"If you say so Confusedandalone "
I say so
"If you say so Confusedandalone "
I say so
This is because Tammy gets her information in one of two ways...
1. She makes it up and pretends she heard Jesus' voice telling her
2. Her guru makes it up and pretends she heard Jesus' voice telling her and then she tells Tammy and Tammy pretends she heard it too.
It is obvious you are too intellectually honest to fall for this sort of chicanery.
Yeah, TEC's right: that's a clear-cut example of an ad hominem, attacking the other person rather than challenging their argument. It's lazy, and it's a foul in debating (whether I agree with the sentiment or not is besides the point). No need to do that, when TEC offers so little "meat" in her 'arguments' that it's such easy pickin's anyway, LOL!
TEC said- On the matter of Genesis 1, the the creation 'days' do not state that they are any specific amount of time. The sun and the moon and the stars created to govern the day and the night are not even formed until 'day four'. These days are time periods that could have spanned thousands, even millions of years. The account also does not say HOW God created animals, sea-life, etc.... only that He did so. It is only some fundamental, literalist views that would state that each day was a set time and that God 'poofed' things into existence.
Unfortunately, we have a 2,500 yr history of an ever-decreasing number of believers who've argued for a literal reading, even past the point when it became too outlandish to try. Here's Ken Ham, a famous fundamentalist Xian who is still arguing for a literal interpretation, EVEN IN SPITE of the evidence against it, in 2013:
The majority of Christians in churches probably aren’t sure whether God really created everything in six literal days. Many believe it doesn’t matter whether it took six days or six million years. However, it is vital to believe in six literal days for many reasons. Foremost is that allowing these days to be long periods of time undermines the foundations of the message of the Cross.
(Read more at:)
TEC said- Remember also, that a person writing these accounts with no knowledge of DNA or genes or adaptation, or even of cells, etc... is not going to be able to understand such a thing... nevermind explain such a thing to others who have no knowledge base of such things. Someone who tried is just going to be ignored, or considered nuts. That is why many things are told in metaphors that can be grasped through generations, even if something cannot yet be scientifically explained. Like John's revelation... he saw things that did not exist yet in his time (so no words existed yet) and described things according to the words and knowledge base that he DID have.
And John ended up writing a bunch of goofy stuff, as a result, involving nothing even remotely resembling a prophecy of actual events that have occurred...
Jesus operated under the incorrect belief of his time period that disease resulted from sin, not germs. That was his schtick: he supposedly healed by forgiving sins (where the standard cure for leprosy performed by the Temple priests and recorded in Leviticus is tantamount to a voodoo ritual performed by a witch doctor in the Caribbean Islands, involving pigeon blood, shaking of rattles, etc.
Nowadays, humans understand that leprosy is caused by a bacteria, and 20 million cases have been CURED with free oral antibiotics, thus improving the lives of millions of people around the World with a treatment that actually works.
What a missed opportunity for Jesus to explain that leprosy DOESN'T occur due to sin, but instead is caused by tiny 'animals' that are too small to see, but that settle into the skin and cause the disfiguring skin condition. Sure, they'd laugh, but he'd present compelling evidence of having been sent from Heaven when modern people learned the truth. Remember, THAT is the entire basis of the gift of prophecy, being able to foretell future events. Jesus didn't even have to predict Louis Pasteur by name, but only the concept of diseases caused by micro-organisms (tiny animals; Greek would be 'microzoa').
Even if Jesus didn't tell HOW to treat leprosy, he would've presented some pretty compelling proof of having known of his Father's creations, due to having a Heavenly perspective that only someone associated with the "Intelligent Designer" would have. Instead, Jesus appears to be just another uninspired man who, although charismatic, believed exactly what everyone else in the region around Palestine believed, since it was the dominant concept of disease: caused by sin, either the patients, or their parents.
TEC said- On the matter of science, such as evolution... there is no conflict between God and science, or even God and evolution. The only conflicts are those that man creates due to his lack of understanding of God or science, or both. It is okay not to have all the answers (in either one of these); the search for the answer can be pretty awesome too.
