Predictions of Creationism
- Thread starter BananaSlug
- Start date
DJ_Ghost
Trad Goth
- Mar 27, 2004
- 2,737
- 170
- 53
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Engaged
- Politics
- UK-Liberal-Democrats
I don't know why Coyote particulalrly, but I assume the 7 is a reference to the Ark story, which originaly stated that the clean animals were taken onto the Ark by sevens, and the unclean animals by twos. Which is why I asked if Coyotes are considered clean or unclean (I don't know).
Ghost
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,851,046
- 51,497
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
You're taking your time debunking this.
You asked for an example --- I gave you coyote --- now you're haggling over numbers?
Upvote
0
CACTUSJACKmankin
Scientist
That's because all you gave is an animal and a number without any further context or explanation as to how to identify kinds on the ark.
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,851,046
- 51,497
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
CACTUSJACKmankin
Scientist
AV, did you read what he wrote and attempt to contribute constructively to the discussion? The statement you replied to was unambiguous.
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,851,046
- 51,497
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
You still didn't answer his post. How many you've answered in the past is irrelevant if you don't answer this one.
And once again, I'd like to remind to never, ever accuse someone of not liking you for who you are as opposed to what you say.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,851,046
- 51,497
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
What should I accuse them of if I issue a challenge that "proves" there's no evidence for the Creation, and get called everything but what's in my profile?
ETA: If you want to know what people REALLY think of us, I can give you a website for that --- but it's unmoderated.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
So no person has ever seen God?
Oh dear, then your own Bible is contradicting you....
Moses saw God face to face in Exodus 33:11, and this was mentioned again in Deuteronomy 34:10.
Or is this a mistake?
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,851,046
- 51,497
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
It's a mistake --- on your part --- (ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures).
Exodus 33:11 said:
Whenever you see LORD in all capitals in the KJV, it's JEHOVAH. JEHOVAH is God the Father, the First Person of the Godhead. Thus, Moses saw JEHOVAH*, not God in His triune essence.Deuteronomy 34:10 said:
*I could get into anthropomorphic expressions here to explain this as well, but I'll see where this goes.
Upvote
0
Nathan Poe
Well-Known Member
Actually, he's not.
Of course it wouldn't do much good to boast about his posts until after he'd had ample time to artificially inflate them.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Aug 26, 2005
- 2,454
- 106
- 39
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
Honestly the triune aspect of God is never explicitly mentioned in the Bible. The trinity wasn't even used until around 325 A.D. during the Council Nicaea. Even then, many religions view major gods as being "3 formed." The Dagda, Lugh (Lugus), Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva, Hongjun Laozu. Jehovah is God.
In regards to the OP AV, in order for a view to be considered science, you need to make predictions on what you would find! It is that simple. What is really the kicker is that some of you believe Noah took a fox on the ark and then that fox became all the different species of canine today. Do you realize that this is an unparalleled rate of evolution?
In regards to the OP AV, in order for a view to be considered science, you need to make predictions on what you would find! It is that simple. What is really the kicker is that some of you believe Noah took a fox on the ark and then that fox became all the different species of canine today. Do you realize that this is an unparalleled rate of evolution?
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,851,046
- 51,497
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Honestly, it is ---
1 John 5:7 said:
Colossians 2:8-9 said:
Dunno --- I wasn't around then --- but I highly doubt the veracity of that statement.
Those are three separate gods, not three gods in one. As I have pointed out before, God has one characteristic above all those others, in that He violates the Law of Non-Contradiction. There's a difference between three gods, and three Gods-in-One.
Creationism is not science --- as this challenge demonstrates.
Upvote
0
- Aug 26, 2005
- 2,454
- 106
- 39
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
If creationism is not science, then stop trying to use science to support it!
Most evidence supports that 1 John 5:7 was added by the church.
"This text concerning the heavenly witness is not contained in any Greek manuscript which was written earlier than the fifteenth century. It is not cited by any of the ecclesiastical writers; not by any of early Latin fathers even when the subjects upon which they treated would naturally have lead them to appeal to it's authority. It is therefore evidently spurious."
Benjamin Wilson
In more recent translations of the Bible this verse has been expunged.
Most evidence supports that 1 John 5:7 was added by the church.
"This text concerning the heavenly witness is not contained in any Greek manuscript which was written earlier than the fifteenth century. It is not cited by any of the ecclesiastical writers; not by any of early Latin fathers even when the subjects upon which they treated would naturally have lead them to appeal to it's authority. It is therefore evidently spurious."
Benjamin Wilson
In more recent translations of the Bible this verse has been expunged.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,851,046
- 51,497
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
I have never used science to support Creationism, newbie; in fact, I go out of my way to exclude science from it.
Then most evidence can take a hike; but let me add though, that that is not what you said --- you said it is never explicitly mentioned in the Bible.
Care to retract that statement?
Upvote
0
Similar threads
