Trump crying about Stephen Curry... lol

The problem isn't linguistic, it's conceptual. You don't understand figurative language or how to analyze a text. A literature class would better cover those.

The Genesis account is not figurative. It is an attempted accounting of the literal creation of the universe. The old testament God rarely works in parable or metaphor, and not once does he do so within Genesis.

If the Genesis story is not a literal account, then the events Jesus was meant to fulfill never happened, making his mission a false one, and the Bible can be discarded.
 
Lol, good. Steph curry will now find himself in shit territory where he ain't dark enough to be a brotha, but ain't white enough for the white people. Wise decision, stephen.

Dat privilege doe.

 
We have mountains of scientific, genetic and geological proof that mammals came millions of years after reptiles. But no, I'm the close minded one.

Surely you are capable of addressing two points at once, right?

Why does god believe in astrology? Surely he's not that stupid, right?

Saying it is so doesn't make it true. You've made a claim, now it's time to back it. You can prove, Using the scientific method, that reptiles predate mammals? Go ahead, prove it.

I'm capable of arguing several points at once, but you've proven incapable of staying to task with one. You're afraid of detail which is why you created a list for me to address and then act like I'm avoiding it. We will get to your whole list if it takes a year. What's your rush? It almost seems you're not even Interested in having this discussion.

In good faith though...

You are wearied in the multitude of your counsels; let now the astrologers, the stargazers, and the monthly prognosticators stand up and save you from these things that shall come upon you. Behold they shall be as stubble, the fire shall burn them; they shall not deliver themselves from the power of the flame; it shall not be a coal to be warmed by, nor a fire to sit beside Isaiah 47: 14-15

The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands Psalm 19:1

exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen Romans 1:25

God clearly doesn't believe in astrology as humans have defined it. The stars are witness of God's crreation
 
Saying it is so doesn't make it true. You've made a claim, now it's time to back it. You can prove, Using the scientific method, that reptiles predate mammals? Go ahead, prove it.

I'm capable of arguing several points at once, but you've proven incapable of staying to task with one. You're afraid of detail which is why you created a list for me to address and then act like I'm avoiding it. We will get to your whole list if it takes a year. What's your rush? It almost seems you're not even Interested in having this discussion.

In good faith though...

You are wearied in the multitude of your counsels; let now the astrologers, the stargazers, and the monthly prognosticators stand up and save you from these things that shall come upon you. Behold they shall be as stubble, the fire shall burn them; they shall not deliver themselves from the power of the flame; it shall not be a coal to be warmed by, nor a fire to sit beside Isaiah 47: 14-15

The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands Psalm 19:1

exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen Romans 1:25

God clearly doesn't believe in astrology as humans have defined it. The stars are witness of God's crreation

On The fossil record, here is Biologos, a group of scientist christians

http://biologos.org/common-questions/scientific-evidence/fossil-record

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2013/02/ancestor-all-placental-mammals-revealed

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/meet-the-ancient-reptile-that-gave-rise-to-mammals/

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17453-timeline-the-evolution-of-life/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK230201/

http://science.nationalgeographic.com/science/prehistoric-world/rise-mammals/

https://www.thoughtco.com/the-first-mammals-1093311

https://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/fossils/succession.html

https://www.livescience.com/43295-triassic-period.html

http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/content.cfm?id=3114
Your refusal to address the majority of the point I brought up (while using terrible rationalization for the remainder) shows you to be the one unwilling to engage honestly.

It's weird, since the Bible is true in all of it's parts, and you have other books where he does not like astrology. It's almost as if God did not write these book, but they were written by ignorant men who did not know most of each other's writings, or even of each other period. Weird!!!

It's pretty simple. Astrology had been around long before the earliest Hebrew oral tales were being told. God clearly tells people that the stars are for signs, and you obfuscate and pretend as if God, who is not the author of confusion, is somehow muddled or confused in his wording.

Remember, it has taken days for you to rationalize away just a few mistakes your inerrant book makes. It has taken this long, and you have not even come even close to reconciling the errors in pages 1 and 2!!! What could you possibly hope to argue for when it comes to The Jews in Egypt, Jesus' birth, Jesus' death, and all the other errors from the book?

