I take this to mean that if someone doesn't accept the Bible as true, then they have no reason to accept your position. Do you agree?
-
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!
Why I believe God Created Life.
- Thread starter rusra02
- Start date
I take this to mean that if someone doesn't accept the Bible as true, then they have no reason to accept your position. Do you agree?
Simurgh
Atheist Triple Goddess
You cannot “let Eve off the hook”? So you quote some snaky thing and that should be it then? Whatever your god said to Adam he said to Adam alone, after all this is a male cult we are talking about here. Just because the snake is a bit more inclusive and wants to deflect guilt from Adam, does not make Eve guilty. And of course, the dudes who wrote the text, being men, were only too happy to spread the blame.
I mean seriously, how many men will accept their guilt without blaming some woman for their action? When some guy does something criminal, the first question most people have is “what did his mother do wrong”.
I am glad that your god delusions make you happy. So, when is he scheduled to arrive to do that?
Truth doesn't change because someone doesn't accept it. But each person is free to make his or her own decision as to what to believe or not believe. Are there consequences? Of course.
Actually, Adam did try to deflect blame to his wife. When confronted by God about his sin Adam replied: The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit from the tree, so I ate. (Genesis 3:12) Eve did the same. "Jehovah God then said to the woman: What is this you have done? The woman replied: The serpent deceived me, so I ate. (Genesis 3:13)
This didn't work for either of them.
Women have been and continue to be terribly mistreated by men. This is not God's doing, but reflects the spirit of the one who first lied to the woman, Satan the Devil. He is identified at Revelation 12:9 as "the original serpent, the one called Devil and Satan, who is misleading the entire inhabited earth;"
I believe that according to the Bible, we are living in the last few days of Satan's misrule of the earth. (Revelation 12:12)
Simurgh
Atheist Triple Goddess
The question here is what truth are you talking about? Factual truth that has been evidenced and is based on empirical facts or just the variety that uses faith? Factual truth is accepted regardless if it fits your agenda. In contrast, your belief based version of "truth" is just that belief in the absence of evidence.
Therefore, consequences correspond to the actual facts in evidence when dealing with reality. But if we just talk about truth based on nothing more than belief, hence merely a subjective thing, then it's pointless to even worry about consequences as when confronted with they can be invented right alongside that particular version of so-called truth. It is just the usual "god works in mysterious ways" cop-out.
PS: your bible enthusiasms aside, do you seriously belief that crap that people wrote over two-thousand or so years ago when they thought every major storm is a sign that they ticked of one of their gods? Oh, and nice of you to absolve your godling from the mistreatment of women. But didnt' the guy create MAN in his image? Yeah, so that behavior is then representative of that god right?
Last edited:
What a copout. Eve is then to be the reason for the temptation of adam therfore women are to be mistrusted and further they should just stay silent in church. Wow was adam and therfore men really that powerless against women. I just dont know what to tell you , you choose to ignore the first creation event where both men and women already existed before the infamous adam and eve.
Originally Posted by disciple
Do you actually think you KNOW this? You can't KNOW that, hate to break it to you.
I was asking Aman777 if he agrees with common ancestry. What's so wrong with asking a question?
Quote:
Originally Posted by rusra02
I don't know. Why do you ask?
I'm curious as to how you interpret the answer to this question if you believe creation account of Genesis is to be taken as having happened literally.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aman777
Dear Kryptid, Absolutely. God told us all about it in Genesis one. Read Carefully:
en 1:20¶ And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. Gen 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Science has also learned the SAME thing, and it happened some 3.7 Billion years ago, in man's time. The cells within our bodies cannot live without liquid water. We have the same percentage of water in our bodies as there is water on the Earth and our Blood is the same salinity as the Ocean. One interesting thing about the fossil record is that it also shows the LIMITS of changes within "kinds" which are after Their kind and after His kind. God Bless you.
