Q. What do Christians and Darwinists have in common with one another?

[Arthur Brain]

:rotfl:

Darwin-lovers are forever quoting 2 Peter 3 as if it helps them.

It doesn't:

Rather, scientists who have consistently schooled you on the topic of evolution only to be met with juvenile attempts at mockery and a complete lack of maturity on your own part. There's some irony again right there.

Beloved, I now write to you this second epistle (in both of which I stir up your pure minds by way of reminder), that you may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us, the apostles of the Lord and Savior, knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, and saying: “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.” For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance. But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up. Therefore, since all these things will be dissolved, what manner of persons ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be dissolved, being on fire, and the elements will melt with fervent heat? Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.

See those bolded parts? That's you. See the part you claim justifies "billions of years"? That is quite plainly a description of God as patient.

Who are you?

:idunno:

Got the irony yet?

lain:

Because you say so? Did you not read the post that describes the differences in approach among the gospels? You can do a simple Google search to determine why the genealogies diverge at King David and reunite at Joseph.

Or you could keep believing that writers of the time who placed great importance on their heritage and the records of them were somehow able to ignore the "glaring errors" that you spotted. lain:

No, because they differ and this is in relation to the supposedly original man. They should match each other. Of course there's reasons as to why they could differ if the creation account and such could be regarded as allegorical as linked to on here but that would require thinking outside of a fundamentalist box.

Not really gonna happen with you is it?

 

[Arthur Brain]

Dog doesn't understand entropy.

:mock: :dog:

So, instead of answering his question, you just act like an immature clown with dopey smileys as "response". That's just you all over isn't it Stripe?

lain:

 

[Arthur Brain]

I was on another forum that moderators would identify unanswered questions that could receive a simple answer. Those moderators would then restrict the poster to answer the question on that thread. Sock puppets would get banned, and the next post allowed would be monitored by the moderators to answer the question before it was posted. Since the moderators didn't have infinite time, they would more often than not only give the poster a single chance to answer or get banned, but it was at their discretion. Bans started at 3 days and went up from there at the discretion of the moderator.

I realize we can't do this on TOL because the resources necessary are too much, but it sure made for a lot of productive discussion. I got caught not answering a question and they were happy to get an answer that explained why I found it a disadvantage in the argument to answer either way the context would allow, which included my preferred answer. The discussion was fruitful after that.

People like Arty, Jonah, Anni, Russa, Quip, and a few others would need this kind of discipline to offer anything useful.

Oh, so you'd rather I and others were "disciplined" into giving answers that were more in line with what you would consider "productive discussion"? Perhaps you can specifically outline as to how I haven't met the standards that meet with your supposed criteria for a satisfactory response?

I've moderated on a forum that was challenging at certain times and my last go to was the ban button but rather the reasonable approach when things got a bit out of hand. Bans given by me: Zero. Warnings, a few and a close call with the ban button but thankfully sorted out with no necessity for it.

If you're uncomfortable with dissenting opinions on a debate forum then why even be on it?

 

[Jonahdog]

The theory of evolution isn't "Darwinism" and you need to provide something besides "from entropy" as if that counts as anything in itself.

Well, I for one expect no explanation from Stripe. But i'm happy to read one if he has one. Or, Bueller, Bueller, from anyone else.

 

[Right Divider]

Why do they differ at all if they're both supposed to document the genealogy of the original man?

So, yes, the onus is on you to explain that.

You simply picked an explanation that you liked without even looking at any other options. You wanted to throw them out so that you can try to make your story true.

 

[Arthur Brain]

You simply picked an explanation that you liked without even looking at any other options. You wanted to throw them out so that you can try to make your story true.

Well, nope. I "picked" an explanation that was rational, logical, fitted in with actual science and does away with the problem of incest.

 

[Right Divider]

Well, nope. I "picked" an explanation that was rational, logical, fitted in with actual science and does away with the problem of incest.

That is hilarious....

You've convinced yourself that a falsehood is true.

The genealogies are in the Bible for a reason and yet you toss them out as if there is no meaning to them.

You're so convinced of this silly falsehood that you think that God cannot even tell us that Adam had sons and that they had names.

