Enough Time for Evolution?

[rusra02]

Some creationist don't take the Biblical account of Genesis literally, however some as myself do. I'm not trying to detract from this thread but if you believe in the Bible and believe it's incorruptible and the inspired words of God you will believe these things and only these things.

*We are in the Year 5,801 AC (Some might have very slight variations of this)

*Creation was 6 literal days.

*Creation happened exactly as stated in Genesis.

*No big bang or fireworks or gravity or evolution was involved in creation.

*Kind means a wide diverse group so yea Okapi, Zebra's, Horses, Donkeys, Mules, Lamas, and Camels are all technically the same kind.

*Basically the Creation account refutes any and all sort of naturalistic Godless explanations so it's not the Job of creationist to prove that the theory of Evolution is false, it's the Job of any theory maker to prove their theory is true we know only one can be true as both are conflicting interest and both can not be true so anyone who says both are true are lying to themselves and are indeed the epitome of foolishness.

I believe that God created life (sans evolution), that Genesis contains the factual account of creation, and that the Bible is God's inspired word. I do not believe, as you do, that the Bible teaches creation occurred in six 24-hour days. Neither does the Bible refute theories such as the Big Bang, nor indicate how long the earth, sun, moon and stars have existed. The Bible does not explicitly define "kind" but indicates a group of animals that can reproduce successfully.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I believe that God created life (sans evolution), that Genesis contains the factual account of creation, and that the Bible is God's inspired word. I do not believe, as you do, that the Bible teaches creation occurred in six 24-hour days. Neither does the Bible refute theories such as the Big Bang, nor indicate how long the earth, sun, moon and stars have existed. The Bible does not explicitly define "kind" but indicates a group of animals that can reproduce successfully.

It explicitly says days. It says on the first day, on the second, on the third, and that God rested on the seventh. It says days. What proof is it that it wasn't that? Because it says one day is like a 1000 to god? So why not simply say millions of years. The account of genesis reads itself as 6 days of creation. If you can show that people counted days differently then I can
Agree. But till then it's a day.

 

[Oz-Man]

Exactly.

Creationists don't read the Genesis story literally. They interpret it to be this story about how God molded/designed/architected the world, when Genesis really is saying that God (supposedly) commanded the world to create life. Life was produced by Nature. God is Nature and the underlying force of self-organization that permeates all energy, time, matter, and life.

lol THIS.

I'm in another thread right now with Muslims trying to convince me that the Islamic genesis is not meant to be taken literally in a desperate attempt to make the Quran compatible with modern science.

 

[savagewind]

I believe that God created life (sans evolution), that Genesis contains the factual account of creation, and that the Bible is God's inspired word. I do not believe, as you do, that the Bible teaches creation occurred in six 24-hour days. Neither does the Bible refute theories such as the Big Bang, nor indicate how long the earth, sun, moon and stars have existed. The Bible does not explicitly define "kind" but indicates a group of animals that can reproduce successfully.

A day is 24 hours on earth but nowhere else. Even if the solar system, sun and Earth all appeared simultaneously there is no proof that when it (might have) happened, the earth revolved around the sun at the same speed and rotated at the same speed, is there? Twenty four hours just means how long it takes this planet to spin as it does now.

 

[Sculelos]

A day is 24 hours on earth but nowhere else. Even if the solar system, sun and Earth all appeared simultaneously there is no proof that when it (might have) happened, the earth revolved around the sun at the same speed and rotated at the same speed, is there? Twenty four hours just means how long it takes this planet to spin as it does now.

What if the Earth does not rotate, nor orbit the Sun.

What if the Earth is stationary and can not be moved?

What if the Earth is curved wraps around on itself and we can only see it's West Side and the Sky is all Eastern?

What if the Sun and Moon orbit the Earth?

What if the Universe itself makes one full rotation every 23 Hours and 56 Minutes yet, the Sun and the Moon are sluggish because they absorbed matter that did not matter because they had sinned?

What if Mankind existed as pure shape-shifting energy forms before the Lord God gave us a covering of skin?

What if God created the World but we bound it, we trapped it, we covered it. It was not meant to be covered but we the energy forms covered it because we were ashamed of how God had made us?

What if what we see as out-space is actually Earth but after it was destroyed in the Day's of Noah. At the time of my death, the World will split in half, Noah's father told Noah.

What if the Book of Enoch is True?

What if Satan is the prince of this World and controls it's thinking?

What if Satan manipulates the minds of Scientist to see things only the way they want to see things and ignore any evidence contrary to their personal bias?

What if all the above is True?

