Why are Christians embracing Evolution?

[JudgeRightly]

We were discussing the application of the word day. As Jesus used. Today. This day. Then the criminal died and went to the grave awaiting resurrection. He was asleep in death. When he wakes up it will be as if it were the same day. To him. Though thousands of years will have passed. Jesus himself went to hell (the grave) for three days. He won't see the criminal for thousands of years.

Nope. Sorry.

Not gonna let you derail the thread.

If you want to talk about what happened while Christ was in the grave, then go to the other thread, where I have already stated my position and defended it.

 

[JudgeRightly]

[Jesus] won't see the criminal for thousands of years.

Also Calling Jesus a liar isn't going to end well for you.

 

[Clete]

Don't paste at me. I can do a search. If you can't take the time to talk to me don't expect me to take the time to read your C&P.

I'll "paste at you" all I want!

One person posts a link and you tell them not to post links but post the relevant information. Then you tell me not to post the relevant information!

Information, by the way, that is DIRECTLY relevant and responsive the "argument" that you previously claimed that no one responded to.

It seems you simply are looking for excuses to ignore any evidence presented to you. Perhaps you're intuitively aware that you aren't on the sturdy ground you pretend to be.

And as for taking time, I take more time responding to people on this website than perhaps anyone here! I've been doing this for probably most of your natural life! You don't impress me one little bit. You'll prove to be just as big a waste of time as virtually every other jerk that has come a long in the last two and half decades.

 

[DLH]

I'll "paste at you" all I want!

One person posts a link and you tell them not to post links but post the relevant information. Then you tell me not to post the relevant information!

Information, by the way, that is DIRECTLY relevant and responsive the "argument" that you previously claimed that no one responded to.

It seems you simply are looking for excuses to ignore any evidence presented to you. Perhaps you're intuitively aware that you aren't on the sturdy ground you pretend to be.

And as for taking time, I take more time responding to people on this website than perhaps anyone here! I've been doing this for probably most of your natural life! You don't impress me one little bit. You'll prove to be just as big a waste of time as virtually every other jerk that has come a long in the last two and half decades.

I'm 3 years older than you. And you don't impress me either. But that isn't the point is it. Don't paste at me entire blankets of text. Watch, Junior, I'll show you: (This isn't for debate, just demonstration)

I write, in my own words: Writers of the Bible, under inspiration, use the word katabole, meaning throwing down of seed, when talking about the founding of the world. The exact meaning of the English "F word" It's talking about the conception of Cain; Paul used it in reference to Sarah and Abraham.

Then I give the link: What The Bible Says About Free Will

Not Like this:

I add the link: What The Bible Says About Free Will

Then dump a text paste on you like this:

A Response To The Skeptic's Annotated Bible (SAB): What The Bible Says About Freewill (Determinism)

[SAB] God determines who is going to heaven ...

Response: Greek mythology portrayed the three goddesses, the Fates, as those who spun the thread of life and determining the length of it, cut it. The Bible teaches no such thing. Though the language used in modern translations can be somewhat misleading, when looking at this difficult subject it is important that we are careful with language. For example, under the heading “God determines who is going to heaven” it is important to note that that statement is true. God does determine, or decide, who is going to heaven. It doesn’t necessarily imply that God predetermines this.

Acts 13:48 (KJV) uses the term “ordained.” To be ordained in a religious sense is to officially appoint someone to a position such as Priest or Rabbi. Keep in mind that to appoint someone doesn’t in itself determine the outcome of it. It doesn’t dictate their success or failure. To ordain in a legal sense means to establish something formerly as by law. Again, this doesn’t dictate success or failure. The law ordained isn’t necessarily obeyed or followed.

In an attempt to get a better sense of what is being implied, compare the verse with other translations. The NIV, YLT and ESV use the term appointed. To me this is a more appropriate term. It can mean previously agreed upon, and met at the appointed time, but it can also mean decorated in the sense of being well furnished or equipped.

With all of this in mind consider the NWT, which uses the most easily understood and scripturally accurate (supported) terminology. They use the term “rightly disposed.”

