Very interesting, I love this kinda stuff actually.
Anyway here's an interesting quote:
"From quantum field theory, we know that something does indeed come from nothing: to wit, "vacuum fluctuations". In the simplest case, an electron, a positron and a photon can appear effectively out of nowhere, exist for a brief time and then annihilate, leaving no net creation of mass or energy."
First I would like to know if they are violating the first law of thermodynamics.
2nd, this part is interesting:
"leaving no net creation of mass or energy."
I know about photon coming "out of nowhere" since I study quantum physics for fun, but as they said, there is no creation of mass or energy, so where does the mass and energy come from?
It doesn't explain, since there is no explanation besides saying that it comes from nothing, or that it comes from God.
Then it goes on to say this:
"the BBT is not about the origin of the universe"
and this:
"You will notice I have said nothing about an 'explosion' - the big bang theory describes how our universe is evolving, not how it began.""
I guess that about wraps it up. It can't explain the origin of the universe.
All it can do is examine whats already here, and for that I'll have to agree with them.
Yes the universe seems to be expanding, and yes it seems to be evolving (changing).
So that would suggest some sort of starting point, all of which I can agree with.
This article is relatively old though (2006), and it doesn't take into account the new accelerating universe theory.
It also doesn't disprove God which is what I think you were trying to do.
Drewish Philosopher:
Do you need to know how a toaster works to make a toast ?
You don't, you just need to know it works.
What's in those articles can be found pretty much everywhere, and you could ask any scholar or more knowledgeable person and I'm almost certain they will tell you the same.
urbanmonk:
Just to clarify, I'm not trying to disprove god. Even if I wanted to it's impossible, the same way it's impossible to prove he exists.
You can't prove or disprove something that never existed in the first place, and in my mind that applies to god or anything that is the product of someone's imagination. Of course you'll disagree with me and that's normal since you believe in god.
My point is, you can't base your faith on what's in the bible. There are some obvious discrepancies between the truth and what's written in there so no christian should see it as the book of all facts. Also I think it's bad when people try to put god in almost everything that is in some way unknown to us and use it as some sort of excuse for themselves as some sort of way to "cover the holes" so to say of their beliefs. Not to prove god's existence to others, but to prove god's existence to themselves. I'm saying this because when I believed I did it more times that I'd like to admit.
The idea of a superior entity out there watching for us is a good thing, it's a comfort feeling you are not alone and that there is life after death and I believe that's what makes most people believe in a god, be it god, allah, ganesha, zeus or anubis. That's the basis of every religion and that's why they are so different but at the same time so similar.
Also religion is a subject I love to dig into and when done properly can make for a really nice and interesting discussion. I think respect is the key in every discussion but in religion it's importance is doubled. I think to claim you really believe in something you have to go through other people's point of views and beliefs and in my opinion it's a really interesting experience. And that's coming from someone who doesn't follow any faith.
I find it funny that you suddenly "clarify" your original post of "inconsistencies" after I tore your so-called inconsistencies to shreds. That's mighty inconsistent of you.
You're equally funny as are you bright.
You seemed to be in need of clarification since you obviously didn't know what the word meant. I based that on the fact that I had already stated a definition of the word inconsistency, and as I said, the latter was a clarification since you didn't understand the original definition.
Your "main point" is rather silly since you're basing it on a lie. I never once said that I could "give the King James version to someone completely oblivious to it's contents and tell them..." blah blah blah. Nor do I assume that. Of course this person has to have some prior knowledge, much like they would need to have with anything else. Knowing how to read is a start.
If one would look at my "main point" it never stated that "give the King James version to someone completely oblivious to it's contents and tell them[...]" was the direct quote of something you had said. The quote was the next part, I thought it was clear since it was the only thing inside the "":
"everything in here is true, science backs this up, it doesn't contain any inconsistencies at all"
Though I probably should have put [...] instead of commas since you'll just say: "point me to the sentence were I said exactly that, preferably with some scripture sauce"
The first part of it is a sum of collected statements from you, like these:
"Well it's easy, if I say something that you're not sure about go check it out for yourself. It's pretty cut and dry. It's not like you have to mumble some magical phrase to understand the Bible, the King James version is in plain English."
Please point out these inconsistencies, and if you do please quote the King James Bible as your reference.
Basicly prove what you're saying is true and it might hold some weight.
Every sane person knows that the Bible (read in it's context) is true, and history and science proves it.