In Love,
Aman
I'm afraid I don't quite understand what you are saying. I asked if you think that all plants and animals came from primordial single-celled organisms and you say you agree, yet you also say that living things cannot evolve outside of their kinds? This seems like a contradiction. Please clarify.
Dear Friends, Life was made on two different Days or Ages in the Creation. Adam, the first Human, was made on the THIRD Day, after the Earth was made, Gen 1:9-10 but BEFORE the plants, which GREW on the THIRD Day. Gen 1:12 That is what Genesis 2:4-7 reveals.
The sons of God (prehistoric people) were created and brought forth from the Water on the FIFTH Day. Gen 1:21 Science agrees and shows that these people have been walking on our Earth for Millions of years and leaving their bones all over this Earth. Science also shows that these people evolved from the common ancestor of Apes.
The interesting thing is that the sons of God and Humans can have children with each other. Gen 6:1-4 reveals this and shows that it happened on Adam's Earth and the present Earth. IOW, Humanity was scattered over this entire Planet from Babel exactly as God told us in Genesis. Gen 11:9
Humans and the sons of God are therefore Human kinds. ALL Humans descended from Adam, the first Human, and ALL Humans on Earth Today, have inherited his unique Human intelligence and they also contain the DNA and ERVs of the common ancestor of Apes.
It happened some 10k years ago in the valleys just outside the mountains of Ararat, and History agrees. Map: Fertile Cresent, 9000 to 4500 BCE Noah brought Humanity to this Planet of the sons of God (Prehistoric man) 10k years ago. Human civilization can be traced to the arrival of Noah in the Ark. This refutes the False ToE which is nothing more than a Satanic Lie dreamed up by Godless men. God Bless you.
In Love,
Aman
outhouse
Atheistically
Exactly
Your lack of knolwedge on ow to use the simple quote feature makes following your post, next to impossible.
No it cannot be.
It is ONLY traced to Mesopotamia and then Egypt.
The ark is not substantiated outside MYTHOLOGY in any way.
Simurgh
Atheist Triple Goddess
What history are you talking about? Noah brought humanity to this planet that was already populated by the sons of god? What planet did he bring them from and why do you refer to this nonsense as history in the first place? if that god had sons already and Noah comes from outer space, then what is that stuff about Adam and Eve being the fist humans all about? You know, FIRST means that there were no others before them, not that they were two individuals among many other late comers.
Evolution is satanic lie? Did you actually come up with this convoluted story or is this a copy/paste job from some satire page? If it is, send me the link it seems like a fun site.
Dear Simurgh, The sons of God are the prehistoric people who were already here when Noah arrived and brought the unique intelligence of the FIRST Human, Adam, to this Earth. Adam had an intelligence level like God's Gen 3:22 because Humans are destined to have dominion over the Earth AFTER Jesus returns. Gen 1:28
Adam's earth was made the 3rd Day, the SAME Day as the Big Bang of our world. Gen 2:4 It was much smaller than our world and had only four Rivers while the present Earth has thousands. The highest elevation on Adam's Earth was only 22 1/2 feet. Gen 7:20 while our's is some 30k feet high. Adam's Earth was "clean dissolved" in the Flood Isaiah 24:19 which shows that it was NOT our Earth since we are covered with 70% water and we do NOT dissolve because we live on a ROCK.
The sons of God (prehistoric people) were created and brought forth from the water on the 5th Day Gen 1:21 beginning some 3.7 billion years ago EXACTLY as Science has learned. Adam was made on the 3rd Day some 13.5 Billion years ago, in man's time, after the first Earth was made but BEFORE the plants, herbs, and rain. Gen 2:4-7 The Ark was NOT protected from the Vacuum of Space, and I have NEVER claimed it came from outer Space.
No, it's what Genesis actually says, instead of what you have been told it says. This understanding agrees in EVERY way with EVERY discovery of Science and History. It also exposes the Big Lie of Evolution which falsely teaches that we evolved from the common ancestor of Apes. Since Adam was made BEFORE our Earth was made, he could NOT have evolved from some Ape no matter what Godless men Claim. God Bless you.