So the reader has the choice of leaning towards a fate predetermined like the goddesses of Greek mythology mentioned above, which isn’t supported by scripture, or leaning, instead, to the peoples of the nations hearing the statement given at Acts 13:47: “For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth” they would see themselves as being given the opportunity to meet this appointment quoted from Isaiah 42:6-7. The Christian era had opened the possibility of salvation to the Gentiles; the nations.

The possibility of salvation. There would be no need for repentance of the wicked, nor the need to continue in righteousness if it were all decided for each of us beforehand. (2 Peter 3:17)

The point being that God at some point knew that the Gentiles would have this opportunity but didn’t foreordain the acceptance of those Gentiles of that opportunity, the choice was up to them.

When considering Romans 8:29-30 it is apparent that it isn’t a reference to specific individuals, but rather with a class of people. Jehovah has determined that there will be a group of people - Christians - who would be justified or declared righteous rather than that specific individuals were predestined for it. This is obvious, again as with Acts 13:48, when addressing the same group of possible candidates for this group, Peter warns of the possibility of failing. (2 Peter 1:10) If God had predestined these individuals for either failing or succeeding in being a part of this group there would be nothing they could do to change that. The possibility of failing wouldn’t be for those whom God had foreordained for that position, so that isn‘t the case.

The King James Version reads the latter portion of 2 Timothy 1:9 as “before the world began.” Various translations differ: YLT "Before the time of the ages" / NIV "before the beginning of time." / Douay-Rheims "before the times of the world." / ESV "before the ages began." What exactly does this term mean? Most people tend to think of it incorrectly as being before the creation of earth and man, meaning that all since then had been foreknown by God. That isn’t the case at all.

The Greek term katabole is used, and literally means a casting or laying down. For example, throwing down a seed. At Hebrews 11:11 the term is applied to Sarah's being given the gift to "conceive" at a late age.

At Luke 11:50-51 Jesus gives us insight on when this term, the founding of the world, began. From the blood of Abel. Abel, of course, was the offspring of Adam and Eve, so this time began when the first human couple conceived and began the race of mankind.

The word "world" is translated from the Greek kosmos, which has various meanings. 1. Humankind as a whole. 2. The structure of the human circumstances into which one is born and lives and 3. The masses of humankind apart from God's servants.

So, in a sense we are all living in the same period as Abel, though he towards it’s beginning and we towards it’s conclusion. The founding of the world, in this sense, then, would be the period of time after Adam’s sin but before Adam and Eve conceived. This is the period of time in which God began to allow for the possibility of salvation from the harmful effects of Adam’s sin. Genesis 3:15, the first prophecy of the Bible, is often overlooked as the beginning of all of this because it is often viewed as strictly a pronouncement upon Adam and Eve and the Serpent. When actually it is the first indication that there would be a division of, in a sense of the word, worlds. Those siding with Satan’s seed; his “offspring” so to speak and those of Jehovah’s seed from the woman, his earthly organization of faithful followers who were proved to be rightly disposed or ordained as a class of people from that moment until the conclusion of the world. Put simply, there would be those for Jehovah and those against.

The same would apply to Ephesians 1:4-5 and 2 Thessalonians 2:13 as with 2 Timothy 1:9

[SAB] and who is going to hell.

Response: The Bible doesn’t teach the hellfire doctrine.

At 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12, where the KJV uses the term "a strong delusion" other translations use "working of error," (ASV) "a misleading influence, a working of error," (AMP) "fooled into believing a lie." (CEV) The question is, what does this mean?

In a basic sense it means God will allow them to believe as they will, which in this case, was a lie as it was with King Ahab at 1 Kings 22:1-38; 2 Chronicles 18. If you prefer the lie there is nothing that God can do to change that except hold you accountable to it. Note that other translations use the term “judged” rather than damned as the KJV uses. Also note that, where most translations, including the KJV, use the term “found pleasure” in unrighteousness literally means in Greek “having thought well.” They have given it thought and strive in an intellectual sense, to come to the conclusion they desire.

[SAB] There's nothing you can do about it.