You don't have to go back to the original Hebrew and Greek to gain the information, the information is there in English.
I used it to prove that there were no inconsistencies, but it's not required to understand what it means.
"You are right, in these cases we can't just read it in English and accept it's direct meaning at face value. We've got to check the original Hebrew and Greek words and make sure there aren't multiple versions of each word that was translated into English."
I don't know if I understand your logic here. Do you mean that regardless of what information we get out of the bible in english we should just shut up and say 'it is not needed of us to understand this, I'm sure the meaning is clear in the hebrew/greek scriptures'
Then KJV must be the worst bible ever, since we can't actually rely on it to tell us anything. We should then preferably move over to hebrew/greek bible quotes, since that's the only way we can discuss anything.
God is directly involved, yes, he allows a spirit to deceive that prophet. It is accepted practice in Hebrew culture to attribute God to everything since he is the one who allows anything to take place. This view is also in the Bible itself if you'd bother to read the whole thing and not just try to disprove single sentences with "zeal."
Here's two bible commentaries for you:
Do you even know what a commentary is? It's a personal interpretation, usually shared to clarify certain pieces of text. You've always stated that the bible doesn't need interpretation, so why should I bother with this?
I had really intended to reply on your commentaries, but I suspect it wouldn't make any difference whatsoever anyways, so I saved myself some time!
Of course it's all explained later on in the book of Genesis and the other books of the Bible, but that hardly means that it wasn't in effect.
If you want to prove that you'll have to show a scripture that states that rather than just assuming that based on the "first mentioning" of particular words.
You are either as brainwashed as you appear to be, or you're trying to out-manouver the point I made. Sin did not exist in the mind of man before it was introduced to man, so how are man to know about sin and it's proper rituals before that, and why should man be punished for a crime that the whole of mankind(4 at the moment) did not even know about? That's the point. I don't care how many times you try and elude the answer by vaguely pointing to somewhere else in the bible, your logic makes out God as the biggest a** ever.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] You really are treading on dangerous grounds with that statement, you shouldn't so hap-hazardly portrait God as a spoiled brat that can put his pet on fire if he wants to just because it's God.
I hardly implied such a thing, much less even came close. It might have such a meaning if you're looking at it from your "world view," but for everyone else it simply meant that God is confined to our human restraints.
I presume you meant 'is not confined'(though I'll not smear your reply with [sic], it's quite childish since this is a forum, not a report).
Me: "God hates "he that soweth discord among brethren", but as long as it's God it's ok then..?"
You: "Yes, actually. If it's God he can do whatever he wants."
So if it was God who(just an example since it was so highly debated) roasted and murdered the children of Sodom it would have been ok and 'plain super'? Cause that's what your highly dubious presentation of God implies.
Anyway, this is sooooo tiresome, but I'll hand you another one of those inconsistencies, Cain wanders to the land of Nod, east of Eden. Later;
"17And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch."
His wife must have been some sort of ape since there were no other humans on earth at the time.
I can continue to state these all day long, to claim that the bible does not contain any inconsistencies at all is just so very ignorant and brain washed.
@Drewish Philosopher: Have you actually read this thread or are you just jumping in cause it's fun to cause a ruckus? I had very good grounds for my premise and do not understand why you should, put plain, butt in on it and try to debunk me? Could you post some sort of explanation to why you feel my point is so thin? Otherwise I'd rather you stayed out of it.
//EE
EDIT: I re-read some of the 'dialog' that has passed and realized that it is a clear waste of time for my part. I don't in any part of my body think that you, UrbanMonk will listen to reason or even be able to believe something you haven't been taught by your parents/minister/parish, so it's fruitless for me to try and change your mind when it's already set in stone. You haven't answered any question to a satisfactory degree, like the mentioned inconsistencies for one, it'd be sad if you thought you had, so I'm just telling you.
Do you know why atheists and agnostics etc. bash and mock the bible so hard? It's simply because there are actually people, like yourself, that can without making a face, claim and cling to that the bible in it's entirety is the flawless work of God and should be read as such, literally, and I don't need to explain to you once more why this is not the case. In my opinion you foul the Bible, you see it in this strange barbaristic fashion and treat it as such. I'm ever so happy that I don't feel the need to read it in the same way.
Anywho, one part of me really wants to point out the serious flaws in your reasoning, the other part realizes that the only result is precious, wasted time. So I'll once again try and leave this thread. Hopefully I'll make a better job at it this time.
