<!--QuoteBegin-Nadagast+Sep 26 2004, 06:46 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nadagast @ Sep 26 2004, 06:46 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> [nadagast's posts] <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Nadagast: Please, try <i>thinking about it</i> before you post this stuff.
That thing about David vs Goliath? WTH were you thinking man? A 4th grader could have read that passage and told you what it meant. Is it really that hard to comprehend the order of events?
1) David got a rock.
2) David slung the rock at Goliath.
3) The rock hit Goliath in the forehead, killing him.
4) David ran up, put his foot on the then-dead Goliath, and drew the sword that Goliath was carrying.
5) David cuts off Goliath's head with the sword, and displays it to the Philistines
6) Said Philistines run for their lives.
*edit* flames deleted. I just had to let it out.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Doesn't the bible say that the Earth is only 2000 (or some odd) years old?
We know for a fact that it's 15 billion years old.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
hadn't it occurred to you that you only posted maybe 7, and 4 of them have already been refuted, as well as a 5th and possibly a 6th by applying similar reasoning?
here, i'll refute one for you: the absalom one.
Have you ever considered that his sons might have died before he erected that monument? Guess not.
*edit* Ho ho ho, what's this i hear? I went back and reread your post to see exactly what other "inconsistencies" you noticed. I salute you, sir, for you are the master of out-of-context-quoting of the Bible!
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says? For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the fre woman. His son by the slave woman was born in the ordinary way; but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a promise. <b> These things may be taken figuratively, for the women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar. Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her childern. But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother. For it is written:
"Be glad, O barren woman, who bears no children; break forth and cry aloud, you who have no labor pains; because more are the children of the desolate woman than of her who has a husband."
Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of the promise.</b>" <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Galatians 4:21-28 (emphasis mine)
See? Paul was using it as a metaphorical example. Eased.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The child grew and was weaned, and on the day Isaac was weaned Abraham held a great feast. But Sarah saw that the son whom Hagar the Egyptian had borne to Abraham was mocking, and she said to Abraham, "Get rid of that slave woman and her son, for that slave woman's son will never share in the inheritance with my son Isaac." The matter distressed Abraham greatly because it concerned his son. <b>But God said to him, "Do not be so distressed about the boy and your maidservant. Listen to whatever Sarah tells you, because <u>it is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.</u></b>" <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Genesis 21:8-13(emphases mine) Notice how it's <i>before</i> God commands Abraham to sacrifice Isaac? <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <b>Some time later God tested Abraham. </b>He said to him, "Abraham!" "Here I am," he replied. Then God said, "Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love, and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains I will tell you about.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->(emphasis mine)
<!--QuoteBegin-Nadagast+Sep 26 2004, 07:42 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nadagast @ Sep 26 2004, 07:42 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Marine01+Sep 26 2004, 05:30 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Sep 26 2004, 05:30 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> It is a religion based on faith, which means that you will never get 100% physical confirmation. However, as I said before, if it makes any claims that turn out in reality to be not true, then its probably bs. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You just made my argument for me <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Doesn't the bible say that the Earth is only 2000 (or some odd) years old?
We know for a fact that it's 15 billion years old.
I find it hard to believe that every single error in the bible can be attributed to language errors... that's a pretty lame copout for THE WORD OF GOD. Why would he intentionally make it vague/misleading/contradictory? Oh right to test our faith! ::ROLLEYES:: <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> According to some funky jewish professor who IIRC has like 5 PHD's at harvard, the first 'seven days' each refer to periods of creation in a reasonably sytematically created universe. The theory is based on a belife that the days are mesured in the timelapse of the center of the universe, and thus, when the universe was compact tightly at the begining of the big bang, the passing of a single 'day' would be an equivalent time period of roughly 13 billion years, the next would be an exponent of 7 less, or aprox 3.5 billion, then so forth 5million... My numbers are wrong, but basicly the theory is that on the eigth day the temporal difference would be exactly equal to one day. Take it how ever you will, but it does show that many prominent biblical scolars are willing to take the events of creation more as allusion for something of greater complexity than it looks to be taken literally.
<!--QuoteBegin-Swiftspear+Sep 27 2004, 02:20 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Swiftspear @ Sep 27 2004, 02:20 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Nadagast+Sep 26 2004, 07:42 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nadagast @ Sep 26 2004, 07:42 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Marine01+Sep 26 2004, 05:30 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Sep 26 2004, 05:30 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> It is a religion based on faith, which means that you will never get 100% physical confirmation. However, as I said before, if it makes any claims that turn out in reality to be not true, then its probably bs. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You just made my argument for me <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Doesn't the bible say that the Earth is only 2000 (or some odd) years old?
