Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Scientists Observe Evolution in Twenty Year Experiment

Get yourself a better Bible.

So now the different versions of the Bible mean different things. That just shows that the Divine Finger is not on every word. It shows that you can not take every word literally. Do you really want to go there? Which is the one true version that s the absolute perfect version? If different versions give different messages, can you trust any of them? You are opening up a big can of worms if you say one version is better than another. I suppose you will probably say the KJV is the ultimate source for all things Biblical. I just looked at the online KJV (mine is at my other home) and found no "like unto him" in it either. The KJV and RSV both say the same thing. Perhaps you are the one in need of a better Bible.

tropis,

New American Standard Bible reads "suitable for him" and the New King James Verssion shows "comparable to him".

That fits. None of the animals God made after making man for the purpose of not making man be alone were found to be suitable for him or comparable to him, so God had to make woman. That fits very well. Thanks.

OK for argument's sake, let's suppose you are the resident scientist (as you allude to) and I am the one needs educated (as you say). Give myself and the rest of us the opportunity to learn from you, because I and others may be able to benefit from your expertise.

So let's have a bit of a format:

1. Give us your credentials first so we know your level of learning
2. Explain to us the difference between life and matter as you understand it. However for sake of focus lets narrow it down to what constitutes human life in distinction from matter.
3. Explain to us how the evolutionary process could have caused matter to produce human life.

Thunder, I am not the one bothered by an exact boundary between life and nonlife. I am not the one basing my argument on the inability of science to "prove" how "life" started. I am the one saying that the boundary is fuzzy and, therefore, should not be the basis for your argument. You are the one who has to come up with a universally acceptable definition, not me. I don't think there is one, but you seem to think there is.

What are your credentials? How many degrees do you have that concentrated on evolutionary theory or even Biology?

The boundary between matter and human life has never been fuzzy except in a foggy mind. Scientists recognize this obvious distinction when analyzing data as well as 4 year old children. Your initial request for a definition was deliberately ignorant which is why I chose not to humor you.

You have provided the information I suspected--lack of real credentials from the one who claimed expertise and no answers to the real question.

Evolutionists are often smug and arrogant in their position, rather than engaging the most important question and providing real evidence. Macro-evolution will never be anything more than a foolish theory unless there is real evidence to demonstrate the spontaneous generation of life from matter.

A person does need to have much understanding of anything scientific to know how illogical are the tenets of macro-evolution. And of course this inherent achilles heel has been demonstrated time and again in debates between evolutionary and creation scientists.

Of course all translations aren't equal. Is that a surprise to you? Did you think the Jehovah's Witness Bible was as good a catalyst of the word of God as, say, the King James Bible?

Poor God didn't know that the various and sundry beasts wouldn't be a fit helper for Adam. He had to actually wait and see. Notropis, you apparently wish to twist the words to mean contradiction. If that's what you're about, go for it.

So, you don't have a good definition for the boundary between life and nonlife. I see you threw HUMAN life in the mix. I thought you just wanted to know how LIFE started. If the distinction is not fuzzy, then please tell the world what the hard and fast line is that separates all life from all nonlife. Without that line, your argument is without merit. The ball is in your court. Define the boundary. A true fuzzy mind sees things that do not exist and mocks people who see the situation more clearly.

What are your credentials and experiences with Biology. BS? MS? PhD?

We smug scientists have a hard time giving precise answers to questions that are very imprecise and asked by people who can not even define the terms used in the questions. It is very foolish to claim some tenets are illogical if you don't even understand what those tenets really are.

Hawkeye, How are the words I quoted out of MY Bible twisted? Show me precisely where the words I quoted from MY Bible, not yours, do not mean what they say.

edit: God changed his mind several times in Scripture. How many times do you read about God "hardening his heart" towards people.

I gave you at least three very definite reasons your reading of the verses in question was clearly in error. Go back and read my multiple posts on this question. That means you're twisting the meaning in three distinct ways. That's a lot of twisting. But keep it up, if that's your thing.

I see we are up to 44 pages. I wonder if this is going to set a record. I'm betting 100 pages.

You gave me reasons based on your Bible's words, not my Bible. Go back and look at the quotes from MY Bible and tell me where the MOTIVE and CHRONOLOGY are in error. Such words as "SO" and "THEN" make it very clear that your analysis that the animals were made before man is in error in MY Bible. It also very clearly states that there were no plants before man. Read it carefully with an open mind. I don't need to twist the meanings of words to try to make it say what it does not say. I don't have a copy of the Bible you have so can not comment on the version your Bible has. Quote directly from your Bible and I will look at it

I posted on another thread that I was going to bed. That was at 6:55 pm this date. I just took a quick look at other post and found this one and started to read page 1. I AM NOW GOING TO BED as it is now 11:10 PM. Can't believe it took me this long to go through 44 pages of posts on this matter. I am worn smooth out and so confused I don't remember who is for and who is against what.

Love,
Dew

Uncle Sam (throat slasher), Auburn, Cornell, and back to Auburn.

I bet you're a google speed typist and would have been the first to volunteer for the SS death squads to shoot and hang Jews. You were the cretan who absolutely knew my daughter had died and continued with your vicious, apathetic sarcasm.

"...there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth." Talk to yourself.

You're on ignore with some other [bleep] here.

derby,


The Atacama Desert is the place in South America. I've seen the dinosaurs in drawings, pottery, reliefs, tapestries, etc. One had a man sitting on the beast. You can see gigantic drawings of them on the landscape from planes.

The particular beast appears to be about 20 to 25 feet long. Obviously, it's a herbivore. It looks somewhat like a corythosaurus type. It's vertically banded.

You can google it. As the driest place on earth, relics are preserved as are bodies. I don't recall anyone finding the dinosaur's bones.

Once you believe in an intelligent creator you have to ask yourself what is the evidence for the character and personality of that intelligence. I believe the best evidence for His true character is found in the Bible of Christianity. The special revelation of Christ being central to the revelation of His character.

If you truly, truly believe in a supernatural world (I do). Then getting the answers right is of eternal importance. You have to look at all the evidences.


From a scientific standpoint this sounds like a theistic evolutionist position.

The points I made to you all still hold up with your translation. Anyone with good will can read the first two chapters of Genesis without choosing to interpret what at first glance may seem a slight ambiguity as contradiction. Plenty of clues are available to interpret it correctly, and without contradiction. I've already laid it out for you. I will not retype what I've already typed.

No offense intended but I'm a Deist. The Bible is a great book of mythology and nothing more. The revealed word of God, so to speak to a Deist, is in nature and science.

I'll concede an emotional Pagan bent to my Deism much the same way that many Deists concede a Christian bent.

I would probably call it a deistic evolutionist position but whatever.