First Human Cloned - What do you think?

T8H3X11

Spaceman
See, he excluded Moses and David from the sheep herders
He said *slaves/sheep herders* in a despective way,So i want to know the opinion of an *ilustrated* person like him
I said that because somebody said earlier that everybody who wrote a book in the Bible was either a shephard or a slave who knew doodley squat.
 

Preacher

Swabbie
Banned
Originally posted by LeHah
I think he's refering to "The Bible Code"...

...My ass. Everyone knows you need the Super Secret Catholic Decoder Ring to do that kinda stuff with.
--I thought it might've been a reference to that... I agree w/ you 100%: Pure B.S.
--Hah. Good one, LeHah. LOL!...
Originally posted by Napoleon

Ok points, quick one that box, there are 20 recorded men in jeruselim during that general time period who had fathers named joseph and brothers named jesus and who were named james, absolutely no reason to assume that it is yours and not someone elses.

...The part of the bible with different stories is Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. Genesis 1 says humans were the last creations, Genesis 2 says adam was made first then all the other animals were made to keep him company. They are directly in opposition. The common christian fundamentalist tactic is to claimn that the Second creation story is the tale of creation only in the garden of eden, but this is being pulled right from midair best as i can determine, that there is no textural support of all creatures being recreated in eden right after the rest of the world. Just 2 differnet world wide creation stories.

...Another thing all, The first books were NOT writen by Moses, it has been found that Genesis, Exodus, and i think deuteronomy (not sure of the last one) have four unique authors spred around then, like Genesis 1 is of one author and genesis 2 is of another, this is determined by analysing the writing style the diction and syntax
.--Well, I ain't yet heard that particular claim, till you brought it up (musta fallen under the media radar). Can you give me a web address or some such lead where I can look up this claim of yours?...

--You are wrong. I checked back in Genesis. Genesis 2 does not state that the animals were made later. It does seem to state that the plants were made after Adam's creation. However, this seeming conflict with Genesis 1 can be explained by the wording. It states that no plant/tree had yet appeared on the earth. It must be remembered that the Garden of Eden was a specific locale on the earth, and didn't necessarily reflect conditions on the rest of the earth per se. In fact, this is corroborated by the later passage that states that "Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed." Thus, obviously Adam was formed elsewhere or there'd be no need to state that God "placed him" in Eden. So, Adam was formed after the plants/animals, and then God placed him in Eden where the aforementioned life forms already resided. Thus, no actual conflict, as nothing is in "direct opposition", as you suppose. As for the rest of the earth, IIRC that it was essentially "waiting" for life to spread forth onto it from Eden. The creatures weren't "re"-created in Eden, they were there from the get-go.

--No credible sources I have read or come across attribute authorship of the first 5 books of the Bible to anyone other than Moses. Moreover, the Bible itself (along with various passages in those 5 books themselves!) repeatedly attribute all these things to Moses. The only possible conflict I'm aware of is the account of Moses' death/burial (at the tail end of the last of the 5 books, Deuteronomy), which obviously couldn't have been written by Moses, since he was too busy being dead by then. The scholarly opinion of this snippet is that it was written by his successor, Joshua (which makes a great deal of common sense as well, scholarship aside). Again, please provide source citations if you're going to attempt to refute well-established scholarly facts.

Originally posted by Ghost

(Originally posted by T8H3X11)
Most of the Bible was written by some of the best taught people in the land. Genesis and Exodus - Written by Moses who was adopted by Pharoah'd daughter and received the best teachings in Egypt, Most of Psalms written by King David, the four gospels written by successful businessmen, Romans, Corinthians, Ephesias and several others were written by Paul, who was a Roman centurion...The minority of the books were written by slaves/sheep herders...

See, he excluded Moses and David from the sheep herders
He said *slaves/sheep herders* in a despective way,So i want to know the opinion of an *ilustrated* person like him
--Moses was a "Prince of Egypt" first, and then became a shepard after fleeing from Egypt. He did this for 40 years before God called him. So, he most definitely WAS a shepard (a well-educated one, but a shepard nonetheless), so he shouldn't have been excluded. David was the opposite: He started out life as a shepard, and then became King. No reason to exclude him, either.

--BTW, what do you mean by the terms "despective" and "ilustrated"?...