We know for a fact that it's 15 billion years old.
I find it hard to believe that every single error in the bible can be attributed to language errors... that's a pretty lame copout for THE WORD OF GOD. Why would he intentionally make it vague/misleading/contradictory? Oh right to test our faith! ::ROLLEYES:: <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> According to some funky jewish professor who IIRC has like 5 PHD's at harvard, the first 'seven days' each refer to periods of creation in a reasonably sytematically created universe. The theory is based on a belife that the days are mesured in the timelapse of the center of the universe, and thus, when the universe was compact tightly at the begining of the big bang, the passing of a single 'day' would be an equivalent time period of roughly 13 billion years, the next would be an exponent of 7 less, or aprox 3.5 billion, then so forth 5million... My numbers are wrong, but basicly the theory is that on the eigth day the temporal difference would be exactly equal to one day. Take it how ever you will, but it does show that many prominent biblical scolars are willing to take the events of creation more as allusion for something of greater complexity than it looks to be taken literally. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Unfortunately the hebrew word used means literal day, 24 hour period, and is used in that context everywhere in the Torah etc. Either way, the Bible comes out being wrong therefore God was wrong/a big fat liar therefore God does not exist.
Evolution and millions of years+ if believed makes the Bible completely rediculous. Its not just a contradiction, not just "looks like your God is having trouble keeping himself 100% consistent there", its "thats completely false". Creation is referred to heaps of times in the Bible, even by Jesus. Invalidate Genesis, and the whole book is invalidated.
<!--QuoteBegin-DarkATi+Sep 26 2004, 08:22 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DarkATi @ Sep 26 2004, 08:22 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I love you Nadagast, just like Camo. I'll pray for ya.
If you're really looking, then I know you'll find the truth someday. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<b>::LAST POST IN HERE::</b>
~ DarkATi <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Please just shutup. If I wanted prayer and sympathy, I would've gone to church and cried about it instead of solving my problems myself. Seeing as how the entire discussion has been driven to the ground, thank you nadagast, I'm reporting this thread and hoping it gets locked. Those of you interested in debating the topic can find a lot more on it here:
camo.o, i must apologize for what i said earlier, when i wanted to make a differentiation between speciation and natural selection (where i referred to speciation as evolution). apparently i was unaware that some people define evolution as a change in the frequency of alleles in a population, so if we take that tack, then natural selection and evolution are very much related. anyway, i finally (badly) made my point, so i guess it's all good.
<!--QuoteBegin-Wheeee+Sep 26 2004, 09:39 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Sep 26 2004, 09:39 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> camo.o, i must apologize for what i said earlier, when i wanted to make a differentiation between speciation and natural selection (where i referred to speciation as evolution). apparently i was unaware that some people define evolution as a change in the frequency of alleles in a population, so if we take that tack, then natural selection and evolution are very much related. anyway, i finally (badly) made my point, so i guess it's all good. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> np.
<!--QuoteBegin-Marine01+Sep 26 2004, 09:28 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Sep 26 2004, 09:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Unfortunately the hebrew word used means literal day, 24 hour period, and is used in that context everywhere in the Torah etc. Either way, the Bible comes out being wrong therefore God was wrong/a big fat liar therefore God does not exist.
Evolution and millions of years+ if believed makes the Bible completely rediculous. Its not just a contradiction, not just "looks like your God is having trouble keeping himself 100% consistent there", its "thats completely false". Creation is referred to heaps of times in the Bible, even by Jesus. Invalidate Genesis, and the whole book is invalidated. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Its a theory based on Einstines theories of time and gravity. This guy determind after increadibly complex physics calculations that in the super dense begining of the universe, because of the massive amount of mass in one place, gravity would be warping time so much, that the literal passing of a 24 hour period, as calculated from the exact center of the universe, where the time lag would be most violent, would contain the actions of roughly 13 billion years worth of time passed. Not only that, but he compared a reasonable historical scientific description of how the universe would unfold and found that with the exeption of a few terms in the bible (ie how the sky is made before the earth and what not, but he antiquated it to discriptive analogy, so sky = blue nebula or something like that. I haven't read his book, just a essay on his theory, suffice to say he does have pretty much all the bases covered) it was pretty much exactly what the bible discribed almost to the exact temporal equivalents. His theory places the formation of earth, the begining evolution of animals on earth, the appearance of certian animals, and the production of man to the point where where his exponential calculations lie pretty much exactly on each 'day' period. I don't remember the exponential he used, but the crazy thing is, his calculations of using einstines theories were exactly the time distortion for each period to equal the passing of exactly one reletive 24 hour period at the center of the universe.