On a last note, I seriously hope, for your sake, that you one day will see things unmuddled, God knows you need it.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] [...] was the direct quote of something you had said. [...]
I never once said anything of the sort.
The Bible is a collection of manuscripts that make it up.
And the King James Translation of the Bible is the closest most accurate translation to English that exists.
It's pretty clear that you make up stuff to try and support your side.
Whatever that side might be, you have yet to tell us exactly what you believe.
You seem a bit scared to reveal it.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] I don't know if I understand your logic here. Do you mean that regardless of what information we get out of the bible in english we should just shut up and say 'it is not needed of us to understand this, I'm sure the meaning is clear in the hebrew/greek scriptures'
Nope.
The King James translation is perfectly understandable.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] Then KJV must be the worst bible ever, since we can't actually rely on it to tell us anything. We should then preferably move over to hebrew/greek bible quotes, since that's the only way we can discuss anything.
Nope.
It's the best translation of the Bible.
There are no contradictions or inconsistencies in the original, nor are there any in the translation of the original.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] Do you even know what a commentary is? It's a personal interpretation, usually shared to clarify certain pieces of text. You've always stated that the bible doesn't need interpretation, so why should I bother with this?
The commentaries that I gave you did not contain personal interpretations, rather it gave cross references to other scriptures in the Bible and references to Hebrew culture.
The Jewish people have taught this for years, and it's right there in black and white.
It's less of an interpretation and more like direct truth.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] I had really intended to reply on your commentaries, but I suspect it wouldn't make any difference whatsoever anyways, so I saved myself some time!
It would be a waste of everyone's time. They speak for themselves.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] You are either as brainwashed as you appear to be
An insult eh?
I understand that your pride is on the line here, but if you're wrong just admit it. I'm sure people here would forgive you.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] , or you're trying to out-manouver the point I made. Sin did not exist in the mind of man before it was introduced to man,
Right! So can you prove that it wasn't introduced before they gave their sin offerings to God?
Showing when the word 'sin' first appeared in the Bible doesn't prove that it didn't exist before then.
It did exist, God didn't just make it up when he felt like it. It was designed from the start, and so was blood sacrifice for sins.
Of course as I've stated before, this is no longer necessary since Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] Anyway, this is sooooo tiresome, but I'll hand you another one of those inconsistencies, Cain wanders to the land of Nod, east of Eden. Later;
"17And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch."
His wife must have been some sort of ape since there were no other humans on earth at the time.
I don't even know how I should reply to this, I can't tell if you are serious or not.
Where does the Bible say there were no other humans on the earth?
Since it says that he had a wife then he did, so what's your point?
So yet again you have nothing. All of your so-called inconsistencies are the same. They aren't inconsistencies at all.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] [...]Hopefully I'll make a better job at it this time.
On a last note, I seriously hope, for your sake, that you one day will see things unmuddled, God knows you need it.
Ha ha!
I can't tell if you are being honest or just giving up.
But either way thanks for your sentiments.
I know what I believe, and you've figured that out finally.
So tell us, what do you believe? Your "world view" if you will.
I really should realize that there is a reason so many fail when quitting something cold-turkey
Originally Posted by UrbanMonk
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] [...] was the direct quote of something you had said. [...]
I never once said anything of the sort.
You misunderstood my post(hopefully), so I'll post it again:
If one would look at my "main point" it never stated that "give the King James version to someone completely oblivious to it's contents and tell them[...]" was the direct quote of something you had said. The quote was the next part, I thought it was clear since it was the only thing inside the "": "everything in here is true, science backs this up, it doesn't contain any inconsistencies at all"
Though I probably should have put [...] instead of commas since you'll just say: "point me to the sentence were I said exactly that, preferably with some scripture sauce"
The first part of it is a sum of collected statements from you, like these:
"Well it's easy, if I say something that you're not sure about go check it out for yourself. It's pretty cut and dry. It's not like you have to mumble some magical phrase to understand the Bible, the King James version is in plain English."
Please point out these inconsistencies, and if you do please quote the King James Bible as your reference.
Basicly prove what you're saying is true and it might hold some weight.
Every sane person knows that the Bible (read in it's context) is true, and history and science proves it.
Do you understand my post now?
The Bible is a collection of manuscripts that make it up.
And the King James Translation of the Bible is the closest most accurate translation to English that exists.
