Can you handle the Truth?

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
The Bible does not calculate that the Earth is 6000 years old...some people reach that conclusion by adding up lifetimes, as I said it is not a reliable conclusion- the Bible is not a complete genealogy.

… and facts were not as important to the people who wrote the stories as was the message.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Nowhere in the Bible does it say how long it took to create man (1 day could be anything) nor does it say if this is a literal creation, metaphorical spiritual etc.

They are stories that tell us where we came from. Humans need to know this kind of information to survive. We take what we know and fill in the gaps so that the information will make sense to a story centered mind. We then pass that information down to our children by telling stories. The message is what is being transferred from generation to generation, not necessarily the facts of the story.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Also, evolution can't happen in 6000 years? Omnipotent God says it can.

God is unknowable, and beyond human understanding. Anything that we say about God is at some level wrong. God is the ultimate paradox from a human point of view.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
How dare he interfere in our fun! 😠 😛

I didn’t want Wild Shadow to suffer.

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
here no evidence, see no evidence, eh? you are ignoring my posts. Did you or did you not look at my astrological theories and/or Polonium Halos found in granite?

Originally posted by Da Pittman
Yes I read them and so what,

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
welcome to that asylum from my logic that some people call my ignore list. Had you chosen to respond to my evidence instead of spout kindergarten phrases like "so what" we might still be talking.

Considering an asylum is usually considered a place of safety, a refuge or sanctuary if you will, that wouldn't be a negative for him.

indeed. If i don't talk to him, he won't lose.

Doubt it, the religious-science ranter rarely poses something of logic, in the end, they usually fall back on the "faith" button when their arguement crumbles. Who knows, maybe you're special.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Well, why don't you explain how the Bible and Evolution cannot go together...you made the statement, back it up.

For starters, the Bible says God created man (as is) from dirt, so there's a hitch right there.

Originally posted by Robtard
Doubt it, the religious-science ranter rarely poses something of logic, in the end, they usually fall back on the "faith" button when their arguement crumbles. Who knows, maybe you're special.

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
welcome to that asylum from my logic that some people call my ignore list. Had you chosen to respond to my evidence instead of spout kindergarten phrases like "so what" we might still be talking.

It wouldn't be the first time someone like JIA put me on an ignore list.

I just leave you with this nice contradiction form you.

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
Evolution is not fact. Don't even try for that one. It should not be taught in schools, as it is a religion…

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
i didn't say science was. Just evolution, and I believe so because it is based on things that cannot be proven or can be easily disproven, and requires faith to believe.

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
I'm saying that NEITHER should be taught in schools.

This one I just love

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
obviously because not all "religious people" are scientists or even skilled with logic, whereas the supporters of evolution are either educated in the ways of the tongue or unable to think for themselves.

And now the contradiction.

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
http://www.expelledthemovie.com/aboutthemovie.php

My post with a statement from his link

Originally posted by Da Pittman
"Both are scientific theories, and the debate is therefore legitimate."

Your response

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
truth.

And you fault my logic 😆

Originally posted by Robtard
Doubt it, the religious-science ranter rarely poses something of logic, in the end, they usually fall back on the "faith" button when their arguement crumbles. Who knows, maybe you're special.

I don't follow what you mean. Give me an example of posing something of logic then falling back on the faith button when the argument crumbles.

http://www.gofishproductions.net/

Originally posted by Da Pittman
How about you simply respond to the question which you started this whole thing is that you said that the Theory of Evolution is a religion and then now you are trying to say that it is a science. Now how I'm I not using logic and being childish? You posted a link talking about the rotation of the Earth and that this is proof that Earth is not over 100,000 years old when the article doesn't even mention this. So why should I respond to your other posts that have nothing to do with what we are talking about?

It wouldn't be the first time someone like JIA put me on an ignore list.

I just leave you with this nice contradiction form you.

This one I just love

And now the contradiction.

This is all about that evolution is a science just like ID and that ID should be taught in schools, didn’t you say that it shouldn’t and it is not a science?!? 😖

My post with a statement from his link

Your response

And you fault my logic 😆

The shape of the Earth�s orbit changes from being elliptical (high eccentricity) to being nearly circular (low eccentricity) in a cycle that takes between 90,000 and 100,000 years

how about this incredibly huge contradiction on the behalf of your "scientists"?

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
how about this incredibly huge contradiction on the behalf of your "scientists"?

The only contradiction is in your mind.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The only contradiction is in your mind.

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
what, the fact that life started "billions of years ago" yet nasa states that 100,000 years ago the earth wasn't capable of sustaining life? That's a contradiction.

Nasa did not say that. 😆

The shape of the Earth�s orbit changes from being elliptical (high eccentricity) to being nearly circular (low eccentricity) in a cycle that takes between 90,000 and 100,000 years

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Milankovitch/milankovitch_2.php
one hundred thousand years ago:

today:

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
The shape of the Earth�s orbit changes from being elliptical (high eccentricity) to being nearly circular (low eccentricity) in a cycle that takes between 90,000 and 100,000 years

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Milankovitch/milankovitch_2.php
one hundred thousand years ago:

today:

And that does not make the Earth uninhabitable.

uh... ya it does.

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
uh... ya it does.

I read the article and there is nothing to support your idea that life could not exist 100,000 years ago. As a matter of fact, if what you say is true, then we would have no oil on the Earth today.

i dont know what it is you are trying to prove if you are trying to emply that the earth goes through varying seasons then you have succeeded.
if it is to prove the ice age happen then again you have succeeded.
if it is to prove life started somewhere 90 to 100,000 yrs then you have failed.. due to the fact that cromagmen and various huminids lived during the ice age along with many other animals. 😮