In Love,
Aman
Where in the heck does it say adam was made in the 3rd day before the earth was made. That is pretty preposterous. There is proof of common ancestory it is completely unavoidable. So conveniently youd rather two creation accounts and say adam is some sort of space man just to reconcile genesis. It is completely off. Water wasnt even around in the beginning of the universe. Hydrogen and oxygen didnt exist yet.
Simurgh
Atheist Triple Goddess
Where do you get that stuff from? You do realize that none of this makes any sense to a rational person right? I understand that the bible is all about interpretation and picking out whatever fits your agenda, but this is just to insane to even take serious half the time.
So if you did not claim Noah came from outer space, then are you saying his little boat came from inner space? I mean, if he brought humanity to our planet, then he must have come from off planet.
And where do all those numbers come from? Do you read tealeaves o do you dream them up? Adam’s earth was only 22.5 feet? Does this refer to trees, land elevation, depth of ocean, or his bookcase?
You know, if you are trying to preach this nonsense to me or anyone else, you might want to cut down on the supercilious tone and do a bit of math practice. If the sons of god were made 3ish billion years ago and then Adam 13ish billion years, then those boys cannot pre-date Adam.
I think it might be best if you draw yourself a number line so you can figure out that 3 is not more than 13, and while you are at it, get one of those” For Dummies” books up. Clearly, you need to get the basics of science and evolution down. Reading this stuff you are spouting makes me doubt that you understand evolution at all. We did not evolve from APES!! Humans and apes shared a common ancestor approximately 12 some million years ago, according to the last data.
And actually, we are descendants of at least 4 different hominid groups, among them Denisovans, Neanderthal, Homo Sapiens, and a fourth group that left DNA traces, and is assumed to have been a group that evolved from Homo Erectus, which split from Homo Sapiens about 1 million years ago.
Neanderthal Genome Reveals Fourth, Mysterious Human Lineage | Anthropology | Sci-News.com those of you who want to read the article can do so here.
Yep, you are funny. Are you sure you are not a comedian at heart? Seriously, just because you change the font occasionally for emphasis, does not give your rantings credibility.
outhouse
Atheistically
It is best you stop now and quit embarrassing yourself.
If you need help to study and learn about what science states, I would be glad to help you.
If you want to fight evolution you need to arm yourself with knowledge
Hypothesis and the Scientific Method: Scientific experiments are performed throughout three parts of the establishment of any scientific hypothesis. Nothing is ventured on mere conjecture. In the scientific method experiments are not for testing conjectures but only statements ventured to explain observed phenomena.
Hypothesis -- statement of a possible explanation for something that happens in nature. It is first of all not an unprovoked conjecture but is forced upon the scientist by the observable phenomena. The explanation must be compelled by natural evidence or it is not considered a hypothesis. For example: a conjecture that fish probably like meat is not a hypothesis. Contrarily if fish are observed to prefer meat, then that compels a hypothesis about fish. They have been observed to eat meat, but the scientific method demands further verification.
Secondly the explanation which is compelled by natural evidence must be tested by drawing conclusions from it, since a factual statement must reveal more facts. If the conclusions drawn from it are helpful and yield confirmed experimental results then that makes it a stronger hypothesis.
Thirdly the statement must be placed under skepticism by vigorously trying to break it and falsify it. This is where peer review is most helpful. The scientific process requires that other scientists, universities and other studious persons shall attempt to break the hypothesis by devising experiments that will potentially disprove the statement of the hypothesis.
These are the methods by which scientific theories come into existence. That is why creationism is not considered to be a scientific theory. The world around us does not compel us to believe that the world is young or that people appeared out of nowhere. Instead it compels us to think that life developed gradually, and scientists have been testing and attacking this hypothesis for a long time so that it is considered now to be a very durable hypothesis and therefore a theory which is reliable.
