TLK Valentine
I've already read the books you want burned.
- Apr 15, 2012
- 64,493
- 30,319
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Agnostic
- Marital Status
- Single
And in a scientific discussion, such assertions without support mean nothing.
Upvote
0
My Abiogenesis Challenge
- Thread starter AV1611VET
- Start date
- Status
And in a scientific discussion, such assertions without support mean nothing.
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,851,123
- 51,509
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Preceded men!?
Maybe you need to go back and read that passage again?
Pay special attention as to what it's talking about ... the earth or men?
Then youPaul of Eugene OR said:
Either that, or it's an educated guess.Paul of Eugene OR said:
Show me "heavens" (plural) in Genesis 1:1.Paul of Eugene OR said:
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
In fact, I don't even see the letter 's' in that verse ... do you?
What's with you guys and your willingness to change words in the Bible to slander our beliefs?
One person has an 'r' in a verse that doesn't have any 'r's.
One person resorts to graffiti and/or writing in tongues.
One person has an 's' in a verse that doesn't have any 's's.
Signs of the times, I guess.
When you can build a machine that can do this:Paul of Eugene OR said:
2 Kings 6:17 And Elisha prayed, and said, LORD, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see. And the LORD opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.
... you'll have your evidence.
Upvote
0
TLK Valentine
I've already read the books you want burned.
- Apr 15, 2012
- 64,493
- 30,319
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Agnostic
- Marital Status
- Single
Upvote
0
TLK Valentine
I've already read the books you want burned.
- Apr 15, 2012
- 64,493
- 30,319
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Agnostic
- Marital Status
- Single
Upvote
0
TLK Valentine
I've already read the books you want burned.
- Apr 15, 2012
- 64,493
- 30,319
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Agnostic
- Marital Status
- Single
Upvote
0
So there was just a layer of water? Or was it a ball? How deep and wide was it? Did it stretch across the entire universe?
You cannot have "above" and "below" without there being something to reference for position. So, by definition, the water must have formed a division. Also, how is it possible that God "hovered over the deep" if there was no reference? Which way is "up" when something is formless?
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
- 3,851,123
- 51,509
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
It started out as sea water in the palm of God's hand.
Gravity then made it into an orb, and rotation into an oblate spheroid.
I like to call that oblate spheroid of sea water: terra aqua.
Upvote
0
So God hovered over his own hand? How does that work?
Where'd the gravitational pull come from? Let me guess - there was no gravity to start with, so he invented it? That raises so many questions around how there could be a layer of water in the first place (do you know what water does in zero gravity?), how God could hover etc etc etc. But you can just hand wave those problems away, can't you?
I love how Christians can make up any additional information they like to support their favourite story but they still claim they don't add anything to the Bible.
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,851,123
- 51,509
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Genesis 1:2b And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
You don't build helicopters, do you?
n/aBungle_Bear said:
God simp...Bungle_Bear said:
Created it would be more accurate.Bungle_Bear said:
You should see how many questions the Flood story generates in educated unbelievers!Bungle_Bear said:
It's enough to blow your mind!
Nor can you change words like "moved" to "hover," or use words like "invent" over "created" and expect a KJVO not to understand how perplexed you're only making yourselves.Bungle_Bear said:
Those Arab phone tactics only cause you guys to get more confused.
Sad, isn't it?Bungle_Bear said:
It's too bad we have to stoop to that; but when facing the intellegista ... well ... you have to give them something or they might ridicule you.
In the 11 years I've been here, I've seen both sides of the coin:
Obverse: give them only Bible quotes and they say something to the effect of, "Can't you speak for yourself?"
Reverse: give them your opinion and they say something to the effect of, "Chapter and verse, please?"
As my mom used to say, "You can't win for losing."
Upvote
0
OK, so he moved on his own hand? How does that work? And before you whinge, see below for explanation of how it was not me who said hovered
The creationist "handwave and move on" tactic. Just as predicted
I was quoting your biggest fan, miknik5. You might not want to alienate her with these harsh words
Poor miknik.
But you still haven't learnt to read threads properly to find out who is saying what before you sling mud.
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,851,123
- 51,509
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Weird, isn't it?
He did the same thing when He walked on the earth, while at the same time speaking from Heaven.
It's called the Triune Godhead, if you want something to Google.
You know ... it's the scientific method thing to do.
I think it's called "research."
Of course, if you'd rather not bother, and it's more fun to come back with something stupid ... knock yourself out ... you're on a roll already.
But believe me, you're not alone.
For some dumb reason, I feel like I'm Genghis Khan.Bungle_Bear said:
Handwaving an Arab phone can be more constructive than anything else.Bungle_Bear said:
Oh, I won't.Bungle_Bear said:
You see, she probably has another translation she prefers ... so at least she gets something.
What's your excuse for using it though, researcher?
I have a feeling 'poor miknik' is richer than you think.Bungle_Bear said:
LOLBungle_Bear said:
Okay, researcher.
I can usually tell when scientific methodists aren't walking their talk.
So that door swings both ways.
And speaking of research, I'll just check and see if you ever used that term before miknik ever showed up here.
In the meantime, don't operate any helicopters please.
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
Astrophile
Newbie
- Aug 30, 2013
- 2,280
- 1,525
- 76
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Widowed
So far as I understand it, abiogenesis is a separate scientific theory from evolution, and at present it is in a much less developed state. If scientists ever succeed in explaining the origin of life, the theory of abiogenesis will probably become unified with the theory of evolution, just as the theories of electricity and magnetism were unified into the theory of electromagnetism. God, on the other hand is irrelevant to scientific theories; a scientist can believe or disbelieve in God without their belief affecting their science in any way.
May I now ask you, or creationists generally, two questions? Suppose that scientists, specifically chemists and biologists, showed beyond reasonable doubt that life cannot have originated from non-living matter by any natural process and therefore that the first life-forms must have been created by a god. Would creationists then accept that astronomers and cosmologists are right in saying that the universe began in a state of extremely high temperature and pressure, colloquially called the Big Bang, about 13.8 billion years ago, that geologists are right in saying that the Earth is 4540±20 million years old, and that the first life-forms were created at least 3.5 billion years ago and that all subsequent life-forms have evolved from these common ancestors by a process of descent with modification? If creationists would not accept these well-established scientific findings, what grounds would they have for accepting the original statement by scientists that life could not have originated from non-living matter by any natural process?
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,851,123
- 51,509
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
This is exactly what I believe.
During the Tribulation, the Antichrist is going to unify abiogenesis with evolution ... and demonstrate it too by giving life to an image.
The result will be that scientists will line up to take the Mark.
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,851,123
- 51,509
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Nope ... didn't find anything.
My
You're off the hook.
Proud of me?
I actually did some research!
Upvote
0
lesliedellow
Member
- Sep 20, 2010
- 9,652
- 2,582
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- UK-Liberal-Democrats
No, you are just an amiable eccentric. Don't get ideas above your station.
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
- 3,851,123
- 51,509
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
