Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 107 (8805 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-12-2017 11:00 AM
318 online now:
Coyote, DrJones*, jar, JonF, kjsimons, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), ringo, Tanypteryx (9 members, 309 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 824,048 Year: 28,654/21,208 Month: 720/1,847 Week: 95/475 Day: 5/37 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
151617
18
1920Next
Author Topic:   Genesis 1 vs. Genesis 2
jar
Member
Posts: 29757
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 256 of 295 (582131)
09-19-2010 11:43 PM
Reply to: Message 255 by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN
09-19-2010 10:36 PM


Re: Chronology
When looking at the story found in Genesis 1 and in the story found in Genesis 2&3 in relation to inerrancy, we can look at how the stories are viewed by theologians.

In the Pastoral Letter of Bishop Sims he said:

quote:
In Genesis there is not one creation statement but two. They agree as to why and who, but are quite different as to how and when. The statements are set forth in tandem, chapter one of Genesis using one description of method and chapter two another. According to the first, humanity was created, male and female, after the creation of plants and animals. According to the second, man was created first, then the trees, the animals and finally the woman and not from the earth as in the first account, but from the rib of the man. Textual research shows that these two accounts are from two distinct eras, the first later in history, the second earlier.

There is also the two entirely different gods described in the two stories as pointed out above.

These differences should force the reader to look and see if those differences do create questions about whether the Bible can be inerrant, or "under what definition of inerrant" could they fit?

Well it is obvious that neither can be taken as literal or factually true. If one is literal and factual, then the other must be false. When you also consider that both are factually incorrect, that neither describes creation that is compatible with the actual evidence that is the universe we live in, then they must not be meant as scientific or historical accounts.

They can be considered as inerrant in regards to the belief that GOD is the creator of all that is, seen and unseen. The different tales may be understood as accounts created by people of differing cultures, times, milieus, one, the latter, from a much earlier tradition and concept of god, the former a much later and somewhat more sophisticated god. They do agree on the "WHY" of creation,

Turning again to Bishop Sims' Pastoral Letter we find...

quote:
Insistence upon dated and partially contradictory statements of how as conditions for true belief in the why of creation cannot qualify either as faithful religion or as intelligent science. Neither evolution over an immensity of time nor the work done in a sixday week are articles of the creeds. It is a symptom of fearful and unsound religion to contend with one another as if they were.

Source


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN, posted 09-19-2010 10:36 PM NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN, posted 09-20-2010 12:24 AM jar has responded

NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2541 days)
Posts: 51
Joined: 09-14-2010


Message 257 of 295 (582134)
09-20-2010 12:24 AM
Reply to: Message 256 by jar
09-19-2010 11:43 PM


Re: Chronology
JAR - The above QUOTES are not evidence, it is a quote. You need to provide evidence that clearly proves that G1 and G2 are two separate/different accounts. No one has done that, and until someone does I will be here calling you on all of your disinformation misinformation, cognitive dissonance and whatever else you "think" can be passed off as a valid point affirming the lie of the OP

The people who you are cutting and pasting from whatever source you are cutting and pasting them from do not become theologians just becuase your or they call themselves theologians.

But before you go off getting excited about the points of views and statement made by "theologians" A theology Degree is a degree that any athiest can earn by studying at a any University in the world. A theologian is not necessarily a worthy bible scholar who knows or understands the scripture and or the history of the scripture. There are bible scholars in this world who spend their entire lives devoted to studying just one book in the bible.

A theologian can pick up these letters after his name after three years at any secular university. Now lets see if you can google any of the following bible scholars and theologians to back up your ludicrous quotes that have been cut and pasted into this thread.

