Modern man like footprints found, evolution theory in doubt.

[gnostic]

No post I have ever made depends on the fables or same state past preached by the so called science wizards of confusion.

This is ridiculous. You accuse others who understand science as fable. But you don’t even know what “fable” really is, dad1.

Fable is a narrative that contain story of talking animal, whether it be the animal can talk in human language, or human can understand or speak the languages of animals...or animals that can speak language of different animals.

Most often, these fables have a common themes meant to contained moral messages.

Your Genesis 3 and Numbers 22:40 would fall under the category of “fables”, with talking serpent and talking donkey, respectively.

In Genesis 3, for instance, there are many meanings, among them:

1. Don’t fall into temptation.
2. Don’t disobey god.
3. Don’t sin.
4. Take responsibility for your own action.
5. Don’t try to be god-like (in another word, don’t be arrogant).

Due to serpent being to talk to humans, then your bible do contain fables, as it does myths and legends. There are no history to Genesis creation and Eden stories.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Even if they were, that was in the past, right?

Indeed! And if nature was entirely different back then, who's to say that coming back to life and performing miracles weren't commonplace and entirely unremarkable at the time?

 

[Darkstorn]

Indeed! And if nature was entirely different back then, who's to say that coming back to life and performing miracles weren't commonplace and entirely unremarkable at the time?

Sounds logical indeed.

 

[dad1]

But it isn't. You lose again. You have to change the Bible to make it fit.




Many of them did. I can see that you have not read or understood the Bible.


Nope, that never happened. And you should read it some day. He stated more than once that he was not God.



Nope, they were only delusional at best.

Thanks for your opinions on God and Scripture. We'll take them for what they are worth.

 

[dad1]

What evidence would you consider factual, and how would you evaluate its validity?
But the Bible's full of inaccuracies and contradictions. How do you account for those?

What evidence do we have to chose from regarding the forces that were in place in ancient times? Let's see what you got if anything. We'll see how factual it is.

 

[dad1]

You were barred for people disliking your style?!

You don't think it has anything to do with the fact that you're the type of person who keeps saying "i'll do whatever i want" and then brags about how awesome they are at circumventing forum bans?

I'm guessing you got banned for breaking the forum rules of that forum multiple times, which you admitted openly without even realizing it.



I hope this place will satisfy your holiness' high standards. When you get banned from forums, it's because the moderation is unfit. Got it.

Your personality is just downright lovely.

My statement on the moderation at some forums is that I used to feel that it was very fine to avoid truly biased and unfair censorship of the truth. These days, I don't feel it is something that I am interested in, or feel strongly about. I am leaning not bothering to engage in that sort of thing anymore.

Cheers

 

[dad1]

Talk about projection!!! Wow.

Btw, shouting makes no difference to facts.

Actually my beliefs are based on fact and scientific evidence. Unlike yours which are based on bronze age mythology and 4th century ploys to control the masses through religion.

You will of course be aware that i have provided links to facys that you have chosen to ignore

Actually the caps key was down so I found it easier to go with t

 

[dad1]

So prove it.

The proof for God in in the pudding. If we try Him we will find out.The proof God apparently offered man was personal, rather than external. While history abounds with exceptions to that seeming general rule, with miracles and such things, people tend to forget these things. Jesus said that even if One returned from the dead, yet would they not be believed by some folks.

So even if we list the prophesies and miracles and proofs, some people will simply chose to deny and ignore and delude themselves.

 

[dad1]

Or, looking at the evidence we DO have, like by studying archaeology and geology.

None of which helps you or a belief system based on a same nature in the far past.

Which is based on the overwhelming evidence.

Which apparently can't be posted. Newsflash: there actually is none at all.

So you have no idea what happened in the past, but because you have records of what happened and can test for it TODAY and it works, that means it must have been a true account of the past.

Yes, God gave us a record. Sadly, science can't test it at all. Nor can they test the mother of all assumptions and beliefs that they religiously and exclusively use for EVERY model of the past! Wow.

 

[ChristineM]

Actually the caps key was down so I found it easier to go with t

I guess, mildly that's called inconsiderate, this forum doesn't like me saying what it is called without the mild prefix

 

[dad1]

Indeed! And if nature was entirely different back then, who's to say that coming back to life and performing miracles weren't commonplace and entirely unremarkable at the time?

Well, nature was the same in the days when Jesus came to earth. Miracles are not natural, they are supernatural, that is, more is involved than just our laws and nature. Even in this present state and nature, of course, God can add the spiritual and we call that a miracle.

 

[ChristineM]

The proof for God in in the pudding. If we try Him we will find out.The proof God apparently offered man was personal, rather than external. While history abounds with exceptions to that seeming general rule, with miracles and such things, people tend to forget these things. Jesus said that even if One returned from the dead, yet would they not be believed by some folks.

So even if we list the prophesies and miracles and proofs, some people will simply chose to deny and ignore and delude themselves.

So no actual proof then. I do wish people would be honest

 

[dad1]

I guess, mildly that's called inconsiderate, this forum doesn't like me saying what it is called without the mild prefix

Ha. I didn't realize some people were so easily offended that big letters spooked them or freaked them out.

 

[dad1]

So no actual proof then. I do wish people would be honest

Science has no proof. God gave proof. Alrighty, then.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thanks for your opinions on God and Scripture. We'll take them for what they are worth.

Oh, good.

dad just admitted that he was wrong.

 

[dad1]

Oh, good.

dad just admitted that he was wrong.

Allowing people to express opinions, no matter how silly, is not an admission of being wrong. God even allows Satan in councils in heaven to say his little evil bit.

 

[ChristineM]

Ha. I didn't realize some people were so easily offended that big letters spooked them or freaked them out.

a/ There is such a thing as internet etiquette, it appears you ignore it.

b/ lower case letters are easier to read, it appears you don't care

c/ as b with the addition that dyslexics must struggle to read what is not normal text, seems you have no concern for disability.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Allowing people to express opinions, no matter how silly, is not an admission of being wrong. God even allows Satan in councils in heaven to say his little evil bit.

Actually it was. And sadly you do not even understand your book of myths. I can help you with that.

 

[ChristineM]

Science has no proof. God gave proof. Alrighty, then.

As well as learning the definition of evidence i suggest you take a few minutes to educate yourself on the definition of proof

Proof : evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of a statement.

 

[Subduction Zone]

a/ There is such a thing as internet etiquette, it appears you ignore it.

b/ lower case letters are easier to read, it appears you don't care

c/ as b with the addition that dyslexics must struggle to read what is not normal text, seems you have no concern for disability.

You would have a blast debating with a fundamentalist Roman Catholic (it sounds self contradictory but he managed to pull it off) on one forum that I used to visit. He would pull out every bell and whistle for his posts. Multiple color changes, fonts and print size, bold and non bold. It made my head spin at times.

 

[ChristineM]

You would have a blast debating with a fundamentalist Roman Catholic (it sounds self contradictory but he managed to pull it off) on one forum that I used to visit. He would pull out every bell and whistle for his posts. Multiple color changes, fonts and print size, bold and non bold. It made my head spin at times.

I would have ignored the post and posted the reasons he/she had wasted their time