There is no hope for the delusional.

How does it give is a time period? How can you say that ancient Hebrew did not use the word for "day" ("yom") also as a unit of counting?

And what's a day before there is a sun?

And how do days work in paradise? Are they the same as on earth? We don't know.

Science tells us that they are not. You say that they are.

We don't even know of Genesis is true. Of all the holy scriptures of old we have picked one and the Hindus have picked another one. Which is true? I don't know.

Let's do research and find out.

So unless you have a better explanation it looks like the "days" in paradise are not the 24-hour days as we know them.

Incidentally, the Torah also uses the plural of day "yamim" in the sense of "time". It's translated that way in King James. For all I know the singular of "time" could be "a bit of time", not "day".

I agree - but not on who is delusional.

How come there are no comments about the following two points I made in this thread (my best points that is, I have made other, lesser points, that were vigorously attacked):

1. In genesis god (refered to as plural) says that man gained equal wisdom to him by eating the fruit, and thus there is no scripture reason for us to be unable to comprehend things.

2. Let me quote myself:

Or is ignoring those posts the same as ignoring the proof so readily available in order to stick by your faith?

Taltamir, the idea that it would make them as wise as God was a lie of Satan's, which was also in the Bible in pretty much the same place.

no that's not what you said nor is that what I was alluding to.....you said there is no proof that God guided the writers and there could be no such proof.  We're not talking about proof if there's a god or not.  That does take faith.  

You brought up the fact that there's no proof of inspiration and I'm saying when you read these scriptures (which you never answered my direct question btw) you can see this.  Many, many times I've witnessed people looking up from reading scriptures in a study and exclaim "how can people say these aren't inspired when you read this?"   There's no way they got together on all this.  Even if they tried (and they couldn't because of the separation of years) it wouldn't come out this perfect. 

Remember the scriptures are a collection of many books written over a period of 1500 years by about 40 different authors.  Yet they are in TOTAL agreement and the whole thing fits together like a glove or can be pieced together to frame a beautiful puzzle.  All the pieces are there.  You just have to have patience to put it all together.   Just watch a movie with your immediate family and see if they can TOTALLY agree on what they just witnessed.   That in itself is just one example of why we would call it inspired.  Another is the content.  All thru scripture it tells us even as far back as 4500 years ago that the Jews would always be around.  When we look around today...guess what?  They're still here.  That's a proof.   If the bible is going to be inspired it has to be 100% accurate.  So far, to my knowledge, and every biblical scholar I've read or met over the years we are in total agreement this is one unusual book. 

Here's what you said that I was responding to.  The highlighted was where I was zoning in.   

Now as far as langauage..  These men wrote in the language of their day.  So the OT basically originally was written in Hebrew and the NT in Greek.  Not one book was written in English.  OUr English comes directly from these two languages. 

LEAUKI POSTS: #344

Here we go again.....you say.....evolution...is only about how life transformed into so many species.

Be specific ..exactly how did/does life transform into so many species? What's the mechanism?

Straw man argument and no proof of anything.  Perfection is in the eye of the beholder.  Not to mention the gospels which were discarded in Constantinople as politically incorrect, an assessment made by venal, fallible humans.

Natural selection.  Just read the book.  It's even in the title.

this is your answer? 

Discarded by who? 

The gospels are still politically incorrect.

Your point? 

Council of Carthage (not Constantinople - sorry, meant Carthage) 397 AD.  Bunch of Catholic wheels voted which would be in, which would be out.  Figured you'd know that.

Then there's the Catholic Apocrypha, which are not part of non-Catholic Bibles.  So, are they the True Word of God as well?

Yep..all 46 books of the Old Testament are the true Word of God for me. Why? Becasue the same so called bunch of Catholic wheels were guided by the Holy Spirit in choosing them as inspired and He should know for He's the same one who was their principal Author!