It's pretty clear that you make up stuff to try and support your side.
Whatever that side might be, you have yet to tell us exactly what you believe.
You seem a bit scared to reveal it.
It's wonderful how you try and turn my pointing out your statements into me making stuff up and being scared to share my worldview.
I understand that your pride is on the line here, but if you're wrong just admit it. I'm sure people here would forgive you.
My pride isn't on the line here!
That has to be one of the most lame attempts at provocation yet!
Right! So can you prove that it wasn't introduced before they gave their sin offerings to God?
Showing when the word 'sin' first appeared in the Bible doesn't prove that it didn't exist before then.
It did exist, God didn't just make it up when he felt like it. It was designed from the start, and so was blood sacrifice for sins.
Of course as I've stated before, this is no longer necessary since Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice.
If you would stop trying to disarm the argument by pointing at Jesus and instead actually look at it.
In your world, The book of Genesis is a historically accurate documentation of the creation of the world, right?
Well, if I was to document an era of such importance I'd make sure not to include loose ends. Especially if it was supposed to be a document that would remain unchanged for the entirety of mankind, since obviously someone is going to get hung up on the loose end.
The concept of sin is quite the important one, so I'd make sure that it was appropriately mentioned were it influenced major happenings, so people wouldn't start to question the underlying decisions in those happenings.
The bible's failure to mention that Adam, Eve, Abel & Cain was already introduced to and familiar with the concept of sin and sin offerings prior to God's approving of Abel's gift but not Cain's indicates one out of five(off the top of my head) things:
1.) That God does indeed deal in respect and judges "gifts" differently(meaning that the Bible is contradictory).
2.) That the concept of sin(regardless of if it was in effect or not) was not familiar to Adam, Eve, Abel & Cain at the time(meaning that God demanded something impossible of the two sons, making God unjust, which couldn't be the case if it was to be God).
3.) That the idea of Abel and Cains "gifts" being sin offerings is just that, an idea made up by theologians to excuse an obvious contradiction in the bible(meaning that the bible once again is proven to contain inconsistencies).
4.) That Moses was tired and wrote something just to get on with it(meaning that the bible shouldn't be read in a literal fashion).
5.) That Moses didn't write it at all. (I believe I don't have to clarify what that would mean)
Where does the Bible say there were no other humans on the earth?
Where does the bible say it does?
Since it says that he had a wife then he did, so what's your point?
May I ask if you are serious?
Adam and Eve were, according to the bible, the first humans on earth. How can Cain, being the son of the first two humans on earth, wander off and find himself a wife?
If you do not call that contradictory then you are void of rational thought.
However, if one simply acknowledges the bible not suited for literal interpretation, then there is no problem.
All of your so-called inconsistencies are the same.
You flatter me, they aren't my inconsistencies. They are inconsistencies of the world's most prominent thinkers. However, they are so obvious, and trying to be blind of them is so delusional, that they needn't even be mentioned in serious debate.
I can't tell if you are being honest or just giving up.
But either way thanks for your sentiments.
I know what I believe, and you've figured that out finally.
So tell us, what do you believe? Your "world view" if you will.
I give up on seeing you as material for rational discussion. There is no sense for me wasting time trying to show you things since you block out any attempt at conveying information. That only makes you look sad, not me.
I start talking to people with the hopes of them being sincere, rational and interested in understanding and in search of truth. You are very obviously not a person of that category, so I give up on you, so to speak.
The only downside to my part in this conversation is that yet another seemingly intelligent person was shown to be just a well trained monkey, and I've wasted much of my precious time thinking I could talk to that monkey.
Lastly, my worldview is irrelevant to our little communication, you just need something to try and attack and provoke with, you are not the least interested in what I would have to say. I believe in God, I believe that the bible isn't to be interpreted literally, I'm more sane than to claim every other form of faith false, what more could you possibly need to know?
And by the by, I was serious. I really hope you some day 'snap out of it' and realize what you're saying.
May I ask if you are serious?
Adam and Eve were, according to the bible, the first humans on earth. How can Cain, being the son of the first two humans on earth, wander off and find himself a wife?
If you do not call that contradictory then you are void of rational thought.
Maybe she was the offspring of the nameless human couple mentioned in Genesis 1:27?
Edited by Phredreeke
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -
Seriously though, urbanmonk stop pretending this is a political debate and that there is someone backing you up. I can say for sure there isn't. If I'm wrong, may that person or persons step forward.