Hypothesis -- statement of a possible explanation for something that happens in nature. It is first of all not an unprovoked conjecture but is forced upon the scientist by the observable phenomena. The explanation must be compelled by natural evidence or it is not considered a hypothesis. For example: a conjecture that fish probably like meat is not a hypothesis. Contrarily if fish are observed to prefer meat, then that compels a hypothesis about fish. They have been observed to eat meat, but the scientific method demands further verification.
Secondly the explanation which is compelled by natural evidence must be tested by drawing conclusions from it, since a factual statement must reveal more facts. If the conclusions drawn from it are helpful and yield confirmed experimental results then that makes it a stronger hypothesis.
Thirdly the statement must be placed under skepticism by vigorously trying to break it and falsify it. This is where peer review is most helpful. The scientific process requires that other scientists, universities and other studious persons shall attempt to break the hypothesis by devising experiments that will potentially disprove the statement of the hypothesis.
These are the methods by which scientific theories come into existence. That is why creationism is not considered to be a scientific theory. The world around us does not compel us to believe that the world is young or that people appeared out of nowhere. Instead it compels us to think that life developed gradually, and scientists have been testing and attacking this hypothesis for a long time so that it is considered now to be a very durable hypothesis and therefore a theory which is reliable.
When did science ever learn that prehistoric people were around 3.7 billion years ago? I have never heard anything remotely like that.
outhouse
Atheistically
Yeah I would think POE too but from where, like I am reading some sort of planet of the apes sci fi prequal that ignores all the movies that already came out to put yet another time warp spin of some sort. :thud:
Dear idav, I support what I write with Scripture and here it is...with my comments below what is actually written in God's Holy Word.
4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,
The Earth was made on the 3rd Day. Gen 1:9-10
5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
The plants, herbs, and trees GREW on the 3rd Day. Gen 1:12
7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
In the same 3rd Day that the Earth was made, but BEFORE the plants, herbs, and trees grew, the LORD made man of the dust of the ground. Correct? If you don't agree, then show us another Day which fits this description. You CANNOT. In order to confirm that these verses are speaking of the THIRD Day, read the NEXT verses AFTER man was made:
8 And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there He put the man whom He had formed.
9 And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
Here are the Trees, which were made on the THIRD Day, AFTER Adam was made as Gen 1:12 clearly states:
Gen 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after His kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after His kind: and God saw that it was good.
13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
Remember that Scripture does NOT agree with the traditional religious view. Does It? God Bless you.
In Love,
Aman
I dont know how your mixing that cause creatures and humans were not made til the 6th day male and female. That more closely resembles evolution cause plants were first. Then there is the second cration account god breathed in chapter 2. I guess just feel free to mix the 2 creation accounts, makes even less sense that way with what science has shown us. I see adam as simply a metaphorical chosen enlightened peoples. A species that was able, throu th evolution and help of god were somewhat able to rise above the rest, but certainly not without their mistakes and drawbacks as we struggled, as we always have, against the harshness that is the world.
Last edited:
Simurgh
Atheist Triple Goddess
God's holy word? Are you telling me hat you actually get your god on the phone and talk to him? Or is it more a vision, at night on the TV, maybe?
You need to get your nose out of that book you are reading, snuff out the incense, and take a deep breath of fresh air. I have no clue what you are reading into the bible, but one thing is clear, youre completely ignorant of just about everything that has to do with reality and science. So stop massaging those numbers, which you apparently don't even understand and stop putting a spin on things that are already spinning into oblivion without your help.
Seriously, we all like a good laugh here, it's what keeps some of us coming back. But this moronic blather is going beyond funny into the bizarre.
What is that supposed to mean anyhow, Remember that Scripture does NOT agree with the traditional religious view.? If they dont agree then what value does that religion have? If you all make this stuff up s you go along, then why bother, and why do you assume that your interpretation is worth any more than the rest of them?
Granted, yours is by far the most inane and entertaining take on the bible so far. But throwing those verses around and assuming your particular interpretation has more truth value or means anything to the rest of the world is somewhat arrogant .then again, it is religion and rational thinking does not really enter into that mess