[_ Old Earth _] Scientific facts in the Bible

[Asimov]

Thats not true asimov. First of all,you are treating Jesus Christ as if he was just a man. Jesus was and is Man and God.

That's irrelevant, you fail to address my post. Why would they state that Jesus was taken to a huge mountain in order to be shown the kingdoms of the earth. The entire earth. If Jesus can do this anyways, he wouldn't have to leave the spot he was standing on in order to do this.

Also,how many Kingdoms were around then?

More kingdoms than can be seen from the vantage point of a huge mountain on a spherical earth.

On a flat earth, you could see them all

Would you be so kind as to show us where the christians claim that the earth is flat and who they are? Jesus can do things that we cannot.

so? We're not talking about Christians, we're talking about scripture.

 

[Guest]

8-) Asimov,you did it again. You are treating Jesus like he
was only a human being rather than God and man.
There are pictures of the earth that are round of course and show the
earth very well. What Kingdoms needed to be seen?
Scripture doesn't say the earth is flat.
So? Jesus being God and man is very important to this debate.

 

[Asimov]

Asimov,you did it again. You are treating Jesus like he was only a human being rather than God and man.

Entirely irrelevant. Why would Jesus have to go up to a really tall mountain, if he can see it anyways without having to go up to a really tall mountain? Why would they interject that little part about a really tall mountain, if not to convey the idea that Jesus had to do this in order to see all the kingdoms of the Earth, it's redundant, and meaningless then.

There are pictures of the earth that are round of course and show the
earth very well. What Kingdoms needed to be seen?

What does that have to do with the topic at hand?

Scripture doesn't say the earth is flat.

It also doesn't say evolution is false.

Jesus being God and man is very important to this debate.

No, it isn't.

 

[Guest]

8-) asimov, I have clearly explained myself to you.
To avoid further problems with this debate why don't we
just take a break from one another.

 

[Asimov]

8-) asimov, I have clearly explained myself to you.
To avoid further problems with this debate why don't we
just take a break from one another.

Far from, blue. I am in no way aggravated, or frustrated. You simply do not explain anything.

 

[bibleberean]

Blue,

You are wasting your time with this guy.

He doesn't agree with us.

That is fine with me...

All his "how come God?" questions will be answered.

Hebrews 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

 

[Asimov]

Blue,

You are wasting your time with this guy.

He doesn't agree with us.

That is fine with me...

All his "how come God?" questions will be answered.

Hebrews 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

Once again, concession, berean? You simply have no leg to stand on, so you ad hom me?

 

[jonnyblade]

How does everyone feel about evolution? I mean the different stages in man's development over the last 40,000 years when humans began walking upright. Or when the dinosaurs roamed the earth long before man's time?

 

[reznwerks]

everyone

How does everyone feel about evolution? I mean the different stages in man's development over the last 40,000 years when humans began walking upright. Or when the dinosaurs roamed the earth long before man's time?

Obviously everyone doesn't agree. As for me I accept the evidence as presented. 98% of real scientists accept evolution as real based on the evidence. Evolution is a fact of life. Just witness how the influenza bug changes every year and that is evolution before your eyes.

 

[jonnyblade]

Well I could see not agreeing if they didn't find 50 and 60 thousand year old skeletons depicting the changes in man from bent over to walking upright at many different stages, but this clearly shows we evolved over the years to what we are today, just as a bird began to fly.

 

[Gary]

rez: Just witness how the influenza bug changes every year and that is evolution before your eyes.

Gary: It is still an influenza virus.

:-?

 

[keebs]

But it's a different, drug-resistant strain.

 

[Gary]

It is still an influenza virus.

 

[Asimov]

But it's a different, drug-resistant strain.

Obviously that's not the point, keebs. These Hovind clones would only accept evolution if a flue strain evolved into a monkey.

 

[Gary]

Nope. Monkeys "evolved" from amoebas!!

:D :D :D

P.S. What is a hovind?

 

[jonnyblade]

Regardless, we were all mindless knuckle draggers at one point, maybe not quite monkeys but on there level.

 

[Gary]

... and when and how did your great, great, great grandfather and grandmother, the monkey, get a consciousness?

Did it "evolve" out of nothing?

Ever heard of panpsychism?

 

[Dean]

Asimov - "ad hom" is nice. I like your style, and your honesty. A man like you, God could use. Some might provocatively suggest he already does.

Anyway, you ignorant heathen, question.

Why have we been so thoroughly incapable of creating the organic from the inorganic?

By that I mean, give a man a wolf, and a couple hundred years, you get a poodle. (Not the greatest recommendation for genetic manipulation, but strong evidence that a process is in play).

But give a man a couple zillion megavolts, particle accelerators, hyperbaric chambers, and any chemical recipe he can dream up, and we can't get a one cell organism. To me, this is where God chuckles just a bit. The "Science-as-religion" crowd, confronted by the FRANKENSTEIN problem, says, as best as I can tell:

"well, yeah... there was, like, a REALLY LONG TIME available for stuff to happen. And lots of electrical storms, and stuff. And a 'rich organic soup' available for interaction...and stuff."

I'm not trying to be obnoxious (though maybe I'm inadvertently succeeding), but isn't the GENESIS of life really the stumper right now?

 

[Asimov]

Why have we been so thoroughly incapable of creating the organic from the inorganic?

We haven't.

By that I mean, give a man a wolf, and a couple hundred years, you get a poodle. (Not the greatest recommendation for genetic manipulation, but strong evidence that a process is in play).

But give a man a couple zillion megavolts, particle accelerators, hyperbaric chambers, and any chemical recipe he can dream up, and we can't get a one cell organism. To me, this is where God chuckles just a bit. The "Science-as-religion" crowd, confronted by the FRANKENSTEIN problem, says, as best as I can tell:

We have gotten protocells. Yes, I can just see an ALL-KNOWING, ALL-POWERFUL God chuckling at people who are just tryin to figure out how the world works. Immense superiority, it reminds me of the British Empire with it's noble charge of civilizing the Africans and Native Americans.

Anyways, on a more serious note, this idea is not part of evolution, so I don't even know why you are asking this question.

"well, yeah... there was, like, a REALLY LONG TIME available for stuff to happen. And lots of electrical storms, and stuff. And a 'rich organic soup' available for interaction...and stuff."

There are many theories of how life came to be, some of them with actual evidence, none of them having anything to do with evolution.

I'm not trying to be obnoxious (though maybe I'm inadvertently succeeding), but isn't the GENESIS of life really the stumper right now?

I don't know, is it?

 

[Gary]

Asimov: "... There are many theories of how life came to be, some of them with actual evidence.."

Gary: Please reference a few of those theories and their actual "evidence".

Thanks