How many of you creationists...

[AV1611VET]

Double fasinating... Who did Cain marry?

Cain married a girl from Nod ---

And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.

Keep in mind that Adam was 130 years old when Seth, who replaced Abel, was born.

Assuming Cain was --- oh --- 20 years old when he killed his brother, that means that 100 years passed after Cain was born.

Meaning that the population of the earth could have well been on its way.

Also, are Unicorns mentioned in the bible and are they evil demons disguised as cute little horses?

Yes they are mentioned in the Bible, and no they are not cute little horses.

Take the cherub, for example --- here's the Hallmark version of a cherub:

Cute --- ain't he?

Now here's the Bible's version of a cherub:

--- taken from the Rose is Rose comic strip.

The unicorn is depicted as a very powerful, independent animal --- used for plowing.

More powerful than the ox.

 

[OldStyleBlues]

Who gave birth the "The girl from Nod"? Adam was 130?? He must have had a great personal trainer and a very low cholesterol diet. Interesting about the Cherub. Are Leprachauns mentioned in the bible?

 

[Cabal]

On one side there is Science which deals with the natural world, reason and facts. On the other side there is the belief that a cosmic Jewish zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolicly eat his flesh and telepathicaly accept him as your master, so that he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in all of humanity , because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical fruit tree. I'll stick with science.

It's not an either-or scenario.

Just so's you know.

 

[AV1611VET]

Who gave birth the "The girl from Nod"?

The Girl from Ipanema?

--- okay, jokes aside --- I don't know.

Adam was 130??

Yes ---

And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:

--- the universe in early Gensis wasn't quite like it is today.

He must have had a great personal trainer and a very low cholesterol diet.

Longevity was the norm back then.

Interesting about the Cherub. Are Leprachauns mentioned in the bible?

No.

 

[OldStyleBlues]

The creation museum in Kentucky explains that "Incest was acceptable in the time of Adam and Eve" thus the reasoning and logic of "Cain Marrying his sister"(Pretty nasty). The thing that gets me, in all seriousness is that evolution doesn't deal with religious belief one way or the other. One can be a devout Christian (or Muslim or Jew or Taoist or animist or whatever) and still be accept and understand of the truth of evolution, the Big Bang, and all the other wonders of the universe that modern science has revealed and helped us understand.
The people whose religious beliefs are offended by evolution are, to tell the truth, people of little faith, people whose belief is narrow, circumscribed, brittle, and (dare I say it?) false. Frightened people who cling to archaic beliefs would normally cause laughter if they weren't so sad.
There is no conflict between the Bible and science. If they think there is, then their understanding of the Bible is faulty.
The Bible is a very complex document, an anthology of myth, garbled history, poetry, outright fiction, and flights of intense religious fervor, filled with contradictions, ambiguities, and vagueness. Anyone who takes it literally is clearly blind to its worth and the occasional guidance it can offer.
Some creationists, and I mean the die-hard creationists will be blinded like the members of the Flat Earth Society to any kind of logic, science, reason - whatever.
Anything you give them in the way of scientific proof can be disavowed by their saying "This is a trick". They will "believe" that either "God" or "Satan" put whatever evidence is on hand out there in order to "test" their faith.

 

[Anna Scott]

The thing that gets me, in all seriousness is that evolution doesn't deal with religious belief one way or the other. One can be a devout Christian (or Muslim or Jew or Taoist or animist or whatever) and still be accept and understand of the truth of evolution, the Big Bang, and all the other wonders of the universe that modern science has revealed and helped us understand.

I do agree that one can be a devout Christian and still believe in evolution. Since God is our creator, every area of Science will be in perfect harmony with God. If science and the Bible appear to contradict one another-then either our interpretation of the Bible is wrong or Science has produce a false assumption.

I think we, as Christians, spend far too much energy battling Science. Let's get back to Christ and concentrate on our Spiritual walk with God.

 

[OldStyleBlues]

Well said Anna, I don't see why people who believe in "God" cant get behind the idea that maybe "God created evolution" as the tool that he used to make all life on earth".

 

[AV1611VET]

There is no conflict between the Bible and science.

Then you say:

The Bible is a very complex document, an anthology of myth, garbled history, poetry, outright fiction, and flights of intense religious fervor, filled with contradictions, ambiguities, and vagueness. Anyone who takes it literally is clearly blind to its worth and the occasional guidance it can offer.

