Adam & Eve

[dad]

And how do you know this? could it be that this is what you need to have happened in order to make your bible stories work? none of it is true but you try to convince yourself it is in order for you to remain a creationist, good luck.

The fast plant growth, and different weather system (water came up from below to water the earth, rather than rain) for a few things. Naturally, deposition could occur fast. The question is how do you know it ain't so?

We all know you are too far gone to care either way and that we are only answering you for the sake of the lurkers, if there were no lurkers you would have been dismissed as a fool a long long time ago, I have gathered that much even though I have only been here not much more than a month.

Anyone can be dismissed if their ideas are weak. Mine are in sync with the Almighty. How strong is that? Now, for the sake of lurkers, make a case. What we have to wait more months? Tick tick...

 

[Catherineanne]

For the Christian evolutionist:

Ok so if we are not to take Adam and Eve literally, then that means we can discredit all their descendants.

Which means Adam/Eve through Noah were all mythical, then Noah to lets say Jesus were all mythical? If this is true, then wouldn't that be like saying the entire Bible is nothing more than a 66 Book fable?

So who exactly would of been the first human (i.e. evolved monkey) to have a conversation with God?

The answer to your question about a genealogy is, of course, that the most recent people to the writer will be pretty well reliable, and that the further he goes from living memory, the greater the likelihood of errors creeping in. Names have been forgotten, so others are substituted. Gaps occur, so are filled in somehow. But an occurence of this kind does not discredit the whole genealogy.

There is certainly much in the Bible that is mythological, but much, also that is more than that. There is no need to be absolutist about this; we can tolerate a bit of one and a bit of the other, without deciding that one uncertainty means everything is worthless.

 

[Hespera]

Regarding the idea that if the slightest thing about the bible is not 100% correct, then the whole thing is out the window.

does someone here have the knowledge of psychology to describe a person who has (HAS) to always be right? i've met a few. I think that to concede the slightest mistake would shatter their whole notion of them selves.

I think this same way of thinking gets wrongly applied to the bible.

I like to play with the value of Pi thing, the tank that is said to be 10 cubits across and 30 around. Of course, those exact numbers are impossible, so something is wrong.
Anyhow there is no way to measure exactly with cubits! So ANY measurement they gave would be approximate. So..... its approximate 100$ correct?

if the bible has to be 100% correct in all things then this is a real problem, because sstaring in the face is the absolute impossibility of it being correct to the last decimal place. So.... too bad if the bible has to be 100% or out it all goes.

 

[sandwiches]

For any state future? No. For any state past? No. Science is too puny.

All of it! It is what is left of the created universe, in a temporal state now, for our benefit.

So, bottom line, there's no way to verify your claim that the universe has ever been one with the "spiritual realm". Got it. We can then disregard that and move on as we cannot make any opinions or conclusions based on what cannot be known.

How is the spiritual known? The Egyptians claimed early rulers were gods, spiritual beings, if I recall. Spirits are a part of every culture from the getgo. Most still believe in angels and spirits of some sort. How can we use spirits? Many ways. God's spirit can protect us, educate us, inspire us, and etc etc.

Post too long, I'll do the rest later

The Egyptians also believed in Rah and Osiris and a host of other gods, are they also real since the Egyptians believed in them? Or is it that you're just picking certain aspects of certain cultures to make them fit to what you believe?

 

[dad]

Regarding the idea that if the slightest thing about the bible is not 100% correct, then the whole thing is out the window.

does someone here have the knowledge of psychology to describe a person who has (HAS) to always be right? i've met a few. I think that to concede the slightest mistake would shatter their whole notion of them selves.

I think this same way of thinking gets wrongly applied to the bible.

I like to play with the value of Pi thing, the tank that is said to be 10 cubits across and 30 around. Of course, those exact numbers are impossible, so something is wrong.
Anyhow there is no way to measure exactly with cubits! So ANY measurement they gave would be approximate. So..... its approximate 100$ correct?

if the bible has to be 100% correct in all things then this is a real problem, because sstaring in the face is the absolute impossibility of it being correct to the last decimal place. So.... too bad if the bible has to be 100% or out it all goes.

I am not always right. But at least I am not always wrong! The pi thing goes like this. What was measured, where, when? If I recall, it was in the temple area, and it was something that represented a vital and important spiritual reality. Something that exists in the forever state. Therefore, the influence and presence of the spiritual has to be factored in. Now, that question arises, does heaven state materials, that are also spiritual, need to conform to physical measurements, and lines and concepts? No! What we seem to have here is a lesson in that, perhaps.

