|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,640
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,640 |
Who the heck says for sure the first seven days were actually 24 hours each? God describes them as "evening and morning" and on the forth day we are instructed by God He created the sun, moon and stars for "signs, and seasons and days and years." Everywhere outside of the First Chapter where evening and morning are used it refers to a solar day. So we either accept God at His Word or accept fallible men's theories which change from decade to decade. This leaves absolutely no room for claiming Genesis is compatible with the Big Bang. The Bible tells us the universe and the earth started out cool and will end with intense heat. The Big Bang says the universe started out hot and will end in the ultimate heat death were entropy has runs its course. The Bible tells us God made the sun, moon, and stars on day four. The Big Bang teaches there were eons of time before the stars formed. And then more eons of time before the sun formed. There is NO compatibility between the First Chapter of the Bible and the Big Bang. That's right.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 18,489
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 18,489 |
If the earth were billions of years old, then nuclear decay would have made all uranium turn into lead by now. This is simply not true. Over 99% of the naturally occurring uranium in the world is U-238, and its half-life is 4.5 billion years. That means that we have half as much U-238 in the world now as we did 4.5 billion years ago when the earth was formed. It also means that in another 4.5 billion years, we will still have half as much U-238 in the world then as we do now. And in another 9 billion years, we will still have half as much U-238 in the world then as we will have in another 4.5 billion years from now.
Every day on this side of the ground is a win.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 30,968
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 30,968 |
Why in hell do you religionists (the anti-Darwinian, not the Darwinian ones) insist in grounding your arguments in losing premises? Do you enjoy getting your asses handed to you? The moment you frame the argument in terms of Biblical truth you are done. You've lost the argument. Stop embarrassing yourselves and the rest of us who think there is a rational case to be made for the existence of God. If the God of the Bible can't tell us how the universe was created, he's not much of a god. He's certainly not "all knowing", which creates more than reasonable doubt for the rest of it.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2019
Posts: 6,029
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Apr 2019
Posts: 6,029 |
Nice job dummy (Ringman). You just painted yourself into a corner you cannot get out of. Six-day Genesis literalisms utterly and thoroughly repudiated by science. (Whereas a non-literal interpretation of the Bible is wholly consistent with science).
Last edited by Tarquin; 06/15/20.
Tarquin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2019
Posts: 6,029
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Apr 2019
Posts: 6,029 |
Why in hell do you religionists (the anti-Darwinian, not the Darwinian ones) insist in grounding your arguments in losing premises? Do you enjoy getting your asses handed to you? The moment you frame the argument in terms of Biblical truth you are done. You've lost the argument. Stop embarrassing yourselves and the rest of us who think there is a rational case to be made for the existence of God. If the God of the Bible can't tell us how the universe was created, he's not much of a god. He's certainly not "all knowing", which creates more than reasonable doubt for the rest of it. He has told us: "In the beginning was the Word (information, logos)..."
Last edited by Tarquin; 06/15/20.
Tarquin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 30,968
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 30,968 |
Nice job dummy (Ringman). You just painted yourself into a corner you cannot get out of. Six-day Genesis literalisms utterly and thoroughly repudiated by science. (Whereas a non-literal interpretation of the Bible is wholly consistent with science). So we agree we can throw out the literal creation myth. What else can we throw out a literal reading? The Garden of Eden? The Flood? Exodus? Sodom and Gomorrah? David? How about the genocide of the Midianites? The literal birth and resurrection of Jesus? What else should we not take literally?
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 30,968
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 30,968 |
Why in hell do you religionists (the anti-Darwinian, not the Darwinian ones) insist in grounding your arguments in losing premises? Do you enjoy getting your asses handed to you? The moment you frame the argument in terms of Biblical truth you are done. You've lost the argument. Stop embarrassing yourselves and the rest of us who think there is a rational case to be made for the existence of God. If the God of the Bible can't tell us how the universe was created, he's not much of a god. He's certainly not "all knowing", which creates more than reasonable doubt for the rest of it. He has told us: "In the beginning was the Word (information, logos)..." And when was that added to The Book of John?