The Holy Bible from Genesis to the Book of the Apocalypse has stood the test of critics like you for hundreds of years. It's God's story to us about His plan of salvation as KFC has already stated, written over a period of 1500 years by at least 40 authors. Read it and you'll see it resonates so deeply with life as we know it today.    

lula posts

Daiwa posts:

Natural selection is known to occur but it doesn't result in evolution so therefore it can't be the mechanism. After observing a wide variety of birds, Darwin mistakenly concluded that all species, from amoeba to man, had evolved from a common ancestry. What Darwin was actually observing was variety within kind, aka genetic variation and not evolution at all.

Instead of adding new DNA info to the gene pool, natural selection can result in loss of information or at best only acts to conserve the existing types. Claiming all change as microevolution is a blatant misuse of terminology. There is a critical distinction between evolution and genetic variation. Evolution suggests the environment forces each species to adapt and somehow acquire new and higher information to its gene pool in order to survive, but natural selection only works within the existing gene pool of each species and has a stablilizing effect since novelties tend to be eliminated as they are not able to interbreed with other descendents of the original species.

Like I said, Lula, it's yours to revere.  Just don't claim it refutes the theory of evolution, because it doesn't.  And forget the concept of 'higher' - species just change from something to something slightly different, one little difference at a time, over immense time frames.  Your argument neglects the fact of species isolation in environments which dramatically change over time, not necessarily in a linear fashion, sometimes in a cyclic fashion.  If two groups of the same species become isolated from each other in differing environments, they can evolve completely separately into species which at some point can no longer successfully interbreed, meaning they have become two different species.  It is a mistake to assume that species differentiation is an event as opposed to a very long drawn out process, but creationists tend to insist it is some sort of event at some specific point in time, another straw man argument.  But it's clearly a waste of energy to try to teach someone who will not listen, is in fact incapable of listening because of rigid beliefs, based on faith only, which may not be questioned in any way or placed in a broader context.

All the Christian writings were gathered, examined and authenticated by 43 Catholic bishops including St.Augustine, bishop of Hippo in the year 397, 364 years after the Holy Spirit decsended in tongues of fire upon the Apostles and disciples which marked the official beginning of the Catholic Church. The Council of Carthage decided that along with the 46 Old Testament Books, 27 manuscripts were inspired and would form the New Testament canon.

Among the rejected manuscripts were writings attributed to St.Peter, St. Barnabas, St.Thomas, St.Philip, some from St.Paul, and St.Clement. These particular writings were good just not inspired of God.   

True science is doing a very good job refuting evolution theory, the one that is commonly held across society and is taught in public schools.  The one that theorizes molecules to man natural transformation in which new, higher genetic information is gained which was not possessed by one's ancestors. The idea of change to something vastly different....from reptiles to birds or apes to man.

True science supports the Holy Bible and vice versa which makes perfect sense becasue both nature and the Holy Bible have the same Author.

There's the rub.  According to 43 Catholic bishops, not according to God.  I'm sure you'll say their choices were inspired by God, which is the universal copout & fallback position when logic & reason fail - 'everything' is controlled by God so the bishops were infallible by proxy, yada yada.  Which is fine to believe, if you so choose, but 'proof' of absolutely nothing.

Happy New Year to you.

You have truly flown over the Cuckoo's Nest.  Failure to recognize circular reasoning is not a defense.

Now on to more enjoyable & worthwhile endeavors... like popping zits or something.

This was the part of this discussion that really took the cake for me.

I mean, Judas Priest.  There's stupid, then there's stupid, then there's Young Earth Creationists who somehow believe that antediluvian times were like some magical trip in Jurassic Park.  It's a whole new level of asinine.

You can read about the mechanism in biology books.

The mechanism is genetic mutations and adaptation.

I don't know what your "true science" is.

But the science that produces medications is using evolution theory.

Why don't you point to a few gigantic scientific successes of Creationists?

Prior to the middle of the 1800s, scientists were researchers who firmly believed the universe and all nature was made by a Master Designer, God. They knew God created all life and sees that it goes on in an orderly fashion according to His will. Those pioneers who laid the foundation of modern science were Creationists. They built their ideas and their theories from these basic truths.

In 1802, William Paley summarized the viewpoint of Creationist scientists. From looking at a watch, he knew it had a designer and a maker and that it would be foolish to imagine that it made itself. He argured the same thing with all the kinds of carefully designed structures seen in the world of nature and in the universe of stars overhead ...pall oint to a Designer and a Maker.

