 2 Chronicles 22:2 says "Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign..."

2 Samuel 6:23 says "Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death" 2 Samuel 21:8 says "But the king took...the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul"

2 Samuel 8:3-4 says "David smote also Hadadezer...and took from him...seven hundred horsemen..." 1 Chronicles 18:3-4 says "David smote Hadarezer...and took from him...seven thousand horsemen..."

1 Kings 4:26 says "And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots..."

2 Chronicles 9:25 says "And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots..."

2 Kings 25:8 says "And in the fifth month, on the seventh day of the month...Nebuzaradan...came...unto Jerusalem" Jeremiah 52:12 says "...in the fifth month, in the tenth day of the month...came Nebuzaradan...into Jerusalem"

1 Samuel 31:4-6 says "...Saul took a sword and fell upon it. And when his armourbearer saw that Saul was dead and...died with him. So Saul died..." 2 Samuel 21:12 says "...the Philistines had slain Saul in Gilboa."

Gen 2:17 says "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day thou eastest thereof thou shalt surely die [note: it doesn't say 'spiritual' death] Gen 5:5 says "And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died."

Matt 1:16 says, "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus..." Luke 3:23 says "And Jesus...the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli"

James 1:13 says "..for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man."

Gen 22:1 says "And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham..."

Gen 6:20 says "Of fowls after their kind and of cattle [etc.]... two of every sort shall come unto thee... " Gen 7:2,3 says "Of every clean beast thou shall take to thee by sevens... Of fowls also of the air by sevens... "

Luke23:46: "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost." John 19:30 "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost."

Gen 32:30 states "... for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." John 1:18 states, "No man hath seen God at any time... "

Factual Errors

1 Kings 7:23 "He made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about." Circumference = Pi() x Diameter, which means the line would have to have been over 31 cubits. In order for this to be rounding, it would have had to overstate the amount to ensure that the line did "compass it round about."

Lev 11:20-21: "All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you." Fowl do not go upon all four.

Lev 11:6: "And the hare, because he cheweth the could... " Hare do not chew the cud.

Deut 14:7: " "...as the camel, and the hare, and the coney: for they chew the cud, but divide not the hoof." For the hare this is wrong on both counts: Hare don’t chew the could and they do divide the "hoof."

Jonah 1:17 says, "...Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights" Matt 12:40 says "...Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly..." whales and fish are not related

Matt 13:31-32: " "the kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed which…is the least of all seeds, but when it is grown is the greatest among herbs and becometh a tree." There are 2 significant errors here: first, there are many smaller seeds, like the orchid seed; and second, mustard plants don't grow into trees.

Matt 4:8: " Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them." Unless the world is flat, altitude simply will not help you see all the kingdoms of the earth.

;)

Credo, I thought you had a life off line..? Geees... I read the first two centences and just got tired.
Since you seem to have a lot of time on your hands and I don't, sorry, so I will just give you links to websites that address your supposed "contradictions". Its a lot of reading but after you read these sites you will know that the Bible has ZERO contradictions.

http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/contradictions.html
Are There Contradictions in the Bible? (http://www.kencollins.com/Bible-i2.htm)
Contradictions in the Bible (http://www.allabouttruth.org/contradictions-in-the-bible-faq.htm)
Debate Topics: Apologetic (http://debate.org.uk/topics/apolog/contrads.htm)
Bible and Theology Answers - ChristianAnswers.Net (http://christiananswers.net/menu-at1.html#contradictions)
Bible Contradiction, How did Judas die, by hanging or falling down? Matthew 27:3-8 and Acts 1:16-19 (http://www.carm.org/diff/Matt27_3.htm)
Bible Contradictions Answered (http://contenderministries.org/discrepancies/contradictions.php)
BIBLE CONTRADICTIONS ANSWERED -- Biblical Errors Mistakes Difficulties Discrepancies Countered (http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/bible.htm)

After you have read all these and you still think there are contradictions. Please start a new thread about Bible contradictions and I can help you clear you miss understanding.

P.S please site your sources because I know you did not come up with all that you probably copied and pasted someone's work without giving them credit. That is called Plagerism and it is forbidden on this site. Please review terms and conditions of this site.

P.S plse site your sources because i know you did not come up with all that you probably copied and pasted someone's work without giving them credit. That is called Plagerism and it is forbiden on this site. Plse review terms and conditions of this site.
Thank you for your worries about my supposed plagiarism (not spelled Plagerism - you should have studied English).

And I note that you fail to acknowledge the essence of my argument (posted on your own request) : that many of these contradictions, mistakes, historical faults etc are indeed in the Bible.
Even if they can be "explained" at one of your suggested websites, the point is this :

If the Bible is the book by God for all human beings, and that God is all powerful and omniscient, etc. than why does the Bible contain so many of these faults?
Note that these faults are not translation faults. Neither are they printing faults. They are faults that are the result of different human scribents introducing some story they heard earlier into their paper that later was used to make up the Bible.

A deity that is claimed to be perfect and that is claimed to have created the entire universe with everything in it in 6 days only, seems incapable of producing fault free Bibles in all languages that every human being can understand without the need for a weekly interpreter located in a big house with a huge tower on top of it...

What a poor qualities for a deity that is claimed to be "perfect"!!

:D

Crede and Sassy,

I find your discussion very interesting but if you two could start a new thread please.

Crede and Sassy, I find your discussion very interesting but if you two could start a new thread please.
I have suggested that to sassyT earlier in many threads. All I got back was some sneer, after which he/she continued with replies containing so many quotes that the essence of the argument totally went lost.

:(

[QUOTE=Credendovidis]Thank you for your worries about my supposed plagiarism (not spelled Plagerism - you should have studied English).

Lol.. I have always been a bad speller but lucky for me technology has come up with a nice little tool I call spell check which, I admit, I neglected to use because I was not aware we were in a spelling bee contest. :(
Fortunately for me, bad spelling is not forbidden on this site but Plagiarism is.


And I note that you fail to acknowledge the essence of my argument (posted on your own request) : that many of these contradictions, mistakes, historical faults etc are indeed in the Bible.
Even if they can be "explained" at one of your suggested websites, the point is this :

If the Bible is the book by God for all human beings, and that God is all powerful and omniscient, etc. than why does the Bible contain so many of these faults?
Note that these faults are not translation faults. Neither are they printing faults. They are faults that are the result of different human scribents introducing some story they heard earlier into their paper that later was used to make up the Bible.

Again, the Bible has no contradiction, no faults and no mistakes. The Bible has to be studdied to understand it because scripture interprets scipture so if you take verses and do not study the context then it would seem (conveniently) contractory when in actuality it is not.
The Bible was written by some 40 authors over a period of thousands of years, yet it weaves together into a single theme (the coming of Christ) and includes hundreds of prophesies that are both made and fulfilled.



A deity that is claimed to be perfect and that is claimed to have created the entire universe with everything in it in 6 days only, seems incapable of producing fault free Bibles in all languages that every human being can understand without the need for a weekly interpreter located in a big house with a huge tower on top of it...

What a poor qualities for a deity that is claimed to be "perfect"!!

God's Word is Perfect. The reason why the Church meets on weekly basis is not because we need an interpreter, The Church meets primarily for fellowship with other believers otherwise one can just study their Bible at home and still gain understanding. Once again you are displaying ignorance about Christianity. I think you just need to educate yourself about Christianity and the Bible before you comment on it. Do some research first and get rid of your faulse pre-concieved ideas because you are not proving anything here, all you are doing is showing us how ignorant you are about the religion.

The sotry of creation (gen 1-2:4). what does the passage mean to its orginal viewers?



Lol guys thanks for the replys I was not expecting to get that much feedback.

.... Again, the Bible has no contradiction, no faults and no mistakes.
That is what you BELIEVE...


.... God's Word is Perfect.
That is what you BELIEVE...

:rolleyes:

lol guys thanks for the replys I was not expecting to get that much feedback.
Knowing sassyT and myself... better prepare yourself for a lot more...

:D

That is what you BELIEVE ....


That is what you BELIEVE ....

& you BELIEVE the opposite

I agree with sassy, there are so many people who work harder trying to prove that God doesn't exist, when they can just look out there window at all of creation and realize that everything works a little to perfectly to be accidental.

& you BELIEVE the opposite
No I don't believe the opposite. I try not to make claims I can not objectively support.

What is so funny from your many and often drawn-out reactions, sassyT, is to see that time and time again you show an intense dislike for clear and proper wording, and a preference for making wild claims.
You seem to prefer "woolen" statements that hide the truth of the matter : that most of what you post is based on religious claims, and not on reality and/or objective supported evidence.

I wonder why you do that...

:D

I agree with sassy, there are so many people who work harder trying to prove that God doesn't exist, when they can just look out there window at all of creation and realize that everything works a little to perfectly to be accidental.
I do not see any of those people here on this board.
All I see is lots of people CLAIMING that god or gods exist, with that god / gods is/are having all kinds of super powers and capabilities. However when one asks these people to support such wild religious claims, only more wild religious based claims are produced, often accompanied by anger and rudeness.

I also look out of the window, and see the beauty of nature in all it's splender. But I do not see any deity or objective evidence for such deity. And that while I know that science has a near perfect explanation as to how nature developed itself to what it is today.

You fail to understand that people who do not accept whatever you BELIEVE do not claim that the deity you believe in does not exist, but underline that there is no objective supporting evidence for the existence of such a deity.

;)

No I don't believe the opposite. I try not to make claims I can not objectively support.

What is so funny from your many and often drawn-out reactions, sassyT, is to see that time and time again you show an intense dislike for clear and proper wording, and a preference for making wild claims.
You seem to prefer "woolen" statements that hide the truth of the matter : that most of what you post is based on religious claims, and not on reality and/or objective supported evidence.

