[quote='NoMoreFaith' pid='258702' dateline='1332280896']
[quote]Drich, you're an original one, I'll give you that much.
What you've presented is assertion, and biblical conjecture, without any evidence. [/quote]Then please tell me what you consider to be "evidence" so i may seek to provide it.
[quote]Your proposal is overly complicated and Occam's razor applies equally to it.[/quote]Actually it is extremely simple. In that There are no time lines recorded in scripture. The only thing we know for sure is the fall of man happened 6000 years ago. Far to often on both sides of the argument we assume the creation account says that 7 days prior to the fall, the whole creation process was first started.
The bible does not say this, so "creationist" in turn should not argue this. There is in fact an undisclosed amount of time between the creation of Man and the Fall of man.
All I have done here is very simply suggested that because we have a creation account with an undisclosed amount of time between the dawn of creation and the fall that happened 6000 years ago, Everything that can be found in our fossil record can be accounted for.
What can be simpler than that?
[quote]This is all overly twisted to fit into the bible, but since you have no evidence to present, which doesn't lead to the simpler natural explanations, you really don't have a lot to stand on.[/quote]Again can you give me an example of what "proof" of this magnitude looks like?
[quote]The bible is not a source of evidence, it would be self-authenticating, which is circular and useless to back up your idea.[/quote]Actually it is not. There is a very detailed list of promises that is offered to the believer. All one has to do is follow the instructions and receive the gifts. Once received then verify the gifts against what was promised in the text.
[quote]Why not go the whole hog and realize that trying to squeeze scientific fact into the bible isn't going to work, without some major reinterpretation. Which is fine, its been mangled before to try and fit with science before but it always fails to make logical sense.[/quote]
Like what? There is absolutely nothing science offers that can not fit into this new account of origins.
[quote]I wave you cheerio, and look forward to your next crazy interpretation in a thread that actually makes an ounce of sense. I'm afraid discussing the issue gives your idea more credit than it deserves.[/quote]You know if I never talked to a shaken atheist before i might have missed the true meaning behind this statement. Know, this may be my third day here on this web site, but it is not my third day on the job
[quote]Drich, you're an original one, I'll give you that much.
What you've presented is assertion, and biblical conjecture, without any evidence. [/quote]Then please tell me what you consider to be "evidence" so i may seek to provide it.
[quote]Your proposal is overly complicated and Occam's razor applies equally to it.[/quote]Actually it is extremely simple. In that There are no time lines recorded in scripture. The only thing we know for sure is the fall of man happened 6000 years ago. Far to often on both sides of the argument we assume the creation account says that 7 days prior to the fall, the whole creation process was first started.
The bible does not say this, so "creationist" in turn should not argue this. There is in fact an undisclosed amount of time between the creation of Man and the Fall of man.
All I have done here is very simply suggested that because we have a creation account with an undisclosed amount of time between the dawn of creation and the fall that happened 6000 years ago, Everything that can be found in our fossil record can be accounted for.
What can be simpler than that?
[quote]This is all overly twisted to fit into the bible, but since you have no evidence to present, which doesn't lead to the simpler natural explanations, you really don't have a lot to stand on.[/quote]Again can you give me an example of what "proof" of this magnitude looks like?
[quote]The bible is not a source of evidence, it would be self-authenticating, which is circular and useless to back up your idea.[/quote]Actually it is not. There is a very detailed list of promises that is offered to the believer. All one has to do is follow the instructions and receive the gifts. Once received then verify the gifts against what was promised in the text.
[quote]Why not go the whole hog and realize that trying to squeeze scientific fact into the bible isn't going to work, without some major reinterpretation. Which is fine, its been mangled before to try and fit with science before but it always fails to make logical sense.[/quote]
Like what? There is absolutely nothing science offers that can not fit into this new account of origins.
[quote]I wave you cheerio, and look forward to your next crazy interpretation in a thread that actually makes an ounce of sense. I'm afraid discussing the issue gives your idea more credit than it deserves.[/quote]You know if I never talked to a shaken atheist before i might have missed the true meaning behind this statement. Know, this may be my third day here on this web site, but it is not my third day on the job