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,673 Likes: 3
Campfire Sage
|
|
Campfire Sage
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,673 Likes: 3 |
You can believe what you like, AS. The Spanish Inquisition has long been disbanded.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2019
Posts: 6,029
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Apr 2019
Posts: 6,029 |
No on the Garden, yes on the Flood, no Exodus, No on Sodom and Gomorrah, No on David, and no on the last two.
Tarquin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2019
Posts: 6,029
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Apr 2019
Posts: 6,029 |
Why in hell do you religionists (the anti-Darwinian, not the Darwinian ones) insist in grounding your arguments in losing premises? Do you enjoy getting your asses handed to you? The moment you frame the argument in terms of Biblical truth you are done. You've lost the argument. Stop embarrassing yourselves and the rest of us who think there is a rational case to be made for the existence of God. If the God of the Bible can't tell us how the universe was created, he's not much of a god. He's certainly not "all knowing", which creates more than reasonable doubt for the rest of it. He has told us: "In the beginning was the Word (information, logos)..." And when was that added to The Book of John? It wasn't added. Its in there.
Tarquin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,280
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,280 |
AS,
Well, you declined to explain why you accused me of being dishonest.
You simply do a cut and paste of some Bart Ehrman yada yada and somehow think you’ve justified your comment.
Not so.....
This reminds me of how strongly you stood behind Magic Larry Krause when he came out with his book about how science could show how the universe “came from nothing.” Stephen Colbert embarrassed him and Krause finally admitted that you had to start with “something.” His comments about “not needing a God to explain the universe” proved to be just more baloney ginned up to boost books sales. He further discredited himself when ASU canned him for his sexual improprieties and relationship with Epstein.
So why am I bringing this up? You hailed Magic Larry and he turned out to be just a huckster.
The same is true of Bart Ehrman..... he’s a book salesman and found his audience. He cares little for the truth but he has found itching ears to scratch.
Read “Misquoting Truth: A Guide to the Fallacies of Bart Ehrman’s ‘Misquoting Jesus’”
The tax collector said: “Lord Jesus, have mercy on me, a sinner.” Jesus said he went home “justified.”
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 30,968
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 30,968 |
Why in hell do you religionists (the anti-Darwinian, not the Darwinian ones) insist in grounding your arguments in losing premises? Do you enjoy getting your asses handed to you? The moment you frame the argument in terms of Biblical truth you are done. You've lost the argument. Stop embarrassing yourselves and the rest of us who think there is a rational case to be made for the existence of God. If the God of the Bible can't tell us how the universe was created, he's not much of a god. He's certainly not "all knowing", which creates more than reasonable doubt for the rest of it. He has told us: "In the beginning was the Word (information, logos)..." And when was that added to The Book of John? It wasn't added. Its in there. It's not in the earliest and best copies of John. It's a late addition to the text. The earlier the copies, the greater the variance between them. A lot of mistakes, edits, and changes in the early copies. Just because somethings in your King James version, that doesn't mean it was in the earliest texts.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2019
Posts: 6,029
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Apr 2019
Posts: 6,029 |
Why in hell do you religionists (the anti-Darwinian, not the Darwinian ones) insist in grounding your arguments in losing premises? Do you enjoy getting your asses handed to you? The moment you frame the argument in terms of Biblical truth you are done. You've lost the argument. Stop embarrassing yourselves and the rest of us who think there is a rational case to be made for the existence of God. If the God of the Bible can't tell us how the universe was created, he's not much of a god. He's certainly not "all knowing", which creates more than reasonable doubt for the rest of it. He has told us: "In the beginning was the Word (information, logos)..." And when was that added to The Book of John? It wasn't added. Its in there. It's not in the earliest and best copies of John. It's a late addition to the text. The earlier the copies, the greater the variance between them. A lot of mistakes, edits, and changes in the early copies. Just because somethings in your King James version, that doesn't mean it was in the earliest texts. It's in the KJV. Shall we talk about the faith required to believe in neo-Darwinism? 
Tarquin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 30,968
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 30,968 |
AS,
Well, you declined to explain why you accused me of being dishonest.
You simply do a cut and paste of some Bart Ehrman yada yada and somehow think you’ve justified your comment.
Not so.....