I wonder why you do that ...

:D

Lol your CLAIMS are based on your secular humanistic religious BELIEFS which relies on a very large ASSUMPTION, the Assumtion of naturalism.

The assumption of naturalism assumes that all phenomena can only be explained by natural processes however this assumption is very narrow minded considering there are no natural explanations for many things including origins.
So I respect your BELIEFS, but they are based on a leap of faith I am not willing to take.

... your CLAIMS are based on your secular humanistic religous BELIEFS which relies on a very large ASSUMPTION, the Assumtion of naturalism.
What a nonsensical conclusion. Previously I have clearly explained to you that Secular Humanism has nothing to do with religious belief. And I note that you NEVER support your own wild claims with anything that ever has been near truth, honesty, or reality!


the assumption of naturalism assumes that ....
I NEVER mentioned anything on naturalism. And you mention it here without providing any objective support.

All I do in religion based topics is state that all formats of religion and religious thoughts are based on SUBJECTIVE CLAIMS that do not carry any objective supporting evidence.

So far you have been unable to show me to be incorrect with that point of view, although you tried almost every trick out of your book with lying (?), cheating, twisting words, deliberate misinterpretation, putting words in someone else's mouth, etc


So i respect your BELIEFS...
No you don't. Neither my worldview nor my beliefs. Your actions speak louder than your empty words !
Only one of us two is basing everything on a leap of faith, and I am not that one !

:rolleyes:

[QUOTE=Credendovidis]What a nonsensical conclusion. Previously I have clearly explained to you that Secular Humanism has nothing to do with religious belief. And I note that you NEVER support your own wild claims with anything that ever has been near truth, honesty, or reality!

I think you need to do a little more research into your Beliefs because Secular Humanism is a religion. John Dewey described Humanism as our "common faith." Julian Huxley called it "Religion without Revelation." The first Humanist Manifesto spoke openly of Humanism as a religion. Many other Humanists could be cited who have acknowledged that Humanism is a religion. In the 1950's, Humanists sought and obtained tax-exempt status as religious organizations. Even the Supreme Court of the United States spoke in 1961 of Secular Humanism as a religion.



I NEVER mentioned anything on naturalism. And you mention it here without providing any objective support.

In case you didn't know... Naturalism is a premise on which you secular humanism religion is based.


All I do in religion based topics is state that all formats of religion and religious thoughts are based on SUBJECTIVE CLAIMS that do not carry any objective supporting evidence.

Your humanistic religion included..


So far you have been unable to show me to be incorrect with that point of view, although you tried almost every trick out of your book with lying (?), cheating, twisting words, deliberate misinterpretation, putting words in someone else's mouth, etc

There is an insurmountable amount of OBJECTIVE evidence in support of the Bible's claims. I even quoted the encylopidia for you on how the ancient Egyptians wrote about events that are consistent with the Bible's book of Exodus which describes what occurred in Egypt at that time including their rivers turing red with blood. That is just one of hundreds of objective evidence in support of the Bible's creadibility and Historicity. But you convieniently brushed it off and continue to make unsupported claims about your beliefs. :rolleyes:



No you don't. Neither my worldview nor my beliefs. Your actions speak louder than your empty words !
Only one of us two is basing everything on a leap of faith, and I am not that one !


Okey! We are finally making some progress here... At least you have now acknowledged that your claims have been, in fact, just BELIEFS. Phew... took you long enough.

It is ALL FAITH, peroid.

It cannot be proven, nor can it be dis-proven, why do you think they call it faith?

I think you need to do a little more research ....
No I don't have to do that. I know that Secular Humanism has nothing to do with religious beliefs. And I told you so, and explained why that is so.

But as usual you have twisted words, you lied, and you made unsupported wild claims, and - most important to mention - you have not supported in any objective way your claim of Secular Humanism being a religion.

What a good example you are for people to start questioning the sincerity and honesty of religious believers...

:D :D :D :D :D

No I don't have to do that. I know that Secular Humanism has nothing to do with religious beliefs. And I told you so, and explained why that is so.

But as usual you have twisted words, you lied, and you made unsupported wild claims, and - most important to mention - you have not supported in any objective way your claim of Secular Humanism being a religion.

What a good example you are for people to start questioning the sincerity and honesty of religious believers ....



Lol hey don't get mad at me for saying Secular Humanism is a religion, I am just quoting what the pioneers of it have said about it. It is a religious organisation that has actually applied for the same tax exempt status other relious organisation have. Something you obviously did not know.. well now you know... you are a religious man.

Excellent, now a whole bunch of us can post on any religious thread and not feel persecuted.

... Secular Humanism is a religion ... is a religious organisation that has actually applied for the same tax exempt status other relious organisation have. something you obviously did not know ...
Oh, that I knew already for years. Very old info indeed. They did that to show the morally wrong tax exemption many religious organisations get for their activities - which for a major part are nothing more than pure profitable operations.
They also did that to get a tax exemption for their humanism based social activities.
Note that only the US section of the Secular Humanist organisation did that. Not the section that is based in Europe.

If you find that reason to assume that Secular Humanism is a religious organisation, than you are wrong. A simple disection of the name makes it crystal clear that there are no religious views in Secular Humanism (I did that before for you - no need to repeat that again).

Secular Humanism is an organisation that supports a non-profit worldview and modus operandus, and has a non-religious worldview. How sad that you fail to accept that obvious fact...

:rolleyes:

[QUOTE=Credendovidis]Oh, that I knew already for years. Very old info indeed

So why were you freaking out when I said it is a religion. You should know then..


They did that to show the morally wrong tax exemption many religious organisations get for their activities - which for a major part are nothing more than pure profitable operations.
They also did that to get a tax exemption for their humanism based social activities.
Note that only the US section of the Secular Humanist organisation did that. Not the section that is based in Europe.

Right... don't lie to yourself... they did that because they are a religious organisation.


If you find that reason to assume that Secular Humanism is a religious organisation, than you are wrong. A simple disection of the name makes it crystal clear that there are no religious views in Secular Humanism (I did that before for you - no need to repeat that again).

Secular Humanism is an organisation that supports a non-profit worldview and modus operandus, and has a non-religious worldview. How sad that you fail to accept that obvious fact...

Like I said, I am just going by the following quotes made by eminent Humanists.

Julian Huxley called it "Religion without Revelation."
John Dewey described Humanism as our "common faith."

So why were you freaking out when i said it is a religion. You should know then.
I did not ´freak out´. I objected to your position and your over-simplistic argumentation.
Besides that : it is simply not a religion. Your argument is totally flawed, and you know that.
All you do is confirming that you can not admit that you are wrong in this...

:rolleyes:

I did not ´freak out´. I objected to your position and your over-simplistic argumentation.
Besides that : it is simply not a religion. Your argument is totally flawed, and you know that.
All you do is confirming that you can not admit that you are wrong in this ....



Lol how can I be wrong? You claim Humanism is not a religion, but who are you? Eminent well known pioneers of Humanism such as Julian Huxley & John Dewey have called it a Religion and a FAITH. I think they are a more credible sources than you. So why should I believe some guy online named credo... I will stick to what they have to say about it which is; "a religion with out revelation...a faith"

;)

lol how can i be wrong??
Ok : one again than (what a bad loser you are!)

Secular Humanism
Secular = worldly = no religious links.
Humanism = focus on humans instead of on the supra-natural = no religious links.

Conclusion : Secular Humanism has no links with religion. IT IS NOT A RELIGION.
.

:rolleyes:

Ok : one again than (what a bad loser you are!)

Secular Humanism
Secular = worldly = no religious links.
Humanism = focus on humans instead of on the supra-natural = no religious links.

Conclusion : Secular Humanism has no links with religion. IT IS NOT A RELIGION.


:rolleyes:

Again this is your belief.
In reality more credible and plausible sources than you have said it is a religion and so it is.

Again this is your belief.
In reality more credible and plausible sources than you have said it is a religion and so it is.
No that is not my belief. Just as Secular Humanism is not a belief.
It is understanding of the English Language and the meaning of individual words.

Why don't you PROVE that the explanations I gave for both Secular and Humanism are intrinsically incorrect ?

Because you can not, is it not ? Another show of your invalid way of argumentation...

:rolleyes:

[QUOTE=Credendovidis]No that is not my belief. Just as Secular Humanism is not a belief.
It is understanding of the English Language and the meaning of individual words.

Lol.. are you serious right now? IS this what you really think secular humanism is? An understanding of the english language? Lol


Why don't you PROVE that the explanations I gave for both Secular and Humanism are intrinsically incorrect ?

I am not even going to waist my time.. lol

i am even going to waist my time
No, actually your are wasting almost every other persons time here...

:rolleyes:

CREDo's New credo.. All one has to do is add "I believe" in front of (religious) claims to provide them with at least some validity...

I am glad you changed your slogan from that " i will believe when i see it" because it became very apparent that it was not the case. You believe a lot of things that you have not witnessed or seen conclusive evidence for. :)

i am glad you changed your slogan from that " i will believe when i see it" because it became very apparent that it was not the case. You believe a lot of things that you have not witnessed or seen conclusive evidence for. :)
Another of your unsupported belief statements which you insist to be factual. How sad...

:rolleyes:

Another of your unsupported belief statements which you insist to be factual. How sad ....

:

So do you have 100% factual evidence for your wild claims?

so do you have 100% factual evidence for your wild claims?
Now you REALLY start to "sound" stupid : I repeatedly mention that Evolution and the Origin of the Universe are for a major part supported by what I called objected supported evidence , but not 100%.