Romans 9:11-22 - Verses such as these are often judged in a predestinarian perspective which is, at best, arbitrary. Fortunately God's perfection isn't so demanding so as to feel the need to measure up completely to the standards of excellence set by those who are not qualified to judge its merits. Put simply, as the Christian would put it, most often without having even the slightest knowledge of why, it amounts to God’s grace. In other words, God’s undeserved kindness. There is nothing we can do to make it so we "deserve" it.

In the case of Jacob and Esau, the firstborn, by tradition, was expected to have a claim on birthright, but Jehovah decided that it would be Jacob. Esau didn't appreciate it. Jehovah would see to Jacob‘s prospering. Is this a case of predestination? No. Even in the womb before they were born the twins struggled, and so then Jehovah revealed to Rebekah the way things would be. (Genesis 25:22-23; also see Psalm 139:13-16)

 

[Clete]

I'm 3 years older than you.

Close enough.

And you don't impress me either. But that isn't the point is it. Don't paste at me entire blankets of text. Watch, Junior, I'll show you: (This isn't for debate, just demonstration)

Good bye.

 

[DLH]

Close enough.


Good bye.

Aw, you edited out the part where you called me a Jackass and told me to go to hell. What'd you do that for?!

 

[Stripe]

Belief is theory. Science is spiritual, it's faith.

Those statements come across as platitudes. Science is the process of throwing out ideas when they are shown impossible by evidence, logic or reason. Calling it "spiritual" might be accurate, but it's not helpful.

There is no difference between belief in God, which I have, and belief in evolutionary theory.

Except that one is justified by evidence, logic and reason, while the other isn't.

You can't prove it.

Science isn't about proving things; it is about showing them to be impossible. That is not to say that some things cannot be proven.

In a sense, yes. If the speed limit from my house to the mall is 55 miles per hour I can get to the mall in a short time. If I'm driving to Florida it takes longer. If the speed of light is about 186,282 miles per second it takes the light from Sirius about 9 years to get here, but it takes the light from Icarus 9 billion years to get here. Science. That means that the Earth has to be at least that old. I used a more distant example with the Hubble telescope earlier which demonstrated it's at least 14 billion years old. It can see light from 10-15 billion light years away.

So you think distant starlight proves that the Bible cannot mean what it says when it says "six days"?

I've been doing this for over a quarter of a century.

You obviously haven't run into any serious opposition.

Languages that are no longer spoken.

Is English a "dead language"?

It has words that are no longer used.

Don't throw up or regurgitate dogma and tradition and science and language and theology at me. Make it come alive and explain - discuss and debate - the details.

Because you demand it?

You're going to have to deal with at least a little bit of hard work if you're serious about learning.

Simply saying that day means day is wrong.

To be fair, nobody has said that "day means day." I know that I said day can mean day. You can't make a case by asserting that day can mean a non-24-hour period without acknowledging that it can also mean a 24-hour period.

I'm not here to prove my frail beliefs right and yours wrong. That is nonsense. Impossible. Pointless. I'm here to learn the details.

Guess what? Science means proving things impossible. If you cannot prove what I say to be impossible, you can't do science.

 

[Right Divider]

Those statements come across as platitudes. Science is the process of throwing out ideas when they are shown impossible by evidence, logic or reason. Calling it "spiritual" might be accurate, but it's not helpful.

To borrow and old saying (attributed to Yogi Berra): Science is 90% spiritual, the other half is physical.

 

[DLH]

@Stripe This is a bit long, unfortunately, but of course you don't have to respond to the entire thing. I'm telling you why I think what I do. The evidence, logic and reason. You already know my position.

Those statements come across as platitudes. Science is the process of throwing out ideas when they are shown impossible by evidence, logic or reason. Calling it "spiritual" might be accurate, but it's not helpful.

It suggests the problematic subjectivity of science as well as faith. Also, not platitudes. Semantics, the study of meaning. Linguistics; historical anthropological and sociolinguistics.

Except that one is justified by evidence, logic and reason, while the other isn't.

