Let's say hypothetically, evolution is wrong...

[AV1611VET]

Oh, had to google that, thanks.
So, I shall stay away from Genesis 1. I promise.

You did good work.

Actually, I Googled it too, and it looks like Bulgaria is just shy of the 10/40 Window -- right on the border.

That means you need to be sending Bibles and missionaries into the 10/40 Window, eh?

 

[Upisoft]

That means you need to be sending Bibles and missionaries into the 10/40 Window, eh?

Who me? I'm staying away from Genesis 1 as promised, thanks to you. And the whole thing is too close to Genesis 1. I do not dare to get that close.

 

[AV1611VET]

Who me? I'm staying away from Genesis 1 as promised, thanks to you. And the whole thing is too close to Genesis 1. I do not dare to get that close.

Well -- as they say -- you're either a missionary or you're a mission field.

 

[Upisoft]

Well -- as they say -- you're either a missionary or you're a mission field.

so say we all...

 

[Tiberius]

I said falsify evolution -- not 'change your opinions'.

Phlogiston theory was falsified, not opinion-changed.

Fine, I changed it (since you obviously missed that "change opinion about the validity" means change change it from the opinion that it is valid to the opinion that it is not valid).

If a fossil rabbit is found in precambrian rocks, and it stands up to investigation, then it would falsify evolution.

Happy?

 

[Ar Cosc]

Nope

Why should I believe the bible over any other sacred text that claims to be the word of god? What makes the bible so special? Without evidence, your put-downs to my posts are just hot air.

 

[Seamus Riley]

Why should I believe the bible over any other sacred text that claims to be the word of god? What makes the bible so special? Without evidence, your put-downs to my posts are just hot air.

i'm not qualified to make this as an outright claim, so perhaps a bible scholar will confirm or deny this, but i think theologically you would be unable to believe the bible without intervention of the holy spirit, whom i assume you reject. again, i'm not the one to debate on this, just throwing that idea out.

just out of curiosity, what other sacred texts claim to be the word of god? i just want to make sure we're actually talking about something or just saying stuff. after we've established this, then perhaps we could (ok, again, not me) pit these specific texts against each other in a smackdown of some kind.

 

[Ar Cosc]

i'm not qualified to make this as an outright claim, so perhaps a bible scholar will confirm or deny this, but i think theologically you would be unable to believe the bible without intervention of the holy spirit, whom i assume you reject. again, i'm not the one to debate on this, just throwing that idea out.

just out of curiosity, what other sacred texts claim to be the word of god? i just want to make sure we're actually talking about something or just saying stuff. after we've established this, then perhaps we could (ok, again, not me) pit these specific texts against each other in a smackdown of some kind.

I think the Quran, the Book of Mormon and Scientologist texts all claim to be some sort of divine revelation, for a start.

 

[knowledgeIsPower]

In the meantime, the Rapture would occur, and the Antichrist will come on the scene and settle the matter quite convincingly.

If that is what you believe then cool. It wouldn't take more than a few years to sort out the rabbit thing within the scientific community. Which I assume means you think the Rapture will occur within those few years... I'm pretty sure there is something in your bible about how nobody knows the date... it seems you're the exception. You must be so proud.

You got that right.

Well I'm glad we agree that the scientific community would indeed sort it out.

I wasn't aware the scientific community 'works' when it comes to God.

This has nothing to do with your god it has to do with a rabbit occurring in an era it shouldn't be occurring in. Do you always find it this difficult to follow the topic of discussion?

Give me time -- I'll be back at it --

I certainly hope not.

 

[Seamus Riley]

I think the Quran, the Book of Mormon and Scientologist texts all claim to be some sort of divine revelation, for a start.

thanks! ok, i tried to issue the challenge on your behalf in "bibliology and hermeneutics" except that with only 27 posts under my belt i was not allowed to include a link to this discussion. it read (in case you were interested):

attention theologians

would you like the chance to debate the supremacy of the bible as God's word against the Quran, book of Mormon and/or Scientology texts? please join us here:

(link was here)

note: please join only if you are knowledgeable in the bible and at least one other of the above texts. if you enter with a line like, "i think i heard that one book was written by some crazy guy," you will get trounced. thank you.

so anyway, perhaps someone reading this thread would like to address this, otherwise you're welcome to issue the challenge yourself.

 

[Greg1234]

Why should I believe the bible over any other sacred text that claims to be the word of god? What makes the bible so special? Without evidence, your put-downs to my posts are just hot air.

Do you understand how religions come to be? The advancement of the covenant and link resulting from the aforementioned phenomena?

 

[Ar Cosc]

Do you understand how religions come to be? The advancement of the covenant and link resulting from the aforementioned phenomena?

Sorry, you're going to have to explain this in plain English.

 

[juvenissun]

The OP did open up a door to capable creationists to present a case they might have. So far nothing halfway decent has been proposed and the consensus appears to be there is no viable scientifically valid alternative.

In that case, the only way is to give up, and say: we do not know.

 

[juvenissun]

Define what is "day".

One cycle of (strong light - weak, or no light).

Believe it or not, this is the Biblical definition. And it is scientifically perfect.

 

[Ar Cosc]

One cycle of (strong light - weak, or no light).

Believe it or not, this is the Biblical definition. And it is scientifically perfect.

So can we make a "day" with artificial light, regardless of the speed at which the planet we're on is rotating?

 

[Supreme]

So can we make a "day" with artificial light, regardless of the speed at which the planet we're on is rotating?

Nope. A day is 24 hours- regardless of the amount of light. Those in the Arctic Circle in Winter may receive nothing in the way of Sunlight, but they are experiencing just as much of a day as the rest of us are.

 

[Upisoft]

One cycle of (strong light - weak, or no light).

Believe it or not, this is the Biblical definition. And it is scientifically perfect.

Thus my point that AV didn't read the Bible. He said "1 billion years".

 

[juvenissun]

So can we make a "day" with artificial light, regardless of the speed at which the planet we're on is rotating?

You can define it such as long as the light shines. How far, how wide and how long can you go with artificial light? If you put some baby chicks in a box, you can create their days that way.

 

[juvenissun]

Thus my point that AV didn't read the Bible. He said "1 billion years".

I defined a micro-cycle. He defined a mega-cycle. It is the same.

 

[juvenissun]

Nope. A day is 24 hours- regardless of the amount of light. Those in the Arctic Circle in Winter may receive nothing in the way of Sunlight, but they are experiencing just as much of a day as the rest of us are.

So you will have different definition of day at different places in the solar system. What then is the day for voyagers that they are out of the solar system now? Would you need a local time system (a special watch?) if you migrated to the moon?