Your religious ideas so far never have seen any objected supported evidence : not even one single iota of it. All that supports them is subjective observations and feelings of belief.
And I never asked to provide 100% factual evidence for them. Just some objective supporting evidence for the existence of god and for god being the creator. And that in view of your claims that what you BELIEVE is the "one and only truth".

So why do you ask me for 100% factual evidence for my statements? The lack of support from your side is so far sufficient support that you have no objective supporting evidence for your beliefs at all !

:rolleyes:

[QUOTE=Credendovidis]Now you REALLY start to "sound" stupid : I repeatedly mention that Evolution and the Origin of the Universe are for a major part supported by what I called objected supported evidence , but not 100%.

Personal insults are not allowed on this site Credo... you need to keep your emotions under control so we can have a civil adult debate.


Your religious ideas so far never have seen any objected supported evidence : not even one single iota of it. All that supports them is subjective observations and feelings of belief.

Again this i what you have chosen to believe despite the reality..


And I never asked to provide 100% factual evidence for them. Just some objective supporting evidence for the existence of god and for god being the creator. And that in view of your claims that what you BELIEVE is the "one and only truth".

the Objective evidence was given you but because of your zealous BELIEFS you choose to acknowledge the evidence.


So why do you ask me for 100% factual evidence for my statements?

Because you are denying that your claims are BELIEFS and yet you admit the fact that the claims are not factual. :confused:

Personal insults are not allowed on this sit[e Credo... you need to keep your emotions under control so we can have a civil adult debate
That may be true. How "Christian" are you to try to force people into that attitude with your nonsensical, illogical, unfair, ignorant, and intolerant posts?


... the Objective evidence was given you but because of your zealous BELIEFS you choose to acknowledge the evidence.
Already before I told you that you have no idea of what OBJECTIVE means ! Look it up !


Because you are denying that your claims are BELIEFS and yet you admit the fact that the claims are not factual. :confused:
My statements are perfectly correct. I do not claim anything to be the "one and only truth".
I acknowledge the limitations of our knowledge. Where reality fades into subjective thinking.
Unlike a theist like you, who seems to think that if you yell loud and long enough - and be intolerant enough - you can force others to accept your own unsupported religious claims as correct. However take it from me : that does not work !

The only proper way a theist can support his/her subjective religious claims is by being an example of what he/she believes. Your attitude so far on this board has already made many questioning the principles and intentions of that what you are standing for.

:rolleyes:

Already before I told you that you have no idea of what OBJECTIVE means ! Look it up !

Objective evidence- Information based on facts that can be proved through analysis, measurement, and observation

Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective criticased on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal

Based on that definition I am yet to see any OBJECTIVE evidence from you. You have not provided anything observable or factual evidence for the Big Bang and yet you continue to claim there is objective factual evidence for it. No more theoretical babble please. If you want me stop calling your claims BELIEFS, please give me factual objective evidence.


My statements are perfectly correct. I do not claim anything to be the "one and only truth".

Niether has anyone here... I believe the Bible is absolute Truth By Faith. You Believe the Big Bang is true By FAITH.



I acknowledge the limitations of our knowledge. Where reality fades into subjective thinking.

Therefore you should understand that your beliefs in the big bang are based on Faith not obseverble objective evidence.



Unlike a theist like you, who seems to think that if you yell loud and long enough - and be intolerant enough - you can force others to accept your own unsupported religious claims as correct. However take it from me : that does not work !

Nobody invited you to come on this religious forum, you came by your own will. So no one is forcing their beliefs on you.
You on the other hand, are the one who claims to be non religious and yet you are on a religious forum day in and day out trying to force & shove your beliefs down religious people's throats. Why don't you spend more time on non religious subjects like politics parenting yardwork or something? We theists are not interested in your Athiestic views and beliefs, so please just stop trying to convert us to your faith. We are NOT interested. Sorry


The only proper way a theist can support his/her subjective religious claims is by being an example of what he/she believes. Your attitude so far on this board has already made many questioning the principles and intentions of that what you are standing for.

Again if our Beliefs here offend you, please just end your frustration by unsubscribing from the religious forum.

Based on that definition i am yet to see any OBJECTIVE evidence from you. You have not provided anything observable or factual evidence for the Big Bang ...
There is amply objective supporting evidence available on the Internet and in thousands of books, peer reports, and other publications that confirm the universe being increasingly expanding. Reversing that "film" leads to the valid conclusion that the entire universe originated from one single point, about 14.3 Billion years ago. (The earliest moments of that process of expansion is popular called the "Big Bang").
There are also many other scientific findings that support that same conclusion.
What we do not know is why that point expanded into what we call today "the universe".

That you do not accept the theory is your problem. That you just keep believing in God is just fine with me. Just do not claim it is the "one and only truth", and that it has any influence on - or consequence for - my life, unless you can prove that with objective supported evidence !

As I warned you before : I refuse to react to all parts of your frequently much-too-long reactions full with unsupported babble and wild claims.

Note that the argument has never been the origin of the Big Bang or Evolution. You started that.
The real argument against "creation" has always been the validity of the essence of your religious claim : that there exists a deity called "God", and that this "God" deity is the "Creator".
Never ever has even the smallest iota of objective supported evidence for that wild claim been provided. I challenge you to provide that. I say you can not do so !

And that is why you have to attack views that are in opposition of your religious claims.
Because you seem to be afraid that they challenge all that you believe in.

:D

·

[
QUOTE=Credendovidis]There is amply objective supporting evidence available on the Internet and in thousands of books, peer reports, and other publications that confirm the universe being increasingly expanding. Reversing that "film" leads to the valid conclusion that the entire universe originated from one single point, about 14.3 Billion years ago. (The earliest moments of that process of expansion is popular called the "Big Bang").
There are also many other scientific findings that support that same conclusion.
What we do not know is why that point expanded into what we call today "the universe".

And there is also just as much objective supported evidence (available on line and in thousands of books) against the theory, so what? The bottom line is, it is not a FACT period and you believe it anyway. Which means you have faith in the theory.


That you do not accept the theory is your problem(?? :confused:) That you just keep believing in God is just fine with me. Just do not claim it is the "one and only truth", and that it has any influence on - or consequence for - my life, unless you can prove that with objective supported evidence !

Why are you trying to convince me to have the same belief you do?. lol You believe in Evo and the Big Bang, I Believe in Creation... so what? We do not have to believe in the same things. So stop trying to convince me that my beliefs are wrong and that yours are right because there is no proof of that wild claim. :rolleyes:

And there is also just as much objective supported evidence (available on line and in thousands of books) against the theory, so what? the bottom line is, it is not a FACT period and you believe it anyway. which means you have faith in the theory.
There is loads of OBJECTIVE supported evidence that the "Big Bang" happened, about 14.3 Billion years ago. That we do not know why it happened and have only partly an explanation how it happened has little influence on that it happened.


Why are you trying to convince me to have the same belief you do? You believe in Evo and the Big Bang, i Believe in Creation ... so what? we do not have to believe in the same things. So stop trying to convince me that my beliefs are wrong and that yours are right because there is no proof of that wild claim.
I am not trying to convince you at all. The difference between both Evolution and The "Big Bang" against the religious claim of Creation is that Evolution and The "Big Bang" are supported by OBJECTIVE supported evidence (i.e. both are real), against only subjective support for Creation, i.e. Creation is only supported by belief and nothing else.
Believe whatever you like to believe, just do not claim it to be the "truth", unless you can provide objective supported evidence for that !

:rolleyes:

·

So I am just curious... CRED.. since your name means "I believe it as soon as I see it".. how do you believe in love... or being loved.. since you can't see it or can't prove it.. does that mean it doesn't exist??
And if you don't think it exists, that doesn't make it true, it just makes it YOUR PERCEPTION of what YOU THINK is true..

You argue semantics about what has been proven by OBJECTIVE supportive evidence... yet we don't fully understandn NOR CAN WE PROVE 100%
How this universe really came to be in existence.. SO how you can you believe what you don't even have the facts or the evidence to prove its origination of our existence or the universe itself? IT is your belief based on your own faith in the evidence you have been given, nothing has been proven ,otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation. EVERYTHING IS RELATIVE..

So I am just curious... CRED.. since your name means "I believe it as soon as I see it".. how do you believe in love... or being loved.. since you can't see it or can't prove it.. does that mean it doesn't exist?????
And if you don't think it exists, that doesn't make it true, it just makes it YOUR PERCEPTION of what YOU THINK is true..

You argue semantics about what has been proven by OBJECTIVE supportive evidence... yet we don't fully understandn NOR CAN WE PROVE 100%
how this universe really came to be in existence .. SO how you can you believe what you don't even have the facts or the evidence to prove its origination of our existence or the universe itself?? IT is your belief based on your own faith in the evidence you have been given, nothing has been proven ,otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation. EVERYTHING IS RELATIVE ..\

Lol... I agree with you. Credo is a self contraction in himself. I think he just a little confused about his beliefs and ideals. :D

[QUOTE=Credendovidis]There is loads of OBJECTIVE supported evidence that the "Big Bang" happened, about 14.3 Billion years ago. That we do not know why it happened and have only partly an explanation how it happened has little influence on that it happened.


FYI that 14.3 billion date is nothing but a wild guess.. lol there is no way to prove it. But you believe it anyway so you have faith. in the unknown... So much for your name... :rolleyes:


I am not trying to convince you at all. The difference between both Evolution and The "Big Bang" against the religious claim of Creation is that Evolution and The "Big Bang" are supported by OBJECTIVE supported evidence (i.e. both are real), against only subjective support for Creation, i.e. Creation is only supported by belief and nothing else.
Believe whatever you like to believe, just do not claim it to be the "truth", unless you can provide objective supported evidence for that !