Ideally, but not practically. They can be manipulated, corrupted and subjective. They are fallible. Both science and faith can be tested and can be derived through evidence, logic and reason. Both can be subject to emotional, personal bias. Science is a method of investigation. If you "follow the science" you are not stating the findings of your own objective investigation. You are putting faith in the investigation of someone else. Words like science, truth, fact, evidence, logic and reason are often touted by the "science" minded fundamental atheist as if faith in Jehovah God isn't dependent upon those fallible principles.

Linguistics

Faith, from the Latin fidem, to trust, is similar to the Latin credit, belief. You don't establish good credit through the blind faith and ignorance of the creditor. Credit is important for businesses like mining. Mining operations can move mountains, with credit. Faith. If with faith in money how much more so with faith in God?

Day: "The days of creation were creative days, stages in the process, but not days of twenty-four hours each." - A Religious Encyclopædia (Vol. I, p. 613) Edited by P. Schaff, 1894.

So, you read six days in the Bible. Tradition may suggest a literal interpretation. Scholars may suggest that as well, or not. What about your own investigation incorporating "evidence, logic and reason"? The touchstone of faith?

I personally have no problem with assigning a literal six day period of time for the creation of the universe by a creator who is capable of such a thing, but the language of the Bible doesn't support that. Only tradition. The same creator could, perhaps, have dried out the waters from the flood in a matter of seconds, but the language doesn't support that having happened.

Science isn't about proving things; it is about showing them to be impossible. That is not to say that some things cannot be proven.

Doesn't science prove it is impossible for the universe to have come into existence to the degree the Bible suggests (growing grass, animals, humans etc. in six literal days? It doesn't much matter, though.

Often a so-called scientific examination of the Bible is woefully inadequate because it doesn't examine the linguistics, the semantics. I think I gave somewhere the example of celestial phenomenon in Revelation. It wasn't the superstitious fear of primitive people, it was a metaphorical application conveying social, political and environmental upheaval. This is evidenced by exactly the same applications being made earlier which were fulfilled. The former in application of Jerusalem and the latter in application on a global scale. Jerusalem had been destroyed and the people returning were new, the environment was new. The same thing will happen when God's kingdom replaces all other kingdoms on a global scale.

So you think distant starlight proves that the Bible cannot mean what it says when it says "six days"?

I think it demonstrates the unlikeliness of it.

You're going to have to deal with at least a little bit of hard work if you're serious about learning.

I've done my work. The question is, have you done yours?

To be fair, nobody has said that "day means day." I know that I said day can mean day. You can't make a case by asserting that day can mean a non-24-hour period without acknowledging that it can also mean a 24-hour period.

I have. Repeatedly. The creation account, and the Bible, and we English speaking persons all use either the Hebrew yohm or English day as meaning any period of time consisting of a few hours, approximately 24 literal hours, and great periods of time. I've given examples of all of that.

Guess what? Science means proving things impossible. If you cannot prove what I say to be impossible, you can't do science.

I don't think I would limit scientific method to merely proving things impossible, and anyway, I don't have to do science. I don't have to prove anything. All I have to do is ascertain which is the more logical explanation. I have examined it closely and you only seem to have an uninformed opinion based upon tradition.

 

[Right Divider]

I personally have no problem with assigning a literal six day period of time for the creation of the universe by a creator who is capable of such a thing, but the language of the Bible doesn't support that. Only tradition.

Silliness abounds with you. This scripture alone proves you wrong:

Exod 20:8-11 (AKJV/PCE)
(20:8) Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. (20:9) Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: (20:10) But the seventh day [is] the sabbath of the LORD thy God: [in it] thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that [is] within thy gates: (20:11) For [in] six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them [is], and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

The work week for Israel was defined based on the days of Creation.
BOTH are normal earth days.

Case closed, story over. QED, etc. etc. etc.

 

[DLH]

Silliness abounds with you. This scripture alone proves you wrong

If you even realistically thought that you would provide the scriptures. The scriptures have nothing to do with your interpretation.

The work week for Israel was defined based on the days of Creation.
BOTH are normal earth days.

Case closed, story over. QED, etc. etc. etc.