Nonsense: read the Genesis One account again, as God clearly created animals, "according to their kind". That means they were created in finished form, such that he looked at ALL of his creation and declared it as finished, saying it was "very good". He rested, taking a day off on the Sabbath.
The basic concept of evolution is CHANGE in life forms to fit changes in their environment: it is estimated that 95% of species ever alive on Earth are now extinct (including dinosaurs). CHANGE is the antonym of FIXED: evolution and creation are incompatible, and it's not just a "simple understanding".
(Let's just set aside the BLATANT CONTRADICTION that God created animals BEFORE animals in one version, and the opposite order in the next! The Bible FUBARs BASIC details of the steps used in creation, eg with plants being created BEFORE the Sun (WTH! Someone hadn't heard of photosynthesis yet, where plants grow due to the energy from the Sun!?). The ONLY rational explanation is that it's a MYTH, just like ALL the other ancient creation narratives that are found in ancient cuneiform writings, etc.
TEC said- On the matter of redoing adam and eve... first, one thing people do not understand is the amount of energy (like radiation) creating life took to begin with... though one should be able to grasp that from what science has discovered. God did not snap his fingers; he is not a genie in the lamp.
That's another thing: in one account, God creates by simply speaking things into existence in the first account, and in the second, He fashions creations from the dust of the ground (adamah). That last one is EXACTLY the method used in other creation myths, eg Enumah Elish, an older account from Babylon that predates Genesis by a long-shot, and probably was the inspiration since the Jews were sitting around and weeping on the banks of the Tigris and Euphrates in Babylon, and wiping their tears away to read their captors' history for inspiration.
snareandracket - see my thread about Genesis I just posted about the sun and moon created on the 4th day. but about you saying it doesn't show how God created animals, sea life, etc.....
In hebrew interlinear it's explained well, whereas in english translations it's lost.
Let's start with vegetation in Genesis 1:11 and 12. From hebrew interlinear the true message will say something like this...."and elohim says, "The Earth, let her produce seed for grass, fruit trees, and all sorts of vegetation, AND HE IS BECOMING SO, and the earth brings forth seed for all vegatation".
When Moses asked God what his name was, in hebrew interlinear he says, "I shall become what I shall become". Notice how after he said that Earth would produce SEED for all vegetation, it then says, AND HE IS BECOMING SO. God become/put his lifeforce into the seed, so that after that point, once he would start watering it and create the sun/light, it would grow.
Genesis doesn't say the vegetation grew BEFORE the sun, it only says the SEED was made.
The same concept happened when the creation of animals and such, and even man. They would be like a dead body and then his life force would enter them and they would come to life. "He would become".
On evolution, it only makes sense a creator WOULD allow a species to evolve.
Why is it that the whitest races/people originate from the nordic regions, with weak sunlight, months of darkness, cold where they are fully clothed, and the darkest color are those in a very hot, sunlight, and naked or close to naked.
When very white people are exposed to sunlight, they tan.
So skin color alone, as it is in modern times, is the result of civilizations for thousands of years living in those areas, and generation after generation.
Why are there no dark black people who had been in sweden for thousands of years or vice versa?
If one asks why then don't blacks who give birth in sweden create whites? Because the body and dna was altered over thousands(?) of years being in Africa. Airplanes and fast travel are only the past century.
Rarely can you see flawed logic in action, but if that's not a clear-cut example, I dunno what is....
EoM points to the slow adaptation in melanin pigment density found in differing amounts in the skin of humans, based on distance to the equator in which they evolved; the difference resulted from the protective benefit of greater melanin concentrations in areas with stronger exposure to UV radiation.
But instead of seeing evidence of evolution, EoM sees it as proof that God had to create with evolution added into the mix as an optional add-on feature, ignoring the Genesis 1 account where mankind was produced in final form, "according to their kinds", and then God rested after declaring his work as "very good".
adamah - the bible does NOT say God created man and women 'according to their kinds'. It only says he proceeded to create man in his image. male and female he created them. The bible does not hint towards different races or kinds being created. Only with animals and other creatures does it say, 'according to their kinds'.
So God created humans and when seperated around the world in different climates and isolated from eachother, their conditions, lifestyle, etc, over long period of time resulted in difference races.
also they were in final form, or are you saying that when you are tanning from being in the sun or losing it from not being in the sun, that God is modifying you vs a built in defense mechanism.