There is no conclusive irrefutable evidence for niether so stop trying to shove your beliefs down everyone's throat by trying to claim your beliefs are true and have evidence. In reality it is just a thoery that you happen to invest a lot of FAITH in... :rolleyes:

FYI that 14.3 billion date is nothing but a wild guess..l
I stated ABOUT 14.3 Billion. Not 14.3 Billion.
As far as scientific dating technology is concerned : it may not be 100% precise, but it's a lot more accurate than the dating technique used by your buddies of the "Creation Research Institute" and/or "A-in-G" with their approx. 6300 years - a number that is frankly totally ludicrous !

:D :D :D :D :D

·

[QUOTE=Credendovidis]I stated ABOUT 14.3 Billion. Not 14.3 Billion

Lol.. But what you don't know is that the earth was dated at 70 million years to begin with then I was changed to billions convieniently to make evolution feasible. The earth could be 500 trillion years old or 6000 years old.. NO ONE KNOWS and there is no way to know.
The reason carbon dating comes up with the billion year dates is because they first ASSUME it is in the Billions as a premise, but they have no way of proving it. Pure Guess work. That all you can do :)


As far as scientific dating technology is concerned : it may not be 100% precise, but it's a lot more accurate than the dating technique used by your buddies of the "Creation Research Institute" and/or "A-in-G" with their approx. 6300 years - a number that is frankly totally ludicrous !


I frankly think the earth is 5 thousand Trillion years... lol That's my guess and it is as good as the scientists' guess.. :D

If the Atheist would spend as much time in Bible study as he spends in argument, he could then write a book disproving the Bible. Be aware, though. Several have set out to do so and have become convinced that the Bible really is true! Voltaire tried, Ingersoll tried, Lew Wallace tried. Are you smarter than they were?

If the Atheist would spend as much time in Bible study as he spends in argument, he could then write a book disproving the Bible. Be aware, though. Several have set out to do so and have become convinced that the Bible really is true! Voltaire tried, Ingersoll tried, Lew Wallace tried. Are you smarter than they were?

Yes even lee Stroble was a zealous athiestic journalist who set out to dispove the Bible and yet now he is a Strong Christian who travels around the world preaching the Good News! :)

[QUOTE]
The reason carbon dating comes up with the billion year dates is because they first ASSUME it is in the Billions as a premise, but they have no way of proving it. Pure Guess work. That all you can do :)
:D

SassyT,

This right here proves you know nothing about science and why you think it's all mumbo jumbo. Maybe if you spent as much time learning, as you do arguing. You would learn why scientist think what they do.

FYI carbon dating only goes back 40k to 65k years. You can't carbon date anything older than that.

But what you dont know is that the earth was dated at 70 million years to begin with then it was changed to billions convieniently to make evolution feasible.
The essence of science is checking and - where and when necessary - updating the data to the latest available supporting data.
With Christianity trying to keep a lid on science for many hundreds of years, it is no wonder that time dating had to be corrected several times, each time getting more precise...
That stated : Christian fanatics still believe in their approx. 6.300 years...


The earth could be 500 trillion years old or 6000 years old.. NO ONE KNOWS and there is no way to know.
Not correct. We know 100% sure that the Christian fanatics' claim of 6.300 years is totally ludicrous.


The reason carbon dating comes up with the billion year dates is because they first ASSUME it is in the Billions as a premise, but they have no way of proving it. Pure Guess work. That all you can do
I have told you before : carbon dating can not exceed a short hundred thousand years. Above that other dating techniques take over. Up to Billions of years. Accurate dating with a margin of several percentage points.
You should know that, as you claimed to have a scientific degree in biology. Not that your words and your way of thinking confirm that claim... Where and when did you say you got your degree?


i frankly think the earth is 5 thousand Trillion years...lol Thats my guess and it is as good as the scientists' guess
Aaaahhh : so your approx. 6.300 years are just like the Genesis days... I see !

sassyT : just as all other little girls you should not play with big words which you clearly do not understand. Each reply you post further supports the idea that you have no idea what you are talking about...

:rolleyes:

·

Originally Posted by sassyT
I frankly think the earth is 5 thousand Trillion years... lol That's my guess and it is as good as the scientists' guess

Originally posted by Cred0
Aaaahhh : so your approx. 6.300 years are just like the Genesis days... I see !

?? She stated "I frankly think the earth is 5 thousand Trillion years so how is it just like the 6.300 years like Genesis?

I know I am not good at math BUT

Many people believe in the gap theory and that is what I believe basically.

sassyT .... she stated "I frankly think the earth is 5 thousand Trillion years" .... so how is it just like the 6.300 years like Genesis?
If you spend more attention to what is posted on the discussion boards than on babbling here, you would know that sassyT as creationist claims that the earth is approx. 6.300 years old.

:rolleyes:

·

Oh gee where is my babbling on this post?
Gee where did I came up with her saying "I frankly think the earth is 5 thousand Trillion years"

oh gee where is my babbling on this post? Gee where did I came up with her saying "I frankly think the earth is 5 thousand Trillion years"
You proved my point, Linda !

:rolleyes:

·

Haha

kt123456's original question was :

"The story of creation (gen 1-2:4). what does the passage mean to its original viewers?"

===

I assume kt meant the original writer of that Bible book, and not those who are visiting this website...


Genesis 1:1 - 2:4

1-1 : In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, 2the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.

3Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. 4And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. 5God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.

6And God said, “Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” 7So God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome. And it was so. 8God called the dome Sky. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.

9And God said, “Let the waters under the sky be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so. 10God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good. 11Then God said, “Let the earth put forth vegetation: plants yielding seed, and fruit trees of every kind on earth that bear fruit with the seed in it.” And it was so. 12The earth brought forth vegetation: plants yielding seed of every kind, and trees of every kind bearing fruit with the seed in it. And God saw that it was good. 13And there was evening and there was morning, the third day.

14And God said, “Let there be lights in the dome of the sky to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years, 15and let them be lights in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth.” And it was so. 16God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars. 17God set them in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth, 18to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day.

20And God said, “Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the dome of the sky.” 21So God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, of every kind, with which the waters swarm, and every winged bird of every kind. And God saw that it was good. 22God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” 23And there was evening and there was morning, the fifth day.

24And God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures of every kind: cattle and creeping things and wild animals of the earth of every kind.” And it was so. 25God made the wild animals of the earth of every kind, and the cattle of every kind, and everything that creeps upon the ground of every kind. And God saw that it was good.

26Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.” 27So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. 28God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.”

29God said, “See, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food. 30And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.” And it was so.

31God saw everything that he had made, and indeed, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.

2-1 : Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all their multitude. 2And on the seventh day God finished the work that he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all the work that he had done. 3So God blessed the seventh day and hallowed it, because on it God rested from all the work that he had done in creation.

4These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created. In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,



All what can be said about that meaning is that it most probably was intended as an explanation (anno approx. -2000) of the origin of everything by a person who had not been trained at any university (!) in astronomy nor cosmology nor biology.
But as Christians claim that the writer was guided by "God", it seems to indicate that - in the light of today's scientific knowledge - either "God's" guidance was not functioning very well, or that "God" neither had any idea how it all happened...

:rolleyes:

·

As a creationaist, I have said repeatedly that the Bible makes absolutely NO statement that requires us to believe that Earth is 6300 years old, or ANY certain length of time in age. Some do teach the 6,000 years or so, but I challenge them to show scripture supporting it. The record simply says "In the beginning---" which can be as far back as you might desire. Atheists use this assumption to discredit the Bible, when all that is faulty is man's understanding of it.
Which part of the Bible don't you believe? The history, poetry, or prophecy?

I agree. The Bible does not specify that there was absolutely nothing before the 6 day creation that I can find. In fact BEFORE the six day creation Genesis states the earth was without form and void. Makes it sound like the 6 day creation was a sort of phase two.

6 day creation proves that what is stated within the 6 day creation would be 6300 years old
By dating the amount of years/generations according to the Bible but that does not prove the earth itself is only 6300 years old if there was a two phase creation.

That is why I believe the concept of the gap theory.

As a creationaist, I have said repeatedly that the Bible makes absolutely NO statement that requires us to believe that Earth is 6300 years old....
Your co-creationist sassyT claims the earth to be approx. 6300 years old. I did not do that.
Science teaches me that the earth is approx. 4.300.000.000 years old.
All I did was reply to the original question by kt123456 :
"The story of creation (gen 1-2:4). what does the passage mean to its original viewers?"

:rolleyes:

·

As a creationaist, I have said repeatedly that the Bible makes absolutely NO statement that requires us to believe that Earth is 6300 years old, or ANY certain length of time in age. Some do teach the 6,000 years or so, but I challenge them to show scripture supporting it. The record simply says "In the beginning---" which can be as far back as you might desire. Atheists use this assumption to discredit the Bible, when all that is faulty is man's understanding of it.
Which part of the Bible don't you believe? The history, poetry, or prophecy?


Lol.. I agree with you 100% the earth could be 500 trillion years old for all we know. NO ONE KNOWS. That's my guess. A scientist's GUESS is as good as mine. :D

i agree with you 100% the earth could be 500 trillion years old for all we know. NO ONE KNOWS. A scientist's GUESS is as good as mine. :D
Incorrect and misleading !
1 - You previously have stated that you agree with the young earth creationists claim of 6300 years.
2 - The earth can not be 500 Trillion years old, as our universe is at max. 14.5 Billion years old.
3 - The age of the earth - based on scientific data and objective supported evidence - is approx. 4,3 Billion years.
.....It's not a scientist's guess.
4 - No your guess is not as good as the age mentioned under point 3.