I have forgotten the guys name, but I'll try to find some information on what I am talking about ASAP.
<!--QuoteBegin-camO.o+Sep 26 2004, 09:28 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (camO.o @ Sep 26 2004, 09:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-DarkATi+Sep 26 2004, 08:22 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DarkATi @ Sep 26 2004, 08:22 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I love you Nadagast, just like Camo. I'll pray for ya.
If you're really looking, then I know you'll find the truth someday. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<b>::LAST POST IN HERE::</b>
~ DarkATi <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Please just shutup. If I wanted prayer and sympathy, I would've gone to church and cried about it instead of solving my problems myself. Seeing as how the entire discussion has been driven to the ground, thank you nadagast, I'm reporting this thread and hoping it gets locked. Those of you interested in debating the topic can find a lot more on it here:
<a href='http://www.iidb.org/vbb/index.php' target='_blank'>http://www.iidb.org/vbb/index.php</a> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Funny thing is I really don't feel like going and conversing with people who are going to side rail me with a label as soon as I state my faith. I might as well go to Alabama and argue for communism. Absolutly nothing can get done in a context where absolutly no one is interested in yealding, so you can all continue to scuttle together, backpatting eachother over your simple gloss over of every issue, in secret, the way you are now. If you pressuppose that God does not exist, and you aren't going to search into the issue, then I am not going to be able say anything that will make you belive otherwize. You have to choose to look for God before you can choose to follow God. If this thread gets locked, expect me to PM to have it reopened, I know theological discussions aren't the standard format for the NS discussions forum, but this thread was started as a theological discussion, and it has been quite a while since there has been a good one here. I am quite enjoying it.
<a href='http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1993LPI....24..395D&db_key=AST' target='_blank'>one geochemical study that camo.o requested</a> <a href='http://acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/origlife.htm' target='_blank'>weird site, but it does provide interesting citations</a> <a href='http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V61-423HJ85-D&_user=963248&_handle=B-WA-A-A-AC-MsSAYZA-UUA-AUEYYZBWAD-AUEZVVVUAD-ZVBUZVYVE-AC-U&_fmt=summary&_coverDate=01%2F15%2F2001&_rdoc=12&_orig=browse&_srch=%23toc%235801%232001%23998159997%23223964!&_cdi=5801&view=c&_acct=C000049490&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=963248&md5=e5f918530f9d8a10038fb5b7cbdba329' target='_blank'>hm, cool paper, i think it's pretty fascinating</a> <a href='http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9759725&dopt=Abstract' target='_blank'>contrary evidence</a>
hmm, i'll have to read more on this. there's a bunch of articles that i should read before backing this claim up. suffice it to say that atm geochemists don't think that the world was as rosy a place for amino acid formation as stanley-miller experiments used as a premise, but they don't think that it would be totally unfavorable to amino acid generation. i've been reading random articles at pandasthumbs.org, and they're quite edifying.
Comments
Nadagast: Please, try <i>thinking about it</i> before you post this stuff.
That thing about David vs Goliath? WTH were you thinking man? A 4th grader could have read that passage and told you what it meant. Is it really that hard to comprehend the order of events?
1) David got a rock.
2) David slung the rock at Goliath.
3) The rock hit Goliath in the forehead, killing him.
4) David ran up, put his foot on the then-dead Goliath, and drew the sword that Goliath was carrying.
5) David cuts off Goliath's head with the sword, and displays it to the Philistines
6) Said Philistines run for their lives.
*edit* flames deleted. I just had to let it out.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Doesn't the bible say that the Earth is only 2000 (or some odd) years old?
We know for a fact that it's 15 billion years old.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
...
...
...
...
he's dead, Jim.
IM SO DUMB PLEASE SAVE ME
here, i'll refute one for you: the absalom one.
Have you ever considered that his sons might have died before he erected that monument? Guess not.
