February 23rd Creation movie

19,507 Views | 398 Replies | Last: 7 yr ago by Martin Q. Blank
oldarmy1
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:00p, 2/15/17
AG
http://isgenesishistory.com/

One night only at major theaters
About the Movie

IS GENESIS HISTORY? is a fascinating new look at the biblical, historical, and scientific evidence for Creation and the Flood. Learn from more than a dozen scientists and scholars as they explore the world around us in light of Genesis.
Reply Quote
3
Woody2006
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:18p, 2/15/17
AG
Quote:
IS GENESIS HISTORY?

No
Reply Quote
21
Sapper Redux
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to oldarmy1 • 6:54a, 2/16/17
oldarmy1 said:
http://isgenesishistory.com/

One night only at major theaters
About the Movie

IS GENESIS HISTORY? is a fascinating new look at the biblical, historical, and scientific evidence for Creation and the Flood. Learn from more than a dozen scientists and scholars as they explore the world around us in light of Genesis.


I'll save you the money: there isn't any.
Reply Quote
11
unimboti nkum
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to oldarmy1 • 7:24a, 2/16/17
AG
oldarmy1 said:
http://isgenesishistory.com/

One night only at major theaters
About the Movie

IS GENESIS HISTORY? is a fascinating new look at the biblical, historical, and scientific evidence for Creation and the Flood. Learn from more than a dozen scientists and scholars as they explore the world around us in light of Genesis.
hahahahahaha!!!!
Reply Quote
5
oldarmy1
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:59a, 2/16/17
AG
Welp, our resident pseudo-scientists have weighed in...as always.
Reply Quote
9
1 edit
Sapper Redux
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to oldarmy1 • 8:08a, 2/16/17
oldarmy1 said:
Welp, our resident pseudo-scientists have weighed in...as always.


See, we read, study, and grasp actual science. You're promoting something that has to try and torture reality to fit a book.
Reply Quote
10
oldarmy1
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sapper Redux • 8:17a, 2/16/17
AG
Dr. Watson said:
oldarmy1 said:
Welp, our resident pseudo-scientists have weighed in...as always.


See, we read, study, and grasp actual science. You're promoting something that has to try and torture reality to fit a book.
Hardly. I stand with Peter who clearly explained that those (including scientist) who see the earth only linearly in time fail to understand that their was an ancient world which thrived and existed before being destroyed by a cataclysmic event, which included earthquakes, eruptions, water, etc. on a global scale. In short, Peter is saying what you see/study/view now ain't what you had before that event.

In Psalms David described the event saying the mountains pushed up and the valley's sank. Many other verses in other books provide insight into the absolute destruction and, again as Peter said, present earth which now exists.

I wouldn't like that if I were a scientist only interested in wanting to look backwards to origins/beginnings, but when God hit the big "reset" button that's awesome to study. Torture for the macro-evolutionists models - I know.
Reply Quote
10
Woody2006
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to oldarmy1 • 8:22a, 2/16/17
AG
oldarmy1 said:
Dr. Watson said:
oldarmy1 said:
Welp, our resident pseudo-scientists have weighed in...as always.


See, we read, study, and grasp actual science. You're promoting something that has to try and torture reality to fit a book.
Hardly. I stand with Peter who clearly explained that those (including scientist) who see the earth only linearly in time fail to understand that their was an ancient world which thrived and existed before being destroyed by a cataclysmic event, which included earthquakes, eruptions, water, etc. on a global scale. In short, Peter is saying what you see/study/view now ain't what you had before that event.

In Psalms David described the event saying the mountains pushed up and the valley's sank. Many other verses in other books provide insight into the absolute destruction and, again as Peter said, present earth which now exists.

I wouldn't like that if I were a scientist only interested in wanting to look backwards to origins/beginnings, but when God hit the big "reset" button that's awesome to study. Torture for the macro-evolutionists models - I know.

Good grief. I can't even...

Enjoy the movie, bud
Reply Quote
7
1 edit
Martin Q. Blank
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:30a, 2/16/17
Looks like an interesting movie. Thanks for sharing.
Reply Quote
5
Sapper Redux
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to oldarmy1 • 8:44a, 2/16/17
oldarmy1 said:
Dr. Watson said:
oldarmy1 said:
Welp, our resident pseudo-scientists have weighed in...as always.