Your book cant even decide the order of creation for itself within the first couple pages.

1:25-26
And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Here God is creating man after beasts

2:18-19

And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

Here he is creating beasts for man.

Surely they're not both right?
 
On The fossil record, here is Biologos, a group of scientist christians

http://biologos.org/common-questions/scientific-evidence/fossil-record

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2013/02/ancestor-all-placental-mammals-revealed

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/meet-the-ancient-reptile-that-gave-rise-to-mammals/

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17453-timeline-the-evolution-of-life/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK230201/

http://science.nationalgeographic.com/science/prehistoric-world/rise-mammals/

https://www.thoughtco.com/the-first-mammals-1093311

https://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/fossils/succession.html

https://www.livescience.com/43295-triassic-period.html

http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/content.cfm?id=3114
Your refusal to address the majority of the point I brought up (while using terrible rationalization for the remainder) shows you to be the one unwilling to engage honestly.

It's weird, since the Bible is true in all of it's parts, and you have other books where he does not like astrology. It's almost as if God did not write these book, but they were written by ignorant men who did not know most of each other's writings, or even of each other period. Weird!!!

It's pretty simple. Astrology had been around long before the earliest Hebrew oral tales were being told. God clearly tells people that the stars are for signs, and you obfuscate and pretend as if God, who is not the author of confusion, is somehow muddled or confused in his wording.

Remember, it has taken days for you to rationalize away just a few mistakes your inerrant book makes. It has taken this long, and you have not even come even close to reconciling the errors in pages 1 and 2!!! What could you possibly hope to argue for when it comes to The Jews in Egypt, Jesus' birth, Jesus' death, and all the other errors from the book?
Are you claiming the fossil record is complete? How else would you be able to say mammals didn't predate reptiles with scientific certainty? Scientists have never claimed the fossil record is complete. This becomes more obvious the further back you go.

The stars reveal his power. They are a sign and witness to his power. It doesn't say God believes in astrology. You're the one saying that...

It matters not how long it takes to defend my beliefs. You've called me a coward and a pussy yet I'm still here answering everything you come up with. I've demonstrated you will accept no answer. You've gone as far as to say that the moon doesn't emit light. You're either ignorant or intellectually dishonest.

Regardless, I'll say this again. I don't care if it takes a year yo get through your points. I will be here defending against your nonsense
 
Are you claiming the fossil record is complete? How else would you be able to say mammals didn't predate reptiles with scientific certainty? Scientists have never claimed the fossil record is complete. This becomes more obvious the further back you go.

The stars reveal his power. They are a sign and witness to his power. It doesn't say God believes in astrology. You're the one saying that...

It matters not how long it takes to defend my beliefs. You've called me a coward and a pussy yet I'm still here answering everything you come up with. I've demonstrated you will accept no answer. You've gone as far as to say that the moon doesn't emit light. You're either ignorant or intellectually dishonest.

Regardless, I'll say this again. I don't care if it takes a year yo get through your points. I will be here defending against your nonsense

Who said the fossil record was complete? What are you talking about? You are engaging in a god of the gaps argument. Since the science isn't complete, with a photographic depiction of every moment dating back to the emergence of life, we cant take it seriously, right? Did you even attempt at reading any of those articles, and see a portion of the massive amount of data that clearly shows, from many different fields, that reptiles predate mammals by a wide stretch? But no, I'm the close minded one.

The stars may reveal his power, but he says you are to use them as signs. The Zodiac and astrology were well known by the time Judaism sprang up. It's quite absurd for you to pretend as if God did not explain what he meant clearly. You are arguing against the words you attempt to prove.

The moon does not emit light. Light Emission is a discharge or production of light. Reflection is neither. The sun produces no light, it reflects the light. Damn, this is insane, the fact you dont seem to know this, or dont care to admit you were wrong.

I'm not the one pushing the talking snake in the tree, I'm pointing out clear errors in your book. It's amazing you think me unable to realize a point, when you're arguing the moon is a source of light. Do a little experiment for yourself. On a sunny, blue sky day, look out in the blue sky. Where is the moon? Surely if it's producing light, it should be visible at all times, no?