--And T8H3X11?: The four gospels were NOT all written by a businessman (what does that word even MEAN, in an OT Hebrew context?), successful or otherwise. John was a fisherman (if anything, his Dad was the businessman), Luke a physician, Matthew a tax collector, and John Mark (usually referred to as just "Mark") one of the early missionaries of the church. Paul was a Roman citizen, but not a Roman Centurion. He was a Pharisee, and thus was one of the Jewish clerics.
 

steampunk

Spaceman
Originally posted by cff
Now that would be an interesting prove. I could offer a classic that proves that god cannot be almighty in fact it shows that nothing can be almighty, but denial of his existance... Hmmm...
But isn't God by definition omnipotent?
 

t.c.cgi

Vice Admiral
Hey, I got one of those somewhere!

<Looks in old family chest, pulls out decoder ring, and "decodes" Genesis Chapter 1>

Eat... more.... cornflakes? WTF?
 

TC

SubCrid
Originally posted by steampunk
But isn't God by definition omnipotent?
Only if your definition includes onmipotence. I'm not sure if there's an undeniable statement in Christian texts that the Christian god is omnipotent, but the concept of a god doesn't require omnipotence.
 

Preacher

Swabbie
Banned
Originally posted by steampunk
But isn't God by definition omnipotent?
Originally posted by TC
Only if your definition includes onmipotence. I'm not sure if there's an undeniable statement in Christian texts that the Christian god is omnipotent, but the concept of a god doesn't require omnipotence.
Clarification: TC is right in saying that it depends on the definition you're using, which leads me to say:

God, as described in the Jewish and Christian texts (possibly the Koran also; I'm not sure about that one), is indeed omnipotent.

And FYI, TC: Yes, there's plenteous citations in both the OT (Jewish and Christian) and NT (Christian) texts that attribute omnipotence to God. I count no less than 40 from Genesis to halfway thru the book of Job, and I stopped counting at that point. Our common use of the term "almighty" is in fact drawn from these numerous citations.
 

Napoleon

Spaceman
Originally posted by Quarto
Ah, yes... right... and the reason why unusually devastating, unseasonal floods and storms would not be matters of life and death is because...? Besides, the transmission of oral traditions was a matter of life and death anyway.
Anyway, look around the world - even cultures with the most primitive languages have oral traditions. And in many such cultures, language has hardly evolved at all in the past ten thousand years - or even forty thousand years, here in Australia.


He's right. But this is not the case with the theory of evolution. It's quite possible to demonstrate the effects of evolution - but nobody has done it yet. We're still going on faith - scientists show us ancient, fossilised bones, and they say that these are probably related to man. Now, I happen to agree with them, but nonetheless they have no proof of this relationship. It's not genetics, it's faith :).

And yet, you refuse to explain why their claims are ludicrous. Nobody has ever proven that God doesn't exist. Therefore, it is your claim that God could not have created the Earth that is ludicrous.
Ok first off, NO ONE WOULD HAVE KNOWN THEY WERE UNUSUAL FLOODS. thats the point, it was a gradual process of the water levels rising and the glaciers receeding over hundreds if not thousands of years, in no single life span would a difference have occured that was great enough for anyone to really notice. Thus there wouldnt have been said oral tradition, and there was nothing life or death about it.

Evolution is as well documented as amthing, first off fossils alone are a very good clue, many show a clear progression from a very basic creature to several modern animals, showing features either arising or degenerating. SEcondly genetic research has shown definite links between animals based on genetic similarity demonstrating common descent and the branching nature of evolution. Thirdly, we have observed every single claim of evolution at work today, we have observed speciation (back in the 1950s with a form of tree), we have observed traits changing by generation and the adaptation to new environments by animals, in short we have observed every single aspect of evolution as best as can be observed.

I DONT HAVE TO GIVE THEM EVIDENCE AGAINST THEIR CLAIMS, they have to give evidece in favor of it. They are making the positive assertion, that there is a god and that he created the earth and man in this pattern and it is THEM who must give the evidence to support this, evidence that then is open for me and other people who disagree with them to first attempt to discredit, disprove, or in any other way show to be bad, and then for us to contradict with competing evidence showing that the likelyhood of god creating the earth in any way other than that of natural processes is around zero. But for evidence, the sheer amount that i would have to present to be conclusive is staggering. First the big bang and age of the universe/galaxy/sun/earth (this by and large would require pages of argument), second the origin of species followed by their evolution from old forms to new. In another area you have claims of the bible that can be shown to be ludicris, like the global flood being created by 40 days and 40 nights of continuous rain covering every square inch of land on earth and killing everything except those in a tiny boat (necesitated to be 350 ft in length or smaller by the building material of wood) who then somehow magically got transported from Mt. Ararat in Armenia to where they were living before hand (how did those south american animals get to the arc to begin with?). Not to mention the fact that all this happened with the complete wiping out of all life on earth during a period of time when the egyptians were keeping records and building pyramids.