*edit* Ho ho ho, what's this i hear? I went back and reread your post to see exactly what other "inconsistencies" you noticed. I salute you, sir, for you are the master of out-of-context-quoting of the Bible!
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says? For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the fre woman. His son by the slave woman was born in the ordinary way; but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a promise.
<b> These things may be taken figuratively, for the women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar. Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her childern. But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother. For it is written:
"Be glad, O barren woman, who bears no children;
break forth and cry aloud, you who have no labor pains;
because more are the children of the desolate woman
than of her who has a husband."
Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of the promise.</b>"
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Galatians 4:21-28 (emphasis mine)
See? Paul was using it as a metaphorical example. Eased.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The child grew and was weaned, and on the day Isaac was weaned Abraham held a great feast. But Sarah saw that the son whom Hagar the Egyptian had borne to Abraham was mocking, and she said to Abraham, "Get rid of that slave woman and her son, for that slave woman's son will never share in the inheritance with my son Isaac." The matter distressed Abraham greatly because it concerned his son. <b>But God said to him, "Do not be so distressed about the boy and your maidservant. Listen to whatever Sarah tells you, because <u>it is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.</u></b>"
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Genesis 21:8-13(emphases mine)
Notice how it's <i>before</i> God commands Abraham to sacrifice Isaac?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <b>Some time later God tested Abraham. </b>He said to him, "Abraham!"
"Here I am," he replied. Then God said, "Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love, and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains I will tell you about.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->(emphasis mine)
*edit* spelling
You just made my argument for me <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Doesn't the bible say that the Earth is only 2000 (or some odd) years old?
We know for a fact that it's 15 billion years old.
I find it hard to believe that every single error in the bible can be attributed to language errors... that's a pretty lame copout for THE WORD OF GOD.
Why would he intentionally make it vague/misleading/contradictory? Oh right to test our faith! ::ROLLEYES:: <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
According to some funky jewish professor who IIRC has like 5 PHD's at harvard, the first 'seven days' each refer to periods of creation in a reasonably sytematically created universe. The theory is based on a belife that the days are mesured in the timelapse of the center of the universe, and thus, when the universe was compact tightly at the begining of the big bang, the passing of a single 'day' would be an equivalent time period of roughly 13 billion years, the next would be an exponent of 7 less, or aprox 3.5 billion, then so forth 5million... My numbers are wrong, but basicly the theory is that on the eigth day the temporal difference would be exactly equal to one day. Take it how ever you will, but it does show that many prominent biblical scolars are willing to take the events of creation more as allusion for something of greater complexity than it looks to be taken literally.
You just made my argument for me <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Doesn't the bible say that the Earth is only 2000 (or some odd) years old?
We know for a fact that it's 15 billion years old.
I find it hard to believe that every single error in the bible can be attributed to language errors... that's a pretty lame copout for THE WORD OF GOD.
Why would he intentionally make it vague/misleading/contradictory? Oh right to test our faith! ::ROLLEYES:: <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
According to some funky jewish professor who IIRC has like 5 PHD's at harvard, the first 'seven days' each refer to periods of creation in a reasonably sytematically created universe. The theory is based on a belife that the days are mesured in the timelapse of the center of the universe, and thus, when the universe was compact tightly at the begining of the big bang, the passing of a single 'day' would be an equivalent time period of roughly 13 billion years, the next would be an exponent of 7 less, or aprox 3.5 billion, then so forth 5million... My numbers are wrong, but basicly the theory is that on the eigth day the temporal difference would be exactly equal to one day. Take it how ever you will, but it does show that many prominent biblical scolars are willing to take the events of creation more as allusion for something of greater complexity than it looks to be taken literally. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Unfortunately the hebrew word used means literal day, 24 hour period, and is used in that context everywhere in the Torah etc. Either way, the Bible comes out being wrong therefore God was wrong/a big fat liar therefore God does not exist.
Evolution and millions of years+ if believed makes the Bible completely rediculous. Its not just a contradiction, not just "looks like your God is having trouble keeping himself 100% consistent there", its "thats completely false". Creation is referred to heaps of times in the Bible, even by Jesus. Invalidate Genesis, and the whole book is invalidated.
If you're really looking, then I know you'll find the truth someday. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<b>::LAST POST IN HERE::</b>
~ DarkATi <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Please just shutup. If I wanted prayer and sympathy, I would've gone to church and cried about it instead of solving my problems myself. Seeing as how the entire discussion has been driven to the ground, thank you nadagast, I'm reporting this thread and hoping it gets locked. Those of you interested in debating the topic can find a lot more on it here:
<a href='http://www.iidb.org/vbb/index.php' target='_blank'>http://www.iidb.org/vbb/index.php</a>
np.