Don't you think that it's a coincidence that every person who discussed with you in this thread said the same things ?
In addition to your irrational way of thinking, you keep provoking, saying people are making stuff up when everyone can see they don't, boldly claiming what's in the bible has to be true and should be seen as a fact etc...
That's not the right way to do it. Like I said respect is the key and believe me it takes a lot of patience not to lose it and keep a rational discussion, if we could call it that.
I'm back. Sorry I took so long, I had exam's this week. Now for summer classes. ugh.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] You misunderstood my post(hopefully), so I'll post it again: [...]
Ok, well anyway it doesn't matter since I never once made the claim you said I made.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] If you would stop trying to disarm the argument by pointing at Jesus and instead actually look at it.
In your world, The book of Genesis is a historically accurate documentation of the creation of the world, right?
Well, if I was to document an era of such importance I'd make sure not to include loose ends. Especially if it was supposed to be a document that would remain unchanged for the entirety of mankind, since obviously someone is going to get hung up on the loose end.
Ha ha! There isn't any loose ends! That's what's so funny!
No one else in the world would even care whether or not the word 'sin' was mentioned because it's easy to see if you keep reading.
No one has ever gotten "hung up" on a "loose end," and neither have you.
I'm sure you knew the answer to your question when you asked it.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] The concept of sin is quite the important one, so I'd make sure that it was appropriately mentioned were it influenced major happenings, so people wouldn't start to question the underlying decisions in those happenings.
Yes it sure is. If someone starts asking that question because they really want to know, then all they have to do is read a little bit to find the answer.
The same place the question came from will be the same place the answer comes too.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] The bible's failure to mention that Adam, Eve, Abel & Cain was already introduced to and familiar with the concept of sin and sin offerings prior to God's approving of Abel's gift but not Cain's indicates one out of five(off the top of my head) things:
Off the top of your head indeed!
None of those suggested idea's hold any water either.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] 1.) That God does indeed deal in respect and judges "gifts" differently(meaning that the Bible is contradictory).
Well we know this is false since the Bible already says that he doesn't, and since it isn't contradictory that's the conclusion.
If your interpretation contradicts another part of the Bible then it's false. Come on now EE you know this stuff!
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] 2.) That the concept of sin(regardless of if it was in effect or not) was not familiar to Adam, Eve, Abel & Cain at the time(meaning that God demanded something impossible of the two sons, making God unjust, which couldn't be the case if it was to be God).
On what are you basing this assumption? Can you give me some scripture sauce for this?
One could just as easily assume that it was familiar, and knowing God, it prolly was.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] 3.) That the idea of Abel and Cains "gifts" being sin offerings is just that, an idea made up by theologians to excuse an obvious contradiction in the bible(meaning that the bible once again is proven to contain inconsistencies).
You'll notice all throughout the Bible God deals with man the same way for a period of time until he decides to change things.
(Such as dying on the cross changed the way being forgiven was done)
So no, nothing was made up, and in fact it is completely Biblical.
There is more to this answer actually, but I'll leave it at that for now.
Your last two points are the same.
Since God is real and he want's his word to be known, then he wouldn't allow anything to happen to it.
Which is why the Bible is the most translated Book in the world.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE]
Originally Posted by UrbanMonk
Where does the Bible say there were no other humans on the earth?
Where does the bible say it does?
Ha ha! Ok I'll play this game!
The Bible says it in the very same scripture you were trying to use to claim that there wasn't.
See my below quote:
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE]
Originally Posted by UrbanMonk
Since it says that he had a wife then he did, so what's your point?
May I ask if you are serious?
Adam and Eve were, according to the bible, the first humans on earth. How can Cain, being the son of the first two humans on earth, wander off and find himself a wife?
If you do not call that contradictory then you are void of rational thought.
The first part of your statement is true.
Adam and Eve were the first humans on Earth.
And yes Cain was one of the son's of the first two humans on Earth.
But please, point me to where it states that Adam and Eve had no other children, or that Cain wasn't married before he was exiled by God.
Both are perfectly reasonable possibilities.
Not only that, but you'll also notice that the Bible only mentions 3 of Adam and Eve's children. (Abel, Cain, and Seth)
Does that mean they only had 3? By your logic it does.
They had other children, perhaps even a daughter or two before or in-between the births of Abel and Cain.