I cant believe this has to be explained to an adult, but here is Live Science

The moon shines because its surface reflects light from the sun. And despite the fact that it sometimes seems to shine very brightly, the moon reflects only between 3 and 12 percent of the sunlight that hits it.

The perceived brightness of the moon from Earth depends on where the moon is in its orbit around the planet. The moon travels once around Earth every 29.5 days, and during its journey, it's lit from varying angles by the sun.
 
Who said the fossil record was complete? What are you talking about? You are engaging in a god of the gaps argument. Since the science isn't complete, with a photographic depiction of every moment dating back to the emergence of life, we cant take it seriously, right? Did you even attempt at reading any of those articles, and see a portion of the massive amount of data that clearly shows, from many different fields, that reptiles predate mammals by a wide stretch? But no, I'm the close minded one.

The stars may reveal his power, but he says you are to use them as signs. The Zodiac and astrology were well known by the time Judaism sprang up. It's quite absurd for you to pretend as if God did not explain what he meant clearly. You are arguing against the words you attempt to prove.

The moon does not emit light. Light Emission is a discharge or production of light. Reflection is neither. The sun produces no light, it reflects the light. Damn, this is insane, the fact you dont seem to know this, or dont care to admit you were wrong.

I'm not the one pushing the talking snake in the tree, I'm pointing out clear errors in your book. It's amazing you think me unable to realize a point, when you're arguing the moon is a source of light. Do a little experiment for yourself. On a sunny, blue sky day, look out in the blue sky. Where is the moon? Surely if it's producing light, it should be visible at all times, no?

"Your book cant even decide the order of creation for itself within the first couple pages.

1:25-26
And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Here God is creating man after beasts

2:18-19

And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

Here he is creating beasts for man."

For the sake of clarity you shouldn't edit new points into your post unless they change meaning or correct something, like you did here. It's easy to not see and I don't want to avoid any of your points.

Got brought the animals he had created for Adam to name and find a helper. He didn't find one suitable as a helper. He didn't create them then on the spot or he could have just made one suitable for Adam. He made eve then, not the animals.

I didn't say we can't take it seriously. Show me the first fossil evidence of a mammal. Then of a reptile. Then explain how said mammal or reptile didn't predate the fossil (they had to have lives before becoming fossils right?) Therefore you can't use a fossil to determine how long something has existed.

Edit: hit reply by accident, standby for part 2
 
@hillelslovak87

"The stars may reveal his power, but he says you are to use them as signs. The Zodiac and astrology were well known by the time Judaism sprang up. It's quite absurd for you to pretend as if God did not explain what he meant clearly. You are arguing against the words you attempt to prove."

As signs of his power. He makes that clear throughout the Bible. He also makes it clear astrology is man made nonsense. An example of man worshiping creation (paganism) rather then the creator.

"Themoon does not emit light. Light Emission is a discharge or production of light. Reflection is neither. The sun produces no light, it reflects the light. Damn, this is insane, the fact you dont seem to know this, or dont care to admit you were wrong."


"To us, the moon does give light upon the Earth. The fact that it does so by reflection rather than emission is not relevant to the biblical passage. The Hebrew word used for emit/give light in this verse ('owr) can mean both “to be or become light” and “to be illuminated or become lighted up”"

https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/moon/by-the-light-of-the-moon/
 
"Your book cant even decide the order of creation for itself within the first couple pages.

1:25-26
And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Here God is creating man after beasts

2:18-19

And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

Here he is creating beasts for man."

For the sake of clarity you shouldn't edit new points into your post unless they change meaning or correct something, like you did here. It's easy to not see and I don't want to avoid any of your points.

Got brought the animals he had created for Adam to name and find a helper. He didn't find one suitable as a helper. He didn't create them then on the spot or he could have just made one suitable for Adam. He made eve then, not the animals.

I didn't say we can't take it seriously. Show me the first fossil evidence of a mammal. Then of a reptile. Then explain how said mammal or reptile didn't predate the fossil (they had to have lives before becoming fossils right?) Therefore you can't use a fossil to determine how long something has existed.