--- and yet ---

There is no conflict between the Bible and science.

What am I missing here?

 

[OldStyleBlues]

What you are missing is that there is no conflict between science and the bible as far as Science is concerned. Science doesnt deal in the supernatural. Science is only concerned with the natural world around us. Science doesnt consider religion, diety's or Gods one way or the other. However Religion has been at odds with science since the renaissance and even before. Fundamentalists have deemed science a threat for centuries. Evolution has esentially become the alamo for fundamentalist creationists that feel that for whatever reason TOE disrupts their neat and orderly world of bible stories and dogma.

 

[AV1611VET]

What you are missing is that there is no conflict between science and the bible as far as Science is concerned.

Yes and no --- science runs nature, and nature is hostile [but obedient] to God's Creation.

Left unchecked, raw science will not allow God to perform any of His will --- and, in fact --- will run this universe into a state known as maximum entropy.

In order for God to perform His will, He must make science stand aside; whether it's flooding the earth, walking on water, or resurrecting from the dead, if science had its way, God would not be able to perform these feats.

Thus God overrides science with miracles.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Yes and no --- science runs nature, and nature is hostile [but obedient] to God's Creation.

Left unchecked, raw science will not allow God to perform any of His will --- and, in fact --- will run this universe into a state known as maximum entropy.

In order for God to perform His will, He must make science stand aside; whether it's flooding the earth, walking on water, or resurrecting from the dead, if science had its way, God would not be able to perform these feats.

Thus God overrides science with miracles.

Who is this "science" person you speak of?

 

[AV1611VET]

Who is this "science" person you speak of?

I personify science when I make my points, so as to save time and typing.

It's easier to understand it better when it's personified.

 

[OldStyleBlues]

There was a time when man attributed floods, earthquakes and natural disasters to god/Gods. If a Hurricane wiped out your village it was because you angered god or that it was merley "Gods will" Man once thought that Earth was flat(Some still do). Man also thought that the sun revolved around Earth. However we now know the cause of natural disasters. Because of science we now know that Earth is not flat and that the sun doesnt revolve around the Earth. Because of science we also know that Earth in not 6000 years old and that Man didnt walk with dinosaurs. The God of the Gaps is getting smaller and smaller all the time. Does this mean that belief in "god" is irrelevant? Not at all. However it does mean that using "god" as an answer to "How do diamonds form?" Or "why did that earthquake level my house?" Or "what killed off the dinosaurs?" is irrelevant.

 

[AV1611VET]

There was a time when man attributed floods, earthquakes and natural disasters to god/Gods. If a Hurricane wiped out your village it was because you angered god or that it was merley "Gods will" Man once thought that Earth was flat(Some still do). Man also thought that the sun revolved around Earth. However we now know the cause of natural disasters. Because of science we now know that Earth is not flat and that the sun doesnt revolve around the Earth.

Some time ago, I started a thread called something like: Sans Bible, Flat Earth?, to make the point that even without the Bible, man would have thought the earth was flat.

In other words, it was scientists who taught a flat earth --- not the Bible.

I'll see if I can dig it up.

ETA: I found this --- 1 --- but it's not what I'm looking for --- I'll keep looking.

ETA2: I think this is the one: 1.

 

[LightSeaker]

Yes and no --- science runs nature, and nature is hostile [but obedient] to God's Creation.

No, Science does not run nature.
No, Nature is not hostile to God's Creation...nature IS God's Creation.

Left unchecked, raw science will not allow God to perform any of His will --- and, in fact --- will run this universe into a state known as maximum entropy.

Science has no effect upon God or His Will. That’s weird to even think that science has that kind of power over God.

All science does is to report on and open windows into God's own Creation.

In order for God to perform His will, He must make science stand aside; whether it's flooding the earth, walking on water, or resurrecting from the dead, if science had its way, God would not be able to perform these feats.

Your describing your own views of what YOU will for God.

God doesn't make science do anything. And science does not make God do anything either.

Thus God overrides science with miracles.

All science does is to open up windows into God's Creation. There is nothing in science for God to over-ride.

.

 

[LightSeaker]

I personify science when I make my points, so as to save time and typing.

It's easier to understand it better when it's personified.

But, when science is personified, you are presenting the incorrect/wrong understanding of what science is. As such, that's why your post clearly reflects the incorrect/wrong perspective of science.


