Theistic Evolution

[Osanya]

Maybe if I rephrase your words with a little emphasis.

LOL great tatic di. I used your own words to prove my point and you can't handle that so you poke fun of me? Just take being proven wrong or off topic graciously and bow out will ya? Pride before the fall bro. Again, thanks for helping me prove my point.

 

[LouisBooth]

"Maybe if I rephrase your words with a little emphasis."

What that he can't say oh, sorry or some other phrase because he jumped in and was totally off topic and can't admit he didn't know what he was talking about and instead makes fun of the solid argument I put forth? Yeah, that's pride, thus my statement.

 

[TheBear]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
"What does this mean?"

It means I proved my point. Bear, your bias is showing

Oh, this is rich.

The only point you have proved is that you think your interpretation is divine, and all other interpretations are inferior, (human interpretation). That anyone who is not in agreement with your interpretation, is biased.

This wreaks of arrogance, Louis.

Usually, I put members like you on my ignore list. Unfortunately, I am unable to put staff members on my ignore list. So, from here on out, I will just scroll past your 'divine insights'.


Take care,
John

 

[Didaskomenos]

Louis, you know good and well that my statement was completely within context, and the "handwaving" remark was directed at your ludicrous attempt to dismiss my argument by calling it out of context.

For the record, TheBear said,

No mention of everything being created in 6 literal days.

Louis said,

are we back on this again? It is a literal six days..why?

1. no where can you find the words used for morning and evening EVER used in a nonliteral way
2. The seventh day is dubbed the sabbath and there is even sabbath law for a specific day of the week! If it wasn't a literal day then there would be no sabbath because it hasn't happened yet.

should I go on?

I debunked your argument that a literal 24-hour day reading was the only one possible from the Bible by citing two separate other readings. That's all it took. All you could say was that I didn't belong to the discussion, and implied that my statements about literal days "proved" your view of literal 24-hour days 6000 years ago. That's lame.

Just because the days are literally days within the narrative doesn't mean that the narrative is not metaphorical at all. "A certain man had two sons." Now, according to you, this would have to be a "literal" historical family. But it's a parable. Can't you see this?

 

[LouisBooth]

"This wreaks of arrogance, Louis. "

LOL, not at all, I am still waiting for you to show me a nonliteral useage of the words, something you have not done. Like they say, "put up or shut up". You're a scientist, show me the evidience, not some dancing around the subject.

"Take care,
John"

You too John. sorry you can't back up your arugment so I guess I'll have to "wait" for you to actually read the text and get some evidience.


"I debunked your argument that a literal 24-hour day reading was the only one possible from the Bible by citing two separate other readings"

LOL, no you acutally agreed with me saying that in the context of the text it has to be a literal 6 days. YOu then added, but its a myth. I said this was totally off the subject and you said no no, its not! I think you need to go back and reread what you posted.

"Just because the days are literally days within the narrative "

LOL that's EXACTLY what we were talking about. That's the ONLY issue on the table. Was it a literal 6 days or not. Here AGAIN you're agreeing with me. If you want to talk about if it was a myth or not that is a WHOLE different subject. Now please read the posts before respoding next time. Thanks.