And both Abel and Cain had wives. Cain could have even been married before he was cast out.
So no, not even close to being a contradiction, conflict, or "inconsistency."
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] world's most prominent thinkers.
They need to think harder haha!
I find that hard to believe though, who are these "thinkers" exactly, besides someone like you writing on Wikipedia in hopes that someone will believe it.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] However, they are so obvious, and trying to be blind of them is so delusional, that they needn't even be mentioned in serious debate.
They are obvious, which is why I wonder why you mentioned them since they're obviously not contradictions.
Please find me a real one. Just one, that's all I ask.
The more you try to point out, the more you'll prove the Bible's truth.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] I give up on seeing you as material for rational discussion. There is no sense for me wasting time trying to show you things since you block out any attempt at conveying information. That only makes you look sad, not me.
Sounds like you're giving up to me.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] [...] yet another seemingly intelligent person was shown to be just a well trained monkey [...]
And let me guess, if I agreed with you that makes me smart right?
You're logic is so funny, but no I'm not as dumb as other "Christians" you've talked to. Sorry to disappoint you.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] I believe in God, I believe that the bible isn't to be interpreted literally, I'm more sane than to claim every other form of faith false, what more could you possibly need to know?
People don't want your in-congruent philosophies, people want something that's real.
Everyone who's commented on this thread already knows what they believe, and what you're saying isn't anything anyone hasn't already heard.
But for the rest I'll just keep replying to their PM's and emails
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] And by the by, I was serious. I really hope you some day 'snap out of it' and realize what you're saying.
The only thing I'll be "snapping out of" is this present world, and believe me I can't wait for the day!
Originally Posted by Johnny Look
Whaaaat ?
All I can tell you is that there is scientific evidence that the earth is 15 million years old, usually that means that earth didn't pop out from nowhere already being 15 millions years old. To prove how earth was formed, scientists had to discover what processes were part of the creation and how long each one lasted. As in, we do know for a fact that earth didn't take 7 days to be created and it surely wasn't how it's described in the bible.
Why I'm even responding to that is surprising to me even.
Actually, there is more and more evidence that the Earth isn't so old.
Here are a few examples. You can research for more.
1.Sahara Desert is fairly small considering the rate of desertification
2.Oil Pressure is extremely high, why haven't the Oil Fields burst yet? People who study rocks say that they can't handle that kind of pressure for long
3.Population Growth. Why isn't the earth over populated?
4.Magnetic Field Decline. New Research is showing the the Poles aren't reversing. The belief was due to folds in the rock around the trench that was actually showing strong then weak then strong areas of magnetic field strength.
5.Erosion Rates. At the rate of Erosion, why aren't the continents flat?
6.Moon getting farther away. Scientists estimate that the Moon and The Earth would have made contact about 1.4 Billion years ago.
There are many others such as Comets, Star Death (No star formation has ever been witnessed), Human made objects found in coal deposits, etc.
A lot of things could be explained by a Global flood. For example: Coal and Oil deposits. Fossils. varying rock strata. Plate Tectonics. etc.
Personally, I'm gonna agree that the Earth is in fact old. But that in no way disproves God. I had an earlier post where I talked about how the bible is written in a coded language during many parts, mainly just parts such as earlier parts of genesiss and almost all of Revelation. I don't beleive the earth was literaly created in 7 days, BUT I beleive the earth was created in seven days. May sound a little confusing, well it is a little bit... I pose the simple question, what is a day to God? Peter once said that 'A day is a thousand years to God.' Once again, I do not beleive that a day is literally a thousand years when the bible says a day, this is merely Peter's way of saying that a day means nothing to God. Also, I haven't read up on the big bang theory, but if say the sun did not exist at that time, how could we judge a day anyway?
As a stated earleir, I still beleive in Evolution and such, all while still beleiving in the Bible. I'm not quite opinated on the origin of the world and universe, but I'm open for the big bang theory. I am a firm beleiver that it all goes back to being set in motion by God though.
Why is it that it's ok to assume things regarding Cain when it's not ok to assume things in other parts? Your whallowing is just as inconsistent as the bible, in one sentence you go bananas and cling to your "the bible doesn't say that anywhere so it isn't true", in the next you start rambling about how "it's plausible that Cain laid with his sister, the bible doesn't have to outright say it". It's just the most stupid thing I've ever heard from a person.