Okie dokie welcome! Lets make this interesting!!! Lol
EoM said- the bible does NOT say God created man and women 'according to their kinds'. It only says he proceeded to create man in his image. male and female he created them. The bible does not hint towards different races or kinds being created. Only with animals and other creatures does it say, 'according to their kinds'.
Yup, you're technically correct, but what exactly do YOU believe 'kinds' is meant to imply, anyway?
Remember that none of the other animals were suitable for Adam, and the whole REASON Eve was made from Adam's rib in Chapter Two was for Adam to have a "helper" to be able to reproduce with, to fill the Earth.
You're not arguing that homo sapiens were NOT made as a separate species (a kind, that members can reproduce with), are you? What kind of mental gymnastics do you do to dismiss the many non-homo sapien fossils that have been discovered?
EoM said- So God created humans and when seperated around the world in different climates and isolated from eachother, their conditions, lifestyle, etc, over long period of time resulted in difference races.
You DO realize that 'race' is not a recognized term in biology, right, but an arbitrary social construct?
EoM said- also they were in final form, or are you saying that when you are tanning from being in the sun or losing it from not being in the sun, that God is modifying you vs a built in defense mechanism.
Changes in darkness of skin color (aka tanning) is the result of PRODUCTION of melanin pigment, which is produced by melanocytes; this happens when they are stimulated to produce more melanin due to exposure to UV light. However, melanocyte count (the cells that produce the pigment) is FIXED; someone with greater melanocyte density is going to have a darker skin color, regardless of their environmental exposure to UV light. Blacks have greater count of melanocytes per unit area of dermis vs whites. The 'fading' of a tan occurs in blacks, as well, although it's not as noticeable in blacks due to a greater density of pigment AND melanocytes (and also why blacks DO tan, but it's not as noticeable due to a greater baseline skin density of melanin).
And what I'm saying is, you're clinging to a 2,500 yr old myth, and it looks like it's requiring painful mental gymnastics and contortions AND/OR willful ignorance of how the World actually operates in order to do so. Take a basic biology course, or better yet, learn about biology as a major at a Junior College, and then you don't have to prop up theology based on your not understanding the basics of biological processes that ARE known (and have been known, for hundreds of years now).
adamah - the melanocyte count being fixed I believe in regards to once a person is born. Hence a black person won't ever become full white unless they have a michael jackson type disorder. However I don't believe it's fixed for generation upon generation over thousands of years.
Why are black/africans darker then arabs? While arabs for thousands of years were wearing full body garments, african blacks as evidenced by recent history would be close to fully naked.
If the amount is fixed over generation upon generation and not just once one is born, then the skin color tone wouldn't match up with sun exposure over thousands of years. Fully naked blacks or fully clothed arabs over thousands of years would have the same skin tone. Or maybe reversed, etc.
If there were different human races, different kinds of humans in their true form from creation, I believe they have been wiped out. The giants, etc.
As for modern day humans, if you are saying that skeletons with larger jawbones were different races, I would disagree with that. Just like skin color can change over thousands of years due to sun exposure over generations, diet changes and eating habits could change our jaw structure. This is even proven in a recent study, I'm just cutting and pasting this part......
"The rise of agriculture allowed for the development of complex societies and technologies that likely wouldn't have been possible otherwise. It also wreaked havoc on human health. And we can add a new downside to the list: our misshapen mouths.
That's the finding of University of Kent researcher Noreen von Cramon-Taubadel, who examined 295 human jaws from various museum specimens around the world. She found that, even adjusting for climate, geographic, and genetic variation, a consistent pattern emerged: people from agricultural societies have significantly smaller mouths that their counterparts in hunter-gatherer societies.
In itself, that wouldn't be such a bad thing, but the problem is that we all have exactly the same number of teeth. Von Cramon-Taubadel speculates that agricultural societies tend to produce people with smaller jaws because the ground grains and processed animal products we eat are softer than the wild plants and animals eaten by hunter-gatherers."
Interestingly put guys...cofty? Anything to add?