If the case is closed I, and no one else, closed it. I demonstrated that they were not literal days when I pointed out that 1) the creation was complete according to the perfect tense of the Hebrew word bara in Genesis 1:1 before the creative "days" began and 2) the over 40 uses of variants of the imperfect asah throughout the remainder of the chapter showing the progressive or incomplete action 3) the use of the Hebrew and English words (yohm/day) which are used in a variety of ways in addition to 24 literal hours, including with the six days being one day, the seventh day continuing even to this day, Judgement day, harvest day, in the days of Moses and 4) evening and morning being symbolic for only half a day.

Someone said something about stretching the heavens but offered no solution and someone pasted a text dump that didn't make any sense without explaining that.

 

[Right Divider]

If you even realistically thought that you would provide the scriptures.

My post contained the scripture that completely refutes your lame idea.

The scriptures have nothing to do with your interpretation.

Nor yours. Good thing is that the scripture that I posted is so crystal clear that no interpretation is needed.

If the case is closed I, and no one else, closed it.

Please try making sense if you're going to attempt to use the English language.

I demonstrated that they were not literal days when I pointed out that 1) the creation was complete according to the perfect tense of the Hebrew word bara in Genesis 1:1 before the creative "days" began and 2) the over 40 uses of variants of the imperfect asah throughout the remainder of the chapter showing the progressive or incomplete action 3) the use of the Hebrew and English words (yohm/day) which are used in a variety of ways in addition to 24 literal hours, including with the six days being one day, the seventh day continuing even to this day, Judgement day, harvest day, in the days of Moses and 4) evening and morning being symbolic for only half a day.

You "demonstrated" no such thing.

God gave Israel a SIX DAY work week modeled on the SIX DAY creation. Even a third grader can understand that.

Someone said something about stretching the heavens but offered no solution and someone pasted a text dump that didn't make any sense without explaining that.

Blah blah blah

 

[DLH]

God gave Israel a SIX DAY work week modeled on the SIX DAY creation. Even a third grader can understand that.

But a third grader wouldn't be so obtuse to suggest it meant anything. Do you even read what I say?

God also gave Israel 40 years to wander in the wilderness. For 40 days. Your literal interpretation doesn't account for the seventh day continuing to this day. (Psalm 95:7, 8, 11; Hebrews 4:1-11; 2 Peter 3:8) A day is a thousand years to God is an expression, just like a thousand years is to God like a watch in the night, which is only 4 hours. (Psalm 90:4) Is a day only 4 hours?

Blah blah blah

 

[Leatherneck]

But a third grader wouldn't be so obtuse to suggest it meant anything. Do you even read what I say?

God also gave Israel 40 years to wander in the wilderness. For 40 days. Your literal interpretation doesn't account for the seventh day continuing to this day. (Psalm 95:7, 8, 11; Hebrews 4:1-11; 2 Peter 3:8) A day is a thousand years to God is an expression, just like a thousand years is to God like a watch in the night, which is only 4 hours. (Psalm 90:4) Is a day only 4 hours?

Your reading a corrupt translation it should read:

2Pe 3:8 - But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years,and a thousand years as one day

 

[DLH]

Your reading a corrupt translation it should read:

2Pe 3:8 - But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years,and a thousand years as one day

Yes ... ?

 

[Stripe]

I'm telling you why I think what I do. The evidence, logic and reason. You already know my position.

Yeah. Unfortunately, you don't seem to understand mine.

It suggests the problematic subjectivity of science as well as faith. Also, not platitudes. Semantics, the study of meaning. Linguistics; historical anthropological and sociolinguistics.

Those are details. Science is simply the process of how we discard ideas.

We can discuss the details, but they aren't the scientific process.

Ideally, but not practically. They can be manipulated, corrupted and subjective. They are fallible. Both science and faith can be tested and can be derived through evidence, logic and reason. Both can be subject to emotional, personal bias. Science is a method of investigation. If you "follow the science" you are not stating the findings of your own objective investigation. You are putting faith in the investigation of someone else. Words like science, truth, fact, evidence, logic and reason are often touted by the "science" minded fundamental atheist as if faith in Jehovah God isn't dependent upon those fallible principles.

All irrelevant if you're willing to respect the scientific method.