This argument has been ignored, ridiculed and scoffed at by those evolutionists who claim all this made itself over a vast amount of time, but that doesn't change the fact that what Paley had to say remains unanswerable.

The basis of Evolutionary Theory was destroyed by 7 Creationist scientific research findings before Darwin first published his "Amoeba evolves to Man" theory.

1....by Carl Linn in 1700s....He classified plant and animal organisms according to definite categories, separate from one another. He claimed variation was possibile within species and there were many sub-specieis, but no halfway or crossovers from one species to another.

2....in 1847, Heinrich von Helmholtz stated the first law of Thermodynamics....which refutes several aspects of Evolutionary Theory.

3....In 1850, RJE Clausius stated the second law of thermodynamics...the law of entropy...that everything eventually runs down, runs out and goes to pieces....which totally eliminates the basic evolutionary theory that simple evolves into complex.

4....In 1812, a fully modern skeleton of a woman was found in Guadeloupe in a very deep level of strata.

5....Gregor Mendel's experiments showed that one species can not transmute into another one. A genetic barrier existed that could not be bridged. His work laid the basis for modern genetics and his discoveries demolished the basis for species evolution.

6...In 1861, L:ouis Pasteur disproved the theory of spontaneous generation...that life cannot arise from non-living materials.

7....A German biologist, August Freidrich Leopold Weisman disproved Lamarck's notion of the "inheritance of acquired characteristics".  You know the one evolutionists teach school children today....that giraffes kept streching their necks to reach higher branches so their necks became longer. Darwin realized natural selection was unworkable went to Lamarkism as the cause of the never observed change from one species to another.

Added to these Creationists....

Louis Agassiz, Charles Babbage, Francis Bacon, SIr David Brewster, Georges Cuvier, Sir Humphrey  Davy, Jean Henri Fabre, Michael Faraday, Johannes Kepler, Bernhard Riemann, etc.       

I have repeated it several times but they keep ignoring it... From reading some creationist propaganada i figured it out, the whole notion of macro evolution (there is no such thing, its just evolution) hinges on the idea that mutation does not exist. They claim there is no source of new data, aka, micro evolution is changes of ratios of genes within a species, genes that existed before (say, skin color for example, in response to, say, ethnic clensing). But they simply refuse to beleive in the existance of mutation despite clear evidence to its existance.

To me science is the knowledge and study of the meaning of reality. It's the study of what is, including things that can be rationally perceived beyond this world.

I write true science as opposed to pseudo science, the false science of Darwin's "amoeba evolves to man" falsely called evolution, of which there is no proven evidence including fossils. This false science is responsible for undermining the facts of God's Creation, Adam and Eve and Original Sin and Fallen mankind, negating the very reason for the Incarnation of God. Communism, Racism, Naturalism, Secular Humanism are all based upon ET and could not survive without it.

This false science has taken hold of education and become a great force shaping lives. Atheist's ideas based upon false interpretation claim that science has provided them with proofs that the Judeo-Christian religion, God, Original Sin, Redemption and Jesus Christ are only superstititons based on ignorance and all belong to the realm of myths and fairy tales.

This present day debate lies in science itself....Any honest examination reveals science has no proof at all to contracdict religion and the existence of God. We are engaged in a scientific war and science is used against religion and God trying to destroy religious truth and replace it with new perspectives, views, theories, and hypotheses where God has no place.

The first target of the war was the Old Testament particularly Genesis. Using false science they gave a secular explanation of the world and all life in it. But sceince isn't the enemy of religion and God at all....it's used by the enemy though even by falsification to seduce man away from believing in God.       

It's very answerable.  It's reductionist bullshit with circular reasoning ('carefully designed structures seen in the world') in which the assumption is the conclusion without benefit of proof (where's the evidence they were designed - you take that as gospel simply on Paley's word?); totally illogical, irrational & irrelevant.  All you know from Paley is he was able to figure out that a watch was made by someone (like he didn't know?).  Brilliant guy.  There, you have an answer.

They mean things like malaria and diabetes.