.

 

[OldStyleBlues]

Depends on who you talk too. Flat Earth Literature clearly nods to the bible for their belief.
Except among Biblical inerrantists, it is generally agreed that the Bible describes an immovable earth. At the 1984 National Bible-Science Conference in Cleveland, geocentrist James N. Hanson said that are hundreds of scriptures that suggest the earth is immovable. I suspect some must be a bit vague, but here are a few obvious texts:

1 Chronicles 16:30: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.”
​

Psalm 93:1: “Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ...”
​

Psalm 96:10: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ...”
​

Psalm 104:5: “Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.”
​

Isaiah 45:18: “...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast...”Suffice to say that the earth envisioned by flat-earthers is as immovable as any geocentrist could desire. Most (perhaps all) scriptures commonly cited by geocentrists have also been cited by flat-earthers. The flat-earth view is geocentricity with further restrictions.

From their geographical and historical context, one would expect the ancient Hebrews to have a flat-earth cosmology. Indeed, from the very beginning, ultra-orthodox Christians have been flat-earthers, arguing that to believe otherwise is to deny the literal truth of the Bible. The flat-earth implications of the Bible were rediscovered and popularized by English-speaking Christians in the mid-19th century. Liberal scriptural scholars later derived the same view. Thus, students with remarkably disparate points of view independently concluded that the ancient Hebrews had a flat-earth cosmology, often deriving this view from scripture alone. Their conclusions were dramatically confirmed by the rediscovery of 1 Enoch. Oh yeah Pssssttt. Earth really isnt flat though.
​

 

[Cabal]

Some time ago, I started a thread called something like: Sans Bible, Flat Earth?, to make the point that even without the Bible, man would have thought the earth was flat.

In other words, it was scientists who taught a flat earth --- not the Bible.

I'll see if I can dig it up.

ETA: I found this --- 1 --- but it's not what I'm looking for --- I'll keep looking.

ETA2: I think this is the one: 1.

Depends how early we're talking about. It was established in ancient Greece that the earth wasn't flat. Not sure how widespread any "teaching" of it would be before that.

ETA: Wait, how does a poll 0-17 disagreeing with you prove your point exactly? Or is this another revisionist moment?

 

[AV1611VET]

Depends on who you talk too. Flat Earth Literature clearly nods to the bible for their belief.
Except among Biblical inerrantists, it is generally agreed that the Bible describes an immovable earth. At the 1984 National Bible-Science Conference in Cleveland, geocentrist James N. Hanson said that are hundreds of scriptures that suggest the earth is immovable. I suspect some must be a bit vague, but here are a few obvious texts:

1 Chronicles 16:30: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.”
​

Psalm 93:1: “Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ...”
​

Psalm 96:10: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ...”
​

Psalm 104:5: “Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.”
​

Isaiah 45:18: “...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast...”Suffice to say that the earth envisioned by flat-earthers is as immovable as any geocentrist could desire. Most (perhaps all) scriptures commonly cited by geocentrists have also been cited by flat-earthers. The flat-earth view is geocentricity with further restrictions.

From their geographical and historical context, one would expect the ancient Hebrews to have a flat-earth cosmology. Indeed, from the very beginning, ultra-orthodox Christians have been flat-earthers, arguing that to believe otherwise is to deny the literal truth of the Bible. The flat-earth implications of the Bible were rediscovered and popularized by English-speaking Christians in the mid-19th century. Liberal scriptural scholars later derived the same view. Thus, students with remarkably disparate points of view independently concluded that the ancient Hebrews had a flat-earth cosmology, often deriving this view from scripture alone. Their conclusions were dramatically confirmed by the rediscovery of 1 Enoch. Oh yeah Pssssttt. Earth really isnt flat though.
​

The Psalms, mainly written by King David, came much later than Genesis, and to say that they believed in a geocentric, flat earth because of the Scriptures then is using the Bible as a scapegoat.

Truth of the matter is --- it was scientists who taught that stuff.

 

[AV1611VET]

Depends how early we're talking about. It was established in ancient Greece that the earth wasn't flat. Not sure how widespread any "teaching" of it would be before that.

ETA: Wait, how does a poll 0-17 disagreeing with you prove your point exactly? Or is this another revisionist moment?

I asked basically the same question again in another poll, and got something like a 50/50 response out of about 9 responders.

(If my memory serves me right.)