[_ Old Earth _] A Forum given too much Merit!

[ThinkerMan]

Necromancy:

Posting to a thread that has been dead for a while (usually over a week).

 

[Blue-Lightning]

(speaking with a Minnesotan accent) Oh I got ya' you crazy bunch of kidders.

Where I come from forum necromancy might also be called a bit of spamming you know.

Later now,

BL

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

since the last post before eyeliner's was in july, that's a bit over a week. What the three of us have been doing, that is useless banter that has nothing to do with the topic, is spamming. I suggest a lock.
Belaying that:
postcount++

 

[rmills]

It's funny that millions of scientists accept something that doesn't even have anything remotely resembling evidence. If those silly scientists are all on board for something as stupid as evolution, I don't think we can trust them in any other field either.

And you're wrong about what the Bible says about the shape of the earth. You can possibly read it as saying the Earth is round, but it also clearly says the Earth is flat. So a Biblical Earth is shaped like a plate, not the squished sphere we actually live on.

First, "the ends of the earth" spoken of in scripture could mean the polar rotation points on which it spins. I have never read "the earth is flat" in the Bible.

Second, I would like to know who the millions of scientists are. I do know of tens of thousands of scientists that believe that a creation is designed for a purpose, and I know of tens of thousands of scientists that agree that the universe had a beginning, and I do know of tens of thousands of scientists that agree that half of what is written in our High School text books is false and outright lies, including the famous pictures of identical fetuses between 8 different species of animals that evolution still promotes as gospel truth in almost every text book out in circulation today. BTW, debunked in the 1800’s and still a major source for evolutionary arguments.

 

[keebs]

Really? Tens of thousands? Please, expand. What are your sources?

 

[keebs]

But, as for your question, I do not know if there are millions of evolutionary biologists, but I do know that only around 7% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences believe in a personal God like the one you've described, and estimates have shown that a little less that 98% of people with a Ph.D. in some area of biology are pro-evolutionists.

 

[cubedbee]

It's funny that millions of scientists accept something that doesn't even have anything remotely resembling evidence. If those silly scientists are all on board for something as stupid as evolution, I don't think we can trust them in any other field either.

And you're wrong about what the Bible says about the shape of the earth. You can possibly read it as saying the Earth is round, but it also clearly says the Earth is flat. So a Biblical Earth is shaped like a plate, not the squished sphere we actually live on.

First, "the ends of the earth" spoken of in scripture could mean the polar rotation points on which it spins. I have never read "the earth is flat" in the Bible.

I'm not using "the ends of the earth" as my evidence. Daniel has a dream in which there is a tree that is tall enough to be seen by the whole world. Satan took Jesus on a mountaintop and showed him the whole world. On the spherical planet we live on, it is impossible for the whole planet to be viewed from one point---no matter how high above the ground you are. On a flat Earth, it is very possible for the entire planet to be viewed from one ponit high off the ground. The Bible desribes the Earth as flat, and it is wrong.

 

[Blue-Lightning]

Daniel has a dream in which there is a tree that is tall enough to be seen by the whole world. Satan took Jesus on a mountaintop and showed him the whole world. On the spherical planet we live on, it is impossible for the whole planet to be viewed from one point---no matter how high above the ground you are. On a flat Earth, it is very possible for the entire planet to be viewed from one ponit high off the ground. The Bible desribes the Earth as flat, and it is wrong.

I vaguely recall Daniel's dream so I would have to go back and look at that, but let's take a look at Jesus on the mountaintop for a moment. As I recall, Jesus is taken in the wilderness to a mountain where Satan tempts Him by showing Him the whole world and telling Him that he will give him all of it if He will just denounce Himself. Problem is, I don't think that the Bible is literally saying that Satan takes Jesus to the top of a mountain looks down, says this is the whole world and I'll give it to you. That's pretty obvious just from the fact that there's no mountain anywhere near Israel tall enough to view all the way to Iraq or over to Britain which are places that the Israeli people new existed.

I think you have misunderstood the Bible.

BL

 

[cubedbee]

Daniel has a dream in which there is a tree that is tall enough to be seen by the whole world. Satan took Jesus on a mountaintop and showed him the whole world. On the spherical planet we live on, it is impossible for the whole planet to be viewed from one point---no matter how high above the ground you are. On a flat Earth, it is very possible for the entire planet to be viewed from one ponit high off the ground. The Bible desribes the Earth as flat, and it is wrong.

I vaguely recall Daniel's dream so I would have to go back and look at that, but let's take a look at Jesus on the mountaintop for a moment. As I recall, Jesus is taken in the wilderness to a mountain where Satan tempts Him by showing Him the whole world and telling Him that he will give him all of it if He will just denounce Himself. Problem is, I don't think that the Bible is literally saying that Satan takes Jesus to the top of a mountain looks down, says this is the whole world and I'll give it to you. That's pretty obvious just from the fact that there's no mountain anywhere near Israel tall enough to view all the way to Iraq or over to Britain which are places that the Israeli people new existed.

I think you have misunderstood the Bible.

BL

I think you are reading passages figuratively instead of literally in order to keep the Bible from conflicting with scientific facts. Kind of like I read Genesis figuratively so it doesn't conflict with the fact the Earth is much older than 6000 years old. I think we are both taking the proper approach in interpreting the passages--but YECs generally insist everything be taken literally.

 

[Asimov]

First, "the ends of the earth" spoken of in scripture could mean the polar rotation points on which it spins. I have never read "the earth is flat" in the Bible.