Preacher: Its odd that you didnt hear about that since it was in the exact same article out of the NY times as when they announced that that coffin was found. I recycle so i dont have a copy of the article to scan anymore.

From Genesis 1:20:

And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."

(Just the relevant passage from 2:4)
Genesis 2:4,
And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

says it pretty obvious there.

about the multiple authors, im rather surprised you havent seen all the evidence about this, its 1:23 am, ill look it up tomorrow, and get back to you
 

steampunk

Spaceman
Originally posted by Preacher
--How, then, did it happen?...
Well I don't know. I'm just saying the whole earth was not covered in water such that animals had to jump on a ship. I'm not opposing that there were floods.


-- Lord of the Rings is a ridiculous analogy, because all the books (3?) were written by one guy in his one lifetime.
I don't think it is. Making things fit together seemlessly is what authors do. Well, what most try to do. So it's not the worlds best form of checking accuracy and reliability. Shit happens, people make mistakes. Even those who had a hand in writing the Bible.
 

steampunk

Spaceman
Originally posted by Preacher
Clarification: TC is right in saying that it depends on the definition you're using, which leads me to say:

......counting at that point. Our common use of the term "almighty" is in fact drawn from these numerous citations.
Yes, of course definition matters. That's why I asked.

Well if he is supposed to be omnipotent then we can prove god (the way we think about him now) does not exist. There's a popular proof involving a very heavy rock.
 

TC

SubCrid
I'm assuming you're talking about the omnipotence paradox... The thought that if someone is omnipotent, he must have the power to create something he cannot change, yet this makes him lack the power to change this, and he is, therefore, not omnipotent. The classic example being phrased as the question "Can God make a rock so heavy even He cannot lift it?"

This is an unfair question, as it's asking Him to do a logical impossibility. Something that cannot be done by an omnipotent being is a logical impossibility. Maybe God could go and change the definitions of the words or something crazy like that so it isn't a logical impossibility, but it's like asking someone to make a circular triangle. Such a beast doesn't, and cannot exist by definition of the words.

Oh, unless, of course, God decided that, since He created logic, he didn't want to be bound by it. Then He can just do whatever the hell He wants. In that scenario we're screwed and are even further than most assume from being able to comprehend him, as we don't have even the simplest tools to analyze His existence.
 

Napoleon

Spaceman
Originally posted by Preacher
Clarification: TC is right in saying that it depends on the definition you're using, which leads me to say:

God, as described in the Jewish and Christian texts (possibly the Koran also; I'm not sure about that one), is indeed omnipotent.

to note the god of the koran is the same god as the christian and jewish god, and if you pay attention to the way islam is laid out, it comes from the last prophet, with JC as the previous one and then all the jewish prophets, indicating that the koran is a text which is meant to be the equivalent of the NT to the OT in relation to both documents, ie that which isnt directly contradicted in the new text is true. Why im saying this is just because unless the koran directly said that Allah wasnt omnipotent then it would have the same position as Christianity and Judeaism
 

cff

Kilk'dymga'qith laq Ik'vikvi
Originally posted by Preacher
And although the "victims" in the passages above were nonbelievers, these 'niceties' (as you called them) weren't visited upon them because of their unbelief.
Arguable. It was done/would be done because of their sins. Sins in christian eyes.

Originally posted by Preacher

Doesn't 'nullify' it; rather, it constitutes a hole, through which leaks the credibility of a theory.
Its a hole, sure. But it doesn't take away any credibility IMHO. Its not like this kind of thing can be found easily. Considering how short archeology is done its not out of time...

Originally posted by Preacher

Sure, it happens. But last time I was in a morgue, I distinctly recall it as having an air supply, unlike a sealed cave. As such, even if Lazarus was alive when they put him in, he wouldn't have stayed that way for long - certainly not 4 days...
As I recall the Romans didn't exactly know how to seal something airtight. Also why would they?
Additionally when in coma you consume very few air. Also I refer you to people buried under crushed houses...

Originally posted by Preacher

Faith isn't logic. Yet, you can't see love. You can't prove trust. You can't categorize joy. These things all defy scientific "proof", yet we know they exist,
Arguable. You can proof these things as biochemical processes. You know like that love drugs "pheromones" that make women wild (or are at least supposed to).