Here, as an example, shows that Adam is not a mere "allegory" as you falsely claim.

Gen 5:1-5 KJV This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; (2) Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created. (3) And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth: (4) And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters: (5) And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.

In your crazy "truth", God gives us the age of an "allegory" when he had a son and the age of an "allegory" when he died.

You turn the Bible over to mockery. You give Bible believing Christians a bad name.

 

[Arthur Brain]

That is hilarious....

You've convinced yourself that a falsehood is true.

The genealogies are in the Bible for a reason and yet you toss them out as if there is no meaning to them.

You're so convinced of this silly falsehood that you think that God cannot even tell us that Adam had sons and that they had names.

Here, as an example, shows that Adam is not a mere "allegory" as you falsely claim.


In your crazy "truth", God gives us the age of an "allegory" when he had a son and the age of an "allegory" when he died.

You turn the Bible over to mockery. You give Bible believing Christians a bad name.

I don't do anything of the sort but this is the type of arrogance that I expect from you. Fundamentalism had a bad enough name before I had anything to say about it and with good reason.

 

[Right Divider]

I don't do anything of the sort but this is the type of arrogance that I expect from you. Fundamentalism had a bad enough name before I had anything to say about it and with good reason.

I notice AGAIN that you are allergic to scripture.

Here, as an example, shows that Adam is not a mere "allegory" as you falsely claim.

Gen 5:1-5 KJV This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; (2) Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created. (3) And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth: (4) And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters: (5) And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.

In your crazy "truth", God gives us the age of an "allegory" when he had a son and the age of an "allegory" when he died.

Please explain why God gives these years for an "allegory". (Hint: you can't, because he's not an allegory)

 

[Arthur Brain]

I notice AGAIN that you are allergic to scripture.

Here, as an example, shows that Adam is not a mere "allegory" as you falsely claim.



Please explain why God gives these years for an "allegory". (Hint: you can't, because he's not an allegory)

"Called their name Adam"? Where's Eve in this then? How does humanity reflect the "likeness" of God exactly? Physical image?

 

[Right Divider]

"Called their name Adam"? Where's Eve in this then? How does humanity reflect the "likeness" of God exactly? Physical image?

Adam was the first MAN and God created the first woMAN from the MAN. I always find it amazing what type of "Christian" you are when you do not even understand the basics (you know the FUNDEMENTALS).

And AGAIN you DODGE the SCRIPTURE that gives detailed YEARS about Adam's life.

Gen 5:1-5 KJV This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; (2) Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created. (3) And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth: (4) And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters: (5) And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.

HINT: God does not put "random" fake "details" in HIS WORD.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Adam was the first MAN and God created the first woMAN from the MAN. I always find it amazing what type of "Christian" you are when you do not even understand the basics (you know the FUNDEMENTALS).

And AGAIN you DODGE the SCRIPTURE that gives detailed YEARS about Adam's life.

Gen 5:1-5 KJV This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; (2) Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created. (3) And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth: (4) And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters: (5) And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.

HINT: God does not put "random" fake "details" in HIS WORD.

I'd hardly call that "detailed years" and "their" name can't have both been Adam because the woman is called Eve. You also haven't answered the question. How does "man" reflect the likeness of God exactly? Physical image?

 

[Right Divider]

I'd hardly call that "detailed years" and "their" name can't have both been Adam because the woman is called Eve.

You are quite a piece of work!

You don't think that nine hundred and thirty is a detailed year? Or an hundred and thirty years?

Yes, God refers (in THIS instance) to them as Adam... It's not so unusual as you make it seem. But then again, you're opposed to the Bible and must reject just about everything that is says.

As explained by the BIBLE (and me), Eve came FROM ADAM... you know -->

Gen 2:23 KJV And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

You also haven't answered the question. How does "man" reflect the likeness of God exactly? Physical image?

Trying to change the subject again... just your typical childish approach to "dialog".

 

[Arthur Brain]

You are quite a piece of work!

Stop being so childish and act like a grown man.

You don't think that nine hundred and thirty is a detailed year? Or an hundred and thirty years?

Yes, God refers (in THIS instance) to them as Adam... It's not so unusual as you make it seem. But then again, you're opposed to the Bible and must reject just about everything that is says.

