the iconoclast
Atheism is weak. Yep, I said it
Hey kylie
Fair enough. Looks like @sfs and @The Barbarian have stagnated. We will continue our original discussion soon.
Cant wait! Cheers
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.
I'm not going to take this thread off topic, and what I do outside CF isn't any of your business.
So you're admitting that, contrary to your assertion, Genesis does not agree with science?
Well done and thank you.
You've been repeatedly refuted. You just don't seem to care.
All these discussions have revealed is that you cherry pick the things that you want to accept and then invent fan fiction to explain away the things that don't. Our discussion of musical instruments is a prime example; when shown that musical instruments have a ~40,000 year history, you just arbitrarily dismiss that. The fact is is that scripture, science, history and genetics all seem to disagree with you (can't speak for whatever math you are referring to).
In the end, everything you've posted can be summed as, "the things I believe agree with the things that I believe". Not terribly impressive I'm afraid.
Cool fan theory. Do you have anything to support your interpretation?
The flutophone I played in the 4th Grade and paid $2.00 for is a modern Human instrument while your's is obviously the remains of dinner with Cave men. I also listened to a man try to play it but found it hideous and made up. To call that thing the Neanderthal Flute is ridiculous.
Bone flutes are real instruments and are still in use today. You can handwave all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that musical instruments pre-date your supposed "modern human" time line by tens of thousands of years.
Just one example from many of where science and history don't agree with you.
Not so unless you can tell us how and when we changed from animal to Human (descendant of Adam) intelligence.
Animal intelligence suddenly changed into reasoning Human intelligence some 11k years ago, in the mountains of Ararat and it was recorded.
Science says all life had its origin in water. Aman777 and Genesis say some animals came from earth. Do you really not see how those two propositions are not compatible?Did you miss the fact that NO man who lived 3k years ago knew or could have written that ALL life on this Earth, from Whales to Birds, had it's origin in water? Science agrees https://www.newscientist.com › article › 2098564-universal-ancestor-of-all...Jul 25, 2016 with Scripture. Genesis 1:21. Amen?
But therein lies the rub. Various creationists on this forum over time have claimed various interpretations of Biblical scripture and appealed to divine inspiration in the interpretation thereof.
Some even go so far as to claim that their interpretations are requirements to be a Christian (there are creationists on this site that do *not* consider fellow Christians with different interpretations to be real Christians).
If there really were a supernatural deity that was guiding individual interpretations of Biblical scripture, then why so many radically different interpretations?
(Aman777 claims this is intentional. Do you agree with that?)
Confused.
I'm here for the same reason everyone is here: arguments and upvotes.
Insofar as xinghua's arguments go, I had previously asked if you were going to defend his arguments and you admitted you weren't even familiar with them.
Just like you appear unfamiliar with Aman777's arguments.
If you feel so strongly about this, why aren't you reading their posts? Why aren't you defending their arguments?
Given the thousands of belief systems that have existed throughout history, I don't believe that any individual religion is true.
Rather differing religious beliefs appear to be cultural ideas that have developed and evolved over time, and are spread via cultural influence.
I cannot comment here as i am unfamiliar with these various creationists you refer to. Could you give me an instance?
Did you miss the fact that NO man who lived 3k years ago knew or could have written that ALL life on this Earth, from Whales to Birds, had it's origin in water? Science agrees https://www.newscientist.com › article › 2098564-universal-ancestor-of-all...Jul 25, 2016 with Scripture. Genesis 1:21. Amen?
Thanks. Scripture, science, history, genetics and math support my view. It's the ONLY way to find God's Truth, the One irrefutable Truth. Amen?
Seems to be the pattern of your entire post, but I'm not doing your homework for you.
You seem to take exception to the way others interact with creationists on this site,
but by the same token seem to have little to no interest in what those same creationists are posting on the site.
Doesn't seem like there is anything else to discuss.
because as well all know, when science and religion disagree, it's always science that wins because science produces results.
I missed where this was shown to BE a fact.You ignored the fact that God the Trinity created "EVERY living creature that moveth" from Water on the 5th Day.
I don't think you do, for this has literally nothing to do with evolution (and vice versa):I understand evolution up to the point where interpretations take-on speculation & projection.
"jargon and defense." Interesting choice of words!
I thought it suitable verbiage to describe the macroevolution pitch.
I don't think I did.You sort of twisted my use of 'fairy tale' in your statement....but how people are completely sold on biblical creation by an Almighty God for which there is no evidence and at the same time regard things they admit (or exhibit) they do not understand and dismiss as a fairy tale, really puzzles me.
For one that loves science, I find it odd that your pejoratively used the word "jargon" above - for would not one that loves science at least be conversant with the language of science?Perhaps you overlooked my comment "For me, I love the Bible and science."
Yes, I saw that. But I wonder why one that loves science would describe evolution as "our existence as being an incredibly lucky shot". That is not what evolution posits. That is not even really what abiogenesis (which is not part of the theory of evolution) posits. It looks like your love for the bible clouds your judgement of the science.If you will read my OP again, you will see that my reference was 'how can people accept our existence as being an incredibly lucky shot,'
Ok, would 'creation myth' be more palatable? There are many creation myths among the many cultural traditions of ancient peoples. They all seem to have the same amount of evidence in their support that the Hebrew creation story does.on the one hand, and then refer to the Biblical Creation as a fairy tale, on the other.
And why should someone take your criticisms seriously? Do you have specific, science-based arguments against interpretations of evidence supportive of evolution? Or is it your love of the bible that makes you reject science that does not or cannot be made to conform to bible lore?I don't regard science as a fairy tale, I just disagree with some interpretations of evidence.
Unsupported assertion (along with everything else in the post) that is not supported by science, history, genetics or math.
Adam farmed with NO evolution and the first evidence of farming on this planet SUDDENLY appeared 11k years ago in the mountains of Ararat.
Science says all life had its origin in water. Aman777 and Genesis say some animals came from earth. Do you really not see how those two propositions are not compatible?
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?