Evolution's Wrong Biblically!

JohnR7 · Aug 11, 2004

pureone said:
So in Luke, caesar taxed the whole world? North America too?

North America was not a part of the known world at that time. It has been said that Alexander the Great conquered the world. But by that they mean the civilized or the known world in his day. He did not conquer the Anglos or the Saxtons. They did not become a part of the civilized world untell around 300 ad, when they were given the area that at one time belonged to the Brittans. But the Brittans had declined so much in number and land was available.

frettr00 · Aug 11, 2004

Yea, i've always played castlevania so I stuck w the name The 1/3 stars falling is also an example. Here's another one...if you're familiar with the wheat and the tares parable....Jesus isn't talking about being good at cutting down grass and storing it..he's talking about the seperation of God's people (wheat) into his barn, from the others (tares) which in the parable are "burnt up", this is also interpreted by some as scripture which supports the Rapture doctrine...and as is the same case with the last supper. Look at the two different interpretations, catholics like myself take it that the bread and wine literally contain the presence of Jesus..while others believe it's a symbol of Christ's broken body and shed blood for mankind...just a few examples like that...each of which could have literal/symbolic meanings..and the bible is full of that so there's no way you could stick with a single mindset and expect to get correct interpretation. Sorry if i got a little off topic, just wanted to drive my point home.

Gracchus · Aug 11, 2004

"Evolution's Wrong Biblically!"

I would say rather, "The Bible's Wrong Scientifically!"

Karl - Liberal Backslider · Aug 11, 2004

JohnR7 said:
North America was not a part of the known world at that time. It has been said that Alexander the Great conquered the world. But by that they mean the civilized or the known world in his day. He did not conquer the Anglos or the Saxtons. They did not become a part of the civilized world untell around 300 ad, when they were given the area that at one time belonged to the Brittans. But the Brittans had declined so much in number and land was available.

Angles
Saxons (note, no 't')
Britons

There was something of a decline after the Roman withdrawal in about 440. But most of the Anglo-Saxon land gaining was conquest rather than merely settling deserted lands. Otherwise we have a strange situation that all the British population in East Anglia had declined to virtually nothing, whilst the British population in Cornwall and Wales remained strong.

The conventional explanation is that the Britons were driven into these less desirable (from a farming rather than a scenic viewpoint) areas by the invading Saxons. The Britons so hated the Anglo-Saxons that not only did they refuse to evangelise them (prefering to leave them Pagan and in danger of Hell), but they even teamed up with Pagan kings against Christian Anglo-Saxon ones, such as when Cadwalladr teamed up with the Pagan king of Mercia, Penda, against the Northumbrian king (Aethelwald or some such IIRC).

But I digress.

Jet Black · Aug 11, 2004

JohnR7 said:
North America was not a part of the known world at that time. It has been said that Alexander the Great conquered the world. But by that they mean the civilized or the known world in his day. He did not conquer the Anglos or the Saxtons. They did not become a part of the civilized world untell around 300 ad, when they were given the area that at one time belonged to the Brittans. But the Brittans had declined so much in number and land was available.

so I am guessin thet the Aztecs, Olmecs Chinese and Japanese weren't civilised then?

JohnR7 · Aug 11, 2004

Jet Black said:
so I am guessin thet the Aztecs, Olmecs Chinese and Japanese weren't civilised then?

They were not a part of the Roman empire. The Japanese pretty much kept to themselves. There was some trading with the Chinese. Even today China is very diversified and made up of many indigenous groups.

Jane_the_Bane · Aug 11, 2004

"Evolution's wrong Biblically!"

Yeah, but what do you expect from a collection of creation myths composed by a bunch of desert people who didn't even know that the sun revolves around the earth and not vice versa?

It's really frightening to see that there are still people around in the 21st century who unquestioningly believe in some raunchy myths...
They even tell you that they find the notion of evolving organisms absolutely ridiculous, only to tell you afterwards that God modelled Man from a lump of clay and blew life into his nose.
Yet these very same people would call you superstitious when you'd tell them that Odin carved the first two humans from a piece of driftwood...
Ironic, isn't it?

JohnR7 · Aug 11, 2004

Jane_the_Bane said:
"Evolution's wrong Biblically!"

Yeah, but what do you expect from a collection of creation myths composed by a bunch of desert people who didn't even know that the sun revolves around the earth and not vice versa?

It looks like Jane the pagan has shown up.

Jane_the_Bane · Aug 11, 2004

JohnR7 said:
It looks like Jane the pagan has shown up.

*cough cough* ad hominem *cough cough*

Karl - Liberal Backslider · Aug 11, 2004

JohnR7 said:
It looks like Jane the pagan has shown up.

JohnR7_Bot_On

It looks like JohnR7 the content-free ad hom generator has shown up.

JohnR7_Bot_Off

tkster · Aug 11, 2004

ONE said:
To Believe In The Theory Of Evolution You Have To Believe That We Started Out As Single Cell Organisms And Later Formed Into Something Else And Something Else Etc. Etc. Biblically It Says In Genesis That We Were Created In The Image Of God, And To Create Eve He Took A Rib From Adams Chest, So The Two Obviously Contradict Each Other. But What Are Your Views.

Thank you for stating the obvious.