:rolleyes:

·

Incorrect and misleading !
1 - You previously have stated that you agree with the young earth creationists claim of 6300 years.
2 - The earth can not be 500 Trillion years old, as our universe is at max. 14.5 Billion years old.
3 - The age of the earth - based on scientific data and objective supported evidence - is approx. 4,3 Billion years.
.....It's not a scientist's guess.
4 - No your guess is not as good as the age mentioned under point 3.

:rolleyes:

·

You BELIEVE the universe is 14.5 billion years.

I believe it is 5000 Trillion years old or more.

Your guess is a good as mine.. ;)

No your guess isn't as good as someone who has evidence. That's like saying is the sky green? Your guess is as good as mine. Your guess from inside your church isn't as good as the one of the guy standing in the field looking at the sky.

You BELIEVE the universe is 14.5 billion years. I believe it is 5000 Trillion years old or more. your guess is a good as mine..
1 - I ALWAYS state APPROX. 14,3 Billion years. And I do not BELIEVE that.
2 - That period is objectively supported by scientific measurements, freely available in the public domain.
3 - So far you have NEVER provided a single good reason why that 14,3 Billion years is incorrect.
4 - The 5000 Trillion years period you mention is totally ludicrous, and is not supported at all.
5 - Of course you may believe that, but your suggestion - like so many of your suggestions - lacks any validity.

As always your approach shows your lack of any scientific understanding, reason once more for me to ask you where and when you got the degree you claim to have received in Biology.

:D :D :D :D :D

·

No your guess isn't as good as someone who has evidence. Thats like saying is the sky green? Your guess is as good as mine. Your guess from inside your church isn't as good as the one of the guy standing in the field looking at the sky.

What evidence?. lol It is not the same as saying the sky is green because the sky being blue is an irrefutable verifiable FACT. Radio dating however employs at least 5 assuptions that can not be verified as true.

So I could also come up with my own dating model and give "evidence" for my 500 trillion theory using my own unverifiable ASSUMPTIONS.

If you really think that way, why don't you write a paper about it and when your paper gets published use it to laugh at the scientific community. You're a college student you should have the knowledge of how to get a paper published. I would actually applaud your efforts if you got the paper published because that would show that we have a serious flaw in way we conduct science.

However, if you actually studied something Sassy you would know that there is more evidence for the date of the universe that what you call "radio dating". You would rather argue out of ignorance though. The big bang isn't an easy idea to wrap your head around.
Here is a good place to start to get why we think the big bang is currently the best model for the formation of our universe
Frequently Asked Questions in Cosmology (http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#BBevidence)
I know you won't read it because it's the work of the devil but maybe someone who is on the fence and thinks you have good points will read it and realise that you don't.

[QUOTE=michealb]If you really think that way, why don't you write a paper about it and when your paper gets published use it to laugh at the scientific community. You're a college student you should have the knowledge of how to get a paper published. I would actually applaud your efforts if you got the paper published because that would show that we have a serious flaw in way we conduct science

Why would I laugh at the scientific community..? Its not like they don't already know that there are unverifiable assumptions used as premise in dating the universe/earth. They already know that!. lol Its only athiestic zealots like Credo who are so desperate for it to be true that they are willing to ignore the fact that the assuptions used as a premise could very well be inaccurate. You take the leap of faith that these assuptions are correct despite the fact that it is impossible to verify them. A leap of FAITH I am not willing to take.


However, if you actually studied something Sassy you would know that there is more evidence for the date of the universe that what you call "radio dating". You would rather argue out of ignorance though. The big bang isn't an easy idea to wrap your head around.
Here is a good place to start to get why we think the big bang is currently the best model for the formation of our universe
Frequently Asked Questions in Cosmology (http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#BBevidence)

Michealb, I am not ignorant of the Big Bang theory, I know the ins and outs of it. I have studied it. I just don't Believe it is true. There is a difference between knowing about it and actually believing it is true. There are many scientific problems with the theory which I believe, make the theory impossible and I am not alone on that, many scientists share the same opinion.
On the websit you posted one of the first sentences was "The evidence for the Big Bang comes from many pieces of observational data that are consistent with the Big Bang. None of these prove the Big Bang, since scientific theories are not proven."

So why are you so eager to convince me to believe in something that has not been proven to be true. It is just a theory. I can find literally thousands of scientific websites and journals that refute this theory.
Last time I checked Believing in The big bang theory is not a prerequisite to becoming a scientist. So I don't know why you equate my disbeliefe its validity with my not being a science student. :rolleyes:



I know you won't read it because it's the work of the devil but maybe someone who is on the fence and thinks you have good points will read it and realise that you don't.

You are right I will not read work of the devil... :mad: but you posted it anyway didn't you?
Just kidding:D
I did read your link and it is not anything I don't already know. I has not been proven true, therefore I do not believe it to be true.

Finish out the quote Sassy instead of taking things out of context.

"The evidence for the Big Bang comes from many pieces of observational data that are consistent with the Big Bang. None of these prove the Big Bang, since scientific theories are not proven. Many of these facts are consistent with the Big Bang and some other cosmological models, but taken together these observations show that the Big Bang is the best current model for the Universe."

It's not a matter of accepting it as true or not it's a matter of theories that fit with evidence because even if these theories are incorrect it going to be proven they are incorrect by someone who knows why the theories fit the evidences and why they were good theories to begin with.

[QUOTE=michealb]Finish out the quote Sassy instead of taking things out of context.

"The evidence for the Big Bang comes from many pieces of observational data that are consistent with the Big Bang. None of these prove the Big Bang, since scientific theories are not proven. Many of these facts are consistent with the Big Bang and some other cosmological models, but taken together these observations show that the Big Bang is the best ??? current model for the Universe."

It is the "best" model according to this authors opninion
The fact still remains that there are many scientific problems with model and it has not been proven!

You BELIEVE the universe is 14.5 billion years.
No I don't believe that. Science provides excellent evidence for the universe to be around that age.

5000 Trillion years or 6.300 years shows how poor your scientific knowledge actually is.
Specially for someone who claimed repeatedly to have a degree in Biology...

:D :rolleyes: :p ;) :D

·

[QUOTE=Credendovidis]No I don't believe that. Science provides excellent evidence for the universe to be around that age.

Yeah! Evidence that is based on 5 ASSUMPTIONS... lol So you BELIEVE in that 14.3 billion age despite the fact that it based on several unproven premises. :rolleyes:


5000 Trillion years or 6.300 years shows how poor your scientific knowledge actually is.
Specially for someone who claimed repeatedly to have a degree in Biology...

It shows that I dont just BELIEVE stuff that is based on unproven assuptions. Like I said before my 5000 trillion guess is as good as your 14.3 billion guess.:)

Yeah! evidence that is based on 5 ASSUMPTIONS... So you BELIEVE in that 14.3 billion age despite the fact that it based on several unproven premises.
You don't seem to understand the moronic content of these words, specially in view of your total acceptance of - and faith in - some invisible deity whose existence is not support at all, other than by religious wild claims... :D


It shows that i dont just BELIEVE stuff that is based on unproven assuptions. Like i said before my 5000 trillion guess is as good as your 14.3 billion guess.:)
Again :
You don't seem to understand the moronic content of these words, specially in view of your total acceptance of - and faith in - some invisible deity whose existence is not support at all, other than by religious wild claims... :D

·

:rolleyes: :p ;)

·

You don't seem to understand the moronic content of these words, specially in view of your total acceptance of - and faith in - some invisible deity whose existence is not support at all, other than by religious wild claims .... :D


Again :
You don't seem to understand the moronic content of these words, specially in view of your total acceptance of - and faith in - some invisible deity whose existence is not support at all, other than by religious wild claims .... :D

·

·

Lol... Again you don't seem to understand that I know my beliefs rely on faith because there is no 100% factual evidence for them. And I am rational enough to admit this. The problem is you refuse to acknowledge the fact that your BELIEFS are not facts and therefore rely on FAITH like just like mine. The sooner your come to terms with this reality, the a sooner I will stop confronting you for evidence. ;)

The problem is you refuse to acknowledge the fact that your BELIEFS are not facts and therefore rely on FAITH like just like mine.
The problem is you refuse to accept that facts never can be part of BELIEF , and that all you have to show is FAITH in your religious and unsupported wild claims.

You may sometime become a real biologist, if you no longer waste your (and our) time on this board with your nonsense, but put your nose in your books and start studying hard !

:D :rolleyes: :p ;) :D

·

I know this may be a bit late but when I read it and seen it was not addressed I had to take a stab at it.

Sassy Wrote


lol.. Credo you are making a purely subjective claims here. What evidence do you have that the Bible is "just stories".
The Bible is actually a valid historical document. Its historicity has been proven to be consistent with other Historical Documents that have been found. I will give you one example.. It is a historical fact that the Isrealites were held in captivity by the Egyptians as stated in the Book of Exodus. There isrecord of this on Ancient Egptian papyrus written by Egyptians at that time. As a matter of fact, the Egptians even wrote about a series of calamities that Egypt experienced that are consistent with the Bible's account of the 7 Plagues of Egypt sent by God. The Egyptians even wrote about their rivers turning to Blood just like the Bible states.
Read this like on the encyclopedia, particularly the section on Historicity...
Plagues of Egypt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


First I have to ask if you even read the whole thing? That page from the wik does little for your argument.

Here is a better link if anyone is interested in some real history.

The Israelite Exodus from Egypt (http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/egyptexodus.htm)

First I have to ask if you even read the whole thing?? That page from the wik does little for your argument.
The point is not if in the Bible some correct stories can be found. I assume there are indeed some historically more or less correct stories in it.

The essence of the Bible is the real point : are the Biblical claims of the existence of a supra-natural deity called "God", and of that "God" being the "Creator" valid ?
The answer to that is : no there is nothing in the Bible to VALIDATE these claims. Validate as in objective supporting evidence and as in scientific proof.