Edit: hit reply by accident, standby for part 2

@hillelslovak87

"The stars may reveal his power, but he says you are to use them as signs. The Zodiac and astrology were well known by the time Judaism sprang up. It's quite absurd for you to pretend as if God did not explain what he meant clearly. You are arguing against the words you attempt to prove."

As signs of his power. He makes that clear throughout the Bible. He also makes it clear astrology is man made nonsense. An example of man worshiping creation (paganism) rather then the creator.

"Themoon does not emit light. Light Emission is a discharge or production of light. Reflection is neither. The sun produces no light, it reflects the light. Damn, this is insane, the fact you dont seem to know this, or dont care to admit you were wrong."


"To us, the moon does give light upon the Earth. The fact that it does so by reflection rather than emission is not relevant to the biblical passage. The Hebrew word used for emit/give light in this verse ('owr) can mean both “to be or become light” and “to be illuminated or become lighted up”"

https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/moon/by-the-light-of-the-moon/

One narrative has the animals created before Adam, another has the animals created after Adam, for him. This is a contradiction, and both cannot be true.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

The compilation in this wiki, like the articles I posted before, which you neglected to read before dismissing, show quite a bit of transitional fossils.

Seriously, you used answers in genesis. This is sheer dishonest insanity. The book says it's a light, and you parse and pretend as if it does not mean what it says. The bible later reaffirms this view of the moon as a light. It is also worth noting that other, more advanced civilizations of the time also believed the moon was a light.

Ezekiel 32:7
When I snuff you out, I will cover the heavens and darken their stars; I will cover the sun with a cloud, and the moon will not give its light.

Here God thinks the moon is a light, AND that he can blot out the sun with a cloud, because of course the biblical writers did not know the sun was not part of the fabled firmament.

Mark 13:24-37
“‘the sun will be darkened,
and the moon will not give its light;
the stars will fall from the sky,
and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.’

Here, God thinks the stars are in the sky, and can fall, because God does not seem to know about gravitation, along with the old moon is light belief.

isaiah 30:26
The moon will shine like the sun, and the sunlight will be seven times brighter, like the light of seven full days, when the LORD binds up the bruises of his people and heals the wounds he inflicted.

Is there anything you cant rationalize away?
 
One narrative has the animals created before Adam, another has the animals created after Adam, for him. This is a contradiction, and both cannot be true.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

The compilation in this wiki, like the articles I posted before, which you neglected to read before dismissing, show quite a bit of transitional fossils.

Seriously, you used answers in genesis. This is sheer dishonest insanity. The book says it's a light, and you parse and pretend as if it does not mean what it says. The bible later reaffirms this view of the moon as a light. It is also worth noting that other, more advanced civilizations of the time also believed the moon was a light.

Ezekiel 32:7
When I snuff you out, I will cover the heavens and darken their stars; I will cover the sun with a cloud, and the moon will not give its light.

Here God thinks the moon is a light, AND that he can blot out the sun with a cloud, because of course the biblical writers did not know the sun was not part of the fabled firmament.

Mark 13:24-37
“‘the sun will be darkened,
and the moon will not give its light;
the stars will fall from the sky,
and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.’

Here, God thinks the stars are in the sky, and can fall, because God does not seem to know about gravitation, along with the old moon is light belief.

isaiah 30:26
The moon will shine like the sun, and the sunlight will be seven times brighter, like the light of seven full days, when the LORD binds up the bruises of his people and heals the wounds he inflicted.

Is there anything you cant rationalize away?

Animals were not created after Adam. You're not understanding the text. He brought the animals he had created before Adam. That text is dealing with naming and find a helper not saying animals were created in that moment. Reading comprehension isn't your strongsuit
Edit: did it again sorry... hang on for rest of reply
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

1. The compilation in this wiki, like the articles I posted before, which you neglected to read before dismissing, show quite a bit of transitional fossils.

2. Seriously, you used answers in genesis. This is sheer dishonest insanity. The book says it's a light, and you parse and pretend as if it does not mean what it says. The bible later reaffirms this view of the moon as a light. It is also worth noting that other, more advanced civilizations of the time also believed the moon was a light.

Ezekiel 32:7
When I snuff you out, I will cover the heavens and darken their stars; I will cover the sun with a cloud, and the moon will not give its light.

