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.
They provided food for the priests, who weren't given their own real estate.You have the floor, Baptist...
The Indians would have men line up, and one would take a knife and go down the line with a hot blade and just touch their tongue.
The one who yelped was considered under suspicion, as lying dries the tongue.
They provided food for the priests, who weren't given their own real estate.
Instead, they lived inside the boundaries of other tribes, serving in the Temple.
As prophesied.
Genesis 49:7 Cursed be their anger, for it was fierce; and their wrath, for it was cruel: I will divide them in Jacob, and scatter them in Israel.
Not anymore.In your opinion, do you consider that a reliable means of determining truth from lies?
Feeding the priests?How is that a secular purpose?
OK, now your self reproducing car is a car that people can produce in a factory, and presumably your car carries along its own machine shop and robotic arm so it can build copies of itself. Fine, there is a whole science fiction genre of such vehicles, and you are welcome to speculate. Although this is not technically impossible, I would contend it is so impractical, it will never be done. See Self-replicating machine - Wikipedia .i talking about a car or a robot that are able to reproduce.
You ignored the question. No problem, I will ask again: How do you know there is not a stepwise plan to evolve the supposed IC feature that you are not aware of? If there is a plan that could evolve hearing that you do not know about, then your whole argument that there is no such plan disappears. So how do you know that your assertion that there is no plan is true?exactly like i know that there is no stepwise way to evolve a car from a self replicating molecule.
Tell that to your ID heros. Many of them will argue that certain steps in evolution are impossible, but they appear to believe that evolution takes place at other instances.if we falsify the evolution of even a single trait then its means evolution is false. we dont need to believe in the rest. as even darwin admit.
Straw man. Nobody said that, since animals can do things watches cannot do, therefore animals can do anything.by this criteria: a car can do something that a watch cant (driving for instance)- therefore a car can evolve naturally and a watch cant.
You're on the wrong wavelength.
Here are the standards I use when facing things that are/are not in the Bible:
1. Bible says X, science says X = go with X
2. Bible says X, science says Y = go with X
3. Bible says Ø, science says Y = go with Y
4. Bible says Ø, science says Ø = speculate
Prime Directive: Under no circumstances is the Bible to be contradicted.
Using those standards, Captain James Cook would get a green light; while evolution would not.
Sorry, Oz.So, do the archaeological discoveries of the Grand Canyon get a green light? See: Excavation Reveals Grand Canyon's Ancient Human History
Before, I answer, let's look at how the fossil record matches your claim of what happened. Well, that is going to be pretty hard, since you won't tell us what you are arguing for. Why not? How can you spend months on end telling us that you think we got it wrong without telling us what you think is right?so why you cant answer my question? again: where is the limit of pushing a creaure appearance back? 30 my? 50? you must define a limit. otherwise any fossil will fit well with evolution.
Let me guess. You think God made all those layers with the appearance of age, and God filled all those layers up with fossils that were never actually animals, but existed as fossils in the rocks from day 1. And the Grand Canyon was set in place more or less like it exists today on day 1 of creation. That is pretty much your view, yes?Sorry, Oz.
I'm not going to address every single discrepancy that exists.
Suffice it to say, those are the standards I use to separate truth from non-truth.
My thoughts on how the Grand Canyon was created (not formed) are pretty straightforward.
No.Let me guess. You think God made all those layers with the appearance of age, and God filled all those layers up with fossils that were never actually animals, but existed as fossils in the rocks from day 1. And the Grand Canyon was set in place more or less like it exists today on day 1 of creation. That is pretty much your view, yes?
The creation of the Grand Canyon had nothing to do with the events of the creation week.doubtingmerle said:That is odd, for the fossils look real to us, and the canyon sure looks like it was carved by water over millions of years.
That is odd, for the fossils look real to us, and the canyon sure looks like it was carved by water over millions of years.No.
I believe the Grand Canyon was created when God split the landmass up into five big continents in Genesis 10.
Can't get your mind off fossils, can you?That is odd, for the fossils look real to us,
In my opinion, the Colorado River came after the Grand Canyon; not before it.doubtingmerle said:... and the canyon sure looks like it was carved by water over millions of years.
Sorry, Oz.
I'm not going to address every single discrepancy that exists.
Suffice it to say, those are the standards I use to separate truth from non-truth.
My thoughts on how the Grand Canyon was created (not formed) are pretty straightforward.
Indeed -- the reality is that humans are fallible in all things.
And since you and I are both humans, what does that make us?
What fossils have to do with the Grand Canyon though, I have no idea..
Post 6033Well tell us your 'thoughts' on the Grand Canyon.
My opinion.OzSpen said:But is that evidence or your opinion?
And here is the most enormous presupposition - you presuppose that the Bible is the word of god. Once we drop that presupposition and look solely at evidence we find the Bible to be less than convincing.
Please provide evidence for the truthfulness of the NT documents.
Whose presupposition is it that the Bible is the word of God?
Other than the Bible, what documentary evidence did you use?
Nonsense. The problem with NT is that there are no other texts or physical evidence supporting them. Most texts we consider reliable have multiple verifying sources. Mr Koukl is relying on false equivalence to make this statement.
There is nothing in that book to indicate the documents are anything other than stories. The whole argument appears to be "the documents were written between 20 and 70 years after Jesus death, therefore they must be accurate."
Please provide evidence for the truthfulness of the NT documents.
I'll take your and their word for it.Is it not a fact that many fossils have been found in the Grand Canyon?
Fossils had NOTHING to do with the creation of the Grand Canyon.OzSpen said:So, fossils have much to do with the layers in the Grand Canyon.
Are they necessary to explain how the Grand Canyon was [formed]?OzSpen said:There are many of them located there.
Are you wanting to discuss the age of the Grand Canyon, or how it came into existence?OzSpen said:Why question 'what fossils' have to do with the Grand Canyon? They have many things to do with it. Why are you avoiding this evidence?
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?