Originally posted by mattison0922
Originally posted by Rren
*mattison0922* is a bully though and I hear he's also a vegetarian...
Man... do they not have a vegetarians in your neck of the woods?![]()
I'm pretty sure there's no such thing. Like there's no such place as Iowa. People make these things up. There's no support for your illness, nor for this "Iowa" place in my Bible therefore they do not exist.
Originally posted by freeyourmind
The Earth is not the center of the universe considering it is expanding in all directions at an incredible rate at all times from its center.
It is not expanding from it's "center" in the Big Bang model. Expansion is happening everywhere no matter/gravity is present ie, every galaxy is moving away from every other galaxy [that they are not gravitationally bound too.] No center. In a static [infinite/no expansion] model it looks like mattison just posted evidence for Earth as the center[ish].
When you say Old Earth you mean to corrulate the idea of a 4.6billion year Earth and 14Billion year Universe with the first seven days right.
You keep missing the point. We are in 'day' 7 right now. It will be 'day' 7 tomorrow just as it was 'day' 7 two thousand years ago. We [OECers, mattison is not a creationist] are not claiming the Bible says that the Earth is 14.6 billion years old, just that it says it's old. See? I'm just saying that the Bible does not claim the earth is 1)young, 2)created in six literal days or 3)flat and; there's no evidence to support that the people who authored Scripture nor their peers believed any of that either. That's why I asked for sources; context. I didn't learn that in preschool. I'm no expert of the complete history of the scientific world-view either that's why I asked for sources re: 'all of humanity believed that when the Bible was written.' My understanding of the scholary position is, that's false.
You have issues with how to interpret Scripture (snakes, miracles, Faith, etc..) which alot of people have, myself included. You have read the Bible, yes? Are these issues with science what you discovered while reading it or; did you hear other people's issues and decide to get those answered before reading it? I get the impression (perhaps just my failure to 'read' people properly online, who could) that most online critics do/did the latter.
I think you were/are to hasty to throw out all of Scripture based on any creationist interpretation, including my own. Here's a page from a theistic evolutionist for you to consider. How I understand Genesis: Argues that it's not scientific principals Genesis teaches but instead:
Stannard identifies a few core theological points made by the Genesis authors:
There is a God
There is a single all powerful God.
Man is formed in the 'image' of God
God takes a personal interest in Man's well-being.
Creation is seen to be good.
We are destined to fail to live up to our intended role.
We are fundamentally alienated from God
It's a short read and worth it in my opinion. A strict literal interpretation fails on many levels, science being only one. You seem to agree, but don't and without source/context I'm not sure what to say.
I'm not an expert on just about anything, don't think I'm close-minded either. But I have to understand what you're talking about and why you believe what you do. It really seems like a hodge-podge of all things critical... *shrug*
Regards,
-Beavis
(edit)can't spell, type or construct a proper sentence. BB code? Forget about it.
[edit on 6-8-2006 by Rren]
[edit on 6-8-2006 by Rren]

