Creationist - what is your understanding of TOE?

[RitalinO.D.]

Actually my take on the matter is quite biblical.

Try King James.

Day Six takes place in Chapter One.
No names...no special location.....no law.....
This would be what most people want to call...evolution.

Day Seven...God rests...no more will be created.

THEN Chapter Two.
Chapter Two has all the earmarks of a science experiment.
The terms we use today are not there....but of course not.

Now try to imagine yourself as someone living in the days of Moses.
And you are being told some story about a man having a rib removed...
as he slept....and he did not die.

To someone living long ago...this would be impossible.
Making a woman of a rib...impossible.

But they believed.

But you know surgery to be real.
And cloning a full human is so soon pending.

With all the knowledge of science you have at hand.....
and you still don't believe?

What's holding you back?

Uhh common sense and critical reasoning?

 

[Thief]

Uhh common sense and critical reasoning?

Got some of your own to offer?

Or are you just out trolling?

 

[RitalinO.D.]

Got some of your own to offer?

Or are you just out trolling?

Funny being called a troll by somene who posts such trivial information on here. I was merely stating an opinion that common sense and critical reasoning holds people back from buying your nonsense. You asked, I answered, not my issue if you can't handle it.

 

[Thief]

Funny being called a troll by somene who posts such trivial information on here. I was merely stating an opinion that common sense and critical reasoning holds people back from buying your nonsense. You asked, I answered, not my issue if you can't handle it.

And your actual rebuttal to make my take on Genesis .....is what?

 

[TJ73]

Did adam have a navel? If yes, then eve would have had one as well, if she were a true clone, with just enough manipulation to make her female. If Adam didnt have a navel, then what you claimed was completely pointless.

A naval is a scar so there is no genetic marker for navals.
But what it is interesting to me is nipples. Nipples are adapted sweat glands and milk is an adaptation of sweat. If man was first, what did he have nipples for?

 

[RitalinO.D.]

A naval is a scar so there is no genetic marker for navals.

Honestly I hadn't even thought of that. Good point.


also...where in NY are you?

 

[RitalinO.D.]

And your actual rebuttal to make take on Genesis .....is what?

My rebuttle is, it's a fairy tale told by goat herders. Nothing in the bible has ever been corroborated. Therefore I find it useless and a waste of time to put any sort of stock into it.

 

[painted wolf]

My rebuttle is, it's a fairy tale told by goat herders. Nothing in the bible has ever been corroborated. Therefore I find it useless and a waste of time to put any sort of stock into it.

Danger! Danger Will Robinson.... "Nothing"?

There are some genuine historical things in the bible, places and people for example. You have to be careful not to cross from skepticism into unsupportable denial.

The temple periods were genuine historical periods of the ancient Hebrew people... and there is evidence that the exile was also genuine.

Now, are things exactly as depicted in the Bible? Not likely, but that doesn't stop a few of the stories being based, at least in part, on genuine historical events.

Just to be clear... I'm not supporting biblical literalism or creationism at all. But I think people need to be careful not to make absolute declarations that are clearly flawed. (this goes for either side)

wa:do

 

[RitalinO.D.]

Danger! Danger Will Robinson.... "Nothing"?

There are some genuine historical things in the bible, places and people for example. You have to be careful not to cross from skepticism into unsupportable denial.

The temple periods were genuine historical periods of the ancient Hebrew people... and there is evidence that the exile was also genuine.

Now, are things exactly as depicted in the Bible? Not likely, but that doesn't stop a few of the stories being based, at least in part, on genuine historical events.

Just to be clear... I'm not supporting biblical literalism or creationism at all. But I think people need to be careful not to make absolute declarations that are clearly flawed. (this goes for either side)

wa:do

Ok, you are correct. I should have been more specific. Nothing in the bible referencing an almighty creator has been corroborated. Thats actually what I was refering to originally, just misspoke.

 

[painted wolf]

Ok, you are correct. I should have been more specific. Nothing in the bible referencing an almighty creator has been corroborated. Thats actually what I was refering to originally, just misspoke.

I figured that was the intent, but it's useful to learn how to avoid such misstatements early.

wa:do

 

[Thief]

My rebuttle is, it's a fairy tale told by goat herders. Nothing in the bible has ever been corroborated. Therefore I find it useless and a waste of time to put any sort of stock into it.