If I decide to post anything but what cam wants, I'm obviously running it into the ground right?!
get
off
your
high
horse
Evolution and millions of years+ if believed makes the Bible completely rediculous. Its not just a contradiction, not just "looks like your God is having trouble keeping himself 100% consistent there", its "thats completely false". Creation is referred to heaps of times in the Bible, even by Jesus. Invalidate Genesis, and the whole book is invalidated. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Its a theory based on Einstines theories of time and gravity. This guy determind after increadibly complex physics calculations that in the super dense begining of the universe, because of the massive amount of mass in one place, gravity would be warping time so much, that the literal passing of a 24 hour period, as calculated from the exact center of the universe, where the time lag would be most violent, would contain the actions of roughly 13 billion years worth of time passed. Not only that, but he compared a reasonable historical scientific description of how the universe would unfold and found that with the exeption of a few terms in the bible (ie how the sky is made before the earth and what not, but he antiquated it to discriptive analogy, so sky = blue nebula or something like that. I haven't read his book, just a essay on his theory, suffice to say he does have pretty much all the bases covered) it was pretty much exactly what the bible discribed almost to the exact temporal equivalents. His theory places the formation of earth, the begining evolution of animals on earth, the appearance of certian animals, and the production of man to the point where where his exponential calculations lie pretty much exactly on each 'day' period. I don't remember the exponential he used, but the crazy thing is, his calculations of using einstines theories were exactly the time distortion for each period to equal the passing of exactly one reletive 24 hour period at the center of the universe.
I have forgotten the guys name, but I'll try to find some information on what I am talking about ASAP.
If I decide to post anything but what cam wants, I'm obviously running it into the ground right?!
get
off
your
high
horse <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ranting != Posting
If you're really looking, then I know you'll find the truth someday. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<b>::LAST POST IN HERE::</b>
~ DarkATi <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Please just shutup. If I wanted prayer and sympathy, I would've gone to church and cried about it instead of solving my problems myself. Seeing as how the entire discussion has been driven to the ground, thank you nadagast, I'm reporting this thread and hoping it gets locked. Those of you interested in debating the topic can find a lot more on it here:
<a href='http://www.iidb.org/vbb/index.php' target='_blank'>http://www.iidb.org/vbb/index.php</a> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Funny thing is I really don't feel like going and conversing with people who are going to side rail me with a label as soon as I state my faith. I might as well go to Alabama and argue for communism. Absolutly nothing can get done in a context where absolutly no one is interested in yealding, so you can all continue to scuttle together, backpatting eachother over your simple gloss over of every issue, in secret, the way you are now. If you pressuppose that God does not exist, and you aren't going to search into the issue, then I am not going to be able say anything that will make you belive otherwize. You have to choose to look for God before you can choose to follow God. If this thread gets locked, expect me to PM to have it reopened, I know theological discussions aren't the standard format for the NS discussions forum, but this thread was started as a theological discussion, and it has been quite a while since there has been a good one here. I am quite enjoying it.
<a href='http://acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/origlife.htm' target='_blank'>weird site, but it does provide interesting citations</a>
<a href='http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V61-423HJ85-D&_user=963248&_handle=B-WA-A-A-AC-MsSAYZA-UUA-AUEYYZBWAD-AUEZVVVUAD-ZVBUZVYVE-AC-U&_fmt=summary&_coverDate=01%2F15%2F2001&_rdoc=12&_orig=browse&_srch=%23toc%235801%232001%23998159997%23223964!&_cdi=5801&view=c&_acct=C000049490&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=963248&md5=e5f918530f9d8a10038fb5b7cbdba329' target='_blank'>hm, cool paper, i think it's pretty fascinating</a>
<a href='http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9759725&dopt=Abstract' target='_blank'>contrary evidence</a>
hmm, i'll have to read more on this. there's a bunch of articles that i should read before backing this claim up. suffice it to say that atm geochemists don't think that the world was as rosy a place for amino acid formation as stanley-miller experiments used as a premise, but they don't think that it would be totally unfavorable to amino acid generation. i've been reading random articles at pandasthumbs.org, and they're quite edifying.
<span style='color:red'>***Locked.***</span>