Those people may be right about evolution, but they are hypocrits since they do not accordingly acknowledge the fact that they are 99,99999% similar to bonobos.
[/quote]
Who are all of these hypocrites that believe in evolution but don’t believe we’re genetically similar to simians? I have yet to come across one.[/quote]
You probably don’t spend enough time in GAL
There has been quite a few discussions recently about evolutionary psychology and how it relates (or not) with the noble art of getting laid.
Orion heroically tried to defend a few basic evolutionist ideas that should not even be controversial to begin with.
Those people may be right about evolution, but they are hypocrits since they do not accordingly acknowledge the fact that they are 99,99999% similar to bonobos.
[/quote]
Who are all of these hypocrites that believe in evolution but don’t believe we’re genetically similar to simians? I have yet to come across one.[/quote]
You probably don’t spend enough time in GAL
There has been quite a few discussions recently about evolutionary psychology and how it relates (or not) with the noble art of getting laid.
Orion heroically tried to defend a few basic evolutionist ideas that should not even be controversial to begin with.[/quote]
[quote]H factor wrote:<<< Our difference is while you are 100% sure of your position I am anything but. >>>[/quote]Are you 100% sure that 2+2=4? (serious question) [quote]H factor wrote:<<< I can only believe what reason and logic allows me to think is true. >>>[/quote]I contend that your belief in reason and logic is purely illusory. You believe everything you do on 100% blind faith, just like me. Except the object of your faith cannot and does not deliver what you are relying on it for.[quote]H factor wrote:<<< It’s just the way I’m built. >>>[/quote]I was built just like you. The difference is that I am being REbuilt with the builder now as my Father. Nobody believes what I believe because they’ve been talked into it. They believe it because God Himself has taken up residence in their heart and they think His thoughts after Him in adoring obedience.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
I’m not aware of anywhere in the Christian Bible that claims the earth is only 6,000 years old. Granted I’m not a Biblical scholar and it might just be there but I’ve never read it. I can see how interpretation might lead some to believe that, but as I said I really don’t think it makes a direct claim.[/quote]
It is based on the genealogies supplied in the Pentateuch, which lead to the conclusion that the Earth is something like 6,000 years old if they’re regarded as inerrant and exhaustive.[/quote]
But genealoogies in order to be accurate time wise would also have to include the ages of each person.
I’m not buying that the Bible makes such a claim.[/quote]
What? Have you read the Bible?
The genealogies do provide ages. That’s how the timeline was compiled. This isn’t a question of “buying” or “not buying” something: look it up and see that a literal interpretation of the Old Testament yields Young Eartherism.[/quote]
But what do genealogies have to do with the age of the Earth?
I could understand how it might have something to do with the age of mankind, but a planet?
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I’m up to my eyeballs in work and have to be up at six so I’ll be limited tonight.
Orion, I’m not trying to be unnecessarily difficult, but I’m not following what you’re saying. It may be my fault, but I’m not. Forgive me for asking you to elucidate a bit further if you would please.
[/quote]
I think just like you prefer dealing with hardcore atheists rather than ‘so called Christians’ who believe in macro evolution, is similar to his thinking on so called evolutionists who believe in God
He’d prefer consistency rather than disingenuously conceding “minor” sub-points
Maybe it even plays a part to “dirty up” his beliefs when many people are inconsistent with it - and feel the need to mix it with yours
Your antithesis almost - except I don’t think he’s trying to sell his beliefs actually, so he doesn’t care as much as you do. He just enjoys messing with those people - I think
[quote]ZEB wrote:
I’m not aware of anywhere in the Christian Bible that claims the earth is only 6,000 years old. Granted I’m not a Biblical scholar and it might just be there but I’ve never read it. I can see how interpretation might lead some to believe that, but as I said I really don’t think it makes a direct claim.[/quote]
It is based on the genealogies supplied in the Pentateuch, which lead to the conclusion that the Earth is something like 6,000 years old if they’re regarded as inerrant and exhaustive.[/quote]
But genealoogies in order to be accurate time wise would also have to include the ages of each person.
I’m not buying that the Bible makes such a claim.[/quote]
What? Have you read the Bible?