See, we read, study, and grasp actual science. You're promoting something that has to try and torture reality to fit a book.
Hardly. I stand with Peter who clearly explained that those (including scientist) who see the earth only linearly in time fail to understand that their was an ancient world which thrived and existed before being destroyed by a cataclysmic event, which included earthquakes, eruptions, water, etc. on a global scale. In short, Peter is saying what you see/study/view now ain't what you had before that event.

In Psalms David described the event saying the mountains pushed up and the valley's sank. Many other verses in other books provide insight into the absolute destruction and, again as Peter said, present earth which now exists.

I wouldn't like that if I were a scientist only interested in wanting to look backwards to origins/beginnings, but when God hit the big "reset" button that's awesome to study. Torture for the macro-evolutionists models - I know.


Dude. Wow.
Reply Quote
7
oldarmy1
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:52a, 2/16/17
AG
Exactly - you guys don't accept an all powerful creator, so naturally your responses are "I can't even" and "Dude wow".

*NEWSFLASH* God exists. Miracles happened. Don't believe it? Not my problem.
Reply Quote
9
kurt vonnegut
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:53a, 2/16/17
AG
In defense of oldarmy1, I don't think he should be mocked for what he believes.

In defense of his beliefs . . . . I got nothing. The evidence for an old Earth is literally and figuratively astronomical. I simply do not think there is a scientifically honest means by which to conclude a young Earth or literal Genesis.
Reply Quote
21
1 edit
Woody2006
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to oldarmy1 • 8:58a, 2/16/17
AG
oldarmy1 said:
Exactly - you guys don't accept an all powerful creator, so naturally your responses are "I can't even" and "Dude wow".

*NEWSFLASH* God exists. Miracles happened. Don't believe it? Not my problem.

Explain the progression of less and less developed organisms in the fossil record as you go further down the geological strata without invoking some nonsense story about horses and bunnies swimming to the top as trilobites sink to the bottom in the global flood.

You can believe in God without having to suspend belief in reality. I would say the Catholics do it, but then again they do believe in the literal transubstantiation.
Reply Quote
5
1 edit
PacifistAg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:24a, 2/16/17
AG
Do I believe in the literal 7-day creation, as told in Genesis, and that it occurred 6,000 years ago? No. I don't think belief in that is necessary in order to believe God created the universe. Did He do it 6,000 years ago over the course of a week? Maybe, although the science says no. Did He create it 13 billion years ago? Maybe. I wouldn't say Genesis is "history" though.
Reply Quote
9
oldarmy1
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Woody2006 • 9:24a, 2/16/17
AG
Woody2006 said:
oldarmy1 said:
Exactly - you guys don't accept an all powerful creator, so naturally your responses are "I can't even" and "Dude wow".

*NEWSFLASH* God exists. Miracles happened. Don't believe it? Not my problem.

Explain the progression of less and less developed organisms in the fossil record as you go further down the geological strata without invoking some nonsense story about horses and bunnies swimming to the top as trilobites sink to the bottom in the global flood.

You can believe in God without having to suspend belief in reality. I would say the Catholics do it, but then again they do believe in the literal transubstantiation.
The premise that there is a perfect "progression" across the geologic column has been debunked even by many macro-evolution scientist purist. What is the average land speed of a trilobite? Should there have been a reaction to rising water I can guarantee the less developed organisms would have been in last place racing upwards.
Reply Quote
1
Jim Hogg is angry
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to PacifistAg • 9:26a, 2/16/17
AG
RetiredAg said:
Do I believe in the literal 7-day creation, as told in Genesis, and that it occurred 6,000 years ago? No. I don't think belief in that is necessary in order to believe God created the universe. Did He do it 6,000 years ago over the course of a week? Maybe, although the science says no. Did He create it 13 billion years ago? Maybe. I wouldn't say Genesis is "history" though.
Was there death before the fall of mankind in Eden?
Reply Quote
Martin Q. Blank
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:29a, 2/16/17
Do I believe in the literal microsecond wine creation, as told in John, and that it occurred 2,000 years ago? No. I don't think belief in that is necessary in order to believe God created the wine. Did He do it 2,000 years ago over the course of a microsecond? Maybe, although the science says no. Did He create it in the local vineyard? Maybe. I wouldn't say John is "history" though.
Reply Quote
4
Martin Q. Blank
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:32a, 2/16/17
Do I believe in the literal sun stopping, as told in Joshua, and that it occurred 3,000 years ago? No. I don't think belief in that is necessary in order to believe God made it appear the sun stopped. Did He do it 3,000 years ago and the sun really stopped? Maybe, although the science says no. Did He make it look that way to Joshua? Maybe. I wouldn't say Joshua is "history" though.
Reply Quote
4
Martin Q. Blank
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:34a, 2/16/17
Do I believe in the literal resurrection of Jesus, as told in the gospels, and that it occurred 2,000 years ago? No. I don't think belief in that is necessary in order to believe the disciples saw him later. Did He do it 2,000 years ago and really rise from the dead? Maybe, although the science says no. Did someone just hide him somewhere else and the disciples hallucinated? Maybe. I wouldn't say the gospels are "history" though.
Reply Quote
4
1 edit
PacifistAg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:37a, 2/16/17
AG
Moth to a flame. Every time.
Reply Quote
9
oldarmy1
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Jim Hogg is angry • 9:41a, 2/16/17
AG
TampaBayAg said:
RetiredAg said:
Do I believe in the literal 7-day creation, as told in Genesis, and that it occurred 6,000 years ago? No. I don't think belief in that is necessary in order to believe God created the universe. Did He do it 6,000 years ago over the course of a week? Maybe, although the science says no. Did He create it 13 billion years ago? Maybe. I wouldn't say Genesis is "history" though.
Was there death before the fall of mankind in Eden?
God calling his creation "Very good" 8 times meant millions of years of death, don't ya know.

Painstakingly telling us every creature was created "after its kind" 10 times in Genesis 1 and 6 times post-flood was for emphasis.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? What a simple question for God, and me.
Reply Quote
2
Jim Hogg is angry
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:43a, 2/16/17
AG
Quote:
Do I believe in the literal resurrection of Jesus, as told in the gospels, and that it occurred 2,000 years ago? No. I don't think belief in that is necessary in order to believe the disciples saw him later. Did He do it 2,000 years ago and really rise from the dead? Maybe, although the science says no. Did someone just hide him somewhere else and the disciples hallucinated? Maybe. I wouldn't say the gospels are "history" though.
I wouldn't say Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, I Corinthians, II Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, I Thessalonians, II Thessalonians, I Timothy, II Timothy, Hebrews, James, I Peter, II Peter, I John, II John, III John, Jude, and Revelation are history.
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
PacifistAg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Jim Hogg is angry • 9:45a, 2/16/17
AG
TampaBayAg said:
RetiredAg said:
Do I believe in the literal 7-day creation, as told in Genesis, and that it occurred 6,000 years ago? No. I don't think belief in that is necessary in order to believe God created the universe. Did He do it 6,000 years ago over the course of a week? Maybe, although the science says no. Did He create it 13 billion years ago? Maybe. I wouldn't say Genesis is "history" though.
Was there death before the fall of mankind in Eden?
If taking the Genesis account of creation/fall literally, no. Was Eden a literal place or simply used to convey a point? If it was a literal place, then how long were Adam and Even in the garden before the fall?

Honestly, literal vs figurative interpretation of the creation story is just something I don't put too much thought about. It's an unknowable answer. Did God create the stars to look like they're billions of years old? Is He just a trickster like that? It's a non-essential though.
Reply Quote
1
PacifistAg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Jim Hogg is angry • 9:46a, 2/16/17
AG
TampaBayAg said:
Do I believe in the literal third day resurrection, as told in Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, I Corinthians, II Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, I Thessalonians, II Thessalonians, I Timothy, II Timothy, Hebrews, James, I Peter, II Peter, I John, II John, III John, Jude, and Revelation, and that it occurred 2,000 years ago? No. I don't think belief in that is necessary in order to be a Christian. Science says no. I wouldn't say Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, I Corinthians, II Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, I Thessalonians, II Thessalonians, I Timothy, II Timothy, Hebrews, James, I Peter, II Peter, I John, II John, III John, Jude, and Revelation are history.
Here I thought you were above this silly kind of trolling.
Reply Quote
1
Martin Q. Blank
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:46a, 2/16/17
Honestly, literal vs figurative interpretation of the creation story is just something I don't put too much thought about. It's an unknowable answer. Did God write Genesis as if creation happened in 6 days? Is He just a trickster like that? It's a non-essential though.
Reply Quote
4
Jim Hogg is angry
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to PacifistAg • 9:49a, 2/16/17
AG
RetiredAg said:
TampaBayAg said:
Do I believe in the literal third day resurrection, as told in Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, I Corinthians, II Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, I Thessalonians, II Thessalonians, I Timothy, II Timothy, Hebrews, James, I Peter, II Peter, I John, II John, III John, Jude, and Revelation, and that it occurred 2,000 years ago? No. I don't think belief in that is necessary in order to be a Christian. Science says no. I wouldn't say Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, I Corinthians, II Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, I Thessalonians, II Thessalonians, I Timothy, II Timothy, Hebrews, James, I Peter, II Peter, I John, II John, III John, Jude, and Revelation are history.
Here I thought you were above this silly kind of trolling.
You overestimate me, sir. I was hoping to delete it, as I didn't see Ol' Marty beat me to the punch. The point is, once you start attacking and altering doctrines, you can move past creation and try to dismantle the core tenants of Christianity. (I assure you those arguing "science" do so not out of discovery and enlightenment, but out of convenience and conformity).
Reply Quote
3
PacifistAg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Jim Hogg is angry • 9:53a, 2/16/17
AG
TampaBayAg said:
RetiredAg said:
TampaBayAg said:
Do I believe in the literal third day resurrection, as told in Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, I Corinthians, II Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, I Thessalonians, II Thessalonians, I Timothy, II Timothy, Hebrews, James, I Peter, II Peter, I John, II John, III John, Jude, and Revelation, and that it occurred 2,000 years ago? No. I don't think belief in that is necessary in order to be a Christian. Science says no. I wouldn't say Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, I Corinthians, II Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, I Thessalonians, II Thessalonians, I Timothy, II Timothy, Hebrews, James, I Peter, II Peter, I John, II John, III John, Jude, and Revelation are history.
Here I thought you were above this silly kind of trolling.
You overestimate me, sir. I was hoping to delete it, as I didn't see Ol' Marty beat me to the punch. The point is, once you start attacking and altering doctrines, you can move past creation and try to dismantle the core tenants of Christianity. (I assure you those arguing "science" do so not out of discovery and enlightenment, but out of convenience and conformity).
Yes, I apparently did. But your example used in the trolling post is flawed because belief in the resurrection is an essential of our faith. So yes, belief in a literal resurrection is essential to our faith. Belief in a 7-day creation is not. One would require that you reject the Nicene Creed. The other would not. You can believe all things were created by God without believing in a literal reading of the Genesis creation story.
Reply Quote
Martin Q. Blank
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:56a, 2/16/17
RetiredAg is serious about how much he doesn't care about this non-essential.
Reply Quote
5
Jim Hogg is angry
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to PacifistAg • 10:06a, 2/16/17
AG
RetiredAg said:
TampaBayAg said:
RetiredAg said:
Do I believe in the literal 7-day creation, as told in Genesis, and that it occurred 6,000 years ago? No. I don't think belief in that is necessary in order to believe God created the universe. Did He do it 6,000 years ago over the course of a week? Maybe, although the science says no. Did He create it 13 billion years ago? Maybe. I wouldn't say Genesis is "history" though.
Was there death before the fall of mankind in Eden?
If it was a literal place, then how long were Adam and Even in the garden before the fall?
Well, we don't have an exact answer, but it could not have been more than ~115 years (maybe less). Genesis 5:3 states that Adam was 130 years old when he father Seth, and his sons Cain and Abel (which were also born outside the Garden and with an inherited sin nature) were old enough to offer sacrifice and work the land before the former murdered the latter.
Reply Quote
2
PacifistAg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Jim Hogg is angry • 10:11a, 2/16/17
AG
TampaBayAg said:
RetiredAg said:
TampaBayAg said:
RetiredAg said:
Do I believe in the literal 7-day creation, as told in Genesis, and that it occurred 6,000 years ago? No. I don't think belief in that is necessary in order to believe God created the universe. Did He do it 6,000 years ago over the course of a week? Maybe, although the science says no. Did He create it 13 billion years ago? Maybe. I wouldn't say Genesis is "history" though.
Was there death before the fall of mankind in Eden?
If it was a literal place, then how long were Adam and Even in the garden before the fall?
Well, we don't have an exact answer, but it could not have been more than ~115 years (maybe less). Genesis 5:3 states that Adam was 130 years old when he father Seth, and his sons Cain and Abel (which were also born outside the Garden and with an inherited sin nature) were old enough to offer sacrifice and work the land before the former murdered the latter.
Well, if there was no death prior to the fall, then there would have been no point in tracking age. They could have been in the garden for billions of years for all we know. Perhaps he had been out of the garden for 130 years when Seth was born. The point is that we have absolutely no way of really knowing.

Growing up in fundie world, I saw too many Christians have their salvation questioned, or flat out denied, because they didn't believe the earth was 6,000 years old. That's what I don't get. Could it be 6,000 years old? Absolutely. Could it be 13 billion? Absolutely.
Reply Quote
Jim Hogg is angry
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to PacifistAg • 10:12a, 2/16/17
AG
RetiredAg said:
TampaBayAg said:
RetiredAg said:
TampaBayAg said:
Do I believe in the literal third day resurrection, as told in Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, I Corinthians, II Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, I Thessalonians, II Thessalonians, I Timothy, II Timothy, Hebrews, James, I Peter, II Peter, I John, II John, III John, Jude, and Revelation, and that it occurred 2,000 years ago? No. I don't think belief in that is necessary in order to be a Christian. Science says no. I wouldn't say Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, I Corinthians, II Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, I Thessalonians, II Thessalonians, I Timothy, II Timothy, Hebrews, James, I Peter, II Peter, I John, II John, III John, Jude, and Revelation are history.
Here I thought you were above this silly kind of trolling.
You overestimate me, sir. I was hoping to delete it, as I didn't see Ol' Marty beat me to the punch. The point is, once you start attacking and altering doctrines, you can move past creation and try to dismantle the core tenants of Christianity. (I assure you those arguing "science" do so not out of discovery and enlightenment, but out of convenience and conformity).
Yes, I apparently did. But your example used in the trolling post is flawed because belief in the resurrection is an essential of our faith. So yes, belief in a literal resurrection is essential to our faith. Belief in a 7-day creation is not. One would require that you reject the Nicene Creed. The other would not. You can believe all things were created by God without believing in a literal reading of the Genesis creation story.
I agree, salvation is contingent on repentance towards God and faith along in the finished work of Jesus Christ and not the age of the Earth, perfect eschatology, etc. I do believe the Bible is inspired and preserved though, because God has stated such. Also, I believe there was no death until the fall of mankind.
Reply Quote
2
PacifistAg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Jim Hogg is angry • 10:14a, 2/16/17
AG

Quote:
I do believe the Bible is inspired and preserved though
As do I. Being "inspired and preserved", though, doesn't prevent the Genesis account of creation from being more metaphorical than literal.
Reply Quote
Woody2006
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Jim Hogg is angry • 10:14a, 2/16/17
AG
TampaBayAg said:
Quote:
Do I believe in the literal resurrection of Jesus, as told in the gospels, and that it occurred 2,000 years ago? No. I don't think belief in that is necessary in order to believe the disciples saw him later. Did He do it 2,000 years ago and really rise from the dead? Maybe, although the science says no. Did someone just hide him somewhere else and the disciples hallucinated? Maybe. I wouldn't say the gospels are "history" though.
I wouldn't say Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, I Corinthians, II Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, I Thessalonians, II Thessalonians, I Timothy, II Timothy, Hebrews, James, I Peter, II Peter, I John, II John, III John, Jude, and Revelation are history.

I wouldn't either.
Reply Quote
4
Martin Q. Blank
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to PacifistAg • 10:14a, 2/16/17

Quote:
Growing up in fundie world
Don't project your past onto others. You can have a debate about it without the [don't care, non-essential]old earth is correct[/don't care, non-essential] code.
Reply Quote
4
Woody2006
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to oldarmy1 • 10:24a, 2/16/17
AG
oldarmy1 said:
Woody2006 said:
oldarmy1 said:
Exactly - you guys don't accept an all powerful creator, so naturally your responses are "I can't even" and "Dude wow".

*NEWSFLASH* God exists. Miracles happened. Don't believe it? Not my problem.

Explain the progression of less and less developed organisms in the fossil record as you go further down the geological strata without invoking some nonsense story about horses and bunnies swimming to the top as trilobites sink to the bottom in the global flood.

You can believe in God without having to suspend belief in reality. I would say the Catholics do it, but then again they do believe in the literal transubstantiation.
The premise that there is a perfect "progression" across the geologic column has been debunked even by many macro-evolution scientist purist. What is the average land speed of a trilobite? Should there have been a reaction to rising water I can guarantee the less developed organisms would have been in last place racing upwards.
No one said anything about perfect, but it's amazing given what you have to believe that not a single advanced animal settled in with the trilobites.

I don't care if you choose to believe in a trickster God and a literal 6-day creation. Just don't pretend the evidence is on your side when it so clearly is not.

I suppose you would tell Dr. Francis Collins (an outspoken evangelical Christian) that you know more about genomics than he does. Have you read The Language Of God?
Reply Quote
7
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.