If you're willing to excise ideas when they are shown to be impossible, you're "following the science." Claims to truth or such things are irrelevant.

Faith, from the Latin fidem, to trust, is similar to the Latin credit, belief. You don't establish good credit through the blind faith and ignorance of the creditor. Credit is important for businesses like mining. Mining operations can move mountains, with credit. Faith. If with faith in money how much more so with faith in God?

This is all fluff.

Day: "The days of creation were creative days, stages in the process, but not days of twenty-four hours each." - A Religious Encyclopædia (Vol. I, p. 613) Edited by P. Schaff, 1894.

That's nice. The Bible says "six days" and "evening and morning."

If you've got good reason that the plain meaning of those words cannot be accurate, let us know.

Until such a time, we are perfectly justified -- whether it be a scientific, truth or scriptural claim -- in asserting that the Bible teaches a literal creation week.

So, you read six days in the Bible. Tradition may suggest a literal interpretation. Scholars may suggest that as well, or not. What about your own investigation incorporating "evidence, logic and reason"? The touchstone of faith?

In all these years, I've seen nothing that should convince anyone that "six days" cannot mean what it plainly says.

That includes the fact that "day" can be used in a sense in which it should not be considered a 24-hour period.

I personally have no problem with assigning a literal six day period of time for the creation of the universe by a creator who is capable of such a thing, but the language of the Bible doesn't support that. Only tradition. The same creator could, perhaps, have dried out the waters from the flood in a matter of seconds, but the language doesn't support that having happened.

When you've got something more convincing than your opinion, let us know.

Doesn't science prove it is impossible for the universe to have come into existence to the degree the Bible suggests (growing grass, animals, humans etc. in six literal days? It doesn't much matter, though.

If it doesn't matter, don't bring it up.

Science doesn't prove anything, evidence, logic and reason do.

If you've got evidence, logic or good reason showing that the Biblical account is impossible, present it.

Often a so-called scientific examination of the Bible is woefully inadequate because it doesn't examine the linguistics, the semantics.

A scientific approach is open to all forms of evidence, logic and reason. That would include linguistics and semantics.

I think it demonstrates the unlikeliness of it.

How?

I've done my work.

Then how are you going to learn anything?

I have. Repeatedly. The creation account, and the Bible, and we English speaking persons all use either the Hebrew yohm or English day as meaning any period of time consisting of a few hours, approximately 24 literal hours, and great periods of time. I've given examples of all of that.

Way to completely miss the point.

Can "day" mean a 24-hour period delineated with "evening and morning"?

I don't think I would limit scientific method to merely proving things impossible.

Sounds intriguing. What are you going to add to the scientific method?

I don't have to do science. I don't have to prove anything.

That's probably for the best.

All I have to do is ascertain which is the more logical explanation.

You mean you're going to *gasp* reject an idea because it doesn't stand up to logic?

I have examined it closely and you only seem to have an uninformed opinion based upon tradition.

By all means, tell us what it is I have said -- quote me -- that exposes my ignorance.

 

[DLH]

Yeah. Unfortunately, you don't seem to understand mine.

Okay, then. Let's do the little back and forth game and see how long you can avoid the subject.

Those are details. Science is simply the process of how we discard ideas.

Right. Always wrong, wait for the nearest wagon to jump on. Beg to publish, for funding, fudge the stats on the viscosity of ketchup or polio vaccines to the highest bidder. Boring.

We can discuss the details, but they aren't the scientific process.

Good, then, let's forget about science so you'll having nothing to say.

All irrelevant if you're willing to respect the scientific method.

It bores the left man tit off me.

This is all fluff.

I find you're sardonic quips of the fluffy variety as well. [Pttthhh!!]

That's nice. The Bible says "six days" and "evening and morning."

You probably think it was written in American.

If you've got good reason that the plain meaning of those words cannot be accurate, let us know.

I refuse equally sardonically in abstract polyester synthesis.

Until such a time, we are perfectly justified -- whether it be a scientific, truth or scriptural claim -- in asserting that the Bible teaches a literal creation week.

