Questions about origins of life timeline

[AV1611VET]

Because there are so many other good myths out there. How does one even decide?

You guys don't seem to have a problem deciding.

 

[Loudmouth]

You guys don't seem to have a problem deciding.

We opt for equal treatment.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Does this logic apply to the Second Amendment as well?

As a matter of fact, AV, it does.

Does this logic apply to the moon as well?

"The Moon," Av? Are you saying we only have self-serving reasons to believe the Moon exists?

Does this logic apply to scientists' interpretation of the Scriptures as well?

before I answer -- are you including Christians who practice science in that question?

1. flat earth
2. geocentrism
3. local flood
4. incest
5. genocide
6. witch hunting
7. dubious authorship

Because the first two were believed regardless of science or the Scriptures-- although it was science which eventually disproved them.

The third has nothing to do with science, and certainly nothing to do with the Scriptures

The fourth and fifth are both in the Bible -- there's no need to call in the scientists.

The sixth is a common enough practice of Christians in the past (and present, in some parts of the world) that is explicitly commanded by the Bible -- again, no need to call in the scientists to read the obvious.

And the seventh has Bible scholars debating among themselves as much as scientists -- why single them out?

Self-serving reasons, no doubt.

 

[AV1611VET]

As a matter of fact, AV, it does.

So I take it, using your logic, nobody actually believes the Second Amendment?

"The Moon," Av? Are you saying we only have self-serving reasons to believe the Moon exists?

This isn't about "self-serving."

This is about interpretation.

before I answer -- are you including Christians who practice science in that question?

Absolutely -- and you can add slavery to that list as well.

 

[TLK Valentine]

So I take it, using your logic, nobody actually believes the Second Amendment?

They believe their interpretation of it.

This isn't about "self-serving."

This is about interpretation.

Do remember that in the future -- And try to set aside your own self-serving motivations.

Absolutely -- and you can add slavery to that list as well.

Explicitly stated in the Bible and both practiced and opposed by Christians and non-Christians alike -- depending on interpretation.

 

[dad]

You stated; why would anything keep someone from believing the bible.

The answer is; plenty.

You don't speak for me.

 

[dad]

And overwhelmingly self-serving. Convenient, isn't it?

Your opinion of why the agreements are overwhelming is not that relevant.

And we all do choose -- many choose what benefits them the most... as I said.

Great. I know we chose. Some life...some death.

De 30:19 - I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:

 

[bhsmte]

You don't speak for me.

Nope, wouldn't want to and you don't speak for others. Sounds fair to me.

 

[dad]

Nope, wouldn't want to and you don't speak for others. Sounds fair to me.

God spoke for Himself.

 

[Kylie]

You are all wrong. The earth was created last Thursday.

Gah.

Excuse me.

It was created last TUESDAY.

Your Thursday claim is just pure nonsense.

 

[Strathos]

Angels were created ex nihilo, before the elements.

No elements = no chemistry.

And for the record, I can make this even harder.

God, Who is self-existent, even predates the angels.

God and angels are spirits. Spirits are not physical and have no chemistry.

 

[AV1611VET]

Spirits are not physical and have no chemistry.

Ya.

I kinda figured that when I asked this:

And what chemistry gave rise to the angels?

 

[Dizredux]

Excuse me.

It was created last TUESDAY.

Your Thursday claim is just pure nonsense.

Heretic! Stone him! Stone him!



Dizredux

 

[Strathos]

Ya.

I kinda figured that when I asked this:

Then that was a pointless question.

 

[AV1611VET]

Then that was a pointless question.

But it was okay for you to make the point:

Spirits are not physical and have no chemistry.

... wasn't it?

When I read your post, I was glad I had asked it.

Ain't no biggie though.

I'm well-used to putting up with you guys':

"It's a stupid point, unless we make it" attitude.

 

[bhsmte]

God spoke for Himself.

If he did, he needs to get a new secretary, that does better dictation.

 

[dad]

If he did, he needs to get a new secretary, that does better dictation.

Untold millions of people respect His word, so you have an opinion. So called science also is opinion and belief. It doesn't do any good to present it as more than that.

The bible has been fulfilled more than enough ways to allow and even force many to believe it has to be from God! Most of the prophesies are now history. No exaggeration.


The folks He used to write His word did fine. The folks who write the ever shifting fables of so called science ought to be embarrassed, and quit.

 

[bhsmte]

Untold millions of people respect His word, so you have an opinion. So called science also is opinion and belief. It doesn't do any good to present it as more than that.

The bible has been fulfilled more than enough ways to allow and even force many to believe it has to be from God! Most of the prophesies are now history. No exaggeration.


The folks He used to write His word did fine. The folks who write the ever shifting fables of so called science ought to be embarrassed, and quit.

I'm sure all the scientists and their work (that you rely on everyday of your life), will run to turn in their resignations dad.

 

[Loudmouth]

You don't speak for me.

God just did a facepalm.

 

[dad]

I'm sure all the scientists and their work (that you rely on everyday of your life), will run to turn in their resignations dad.

They sure will be turning in their present state based ideas one day. Now you can make wild claims that this state will last for all time and the sun will burn out one day, or etc....but that is religion only. Not a tiny shred of proof.