Religion is based on belief and faith only. And no Bible or Kuran or Vedas can change anything to that.

:rolleyes:

·

[QUOTE=Credendovidis]The problem is you refuse to accept that facts never can be part of BELIEF , and that all you have to show is FAITH in your religious and unsupported wild claims.

Lol there you go again with your wild claim. So your belief is in a Big Bang that created all we see today is fact?
Factual evidence please :rolleyes:


You may sometime become a real biologist, if you no longer waste your (and our) time on this board with your nonsense, but put your nose in your books and start studying hard !

I have ample time to study because unlike you, I am not on this site 24 hours a day even at odd hours of the night. I work at my University library part time during the day so that's why I can afford the time to discuss religion on line. At least I am getting paid while I am on this forum. :D
You on the other hand are just wasting your time arguing about something you find as ridiculous as the boogeyman. :rolleyes:

I know this may be a bit late but when I read it and seen it was not addresed I had to take a stab at it.

Sassy Wrote



First I have to ask if you even read the whole thing?? That page from the wik does little for your argument.

Here is a better link if anyone is interested in some real history.

The Israelite Exodus from Egypt (http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/egyptexodus.htm)

I don't believe in online conspiracy theories that deny historical events. I bet this same site you posted will also deny that the Holocaust happened. :rolleyes:

So your belief is in a Big Bang that created all we see today is fact? Factual evidence please
As has been stated to you by many and repeatedly : I do not believe in a Big Bang.
I have always stated clearly that all scientific findings point out that some 14.3 Billion years a super fast expansion of space/time took place during a very short time interval, something that popularly received the name `the Big Bang´. I have never claimed anything else.
And no : the `Big Bang´ did not create all we see today. Why do you suggest that ?


At least i am getting paid while i am on this forumFine for you! I do not need a pay check. I pay people their salaries.

:D ;) :p :rolleyes: :D

·

I do not believe in a Big Bang.



·

Good! I don't believe in a big bang too, I think it is a hoax
We have something incommon! :p


So why are we even arguing? :confused:

;)

Fine for you! I do not need a pay check. I pay people their salaries.


·

Considering that you are on a religious forum 24 7, I would emagine you probably don't have time to run a business, what do you have employees for? Did you hire people to do all the stuff you should be doing like spending time with your family, friends, reading, working out, doing something constructive with your life... instead of harassing people on religious forums. :rolleyes:

I dont believe in a big bang too, i think it is a hoax
You believe in something much wilder : you believe that there is a so far invisible deity that has supra-natural powers, that always existed, and that created the universe some 6.300 years ago in 6 days. The Big Bang thesis is not a hoax. It is a good representation of many scientific findings that are perfectly cross referencing. The deity story you believe in is without any objective support, and lacking any probability, i.e. it is almost certainly is a hoax.

As has been stated to you by many and repeatedly : I do not believe in a Big Bang.
I have always stated clearly that all scientific findings point out that some 14.3 Billion years a super fast expansion of space/time took place during a very short time interval, something that popularly received the name `the Big Bang´. I have never claimed anything else.

I repeat : the `Big Bang´ did not create all we see today. Why do you suggest that ? Can you please answer that question ?


Considering that you are on a religous (religious) forum 24 7, i would emagine (imagine) you probably dont have time to run a business, what do you have employees for?I do no longer run a business. I sold my companies when I retired two years ago.


Did you .... instead of harrasing (harassing) people on religious forums.
I do not harass anyone. But you do, with your lies, your twisting of words, your intolerance, your bigotry, and your pseudo-educated babble that is an insult even to those with a below average IQ...

:)

·

N0 God
N0 big bang

What do YOU believe brought us into existence??
Or should I say what is YOUR scientific theory that brought the universe into existence?
WHY CAN'T YOU answer that?

[QUOTE=Credendovidis]
I repeat : the `Big Bang´ did not create all we see today. Why do you suggest that ? Can you please answer that question ?

Like I said... I agree with you! The big bang did nothing. It is non existent.. lol


I do no longer run a business. I sold my companies when I retired two years ago.


So you have dedicated your retirement years to harassing people young enough to be your grand kids on religious forums?. nice

Hmmm if he sold his business two years ago who is he paying and for what??

So you have dedicated your retirement years to harassing people young enough to be your grand kids on religious forums?
Besides the empty space between your ears, you now also show to have a plate before your eyes.
I have repeatedly replied to you that I do not harass people. You do that with your lies, your twisting of words, your intolerance, your bigotry, and your pseudo-educated babble that is an insult even to those with a below average IQ...

:rolleyes:

·

N0 God No big bang What do YOU believe brought us into existence?
Nobody knows what precisely caused the universe to appear. But that does not support the wild religious claim of the God deity... That claim is a primitive man's presentation of how the universe appeared. I prefer the explanation supported by 21' Century science...

:rolleyes:

·

Like I said I am not saying it does support the claims
I am sure you must have some idea of how we got here
But you never want to say what your ideas are.

Like I said I am not saying it does support the claims
I am sure you must have some idea of how we got here
but you never want to say what your ideas are.
I stated that nobody knows what precisely caused the universe to appear.
Why do you need any other answer ? Why do you insist on a nonsensical explanation involving a so far invisible deity with supra-natural capacities and a strange interest in my and your sex life?

:p

·

I have never asked you or anybody for explanations of an invinsible deity.
I never had any strange interest in your sex life either. As I recall you were the one always boosting about that.

I have never asked you or anybody for explanations of an invinsible deity.
Invinsible? Invisible : so far nobody has ever seen God. So if she exist she must be invisible !


I never had any strange interest in your sex life either. As I recall you were the one always boosting about that.
I never boast about my sex life. All I told here is that I have 3 children and six grandchildren (so far). You call that boasting?

:D ;) :p :rolleyes: :D

·

Invinsible? Invisible : so far nobody has ever seen God. So if she exist she must be invisible !

That is your conclusion (belief?) because you don't know God could be living on Venus for all anybody knows AND have a visible body.

LOL on answerway you went on about how great your sex life was, not detail but that it was great.

That is your conclusion (belief?) because you don't know God could be living on Venus for all anybody knows AND have a visible body.
Reason why I stated : "If she exist" .
One more : READ and PROCESS what I post and only than react with more than the babble you produce now...

:rolleyes:

·

Read and comprehend what I am saying only THEN reply

Read and comprehend what I am saying only THEN reply
All you do is babbling...

:rolleyes:

·

You must really enjoy my *babble* since you have 10 yrs of it on hard disc

hmmm if he sold his business two years ago who is he paying and for what????


Hmmm good question Nohelp. I wonder... his statements are always very incosistant.

Nobody knows what precisely caused the universe to appear. But that does not support the wild religious claim of the God deity .... That claim is a primitive man's presentation of how the universe appeared. I prefer the explanation supported by 21' Century science ...·

So you BELIEVE in the CLAIMS made by Darwinists and Big Bang theorisers (which I must add are NOT SCIENCE) and we believe in the claims made by the Bible.
Niether have been irrefutably proven.

So what makes you better than us?

So you BELIEVE in the CLAIMS made by Darwinists and Big Bang theorisers
No I don't. And I never did believe in these. I accept the objective supporting evidence provided as a frame guideline to what really happened so long ago (and what still is happening today).

You know that very well, but you seem to have run out of any other argument , I see.
So you refer to lying and misrepresentation, although you know that you are doing that.

It's called hypocrisy and bigotry...

:rolleyes:

·

No I don't. And I never ??did believe in these. I accept the objective supporting evidence provided as a frame guideline to what really happened so long ago (and what still is happening today).

·

Mmm... This is a very contradicting statement. You claim you don't believe but in the same breath you say you accept the evidence. :rolleyes:

mmm...This is a very contradicting statement. You claim you dont believe but in the same breath you say you accept the evidence.
You suggested originally :
So you BELIEVE in the CLAIMS made by Darwinists and Big Bang theorisersTo which I reacted :

No I don't. And I never did believe in these. I accept the objective supporting evidence provided as a frame guideline to what really happened so long ago (and what still is happening today).
So what I stated was actually : "No I don't BELIEVE in the CLAIMS made by Darwinists and Big Bang theorisers".

And please note that I also made a qualification (I know this seems very hard for you to do, but still try to read and digest what I stated) : I introduced the term "frame guideline".

"I accept the objective supporting evidence provided as a frame guideline to what really happened so long ago".

So I accept the (scientific) evidence as a frame guideline to what happened.
I did not state that I believe this way or that. I did not state that the (scientific) evidence is 100%. The frame guideline is accepted. The main lines are accepted. Evolution as a proper explanation for evolution, or the Big Bang as a proper explanation for the Origin of the Universe.

So there is nothing contradicting in that statement at all.

:D :D :D :D :D

·

You suggested originally : To which I reacted :

So what I stated was actually : "No I don't BELIEVE in the CLAIMS made by Darwinists and Big Bang theorisers".

And please note that I also made a qualification (I know this seems very hard for you to do, but still try to read and digest what I stated) : I introduced the term "frame guideline".

"I accept the objective supporting evidence provided as a frame guideline to what really happened so long ago".

So I accept the (scientific) evidence as a frame guideline to what happened.
I did not state that I believe this way or that. I did not state that the (scientific) evidence is 100%. The frame guideline is accepted. The main lines are accepted. Evolution as a proper explanation for evolution, or the Big Bang as a proper explanation for the Origin of the Universe.

So there is nothing contradicting in that statement at all.


·

:rolleyes:

...
Yes... Difficult to argue my previous last post (#115)
Has mental sanity finally arrived ?

