Atheists Left Speechless On A Question On Evolution

no, the sun is not....it was the dragon who burped out fire....

 

God said first let there be light. Light is the light by which all things are seen, in our terms consciousness. In fact the earth was an independant body in another form before the sun of our solar of our solar system was lit. So all of these firmamment water mixed planets have the potential in them to produce plants. The plants are generated from the fundamental structure inherent in the substrate in combination with a solvent, i. e. water. Now days if you make a puddle on the ground or even put water in a jar with a grain of sand all kinds of flora and fauna will appear in the water when exposed to sunlight granted the organisms are ambient environmentally speaking and algae is a step up from bacteria..

 

That is absolutely uncanny.

Fantastic.

 

Have we mentioned that there appear to be differences (not necessarily contradictions) between Genesis 1 and 2:2-4? Gen.1 is the Cecil B. DeMille version,emphasizing the majesty of creation. the sequence is 1.light,2.sky,3.earth, Sea and plants, 4. celestial bodies,5.birds and aquatic life, 6.animals and humans. God is more transcendent. In Gen.2 , God is more anthropomorphic and immanent, and his relations with creation are more intimate. God seems to have created Adam, before "shrubs of the field" and beasts are brought before Adam to be named before Eve is created. Biblical inerrantists say these are not contradictions, because the words for plants in the two accounts are different. In Gen. 1, the word denotes vegetation in general, while in Gen.2, the word used for plants or shrub of the field.denotes plants that require cultivation. And it doesn't say that animals were created after Man. It says they were brought to him. So I think the contradiction problem can be gotten around. But there is a real difference in tone between the two accounts.Many scholars accout for this by the theory that Gen.2 was actually written earlier than Gen,1. Gen.2 was pre-Babylonian exile. Gen. 1 was written during the Babylonian captivity.

Even in the 3rd century, there were Christian scholars who concluded that the accounts in Genesis should be taken allegorically instead of literally. Church father Origen of Alexandria wrote: "For who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? And that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? And who is so foolish as to suppose that God, after the manner of a husbandman, planted a paradise in Eden, towards the east, and placed in it a tree of life, visible and palpable, so that one tasting of the fruit by the bodily teeth obtained life? And again, that one was a partaker of good and evil by masticating what was taken from the tree? And if God is said to walk in the paradise in the evening, and Adam to hide himself under a tree, I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance, and not literally."

 

u spelled theist wrong.

 

isn't it interesting how in biblical text somethings can be taken literally and some can be taken allegorically.

logic is much simpler. just say what you mean.

 

It is simpler to say what you mean than to interpret what is written which you need logic to do, that is if it is to be logically interpreted.

 

LOL, wow!
Your ridiculous response is actually ignorant of the very definition of the word "ignorant", in the clear context it was being used in.
You seem to have this reoccurring issue with a lack of basic vocabulary comprehension.


The primary definitions of IGNORANT:
1. lacking in knowledge or training; unlearned.
2. lacking special knowledge or information.
3. uninformed; unaware.
4. showing lack of knowledge or training.

 

To me it seems he simply rephrased what you said. He's not going that much against it (except attitude wise maybe). But keep lolling, it's pretty much all you got

 

Yeah, I guess it makes sense...

To the AsmoNoxDope, ignorance is more of a quest than an affliction.

 

Please don't throw us all on the same pile just because we are all criticizing you. I disagree often enough with thedope and gassy as well

 

i know what context you used it in. the context that it didn't include yourself. that is out of context to real things.

 

Umm, no.
Plus I said everyone was ignorant.
Last time I checked, everyone also included myself.

 

You haven't looked clearly. there are things you think you know, that is why you express your opinion. There are things that all of us haven't learned yet and the only thing that limits our capacity to learn about them is the temptation to qualify as definitely determined.
Therefore the only ignorance that exists in this case is the refusal to consider on an equal basis.

 

Yeah and god made man an all the other animals and Adam named them. How the hell did he name the fish? Did they live on earth at the time.

 

Man names the animals

 

Yes, I've always thought it was ironic that Origen took Genesis allegorically but took literally Matthew 18:9 and castrated himself.