3. Here God thinks the moon is a light, AND that he can blot out the sun with a cloud, because of course the biblical writers did not know the sun was not part of the fabled firmament.

Mark 13:24-37
“‘the sun will be darkened,
and the moon will not give its light;
the stars will fall from the sky,
and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.’

4. Here, God thinks the stars are in the sky, and can fall, because God does not seem to know about gravitation, along with the old moon is light belief.

5. isaiah 30:26
The moon will shine like the sun, and the sunlight will be seven times brighter, like the light of seven full days, when the LORD binds up the bruises of his people and heals the wounds he inflicted.

Is there anything you cant rationalize away?
1. Transitional fossils do nothing to prove when something began to exist. They are themselves. Also unproven
How would a fossil show when something began to exist? You didn't answer that

2. You attack the source because you have no refutation to give. Explain how they're wrong regarding the Hebrew. You're translating it to English and then forming a semantical argument. It's nonsensical

3. "Our arrows will blot out the sun" does this statement lead you to believe that Persians believed their arrows could literally do that? This is another example of your failure to grasp figurative language

4. When people say the sun rose, did they think the sun moved up ala flat earth? Again figurative language isn't your strong suit

5. Cool verse
 
Animals were not created after Adam. You're not understanding the text. He brought the animals he had created before Adam. That text is dealing with naming and find a helper not saying animals were created in that moment. Reading comprehension isn't your strongsuit
Edit: did it again sorry... hang on for rest of reply

The rationalizations just keep coming

And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.

Notice the word and? Notice how Adam is created after the animals in this story?

The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."

Notice the wording here? Notice how God, after creating Adam, says he will make a helper? Do you notice how after this passage he creates all the animals?

This is surreal, how you seem unwilling or unable to admit simple things like this.
 
Just saw this thread and it's on the 35th page. I'm not going to read through 35 pages, so maybe this has been said, maybe it hasn't.

How can anyone who's not a dick get behind most of Trump's actions? The guy is just a moron who is making a mockery of the Presidency. He acts like he's two years old constantly. It's ridiculous.
 
1. Transitional fossils do nothing to prove when something began to exist. They are themselves. Also unproven
How would a fossil show when something began to exist? You didn't answer that

2. You attack the source because you have no refutation to give. Explain how they're wrong regarding the Hebrew. You're translating it to English and then forming a semantical argument. It's nonsensical

3. "Our arrows will blot out the sun" does this statement lead you to believe that Persians believed their arrows could literally do that? This is another example of your failure to grasp figurative language

4. When people say the sun rose, did they think the sun moved up ala flat earth? Again figurative language isn't your strong suit

5. Cool verse

Please bother to educate yourself with any of the articles and compilations I already provided. The Biologos one is especially important, because it's christians who are showing exactly how you are wrong.

Ken Ham and answers in Genesis have been refuted and debunked by so many actual scientists as being liars and incapable of parsing evidence.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danthr...ams-10-facts-that-prove-creationism-debunked/

The Story of Thermopylae and the Biblical scripture are not written in the same way at all. They have nothing to do with each other. In the Bible, God is supposedly saying these things. He's saying what he would literally do.

The ancient Hebrews thought the sun literally rose up, and was contained within the firmament, ie the sky. That's why they believed stars could fall out of the sky, because they were ignorant.
 
The rationalizations just keep coming

And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.

Notice the word and? Notice how Adam is created after the animals in this story?

The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."

Notice the wording here? Notice how God, after creating Adam, says he will make a helper? Do you notice how after this passage he creates all the animals?

This is surreal, how you seem unwilling or unable to admit simple things like this.

You're so very arrogant in your own misunderstanding. Genesis 2 expands on genesis 1. It does not tell a different account of creation. Only somebody with a clear agenda to look for inconsistency would suggest such a thing.
 
You're so very arrogant in your own misunderstanding. Genesis 2 expands on genesis 1. It does not tell a different account of creation. Only somebody with a clear agenda to look for inconsistency would suggest such a thing.

Oh, so it didn't in fact give contradictory timelines. Oh, I guess I'm not enough of a believer to get the hidden meaning, lol.