So, you're interpreting it to fit the way the world works....hmmm

Second, I would like to know who the millions of scientists are. I do know of tens of thousands of scientists that believe that a creation is designed for a purpose, and I know of tens of thousands of scientists that agree that the universe had a beginning, and I do know of tens of thousands of scientists that agree that half of what is written in our High School text books is false and outright lies, including the famous pictures of identical fetuses between 8 different species of animals that evolution still promotes as gospel truth in almost every text book out in circulation today. BTW, debunked in the 1800’s and still a major source for evolutionary arguments.

Hahahha...what?? You are talking about Haeckel?? I looked in my sisters biology book, it's from 96, and it has no mention or even pictures of haeckel's drawings. Anytime I learned anything about evolution in school....no mention of haeckel's drawings. No mention, even now.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/haeckel.html

 

[Blue-Lightning]

I think you are reading passages figuratively instead of literally in order to keep the Bible from conflicting with scientific facts.

Uh, no. I'm understanding language and applying figurative and literal language properly... it's as simple as understanding that Canaan wasn't really a land of milk and honey, that's just a phrase used at the time to convey an agriculturally rich location.

Kind of like I read Genesis figuratively so it doesn't conflict with the fact the Earth is much older than 6000 years old.

Not so fast, hot sauce... you're reading a literal re-telling of the creation and understanding it as if it is presented as symbolic - which it is not. Sure, there are parts of Genesis that are metaphoric, such as calling each creation period a "day" (little hint for you, God doesn't make the Sun and Moon until the fourth day - no sun, no literal day), but that doesn't mean you apply the whole thing to fit your perspective. That's how we get such crazy cults you know; they make the Bible fit into their belief system and then use it to justify the system.

BL

 

[cubedbee]

I think you are reading passages figuratively instead of literally in order to keep the Bible from conflicting with scientific facts.

Uh, no. I'm understanding language and applying figurative and literal language properly... it's as simple as understanding that Canaan wasn't really a land of milk and honey, that's just a phrase used at the time to convey an agriculturally rich location.

I'll give you that "land of milk and honey" was an ancient idiom. What part of the passage about Jesus temptation indicates to you that it is figurative? If Satan didn't really take Jesus up on a mountain, did he take him to the temple? If we're taking it to be a figurative passage, was Jesus really tempted by an actual persona, or is Satan simply the inner struggles of concious we all have? How are you distinguishing between what is figurative and what is not in this passage?

 

[Guest]

I'm getting pretty sick of this.

First, evolution is a fact, deal with it. See that baby that looks like a combo of its mommy and daddy, that's evolution. The baby evolved (see changed).

Blue, you've got a problem with macroevolution, not evolution. At least I hope I've got that right or else you've got some strange beliefs.

I swear I'm going to have to clean up this forum.

BL

8-) Thats just not evolution to me. This can be predicted from
the bible,and it's just common sense. You may believe it's evolution,
and thats your choice to make,but I don't believe it.

 

[keebs]

NO ONE CARES WHAT EVOLUTION IS TO YOU! We are discussing the evolutionary theory that is accepted by the scientific community. You just can't change words and meanings at will...

 

[Guest]

I think you are reading passages figuratively instead of literally in order to keep the Bible from conflicting with scientific facts.

Uh, no. I'm understanding language and applying figurative and literal language properly... it's as simple as understanding that Canaan wasn't really a land of milk and honey, that's just a phrase used at the time to convey an agriculturally rich location.

I'll give you that "land of milk and honey" was an ancient idiom. What part of the passage about Jesus temptation indicates to you that it is figurative? If Satan didn't really take Jesus up on a mountain, did he take him to the temple? If we're taking it to be a figurative passage, was Jesus really tempted by an actual persona, or is Satan simply the inner struggles of concious we all have? How are you distinguishing between what is figurative and what is not in this passage?

:wink: We are not Jesus Christ,and to claim that Jesus couldn't
see the devil in his true form is very odd indeed. If demons knew
who he was and had to listen to him,and If he was the actual son
of God,and trust me,he is,then why would you not believe he could
actually see satan?

 

[Guest]

NO ONE CARES WHAT EVOLUTION IS TO YOU! We are discussing the evolutionary theory that is accepted by the scientific community. You just can't change words and meanings at will...

8-) Could you tell me what science is and what it says?
I don't change any words at all,that would be those promoting
evolution.

 

[Guest]

Isn't necromancy a sin blue?

8-) Yes it is,but if you think Jesus Christ is dead,you are wrong.
Accusing christians of necromancy for believing in the living Christ
is also a sin. (if thats what you are getting at)

 

[keebs]

Thats just not evolution to me.

It is obviously you who does not want to accept what evolution is. You have atheists and Christians alike telling you you are wrong, and you do not accept it. It is that kind of ignorance that drives people away from religion (myself included).

 

[Guest]

Thats just not evolution to me.

It is obviously you who does not want to accept what evolution is. You have atheists and Christians alike telling you you are wrong, and you do not accept it. It is that kind of ignorance that drives people away from religion (myself included).

8-) "NO WAY" are you going to blame that on the true christians!
You left of your own free will which means what the bible said all along
about it,you left because you were never one of us to start with,amen.
You cannot call what is obvious to everyone from the word go,evolution.
Please define science to us all for the last time!
I am leaving the atheists and evolutionists alone on this forum,so please
do not invite me back here again or you'll be asking for it.
You have been forewarned. I would rather be doing other things,Thanks!

 

[keebs]

I never said that was the whole reason why I am no longer religious, but it was a factor. And it really is the people who consider themselves the "true Christians" who argue things they know nothing about and tell everyone else without they're exact beliefs that they are wrong. It fits your description pretty good, I might add.