By the way, stop raping the CAPS at every first word.

take care,
tk (http://www.skeptictimes.com/)

pureone · Aug 11, 2004

JohnR7 said:
North America was not a part of the known world at that time. It has been said that Alexander the Great conquered the world. But by that they mean the civilized or the known world in his day. He did not conquer the Anglos or the Saxtons. They did not become a part of the civilized world untell around 300 ad, when they were given the area that at one time belonged to the Brittans. But the Brittans had declined so much in number and land was available.

The people that were there didd't know about it?
Since you claim God created it, He knew about it, and since the Bible is the inspired word of God, it must of meant the "whole world".
How do you know what was meant? Are you making an interpretation? It says "whole world", and since you are literal in you interpretations, it meant the whole world. Are you then only an occasional convienient literalist?

ONE WHO REMAINS · Aug 12, 2004

WHY IS IT INSTEAD OF OFFERING OTHER INFORMATION, ATHEISTS AND AGNOSTICS WOULD RATHER MOCK THE BIBLE AND ITS VALINITY. SHOOT SOME FACTS OUT HERE AND THAN MAYBE.......OH MY GOSH, IT MAYBE A DEBATE THAN. OH AnD IlL RaPe CaPs If I WaNt To.

funyun · Aug 12, 2004

JohnR7 said:
North America was not a part of the known world at that time. It has been said that Alexander the Great conquered the world. But by that they mean the civilized or the known world in his day. He did not conquer the Anglos or the Saxtons. They did not become a part of the civilized world untell around 300 ad, when they were given the area that at one time belonged to the Brittans. But the Brittans had declined so much in number and land was available.

Not to hijack the thread, but Alexander the Great did not conquer the "civilized world" nor did he even conquer the known world. He didn't get Italy or the rest of Europe besides areas in the Balkans, he didn't get all of North Africa, and he didn't get India or China, to name just some of the places he didnt get which they knew about then and/or were civilized at the time.

JohnR7 · Aug 12, 2004

lucaspa said:
Genesis 3 does not say that Adam was the "first to till the land". Genesis 3 says that Adam, if he chooses to farm, will have a hard time of it. However, there is nothing there to suggest that other people were not already farming.

Now, do you have any extrabiblical reasons for thinking this theory is correct?

Genesis 2:5 there was no man to till the ground;

Maybe Gen 2:5 was a referance that there was no one to till the ground in the land of Eden. Historically they believe farming begain in Jerico between 10,000 & 7000 BC at the beginning of the Neolithic age.

JohnR7 · Aug 12, 2004

pureone said:
The people that were there didd't know about it?
Since you claim God created it, He knew about it, and since the Bible is the inspired word of God, it must of meant the "whole world".
How do you know what was meant? Are you making an interpretation? It says "whole world", and since you are literal in you interpretations, it meant the whole world. Are you then only an occasional convienient literalist?

What verse are you refering to?

ONE WHO REMAINS · Aug 12, 2004

There is no proof for evolution. Theres rocks that make people think it happened, we kind of look like monkeys, and turtles are everywhere. But show me the skeleton of a monkey that just turned into a homosapian, and give me the skeleton for each of the phase for the whole transformation. Ohps, they dont have any, as the oldest, I just bunked that theory. It has been bunked, Watermelon anyone?

slayer-2004 · Aug 12, 2004

To Believe In The Theory Of Evolution You Have To Believe That We Started Out As Single Cell Organisms And Later Formed Into Something Else And Something Else Etc. Etc. Biblically It Says In Genesis That We Were Created In The Image Of God, And To Create Eve He Took A Rib From Adams Chest, So The Two Obviously Contradict Each Other. But What Are Your Views.

Why has this topic recieved so much attention ? Its obvious the original argument is flawed as belief in evolution doesnt exactly include abiogenesis . Only athiests believe in that .

Mechanical Bliss · Aug 12, 2004

slayer-2004 said:
Why has this topic recieved so much attention ? Its obvious the original argument is flawed as belief in evolution doesnt exactly include abiogenesis . Only athiests believe in that .

That's not necessarily true either. There are some theists who accept abiogenesis as well.

Mechanical Bliss · Aug 12, 2004

ONE said:
There is no proof for evolution. Theres rocks that make people think it happened, we kind of look like monkeys, and turtles are everywhere. But show me the skeleton of a monkey that just turned into a homosapian, and give me the skeleton for each of the phase for the whole transformation. Ohps, they dont have any, as the oldest, I just bunked that theory. It has been bunked, Watermelon anyone?

So what are the specimens such as Australopithecus afarensis, Australopithecus africanus, Homo habilis, and Homo erectus then? Why do they appear chronologically and show morphological changes further distinguishable from other apes?

If you're looking for a "monkey" that magically turns into H. sapiens you don't know what you should be looking for. You haven't debunked a single thing here; you've just made arrogantly bald assertions from a position of total and obvious ignorance. If you are expecting people to take you seriously, yours isn't a good approach.

Evolution's Wrong Biblically!

Well-Known Member

Finding peace where I am

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Jet Black

Guest

Well-Known Member

Gaia's godchild

Well-Known Member

Gaia's godchild

Senior Veteran

Active Member

Evolution =/= atheism

Well-Known Member

aude sapere...sed praeterea, aude esse

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Secrecy and accountability cannot co-exist.

Secrecy and accountability cannot co-exist.

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency