Why Creation Is The Only Logical Explanation...

a reply to: peter vlar

I believe Darwin had a degree in theology even. But no evolution is a lie of the devil.

originally posted by: JanAmosComenius
a reply to: Akragon

Thank you wholeheartedly.

And bye bye in this thread - I have no more energy to explain elementary school physics. I tried and failed.

You have to go way earlier than elementary school for this thread. This goes back to childhood brainwashing to the extreme. I can't believe this thing got resurrected again. Normal for the OP, I guess, he shows up once every few months to preach his sermon and rehash the same ol' arguments over and over again. I enjoyed your posts, though. Thanks.

originally posted by: Americanpatriot123
Evolition and the big bang is a false lie spread by the atheists and socilaists..

Ita clear the World is 6 thousands years old, the bible is CLEAR on that.

All this supposed "evidence" of evolution and a longer earth is fake and placed by communists and/or the devil to lead us astray!

I had to star this one. Classic. Thanks for the laugh!

originally posted by: Joecanada11
a reply to: edmc^2

Biblical facts?

In the first book of genesis it states that God created
Light and dark
Sky
Seas, dry land, plants
Stars, the sun and the moon
Sea creatures and flying creatures
Land animals and then humans

The problem with this is that we know that plants could not have been created before the Sun. Surely if genesis were truly the work of god it would have gotten the order correct. I've said it before and I will say it again. The bible is a great book of myths but not facts.

I think you got the order wrong.

Gen 1 doesn't state that God created 'Light and dark'.

It merely states that God made or let - (haya' - not bara' (Gen1:1)) "light " to appear on the face of the watery deep.

To quote:

[Gen 1:1-3 ESV] 1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. 3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.

In other words - God made o let "light" to appear on the "face" of the formless earth covered with watery darkness.

Hence, light already existed outside of the earth.

To put it in a perspective terms - from the observer's standpoint (the writer), light started to appear on the formless watery earth.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: JanAmosComenius
a reply to: Akragon

Thank you wholeheartedly.

And bye bye in this thread - I have no more energy to explain elementary school physics. I tried and failed.

You have to go way earlier than elementary school for this thread. This goes back to childhood brainwashing to the extreme. I can't believe this thing got resurrected again. Normal for the OP, I guess, he shows up once every few months to preach his sermon and rehash the same ol' arguments over and over again. I enjoyed your posts, though. Thanks.

whatup barcs?

a reply to: edmc^2

If you actually read what I wrote. I was talking of the creation of the earth in which somehow God created the plants of the earth before the sun and the moon. Since we know it's the Sun which provides the light for the plants that is wrong. It's only one of many things which ha e been proven faulty in the bible.

originally posted by: Joecanada11
a reply to: edmc^2

If you actually read what I wrote. I was talking of the creation of the earth in which somehow God created the plants of the earth before the sun and the moon. Since we know it's the Sun which provides the light for the plants that is wrong. It's only one of many things which ha e been proven faulty in the bible.

Did you actually studied the bible in textual context to be able to conclude that the Bible is false?

For example what's the difference between the hebrew word haya (asa) and bara?

judging from what you said, i think not.

a reply to: edmc^2

Oh right anybody who disagrees with the bible is taking it out of context. That's a classic joke for apologists to keep holding on to. Let's see. No evidence of Sodom and Gomorrah, no evidence of the exodus, no evidence of the censuses spoken of in the bible. God himself was kept inside a little box inside of a tent. Talking donkeys. Jacob wrestled with an invisible God until he won. Jonah sitting inside of a fish for three days. 500,000 soldiers dying in combat in one day ( never happened with modern weapons) yet people still believe it. Where is the common sense ? Oh yeah it was replaced by faith and the "holy spirit"

originally posted by: Joecanada11
a reply to: edmc^2

Oh right anybody who disagrees with the bible is taking it out of context. That's a classic joke for apologists to keep holding on to. Let's see. No evidence of Sodom and Gomorrah, no evidence of the exodus, no evidence of the censuses spoken of in the bible. God himself was kept inside a little box inside of a tent. Talking donkeys. Jacob wrestled with an invisible God until he won. Jonah sitting inside of a fish for three days. 500,000 soldiers dying in combat in one day ( never happened with modern weapons) yet people still believe it. Where is the common sense ? Oh yeah it was replaced by faith and the "holy spirit"

Now you're jumping all over the place. Stick to what you said and explain how you arrived at the conclusion that the Bible was false in Gen 1.

What's the difference between the Hebrew words haya' and bara?

Simple question.

a reply to: edmc^2

One means create and one means was. And all those things are reasons I have concluded the bible is false. It's not rocket science. There's all kinds of proof of the errancy of the bible. If most of it were to be taken as metaphor and allegory then that would make sense.

a reply to: edmc^2

Not at all.

The alternative is to forget the entire stupid argument, and focus instead on doing the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people.

The rest is pigsqueal zooting.

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: JanAmosComenius
a reply to: Akragon

Thank you wholeheartedly.

And bye bye in this thread - I have no more energy to explain elementary school physics. I tried and failed.

You have to go way earlier than elementary school for this thread. This goes back to childhood brainwashing to the extreme. I can't believe this thing got resurrected again. Normal for the OP, I guess, he shows up once every few months to preach his sermon and rehash the same ol' arguments over and over again. I enjoyed your posts, though. Thanks.

whatup barcs?

Seen any good miracles lately?

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: JanAmosComenius
a reply to: Akragon

Thank you wholeheartedly.

And bye bye in this thread - I have no more energy to explain elementary school physics. I tried and failed.

You have to go way earlier than elementary school for this thread. This goes back to childhood brainwashing to the extreme. I can't believe this thing got resurrected again. Normal for the OP, I guess, he shows up once every few months to preach his sermon and rehash the same ol' arguments over and over again. I enjoyed your posts, though. Thanks.

whatup barcs?

Seen any good miracles lately?

yup, you're still here.

originally posted by: Joecanada11
a reply to: edmc^2

One means create and one means was. And all those things are reasons I have concluded the bible is false. It's not rocket science. There's all kinds of proof of the errancy of the bible. If most of it were to be taken as metaphor and allegory then that would make sense.

Great. One means "create" and the other means "was" or was already there and made to appear. In other words, when reading the Bible, one must also consider the original words used, because it's part of the key to understanding what's being said.

Hence, when Moses wrote or penned Genesis, he used exact words to described exactly what he saw, experience and what to write. Unfortunately, when translating the original words into different languages, like English, the real or exact meaning gets lost in the translation. Ergo, haya' vs. bara.

So in Gen 1:1 the "heavens" (with all its heavenly bodies - moon/sun/stars) and the earth mean that they were already created (bara) before they were made (haya) to appear on earth. That is, if you're an observer here on earth, the sun/moon/ stars became visible through the watery deep enveloping the earth. No contradiction.

As for the errancy you talked about. Like I said - key is to consider the original words used by the writers, NOT the words used by the translators.

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Joecanada11
a reply to: edmc^2

One means create and one means was. And all those things are reasons I have concluded the bible is false. It's not rocket science. There's all kinds of proof of the errancy of the bible. If most of it were to be taken as metaphor and allegory then that would make sense.

Great. One means "create" and the other means "was" or was already there and made to appear. In other words, when reading the Bible, one must also consider the original words used, because it's part of the key to understanding what's being said.

Hence, when Moses wrote or penned Genesis, he used exact words to described exactly what he saw, experience and what to write. Unfortunately, when translating the original words into different languages, like English, the real or exact meaning gets lost in the translation. Ergo, haya' vs. bara.

So in Gen 1:1 the "heavens" (with all its heavenly bodies - moon/sun/stars) and the earth mean that they were already created (bara) before they were made (haya) to appear on earth. That is, if you're an observer here on earth, the sun/moon/ stars became visible through the watery deep enveloping the earth. No contradiction.

As for the errancy you talked about. Like I said - key is to consider the original words used by the writers, NOT the words used by the translators.

whats your theory of creation again? exactly how did the cosmos come to be? and where did this cosmic architect come from?

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: JanAmosComenius
a reply to: Akragon

Thank you wholeheartedly.

And bye bye in this thread - I have no more energy to explain elementary school physics. I tried and failed.

You have to go way earlier than elementary school for this thread. This goes back to childhood brainwashing to the extreme. I can't believe this thing got resurrected again. Normal for the OP, I guess, he shows up once every few months to preach his sermon and rehash the same ol' arguments over and over again. I enjoyed your posts, though. Thanks.

whatup barcs?