We do know that the spirit of God was in the place at the time. An example of the spiritual added is in the desert, with Moses. Their clothes never got worn out, as Avi mentioned the other day. The food appeared each day. The column of smoke or light behaved in a different way than normally expected. There was apparently no waste eother, because if I recall, many have looked for traces of that mass migration and came up empty!! I wonder why! Then there us the rod of Aaron in the little ark. I never saw a three foot rod...in shepherds of old, did you?!

Man's measurements go out the window,m and into the junk pile when we get into the spiritual. Comparing apples with oranges. Be amazed.

 

[dad]

So, bottom line, there's no way to verify your claim that the universe has ever been one with the "spiritual realm". Got it.

No. On the contrary. There is no ability in science to know it was any particular way, one way or the other! Using the records and bible, I can know it was very different, and that the spiritual was more a direct part of life! I can. You can't. Big difference. The issue on a science forum, is that science needs to be based on something. Not whether you feel like denying the actual records we do have or not!

We can then disregard that and move on as we cannot make any opinions or conclusions based on what cannot be known.

Only science can be disregarded as knowing the state of the future or far past! That means their mother of all premises, the present is the key to the future and past, must be chucked for the godless, and presumptuous garbage it is.

The Egyptians also believed in Rah and Osiris and a host of other gods, are they also real since the Egyptians believed in them? Or is it that you're just picking certain aspects of certain cultures to make them fit to what you believe?

So do I!! I have no reason to doubt that spirits were among men, on the contrary, the bible says they were too! Why deny tghe records with no evidence? The fact that spirits do not now live among us, in a merged and visible way does not mean they never will, or never did!

It isn't about now. It is about then.

 

[sandwiches]

No. On the contrary. There is no ability in science to know it was any particular way, one way or the other! Using the records and bible, I can know it was very different, and that the spiritual was more a direct part of life! I can. You can't. Big difference. The issue on a science forum, is that science needs to be based on something. Not whether you feel like denying the actual records we do have or not!

Is there any other corroborating evidence of your claim?

Also, where does the Bible claim that the physicial used to be merged with the spiritual in the past.

Only science can be disregarded as knowing the state of the future or far past! That means their mother of all premises, the present is the key to the future and past, must be chucked for the godless, and presumptuous garbage it is.

The fact that you use that goodness and presumptuous garbage on a daily basis makes your angry argument meaningless.

So do I!! I have no reason to doubt that spirits were among men, on the contrary, the bible says they were too! Why deny tghe records with no evidence? The fact that spirits do not now live among us, in a merged and visible way does not mean they never will, or never did!

It isn't about now. It is about then.

What isn't about the now?

 

[dad]

Is there any other corroborating evidence of your claim?

Also, where does the Bible claim that the physical used to be merged with the spiritual in the past.

The bible records are the only real records of the pre flood world of man! The early post flood peoples recorded spirits right here as well. The sons of god even married earth girls it says, right in the same chapter, no less, where the Almighty Himself gave the 120 year warning, till something real real big was to come upon man's world.

It also fits with all, repeat all evidences we do have, fossil record, geological, population spread, etc etc.

The fact that you use that goodness and presumptuous garbage on a daily basis makes your angry argument meaningless.

How pointing out that science has real and present limits equals 'goodness' I have no idea. Try to deal with it.

What isn't about the now?

The past. The future also. Creation was in the past. Get it?

 

[sandwiches]

The bible records are the only real records of the pre flood world of man! The early post flood peoples recorded spirits right here as well. The sons of god even married earth girls it says, right in the same chapter, no less, where the Almighty Himself gave the 120 year warning, till something real real big was to come upon man's world.

It also fits with all, repeat all evidences we do have, fossil record, geological, population spread, etc etc.

I don't know why you keep looking for different ways of saying the same thing. So, there's nothing in our current earth that can corroborate what you claim the Bible says.

How pointing out that science has real and present limits equals 'goodness' I have no idea. Try to deal with it.

Mystype. It was supposed to be 'godless.' Either way. You definitely do know how to deal with it. Using science, it would seem.

The past. The future also. Creation was in the past. Get it?

So, nothing about the present can be used to figure out what happened in the past? Except for the Bible, of course. Which means, a book with no supporting evidence and your imagination is all the "evidence" you have. So, you have a claim with no testable evidence, no verifiable predictions, and unobservable effects. There's another word for ideas like that: "make believe."

At the very least we agreed on something. By your own admission, your assumptions are not scientific.