:rolleyes:

·

Yes ... Difficult to argue my previous last post (#115)
Has mental sanity finally arrived ?

:rolleyes:

·

You are just contradicting and reppeating yourself you are just starting to sound like an old broken record. :rolleyes:

You are just contradicting and reppeating yourself you are just starting to sound like an old broken record.
And your post are becoming dumber and dumber...
Note that I do not "reppeat" myself. I do not even repeat myself.

You ran out of sane comments already a long time ago.
Now you seem to have run out of any argumentation also, sassyT!!

:D :rolleyes: :p ;) :D

·

And your post are becoming dumber and dumber ....
Note that I do not "reppeat" myself. I do not even repeat myself.

You ran out of sane comments already a long time ago.
Now you seem to have run out of any argumentation also, sassyT !!!



·

What argument?. lol all I am waiting for is evidence for your BELIEFS. I am getting tired of waiting. You haven't given any O.S.E for your beliefs. :rolleyes:

I see sassyT just tries to re-write what she posted herself...


You are just contradicting and reppeating yourself you are just starting to sound like an old broken record.
Reaction to that statement by Credendovidis :

And your posts are becoming dumber and dumber ....
Note that I do not "reppeat" myself. I do not even repeat myself.
You ran out of sane comments already a long time ago.
Now you seem to have run out of any argumentation also, sassyT !!!
sassyT's comments :

what argument??..lol all i am waiting for is evidence for your BELIEFS. I am getting tired of waiting. You havent given any O.S.E for your beliefs.
Your own lacking "arguments" for almost all your posts on this board, sassyT.

And note that I told you already umpteen times that I do not have religious beliefs. And also that one can not BELIEVE in science. One can accept or reject the scientific objective supporting evidence. Believe you can only in subjects that have no objective support at all, like religious based subjects.

But as before - so nothing new - you refuse to accept that, and babble further about belief in scientific subjects...
How sad that someone who claims to have a degree in Biology (a scientific subject) does not understand the basics on how science operates, and still expects ever to obtain a higher degree...

:D

·

I see sassyT just tries to re-write what she posted herself ....


Reaction to that statement by Credendovidis :

sassyT's comments :

Your own lacking "arguments" for almost all your posts on this board, sassyT.

And note that I told you already umpteen times that I do not have religious beliefs. And also that one can not BELIEVE in science. One can accept or reject the scientific objective supporting evidence. Believe you can only in subjects that have no objective support at all, like religious based subjects.

But as before - so nothing new - you refuse to accept that, and babble further about belief in scientific subjects ....
How sad that someone who claims to have a degree in Biology (a scientific subject) does not understand the basics on how science operates, and still expects ever to obtain a higher degree .....



·

Again a Big Bang that created the Universe is not Science, niether is a mythical one creature that crawls out of a soup and morphs into every living thing we see today. :)

Sassy you can not believe IN science you can believe science though and Cred does not even comprehend that
So why not make it easier and use his terminology rather than going round and round and round and round on a simple yet complex word that you two can not even come to terms on?

He also has told you many times he does not XbelieveX accept the big bang either. As long as you insist that IS what he believes you are not going to get anywhere either so...
Your wasting your typing fingers.

He also has told you many times he does not XbelieveX accept the big bang either. .

He insists he does not believe or accept the Big Bang, but if anyone says anything contrary to the BB theory he starts to freak out and get all defensive about it. So I have a hard time believing he does not believe in the Big Bang.
However, if he does in fact not believe in the Big Bang he needs to tell us how he figures the universe came into existence.
He is just quick to lable other people's opinions and ideas as "beliefs", but he forgets his opinion on origins is also a belief.. because no one has yet been able to prove origin of the universe.
So we are all in the same boat. We all have different Beliefs about how the Universe came into being. Credo just needs to come to terms with this reality and I am willing to do what ever it takes to help him accept this Fact.

Again a Big Bang that created the Universe is not Science, niether is a mythical one creature that crawls out of a soup and morphs into every living thing we see today.
The "Big Bang" is a scientific thesis on the origin of the universe, and is supported by cross-supporting evidence from various fields. What we do not know is WHY it happened. But there is a good insight as to WHAT happened and WHEN.
And once more : there never was an explosion. That is just suggested by the popular name. The Big Bang was a short but extremely fast expansion of space-time about 14 Billion years ago.


He insists he does not believe or accept the Big Bang, but if anyone says anything contrary to the BB theory he starts to freak out and get all defensive about it.
I accept the scientific findings that lead to the conclusion that there was a BB (see above for the description). And NO I do not freak out to anyone who likes to propose a scientific based alternative to the BB : feel free to do so. But do not try to propose a religious based belief claim as argument. I do object to hot air arguments.
You have been asked many times before to provide proper arguments, but so far you failed to provide any.


However, if he does infact not believe in the Big Bang he needs to tell us how he figures the universe came into existance.
The thesis is open and free to see on thousands of websites and books. I have provided you with that information many times before. That you prefer your wild religious claims is not my problem.


He is just quick to lable other people's opinions and ideas as "beliefs", but he forgets his opinion on origins is also a belief ... because no one has yet been able to prove origin of the universe.
Correct : nobody can prove that. There is no proof what-so-ever for the religious claim of creation. There is however a lot of objective supporting evidence for the basics of the BB thesis.



We all have different Beliefs about how the Universe came into being. Credo just needs to come to terms with this reality and i am willing to do what ever it takes to help him accept this Fact.
Not correct : not a fact ! You have your belief. I have science at my side. Not the same thing.

And once more : you may BELIEVE whatever you like. But that you BELIEVE that does not make it a reality nor factual!!

:rolleyes:

·

I have just looked up your supposed contradictions, they are not there, perhaps you should read the bible before you go quoting this nonsense.

I have just looked up your supposed contradictions, they are not there, perhaps you should read the bible before you go quoting this nonsense.
Please be more precise : which and who's supposed contradictions?

:rolleyes:

·

I accept the scientific findings that lead to the conclusion that there was a BB (see above for the description). There is however a lot of objective supporting evidence for the basics of the BB thesis.
Not correct : not a fact ! You have your belief. I have science at my side. Not the same thing.

And once more : you may BELIEVE whatever you like. But that you BELIEVE that does not make it a reality nor factual !!!

:rolleyes:

·

Now HOW many times have you claimed that you do not go by the big bang theory?
:rolleyes:

Credo,I'm sorry, I meant to put your name on the post, next time I will be more specific, Cheers.:)

Now HOW many times have you claimed that you do not go by the big bang theory??
Too many, because she won't accept that answer...

:)

·

I have just looked up your supposed contradictions, they are not there, perhaps you should read the bible before you go quoting this nonsense.
Please be more precise : which supposed contradictions?

:rolleyes:

·

[QUOTE=Credendovidis]The "Big Bang" is a scientific thesis on the origin of the universe, and is supported by cross-supporting evidence from various fields. What we do not know is WHY it happened. But there is a good insight as to WHAT[/B] happened and WHEN.I accept the scientific findings that lead to the conclusion that there was a BB (see above for the description).

I don't care how much so called "evidence" you claim there is, the bottom line is, it has NOT been proven factual. That so called evidence has been scientifically refuted many times. So it is just a theory based on conjectures.. and refutable "evidence". So you believe that is what happened because you have FAITH in unproven theories.

Originally Posted by Credendovidis
I accept the scientific findings that lead to the conclusion that there was a BB (see above for the description). There is however a lot of objective supporting evidence for the basics of the BB thesis.
Not correct : not a fact ! You have your belief. I have science at my side. Not the same thing.

And once more : you may BELIEVE whatever you like. But that you BELIEVE that does not make it a reality nor factual!!


My point was that you seem to contradict yourself by now stating that you accept the BB theory. Maybe you mean as one of different theories but looks like a contradiction here.
:rolleyes: :confused:

Originally Posted by Credendovidis
I accept (aka Believe) the scientific findings that lead to the conclusion that there was a BB (see above for the description). There is however a lot of objective supporting evidence for the basics of the BB thesis.
Not correct : not a fact ! You have your belief. I have science at my side. Not the same thing. ????
And once more : you may BELIEVE whatever you like. But that you BELIEVE that does not make it a reality nor factual!!

It is the same thing... lol
Religious claims on origins have not been proven
Big bang claims on origins have not been proven

So we are all in the same boat. Niether side can prove their claims as factual. So those who subscribe to either one, believe. I know it is hard for you to come to terms with this reality (why, I don't know) however I am going to remind you of this fact until you accept it. (even if it is never I will remind you anyway ;) )




My point was that you seem to contradict yourself by now stating that you accept the BB theory. Maybe you mean as one of different theories but looks like a contradiction here.

I know he just confuses me :confused:

Real quote of origin post by Credendovidis


I accept the scientific findings that lead to the conclusion that there was a BB (see above for the description).

I accept (aka Believe) the scientific findings that lead to the conclusion that there was a BB (see above for the description)
===
It is the same thing ... Religious claims on origins have not been proven. Big bang claims on origins have not been proven.
With the "aka Believe" remark you deliberately inserted in your "QUOTE" of my post , you show that you can not be trusted... You may claim whatever you like, but if you change and/or add-on to quotations, you confirm my opinion stated already several times on this board that you are a very unreliable discussion party. Someone who better be shunned... Not for her message, but for her unacceptable and unworthy behavior... Earlier it was lying about your degree, and now you are changing quotations... What next ?

Besides that : religious claims CAN NOT and NEVER WILL be proved !
The BB scientific thesis carries already for a major part objective supporting evidence, even including cross-evidence from various different fields.

So "we" are NOT on equal par ! Only those who subscribe to wild unsupported subjective claims believe!!
And the only one who can not come to terms with this reality is you!!

