[_ Old Earth _] Reality

[Quath]

Perhaps you should attend a comprehension course and then reread my previous explanation, or are you on this forum to stir up lies and strife?

I went through 11 years of college and I have had to do a lot of reading comprehension. Your reply was too hard to follow. You may not feel it was, but you are coming from a position of already understanding your own beliefs.

Read the definition of the Hebrew word used and you will realize that you are once again in error. Of course the evolutionists are accustomed to making erroneous assumptions.

Maybe that is the difference. Evolution and science are use to being objective whereas you wish for meanings to be subjective and malleable.

If you take the Bible at face value, then you understand that God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

At face value this makes no sense either, though I know that is the gist of the New Testament.

Try understanding the meaning of move. Many definitions exist for that one English word. By the definition of the word move below, what is the meaning of the sentence, "I wish Quath would be moved".

English has different connotations for "move" such as moving a person's heart. However, when you say the world has a foundation and that makes it immovable, it is not that definition.

Those people who did not understand the meaning of the words of the Bible were no different than you. I suspect that if you lived back then, you would believe that the earth stood still and never moved. After all you said that you take the Bible at face value. You make too many assumptions that lead to a rambling of unintelligible jargon that appeases your intellect but is unworthy of debate.

Umm. So you are saying that the Christians of the time of Galileo were like me? You are suggesting that people did not understand the Bible until people like you came along. What makes you so different that the people back then could not comprehend the Bible as you do?

Science has a horrible track record with regard to the Word of God who is the author of this world. The science that contradicts the Bible is suspect and should be revisited, the science that agrees with the Bible is true.

Ummm. Every time there was a conflict between science and the Bible, the Bible was found to be wrong. Then Christians say "Oh wait. We must have misinterpreted that." Or they hold to their views despite the rest of the world leaving them behind in their mythology. Off the top of my head some of the issues were flat earth, moving earth, germ theroy of disease versus demons and the existance of mythological creatures.

Quath

 

[Solo]

I would expect an eleven year college student to have a better grip on comprehension and memory than what you have exhibited. Perhaps I am expecting too much from you. I will keep further posts to you short.

 

[unred typo]

Jimbob wrote:

Then I guess we should stop using all that evil, secular, evolutionist nonsense about pi = 3.14159....etc. and just trust good old 1 Kings 7:23

The outside from outside rim to outside rim was 10 cubits. The bath was a handbreadth thick, about 4 inches of solid brass. If you measure the inside of the bowl from inside brim to the other, it would be 10 cubits minus two handbreadths. Figuring 18 inches for a cubit, that would be 180 inches minus 8 inches = 172 inches. 172 x 3.14159 = 540.35348 inches or 30.019637 cubits. Rounding that down, the circumference of the inside of the bowl was 30 cubits. The inside of the bowl would be the measurement that you would want, since the outside was decorated with ornamental buds. A simple misunderstanding.

 

[Heidi]

Evolution doesn't propose in any way that an individual gives birth to a member of another (new) species.

A will give birth to B. B is slightly different, but not different enough to be a different species than A.

B will give birth to C. C is slightly different, but not different enough to be a different species than B.

C will give birth to D. D is slightly different, but not different enough to be a different species than C.

and so on...


X will give birth to Y. Y is slightly different, but not different enough to be a different species than X. But meanwhile the changes have accumulated, and Y is no longer the same species as A.

I already know that evolution does not propone that apes directly bred humans as we know it today. Your second statement is what spawns the theory of evolution and it is the basis of what is flawed in the theory.

Again, how does an animal give birth to something so different as to give it a different name such as a "homonid"??? That is the issue here. How is that reproducing? It isn't!! It is creating a different species or you wouldn't give it a new name!!! That's like saying that humans don't breed humans but a human can breed a "homologen"!! The name that evolutionists gave that creature that came from an ape didn't even have a name that resembles an ape! They gave it a name that resembles the new species called humans. And if you can't see the tremendous differences between human beings and apes, then that's the first step you need to take to be in touch with reality, my friend.

This is preposterous and has never happened in recorded history. Never. And yet, evolutionists say it happened before there were any witnesses for the sole purpose of rebelling against the idea of God creating man. Period. Evolution is not only erroneous and impossible, it is rebellion plain & simply. And there is zero proof of it except conjecture. Absolutely none. It actually has less credence than the theory that we came from aliens who flew back into space because the alien theory doesn't contradict how species reproduce. Evolution does.