Originally posted by LeHah
I think he's refering to "The Bible Code", in which people put the Bible through a computer and got all sorts of nonsense bullshit and thought it was some secret message.
When I talked about bible code that was exactly what I was thinking about. I don't think the others did however.

Originally posted by steampunk
But isn't God by definition omnipotent?
Well by simple logic "omnipotence" is a contradiction in itself. It cannot exist.

Originally posted by TC
"Can God make a rock so heavy even He cannot lift it?"
This is an unfair question, as it's asking Him to do a logical impossibility.
it's like asking someone to make a circular triangle.
IMHO the triangle isn't a valid counterargument. That is like you say make me a red looking green. To extend this to omnipotence would more be like can "god make himself non omnipotent". You want a fact to be changed.
OTOH the logic impossibility is a differnent thing. You don't change the label "omnipotence" you just challenge it...
PS: A circular triangle? Why not? Make a triangle and then bend it in the 3rd dimension...
 

TC

SubCrid
Originally posted by cff
To extend this to omnipotence would more be like can "god make himself non omnipotent".
That's exactly what the argument asks, though. It asks God to make himself non-omnipotent by creating something he cannot, in fact, wield power over.
 

t.c.cgi

Vice Admiral
Originally posted by Napoleon
I DONT HAVE TO GIVE THEM EVIDENCE AGAINST THEIR CLAIMS, they have to give evidece in favor of it. They are making the positive assertion, that there is a god and that he created the earth and man in this pattern and it is THEM who must give the evidence to support this, evidence that then is open for me and other people who disagree with them to first attempt to discredit, disprove, or in any other way show to be bad, and then for us to contradict with competing evidence showing that the likelyhood of god creating the earth in any way other than that of natural processes is around zero.
In a previous post you claimed you did your research and knew plenty well. How can you know so much, and yet not listen/read/comprehend anything others say? These three skills, which you are realy starting to show extreme lack of, are required for the learning process. I also must assume you ignored my post telling you where to find such evidence proving Creationism. I can see further arguement with you will be utterly pointless. You are as set in your views as an old man who lived on a farm his whole life, and argueing with someone like that is a waste of time. I'll just make sure to skip over your posts from now on, since you obviously do that to everyone else.
 

Quarto

Unknown Enemy
Originally posted by Napoleon
Ok first off, NO ONE WOULD HAVE KNOWN THEY WERE UNUSUAL FLOODS.
A good point - except that I already responded to it two posts ago. We are certainly noticing the unusual floods and weather patterns right now, even though the changes are much smaller than what went on then, and even though modern humans generally couldn't care less about the weather. To us, it's an inconvenience at most. To them, even the slightest change would have necessited lifestyle changes.

I DONT HAVE TO GIVE THEM EVIDENCE AGAINST THEIR CLAIMS, they have to give evidece in favor of it.
You seem to have ignored what I originally said - as a theory, creationism is flawless. Once you assume that God exists, there is no way the theory can be proven wrong, because an omnipotent God can be used to explain any inconsistency.

I'm not saying that they're right (I don't think they are). What I am saying is that you can't prove them wrong - you can only believe they're wrong. Which is fine, as long as you don't claim that you've proven them wrong.
 

Preacher

Swabbie
Banned
Originally posted by Napoleon

...And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. says it pretty obvious there.

...Preacher: Its odd that you didnt hear about that since it was in the exact same article out of the NY times as when they announced that that coffin was found. I recycle so i dont have a copy of the article to scan anymore.

...to note the god of the koran is the same god as the christian and jewish god, and if you pay attention to the way islam is laid out, it comes from the last prophet, with JC as the previous one and then all the jewish prophets, indicating that the koran is a text which is meant to be the equivalent of the NT to the OT in relation to both documents, ie that which isnt directly contradicted in the new text is true. Why im saying this is just because unless the koran directly said that Allah wasnt omnipotent then it would have the same position as Christianity and Judeaism
--Not so obvious as thou thinketh, guy; Again, check the wording: The conjoining phrase above is "AND out of the ground", not "THEN out of the ground". The word 'then' would indicate a sequential narrative; as it stands, the usage of the word 'and' simply indicates that at some point after all the players were on the field (man and the beasts), God had Adam name 'em all, etc..

--I don't get the NY Times. I get my local Sunday paper, watch the (network) evening news, and read various magazine articles as I come across them. I didn't happen to come across that article, though, and it seems that the popular press (network news, and newspapers in general) woulda picked up on that when this discovery was the latest hot story (in that the press seems fairly eager to try and debunk biblical claims whenever they get the chance) ...