:rolleyes:

·

Real quote of origin post by Credendovidis



With the "aka Believe" remark you deliberately inserted in your "QUOTE" of my post , you show that you can not be trusted .... You may claim whatever you like, but if you change and/or add-on to quotations, you confirm my opinion stated already several times on this board that you are a very unreliable discussion party. Someone who better be shunned .... Not for her message, but for her unacceptable and unworthy behavior .... Earlier it was lying about your degree, and now you are changing quotations ..... What next ?

Besides that : religious claims CAN NOT and NEVER WILL be proved !
The BB scientific thesis carries already for a major part objective supporting evidence, even including cross-evidence from various different fields.

So "we" are NOT on equal par ! Only those who subscribe to wild unsupported subjective claims believe !!!
And the only one who can not come to terms with this reality is you !!!

:rolleyes:

·

Credo like I said in the other thred, my work with you is done. You have already admitted to having BELIEFS so case is closed. I am not going to argue with you anymore ;)

Credo like i said in the other thred, my work with you is done. You have already admitted to having BELIEFS so case is closed. I am not going to argue with you anymore
I have NEVER denied that I have beliefs. But religious beliefs are not one of these...

All you do is suggesting you "won" some kind of "match". Only problem with that is that there never was such a match!!

:D :D :D :D :D

·

I have NEVER denied that I have beliefs. But religious beliefs are not one of these ....

All you do is suggesting you "won" some kind of "match". Only problem with that is that there never was such a match !!!






LOL I had to explain to you HOW many times that there is a difference in believing something as accepting and Believe IN and you still insisted you have no beliefs but you do accept
So where do you get that you have NEVER denied that I have beliefs. But religious beliefs are not one of these... distinction?? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:


https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/religious-discussions/evolution-origin-universe-religion-236939-2.html#post1148394 post #16 on...

I have NEVER denied that I have beliefs. But religious beliefs are not one of these ....

All you do is suggesting you "won" some kind of "match". Only problem with that is that there never was such a match !!!



·

Like I said before Credo, My work here is done... My only goal in going after you on these threads was to have you confess in writing that you do indeed have BELIEFS. And you have done that, so apparently you are just like everyone else, YOU HAVE BELIEFS.

SO now I hope you can stop harassing people and making condescending remarks about people having "beliefs" because as you confessed yourself, you have beliefs too. So there is nothing special about you. We are all in the same boat buddy. ;) We all have beliefs, and there is nothing about your beliefs that make them better than mine or anyone else's.
I am glad you have come out of the closet because it was starting to get ridiculous. :rolleyes:

...so where do you get that you have NEVER denied ....
Thanks for this link : I repost it once more.

Religious Discussions » "Evolution" or "Origin of the Universe" and religion post 1148394 #16 (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/religious-discussions/evolution-origin-universe-religion-236939-2.html)

There is NOTHING in #16 about any other belief than religious.
I have never stated that I have no beliefs : For instance I believe that Obama will be a much more interesting US President than Bush ever was. And I believe that Barcelona is a better soccer team than Real Madrid. I have no proof for either statement, still I believe that.

But I do not believe in religious wild claims. And there is nothing else supporting religion than wild unsupported claims. That is not what I believe, but that is a conclusion from the lack of any objective support for religious claims, and the sidestepping by active theists when called for objective support , EVEN when their bluff is called ! Like Tj3 and sassyT!!

:D :D :D :D :D

·

I said #16 and on -meaning your posts and mine on the subject -->#16 ON
I specified I was not referring to religion and that I was referring to ANYTHING you believe and that it did not mean you believe IN whatever you believe but that you believe whatever as in accept. You still repeatedly denied that you have belief.

You replied:

One does not BELIEVE in science and it's findings. One accepts the scientific findings based on the objective supporting evidence on which these findings are based. So I say exactly the same as these "others".

I again made the distinction of believe/accept vs believe in as religion

And you denied it all the way through the thread.



I again

I specified I was not referring to religion and that I was referring to ANYTHING you believe and that it did not mean you believe IN whatever you believe but that you believe whatever as in accept. You still repeatedly denied that you have belief.
No. I did not. Your quotation does not state that. Nor did any of my other statements.
Why don't you PROVE that claim by posting a quote as to where I have ever stated not to believe at all ? All my statements to not believing always referred to religion, directly or indirectly. And THAT I have stated repeatedly and clearly.


You replied: One does not BELIEVE in science and it's findings. One accepts the scientific findings based on the objective supporting evidence on which these findings are based. So I say exactly the same as these "others".
WHERE in any of my statements did I explicitly state that I do not believe?
Repeatedly I have stated not to believe along religious lines, but never that I do not believe at all. That is perhaps one of your own silly conclusions.

:rolleyes:

·

Like i said before Credo, My work here is done... My only goal in going after you on these threads was to have you confess in writing that you do indeed have BELIEFS. And you have done that, so apparently you are just like everyone else, YOU HAVE BELIEFS.

SO now i hope you can stop harassing people and making condescending remarks about people having "beliefs" because as you confessed yourself, you have beliefs too. So there is nothing special about you. We are all in the same boat buddy. ;) We all have beliefs, and there is nothing about your beliefs that make them better than mine or anyone else's.
I am glad you have come out of the closet because it was starting to get ridiculous. :rolleyes:

Many people do not wish to acknowledge that evolution cannot be validated by the evidence, and is therefore a faith.

Many people do not wish to acknowledge that evolution cannot be validated by the evidence, and is therefore a faith.
Fortunately there is for the case of evolution ample support covering the great majority of all issues involving the theory. Only creationists are so far restricted in their own religious non-objective supported wild claims, that they can not bring themselves to accept that...

:D :rolleyes: :p ;) :D

·

Fortunately there is for the case of evolution ample support covering the great majority of all issues involving the theory. Only creationists are so far restricted in their own religious non-objective supported wild claims, that they can not bring themselves to accept that ...



·

Yes Credo we all know there is ample supported evidence for MICRO evolution of which Creation Scientists do not deny because it is an irrefutable fact. However there is NO , not even one piece, of evidence to support MACRO evolution which claims a mythical one cell creature which crawled out of soup is the mother of all living things. Meaning humans, fruit flies, carots, apples, grapes, hipos Girafes, corn, mice, palm trees, grass hoppers etc.. Are all cousins because we all share a common ancestor. There is no evidence that this is true. So it is by faith that people like you believe in Macro evolution. Unless you are willing to show me evidence that this pond and amoeba is the origin of all life on earth. Please feel free to provide evidence. ;)

Many people do not wish to acknowledge that evolution cannot be validated by the evidence, and is therefore a faith.


That right.

IF you have never stated that you have no beliefs it is because you jumped around the issue with your evasive tactics and your word games and have NEVER came out and said that you believe anything.

Fortunately there is for the case of evolution ample support covering the great majority of all issues involving the theory. Only creationists are so far restricted in their own religious non-objective supported wild claims, that they can not bring themselves to accept that ...

:D :rolleyes: :p ;) :D

·

Odd - I have asked you many times in the past to provide the evidence that you claim exists, and every time you have ignored the request.

Are you now ready to post evidence of evolution? What is the strongest piece of evidence - post it here and let's have a look.

Odd - I have asked you many times in the past to provide the evidence that you claim exists, and each and every time you have ignored the request.

Are you now ready to post evidence of evolution? What is the strongest piece of evidence - post it here and let's have a look.

Tjs3
He even did a post to cover that and then he turned it into just another battle of words without really answering.
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/religious-discussions/evolution-origin-universe-religion-236939.html

What If We All Just Agreed To Be Loving And Kind, Would It Matter If We Agree On What We Believe??

Christianity and Islam are both *political movements* and both are engaged in evil pursuits in the name of their god.

Decent people have to resist these two groups.

Christianity and Islam are both *political movements* and both are engaged in evil pursuits in the name of their god.

Decent people have to resist these two groups.

Well then,count me as a not"decent" person because I believe in my beliefs and believe them to be true. I embrace my faith with all my heart and being.

Christianity and Islam are both *political movements* and both are engaged in evil pursuits in the name of their god.

Decent people have to resist these two groups.

This is your subjective opinion, not fact.
So you are entitle to your own opinion.

Odd - I have asked you many times in the past to provide the evidence that you claim exists, and each and every time you have ignored the request.
And I have asked you over the last ten years many times to provide me with that list you by now claimed to have provided over 20 times : that list you suggest to contain objective proof for the Christian basics : the existence of God, and for God being the Creator !
(All you ever posted was a lame list of subjective supported religious claims ! )

Once you really have provided the list you CLAIM you can provide, I will - with pleasure - provide the list you asked me to supply...

:D :rolleyes: :p ;) :D

·

And I have asked you over the last ten years many times to provide me with that list you by now claimed to have provided over 20 times :

First, I never said anything about a list. I pointed out to you that you response to scientific evidence presented is always to deny that you have seen it, even when it is posted 20 times. Read more carefully!

If you would not admit seeing posts with scientific evidence, and iof you insist that magnetic compasses point East-West, then tell me why I should expect that you have changed?

Another sidestep, Toms777 ! And you know that. You also know that you claimed - even on this board - to have posted 20+ times (somewhere else) a list with objective supported evidence for several religious dogma's.


Really, John? What list is this?


Another lie for "the Lord", Tom Smith? Rather hypocrite to do so in your "spreading the word" activity...
And rather dumb from you to do so. After all these years I know you, so I kept a copy of my original words : very, very handy to show others your standard tricks...

Back into false accusations, John? I did not lie John. The question was whether a compas would point to North America from Israel, and you argued that it would. This has nothing to do with true vs magnetic north.

Since the rest of your post is just abusive, there is no need to respond further.

Closed