Sorry, but the only differences between me and my great great great great grandmother is hair color and eye color. We are still human beings. And since you don't see that apes still do not walk, talk, build bridges, etc. and that they are still giving birth to apes who also do not walk, talk, or build bridges, then you won't understand why an animal cannot form a human being. But children understand that concept quite well.

 

[army_of_juan]

Evolution doesn't propose in any way that an individual gives birth to a member of another (new) species.

A will give birth to B. B is slightly different, but not different enough to be a different species than A.

B will give birth to C. C is slightly different, but not different enough to be a different species than B.

C will give birth to D. D is slightly different, but not different enough to be a different species than C.

and so on...


X will give birth to Y. Y is slightly different, but not different enough to be a different species than X. But meanwhile the changes have accumulated, and Y is no longer the same species as A.

I already know that evolution does not propone that apes directly bred humans as we know it today. Your second statement is what spawns the theory of evolution and it is the basis of what is flawed in the theory.

Again, how does an animal give birth to something so different as to give it a different name such as a "homonid"??? That is the issue here. How is that reproducing? It isn't!! It is creating a different species or you wouldn't give it a new name!!! That's like saying that humans don't breed humans but a human can breed a "homologen"!! The name that evolutionists gave that creature that came from an ape didn't even have a name that resembles an ape! They gave it a name that resembles the new species called humans. And if you can't see the tremendous differences between human beings and apes, then that's the first step you need to take to be in touch with reality, my friend.

This is preposterous and has never happened in recorded history. Never. And yet, evolutionists say it happened before there were any witnesses for the sole purpose of rebelling against the idea of God creating man. Period. Evolution is not only erroneous and impossible, it is rebellion plain & simply. And there is zero proof of it except conjecture. Absolutely none. It actually has less credence than the theory that we came from aliens who flew back into space because the alien theory doesn't contradict how species reproduce. Evolution does.

Sorry, but the only differences between me and my great great great great grandmother is hair color and eye color. We are still human beings. And since you don't see that apes still do not walk, talk, build bridges, etc. and that they are still giving birth to apes who also do not walk, talk, or build bridges, then you won't understand why an animal cannot form a human being. But children understand that concept quite well.

And yet you are an adult and can't seem to understand that science and life itself just isn't that simple.

You go back a few thousand generations and see how much you look alike then. Also, humans are classified as apes so the rest of your post doesn't make sense. One more thing, how are humans not animals?

 

[unred typo]

One more thing, how are humans not animals?

‘Animals’ is just a man made classification. Some people use it differently than others. Not really worth arguing over. If you classify all creatures that have legs as legumes, would that make you a peanut?

 

[Heidi]

One more thing, how are humans not animals?

‘Animals’ is just a man made classification. Some people use it differently than others. Not really worth arguing over. If you classify all creatures that have legs as legumes, would that make you a peanut?

Good reply. But unfortunately, that is lost on some scientists. ;-)

 

[reznwerks]

man made

One more thing, how are humans not animals?

‘Animals’ is just a man made classification. Some people use it differently than others. Not really worth arguing over. If you classify all creatures that have legs as legumes, would that make you a peanut?

Everything is a "man made" classification. The idea of an "orderly" universe is man made. The idea of "intelligent design" is a man made classification. It continues to be argued by theists because in their "man made" religion the concept of chance or that their is no bigger reason for us being here other than just because conflicts with their "man made" ego in that we are somehow very special in the scheme of things. The fact is however that if man were to disappear tomorrow from the face of the earth the earth and the remaining creatures would go on without us and evolve or disappear based on the environment.

 

[Solo]

Re: man made

One more thing, how are humans not animals?

‘Animals’ is just a man made classification. Some people use it differently than others. Not really worth arguing over. If you classify all creatures that have legs as legumes, would that make you a peanut?

Everything is a "man made" classification. The idea of an "orderly" universe is man made. The idea of "intelligent design" is a man made classification. It continues to be argued by theists because in their "man made" religion the concept of chance or that their is no bigger reason for us being here other than just because conflicts with their "man made" ego in that we are somehow very special in the scheme of things. The fact is however that if man were to disappear tomorrow from the face of the earth the earth and the remaining creatures would go on without us and evolve or disappear based on the environment.

In light of the mood of error that you place on "man made" thought and experience, I suspect that your "man made" hypothesis is error riddled and in direct animosity with truth.