RE: 10 Questions Biblical Literalists Cannot Honestly Answer
July 28, 2017 at 10:58 am
(This post was last modified: July 28, 2017 at 11:00 am by Harry Nevis.)
(July 28, 2017 at 1:03 am)Godscreated Wrote:(July 27, 2017 at 9:34 am)Inkfeather132 Wrote: And you're back to being dense again. The "scriptures" have as much evidence for their truth as god does. Your Bible is the place where god was invented, and so can't be used to "prove" his existence. And I would check that you were in line with the Bible if you would actually quote Bible verses instead of just expecting me to take your word for it. Grow up and get a clue, sitting here whining that "god told you so" isn't witnessing, it's just you childishly clinging to your unverified beliefs and then getting bitchy when we point out how stupid it is.
First I'm not whining nor being bitchy, I'm the one who will be living with God for eternity, so I have no reason to be either in this conversation. It does appear that you have slid off coarse and gotten a bit upset. You've given me no reason to quote scripture and if I did knowing how you react .... well it would be no different than how you are reacting now. The scriptures are for those who want to know God, to the casual reader they want have much meaning, if you were to ever change your mind an seek after God you would find the scriptures read very differently to you. If I'm stupid and God is who I believe Him to be then what does that make you.
GC
Still stupid?
(July 28, 2017 at 1:21 am)Godscreated Wrote:(July 27, 2017 at 4:51 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: Why do you suppose cosmologists and physicists proposed and almost universally accepted that the universe was once in a hot dense state without any evidence?
Because they can't accept that God created the universe from nothing. They needed some kinda' story and I guess that's the best they could do.
GC
(July 27, 2017 at 7:12 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Contemporary creationism does not contradict the biblical narrative. At the same time, the biblical narrative does not depend on contemporary creationism and could just as easily accommodate some form of evolution, just not the wildly implausible neo-Darwin synthesis.
Since I take Genesis as literal I can't accept evolution of any kind, now I do believe change within a kind. With the fall came death and some death could have been environmental, and adaptation would have been a must for some kinds to survive. the same would apply for the post flood era. People say including most scientist that when a donkey and horse mate the offspring is sterile, not so in some cases. It has been documented that a mule mating with a donkey has produce offspring. I have been wondering what to call it a mulkey or a donule.
GC
At least you admit you're close minded.
"The last superstition of the human mind is the superstition that religion in itself is a good thing." - Samuel Porter Putnam