James A. Borland Th. D
Benjamin C Chapman Ph. D
Edward G. Dobson D.D
Jerry Falwell D.D, D. Litt
Paul R. Fink Th. D
Harvey D. Hartman Th. M.
Ronald E. Hawkins D. Min
Edward E. Hinsdon, Th. D D. Min
Elmer A. Jantz. Th. M
F.Gerald Kroll, D. Min
Woodrow Michael Kroll Th. D.
William E. Matheny Ph. D
Stephen R. Schrader Th. D
Elmer L Towns Ph. D D.D
Harold L Wilmington
Charles L. Fineberg Th. D Ph. D
Daniel R Mitchell Th. D
C Summer Wemp D.D
Edward R Roustio Th. D
James D. Stevens D. Min
James Freerkson Th. D

OH AND JAR PLEASE RESIST THE TEMPTATION TO GO OFF TOPIC AGAIN WITH YOUR PERFERRED VERSION OF CREATION EVENTS. THAT IS NOT WHAT THIS DISINFORMATION FEST IS DEALING WITH AT PRESENT!!!!!!!!

OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein. Address only topic related comments, if there are any.
AdminPD

Edited by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN, : No reason given.

Edited by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN, : No reason given.

Edited by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN, : No reason given.

Edited by AdminPD, : Warning


This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by jar, posted 09-19-2010 11:43 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by ringo, posted 09-20-2010 1:11 AM NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN has responded
 Message 263 by jar, posted 09-20-2010 8:20 PM NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN has not yet responded

ringo
Member
Posts: 13965
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 258 of 295 (582139)
09-20-2010 1:11 AM
Reply to: Message 257 by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN
09-20-2010 12:24 AM


Re: Chronology
NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN writes:

You need to provide evidence that clearly proves that G1 and G2 are two separate/different accounts.


You still seem to be misunderstanding what's happening here. There is no question that the stories in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are different. If they were the same, there would be no point to presenting it twice.

That isn't the question at all. The question is: What are the implications of two different stories being presented side by side? Clearly, the writers/compilers of Genesis were not uncomfortable with including both stories. The question is: Why not?


"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN, posted 09-20-2010 12:24 AM NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN, posted 09-20-2010 3:03 AM ringo has not yet responded
 Message 260 by purpledawn, posted 09-20-2010 2:04 PM ringo has acknowledged this reply

NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2541 days)
Posts: 51
Joined: 09-14-2010


Message 259 of 295 (582147)
09-20-2010 3:03 AM
Reply to: Message 258 by ringo
09-20-2010 1:11 AM


Re: Chronology
This is the point of this thread

OP states that its says Genesis 1 Animals, Plants, and Man. Genesis 2 Man, Plants, Animals, Woman

Which is an actual fact a lie it does not say that at all. If you are saying it does then go ahead and prove it to me right now or stop talking to me in this thread because your tactics are annoyingly childish and repetative. I know you get your kicks from it but I don't. You have no axe to grind because you don't care. I do care, the OP is a lie. I have proved that, you need to prove that I am wrong and the that the op is correct, if you can't or won't do that then please just shut up.

The use of semantics and funny Scientic words means diddly squat mate, Different/separate what ever

Genesis Chapter one is Genesis Chapter one following on form that is Genesis chapter 2 IE chapter two of the same book. To even imply that there are two different/separate/contrasting... or whatever way you want to word is imbecilic. Now we all understand what the topic is at hand. I know what you are a saying it is, and I know what the OP is saying it is now can one of you children please go ahead and prove to me what you think it says that it actually doesnt say at all????????
The only thing worth while in this thread Ringo, is that you have garnerd an oh so funny (not) stupid signature from it. Grow up and move on pal.

OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein. Address only topic related comments, if there are any.
AdminPD

Edited by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN, : No reason given.

Edited by AdminPD, : Warning


This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by ringo, posted 09-20-2010 1:11 AM ringo has not yet responded

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 1069 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 260 of 295 (582247)
09-20-2010 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 258 by ringo
09-20-2010 1:11 AM


Redactor
quote:
That isn't the question at all. The question is: What are the implications of two different stories being presented side by side? Clearly, the writers/compilers of Genesis were not uncomfortable with including both stories. The question is: Why not?
Some thoughts from Friedman's book suggest that it was an issue of keeping everyone "happy".

Separately, the books and stories were known and supported by various groups and associated with history. J&E were quoted in D. P had been around since Hezekiah's day and had been associated with national reform. D had been read publicly in Josiah's day and by the time of the Redactor the tradition that Moses had written all the stories in the first five books had taken hold. It would have been difficult for the Redactor to put the stories side by side like the Gospels since tradition said they came from the same author.