The genealogies do provide ages. That’s how the timeline was compiled. This isn’t a question of “buying” or “not buying” something: look it up and see that a literal interpretation of the Old Testament yields Young Eartherism.[/quote]
But what do genealogies have to do with the age of the Earth?
I could understand how it might have something to do with the age of mankind, but a planet?[/quote]
(According to the Bible) Mankind was created on the sixth day, so it doesn’t make much of a difference.
And even if you make the argument that a Genesis Day was not a literal 24h day, and that it lasted millions of years, there would still be a problem with these genealogies :
According to evolutionism, our specie is at least 100 000 years old. Not 6 000.
There is just NO way that macro evolution can be made to square with authentic Christianity. I do not care who tries to say otherwise. When the pharisees were badgering Jesus, one of the questions they asked Him was about divorce in the 19th chapter of the gospel of Matthew. Jesus own response began with “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female,”. Christian claim to believe that Jesus of Nazareth was/is the second person of the eternal Godhead in human form. He says that God created them IN THE BEGINNING male and female. An attempt to harmonize that with them evolving over millions of years is a flat denial of the clear proclamation of the central figure of their faith. Not to mention numerous other places in both testaments outside of Genesis where the creation account, buy especially the creation of man is simply assumed to be literal. The apostle Paul talks about Adam (and Eve) as the literal first people. Evolution by definition is all about zillions of deaths. Death did not enter the picture until Adam sinned for anybody who takes their bible seriously. How can there millions of years of death when the 3rd chapter of Genesis say that there was one man created directly by the hand of God Himself who personally sinned bringing death upon, not just man, but the whole of creation?
Like I say, believe what you want, but the Christian faith has essentials without which it simply no longer IS the Christian faith. If death didn’t enter creation by Adam’s sin then the entire point of the incarnation, sinless life, death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ is lost. There is NO Christianity Don’t bother trying to tell me you’ve found a way to be both an evolutionist AND a Christian. You’re an idolatrous liar and an enemy of the God you claim to love. Old earth? Maybe, but I disagree. Evolution however is a thoroughly Satanic deception and as I say a very successful one.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
There is just NO way that macro evolution can be made to square with authentic Christianity. I do not care who tries to say otherwise. When the pharisees were badgering Jesus, one of the questions they asked Him was about divorce in the 19th chapter of the gospel of Matthew. Jesus own response began with “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female,”. Christian claim to believe that Jesus of Nazareth was/is the second person of the eternal Godhead in human form. He says that God created them IN THE BEGINNING male and female. An attempt to harmonize that with them evolving over millions of years is a flat denial of the clear proclamation of the central figure of their faith. [/quote]
Yes, because the gospels that make the Bible never changed. And every single word has been verified by God, and not changed by some bishops and underground early Christian sect members who were collecting and distributing these initially oral testimonies during the first hundred years or so after Christ’s life.
This reminds me how several Moroccans explained to me that “every single word in the Quran has been verified by scientists”.
I love debating the “Does 2+2 really equal 4?” question.
Yes, it does.
Whether arithmetic and the logic that makes it so was developed by man or inferred from God is irrelevant. Computers exist because of 2+2. Buildings stand because of 2+2. Airplanes fly because of 2+2. It matters not whether someone questions a mathematical certainty by comparing two “objects of faith”. Yes, man has defined a number system, and yes, we have asserted that 2+2=4 … and yes, perhaps there was some amount of “faith” in assuming this. But that faith in an assertion is obviously true, so what exactly are you disputing? That because I believe 2+2=4 and that God may not have necessarily deemed it so, that it must be false?
I have faith that every morning when I wake up, I will have to use the bathroom. If I suddenly stop believeing in this phenomenon, is it guaranteed to be be false and stop happening?
If I am an athiest, and I claim something to be true that most certainly is true, then I am wrong.
If you are not an athiest, and you make the very same claim, then you are right, based on the object of your faith that “delivers”.
Am I missing something, Tiribulus?
You say: “How can there millions of years of death when the 3rd chapter of Genesis say that there was one man created directly by the hand of God Himself who personally sinned bringing death upon, not just man, but the whole of creation?”
My response: “How can 2+2 not equal 4 when the 1st Chapter of my 1st grade mathematics book says that addition can combine values from two collections to make a larger collection, not just for me in my elementary school class, but the whole of creation?”
