Danmac
Well-Known Member
There are so many. Where do you start?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Creationists, please provide evidence
- Thread starter evolved yet?
- Start date
McBell
Unbound
If you do not like being called a liar, then stop telling lies.
It really is that simple.
McBell
Unbound
So it should be really really easy to point one out, right?
I mean, it isn't like your complete utter utter failure in presenting where you allegedly won a discussion against me, is it?
I mean, really, with so many lies to choose from....
McBell
Unbound
Hell no.
They are to busy trying to poke holes in evolution.
Venatoris
Active Member
Dammit, I was hoping for some ground breaking evidence about the world, universe and God. Maybe next time, eh? but probably not.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Only if they're lying. Duh.
I didn't say it was the only mechanism. Had I don't so, I would have been mistaken, and if I gave that impression, then I certainly retract or qualify it. It's the chief mechanism only.
But the point is that whatever the mechanism is, that's what we're talking about here--not WHO but HOW.[/quote]
<snipped more of newhope's long quotes from evolutionary material that complete refutes everything she's saying>
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Find one and prove it, or retract and apologize. I do not tolerate attacks on my credibility, which I value and protect--unlike some other posters.
Danmac
Well-Known Member
Originally Posted by Autodidact
And could you cut back on the gratuitous name-calling, it's frowned on here. Try to focus on the argument.
evolved yet?
A Young Evolutionist
Found it!
I'll give you a clue, tumbleweed will like it:
Scientific evidence for God's existence - RationalWiki
Sorry it used to be called Scientific evidence for god and against evolution, but it is now just called Scientific Evidence for God.
McBell
Unbound
If you work so hard to earn the title, why be upset when people use it?Originally Posted by Autodidact
And could you cut back on the gratuitous name-calling, it's frowned on here. Try to focus on the argument.
Herman Tripleton
Member
I think that the Sun God religions have already supplied plenty of wonderful stories that clearly illustrate the creation that we all witness at every moment of our waking lives.
Perhaps I can convey the same story to you in terms that you will be able to better understand.
When the [Infinite Supreme] began to Imagine -
the Imagination was unformed and Substantial, it being only a reflection of the [IS].
The [IS] Caused the reflection to have Will; and the reflection became Spirit.
The Will of the Spirit was Force, and was separated from the Imaginative Energy of the Spirit. And it is Order.
The Force was named Light, and the Energy named Dark. And there was a reflection of the Light; Action, and a reflection of the Dark; Nature. The first "sphere; realm; plane; dimension; day; thought; etc.".
The Spirit then imagined an expanse in the midst of its Being , that it may separate one form from another.
The Spirit formed the expanse from Force and Energy, and it separated Nature and Action below the expanse and kept Energy and Force above the Expanse.
The expanse was called Soul, with Spirit above. And there was dissolution and manifestation. The Second Breath, etc..
The Soul gathered Nature and Action into the Mind, that the Generation of Forms may evolve below.
The Generations of Forms are called Manifestation, and the gathering of Nature and Action is called Dissolution. And it is Order.
The Generations of Forms produced Individuals with the capacity for Understanding. And that too is Order
And the Order is reflected in Individuals themselves; Manifestation as Life, and Dissolution as Death. And as Above, so Below. The Third Breath, etc..
Perhaps I can convey the same story to you in terms that you will be able to better understand.
When the [Infinite Supreme] began to Imagine -
the Imagination was unformed and Substantial, it being only a reflection of the [IS].
The [IS] Caused the reflection to have Will; and the reflection became Spirit.
The Will of the Spirit was Force, and was separated from the Imaginative Energy of the Spirit. And it is Order.
The Force was named Light, and the Energy named Dark. And there was a reflection of the Light; Action, and a reflection of the Dark; Nature. The first "sphere; realm; plane; dimension; day; thought; etc.".
The Spirit then imagined an expanse in the midst of its Being , that it may separate one form from another.
The Spirit formed the expanse from Force and Energy, and it separated Nature and Action below the expanse and kept Energy and Force above the Expanse.
The expanse was called Soul, with Spirit above. And there was dissolution and manifestation. The Second Breath, etc..
The Soul gathered Nature and Action into the Mind, that the Generation of Forms may evolve below.
The Generations of Forms are called Manifestation, and the gathering of Nature and Action is called Dissolution. And it is Order.
The Generations of Forms produced Individuals with the capacity for Understanding. And that too is Order
And the Order is reflected in Individuals themselves; Manifestation as Life, and Dissolution as Death. And as Above, so Below. The Third Breath, etc..
the funny thing is that if the english translators never used the word 'day' in Genesis, then no one would ever be having this discussion.
Genesis 2:4 calls all of the 6 creative periods a 'day'... so what do we make of that? Obviously its the bible which is wrong, we can never be wrong about anything, right?
But you are missing the point, Pegg. No one is arguing that "day" can mean any period. All we are saying is that the context in which the "day" is used is important to tell what this period is. So, if it specifically mention the "evening" and the "morning" being a day, then it is clear what period this "day" is referring to.
Herman Tripleton
Member
But you are missing the point, Pegg. No one is arguing that "day" can mean any period. All we are saying is that the context in which the "day" is used is important to tell what this period is. So, if it specifically mention the "evening" and the "morning" being a day, then it is clear what period this "day" is referring to.
What if every "thing described" or day denotes the existence of the positive assertion, the night denotes the existence of its antithesis, and the evening and morning represent the next generation of those things to come?
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
And what if "Jesus Christ" represents "Lassie" and "rose from the dead" represents "came home?" What if "YHWH" represents "the Iron Chef," and "created the heavens and the earth" represents, "made an outstanding omelette"?...etc.
That's right, Auto. 'What ifs ' make absolutely no sense. It's like saying "I know what this says but it disagree with what I think; so let's try to interpret it in a way so that it supports what I think."
Wotan
Active Member
The point was - and you deliberately
missed it - the point was that you have no more reason for your substitution and interpreting than she does with hers. BOTH are worthless.
Wotan
Active Member
Herman Tripleton
Member
Sorry, I was just trying to help you guys with subjects you clearly do not understand. If your argument is with a literalist's interpretation of an English translation of ANY religious text, then you are a greater fool than the person who believes their version is the only truth.
Last edited:
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Hey, Herman, it's their interpretation, not ours. We're trying to point out that it's not literally true.
Of course, once you start making it say what you want, you run into other problems, as you illustrated.
And could you try to focus on the arguments rather than just calling people names?
I'd hate to have to report you to the mods so early in your career.
Of course, once you start making it say what you want, you run into other problems, as you illustrated.
And could you try to focus on the arguments rather than just calling people names?
I'd hate to have to report you to the mods so early in your career.