- Dec 31, 2016
- 7,221
- 3,311
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Man (Adam) was responsible for the outcome after Genesis 1:1.Not really analogous, in the Bible the Flood kills most people and totally destroys all of humanity's civilisation.
Would you be comfortable with describing Genesis 1:1 as a disaster because of all the pain an suffering that occurred after the beginning?
But none of that would have happened if the world hadn't been created.Man (Adam) was responsible for the outcome after Genesis 1:1.
Man (Adam) was responsible for the outcome after Genesis 1:1.
Well, since I don't believe in it, it's no big deal to me.
But it seems it's just something that I don't think evolutionists have thought about.
And to be frank and honest about it, I'd like to say AMEN, if I hear a preacher say from the pulpit that evolution is predicated on a universal natural disaster.
I have no qualms in saying the Flood was a worldwide miraculous disaster.
Do you have any qualms in saying the Big Bang was a universal natural disaster?
From my standpoint, and surely anyone's, the answer is no. But, through our actions we have made it a world of good and bad... and when people use poor judgment, it seems as though its always the innocent that pay, even Jesus suffered because of this.Hmm. So if you do wrong, it's OK to punish your children. And their children. Et cetera. Ad infinitum.
I don't think that something very hot and dense expanding and cooling justifies that description as it didn't create great harm, damage, or suffering.Can the Big Bang Theory be considered a natural disaster on a universal scale?
I bet you're talking about that big mountain-sized asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs.I don't think that something very hot and dense expanding and cooling justifies that description as it didn't create great harm, damage, or suffering.
Great harm, damage, and suffering came much later, and not on a universal scale.
Not specifically, but that's included.I bet you're talking about that big mountain-sized asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs.
You're not beating-up on Genesis 1:1 are you?Not specifically, but that's included.
I was referring to the big bang in the first instance and the appearance of life in the second, not origin myths.You're not beating-up on Genesis 1:1 are you?
The one that became our universeWhat "singularity"?
Huh?Has the Big Bang been plutoed now?
Not even remotelyWhich originated from a catastrophe ... correct?
And???There was no life to hate in 13,800,000,000 BC.
Ok.... Please do tellAnd for those alive today, whether they hate life or love life, they're headed for a life-changing catastrophe.
And there it is. The appeal to fear of death.It's called "death".
Evolutionists do not exist.It's the old catastrophism vs uniformitarianism debate.
I suspect evolutionists would shun calling the Big Bang event a "catastrophe," since evolution runs on the principle of uniformitarianism, whereas creationism runs on the principle of catastrophism.
There was no atom.A person can view life however he wants: good or bad.
But I'm talking about a universal natural catastrophe that occurred LONG before life allegedly showed up.
You can't put the universe back into that atom, can you?
I don't think that something very hot and dense expanding and cooling justifies that description as it didn't create great harm, damage, or suffering.
Great harm, damage, and suffering came much later, and not on a universal scale.
And there it is. The appeal to fear of death.
O knew there was a reason for this bizzare thread.
It was so you could spring the fear of death on us.
Evolutionists do not exist.
Anything that agrees with conservapedia is highly suspect.The following disagree with you:
Famous evolutionists include:
- Wikipedia
- dictionary.com
- Merriam-Webster
- vocabulary.com
- Collins English Dictionary
- Cambridge English Dictionary
- yourdictionary.com
- The Free Dictionary
- Urban Dictionary
- Lexico.com
- Macmilland Dictionary
- creation.com
- Conservapedia
- Charles Darwin
- Richard Dawkins
- Theodosius Dobzhansky
- Stephen Gould
- Ernst Mayr
- Jean-Baptiste Lamarck
There was no atom.
Mr Laurier said:The baby universe was too hot for atoms to exist.
Anything that agrees with conservapedia is highly suspect.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?