--At the risk of nitpicking, Allah is NOT the same God as that of the Bible, though I understand that, in the sense that you prolly meant it, your statement is an accurate generality. Certainly the Koran is the "equivalent" of the Bible in that its adherents reverence it in the same way/to the same degree, but that's where the equivalency ends.
Originally posted by steampunk

...I don't think it is. Making things fit together seemlessly is what authors do. Well, what most try to do. So it's not the worlds best form of checking accuracy and reliability. Shit happens, people make mistakes. Even those who had a hand in writing the Bible.

...Well if he is supposed to be omnipotent then we can prove god (the way we think about him now) does not exist. There's a popular proof involving a very heavy rock.
--You've missed the boat, dude: One guy can quite easily make his own work be consistent with his own work - in fact, if he didn't, he'd be an idiot, wouldn't he?...THAT, mi amigo, is what authors do (assuming they write more than one piece on the same subject). Here you're dealing with (as I pointed out at first) 40+ writers, scattered throughout the Middle East, over a 1600+ year timeframe, writing in different languages and coming from different cultures, and only some of them had access to one another's works. Given that scenario, it is no less than amazing that it all fits together so seamlessly, and indeed, there is no other comparable feat in the entire history of human literature, AFAIK.

--The "rock" example is an old joke, not a "popular proof"; I'm surprised that you'd use it in a discussion such as this. It don't 'prove' squat, except that humans are capable of making fun of just about anything (which of course, we already knew). I agree w/ TC that omnipotence making itself non-omnipotent is farcical; a logical impossibility (not to mention just plain ridiculous).
Originally posted by cff

...Arguable. You can proof these things as biochemical processes. You know like that love drugs "pheromones" that make women wild (or are at least supposed to).

...As I recall the Romans didn't exactly know how to seal something airtight. Also why would they?
Additionally when in coma you consume very few air. Also I refer you to people buried under crushed houses...

...Arguable. It was done/would be done because of their sins. Sins in christian eyes.
--Not so. It is known that various biochemical changes accompany the presence of certain emotional states, yes. However, the research thus far done on this phenomena is far from complete. Fact is, without the subject telling the researcher what they are feeling at that moment, same has no way of distinguishing between closely related emotions, such as whether the subject is feeling, say, love versus joy. The best that can be done is to say the physiologic changes present indicate that the subject might now be feeling a, b, or c, without definitively being able to narrow it down any futher than that. Moreover, the other example I use - trust, is not really an emotion per se, so it wouldn't likely even be "traceable" by this method. And yet, is it something we all know as being "real" by experience.

--It wasn't the Romans, it was the Jews in Palestine at the time. "Why would they?" is answered by the fact that they were known to be quite fastidious about their burial customs, since same were closely related to their religion, after all. They took great pains to be sure that animals couldn't get at the bodies, that decomposition was minimized/delayed by usage of various spices and chemicals, etc.. People buried in rubble isn't a valid comparison, though, because said rubble was not the result of a deliberate fastidiously planned and executed custom, but rather the random result of a hurricane, terrorist bombing, etc..

--You are wrong. Read the post again: This prophecy was "BC" (before Christ), and had nothing to do with Christian morality; it was the Babylonians who had "sinned" against God's people - Jews, not Christians - by brutalizing them during/after the deportation to Babylon. And I emphasize again that this was not an "order" to the Jews to do this against their tormenters, it was the judgment of God directly upon said nation: The near-term fulfillment of the prophecy was executed by the Medo-Persians when they conquered the Babylonians; The End Times "fulfiller" has yet to be seen, but there is no direct indication in Scripture that it will be the Jews (or Christians) either. More likely it will be the "other nations", or perhaps the "heavenly armies" themselves.
 

Napoleon

Spaceman
Originally posted by Quarto
A good point - except that I already responded to it two posts ago. We are certainly noticing the unusual floods and weather patterns right now, even though the changes are much smaller than what went on then, and even though modern humans generally couldn't care less about the weather. To us, it's an inconvenience at most. To them, even the slightest change would have necessited lifestyle changes.


You seem to have ignored what I originally said - as a theory, creationism is flawless. Once you assume that God exists, there is no way the theory can be proven wrong, because an omnipotent God can be used to explain any inconsistency.

