Originally posted by spy66

Is it right to say that God created everything in six days!

only if you believe the impossable

When God also say that a day is like a 1000 years,and a 1000 years is like a day.
You can grow one heck of a garden in a 1000 years

that still puts you off by a factor of billions

if you compare the time scale to taking a walk your saying its reasonable to believe san franciso is only 27 yards from new york city ...... all the evidence goes agaiunst this conclusion too including 30 yard tape measures

And remember we can destroy everything on this planet in less then a day.

no we cant we can make it unlivable for us and many complex organsims but there is bacteria that can and will survive

and it wouldnt even effect the life at the bottom of the ocean around black smokers and brine pools

Then imagine the power that God has.

none unless he cares to prove it was him

other wise he has only as much power as i decide to give him and persoanlly i think an angry unicorm with a magic horn trumps a beardy old guy any day so shall we start the church of the magic unicorn and begin to pray?

false reasoning gives false answers

the power to imagine somthing doesnt make it real, and using this line of thinking to try and prove it is even more absurd

even a childs reasoning of santa has more basis of proof then this

[edit on 29/11/08 by noobfun]

Originally posted by nj2day
We, as feeble humans are not allowed to pray directly to the magic unicorn... instead we must ask our priests to pray to him for us...

However, all this will someday change when Pegasus comes to earth and dies for our sins...

and dont beleive the lies of other religeons they were set there to betray you from the one true bieng, placed there to confound and confuse your true faith by the evil one saddle of the darkness corrupter of all that is the unicorns good and holy work

[edit on 29/11/08 by noobfun]

Originally posted by undo


the word for void is actually better translated from the hebrew as "chaos." the planet was not created in a chaotic state (says this elsewhere in a later book of the old testament). so what it is describing is 1) the original creation of the planet, 2) a major cataclysm that left the planet in chaos, 3) the aftermath of a cataclysm, and the re-terraforming of the planet.

only nothing agrees with this no single piece of evidence

the fact the matter is here for the planet to form requires stars, through nuclear fission the force electrons and neutrons to bond creating elements(see . the periodic table)

your usual typical big yellow stars can fuse electrons to hydrogen to form any element up to iron, nd they spiut them out throughout thier lifetime and release it all at once when it goes nova and explodes

when a star becomes a red dwarf its fierce enough to fuse them from helium all the way through the rest of the table and probabily make a few we havnt found yet as well

so these elements bump into each other in space and start to bond(a totally observable natural process) to form molecules which bond again so on and so now we have large slabes of molecular chains(meteors asteroids comets floating around) they need somthing to help them get bigger, thier own gravity will do this

but with the help of a star to draw them in to a more confined space they are able to really get huge and form planets

the gravity puling them together casues massive friction the rocks begin to melt together and the heavier elements(metals) are pulled towards the center

so the further you go from the core the lighter the elements should self arrange

when we look at our planet we find exactly that the bulk of the heavier elements are found in the core and get lighter as you draw outwards

there is no first forming second forming just forming

and you need steps 4 and 6 to make step 1 and 2 work

so it is wrong

the dry land was there, it was just covered in water -- the waters receeded and the dry land appeared.

if it was covered by water it wasnt dry land then was it .....

and the rocks were still forming when it was still to hot for water molecules to be liquid

so nope, and becasue water when it returns to a liquid state all gravitate towards the lowest points the earth was probvabily never entirely covered in water there was always land

you could say the land was covered in steam but thats simply trying to make the texts fit the reality, and if an argument cant stand on its own merits its a poor one

the text doesn't translate well into english

they fare even worse when translated into science

its a list of what people saw around them and they gave an order to thier creation and a story to explain it, nothing more

its a great story dont get me wrong but it is just a story

[edit on 29/11/08 by noobfun]

[edit on 29/11/08 by noobfun]

[edit on 29/11/08 by noobfun]

Originally posted by undo
i actually believe we (homo sapiens) aren't from this planet, to begin with, and there was another race here before we were brought here. but that's another topic. so yeah, i believe there's a huge gap in the opening passages of Genesis and that it was the churches that misinterpreted it, not the fault of the text itself (although the english translation is wobbly!).

very wobbly and in the wrong order

but you still didnt expalin where the creator came from

and beleif in aliens did it is still a form of religeon, it is belief without evidence and often inspite of the evidence

[edit on 29/11/08 by noobfun]