Creation vs. Evolution

[Kdall]

Yes, your evidence is quite evil when it does this.

Romans 1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.


everready

Again, you're an idiot for not being able to recognize what was said in my last post

 

[Kdall]

:AMR:

Struggling with comprehension isn't something you want to become known for.

We have a new candidate for the most ironic thing ever said

 

[Kdall]

The word of God defends Stripe, its not the evil Barbarian its a spirit of bondage that won't let you see the truth.


everready

No. Stolen Sumerian mythology "defends" Stipe. God's Word applies in Genesis metaphorically, and therefore refutes Stipe, and 6days, and you

 

[Kdall]

Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.


it says the evening and the morning were the first day.

1 rotation of the earth = 1 day

the only thing the bible does not say is how long it took the earth
to rotate once.

Perhaps, but as an example of why Genesis, and any other ancient text, shouldn't be taken literally when refuted by scientific data, I'll remind everyone here that Genesis claims the Earth is flat circular disk. We all know that indeed the Earth is a spherical 3D shape, and not a 2D circle like the Bible says. Ancient people had limited comprehension of the world

 

[Stripe]

Ok, when I pull up the first dictionary definition of “days” that I find on the internet, the second definition it lists for day is “a period of the past, or an era”. So since you are so insistent on the English word “day”, there is a valid definition – “an era”. Are eras always 24 hours long in the Stipean world?

What does your dictionary say for "six days"?

You have provided something that Stipe has demonstrated a complete inability to do – a brief explanation for why you think the word “day” means 24 hours.

You never asked me for that. :idunno:

Thank, you, whether right or wrong, it is good to see something said on the subject beyond Stipe’s mindless pretense that anyone not agreeing with him is not qualified to be in the discussion.

:allsmile:

But keeping the rules constant, it is not the messenger, or the number of messengers that determines the correctness of one side of a disputed argument, it is the facts supporting the argument that count.

And the Bible says: "Six days." Anyone who says that it does not is obviously wrong.

And alas, in spite of often saying “evidence, evidence, evidence”, Stipe relishes his mindless unsupported declaration that only those who automatically subscribe to 24-hour days are capable of participating in an intelligent discussion. When I ask him for the supporting evidence, he resorts (true to form) instead to character assassination.

Nope. Asserting that the Bible says "six days" is fact. If you say it does not, there is no point trying to engage in rational discussion.

Genesis claims the Earth is flat circular disk.

No, it doesn't.

I wonder where Davis is to accuse you of making "unsubstantiated assertions," or in this case: Lies. :think:

Stipe explains why he's unable to defend his silly claims:Yeah, we get it, Stipe. You'd love to show us the math, but the Evil Barbarian™ won't let you.[/QUOTE][QUOTE="alwight, post: 0"]In terms of the creation of everything a "day" is, it seems to me, a totally meaningless or relative term depending on which planet or moon the observer is on. Ancient people didn't know about other planetary bodies, or even that the Earth was one, which is why they could only use "a day" as a term of reference. A day in scripture is a clearly meant to be a day of 24 hours imo. That alone surely makes ancient scripture not something to treat as a literal historical truth? :idunno:[/QUOTE][QUOTE="The Barbarian, post: 0"](Stipe again declines to support his claim that math refutes evolution, because Barbarian won't accept his new interpretation of Genesis)Barbarian chuckles:Yeah, we get it, Stipe. You'd love to show us the math, but the Evil Barbarian™ won't let you.If that were so, Stipe wouldn't be dodging the question. If truth is on his side, he wouldn't be hiding from it.Funny how those caught up in that, never think it's themselves who are in bondage, um?[/QUOTE][QUOTE="The Barbarian, post: 0"]I think everyone would like to see Stipe defend his claim that evolution is mathematically impossible. Do you think you could convince him to step up and do that?Presently, he's saying he can't do it, because I won't agree with him on his new interpretation of Genesis.You know that thing about "engaging honestly?" See if you can get him to do it.[/QUOTE][QUOTE="The Barbarian, post: 0"]Argon-argon testing accurately called the eruption that buried Pompeii, for example. But yes, one of the compelling arguments for radioisotope dating is the fact that diverse methods give us the same answers.[url]http://go ndwanaresearch.c om/radiomet.htm [/url]

Meanwhile, the Bible says "six days."

 

[Kdall]

No, it doesn't.

I wonder where Davis is to accuse you of making "unsubstantiated assertions," or in this case: Lies. :think:

Really? Are you sure?

He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in. - Isaiah 40:22

I demand a response from you on the subject of this verse. It seems as if you not only are clueless in regards to science, but also in regard to the Bible

 

[Stripe]

I demand a response from you.

You can demand all you like, you trumped up moron, but first: Show us where the Bible says the Earth is a flat disk.

And that was Isaiah, not Genesis. :loser:

 

[Kdall]

You can demand all you like, you trumped up moron, but first: Show us where the Bible says the Earth is a flat disk.

And that was Isaiah, not Genesis. :loser:

Excuse me, THE BIBLE says that Earth is flat. Do you dispute this?

