popsthebuilder
New member
The morn and eve you speak of are in reference to the force of pure or light, and the absence, void, or opposing negative force that are evident throughout all existence.
Evolution... Do we believe?
- Thread starter PopeFrancieLXIX
- Start date
popsthebuilder
New member
Firstly I do not disagree with the creation in Genesis. Secondly I sincerely take offense to you saying that I think the creation theory in the Bible is a lie. Because there was a morning and evening does not mean it was 6 literal days. Because you think God refers to sometime as roughly 23 hours does not mean it was 23 hours as we know it today. It is known that time has spead up exponentially since the big bang or since creation as we know it. It can be manipulated throughout space time which is one and the same thing and interconnected just like positive and negative is related to all balance, duality, and existence. The day and night or morning and evening God refers to in Genesis in the very beginning or the first five to six days refers to a Balance a positive and negative a light and a void if you will. Thank you.
6days
New member
Pffft..... daft :nono
sychobabble:nono: newage:nono: revisionist:nono: compromising :nono:evolutionist :duh:Genesis 1:5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.
6days
New member
A+ Very good!!
F Sorry... You flunk for trying to spin God's Word.
Mark 10:6"But from the beginning of the creation, Male and female made he them"
6days
New member
Actually that is not what I said...
I will quote myself
"God says He created light on the first day and the sun on the 4th day.
.....Can you accept it?
* God says That there was morning and evening the first 3 days, even though there was no sun.
.....Can you accept it?
* God says He created the great sea creature before the land animals.
.....Can you accept it?
* God says the earth was intially all water.
.....Can you accept it?
* God said plants were created the day before the sun
.....Can you accept it?
* God says He created everything in six days.
.....Can you accept it?
* God says woman was created from man's rib.
.....Can you accept it?
* God says the highest mountains under the heavens were covered in Noah's flood.
.....Can you accept it?
* God says death entered our world because of man's sin.
.....Can you accept it?
* Jesus says male and female were from the beginning of creation.
.....Can you accept it?
Barbarian... Can you accept what God says without trying to spin it?
Nope. Evolutionists can't read. They demand a definition and then ignore the information they are provided with.
popsthebuilder
New member
You shouldn't criticise yourself in such ways. Right after that you showed understanding. Don't be so hard on yourself. In case you we're peaking of me; it would behoove you to not assume things of others or situations. Thanks.
popsthebuilder
New member
Compromise and comprehend may sound similar grammatically, yet have to very different meanings. Perhaps next time you can come out and say what you mean like a man as opposed to being slippery, and manipulative.
Cruciform
New member
Post #366.
Nope.
Plenty of times the definition of kind has been shared with evolutionists. However, they still refuse to accurately represent the idea. Meanwhile, no definition for "species" has been forthcoming. But I'm sure post No. 666 says something about it.
Cruciform
New member
Post #366
Stipe continues to pretend he has a testable definition for "species" (but he'll never tell us what it is)
popsthebuilder
New member
A species is often defined as the largest group of organisms where two hybrids are capable of reproducing fertile offspring, typically using sexual reproduction.
A definition needs to be "always" to be useful.
Like a "kind" always refers to a group of organisms that share a common ancestor population.
6days
New member
Often... except when the definition isn't convenient to evolutionism.
Evolutionary theory says that there can be no universally-applicable definition of "species." Creationism requires that there be one.
This is a major reason why scientists don't accept creationism. As you have noticed, no creationist can show us a testable definition that works for all organisms.
Which is what Darwin predicted in The Origin of Species.
This is a major reason why scientists don't accept creationism. As you have noticed, no creationist can show us a testable definition that works for all organisms.
Which is what Darwin predicted in The Origin of Species.
6days
New member
Your nose is growing.
Ben Masada
New member
Evolution...do we believe?
Evolution...do we believe?
Wait a minute Popsthebuilder, not that I care. As I am concerned, the analogy of the six days of Creation in Genesis is only the Jewish way to give origin to the weekly cycle with the intent at establishing the Sabbath as it seems to be, so to speak, the most important commandment of the Decalogue as a real lot of credibility is laid on this commandment and on the fundamentalist way religious Jews observe it. Therefore, it doesn't matter to me if the six days is a reference to six eons or to 6000 literal years. That was not the point of the allegory. So, the discrepancies in the order of happenings as Science is concerned, are not to be taken as contradictions but, in the sense that the Genesis allegory of Creation does not obey the chronological development of the time but psychologically.
Evolution...do we believe?
Wait a minute Popsthebuilder, not that I care. As I am concerned, the analogy of the six days of Creation in Genesis is only the Jewish way to give origin to the weekly cycle with the intent at establishing the Sabbath as it seems to be, so to speak, the most important commandment of the Decalogue as a real lot of credibility is laid on this commandment and on the fundamentalist way religious Jews observe it. Therefore, it doesn't matter to me if the six days is a reference to six eons or to 6000 literal years. That was not the point of the allegory. So, the discrepancies in the order of happenings as Science is concerned, are not to be taken as contradictions but, in the sense that the Genesis allegory of Creation does not obey the chronological development of the time but psychologically.