This reminds me of how strongly you stood behind Magic Larry Krause when he came out with his book about how science could show how the universe “came from nothing.” Stephen Colbert embarrassed him and Krause finally admitted that you had to start with “something.” His comments about “not needing a God to explain the universe” proved to be just more baloney ginned up to boost books sales. He further discredited himself when ASU canned him for his sexual improprieties and relationship with Epstein.
So why am I bringing this up? You hailed Magic Larry and he turned out to be just a huckster.
The same is true of Bart Ehrman..... he’s a book salesman and found his audience. He cares little for the truth but he has found itching ears to scratch.
Read “Misquoting Truth: A Guide to the Fallacies of Bart Ehrman’s ‘Misquoting Jesus’”
Again you're being dishonest. Never "finally admitted that you had to start with “something.”", In his book (which I'm sure you've never read) he's very up front about how he defines "nothing" as he is in his video presentations. Besides even if Krause's hypothesis is not true, it doesn't not prove your god, you are creating a false dichotomy, even if this one falls, you still have all your work before you to meet your burden of proof for your theistic claims.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 30,968
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 30,968 |
Why in hell do you religionists (the anti-Darwinian, not the Darwinian ones) insist in grounding your arguments in losing premises? Do you enjoy getting your asses handed to you? The moment you frame the argument in terms of Biblical truth you are done. You've lost the argument. Stop embarrassing yourselves and the rest of us who think there is a rational case to be made for the existence of God. If the God of the Bible can't tell us how the universe was created, he's not much of a god. He's certainly not "all knowing", which creates more than reasonable doubt for the rest of it. He has told us: "In the beginning was the Word (information, logos)..." And when was that added to The Book of John? It wasn't added. Its in there. It's not in the earliest and best copies of John. It's a late addition to the text. The earlier the copies, the greater the variance between them. A lot of mistakes, edits, and changes in the early copies. Just because somethings in your King James version, that doesn't mean it was in the earliest texts. It's in the KJV. Shall we talk about the faith required to believe in neo-Darwinism? No more then that required to move past the problem of hard solipsism. Next subject?
Last edited by antelope_sniper; 06/15/20.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2016
Posts: 95,692
Campfire Oracle
|
|
OP
Campfire Oracle
Joined: Jan 2016
Posts: 95,692 |
If the earth were billions of years old, then nuclear decay would have made all uranium turn in to lead by now. Uranium therefore can't be that old. Also, an agnostic scientist said granite rock could not be formed by evolution. Granite is 5% uranium and the uranium is thoroughly mixed evenly in granite. He said it is like taking an Alka-Selzer while still fizzing and freeze it instantly. He said granite had to be created instantly. He also said they tried to recreate granite in a lab with the same atoms and material. They cannot do it by heat or by cold. It always separates. This scientist became a Christian because of granite rock and proof that it had to be created instantly.
Evolution also violates one of the laws of thermodynamics which states everything is in a state of decay, not evolving upward.
These two facts totally destroy evolution theory. Also, I though only communist athiests believe in evolution.
Mutations are not evolution. No existing animal is or has evolved into another. Mutated maybe but not evolved. Dogs and wolves can recreate, because they are in the same family of animals. Grizzlies and Polar bears can breed. Humans share 98% of DNA of [bleep], but we can't breed because we are entirely different and unique species. Wolves cannot breed with hyenas. Similar, but different species. You mean all through history 2 fish didnt mutate into chickens at the same time in the same pond and then start propagating on land? And then two chickens didnt suddenly have two mutated babies be cats? Or one chicken have two mutated cats of the opposite sex at the same time? Come on you kook, you were the so called doctor... The small trace amounts of radioactive material found in granite decays rapidly into radon.... you cant quote a retarded ass post like that to support your “mythology”.... if granite was rockin 5% uranium, you really think we’d be rocking granite countertops in kitchens to make our food on? Lmao. Uugghh... PS - its not difficult to google how granites formed.... no agnostic scientist needed lol.. So tell me then how the rare mutations happened to produce the first two cats at the same time in the same neighborhood and were of the required opposite sex required for them to mate and reproduce? Were there gradual changes in the creatures they changed from and if so, where did those intermediate life forms go? The sharks could survive and the salamanders they gradually became could survive, but where are the animals that were the link between them? Evolution works on population, not individuals, and over long periods of time. And evidently leaves no in between, connecting critters behind.