I find myself constructed primarily from an elastic substance obtained from the exudations of certain tropical plants while you appear to be manufactured in the fashion of a simple adhesive concoction. As you express yourself vocally the manifestations reverberate from myself and run circles around you logically until eventually making contact and remaining there.

In all these years, I've seen nothing that should convince anyone that "six days" cannot mean what it plainly says.

Due to your having slowly dissipated to the lower end of the spectrum.

When you've got something more convincing than your opinion, let us know.

When you don't have it, don't let us know. Because you already haven't done.

If it doesn't matter, don't bring it up.

I won't. Again.

Science doesn't prove anything, evidence, logic and reason do.

Apparently not.

If you've got evidence, logic or good reason showing that the Biblical account is impossible, present it.

It's stranger here than over there.

How?

 

[Stripe]

You probably think it was written in American.

I'll let you in on a little secret: I've spent a grand total of about four hours in the US. All in airports.

Okay, then. Let's do the little back and forth game and see how long you can avoid the subject.
Right. Always wrong, wait for the nearest wagon to jump on. Beg to publish, for funding, fudge the stats on the viscosity of ketchup or polio vaccines to the highest bidder. Boring.
Good, then, let's forget about science so you'll having nothing to say.
It bores the left man tit off me.
I find you're sardonic quips of the fluffy variety as well. [Pttthhh!!]
I refuse equally sardonically in abstract polyester synthesis.
I find myself constructed primarily from elastic substance obtained from the exudations of certain tropical plants while you appear to be manufactured in the fashion of a simple adhesive concoction. As you express yourself vocally the manifestations reverberate from myself and run circles around you logically until eventually making contact and remaining there.
Due to your having slowly dissipated to the lower end of the spectrum.
When you don't have it, don't let us know. Because you already haven't done.
I won't. Again.
Apparently not.
It's stranger here than over there.

You seem upset with how simple my presentation is and unwilling to present anything to counter it.

The best we've seen from you is your assertion that day can mean a non-24- hour period.

Guess what? Everyone here agrees. Day can be used to refer to a period of not 24 hours.

Do you agree that day can be used to refer to a 24-hour period?

 

[DLH]

I'll let you in on a little secret: I've spent a grand total of about four hours in the US. All in airports.

This isn't an astonishing revelation to me, Michelangelo. Your birthday is also the same as my mother's.

You seem upset with how simple my presentation is and unwilling to present anything to counter it.

I have countered it repeatedly. With several points of contention which you have not countered. You've not even tried.

The best we've seen from you is your assertion that day can mean a non-24- hour period.

That's not the best. The best is the entire structuring of the Hebrew perfect and imperfect states in Genesis chapter 1, the speed of light from distant stars or the fact that the seventh day of creation continues to this day, thousands of years later.

Guess what? Everyone here agrees. Day can be used to refer to a period of not 24 hours.

Do you agree that day can be used to refer to a 24-hour period?

Again, I've given examples of exactly that in Hebrew and English. I've repeatedly pointed out that in just 2 or 3 verses of the creation account itself the words yohm/day ARE used in three different ways including a few hours - daylight - a literal 24 hours - day - and a period of 6 days combined - the day. That doesn't mean it could be six days of creation - that means that a literal 24 hours IS included in the creation account but the time of the creation account can't have been JUST a literal 24 hour period. BECAUSE of the other applications, the Hebrew tense, and the speed of light.

 

[Stripe]

I have countered it repeatedly. With several points of contention which you have not countered. You've not even tried.

Wow. There must be a whole discussion going on between us that I am utterly unaware of.

Again, I've given examples of exactly that in Hebrew and English. I've repeatedly pointed out that in just 2 or 3 verses of the creation account itself the words yohm/day ARE used in three different ways including a few hours - daylight - a literal 24 hours - day - and a period of 6 days combined - the day. That doesn't mean it could be six days of creation - that means that a literal 24 hours IS included in the creation account but the time of the creation account can't have been JUST a literal 24 hour period. BECAUSE of the other applications, the Hebrew tense, and the speed of light.

How does the speed of light mean that the Bible's account cannot mean six days?