And believe me, you are even more arrogant and ignorant than the usual fanatic christian, they often actually realize that you can't just play blind when someone is showing facts in your face. But you just keep on going like the energy bunny from hell.
Also, giving up on something indicates that it is doable in the first place, seeing as you just ignore proof, lie and try to provoke it isn't worth spending one second on talking to the likes of you. You can go have a quickie with your minister so he can help you continue obscure your mind from what's right in front of you instead, I won't waste my time anyway.
You'd have been a hoot in the dark ages, but in the present you really should seek help, OUTSIDE YOUR CHURCH that is.
EDIT: Seriously, you can't be serious. Can you really stand by all the crap you've been spewing troughout this thread? DO YOU really think like that? It's amazing, it sure is. You have like -650hp and you still stand there saying '1337 Mwin.kewl!'
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] Why is it that it's ok to assume things regarding Cain when it's not ok to assume things in other parts?
What did I assume? The Bible said he had a wife, so he did. No assumptions there baby!
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] in one sentence you go bananas and cling to your "the bible doesn't say that anywhere so it isn't true"[...]
And as I said above, the Bible did say he had a wife, so I didn't assume a thing. I just read it and took it's word for it.
You're the only one making any assumptions, like saying he couldn't have had a wife, and now you're mad because I showed you that he could.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] But you just keep on going like the energy bunny from hell.
YESS! Epic quote! lol "energy bunny from hell" I love it!
But I think you meant "energizer bunny from hell"
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] Also, giving up on something indicates that it is doable in the first place, seeing as you just ignore proof, lie and try to provoke it isn't worth spending one second on talking to the likes of you. You can go have a quickie with your minister so he can help you continue obscure your mind from what's right in front of you instead, I won't waste my time anyway.
Yes, certainly lying and provoking will get you no where will it?
But I understand you actually believe what you are saying sometimes, so I'll let you off there.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] You'd have been a hoot in the dark ages, but in the present you really should seek help, OUTSIDE YOUR CHURCH that is.
Oh please, you're trying to hard.
You're not right, and since you can't prove it you try to insult me instead.
If you had a strong argument it would speak for itself, and shouldn't require insults or emotion to speak for it.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] EDIT: Seriously, you can't be serious. Can you really stand by all the crap you've been spewing troughout this thread? DO YOU really think like that? It's amazing, it sure is. You have like -650hp and you still stand there saying '1337 Mwin.kewl!'
I love how you constantly have to reinforce that you feel that you're right,
who are you trying to convince? Me or yourself?
Or... Abel, Cain and Seth married the daughters of the unnamed couple in chapter 1 on Genesis. It's a lot less creepy than the idea of them marrying their SISTERS.
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -
Originally Posted by UrbanMonk
What did I assume? The Bible said he had a wife, so he did. No assumptions there baby!
And as I said above, the Bible did say he had a wife, so I didn't assume a thing. I just read it and took it's word for it.
You're the only one making any assumptions, like saying he couldn't have had a wife, and now you're mad because I showed you that he could.
I don't know why I even bother.
Don't flatter yourself, the only thing you did was tell us that you trust the bible's word to the degree of whipping up some holy incest story with people who aren't even there to explain how Cain could have a wife.
You didn't by your own logic show anything. You assumed that there were more people there even though the bible doesn't in any sense indicate that to begin with. Do you see(who am I kidding) how you twist the rules every time you answer? Of course you don't, but just so you know, everybody else does.
You're not right, and since you can't prove it you try to insult me instead.
But you see, I already have proven it, multiple times.
If you had a strong argument it would speak for itself, and shouldn't require insults or emotion to speak for it.
Again, it does, you are the sole person not understanding that.
I love how you constantly have to reinforce that you feel that you're right,
who are you trying to convince? Me or yourself?
I'm not reinforcing that, I'm over and over questioning if you actually believe what you say or if you're just the worst troll ever.
I seriously believe you are mentally deficient, and I'm not trying to insult you with that, but it's the only explanation to the bucketloads of crap coming out your mouth.
Originally Posted by Phredreeke Or... Abel, Cain and Seth married the daughters of the unnamed couple in chapter 1 on Genesis. It's a lot less creepy than the idea of them marrying their SISTERS.
THERE IS NO UNNAMED COUPLE IN THERE THEY ARE NOT REAL SHUT UP HEATHEN LACKEY OF SATAN YOU
Advertisement
Post Reply
Edited by Johnny Look