 

[Falvlun]

What if all the above is True?

And what if it's not? :sad:

 

[savagewind]

What if the Earth does not rotate, nor orbit the Sun.

What if the Earth is stationary and can not be moved?

What if the Earth is curved wraps around on itself and we can only see it's West Side and the Sky is all Eastern?

What if the Sun and Moon orbit the Earth?

What if the Universe itself makes one full rotation every 23 Hours and 56 Minutes yet, the Sun and the Moon are sluggish because they absorbed matter that did not matter because they had sinned?

What if Mankind existed as pure shape-shifting energy forms before the Lord God gave us a covering of skin?

What if God created the World but we bound it, we trapped it, we covered it. It was not meant to be covered but we the energy forms covered it because we were ashamed of how God had made us?

What if what we see as out-space is actually Earth but after it was destroyed in the Day's of Noah. At the time of my death, the World will split in half, Noah's father told Noah.

What if the Book of Enoch is True?

What if Satan is the prince of this World and controls it's thinking?

What if Satan manipulates the minds of Scientist to see things only the way they want to see things and ignore any evidence contrary to their personal bias?

What if all the above is True?

What it means to me is nothing and no one can be trusted. On the other hand I was thinking "that is some mighty good trolling". Do you know what trolling is?

 

[Sculelos]

What it means to me is nothing and no one can be trusted. On the other hand I was thinking "that is some mighty good trolling". Do you know what trolling is?

That is a question I get very often or something I am accused of very often. I am not trying to confuse you, I am trying to get you to consider yourself your own beliefs and how much of them are based on Fact and how much of them are based off of Scientific and Religious Fiction because as far as I can tell Scientist lie just as much as Religious folk and I can't tell any practical difference between the two camps which is why we must stay vigilant and test ALL the spirits that come to us.

troll 1 (trl)
v. trolled, troll·ing, trolls
v.tr.
1.
a. To fish for by trailing a baited line from behind a slowly moving boat.
b. To fish in by trailing a baited line: troll the lake for bass.
c. To trail (a baited line) in fishing.
2. Slang To patrol (an area) in search for someone or something: "[Criminals] troll bus stations for young runaways" (Pete Axthelm).
3. Music
a. To sing in succession the parts of (a round, for example).
b. To sing heartily: troll a carol.
4. To roll or revolve.
v.intr.
1. To fish by trailing a line, as from a moving boat.
2.
a. To wander about; ramble.
b. Slang To patrol an area in search for someone or something.
3. Music To sing heartily or gaily.
4. To roll or spin around.
n.
1.
a. The act of trolling for fish.
b. A lure, such as a spoon or spinner, that is used for trolling.
2. Music A vocal composition in successive parts; a round.

 

[savagewind]

Haha! The first time I was accused of trolling I had to look it up. It is funny it does not say what an internet troll is. Isn't it?

 

[Sculelos]

Haha! The first time I was accused of trolling I had to look it up. It is funny it does not say what an internet troll is. Isn't it?

When people accuse me of that I feel like they feel like I am just saying stuff to provoke a response out of them. This is not true, if you read through all my past post and threads you will find that I am pretty consistent with what I say and even though my opinion of things changes slowly over-time it only changes when I am presented with uncrackable evidence to change my prior usually well thought out opinions of matters. I know I sound like a crackpot but I'm afraid it's sort of a combination of having an extremely high IQ with an extremely high reading comprehension and the ability to run logic that completely baffles an average person. Even so, most people in real life refer to me as 'Nuts' or 'Crazy'. I've had a few people even go so far as to try to admit me to an Asylum but yet I refused to go. I don't think my idea's are that crazy if you let down your preconceived notions and are willing to research them but be warned, I have been studying this stuff day in and day out for at least 5 years now. I think what I study most people simply ignore or don't care about. I obviously think the people on this forum are the exception however and not the norm when it comes to this rule as if anyone is outgoing enough to seek out a religious forum they are searching for knowledge of some type, usually to bolster their own beliefs and to try to shove them down other people's throats politely but sometimes people will really listen in a rational sense of the Word, it's just so hard to get along with each other but I guess that's why we have rules.

 

[Falvlun]

I don't see how somebody can't tell the difference between, say, assuming that heavier objects fall faster than lighter objects simply because a famous old guy (Aristotle) said they do, and actually going out and testing the hypothesis to find out that this isn't the case.

 

[Sculelos]

I don't see how somebody can't tell the difference between, say, assuming that heavier objects fall faster than lighter objects simply because a famous old guy (Aristotle) said they do, and actually going out and testing the hypothesis to find out that this isn't the case.