As explained by the BIBLE (and me), Eve came FROM ADAM... you know -->

How is that "detailed"? Eve was literally created from one of Adam's ribs? Yes, it is unusual for a woman to be referred to as "Adam" as it is not a woman's name.

Trying to change the subject again... just your typical childish approach to "dialog".

Rather, it was a question that you are refusing to answer for some reason. You are in no position to talk about childishness given your immaturity on here. Grow up and answer the question if that's at all possible on both counts.

lain:

 

[Right Divider]

Stop being so childish and act like a grown man.

It's just the truth.

How is that "detailed"?

You don't think that the SPECIFIC number of YEARS that Adam lived is a detail?
You don't think that the SPECIFIC AGE of Adam when he had one of his children is a detail?

Like I said... you're quite a piece of work!

Eve was literally created from one of Adam's ribs?

That is correct. Why? Do you believe that God is lying about it?

Yes, it is unusual for a woman to be referred to as "Adam" as it is not a woman's name.

Let me show you the SCRIPTURE.... AGAIN.

Gen 2:23 KJV And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

Rather, it was a question that you are refusing to answer for some reason.

I don't recall being asked that question.

You are in no position to talk about childishness given your immaturity on here. Grow up and answer the question if that's at all possible on both counts.

lain:

I discuss topics like an adult... unlike you.

 

[Arthur Brain]

It's just the truth.

No, it's just you acting like an immature and childish little man. If that's what you want to do then hey, have at it but it hardly reflects well on you.

You don't think that the SPECIFIC number of YEARS that Adam lived is a detail?
You don't think that the SPECIFIC AGE of Adam when he had one of his children is a detail?

Like I said... you're quite a piece of work!

So, he lives until he's literally nine hundred and thirty and it takes him a hundred and thirty years to start having a family? In ancient times, it could be regarded as "old" if you reached fifty...It's not "detailed".

As above. How old are you?

That is correct. Why? Do you believe that God is lying about it?

I think it's blatant allegory.

Let me show you the SCRIPTURE.... AGAIN.

See above. When was she referred to as Eve as opposed to Adam?

I don't recall being asked that question.

You don't recall being asked a straightforward question from only a coupla posts ago?!

:AMR:

Well, here it is again:

How does "man" reflect the likeness of God exactly? Physical image?

I discuss topics like an adult... unlike you.

No, you don't. If you did, you'd drop the snark and immaturity. Your call.

 

[Stripe]

Stripe is unable or unwilling to explain his claim. Not unusual. Stripe made a claim/statement about entropy and "Darwinism" by which I the it he means the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics makes evolution impossible. Just asking for an explanation.

Dog thinks entropy necessarily means thermodynamics.

:mock: :dog:

 

[Right Divider]

So, he lives until he's literally nine hundred and thirty and it takes him a hundred and thirty years to start having a family?

For a "Christian" you sure are Biblically illiterate.

Seth was NOT Adam and Eve's FIRST child!

Gen 4:1-2 KJV And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD. (2) And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.

Gen 4:25-26 KJV And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew. (26) And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD.

Here you are, on TOL, telling us what the Bible "means" and yet you have practically NO knowledge of its actual CONTENTS.

I think it's blatant allegory.

Here we go again with your OPINIONS about the contents of a book that you have practically NO knowledge of.

 

[Stripe]

So, yes, the onus is on you to explain that.

I'm fairly comfortable leaving you to believe that the genealogies in the Bible are wrong. Heck, you don't believe most of the rest of it anyway.

The challenge you face remains: Even if you were justified in ignoring those lists, you've contributed nothing toward the discussion.

Where is your evidence or reasoning that the Bible cannot mean what it possibly says?

 

[Arthur Brain]

I'm fairly comfortable leaving you to believe that the genealogies in the Bible are wrong. Heck, you don't believe most of the rest of it anyway.

The challenge you face remains: Even if you were justified in ignoring those lists, you've contributed nothing toward the discussion.

Where is your evidence or reasoning that the Bible cannot mean what it possibly says?

So, you've effectively no actual answer as to why they differ then. Hardly a surprise of any sort really.

The allegory is kinda obvious. Aren't you an English teacher?