So then...why are you here?
This is a religious forum....I'm sure you noticed

And your 'personal' opinion is not much of a rebuttal.

Have you read King James?

.

 

[McBell]

So then...why are you here?
This is a religious forum....I'm sure you noticed

What!?
You mean to say that you have not noticed that the Bible is not he only religious book in the world?

And your 'personal' opinion is not much of a rebuttal.

Yet your opinion somehow is?

Have you read King James?

I speak not for him, but I have.
Five different versions of it, in fact.
What's your point?

 

[RitalinO.D.]

So then...why are you here?
This is a religious forum....I'm sure you noticed

And your 'personal' opinion is not much of a rebuttal.

Have you read King James?

.

May not be much of a rebuttal to you, but it's still valid, as my opinion is shared by pretty much every atheist on the planet.

And just because I think the bible is nothing but a 2000 yr old story, doesn't mean I'm not interested in learning about other religions. It's also interesting to see how other people think, and why they think they way they do.

If I'm going to debate someone about religion, I'm of the opinion that it's better to know what you are talking about instead of talking out of your ***, which is why I'm here to learn.

 

[Thief]

May not be much of a rebuttal to you, but it's still valid, as my opinion is shared by pretty much every atheist on the planet.

And just because I think the bible is nothing but a 2000 yr old story, doesn't mean I'm not interested in learning about other religions. It's also interesting to see how other people think, and why they think they way they do.

If I'm going to debate someone about religion, I'm of the opinion that it's better to know what you are talking about instead of talking out of your ***, which is why I'm here to learn.

Ah....so you have assumed I practice religion.....

I believe in God....but I make no practice of religion.
I am not given to dogma.

And my take on Genesis stands.
Not as a matter of opinion.....as a careful reading.

Now about your rebuttal.....have a different 'read'....or just more denial.

 

[RitalinO.D.]

Ah....so you have assumed I practice religion.....

I believe in God....but I make no practice of religion.
I am not given to dogma.

And my take on Genesis stands.
Not as a matter of opinion.....as a careful reading.

Now about your rebuttal.....have a different 'read'....or just more denial.

Denial of what? Folklore? I'll pretty much deny that every day of the week and twice on Sunday. Especially on Sunday

 

[Thief]

Denial and lack of rebuttal .....noted.

 

[McBell]

And my take on Genesis stands.

Of course it stands.
Well, with you anyway.
I mean, it is solely a faith position.
And as you are ever so fond of pointing out, faith requires no proof.
Cause if it did... well, I am sure you know my thoughts on the matter.

Not as a matter of opinion.....as a careful reading.

Now you are merely fooling yourself.
Faith is nothing but opinion that is believed despite truth, facts, logic, myth, etc.
Otherwise, there would be no need for faith...

ow about your rebuttal.....have a different 'read'....or just more denial.

Interesting how you like to claim that everyone in disagreement with you is simply in denial.
Helps to hide your own denial, eh?

 

[Thief]

Of course it stands.
Well, with you anyway.
I mean, it is solely a faith position.
And as you are ever so fond of pointing out, faith requires no proof.
Cause if it did... well, I am sure you know my thoughts on the matter.


Now you are merely fooling yourself.
Faith is nothing but opinion that is believed despite truth, facts, logic, myth, etc.
Otherwise, there would be no need for faith...


Interesting how you like to claim that everyone in disagreement with you is simply in denial.
Helps to hide your own denial, eh?

Denial depends on what side of the fence you're on.

Genesis works for me.
So does science ....common sense...logic...etc....

That you don't agree...is not a reflection of me.

 

[McBell]

Denial depends on what side of the fence you're on.

Is that how you justify your hiding?
Well, it does explain quite a bit...

Genesis works for me.
So does science ....common sense...logic...etc....

Good for you.
No, seriously.
Good for you.

However, why do you feel the need to threaten those who disagree with your deity?
Why the constant accusations of denial?
I mean, are you really so egotistically narcissistic to think that you cannot be wrong?
Or perhaps that is why you hide behind your faith and deity threats?

That you don't agree...is not a reflection of me.

True.

However, the fact that you threaten others with your deities wrath and claim all who disagree with you are simply in denial most certainly is a reflection of you.

 

[RitalinO.D.]

Genesis works for me.
So does science ....common sense...logic...etc....

I'm pretty sure you just invented a new oxymoron.