You know exactly how and why the universe was created, who created it. You have a personal relationship with this creator. He cares about you, loves you, and your beliefs are the best information our species will ever have, until the end of time.

But I'm arrogant.

I came across this "You're just...This is just so arrogant" shit when I was asking adults in sunday school, and they couldn't answer simple questions. Cool.
 
1. Please bother to educate yourself with any of the articles and compilations I already provided. The Biologos one is especially important, because it's christians who are showing exactly how you are wrong.

2. Ken Ham and answers in Genesis have been refuted and debunked by so many actual scientists as being liars and incapable of parsing evidence.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danthr...ams-10-facts-that-prove-creationism-debunked/

3. The Story of Thermopylae and the Biblical scripture are not written in the same way at all. They have nothing to do with each other. In the Bible, God is supposedly saying these things. He's saying what he would literally do.

The ancient Hebrews thought the sun literally rose up, and was contained within the firmament, ie the sky. That's why they believed stars could fall out of the sky, because they were ignorant.

1. I'll take the time to read the articles, but how do they apply? How is a fossil going to tell me when something came to be? You made the claim fossil evidence could show reptiles predated mammals. How?

2. The specific point they used regarding the Hebrew language has been debunked? Please provide a source. I don't care what other claims they may or may not have been wrong about if that claim is true

3. This proves God couldn't use figurative language? No... It doesnt
 
1. I'll take the time to read the articles, but how do they apply? How is a fossil going to tell me when something came to be? You made the claim fossil evidence could show reptiles predated mammals. How?

2. The specific point they used regarding the Hebrew language has been debunked? Please provide a source. I don't care what other claims they may or may not have been wrong about if that claim is true

Once again, if you educate yourself on natural selection, the question of how each species came to be answers itself. You'll learn about the first bacteria and archaea. And no, picking out a gap, and going "See, you cant say what happened in the interim!!" is not useful or helpful. Christians have been playing the god of the gaps game for hundreds of years now. Over and over, they assert that science will never know A. Then science elucidates A, they move to B, until science elucidates that as well.

On the hebrew language, Ken Ham is merely taking a bet.

The Hebrew word used for emit/give light in this verse ('owr) can mean both “to be or become light” and “to be illuminated or become lighted up”

He has a 50/50 chance of being right. I think that looking at what the Hebrews, and most other people thought about the sun and moon at the material times, it is obvious they thought it a source of light in the same way the sun is.
 
1. Oh, so it didn't in fact give contradictory timelines. Oh, I guess I'm not enough of a believer to get the hidden meaning, lol.

2. You know exactly how and why the universe was created, who created it. 3. You have a personal relationship with this creator. He cares about you, loves you, and your beliefs are the best information our species will ever have, until the end of time.

4. But I'm arrogant.

5. I came across this "You're just...This is just so arrogant" shit when I was asking adults in sunday school, and they couldn't answer simple questions. Cool.

1. It didn't give a timeline of genesis You must have bad reading comprehension.

2. I dont know exactly how or why it was created. What a silly strawman

3. True
4. True
5. Don't fret, I'm answering all your questions now.
 
1. Once again, if you educate yourself on natural selection, the question of how each species came to be answers itself. You'll learn about the first bacteria and archaea. And no, picking out a gap, and going "See, you cant say what happened in the interim!!" is not useful or helpful. Christians have been playing the god of the gaps game for hundreds of years now. Over and over, they assert that science will never know A. Then science elucidates A, they move to B, until science elucidates that as well.

2. On the hebrew language, Ken Ham is merely taking a bet.

The Hebrew word used for emit/give light in this verse ('owr) can mean both “to be or become light” and “to be illuminated or become lighted up”

He has a 50/50 chance of being right. I think that looking at what the Hebrews, and most other people thought about the sun and moon at the material times, it is obvious they thought it a source of light in the same way the sun is.

1. I never made a "God of the gaps" argument so you can save it. You made the claim that reptiles predated mammals and cited the fossil record. You have failed to answer how the fossil record could prove when something began to exist.

2. You said God was wrong but now, by your own admission he could have been right? Way to shoot yourself in the foot
 
Back
Top