|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: My HUGE problem with creationist thinking (re: Which version of creationism) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
I used the term nano life loosely. Its a diversion to focus on this. The point is about transit life forms between species, and this is well catered to in the Genesis texts, including swarms of swarms, creepy crawlies and 'every creature that lives.'
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Swarms can refer to bacteria - I posted such a rendering. Swarms of swarms' do refer to size.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Swarms can refer to bacteria. And how come you never picked up this all encompasing statement listed prior to air borne creatures emerging:
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Yes, that is my error. I read as 5th C. There was no alphabetical writings then, but I believe the pyramids are older than 5000 years and these contain earlier writing modes.
quote: He is mentioned in a relic 100 years after his death. Even 'House of David' is mentioned, which is a biblical term, as well as a war listed in the book of Kings. Are you saying David is a myth?
quote: Life started in water; next up is air borne life. This is correct, nor is the premise of making such a claim anything less than astounding for its time.
quote: You have no proof of your claim, which says it is without any merit and made only to reject as a predisposition, which is a wiodespread syndrome but not a legitimate one.
quote: Does this apply also to a temple which was destroyed, listed in numerous books made before this date!?
quote: We do need to learn it - it is indispensible: a host of primodial factors depend on it, and these are not found anywhere else. The origins of three religions depend on Abraham and Moses being credible entities else they fall in a heap, and this is derived exclusively from the Hebrew bible. Genesis stands in the face of all notions of human history as a yard stick - significantly, we have no 'name' older than Adam; the first 'king' is listed here as well as the first human cencus. Ancient names listed in the geneologies in Genesis are today used by archeology to verifiy dates. There is no other writings more important or offers more to learn from: name one?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
It is you not me repeating the same jorgon and hyping up some self imposed negation here. I already responded with an example from a major dictionary. Swarm: bacteria and any small life forms moving around in a relatively high density - or in one tragectory. This is very apt with throngs of small life of all kinds leaving the oceans, excluding winged life forms at this time.
Aside from this, I also posted the verse which applies to all life, as well as shown how these are listed in the text as transit life forms. You should have retracted or dropped your obsessive rejections long ago.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
Take a look:
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Get yourself some books which are independent of European descriptions of history pre-2000! You have listed another reason which proves my assertion the flood was a regional one, the animals were domestic and limited to Noah's possessions [the texts!] quote: "HOUSE OF DAVID" is in the text of the Tel Dan relic and not open to any other reading.
quote: That is dishonest if not cowardly. Your answer in backing away when you should not do so is not credible here.
quote: No sir! Check:
quote: In fact, the order of life is listed with greater credibility than any other scientific treatise today, and goes like this: 1. Light [universael action]2. Seperation of light and darkness [universal action] Next we zoom into life-anticipatory actions for the earth: 3. Critical Seperation of day and night by the action of focusing light and darkness on earth to suit numerous life forms which would come forth. [solar action] Critical Earth actions: 4. Seperation of water from land. 5. vegetation. 6. Water life. 7. Airborne life 8. Land based life. 9. Speech endowed humans. 10. All creation ceased and completed; it was not extended and no creation of new stuff occured since then;this includes a song someone composes - its not new. ['There is nothing new']. Remove anything from that list and life would not occur. Hello Darwin!
quote: That is another way of saying you have no proof - of a statement you made here. There is a host of evidences which affirm the writings of the Hebrew bible - these are always avoided by anti-creationists. The Hebrew writings is in fact the most believable and vindicated humanity possesses - no other writings have been as much proven by archeology, to the extent it is varied from the much later Gospels in kind than degree. Yet it is questioned the most!
quote: There is in fact no alternatives to how it is listed in Genesis. You have not given one.
quote: One would think a debate would not refute what religionists do with each other - but we find that anti-religionists have become just another fundy Talibanic styled religion! The first temple needs no proof - I mentioned it to point out the five Hebrew books had to predate the temple, which is a result of those books' advocations, making all arguements about claims about datings as bogus.