 

[Nathan Poe]

The bible records are the only real records of the pre flood world of man!

Except those "records" aren't real -- therefore, no records exist.

No flood, either. Funny that.

The early post flood peoples recorded spirits right here as well. The sons of god even married earth girls it says, right in the same chapter, no less, where the Almighty Himself gave the 120 year warning, till something real real big was to come upon man's world.

And yet, it never came -- except in mythology.

It also fits with all, repeat all evidences we do have, fossil record, geological, population spread, etc etc.

So, all the stuff which refutes the Flood confirms it, David?

How pointing out that science has real and present limits equals 'goodness' I have no idea. Try to deal with it.

The past. The future also. Creation was in the past. Get it?

oo bad nobody was there to write about it.

 

[iremouth]

And just like his religion dads ideas are baseless and all in his mind.

 

[dad]

I don't know why you keep looking for different ways of saying the same thing. So, there's nothing in our current earth that can corroborate what you claim the Bible says.


Mystype. It was supposed to be 'godless.' Either way. You definitely do know how to deal with it. Using science, it would seem.


So, nothing about the present can be used to figure out what happened in the past? Except for the Bible, of course. Which means, a book with no supporting evidence and your imagination is all the "evidence" you have. So, you have a claim with no testable evidence, no verifiable predictions, and unobservable effects. There's another word for ideas like that: "make believe."

At the very least we agreed on something. By your own admission, your assumptions are not scientific.

No science can do the future or past, no. Is that plain enough? The bible does, however, even though science is too puny to be able to collaborate it.

 

[dad]

And just like his religion dads ideas are baseless and all in his mind.

Here is one idea that is proven, and repeated, and tested. Science cannot prove a same state far past universe. That is fact, not in anyone's head. Put up, or admit total defeat.

By the way, I never made up God, spirits, or history, or the bible either! En garde.

 

[dad]

Except those "records" aren't real -- therefore, no records exist.

No flood, either. Funny that.

Records of early peoples contact with spirits is not something debatable. Ask around. You can't wave it away, no matter how deperate you get.

So, all the stuff which refutes the Flood confirms it, David?

I assume you are addressing me, despite already being told that is not my name. There is no such stuff, it is the stuff of dreams. hardly the right stuff. That stuff needs a shovel.

oo bad nobody was there to write about it.

God was. He did. It stands the test of time. There was always somebody here since the earth was created.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Records of early peoples contact with spirits is not something debatable. Ask around. You can't wave it away, no matter how deperate you get.

Those records are called "fiction," David -- I don't need to wave them away.

I assume you are addressing me, despite already being told that is not my name.

Told by you, David -- not the most reliable source.

There is no such stuff, it is the stuff of dreams. hardly the right stuff. That stuff needs a shovel.

Whch is why you're distancing yourself from it -- I assume you mean your old split/merge websites.

God was. He did. It stands the test of time. There was always somebody here since the earth was created.

But God didn't write any records -- even the most obtuse of Christians knows that, David.

 

[dad]

Those records are called "fiction," David -- I don't need to wave them away.

What records? The Egyptian ones? Can you show us where they are called fiction, and not supposed to have been true? Or do you think simply waving at them makes them whatever you wish?

But God didn't write any records -- even the most obtuse of Christians knows that, David.

No, whose finger wrote the ten commandments then? Bigfoot's?

 

[Nathan Poe]

No science can do the future or past, no. Is that plain enough? The bible does, however, even though science is too puny to be able to collaborate it.

Actually, the Bible doesn't -- The Iliad does, however.

How long before you admit you've been worshipping the wrong spirits?

 

[Nathan Poe]

What records? The Egyptian ones? Can you show us where they are called fiction, and not supposed to have been true? Or do you think simply waving at them makes them whatever you wish?

Waving at them and calling them something they're not would be your schtick, David -- I'd hate to be sued for copyright infringement.

No, whose finger wrote the ten commandments then? Bigfoot's?

Some anonymous Israelite who thought they'd be a good idea -- and knew enough about human nature to know they'd go over a lot better if he claimed they came from "God."

Prove me wrong, David.

 

[dad]

Actually, the Bible doesn't --?

Actually, the bible does support a different state in the past and future very well. Which is why you can provide us with no case against it. Wave all you like.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Actually, the bible does support a different state in the past and future very well.

Except the Bible gets the "different" state all wrong -- It's The Iliad that gets it right, but Bible-worshippers such as yourself have been enshrining the wrong records for thousands of years. Wave all you like, David.