The Redactor was supposedly about Ezra's time if not Ezra himself, so there was a lot of rebuilding to do for the Jews. The familiar is always comforting in times of chaos.

The Redactor was bringing a crushed kingdom back together. Since the majority of people were illiterate, hearing a familiar story even though it is slightly different wouldn't cause problems. As you know in storytelling the story doesn't stay exactly the same


The Savior said There is no sin, but it is you who make sin when you do the things that are like the nature of adultery, which is called sin. --Gospel of Mary
This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by ringo, posted 09-20-2010 1:11 AM ringo has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN, posted 09-20-2010 6:16 PM purpledawn has not yet responded

NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2541 days)
Posts: 51
Joined: 09-14-2010


Message 261 of 295 (582298)
09-20-2010 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 260 by purpledawn
09-20-2010 2:04 PM


Re: Redactor
When did the Redactor redact the Gospel of Mary?

The saviour said there was no such thing as evolution just before he evolved before their very eyes into a crocodile

The Gospel of Crocodile Dundee.

My new signature what do you think folks? Like it? Im taking votes.

OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein.
AdminPD

Edited by AdminPD, : Warning


This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by purpledawn, posted 09-20-2010 2:04 PM purpledawn has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by Admin, posted 09-20-2010 8:03 PM NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN has responded

Admin
Director
Posts: 12536
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 262 of 295 (582325)
09-20-2010 8:03 PM
Reply to: Message 261 by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN
09-20-2010 6:16 PM


Re: Redactor
Hi Noma,

I'm going to be moderating this thread for a while. EvC Forum's interest is in encouraging on-topic messages that move discussion constructively forward by focusing on evidence and rational argumentation. If you share this interest then things should go fine.

Edited by Admin, : Grammar.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN, posted 09-20-2010 6:16 PM NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN, posted 09-20-2010 10:34 PM Admin has acknowledged this reply

  
jar
Member
Posts: 29757
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 263 of 295 (582328)
09-20-2010 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN
09-20-2010 12:24 AM


On inerrancy
To continue looking at Genesis 1 and Genesis 2&3 in regard to inerrancy it might help to look further and see how Christian Clergy see it.

For example, in the Clergy Project Letter we see the following...

quote:
Within the community of Christian believers there are areas of dispute and disagreement, including the proper way to interpret Holy Scripture. While virtually all Christians take the Bible seriously and hold it to be authoritative in matters of faith and practice, the overwhelming majority do not read the Bible literally, as they would a science textbook. Many of the beloved stories found in the Bible the Creation, Adam and Eve, Noah and the ark convey timeless truths about God, human beings, and the proper relationship between Creator and creation expressed in the only form capable of transmitting these truths from generation to generation. Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth. Its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts.

Source

So the fact that neither of the accounts are factually correct and that the two different stories are mutually exclusive and the gods in the stories entirely different is not an issue.

Edited by jar, : fix subtitle


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN, posted 09-20-2010 12:24 AM NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN has not yet responded

NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2541 days)
Posts: 51
Joined: 09-14-2010


Message 264 of 295 (582357)
09-20-2010 10:34 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by Admin
09-20-2010 8:03 PM


Re: Redactor
Hi Percy

Great, thanks for that. Is it the right place to bring up that it is patently obvious that 9 out of 9 signatures are an intentional violation of rule number 10 and they follow people around like a bad smell in every post?

On a more serious note is it too much to ask that some proof be supplied to support what the OP states? IE:

Genesis 1 Animals, Plants, and Man. Genesis 2 Man, Plants, Animals, Woman.

When it actually states nothing of the sort!!!!!

CAN this be addressed? I have already shown that it says nothing of the sort and now me have wiseacres posting further illedged quotes from illedged clergy. Ummm why?

Back up and or support the OP first please and thank you. NOW!

Its time to get real in this thread, someone needs to prove that the OP says what it say IE that G1 and G2 contradict themselves when they IN ACTUAL FACT DO NOT!! So let's see if you genuinely are interested in furthering the discussion towards that end. Im definately on the same page as you if you are.