quote: Because one marks the antithesis of the other;the Hebrew writings stands alone in changing the ancient world; it KO'd the Egyptians, Babylonians, Greeks and Romans. The Illiad is 100% mythical stuff of head butting deities, is post-Mosaic, and even its later dating is disputed and claimed as bits added to by a host of writers. It exposes the utter dishonesty and guile of anti-creationists
quote: Monotheism and Creation are not dumb things - there are no alternatives to it today, even when it is one of only two possibilities how the universe emerged. The point remains these are the most impacting factors of humanity today - by period of time, impact and cencus. Just about every law in every institution in the west is based on the 613 laws of the Hebrew bible. None come from another source.
quote: Yes, its older and also very great. But not older than the retrospective datings of Genesis. We still have no Hindu name older than Adam.
quote: Yes and no. In chapter one, it refers to the head of a specie, namely a human. There was no requirement of a name when only one human existed. But it becomes a name in chapter two, even mentioning the word 'NAME' for the first tme and aligned with Adam - when Eve appeared.
quote: Nimrod. And the first scientific cencus refers to the Israelites in the desert, listed with sub-totals, gender and ages, in the millions. This is important for evaluating human populations in ancient times.
quote: Its the other way around. The name Adam [of the earth] does not appear elsewhere, nor a host of names in the geneology of Adam's tree, like Cain, Able, Noah, Shem, Ham, etc. All the names are authentic of its period - which is a mark of its accuracy.
quote: Please repeat them. Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
How about this as a close off to "Topic: My HUGE problem with creationist thinking (re: Which version of creationism) "
There is no problem, never mind 'huge', and these have been well squashed. There is no alternative to Creationism from a scientific POV; none came forth to name one - which is incumbent to do so.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
Your list ignores the responses I gave, with links. Swarms can aso be applied to small things, while swarms of swarms refer to very small things. Here's another:
quote: I also responded such obsessive posts from you have nothing to do with the fact water borne life came before air borne life, and that is introduced in Genesis. You are a time waster.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
My claim is not that swarms means small only. I explianed this numerously. It can rfer to any size of a multitude of items hurling in one trajectory. Swairm of swarms defines the size in this instant, as well as the cntext.
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
Yes, the topic is ignored, as always with some posters who avoid numerous factors and focus on hyping up miniscule items as great errors. No retractions come from these posters when all their deflections are rebuffed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Here we go again! Read the text, There is no confusion a host of vegetation, shurbs and sprouting kinds, are mentioned first. Unlike Darwin, Genesis does cater to the sustainance of life forms with anticipatory pre-actions: the veg get the sun and water; the animated life forms get their sustainance from meat also. The premise is: THE DINNER TABLE IS READY FOR THE GUESTS. ToE allocated the greatest wisdom behind complex life and their emergence to a mindless, fictional old man with a white beard called nature. None have seen this deity. Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
Your quite crazy. Swarms are not defined by size at all. Anything can be swarms, bees and spaceships. The mode of movement and multitudes [bulk movements] better describe swarms. I gave you two links showing that.
At least admit you error that the first listing of species is in Genesis, before obsessing what swarms of swarms emerging from the oceans mean, specially when the context is of life form origins and how they graduate to the next specie threshold. There is no other reading of this - name one? Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: This was never the issue, you made it your flagship, ignoring everything else the debate was about: this seems your agenda throughout all your postings in this thread. Swarms of life forms swarming in the waters is of course not the issue; swarms of life forms, small or very small or very large, is a factual item, as is the case with water life appeared before air borne life. Just because this is first listed in Genesis which you run away from, does not mean you are countering it. Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Correct. That's why it is an authentic text affirming its period of listing. The term specie is of recent vintage [Hello!?]; but the listing of life form groupings by terrain and habitat is not recent. That life emerged in water is also not of recent vintage but introduced in a text which does not mention specie! If you look carefully, the word SCUD MISSILES also do not appear in Genesis. Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024