Go find a present day 'nomad' living remotely in the desert in a tent, never having been exposed to modern society, and ask them how it all came about. Dont think he will even get close to the explanation as was given in Genesis... Man this site is ridiculously slow today---and is continually booting me off..plus, I'm getting worn out with that and having to explain 'the facts of life' (literally) to lost atheists..later..
Mmmmmm...... that is not an argument. Genesis does not accurately describe the progression of events that lead to the world that live in. Period.
Cop out from my reasonings presented previously..but we both know that you dont want to know what makes any sense but prefer to 'grind your ax." "Merry Grinding"..see how tolerant I am!
What reasoning is that? Somehow saying the earth existed before light is somehow accurate? There is no vast conspiracy to suppress your imagined "good points", I am outright dismissing them because they make very little sense in light of reality.
If your mind is made up, and not open to reasoning (which I gave over several posts, and didnt even quote a scripture!) then what are you doing on this thread---seems to be just wasting your time? I would think that you would be 'above' all the superstitious tripe!
This is amusing. You cite scripture, claiming that Genesis is a close enough account of the formation of time, space, and the world we live in, and compare it to going out into a desert and seeing if some random person could do better, as if that is an argument. It is laughable. I would suggest purchasing this text, it may help you understand why we are so seemingly dismissive. http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/gener...s/CriticalThinking/?view=usa&ci=9780195377927
Sounds like me! I use 'critical thinking' when looking for the harmony of science, along with history, in better understanding the scriptures. I dont carte blanche dismiss things as your do. Thx for the validation, Wolfie..
Mmmmm.... nope. To say the Genesis is "close enough" is simply ridiculous. Either it accurately describes something or it does not. If it contradicts observations is no or was not based on a demonstrable process, then it is to be dismissed in light of current observations. It is pretty simple.
No, you may be thinking of The Cosmos with Carl Sagan. The Fabric of the Cosmos is an excellent book by Brian Greena. Very eye opening.
And so then, with that 'critical thinking' and logic, most of the knowledge about the universe (I heard about 95%) is unknown and purely speculative, so throw it all out! Right?! Like I mentioned B4 in a thread, I took Astrophysics in college many years ago, and about 80% has been shown to be false or in error when compared with what they know today. Again, Wolfie, you have failed your course in critical thinking, proving that 'this' theist is more rational than you....sorry, to rub it in, but it had to be said.
Of course the science changes. Science does not stay static, it adjusts to observations. Religion does not change (unless something no longer cool, like stoning homosexuals), and does not adjust to observations (unless someone needs to be elected).
Where in the NT based on the grace of God thru Jesus Christ (Gospel means 'good' news) does it say to stone homosexuals?! I've been 'taught' to love the homosexual but not the sin they practice. Just as with the adulterer. You seem hung up on that particular thing...sounds like your 'pet cop-out'......so continue grinding it, but you will be in error.
That's interesting, I didn't realize this series was based off a book.. (FYI) http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/fabric-of-cosmos.html It's actually pretty well done if you get into these science TV series.
Huh. Did Jesus say anything about homosexuality? Or are we going to cite the Old Testament when it is convenient?
Jesus didnt address any particular sin as He came not the 1st time to judge those who needed a 'spiritual physician' (my para.). He only came against those "who thought they saw' but were steeped in dead religion like the Pharisees. But the Apostle Paul addressed it along with the spectrum of sins: Corinthians 6:9-11 (Ampl) 9Do you not know that the unrighteous and the wrongdoers will not inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived (misled): neither the impure and immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who participate in homosexuality, 10Nor cheats (swindlers and thieves), nor greedy graspers, nor drunkards, nor foulmouthed revilers and slanderers, nor extortioners and robbers will inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God.
No, sorry, but that scripture is in the NT written by the Apostle who wrote 2/3's of the NT. It's not subjective like other things as Paul 'qualified' in particular that are related to 'social customs' according to 'his' wisdom & judgement, such as: staying single after coming to the Lord, being natural for women to wearing coverings, etc. . . . . Well, gotta eat and get ready for the 'Big Debate' to see which one of the gaggle will be our NEXT president..manana
Prehistoric horse in Lascaux: Detail of a scientific work about the prehsitoric horse of Lascaux: http://youtu.be/MGa6oCxhpZA