I think Tirib is playing devils advocate here. He’s actually right, you can’t make up your own version of Christianity. It says what it says and if you don’t like it then you’re a non-believer. Which is why I call bullshit on religion.
Also, did I really read him asking if 2+2=4 as a serious question?
[quote]njrusmc wrote:
But that faith in an assertion is obviously true, so what exactly are you disputing? That because I believe 2+2=4 and that God may not have necessarily deemed it so, that it must be false?[/quote]
This is kinda what has be scratching my head over this issue, to be honest.
Tirib: “How do you know that 2+2=4?”
1st grader: “Because that’s how God made it!”
Tirib: round of applause at their brilliance
vs.
Tirib: “How do you know that 2+2=4?”
Heretic: “Because the way we define the system and the properties inherent to the concept makes it so. Because every single technological advancement in the history of mankind can be traced back to our ‘faith’ in fundamental properties such as that. Because those concepts have been tested billions of times over thousands of years and have never, at any point in time, has 2+2 been shown to equal ANYTHING but 4.”
Tirib: “Ya jist dun gettit, do ya?”
Although, I WILL say that one of the things I DO respect about both Tirib and push (despite the way he gets me banging my head against the wall in CvE discussions) is the fact that they don’t, to my knowledge, take their religion “a la carte”.
I’m not suggesting anyone on this board actually does; from what I can see, most everyone here has reasons that seem highly logical (at least from their perspective) for why they interpret their views the way they do. It’s more of a comparison to the casual religious folk who duck out when their religion asks them to inconvenience themselves more than an hour or two every Sunday.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
I’m not aware of anywhere in the Christian Bible that claims the earth is only 6,000 years old. Granted I’m not a Biblical scholar and it might just be there but I’ve never read it. I can see how interpretation might lead some to believe that, but as I said I really don’t think it makes a direct claim.[/quote]
It is based on the genealogies supplied in the Pentateuch, which lead to the conclusion that the Earth is something like 6,000 years old if they’re regarded as inerrant and exhaustive.[/quote]
But genealoogies in order to be accurate time wise would also have to include the ages of each person.
I’m not buying that the Bible makes such a claim.[/quote]
What? Have you read the Bible?
The genealogies do provide ages. That’s how the timeline was compiled. This isn’t a question of “buying” or “not buying” something: look it up and see that a literal interpretation of the Old Testament yields Young Eartherism.[/quote]
But what do genealogies have to do with the age of the Earth?
I could understand how it might have something to do with the age of mankind, but a planet?[/quote]
Man and earth were created within six days of each other according to Genesis, so I’m sure you can figure it out from there.
[quote]shorty_blitz wrote:
I think Tirib is playing devils advocate here. He’s actually right, you can’t make up your own version of Christianity. It says what it says and if you don’t like it then you’re a non-believer. Which is why I call bullshit on religion.
Also, did I really read him asking if 2+2=4 as a serious question? [/quote]
It’s an epistemelogical question, not questioning that 2+2 actually = 4 or some other number.
And yes to both you and anonym, it’s a very respectable thing that there is no “ala carte” Christianity where he is concerned. I like that a lot about him.
[quote]njrusmc wrote:<<< Am I missing something, Tiribulus? >>>[/quote]Oh indeed you are. Like by a few million light years (yes I really did just say that). As are anonym and SteelyD (among others) real bad, but I’ll be indisposed until this evening at least. [quote]shorty_blitz wrote:<<< you can’t make up your own version of Christianity. It says what it says and if you don’t like it then you’re a non-believer. >>>[/quote]This guy is right about this part of what he says. Aragorn, I really do wish both you AND JEaton would email me. Or just say you don’t wanna talk to me, but drop this preposterous excuse about a conversation with Brother Chris that HE doesn’t hold to himself. Always good to my slippery Pal squating_bear. I think I finally got the swamp water outta my boots from when he and I met. Kamui, you already know answers to you are a project. I bought some time in the other thread. I may need even more.
[quote]njrusmc wrote:<<< Am I missing something, Tiribulus? >>>[/quote]Oh indeed you are. Like by a few million light years (yes I really did just say that). As are anonym and SteelyD (among others) real bad, but I’ll be indisposed until this evening at least.
[/quote]