Ecc 10:2
The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but that of a fool to the left.
A Nation which leaves God behind is soon left behind.
"The Lord never asked anyone to be a tax collector, lowyer, or Redskins fan".
I Dindo Nuffin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2016
Posts: 95,692
Campfire Oracle
|
|
OP
Campfire Oracle
Joined: Jan 2016
Posts: 95,692 |
Why in hell do you religionists (the anti-Darwinian, not the Darwinian ones) insist in grounding your arguments in losing premises? Do you enjoy getting your asses handed to you? The moment you frame the argument in terms of Biblical truth you are done. You've lost the argument. Stop embarrassing yourselves and the rest of us who think there is a rational case to be made for the existence of God. If the God of the Bible can't tell us how the universe was created, he's not much of a god. He's certainly not "all knowing", which creates more than reasonable doubt for the rest of it. HE wanted scoffers to doubt.
Ecc 10:2
The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but that of a fool to the left.
A Nation which leaves God behind is soon left behind.
"The Lord never asked anyone to be a tax collector, lowyer, or Redskins fan".
I Dindo Nuffin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 30,968
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 30,968 |
If the earth were billions of years old, then nuclear decay would have made all uranium turn in to lead by now. Uranium therefore can't be that old. Also, an agnostic scientist said granite rock could not be formed by evolution. Granite is 5% uranium and the uranium is thoroughly mixed evenly in granite. He said it is like taking an Alka-Selzer while still fizzing and freeze it instantly. He said granite had to be created instantly. He also said they tried to recreate granite in a lab with the same atoms and material. They cannot do it by heat or by cold. It always separates. This scientist became a Christian because of granite rock and proof that it had to be created instantly.
Evolution also violates one of the laws of thermodynamics which states everything is in a state of decay, not evolving upward.
These two facts totally destroy evolution theory. Also, I though only communist athiests believe in evolution.
Mutations are not evolution. No existing animal is or has evolved into another. Mutated maybe but not evolved. Dogs and wolves can recreate, because they are in the same family of animals. Grizzlies and Polar bears can breed. Humans share 98% of DNA of [bleep], but we can't breed because we are entirely different and unique species. Wolves cannot breed with hyenas. Similar, but different species. You mean all through history 2 fish didnt mutate into chickens at the same time in the same pond and then start propagating on land? And then two chickens didnt suddenly have two mutated babies be cats? Or one chicken have two mutated cats of the opposite sex at the same time? Come on you kook, you were the so called doctor... The small trace amounts of radioactive material found in granite decays rapidly into radon.... you cant quote a retarded ass post like that to support your “mythology”.... if granite was rockin 5% uranium, you really think we’d be rocking granite countertops in kitchens to make our food on? Lmao. Uugghh... PS - its not difficult to google how granites formed.... no agnostic scientist needed lol.. So tell me then how the rare mutations happened to produce the first two cats at the same time in the same neighborhood and were of the required opposite sex required for them to mate and reproduce? Were there gradual changes in the creatures they changed from and if so, where did those intermediate life forms go? The sharks could survive and the salamanders they gradually became could survive, but where are the animals that were the link between them? Evolution works on population, not individuals, and over long periods of time. And evidently leaves no in between, connecting critters behind. As I've said before dumber and more dishonest by the post.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2019
Posts: 6,029
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Apr 2019
Posts: 6,029 |
Why in hell do you religionists (the anti-Darwinian, not the Darwinian ones) insist in grounding your arguments in losing premises? Do you enjoy getting your asses handed to you? The moment you frame the argument in terms of Biblical truth you are done. You've lost the argument. Stop embarrassing yourselves and the rest of us who think there is a rational case to be made for the existence of God. If the God of the Bible can't tell us how the universe was created, he's not much of a god. He's certainly not "all knowing", which creates more than reasonable doubt for the rest of it. Speaking for God now are you. Oh the hubris!
Tarquin
|
|
|
|
|
615 members (007FJ, 10gaugemag, 10ring1, 12344mag, 160user, 1936M71, 67 invisible),
2,531
guests, and
1,355
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,191,949
Posts18,480,378
Members73,954
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