Mind you it must be said that given the OP is an irrational argement it will not be possible for this in suppport of it to provide rational arguemnetation will it? I have declared and proved it to be a LIE. So, in that case I would appreciate that the OP be declared false and then we can all move on to a more sane rational worthwhile debate. I now thats too much to ask but we all have our dreams and visions.

Cheers

NOMA.

Edited by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN, : No reason given.

Edited by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN, : No reason given.

Edited by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN, : No reason given.

Edited by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN, : No reason given.

Edited by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN, : No reason given.

Edited by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN, : No reason given.

Edited by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by Admin, posted 09-20-2010 8:03 PM Admin has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by Theodoric, posted 09-20-2010 11:28 PM NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN has responded
 Message 270 by bluescat48, posted 09-21-2010 1:12 AM NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN has not yet responded

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5772
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 9.6


Message 265 of 295 (582364)
09-20-2010 11:28 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN
09-20-2010 10:34 PM


Re: Redactor
CAN this can be addressed. I have already shown that it says nothing of the sort and now me have wise acres posting further illedged quotes from illedged clergy. Ummm why?

Are you saying the signers of the Clergy Project Letter are not clergy?

Any evidence for this if this is what you are saying?

ABE
Illedged?
Does that mean they need to be sharpened?

Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.

Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN, posted 09-20-2010 10:34 PM NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN, posted 09-21-2010 12:13 AM Theodoric has responded

  
NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2541 days)
Posts: 51
Joined: 09-14-2010


Message 266 of 295 (582371)
09-21-2010 12:13 AM
Reply to: Message 265 by Theodoric
09-20-2010 11:28 PM


Re: Redactor
Lol, I didnt post it mate, I don't have to prove that it is allegedly posted by clergy. The poster who posted it is alleging that it is. Lets see him prove that it is if you really want to go down that line, which is just another futile attempt to dig a rabbit hole in the concrete isnt it?
What do you really think that post of yours has added to the discussion other than to collect another OFF TOPIC pink stinker from me responding to it like this? IE with the disdain it deserves.
You know, out side in the real world we are all probably really nice blokes who would get on famously well over milk and cookies but in here you seem to want to incite violence it's really really sad.

I admit my spelling is atrocious and I've got dislexia hense all the edits I do, Apologies of that.

Edited by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN, : No reason given.

Edited by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by Theodoric, posted 09-20-2010 11:28 PM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by Theodoric, posted 09-21-2010 12:29 AM NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN has responded

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5772
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 9.6


Message 267 of 295 (582373)
09-21-2010 12:29 AM
Reply to: Message 266 by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN
09-21-2010 12:13 AM


But you are making the claim
You are the one making the claim that this an alleged(glad to see you discovered spell check) letter by alleged clergy. All you have to do is click the link that Jar gave. He has done his part in supporting with evidence. You on the other hand never support any of your assertions with evidence. You love to attack and make assertions but as of yet no evidence.

You make an assertion back it up.
And yes this is on topic. Jar explained clearly why it is on topic.

To continue looking at Genesis 1 and Genesis 2&3 in regard to inerrancy it might help to look further and see how Christian Clergy see it.

For example, in the Clergy Project Letter we see the following...

You made a claim seemingly accusing him of fabrication. I just want you to back up your claim with something.

Here are a few from the A's.
Are you claiming these are not christian clergy?

quote:
The Rev. Ann M. Aaberg, Pastor
Mystic Congregational Church
Mystic, CT

Pastor James Aalgaard
St. Paul Lutheran Church
Ontario, OR

Rebecca Johnson Aardahl
ELCA Chaplain
Missouri Slope Lutheran Care Center
Bismarck, ND

Pastor Wes Aardahl
Faith Lutheran Church (ELCA)
Bismarck, ND

The Rev. Charles L. Aaron, Jr., Ph.D.
Senior Pastor
Cornerstone United Methodist Church
Garland, TX

The Rev. Torben G. Aarsand
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
Hagerstown, MD

The Rev. Pamela Abbey
United Methodist Church
Concord, CA

The Rev. Chad Abbott
Lockerbie Central UMC
Indianapolis, IN

The Rev. Jesse Abbott
Good Shepherd Lutheran Church, ELCA
Cincinnati, OH

The Rev. Dr. Mark Abbott, Dean
Northwest Texas Conference
The United Methodist Church
In Missionary Service
Seminario Evanglico Unido de Teologa
El Escorial, Spain
(US citizen)



Source

If so why?

but in here you seem to want to incite violence it's really really sad.

