Evolution

[Whateverist]

The discussion was over a long time ago. You have your answer. We're discussing evidence now because it's really the only thing left to talk about. We don't find your ad hoc explanations for the reconcilation of Genesis with science to be interesting because creationists of any faith can do the exact same thing. To us it's like you're talking about who would win between Thor and the Hulk.

Well I'm glad to see the thread has been put to better use since the last time I looked in. I've put this guy on ignore. It really isn't hard to do. As to the question of Hulk vs Thor, if weapons are not allowed then clearly you have to go with the Hulk. Even if Thor gets his hammer I might have to go with big green.

You seem to be under the impression that we don't believe in God because of the evidence for evolution rather than the lack of evidence for God. From page one, people have been telling you that evolution doesn't disprove God. Is there a particular reason why you can't absorb that we don't regard evolution as a disproof of God? Evolution only provide evidence against a God defined as creating life pretty much as it is now. We're quite aware that's not the only way God is defined.

Thank you. I'll never know if whathisface gets what you are saying but I am well past caring.

[Undeceived]

What it looks like is that Jewish priests copied the Septuagint INTO Hebrew as part of a campaign to create themselves a glorious history.

Traditionally, Jews only read the scriptures in Hebrew. Copying from Greek texts is like us translating an English novel recently translated into Spanish back into English again while the original English novel still exists. Presuming you even wanted to, how would you get away with that? You think none of the half-million Israelites will notice?

[Drich]

Definitely Thor. Hands down.

Seriously? Thor is a puss without his precious Mojolnir The hulk is a Monster who get stronger the Madder He gets. Meaning He has an unlimited potential for Strength and Power, where as "Puss and Hammer" is limited by Odin's gift. His "precious."

Besides Thor has always been a team player and never good alone in a fight. The hulk doesn't need others to support him while he SMASH
Hulk Smash Thor

[mediamogul]

Again this is not designed to replace what you believe this was created to change the way Christianity thinks. I wanted to test this theory here to see if anything could be said from your position.. Appearently you all have default to the whole Evedience arguement when you do not understand what is being discussed.

The discussion was over a long time ago. You have your answer. We're discussing evidence now because it's really the only thing left to talk about. We don't find your ad hoc explanations for the reconcilation of Genesis with science to be interesting because creationists of any faith can do the exact same thing. To us it's like you're talking about who would win between Thor and the Hulk.

Definitely Thor. Hands down.

It has nothing to do with providing "proof" because any Physical proof that supports evolution also supports this appologetic.

Can anyone name this fallacy?
[/quote]

It's the one where you add on multiple conclusions to evidence for one of them even though they aren't related. Damn it what is it? It's like piggybacking but I can't remember...


[/quote]

Bootstrapping! That's it right?

[Minimalist]

Traditionally, Jews only read the scriptures in Hebrew.

"Traditionally" the 3 wise men who came to look at jesus' dirty diapers were named Gaspar, Melchior and Balthasar. There is no evidence for this bit of nonsense at all and, in fact, the story did not evolve until 500 years later.

I'm not interested in "tradition." I want to see the evidence.

[Phil]

I must have missed that page could you repost it?

No, either your lying ass can start reading the replies to your stupid nonsense or you can fucking google it.

[Drich]

I have googled it and I can not find anything that resembles what i have said here. That is why I asked for your help. If there is another who has come to this revelation then I'd like to speak with them.

[Phil]

I have googled it and I can not find anything that resembles what i have said here. That is why I asked for your help. If there is another who has come to this revelation then I'd like to speak with them.

You can 't find the wiki page on gap creationism? Either your a retard that shouldn't be on the internet or your a dirty liar, which is it?

[Drich]

I have googled it and I can not find anything that resembles what i have said here. That is why I asked for your help. If there is another who has come to this revelation then I'd like to speak with them.

You can 't find the wiki page on gap creationism? Either your a retard that shouldn't be on the internet or your a dirty liar, which is it?

Yeah I found Gap creationism but that has absolutely nothing to do with what i am talking about. That is not to say one can not take the empty term "Gap Creationism' and apply it to what i have said, but in the end my work has absolutely nothing to do with this:

Gap Creationism Explained:
Genesis 1:1 Is the original creation from nothingness by the power of God. This is supported by geological science and it is scriptural. Genesis 1:2 is a vast destruction of earth, that was the result of the flood of Lucifer. Lucifer's sin was rebellion with pre-Adam man against God. There is a vast undetermined amount of years between verses 1 and 2. Genesis 1:3 onward is the regeneration of the destroyed earth which is seen in Genesis 1:2, which was done in six literal 24 hour days.
http://gapcreationism.com/index.html

Either you do not understand what I have written or what it is you are comparing my work to... (Do you want me to explain the differences between Gap creationism as made popular in the 17th century, and my body of work?) Or can you put this argument to rest and show me something else that is not consistent to the original 17th or 18th century work, that you represented earlier?

[NoMoreFaith]

Not every gap explanation is the same. Its a bit like saying literal creationism is the same definition no matter who you talk to, even thou your version is supposedly literal as well. The issue here is that your version is subject to similar critique.

The major problem with any explanation supported solely by scripture (if you take issue with that statement, evidence or GTFO), is that any creation story that doesn't contradict an old earth can equally claim it "is supported" by the same evidence, which patently isn't true.

It certainly isn't the same on review, since instead of a gap between 1:1 and 1:2, we have a gap between Adam and the Fall. Which puts Adam at around 4.5 billion years old, give or take a few thousand. (No wonder he got bored).
Yes No?