Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,422 Year: 3,679/9,624 Month: 550/974 Week: 163/276 Day: 3/34 Hour: 1/0


EvC Forum ⇒ Side Orders ⇒ Free For All ⇒

The Ten Laws of Creationism and Intelligent Design

Thread ▼ Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Ten Laws of Creationism and Intelligent Design
jar
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004

Normal Thread Display

(1)
Message 17 of 75 (791196)
09-12-2016 3:21 PM 		Reply to: Message 9 by Faith
09-12-2016 1:02 PM

Re: Reading Genesis literally but not scientifically
Faith writes:
​
If it's God's word and He cannot lie then it's telling us the truth about those events.
​
Except of course for the fact that Genesis tells of God lying.
​
Since God lied in Genesis 2 is there any reason to think the fact that either of the two mutually exclusive flood myths is factual?
​
Faith writes:
​
If it says something about the distant past then it's telling us the truth about that distant past.
​
Except for the fact that the distant past itself tells us that the story is wrong. Should we believe stories or the actual evidence? Did God intentionally tamper with the evidence just to fool everyone?
​
Faith writes:
​
But nobody but unbelievers read the Flood accounts that way, unbelievers including the "scholars" who come up with such stuff, and some presumptuous people who call themselves "believers" but are in for a very rude shock.
​
Yet again the evidence shows that those you claim are not believers actually are believers and that includes much of Christianity today as well as in the past.
​
Faith writes:
​
There's no "mashing" involved, believers know that everything in the Bible is to be read as dovetailing with everything else in the Bible.
​
No doubt people do believe as you say yet the fact remains that the two mutually exclusive flood myths are just mashed together just as the God described in Genesis 1 is entirely different than the God described in Genesis 2&3 and the two creation myths are also totally contradictory.
My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website
This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Faith, posted 09-12-2016 1:02 PM Faith has not replied
  
jar
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004

Normal Thread Display
Message 37 of 75 (803856)
04-05-2017 11:02 AM 		Reply to: Message 35 by Davidjay
04-05-2017 10:57 AM

Re: Reading Genesis literally but not scientifically
dj writes:
​
Genesis as mentioned is very scientific, as a basis point... the details follow in other books, and in the created world of the microcosm and macrocosm, etc etc etc etc ...
​
I'm sorry but that is simply a really stupid assertion. Neither of the two mutually exclusive creation myths are scientific or accurate and both are fully refuted by actual evidence and the thing called reality. To claim Genesis is scientific or accurate is as absurd as claiming either of the two mutually exclusive Biblical flood myths actually happened.
My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website
This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Davidjay, posted 04-05-2017 10:57 AM Davidjay has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Davidjay, posted 04-05-2017 11:08 AM jar has replied
  
jar
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004

Normal Thread Display
Message 40 of 75 (803863)
04-05-2017 11:15 AM 		Reply to: Message 38 by Davidjay
04-05-2017 11:08 AM

Re: Reading Genesis literally but not scientifically
DJ writes:
​
As design is not anywhere in evolutionary theory, its premise is that all things evolved in time (billions and trillions of years) and just happened by chance to fit together and work together in harmony by luck and chance. So rather than design being a myth, I would suggest to you that evolution is a total myth, with absolutely no evidence. I mean if there was evidence, why didn't they teach us any of it in university and why did they never allow anyone to question them.
​
Again you simply post really stupid and false assertions, commonly called lies.
​
It's easy to post lies which is about all that the Intelligent Design and Creationist cults have but here you are communicating with adults and simply posting lies and falsehoods will get you nowhere.
​
There is a reason that at large family dinners there is a table set aside for the children.
My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website
This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Davidjay, posted 04-05-2017 11:08 AM Davidjay has not replied
  
jar
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004

Normal Thread Display
Message 69 of 75 (804095)
04-07-2017 7:29 AM 		Reply to: Message 68 by dwise1
04-06-2017 11:25 PM

Re: Reading Genesis literally but not scientifically
dwise1 writes:
​
I have seen it used far too many times as those lying hypocritical creationists keep using the same old false claims over and over again, even when they had personally acknowledged those claims to be false.
​
They aren't lies, they are "Alternate Truths".
My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website
This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by dwise1, posted 04-06-2017 11:25 PM dwise1 has not replied
  
jar
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004

Normal Thread Display

(2)
Message 73 of 75 (805725)
04-20-2017 10:21 AM 		Reply to: Message 72 by Davidjay
04-20-2017 10:16 AM

Davidjay shows his ignorance yet again
Davidjay writes:
​
Birds became mamals etc etc etc etc.
​
Another stupid Davidjay assertion showing that he does not know what a mammal is, does not know what a bird is, does not even have a clue about what either the fact of evolution entails or the Theory of Evolution says. He is as ignorant of reality as he is of the Bible or Christianity or honesty and also simply not bright enough to stop making posts that make him appear a blithering idiot.
​
Davidjay writes:
​
In this case, Evolution of Whales thread..... fish became mamalls are started having spouts on the tops of their heads after they figured out it would be easier to swim and breathe that way.
​
Yet he continues posting falsehoods that are really really really really stupid comments like the above.
​
Edited by jar, : are ---> that are
My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website
This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Davidjay, posted 04-20-2017 10:16 AM Davidjay has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Davidjay, posted 04-21-2017 9:53 AM jar has not replied
  
Date format: mm-dd-yyyy
Timezone: ET (US)
  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024