Heavier objects can fall faster then lighter objects but lighter objects can fall faster then heavier objects, however I believe it has much more to do with polarity and air drag then it has to do with mass or volume. Try to throw down a balloon filled with hydrogen and it won't fall very much at all.

I don't mind facts and I actually love facts, however it seems like all scientific realms are now are polluted with many non-truths to distort, twist and spin the pictures that the facts themselves actually portray.

 

[Falvlun]

Heavier objects can fall faster then lighter objects but lighter objects can fall faster then heavier objects, however I believe it has much more to do with polarity and air drag then it has to do with mass or volume. Try to throw down a balloon filled with hydrogen and it won't fall at all.

You just told me to try throwing down a balloon to support what you've just said. Welcome to science, my friend!

If you truly didn't think there was a difference between the two methods, then you could have just as easily said I should go read some Aristotle... or to pray to God to find the answer... or, to believe whatever some religion claims on the subject.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Try to throw down a balloon filled with hydrogen and it won't fall very much at all.

Only if you don't throw it down correctly. Throwing hydrogen in a downwise fashion requires excessive spin on the object created by pronating the forearm at a 17.5 degree angle once 36 lbs/sq. inch of acceleration has been reached. A number of Cuban baseball pitchers have mastered this technique.

 

[Sculelos]

You just told me to try throwing down a balloon to support what you've just said. Welcome to science, my friend!

If you truly didn't think there was a difference between the two methods, then you could have just as easily said I should go read some Aristotle... or to pray to God to find the answer... or, to believe whatever some religion claims on the subject.

You cannot find answers in books and words and mathematics you can only find ideas. In those ideas you must validate them for yourself based on what you can see in real life and what you personally find to make sense based on your own personal observations. The problem we have today is people try to make ideas sound scientific when they can not be observed and like I said before almost everyone is guilty of doing this to some level of degree and no one is innocent especially institutions that have money incentives for keeping people ignorant to some level or degree.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

You cannot find answers in books and words and mathematics you can only find ideas. In those ideas you must validate them for yourself based on what you can see in real life and what you personally find to make sense based on your own personal observations. The problem we have today is people try to make ideas sound scientific when they can not be observed and like I said before almost everyone is guilty of doing this to some level of degree and no one is innocent especially institutions that have money incentives for keeping people ignorant to some level or degree.

Indeed, the billions of dollars being made by big institutions from perpetuating the evolution conspiracy cannot be ignored.

 

[Falvlun]

You cannot find answers in books and words and mathematics you can only find ideas. In those ideas you must validate them for yourself based on what you can see in real life and what you personally find to make sense based on your own personal observations. The problem we have today is people try to make ideas sound scientific when they can not be observed and like I said before almost everyone is guilty of doing this to some level of degree and no one is innocent especially institutions that have money incentives for keeping people ignorant to some level or degree.

So, do you have evidence to back up your claim that the "science industry" (whatever that is) is purposefully duping the world's citizens into believing evolution?

If you think it's a problem that people simply accept things without evidence, then why should your statement be exempt?

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

So, do you have evidence to back up your claim that the "science industry" (whatever that is) is purposefully duping the world's citizens into believing evolution?

If you think it's a problem that people simply accept things without evidence, then why should your statement be exempt?

Dude, you just gotta accept that your ideas are just ideas even if they were not your ideas.

There's no way to really tell anything. Like the sky is not blue...it just looks blue cause everyone told you it was blue. But look at the grass if the sky was blue why wouldn't the grass be blue too?

 

[Sculelos]

So, do you have evidence to back up your claim that the "science industry" (whatever that is) is purposefully duping the world's citizens into believing evolution?

If you think it's a problem that people simply accept things without evidence, then why should your statement be exempt?

I've seen some very important things being shoved off and shut down by the scientific community until things were so obvious they couldn't be ignored.

I'd say Global Warming was one of them and something that Scientist refused to believe until the recent years.

I could also point to the Smithsonian purposely dumping artifacts in the Sea and blowing up important rock formations but you can find that stuff yourself if you look.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I've seen some very important things being shoved off and shut down by the scientific community until things were so obvious they couldn't be ignored.

Such as...?

I'd say Global Warming was one of them and something that Scientist refused to believe until the recent years.

Aside from the fact that it is scientists who discovered global warming.

I could also point to the Smithsonian purposely dumping artifacts in the Sea and blowing up important rock formations but you can find that stuff yourself if you look.

Or, you could provide the evidence yourself as you have been asked to do.