Why would you feel the need to get violent? That seems a bit over the top for an internet debate. I don't think any of us atheists feel incited to violence by you.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN, posted 09-21-2010 12:13 AM NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN, posted 09-21-2010 12:57 AM Theodoric has responded

  
NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2541 days)
Posts: 51
Joined: 09-14-2010


Message 268 of 295 (582375)
09-21-2010 12:57 AM
Reply to: Message 267 by Theodoric
09-21-2010 12:29 AM


Re: But you are making the claim
Fabulous a bit of useless evidence??

My dear Theodoric, any one who posts something/anything, that is a quote, until the source has been proven to be what it alleges itself to be then it simply means that it is alleged to be what it is. That doesn't mean it isn't what it is alleged to be. Are we clear on that?

Now perhaps you could answer why introducing a whole bunch of views from an alleged list of people who are alleged to be clergy has to do with the price of fish?? I would be most grateful.

Perhaps you would like me to explain why I would like to know this?

Okay thanks for asking, well the thing is the discussion we are having here (at least what I thought) is what the bible actually says in genesis chapter 1 and 2, and not what people THINK it says. Because its what people think it says, but it doesnt say, that is causing all the problems here, so why introduce a whole bunch of others regardless if they claim to be clergy or atheists. No one is bothering to discuss the OP so why would you expect me to entertain discussing the introduction of thoughts from a list of others.

Start another thread topic if you want to waffle and ramble about the musings of an alleged clergy please and thank you.

I dont care who or what THINKS G1 and G2 says, I'm concerned here with what it DOES in ACTUAL FACT SAY! Now can you start to address that topic please and perhaps my alleged feelings of violence may begin to subside a bit.

Sometimes one has to go "over the top" when the pile of verbal devacation in the room is rising higher and higher. I'm sure you will agree.

In other words you do not a have the right to CONTINUE talking the same amount of balls that you have ALL been talking up until now until you START to talk about the original topic at hand. Are we clear on that by any chance too?

Edited by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN, : No reason given.

Edited by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by Theodoric, posted 09-21-2010 12:29 AM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by Theodoric, posted 09-21-2010 1:05 AM NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN has not yet responded

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5772
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 9.6


Message 269 of 295 (582377)
09-21-2010 1:05 AM
Reply to: Message 268 by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN
09-21-2010 12:57 AM


Do you know what alleged means?
until the source has been proven to be what it alleges itself to be then it simply means that it is alleged to be what it is.

Evidence has been given. Look at the evidence.

You allege many things. None with evidence.

Now perhaps you could answer why introducing a whole bunch of views from an alleged list of people who are alleged to be clergy has to do with the price of fish??

I have already explained that Jar makes a justification of the relevance in his post. Your post here just confirms the fact that you are unable to back up your assertions.

Not on;y do you refuse to provide any evidence for your assertions, but refuse to even look at evidence presented to you.

if they claim to be clergy

Again you make statements suggesting they are not clergy. Why are they not clergy?


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN, posted 09-21-2010 12:57 AM NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN has not yet responded

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 1801 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 270 of 295 (582378)
09-21-2010 1:12 AM
Reply to: Message 264 by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN
09-20-2010 10:34 PM


Re: Redactor
ind you it must be said that given the OP is an irrational argement it will not be possible for this in suppport of it to provide rational arguemnetation will it?

Might I ask, why is the OP irrational? The topic is rational, the post is rational and he asks for rational comments. Simply whether Gen1 and Gen2 are contradictory with evidence to back up the position. nHow is this irrational.

YourStatement:

Its time to get real in this thread, someone needs to prove that the OP says what it say IE that G1 and G2 contradict themselves when they IN ACTUAL FACT DO NOT!!

makes a point, but where is your evidence? If they do not, you should be able to show they do not, otherwise your statement is irrational.


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008


This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN, posted 09-20-2010 10:34 PM NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
151617
18
1920Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017