Seen any good miracles lately?

its a miracle this thread is still alive.

but i wouldnt call that a good miracle.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: JanAmosComenius
a reply to: Akragon

Thank you wholeheartedly.

And bye bye in this thread - I have no more energy to explain elementary school physics. I tried and failed.

You have to go way earlier than elementary school for this thread. This goes back to childhood brainwashing to the extreme. I can't believe this thing got resurrected again. Normal for the OP, I guess, he shows up once every few months to preach his sermon and rehash the same ol' arguments over and over again. I enjoyed your posts, though. Thanks.

whatup barcs?

Seen any good miracles lately?

its a miracle this thread is still alive.

but i wouldnt call that a good miracle.

hahahaha...haven't you heard of resurrection?

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Joecanada11
a reply to: edmc^2

One means create and one means was. And all those things are reasons I have concluded the bible is false. It's not rocket science. There's all kinds of proof of the errancy of the bible. If most of it were to be taken as metaphor and allegory then that would make sense.

Great. One means "create" and the other means "was" or was already there and made to appear. In other words, when reading the Bible, one must also consider the original words used, because it's part of the key to understanding what's being said.

Hence, when Moses wrote or penned Genesis, he used exact words to described exactly what he saw, experience and what to write. Unfortunately, when translating the original words into different languages, like English, the real or exact meaning gets lost in the translation. Ergo, haya' vs. bara.

So in Gen 1:1 the "heavens" (with all its heavenly bodies - moon/sun/stars) and the earth mean that they were already created (bara) before they were made (haya) to appear on earth. That is, if you're an observer here on earth, the sun/moon/ stars became visible through the watery deep enveloping the earth. No contradiction.

As for the errancy you talked about. Like I said - key is to consider the original words used by the writers, NOT the words used by the translators.

whats your theory of creation again? exactly how did the cosmos come to be? and where did this cosmic architect come from?

If you understand the concept of INFINITY, then you will understand how the cosmos came to be.

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Joecanada11
a reply to: edmc^2

One means create and one means was. And all those things are reasons I have concluded the bible is false. It's not rocket science. There's all kinds of proof of the errancy of the bible. If most of it were to be taken as metaphor and allegory then that would make sense.

Great. One means "create" and the other means "was" or was already there and made to appear. In other words, when reading the Bible, one must also consider the original words used, because it's part of the key to understanding what's being said.

Hence, when Moses wrote or penned Genesis, he used exact words to described exactly what he saw, experience and what to write. Unfortunately, when translating the original words into different languages, like English, the real or exact meaning gets lost in the translation. Ergo, haya' vs. bara.

So in Gen 1:1 the "heavens" (with all its heavenly bodies - moon/sun/stars) and the earth mean that they were already created (bara) before they were made (haya) to appear on earth. That is, if you're an observer here on earth, the sun/moon/ stars became visible through the watery deep enveloping the earth. No contradiction.

As for the errancy you talked about. Like I said - key is to consider the original words used by the writers, NOT the words used by the translators.

whats your theory of creation again? exactly how did the cosmos come to be? and where did this cosmic architect come from?

If you understand the concept of INFINITY, then you will understand how the cosmos came to be.

your choice of phrasing is fitting, as infinity is literally just a concept at this point. no one can point to infinity. no one can pull out a piece of paper and say "this is what infinity looks like". we cant even be sure the universe or even time is infinite at this point.

in other words, i asked for a theory, you gave me a hypothetical logic loop, a cause that is its own effect. is that all you have?

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: JanAmosComenius
a reply to: Akragon

Thank you wholeheartedly.

And bye bye in this thread - I have no more energy to explain elementary school physics. I tried and failed.

You have to go way earlier than elementary school for this thread. This goes back to childhood brainwashing to the extreme. I can't believe this thing got resurrected again. Normal for the OP, I guess, he shows up once every few months to preach his sermon and rehash the same ol' arguments over and over again. I enjoyed your posts, though. Thanks.

whatup barcs?

Seen any good miracles lately?

its a miracle this thread is still alive.

but i wouldnt call that a good miracle.

hahahaha...haven't you heard of resurrection?

nah, just stuff that did an alright job of pretending to be dead. like possums, racism and creationism vs evolution threads on ATS.