For further confirmation of that, here you go:
"And after these things I saw four angels standing on four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree." - Rev 7:1

The Bible seems unable to agree with itself on whether the Earth is circular or has corners, but readily agrees that it's flat

 

[Stripe]

THE BIBLE says that Earth is flat.

Nope. Making things up isn't the way to go about things. :nono:

 

[Kdall]

Nope. Making things up isn't the way to go about things. :nono:

If I'm lying, then what do the verses I supplied actually mean? How am I misconstruing the clear language?

Your ideology is getting trapped in a corner. You know, like those things that Revelations says the Earth has

 

[6days]

Excuse me, THE BIBLE says that Earth is flat. Do you dispute this?

:crackup:
You can argue with God on that one. He created the earth, and I'm pretty sure He did not tell us the earth is flat.

 

[Kdall]

:crackup:
You can argue with God on that one. He created the earth, and I'm pretty sure He did not tell us the earth is flat.

Then what do those verses mean?!

You can't seal yourself off from asking questions forever

 

[6days]

The Bible seems unable to agree with itself on whether the Earth is circular or has corners, but readily agrees that it's flat

You must have so much trouble with the news when it tells you that the sun rose at 7:19? Do you seriously think that the reporter believes the sun rose?

Dictionary.com has no problem understanding terminology like you seem to..... Although I suspect you do understand but are desperately trying to prove God wrong.\
Dictionary.com "the four corners of the earth, the most distant or remote regions"

 

[Kdall]

You must have so much trouble with the news when it tells you that the sun rose at 7:19? Do you seriously think that the reporter believes the sun rose?

Dictionary.com has no problem understanding terminology like you seem to..... Although I suspect you do understand but are desperately trying to prove God wrong.\
Dictionary.com "the four corners of the earth, the most distant or remote regions"

And that's a good explanation. However, the term used for Earth there in the Hebrew Bible (eretz) is the same used in Genesis, yet you claim passionately that Noah's Flood covered the entire Earth, not just the region. It's hilarious how you can't see the way you pick and choose what you want and, in the process, contradict yourself. I'm not trying to disprove God you dummy. I'm trying to disprove your interpretation of His Word

Also, you've still got the harder verse to explain away left to go. The grasshopper one

 

[Stripe]

If I'm lying, then what do the verses I supplied actually mean? How am I misconstruing the clear language?

Wait. You make a claim, fail to back that claim up and suddenly it's my job to defend myself?

:darwinsm:

Only an evolutionist...

You know, like those things that Revelations says the Earth has

:AMR:

 

[Kdall]

Wait. You make a claim, fail to back that claim up and suddenly it's my job to defend myself?

Well I provided you with the Bible verses that back my claim. It's not my fault if you're too thick or willfully ignorant to see that

 

[Stripe]

Well I provided you with the Bible verses that back my claim. It's not my fault if you're too thick or willfully ignorant to see that

Your claim was the Bible teaches that the Earth is a flat disk. Your verse talked about God looking down on the "circle of the Earth." The Hebrew word is חוּג, a noun that can be translated as circle, class, ring, orb, sphere, tropic, horizon, boundary or party. We know you want the Bible to mean "flat disk," but unfortunately that does not count as evidence and neither is the term one of the options.

You made a claim that is not supported by the evidence. As Davis should be saying, you made an "unsubstantiated assertion."

Meanwhile, the Bible teaches "six days" of creation.

 

[6days]

And that's a good explanation. However, the term used for Earth there in the Hebrew Bible (eretz) is the same used in Genesis, yet you claim passionately that Noah's Flood covered the entire Earth, not just the region.

Yes, His Word tells us in Genesis 7 The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. 19 They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. 20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits.[a] 21 Every living thing that moved on land perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. 22 Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. 23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.

24 The waters flooded the earth for a hundred and fifty days.

 

[Kdall]

Yes, His Word tells us in Genesis 7 The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. 19 They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. 20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits.[a] 21 Every living thing that moved on land perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. 22 Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. 23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.

24 The waters flooded the earth for a hundred and fifty days.

And every time it says "Earth" there it was translated from "eretz" and should be "region." Two of each regional domestic animal were brought aboard a medium-sized round vessel (that were common in the region at the time) and the water could very well have risen to the point that tall, rocky hills in the region were nearly swallowed up.

NONE of that requires a global flood. If you claim that eretz means "region" in Isaiah then it also means that in Genesis. There is not a shift in language


Can anyone tell me why the flood needed to last 150 days if all humans and animals would've been wiped out in the first two, maybe three at the most? The chronology makes little sense

 

[Stripe]

And every time it says "Earth" there it was translated from "eretz" and should be "region." Two of each regional domestic animal were brought aboard a medium-sized round vessel (that were common in the region at the time) and the water could very well have risen to the point that tall, rocky hills in the region were nearly swallowed up.

All because you say so, right?

NONE of that requires a global flood

Physics. If you cover one mountain with water, you need to cover pretty much all of them.