I'm not saying that they're right (I don't think they are). What I am saying is that you can't prove them wrong - you can only believe they're wrong. Which is fine, as long as you don't claim that you've proven them wrong.
Ok, to begin, you did not because you are talking about a different time scale, we notice differences that occured over a decade, they would NEVER notice differences that occured over tens and hundreds of LIFETIMES. Without writing to record it what would they say, have an oral tradition saying that the water rose 5 meters every thousand years? No of course not.

Creationism is NOT a theory, a theory in a scientfic sense is a hypothesis that has been demonstrated through careful collection of facts and experimentation to be capable of making accurate predictions about the world Creationism cannot make predictions about what is to come, it has only one a priori contention, and no empirical evidence. (T.c.cgi, I have researched this area extensively i have heard almost every single creationist argument, and seen exactly why it fails to be a good one. Dont just give random links, present the evidence here examine and interpret it, actually show some thought and ill respond to each point and show why they are wrong, I also have not refused to learn from others, its simply that no one has said anything worth learning since all the creationist mumbojumbo ive heard before, and seen why it is silly) Creationism has no facts, no experimentation, no observed phenomena to back it up, all the "evidence" given by creationists tends to attempt to discredit evolution, rather than support creationism. Even then it always fails and is shown to be wrong. the world is still waiting for proper evidence to be given by the biblical literalists. Also creationism didnt follow the right proceedure, it began with its assertion "this is what happened" and then only works to find evidence to support itself. Evolutionary theories all begin as an assertion, to be demonstrated or not, then evidence is collected and if it doesnt fit with the hypothesis, the hypothesis is thrown out and a new one is created to fit the evidence which then must be tested once again, etc. This continues until we know everything about everything, ie never. but we get closer with every revision, and that is the point to get as accurate a view of life as possible,
 

Quarto

Unknown Enemy
Originally posted by Napoleon
Ok, to begin, you did not because you are talking about a different time scale, we notice differences that occured over a decade, they would NEVER notice differences that occured over tens and hundreds of LIFETIMES. Without writing to record it what would they say, have an oral tradition saying that the water rose 5 meters every thousand years? No of course not.
The fact that what's happening now has only lasted a decade (so far) doesn't mean that the end of the Ice Age would have been gentler. None of us were there, of course, so none of us can claim to know what it was like. However, it seems sensible to assume that the floods mentioned in so many cultures around the world aren't just the result of all these unrelated people suddenly coming up with the same story. Therefore, clearly, the floods did happen, and clearly, they were recorded in oral tradition.

Creationism is NOT a theory, a theory in a scientfic sense is a hypothesis that has been demonstrated through careful collection of facts and experimentation to be capable of making accurate predictions about the world.
Eh, I'm too lazy to bother with this. Think what you want, but you'd better not forget my original point, which was really quite simple - insult religions, and I'll kick your ass :).
 

Meson

Swabbie
Banned
Originally posted by Preacher
[character-limit thing again...]


--I also was raised a Catholic, but what TWO different creation stories are you referrin' to?... Unless you can cite the passages referred to and prove them, your argument that it shouldn't be accepted (presumably because the two stories conflict at some point?...) falls flat.
My paster in college told me of these things.

The two creations:
The first one is the one every one knows. The second is wirtten right after the firsts and it says man was created first, and that he helped God create the world.

The code I am talking about is not the Bible Code, but how they used numbers to stand in for words. SInce they used numerals, it was easty to disguise things,. For example, the Roman Emporer Nero is the 666 beast mentioned in Revaltions. We know this because NRO, the Greek spelling, is the numeral for 666. There are tons more, but I don't have time for a full discussion on this, but this is what I am talking about.
 

Preacher

Swabbie
Banned
Originally posted by Meson
My paster in college told me of these things.

The two creations:
The first one is the one every one knows. The second is wirtten right after the firsts and it says man was created first, and that he helped God create the world.

...Since they used numerals, it was easty to disguise things,. For example, the Roman Emporer Nero is the 666 beast mentioned in Revaltions. We know this because ...
1) Read my post below for solution to the "two different" creation stories...

2) Nero can't have been the beast in Revelation (not that he was a particularly nice guy, mind you...), as the whole scenario was about End-times events. If he was that guy, there'd need to have been an Antichrist and a False Prophet around at the same time, (both being in cahoots with him as well), among other things. I'm not saying his Greek name/number didn't come out to 666, I'm just saying that it wasn't that particular 666 guy... If your pastor asserted that Nero was THE Beast, he was wrong. I say this not on my own authority, but based on the Revelation account itself: rez ipsa loquitor...
 
Top